Combustion in Situ Thesis

UPGRADING AND ENHANCED RECOVERY OF JOBO HEAVY OIL USING
HYDROGEN DONOR UNDER IN-SITU COMBUSTION
A Thesis
by
SAMIR HUSEYNZADE
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of

Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
December 2007
Major Subject: Petroleum Engineering

UPGRADING AND ENHANCED RECOVERY OF JOBO HEAVY OIL USING
HYDROGEN DONOR UNDER IN-SITU COMBUSTION
A Thesis
by
SAMIR HUSEYNZADE
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of

Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Approved by:
Chair of Committee, Daulat D. Mamora
Committee Members, Jerome J. Schubert
Luc T. Ikelle
Head of Department, Stephen A. Holditch
December 2007
Major Subject: Petroleum Engineering

iii
ABSTRACT
Upgrading and Enhanced Recovery of Jobo Heavy Oil Using

Hydrogen Donor Under in-situ Combustion. (December 2007)
Samir Huseynzade, B.S., Azerbaijan State Oil Academy
Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Daulat D. Mamora
In-situ upgrading of oil using hydrogen donors is a new process. In particular, very
little research has been conducted with respect to in-situ oil upgrading using hydrogen
donor under in-situ combustion. Several papers describe the use of metal additives
mixed with oil and their influence on oil properties such as viscosity and API gravity.
The main objective of my research is to determine if a catalyst mixed with a hydrogen
donor (tetralin) is going to affect the Jobo crude oil properties while undergoing in-situ
combustion.
Six runs were performed with Jobo crude oil (9-11ºAPI) from the Orinoco Belt in
Venezuela. Four of the runs were successful. Two of them are base runs; the remaining
ones are with tetralin with concentration of 5 wt% (of oil) and catalyst with concentration
of 750 ppm. For all runs, the following were kept constant: the air injection rate (3 std.
L/min) and production (combustion tube outlet) pressure, 300 psig. Concentration by
weight of oil, water, and sand in the samples were approximately 4.8%, 4.2%, and 91%
respectively.
Oil viscosity at the end of combustion at 40oC decreased from 42.3 and 73.6 to 16.6
and 25.2; API gravity at the end of combustion increased from 18.4 and 16.8 to 20 and
18.8. Oil recovery is higher; combustion front velocity is faster in the case of additives,
water production decreased. Since oil viscosity decreased and API gravity increased oil
moves faster and consequently combustion time is lower.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………………. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………….. iv
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………….............. v
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………… 1
II LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………. 4
III RESEARCH OBJECTIVES.................................................................. 7
IV EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE……………. 8
4.1 Experimental apparatus.................................................................. 8

4.1.1 Fluid injection system........................................................... 8
4.1.1.1 Nitrogen injection ................................................. 8
4.1.1.2 Gas injection.......................................................... 8
4.1.2 Combustion tube................................................................... 9
4.1.3 Fluid production system…………………………………… 14
4.1.4 Gas chromatograph and wet test meter system……………. 20
4.1.5 Data measurement and recording system…………………. 20
4.2 Experimental procedure…………………………………………. 20
V EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS……………………………………… 27
5.1 Combustion run no. 1……………………………………….. 30

VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..... 64
6.1 Summary…….…………………………………………….. 64
6.2 Conclusions………….…………………………………….. 64
6.3 Recommendations…….…………………………………… 65
v
Page
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………… 66
VITA………………………………………………………………………………… 68
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE Page
1.1 Schematic diagram of In-situ combustion……………………………....... 3
4.1 Schematic diagram of experimental apparatus…………………………… 10
4.2 Combustion tube………………………………………………….............. 11
4.3 Dual-thermowell assembly……………………………………………….. 12
4.4 Vacuum jacket……………………………………………………………. 13
4.5 Thermocouple sheaths……………………………………………………. 15
4.6 Backpressure regulator………………………………………………........ 16
4.7 Two-stage separation……………………………………………………... 17
4.8 Condenser unit……………………………………………………………. 18
4.9 Acid scrubber and drierite columns………………………………………. 19
4.10 HP 5890 Series II gas chromatograph and wet test meter………………... 22
4.11 Data logger and PC……………………………………………………….. 23
4.12 Complete view of the apparatus………………………………………….. 24
4.13 Mixer……………………………………………………………………... 25
5.1 Produced gas composition versus time, run no.1 (base run)……………... 28
5.2 Apparent H/C and m-ratio versus time, run no.1 (base run)……………... 29
5.3 Temperature profiles, run no.1 (base run)………………………………... 31
5.4 Combustion front velocity, run no.1 (base run)...………………………… 32
5.5 Cumulative oil and water production, run no.1 (base run).......................... 33
5.6 Oil recovery versus time, run no.1 (base run)…………………………….. 34

vii
FIGURE Page
5.7 Produced oil gravity, run no.1 (base run)………………..…..…………… 35
5.8 Produced oil viscosity and density, run no.1 (base run)…………………. 36
5.9 Produced gas composition versus time, run no.2 (with tetralin and
catalyst)...................................................................................................... 38
5.10 Apparent H/C and m-ratio versus time, run no.2 (with tetralin and
catalyst)………………………………………………………………….. 39
5.11 Temperature profiles, run no.2 (with tetralin and catalyst)………………. 40
5.12 Combustion front velocity, run no.2 (with tetralin and catalyst)................ 41
5.13 Cumulative oil and water production, run no.2 (with tetralin and
catalyst)………………………………………………………….............. 42
5.14 Oil recovery, run no.2 (with tetralin and catalyst)……………………….. 43
5.15 Produced oil gravity, run no.2 (with tetralin and catalyst)………………. 44
5.16 Produced oil viscosity, run no.2 (with tetralin and catalyst)…………….. 45
5.17 Produced gas composition versus time, run no.3 (base run)...................... 47
5.18 Apparent H/C and m-ratio versus time, run no.3 (base run)...................... 48
5.19 Temperature profiles, run no.3 (base run)................................................. 49
5.20 Combustion front velocity, run no.3 (base run)......................................... 50
5.21 Cumulative oil and water production, run no.3 (base run)………............ 51
5.22 Oil recovery, run no.3 (base run)………………………………………... 52
5.23 Produced oil gravity, run no.3 (base run).................................................. 53

viii
FIGURE Page
5.24 Produced oil viscosity, run no.3 (base run)……………………………… 54
5.25 Produced gas composition versus time, run no.4 (with tetralin and
catalyst)................................................................................................... 56
5.26 Apparent H/C and m-ratio versus, run no.4 (with tetralin and catalyst)… 57
5.27 Temperature profiles, run no.4 (with tetralin and catalyst)…………….... 58
5.28 Combustion front velocity, run no.4 (with tetralin and catalyst)............... 59
5.29 Cumulative oil and water production, run no.4 (with tetralin and
catalyst)………………………………………………………….…..… 60
5.30 Oil recovery, run no.4 (with tetralin and catalyst)………………….……. 61
5.31 Produced oil gravity, run no.4 (with tetralin and catalyst)......................... 62
5.32 Produced oil viscosity, run no.4 (with tetralin and catalyst)….................. 63
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The term thermal Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) comprises those techniques in
which heat is purposely introduced into an oil-bearing formation primarily to reduce oil
viscosity and therefore improve recovery of oil. Heat may be introduced into the oil-
bearing formation as steam or hot water, or it may be generated in the reservoir by a
process called in-situ combustion. Because the main objective of thermal EOR methods
is to reduce oil viscosity, these are mostly applied to reservoirs containing viscous and
heavy oils.
In-situ combustion was one of the first EOR processes to be developed. Combustion
tube laboratory experiments were conducted as early as 1947 and important field tests
performed by 1958. The first commercial operation of the in-situ combustion process
began in 1959.
The main advantage of in-situ combustion over other thermal recovery methods is
that the heat is generated within the reservoir, thus no heat losses occur at the wellbore.
Furthermore, this attribute allows the application of this recovery method at greater depth
than the use of steam or hot water, where heat is generated at the surface and has to travel
along the wellbore into the reservoir. In-situ combustion also has higher energy transfer
properties, as temperatures can reach well above 350ºC.
In-situ combustion also carries inherent disadvantages over other thermal recovery
methods such as safety issues that are magnified by the higher temperatures and chemical
reactions occurring within the reservoir, and/or chemical reactions taking place in the
tubing and casing of the injection or producing well. Corrosion can be a problem, when
the injected gas has not been dehydrated, as well as flue gas with high sulfur content that
can create corrosion problems in the production well.
_____________
This thesis follows the style of SPE Journal.
2
Air compressor reliability is also a factor to take into account; if a compressor stops, no
air is injected and the combustion front will eventually die.
One form of in-situ combustion is dry, forward combustion. In this process, air is
injected into an oil reservoir, igniting it and the resulting combustion front moves away
from the injection well. The heat generated at the combustion front propagates, by
conduction and convection, through the reservoir towards the production well, reducing
the oil viscosity and thereby increasing the oil production rate and recovery.
Another form of in-situ combustion is wet combustion, in which air and water are
injected concurrently or alternately. A third variation of the in-situ combustion process is
called reverse combustion. In this technique, the combustion zone is initiated at the
production well. The reverse combustion front travels countercurrent to the air towards
the injection well, where air is injected. The oil flows towards the production well,
through the combustion zone.
Initial models to describe the in-situ combustion process were analytical heat transfer
models. Subsequent models have included the kinetics of lumped reactions: a steady-state
model and a model for simulation of combustion tube experiments, which incorporates
thermal cracking and low-temperature oxidation. Numerical simulation models have been
developed in which the physical and chemical reactions are described by basic kinetic
relationships.
As described by Bartlesville Energy Technology Center U.S. Department of Energy,
this process is sometimes started by lowering a heater or igniter into an injection well.
Air is then injected down the well, and the heater is operated until ignition is
accomplished. After heating the surrounding rock, the heater is withdrawn, but air
injection is continued to maintain the advancing combustion front. Water is sometimes
injected simultaneously or alternately with air, creating steam which contributes to better
heat utilization and reduced air requirements. Many interactions occur in this process, but
Fig.1.1 shows the essential elements.
Fig.1.1 – Schematic diagram of in-situ combustion (US Dept. of Energy)1.
3
4
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
The main parameters required in the design of an in-situ combustion project are as
follows: the fuel concentration per unit reservoir volume burned, the composition of the
fuel, the amount of air required to burn the fuel, the volume of reservoir swept by the
combustion zone, the required air-injection rates and pressures, the oil production rate
and recovery, the investment, and operating costs.
Data from combustion tube experiments form the main basis for determining these
design parameters. Nelson and McNeil2 have described a method for calculating some of
these parameters.
The rate of propagation of the combustion front, and therefore, the overall in-situ
combustion process can be described by a simple reaction consisting of two competitive
steps: fuel deposition, and fuel combustion. A third reaction, low-temperature oxidation
(LTO) may be involved if oxygen is present downstream of the combustion front.
Moss and Cady3 conducted combustion tube experiments with oxygen-enriched air
(94.33 mole % O2) and air (21 mole % O2) and obtained combustion front temperatures
of 515 and 482ºC respectively. Hansen et al.4 carried out experimental work with light
crude oil and found that as the oxygen concentration increased (40, 60, 80, and 95 mole
% O2), the CO2 content and combustion front velocity increased. They also found that the
time to produce the initial oil decreased. Shahani and Hansel5 found that for the heavy
crude oil examined, high O2 concentrations reduced the apparent coke loading and
increased the rate of oil production. CH
Fuel combustion is described by Benham and Poettmann6 in terms of the following
stoichiometric equation:
2m + 1 FHC m 1 F
CH FHC + + O2 → CO 2 + CO + HC H 2 O (2.1)
2m + 2 4 m +1 m +1 2
5
where FHC is atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, m is the ratio of moles of CO2 to CO

produced, and CHFHC is the fuel. They also derived an expression for the combustion
front velocity (Vf) as a function of the air flux, fuel concentration, oxygen utilization
efficiency, hydrogen to carbon ratio, and the ratio of CO2 to CO produced, m;
Vf =
EO2 O 2i U a (12 + FHC ) (2.2)
379 Fc 2m + 1 FHC
+
2m + 2 4
where EO2 is the oxygen utilization efficiency, Ua is the injected air flux, O2i is the
injected oxygen concentration, and FC is the fuel concentration.
The air requirement, aR, is defined as the standard volume of air required to burn a
unit volume of reservoir. The combustion front can advance only if it consumes fuel;
therefore air requirement is directly proportional to fuel availability. Mathematically, air
requirement is defined as:
379 2m + 1 FHC Fc
aR = + (2.3)
EO2 O 2i 2m + 2 4 (12 + FHC )
Note then, that the combustion front velocity is:
Ua
Vf = (2.4)
aR
Reaction kinetics of in-situ combustion describes the rate of oxidation of crude oils in
a porous media. The rate of oxygen consumption to the rate of crude oxidation can be
written following Mamora7-9 as:
qO 2 c E
= ArPOm2 FCn exp − (2.5)
AL RT
where q is the volumetric flow rate, O2c is the molar concentration of oxygen consumed,
A and L are the cross-sectional area and length of the sand mix in the combustion tube, Ar
is the pre-Arrhenius constant, PO2 is the oxygen partial pressure, E is the activation
energy, R is the universal gas constant, T is the absolute temperature, and m and n are the
reactions orders with respect to PO2 and FC respectively.
6
Penberthy10 considered relevant characteristics of combustion tube experiments and

assumed that:
1. The burning front moves axially at constant velocity and temperature under
constant air flux.
2. The temperature is constant radially within the combustion tube but heat may be
lost to the exterior.
3. Convection and conduction are important heat transfer events within the
combustion tube.
4. The combustion front is considered planar (of zero thickness).
5. The convection coefficient between gas and the adjacent sand is infinitely large.
6. Thermal and physical properties are independent of temperature.
Greaves et al.11 conducted kinetic and combustion tube experiments in different types
of oils and concluded that the air injection under low temperature oxidation process can
be considered for application to all light oils with sufficiently high reactivity.
Turta and Singhal12 proposed a new classification for air injection processes taking
into account the achievement of miscibility between oil and nitrogen and the dominance
of high temperature oxidation or low temperature oxidation. According to this
classification, in-situ combustion is an immiscible airflooding with high temperature
oxidation associated to heavy oil exploitation.
From combustion tube experiments, Ramírez et al.13 found that the use of a catalyst
(previously diffused in the heavy oil) increased not only the combustion front velocity,
but also the oil production. This represents higher combustion efficiency, including an
initial temperature of combustion relatively better sustained because of the use of the
catalyst.
7
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The main objective of my research is to experimentally evaluate the possibility of

upgrading Jobo extra-heavy oil by in-situ combustion using a hydrogen donor (Tetralin)
and a catalyst (Iron (III) 2.4 – pentanedionate).
To achieve the research objective I have conducted the following experiments.
(1) two base runs (original Jobo oil)
(2) two runs with Tetralin (5% by oil weight) and catalyst (750 ppm)
The extent of upgrading established through various analyses of the produced and
initial crude oil. These would include measurements of oil density, oil viscosity, and
apparent hydrogen-carbon ratio (from produced gas composition analysis).
During the experiments several parameters recorded, including injection/production
rates and pressures, as well as the combustion front temperature profile and produced
volume of water and oil. Final oil recovery measured and a comparison of the runs will
help lead us to an appropriate conclusion.
8
CHAPTER IV
EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE
4.1 Experimental apparatus

The experimental set-up is comprised of five main parts: fluid injection system,
combustion tube, fluid production system, gas chromatograph and wet test meter system,
and data recording system. A schematic diagram of the apparatus is shown in Fig. 4.1.
4.1.1 Fluid injection system

The fluid injection system consists of two parts: nitrogen injection, and air injection.
Both paths are independent (through 1/4 in. tubing) and are opened or closed to the
system with valves in the control panel. The injected nitrogen or air rate is controlled by a
mass flow controller, installed before the injection pressure transducer. The 1/4 in. tubing
line is reduced with Swagelock fittings to 1/8 in. tubing line, which is the gas inlet to the
combustion tube.
4.1.1.1 Nitrogen injection

Nitrogen is used to flush the system so it is oxygen-free before any combustion run
allowing it to flow through the mass flow controller into the combustion tube. Nitrogen is
also used to pressurize the combustion tube by closing the pressure regulator and the end
of the production stream. At the end of the combustion run, nitrogen is injected into the
system to flush the combustion tube (removing oxygen and thus stopping combustion).
4.1.1.2 Gas injection

Air is injected at constant rate of 3 L/min throughout the combustion run. A cylinder
with the desired oxygen concentration is connected to the injection system. When the
9
temperature at the clean sand-mixture pack interface reaches approximately 250ºC, air is
allowed to flow at 3 L/min into the combustion tube to start ignition and to maintain
combustion. The injection will continue until the front reaches the bottom of the
combustion tube (no more liquids are produced). At this instance, injection is switched to
nitrogen to stop further combustion.
4.1.2 Combustion tube

The combustion tube (Fig. 4.2) is a stainless steel cylinder with an external diameter
of 3 in. (7.62 cm), a width of 1/16 in. (0.16 cm) and a length of 40-1/8 in. (101.92 cm).
Sharp-edged flanges seal the ends of the cell to copper gaskets. A 12-1/2 in long x 3/4 in.
tube was silver soldered to the center of the top flange, and a 1 in. x 3/4 in. Swagelock
fitting was machined and silver soldered to it. The assembly provided the path for the
introduction of two 3/16 in. thermowells (Fig. 4.3), the one corresponding to a fixed set
of thermocouples was 57-3/8 in. long, the other 56-1/2 in. long. Another tube, 10 in. long
x 5/16 in. was soldered off-center on the top flange to allow air injection into the
combustion tube through a reduction of Swagelock fitting to a 1/8 in. inlet. A 10 in. long
x 5/16 in. tubing was silvered soldered to the bottom flange of the combustion tube to
allow the collection of fluids in the production system.
The combustion tube is placed inside the vacuum jacket (Fig. 4.4), a 6-1/2 in. internal
diameter tube (8 in. external diameter) 46 in. long. The jacket is wrapped with electric
band heaters and covered with a one inch thick insulation. Flanges seal the end of the
vacuum jacket to rubber o-rings. A connection installed at the top flange of the jacket
provides electric current to the resistance igniter, and drilled holes allow the insertion of
the top tubing end of the combustion cell. The bottom flange also allows the insertion of
the bottom end of the combustion cell and also provides a tubing connection for vacuum
purposes. The vacuum jacket is isolated from the combustion cell with Teflon ferrules
installed in both flange ends. The exterior of the vacuum jacket is an aluminum cover
with respective aluminum end caps. The center of the jacket is connected to a swivel that
allows it to be rotated from the horizontal to vertical position.
1 Air Filter
2 2 Mass Flow Controller
3 Injection Pressure Transducer
3
4 4 Combustion Tube Assembly
5 Separator System
6 Condenser
7 Production Pressure Transducer
1
8 Acid Scrubber
9 Drierite
10 Wet test meter
11 Gas Chromatograph
12 Data Logger
13 PC
13
N2 Air
N2
+
O2 11
12
12
6
7
13 Ice 10
8 9
5
Fig. 4.1 — Schematic diagram of experimental apparatus.
10
11
Fig. 4.2 — Combustion tube.

12
Fig. 4.3 — Dual-thermowell assembly.

13
Fig. 4.4 — Vacuum jacket.

14
One set of eight fixed J-type thermocouples (spaced 14.1 cm apart) runs through the
assigned thermowell end and a set of six movable J-type thermocouples spaced 0.5 cm
apart runs though the other end. All thermocouples used are 0.002 in. thick. The set of
eight thermocouples was inserted inside a 1/8 in. diameter x 63-1/2 in. long thermocouple
sheath (Fig. 4.5) at the following depths: 1.4, 11.0, 25.1, 53.3, 67.4, 81.5, and 95.6 cm
respectively measured from the top of the combustion tube. The other set of
thermocouples was inserted inside a 1/8 in diameter x 62-1/8 in long thermocouple sheath
(Fig. 4.5). In this set the bottom thermocouple was set at 157.0 cm and the rest were
spread 0.5 cm apart in a 2.5 cm length.
The combustion tube system is placed vertically and is secured to the production end
and to the arm of the motor of the movable thermocouple set. Each one of the
thermocouples is connected to its terminal to display or register its signal to the data
logger and/or the control panel and/or PC monitor.
4.1.3 Fluid production system

A backpressure regulator (Fig. 4.6) maintains the outlet pressure of the combustion
tube at a constant predetermined level during the experiment. The liquids leaving the
combustion tube pass through a two-stage separation where they are collected at the
production outlet (Fig. 4.7). Gases pass through a condenser kept at low temperature to
recover any volume of liquid in this stream (Fig. 4.8). In such case, an outlet end of the
condensed unit is used.
Gases flowing toward the gas chromatograph are scrubbed of acid, using a column of
permanganate, and dehydrated using a column of calcium sulfite before entering the next
system (Fig. 4.9).
15
Fig. 4.5 —Thermocouple sheaths.

16
Fig. 4.6 — Backpressure regulator.

17
Fig. 4.7 — Two-stage separation.

18
Fig. 4.8 — Condenser unit.

19
Fig. 4.9 — Acid scrubber and drierite columns.

20
4.1.4 Gas chromatograph and wet test meter system

A small fraction of produced gas is injected into the HP 5890 Series II gas
chromatograph (Fig. 4.10) where the gas is analyzed for carbon dioxide, oxygen,
nitrogen, and carbon monoxide every 15-20 minutes. This data is registered in a HP
3966A Integrator. A wet test meter installed before the gas chromatograph allows the
measurement of the cumulative volume of produced combustion gases, which is recorded
in a PC (Fig. 4.11).
4.1.5 Data measurement and recording system

Two data loggers and two personal computers (Fig. 4.11) are used to record the
following parameters: time, jacket temperatures, fixed thermocouple temperatures,
movable thermocouple temperatures, injection pressure, production pressure, depth of
bottom movable thermocouple, gas injection rate, average produced gas rate, cumulative
gas rate. The parameters are recorded at 30-second intervals and most of them are
displayed on the PC monitors for monitoring purposes. A complete view of the apparatus
can be seen in Fig. 4.12.
4.2 Experimental procedure

First of all a mixture of sand, water and oil was prepared in a large mixing bowl.
About 6700 g. of sand and 310 g. of water were also added to the sand and mixed with
mixer (Fig. 4.13) until the mixture was evenly moist. Then, about 350 g. of oil were
added and mixed thoroughly to obtain a uniform mixture. Empty combustion tube
together with two flanges and all bolts were weighed.
The bottom flange of the combustion tube was installed. Two 3/16 in. thermowells
connected to meshed steel screens at the bottom, to prevent sand blocking, were
introduced into the tube. Portions of about 200 g. of mixture were introduced into the
tube once the combustion tube was safely fastened in a vertical position. A heavy metal
plunger that passed through the thermowells was used to tamp the sample into the tube.
21
The process of adding sample and tamping was repeated until the tube was filled to about
10 cm from the top. Finally the combustion tube filled with the mixture was weighed to
determine the amount of mixture placed into the combustion tube. After that, about 5 ml
of linseed oil was placed on the top of the sample to accelerate ignition. The combustion
tube was then filled to the top with clean sand.
The top flange of the combustion tube was installed and the flange bolts fastened. The
injection assembly was carefully installed, passing through the thermowells, and Teflon
ferrules passed through them and tightened. Nitrogen was introduced at the injection inlet
and with the outlet of the combustion tube plugged, the cell was pressure tested for leaks
at 350 psig for 20 minutes. Once the pressure test was performed successfully, the outlet
plug of the combustion cell was slowly opened and the pressure in the tube released. The
injection assembly was uninstalled and an electric igniter was placed and tightened at the
exterior of the combustion tube at the same depth where the linseed oil was placed. The
tube was then placed carefully inside the vacuum jacket which was tilted to about 30º
from the horizontal to allow better handling of the combustion tube.
The bottom flange of the combustion tube was wrapped with insulation and the
bottom flange of the vacuum jacket was installed. The electric igniter was connected to
the ignition terminals of the top flange of the vacuum jacket and the latter was tightened.
The injection assembly was replaced in its position and the fixed and movable
thermocouple sheaths were inserted in their respective thermowells. Teflon ferrules were
tightened to the outlet and injection assembly to seal the vacuum jacket from the
combustion tube. The vacuum jacket was placed in a vertical position and the outlet of
the combustion tube fastened to the production section. The movable thermocouple
sheath was fixed to the motor arm and all thermocouples were connected to their
terminals. The vacuum jacket was tested for 20 minutes with a vacuum of about 28 mm
Hg. The injection line was connected to the assembly, and the vacuum jacket heater was
set to about 140ºF (60ºC) and left overnight to allow the temperature of the sand mix to
stabilize.
22
Fig. 4.10 — HP 5890 Series II gas chromatograph and wet test meter.
23
Fig. 4.11 — Data logger and PC.

24
Fig. 4.12 — Complete view of the apparatus.

25
Fig. 4.13 — Mixer.

26
Prior to the beginning of the experimental run, the mass flow controller was
calibrated to the injection rate, the gas chromatograph was also calibrated, the bottom of
the movable thermocouple sheath was raised to the linseed oil depth, and the sand pack
was pressurized with nitrogen to 300 psig. Electric current was gradually introduced into
the igniter using a variable power transformer. Approximately 70 minutes later, the
temperature in the combustion tube at the igniter level (movable thermowell placed at the
linseed oil depth) reached about 250ºC and air injection was initiated at 3 L/min. A
backpressure regulator was adjusted to maintain a production pressure of 300 psig. The
movable thermocouple reading in the instruments panel and PC activated to record data
was observed to increase rapidly to about 970ºF (520ºC), a clear indication that ignition
occurred inside the combustion tube. Combustion gas composition was measured every
20 minutes; temperature profiles approximately every 5 cm, and production liquids every
10-15 minutes. Accurate readings of temperature profiles were taken with the set of six
movable thermocouples, spaced 0.5 cm from each other, which allowed the recording of
6 entries just behind and ahead of the combustion front. These entries were made by
pressing an assigned key on the PC.
Initial water and oil production varied depending on the composition of the injected
air. Liquids were collected in graduated sample bottles which were capped for subsequent
analysis. The end of the combustion run occurred when no oil production was attained, in
other words, the sand pack was burned to the bottom flange of the combustion tube.
Combustion runs varied between 5 - 7 hours.
27
CHAPTER V
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The main goal of this research is to determine how a hydrogen donor (tetralin)
together with a catalyst (Iron (III) 2.4 – pentanedionate) may upgrade the Jobo extra-
heavy oil. Analysis of the combustion runs has been made and the results are presented in
this chapter.
Venezuela and four of them were successful. Two of them are base runs and the
remaining ones are with tetralin with concentration of 5% by oil weight and 750 ppm
catalyst. The conditions that were constant in these runs were the air injection rate (3 std.
L/min) and production pressure (300 psig). Concentration by weight of oil, water, and
sand in the samples were approximately 4.8%, 4.2%, and 91% respectively.
In all runs, air injection was initiated when the temperature of the sand pack across
the electric igniter reached 250ºC. The igniter was switched off 10 minutes after air
injection started.
28
20 100
18 N2
90
16
Carbon oxides, Oxygen (mole %)
80
14
CO2
Nitrogen, mole %
70
12
10 60
8
CO 50
6
40
4
30
2 O2
0 20
0 1 2 3 Time, hr 4 5 6 7
Fig. 5.1 - Produced gas composition versus time, run no. 1 (base run).
29
6 1.2
Apparent HC ratio
m ratio
5 1
4 0.8
A p p a re n t H /C ra tio
3 0.6
2 0.4
m ra tio
1 0.2
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time, hr
Fig. 5.2 - Apparent H/C and m-ratio versus time, run no. 1 (base run).
30
5.1 Combustion run no. 1

Run no. 1 is a base run without any additives. The gas composition during this run
was observed to be more stable than run # 2, 3 and 4, which indicated that the
combustion was stable (Fig. 5.1). The average concentrations of the produced gases
were: CO2 - 9.84%; O2 - 2.28%; N2 - 82.91% and CO, 4.20%.
Apparent HC ratio and CO/ (CO+CO2) ratio based on the combustion gas analysis
are presented in Fig. 5.2. The instability of the produced gas composition makes FHC fall
below one in some instances. This may be explained by low temperature oxidation
occurring ahead of the combustion front or injected air channeling through the center of
the combustion tube where the thermowells are placed; however, the average HC ratio
and CO/(CO+CO2) ratios are 2.43 and 0.3.
The average combustion temperature was 449.3ºC (Fig. 5.3). The average
combustion front velocity was 0.235 cm/min (14.1 cm/hr) as observed in Fig. 5.4.
Fig. 5.5 shows the cumulative volumes of produced oil and water, with an initial
water production occurring at 2.55 hrs. The initial oil production occurred at 3.88 hrs.
Experiment lasted 6 hrs and 43 minutes. Fig. 5.6 shows an oil recovery of 72.1% of
original oil in the tube. Injected gas rate was held at 3 L/min, production pressure
maintained at 300 psig.
Oil gravity at the end of the combustion run was 18.4 ºAPI which is 5.97 ºAPI
higher than that of the original crude oil (Fig. 5.7). Viscosity of the produced oil at 4.35,
5.3 and 6.24 hrs. dropped accordingly to 124, 258 and 18.7 cp at 60ºC from its original
value of 673 cp (Fig. 5.8)
31
700
600
21.1
500 70.6 287.6
33.6 115.1 161.1 296.1
133.6 181.1 242.6 329.6
11.8 50.6 203.1 221.6 272.1
94.1
T e m p e r a tu r e , d e g . C
400
300
200
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Distance from top of tube, cm
Fig. 5.3 – Temperature profiles, run no. 1 (base run).

32
100
v = 0.235 cm/min ( 14.1 cm/hr)
90
Distance from top of sand interface, cm
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time, hr
Fig. 5.4 - Combustion front velocity, run no. 1 (base run).

33
400
Cum Water
Cum Oil
350
300
Cumulative production, ml
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time, hr
Fig. 5.5 - Cumulative oil and water production, run no. 1 (base run).
34
80
70
60
Recovery, % of OOIP
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 Time, hr 5 6 7 8
Fig. 5.6 - Oil recovery versus time, run no. 1(base run).
35
21
20
19
18
17
°API
16
15
14
13
12
11
0 1 2 3 Time, hr 4 5 6 7
Fig. 5.7 - Produced oil gravity, run no. 1 (base run).

36
1200
Oil viscosity at 40°C
0,955
1000 Oil viscosity at 60°C
0,945
Oil density at 60°C
800 0,935
3
Viscosity, cp
Density, g/cm
0,925
600
0,915
400
0,905
200
0,895
0 0,885
3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5
Time, hr
Fig. 5.8 - Produced oil viscosity and density, run no. 1 (base run).
37

For this run, the catalyst was first dissolved in tetralin and then mixed with oil.
Readings of combustion gas composition were observed to be unstable during this run
(Fig. 5.9), in which the average concentrations of the produced gases were: CO2 – 9.11%;
O2 - 2.38%; N2 – 84.73% and CO – 4.20%.
presented in Fig. 5.10. The average HC ratio and CO/ (CO+CO2) ratios are 2.95 and
0.32.
The average combustion temperature was 456.12 ºC (Fig. 5.11) and the combustion
front velocity was 0.265 cm/min (15.9 cm/hr) as shown in Fig. 5.12 which is faster than
run no.1.
Cumulative oil and water produced (Fig. 5.13) show initial water production
occurring at 2.00 hrs and initial oil production at 3.10 hrs, which are different from those
observed in the previous run. The experimental run lasted 5 hours and 30 minutes. Oil
recovery (Fig. 5.14) is much higher than run no. 1 with a final production of 80.84% of
the original oil in place. The injected gas rate, constant at 3 L/min, production pressure
maintained at about 300 psig.
Oil gravity at the end of the combustion run was 20.01 ºAPI which is 7.58 ºAPI
higher than that of the original crude oil (Fig. 5.15). Viscosity of the produced oil at 3.5,
4.3 and 5.1 hrs. dropped accordingly to 166, 124 and 9 cp at 60ºC from its original value
of 673 cp (Fig. 5.16)
38
20 100
18 N2
90
C arbon oxides, Oxygen (mole %)
16
80
14
N itrogen, mole %
70
12 CO2
10 60
8
CO 50
6
40
4
O2 30
2
0 20
0 1 2 3 Time, hr 4 5 6
Fig. 5.9 - Produced gas composition versus time, run no. 2 (with tetralin and
catalyst).
39
6 1.2
Apparent HC ratio
m ratio
5 1
4 0.8
A pparent H /C ratio
3 0.6
m ratio
2 0.4
1 0.2
0 0
0 1 2 3 Time, hr 4 5 6
Fig. 5.10 - Apparent H/C and m-ratio versus time, run 2 (with tetralin and catalyst).
40
700
14.6
600
25.6
500 39.6 260.1

51.6 73.1 108.1 128.1 147.1 163.1 177.6
88.6 245.6
8.6 197.6 298.1
227.6
T e m p e r a tu r e , C d e g
400
300
200
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Fig. 5.11 – Temperature profiles, run no. 2 (with tetralin and catalyst).
41
100
v = 0.265 cm/min (15.9 cm/hr)
Distance from top of sand interface, cm 90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time, hr
Fig. 5.12 - Combustion front velocity, run no. 2 (with tetralin and catalyst).
42
350
300
250
200
150
Cum Water
Cum Oil
100
50
0
0 1 2 Time, hr 3 4 5 6
Fig. 5.13 - Cumulative oil and water production, run no. 2 (with tetralin and
catalyst).
43
90
80
70
60
Recovery, % of OOIP
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 Time, hr 4 5 6
Fig. 5.14 - Oil recovery versus time, run no. 2 (with tetralin and catalyst).
44
21
20
19
18
17
°API
16
15
14
13
12
11
0 1 2 3 Time, hr 4 5 6 7
Fig. 5.15 - Produced oil gravity, run no. 2 (with tetralin and catalyst).
45

0,955
0,945
800 0,935
Viscosity, cp
3
Density, g/cm
0,925
600
0,915
400
0,905
200
0,895
0 0,885
3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5
Time, hr
Fig. 5.16 - Produced oil viscosity, run no. 2 (with tetralin and catalyst).
46

Run no.3 is another base run without any additives. Combustion gas composition
readings were very unstable during first 1.5 hours; later we can see more stable data (Fig.
5.17) in which the average concentrations of the produced gases were: CO2 – 10.11%; O2
- 3.29%; N2 - 84.71% and CO – 4.42%.
presented in Fig. 5.18 became fairly constant two hours after the experiment started. This
unstable behavior during the first 1.5 hours may be due to low temperature oxidation
occurring ahead of the combustion front or injection air channeling through the center of
the combustion tube where the thermowells are placed. The average HC ratio and CO/
(CO+CO2) ratios are 2.54 and 0.31.
The average combustion temperature was 448 ºC (Fig. 5.19) and the combustion front
velocity was 0.233 cm/min (13.6 cm/hr) as observed in Fig. 5.20. Both values show a
decrease compared to the combustion run no. 2.
Cumulative volumes of produced oil and water (Fig. 5.21) show initial water
production occurring at 2.25 hrs and initial oil production at 3.75 hours, which is longer
than that observed in the previous run. The experiment lasted 6 hours and 50 minutes. Oil
recovery (Fig. 5.22) is almost the same as in run no.2 with a final production of 80.9% of
the original oil-in-place.
The injected gas rate was held at 3 L/min, production pressure maintained at about
300 psig. Produced oil gravity at the end of the combustion run was 4.38ºAPI higher than
that of the original crude oil (Fig. 5.23). Viscosity of the produced oil at 4.26, 5.29 and
6.32 hrs decreased to 319, 238 and 32.4 cp at 60ºC respectively from its original value of
673 cp (Fig. 5.24).
47
20 100
18 N2 90
16
80
Carbon oxides, Oxygen (mole %)
14 O2
Nitrogen, mole %
70
12
10 CO2 60
8
50
6
CO 40
4
30
2
0 20
0 1 2 Time, hr 3 4 5
Fig. 5.17 - Produced gas composition versus time, run no. 3 (base run).
48
6 1.2
Apparent HC ratio
m ratio
5 1
4 0.8
3 0.6
2 0.4
1 0.2
0 0
0 1 2 Time, hr 3 4 5
Fig. 5.18 - Apparent H/C and m-ratio versus time, run no. 3 (base run).
49
700
600
500 147.1
84.58 133.1 188.6
39.6 68.58 161.6 206.6 231.1 268.1 324.1
100.5 251.6 345.1
303.6
T e m p e ra tu r e , C d e g
400
300
200
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
50
100
v = 0.233 cm/min ( 13.6 cm/hr)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Time, hr
Fig. 5.20 - Combustion front velocity, run no. 3 (base run).

51
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
Cum Water
Cum Oil
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time, hr
Fig. 5.21 - Cumulative oil and water production, run no. 3 (base run).
52
90
80
70
60
Recovery, % of OOIP
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time, hr
Fig. 5.22 - Oil recovery, run no. 3 (base run).

53
21
20
19
18
17
°API
16
15
14
13
12
11
0 1 2 3 Time, hr 4 5 6 7
Fig. 5.23 - Produced oil gravity, run no. 3 (base run).

54
1200
0,955
0,945
800 0,935
Viscosity, cp
3
Density, g/cm
0,925
600
0,915
400
0,905
200
0,895
0 0,885
3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5
Time, hr
Fig. 5.24 - Produced oil viscosity, run no. 3 (base run).

55

In this run tetralin and the catalyst were mixed with the Jobo heavy oil. The most
unstable combustion gas composition readings were observed during this run (Fig. 5.25)
in which the average concentrations of the produced gases were: CO2 – 9.66 %; O2 - 3.27
%; N2 – 82.17 % and CO – 3.8 %.
CO/ (CO+CO2) and apparent HC ratio based on the combustion gas analysis
presented in Fig. 5.26 became fairly constant only 3.5 hours after the experiment started.
The average HC ratio and CO/ (CO+CO2) ratios are 2.54 and 0.31.
The average combustion temperature was 460 ºC (Fig. 5.27) and the combustion front
velocity was 0.252 cm/min (15.9 cm/hr) as observed in Fig. 5.28. which is faster than
front velocity in case of two basic runs.
Cumulative volumes of produced oil and water (Fig. 5.29) show initial water
production occurring at 2.75 hrs and initial oil production at 3.42 hours, which is faster
than that observed in Run 3. The run lasted 5 hours and 55 minutes. Oil recovery (Fig.
5.30) is a little lower than in run no.3 with a final production of 77.2 % of the original oil
in place.
The injected gas rate was held at 3 L/min, production pressure maintained at about
300 psig. Produced oil gravity at the end of the combustion run was 6.41ºAPI higher than
that of the original crude oil (Fig. 5.31). Viscosity of the produced oil at 3.8, 4.67 and 5.5
hrs. decreased to 173, 150 and 13.7 cp at 60ºC respectively from its original value of 673
cp (Fig. 5.32).
56
20 100
18
90
16 N2
80
C arbon oxides, Oxygen (mole %)
14
N itrogen, mole %
70
12
CO2
10 60
8
50
CO
6
40
4
O2 30
2
0 20
0 1 2 3 Time, hr 4 5 6 7
Fig. 5.25 - Produced gas composition versus time, run no. 4 (with tetralin and
catalyst).
57
6 Apparent HC ratio
1.2
m ratio
5 1
4 0.8
3 0.6
m ratio
2 0.4
1 0.2
0 0
0 1 2 3 Time, hr 4 5 6 7
Fig. 5.26 - Apparent H/C and m-ratio versus Time, run no. 4 (with tetralin and
catalyst)
58
700
13.6
600
25.6
38.1
500 103.1
122.6
53.1 140.1 193.1 210.6
7.1 256.6 277.1 303.6
80.1 160.6 174.6 231.6
400
T e m p e ra tu re , C d e g
300
200
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
59
100
V = 0.252 cm/min (15.9 cm/hr)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time, hr
Fig. 5.28 - Combustion front velocity, run no. 4 (with tetralin and catalyst).
60
300
250
200
150
100
Cum Water
Cum Oil
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time, hr
Fig. 5.29 - Cumulative oil and water production, run no. 4 (with tetralin and
catalyst).
61
90
80
70
60
Recovery, % of OOIP
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time, hr
Fig. 5.30 - Oil recovery, run no. 4 (with tetralin and catalyst).
62
21
20
19
18
17
°API
16
15
14
13
12
11
0 1 2 3 Time, hr 4 5 6 7
Fig. 5.31 - Produced oil gravity, run no. 4 (with tetralin and catalyst).
63
1200
0,955
0,945
800 0,935
Viscosity, cp
3
Density, g/cm
0,925
600
0,915
400
0,905
200
0,895
0 0,885
3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5
Time, hr
Fig. 5.32 - Produced oil viscosity, run no. 4 (with tetralin and catalyst).
64
CHAPTER VI
1. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Summary
The main objective of my research is to determine how a hydrogen donor (tetralin)
together with a catalyst (Iron (III) 2.4 – pentanedionate) may upgrade the Jobo extra-
heavy oil.
Venezuela and four of them were successful. Two base runs were made (with no
additives) and two runs were performed with tetralin (at a concentration of 5% by oil
weight) and the (Iron (III) 2.4 – pentanedionate) catalyst (at a concentration of 750 ppm).
During the experimental runs, the following conditions were kept constant: the air
injection rate (3 std. L/min) and combustion tube outlet pressure (300 psig).
Concentration by weight of oil, water, and sand in the samples were approximately 4.8%,
4.2%, and 91% respectively.
6.2 Conclusions
Based on the analysis of the experimental results, the following conclusions may be
drawn.
1. Apparent hydrogen/carbon ratio with tetralin-catalyst in run no. 1 and no. 3 show
higher numbers, 2.5 – 3.5, compared to base runs no. 2 and 4, 2 – 2.5, indicating
upgrading by hydrogenation. The apparent hydrogen/carbon ratio in run no. 4 varies
rather significantly, due to the unstable nature of the run.
2. Oil recovery in second run with tetralin-catalyst increased by 8 %OIIP (from 72% to
80.1% OIIP), but in case of base run no. 3 with recovery 81% and run no. 4 (tetralin and
catalyst) with recovery 77% we can observe inverse changes.
3. Viscosity, density decreased and oil gravity increased in runs nos. 2 and 4 compared to
base runs ns. 1 and 3. But it was found that when mixing tetralin with heavy Jobo oil
even without in-situ combustion there is some decrease in viscosity.
65
4. Combustion front velocity for runs with tetralin and catalyst are 15,6 and 15,1 cm/h but
velocity for base runs are 14,1 and 13,6 cm/h. So here we can conclude that catalyst and
tetralin increased combustion front velocity.
5. Combustion time with tetralin-catalyst decreased from 6 hr 40 min (run 1) and 6 hr 50
min (run 3) to 5 hr 32 min (run 2) and 5 hr 55 min (run 4). That happens because of the
decreased oil viscosity. Oil just moves faster which leads to higher combustion front
velocity.
6. There is some decrease in water production in runs with tetralin and catalyst added.
Original JoboOil Run 1 Run 2

Viscosity (cP)
at: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 1 Part 2 Part 3
40°C 3057 378 846 42,3 379 357 16,6
50°C 1380 209 438 26,6 277 194 11,4
60°C 673 124 258 18,7 166 124 9
Density at 60°C 0,9822 0,9414 0,9522 0,914 0,9513 0,9479 0,9035
API at 60°F 12,43 14,27 12,7 18,37 12,84 13,33 20,01
Original JoboOil Run 3 Run 4
Viscosity (cP)
at: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 1 Part 2 Part 3
40°C 3057 1085 720 73,6 490 383 25,2
50°C 1380 540 381 45 270 185 16,8
60°C 673 319 238 32,4 173 150 13,7
Density at 60°C 0,9822 0,9566 0,9536 0,9244 0,9568 0,9519 0,911
API at 60°F 12,43 12,07 12,51 16,81 12,05 12,75 18,84
Experimental results for Viscosity, API Gravity and Density
6.3 Recommendations
1. Some different catalyst besides Iron (III) 2.4 – pentanedionate must be tried.
2. Further research is necessary to establish a better relationship between catalyst type
and oil upgrading.
66
REFERENCES
1. US Department of Energy. Date accessed: June 2007

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-
gas/publications/eordrawings/BW/bwinsitu_comb.PDF
2. Nelson, T.W., and McNeil, J.S. Jr.: “How to Engineer an In-Situ Combustion
Project,” Oil & Gas J. (June 1961) 58.
3. Moss, J.T., and Cady, G.V.: “Laboratory Investigation of the Oxygen Combustion
Process for Heavy Oil Recovery,” paper SPE 10706 presented at the 1982 SPE
California Regional Meeting, San Francisco, CA 24-26 March.
4. Hansel, J.G., Benning, M.A., and Fernbacher, J.M.: “Oxygen In-Situ Combustion Oil
Recovery: Combustion Tube Tests,” JPT (July 1984) 1139.
5. Shahani, G.H., and Hansel, J.G.: “Oxygen Fireflooding: Combustion Tube Tests with
Light, Medium, and Heavy Crude Oils,” JPT (November 1987) 583.
6. Benham, A.L., and Poettmann, F.H.: “The Thermal Recovery Process—An Analysis
of Laboratory Combustion Data,” Trans., AIME (1958), 213, 406.
7. Mamora, D.D.: “Kinetics of In-Situ Combustion,” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA (1993).
8. Mamora, D.D.: “New Findings in Low-Temperature Oxidation of Crude Oil,” paper
SPE 29324 presented at the 1995 Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, 20-22 March.
9. Mamora, D.D., and Brigham, W.E.: “The Effect of Low-Temperature Oxidation on
the Fuel and Produced Oil During In-Situ Combustion,” In-Situ (1995), 19, No. 4,
341.
10. Penberthy, W.L.: “An Investigation of the Fundamentals of Combustion Recovery,”
Ph.D. dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX (1967).
11. Greaves, M., Ren, S.R., and Xia, T.X.: “New Air Injection Technology for IOR
Operations in Light and Heavy Oil Reservoirs,” paper SPE 57295 presented at the
1999 Asia Pacific Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 25-
26 October.
67
12. Turta, A.T., and Singhai, A.K.: “Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Light-Oil
Recovery by Air Injection,” paper SPE 72503 presented at the 1993 SPE International
Conference and Exhibition in China, Beijing, 2-6 Novembr.
13. M.A. Ramírez and D.D. Mamora : “Increase Heavy-Oil Production in Combustion
Tube Experiments Through the Use of Catalyst”. SPE 107946
68
VITA
Name: Samir Huseynzade
Address: 7-th Binagadi Str. 1/150, Binagadi District, Baku,

Azerbaijan.
Phone: Home (99412) 5132465

Mobile (99450) 3402416
Email Address: s_huseynzade@yahoo.com
Education: B.S., Petroleum Engineering, Azerbaijan State Oil Academy

M.S., Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University
Employment History: Completed Internship in BP Azerbaijan, Chirag

Base Management Team. 2005 Summer

Combustion in Situ Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Combustion in Situ Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UPGRADING AND ENHANCED RECOVERY OF JOBO HEAVY OIL USING

HYDROGEN DONOR UNDER IN-SITU COMBUSTION

Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of

Major Subject: Petroleum Engineering

Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of

Major Subject: Petroleum Engineering

Upgrading and Enhanced Recovery of Jobo Heavy Oil Using

ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………………. iii

III RESEARCH OBJECTIVES.................................................................. 7

IV EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE……………. 8

4.1 Experimental apparatus.................................................................. 8

5.1 Combustion run no. 1……………………………………….. 30

VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..... 64

1.1 Schematic diagram of In-situ combustion……………………………....... 3

4.1 Schematic diagram of experimental apparatus…………………………… 10

4.2 Combustion tube………………………………………………….............. 11

4.3 Dual-thermowell assembly……………………………………………….. 12

4.4 Vacuum jacket……………………………………………………………. 13

4.5 Thermocouple sheaths……………………………………………………. 15

4.6 Backpressure regulator………………………………………………........ 16

4.7 Two-stage separation……………………………………………………... 17

4.8 Condenser unit……………………………………………………………. 18

4.9 Acid scrubber and drierite columns………………………………………. 19

4.10 HP 5890 Series II gas chromatograph and wet test meter………………... 22

4.11 Data logger and PC……………………………………………………….. 23

4.12 Complete view of the apparatus………………………………………….. 24

5.3 Temperature profiles, run no.1 (base run)………………………………... 31

5.4 Combustion front velocity, run no.1 (base run)...………………………… 32

5.6 Oil recovery versus time, run no.1 (base run)…………………………….. 34

5.7 Produced oil gravity, run no.1 (base run)………………..…..…………… 35

5.11 Temperature profiles, run no.2 (with tetralin and catalyst)………………. 40

5.14 Oil recovery, run no.2 (with tetralin and catalyst)……………………….. 43

5.19 Temperature profiles, run no.3 (base run)................................................. 49

5.20 Combustion front velocity, run no.3 (base run)......................................... 50

5.22 Oil recovery, run no.3 (base run)………………………………………... 52

5.23 Produced oil gravity, run no.3 (base run).................................................. 53

5.24 Produced oil viscosity, run no.3 (base run)……………………………… 54

5.27 Temperature profiles, run no.4 (with tetralin and catalyst)…………….... 58

5.30 Oil recovery, run no.4 (with tetralin and catalyst)………………….……. 61

where FHC is atomic hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, m is the ratio of moles of CO2 to CO

Penberthy10 considered relevant characteristics of combustion tube experiments and

The main objective of my research is to experimentally evaluate the possibility of

EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE

4.1 Experimental apparatus

4.1.1 Fluid injection system

4.1.1.1 Nitrogen injection

4.1.1.2 Gas injection

4.1.2 Combustion tube

Fig. 4.1 — Schematic diagram of experimental apparatus.

Fig. 4.2 — Combustion tube.

Fig. 4.3 — Dual-thermowell assembly.

Fig. 4.4 — Vacuum jacket.

4.1.3 Fluid production system

Fig. 4.5 —Thermocouple sheaths.

Fig. 4.6 — Backpressure regulator.

Fig. 4.7 — Two-stage separation.

Fig. 4.8 — Condenser unit.

Fig. 4.9 — Acid scrubber and drierite columns.

4.1.4 Gas chromatograph and wet test meter system

4.1.5 Data measurement and recording system

4.2 Experimental procedure

Fig. 4.11 — Data logger and PC.

Fig. 4.12 — Complete view of the apparatus.