Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Improved Oil Recovery
Conference in Asia Pacific held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 56 December 2005.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an proposal 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 a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal 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
The Ekofisk fractured chalk reservoir located in the North Sea
south-west of Norway has been exploited successfully for
more than three decades, largely due to injection of sea water.
In a study concluded in 2004, air injection was evaluated as a
method for additional hydrocarbon recovery beyond the
secondary waterflood recovery. Supported by the European
Commission through the fifth framework program, the Ekofisk
Field owners joined forces with leading European research
institutes and a contractor to investigate the potential of air
injection as a cost effective IOR method. Through screening
studies, extensive laboratory experiments, reservoir
simulations, design of processing facilities and project
feasibility evaluations, an extensive knowledge base of the air
injection process for light oil fractured reservoirs was
established.
In the present paper technical results will be presented.
Recovery mechanisms related to an air injection process in a
fractured light oil reservoir have been studied through
laboratory experiments and reservoir modeling. The laboratory
experiments verified air injection as a potential IOR method
for a light oil fractured chalk field. Laboratory experiments
were performed in order to study kinetic properties such as
activation energies and ignition temperatures. In addition,
diffusion coefficients were estimated through laboratory
experiments and verified by numerical simulations. Potential
weakening of the chalk due to heat and CO
2
was evaluated
based on laboratory experiments and geo-mechanical
modeling. Combustion tube experiments were conducted in
order to study propagation of the combustion front through
porous media.
Finally, a field scale air injection feasibility study was
performed. The outcome of this study, including an
evaluation of potential production benefits and main cost items
involved in an air injection project, is presented.

Introduction
The Ekofisk oil field, located in the North Sea south-west of
Norway, is a fractured chalk reservoir containing 1.3 10
9
Sm
3

oil equivalents. Oil production started in 1971. The chalk
matrix has a porosity in the order of 25-40% with permeability
ranging from 0.1 to 10 mD. Due to the fracture system, the
effective permeability of the reservoir is in average
approximately 20 mD. The initial reservoir temperature is 130
o
C, while current reservoir temperature ranges from 30
o
C in
the vicinity of the water injection wells to 130
o
C in the areas
still not affected by the waterflood.
After a period of production decline, a water injection
program was initiated in 1987, which has largely improved the
hydrocarbon recovery from the field.
Several improved oil recovery techniques have been
screened for application to increase the recovery above what is
obtained by waterflooding
1
. Since air injection was evaluated
to have a high potential for cost efficient recovery of
additional hydrocarbons a study was started in 2001. Air
injection has a potential for application in several chalk fields.
Air injection has been applied successfully in many
offshore oil fields. Results being relevant to the Ekofisk case
can be found in the literature from field studies
2-5
, analog field
examples
6-11
and various studies on the air injection process
12-
19
. However, there is no experience reported in open literature
for air injection offshore in low permeable chalk reservoirs. It
was thus necessary to perform in depth studies to evaluate the
potential for application of this technology for the Ekofisk
field. The present paper reports a study which was performed
during 2001-2004 to evaluate the potential, including
laboratory experiments on reaction kinetics, characterization
of oxidation and combustion reaction, diffusion and rock
compaction, calibration of simulation tools and simulation at
reservoir scale, design and cost estimation of surface facilities,
and economic evaluation.
Several uncertainties for the air injection process will have
to be considered if it is going to be applied to Ekofisk. Will the
process work in a waterflooded chalk reservoir? Will ignition
occur? An eventual air breakthrough in the production wells
will be a serious safety issue, and will have to be evaluated
carefully. What will be the reservoir sweep efficiency? Can
the process be modeled with sufficient accuracy at reservoir
scale? Also, weakening of the chalk matrix will have to be
considered, mainly caused by the temperature and the
production of CO
2
. A consequence of chalk weakening can be
increased compaction and subsidence, also potentially causing
well failures. Will separation of flue gas from the sales gas be

SPE 97481
Evaluation of Air Injection as an IOR Method for the Giant Ekofisk Chalk Field
S. Stokka, SPE, RF-Rogaland Research; A. Oesthus, SPE, ConocoPhillips; and J . Frangeul, TOTAL
2 SPE 97481
economically feasible? These aspects were addressed in the
present work.


The Air Injection Process
The air injection process is illustrated in Figure 1, as it is
traditionally understood. Air is injected from the left in the
figure. Behind the combustion zone there is a burned zone,
while ahead of it there is an evaporation zone containing
steam, nitrogen, hydrocarbon gases and combustion gases.
Ahead of the evaporation zone is the condensation zone and
then follows the water bank, oil bank and the unswept zone.
The flue gas and steam generated at the combustion front are
stripping, swelling and heating the contacted oil. A total
consumption of 5-10% of the remaining oil in place is
normally expected to maintain a propagation of the in-situ
oxidation process.
In a fractured reservoir, a diffusion process is required for
the air to enter the rock matrix, and the process itself might
also behave somewhat different from the illustration in Figure
1. Further, the temperature increase being important for heavy
oil reservoirs, will probably be less important in the Ekofisk
case, as the reservoir contains light oil.

Project Tasks, Definitions and Theory
The work was organized in five work packages:
1. Field pilot screening, including selection of an eventual
pilot area for a demonstration project, and evaluation of
critical process factors and uncertainties. Sensitivity
simulations were performed to determine which sets of
parameters have the greatest influence on air-injection
efficiency and safety.
2. Supporting experiments, gathering quantitative data on
reaction kinetics at reservoir conditions, gas flow in a
three dimensional fractured medium, and effect of the air
injection process on rock properties.
3. Reservoir simulator, including calibration of the
simulation tool for accurate modeling of the air injection
oxidation process, thermal conditions and flow in a
fractured low permeable medium.
4. Surface facilities, including evaluation of technical and
economic issues of air injection and flue gas downstream
handling, and selection of the most suitable flue gas
handling technology.
5. Economic evaluation on field scale, including production
forecasts, capital and operational expenses and risk
evaluation.
From the experiments it was important to estimate the
activation energy for the oxidation process. The rate of oxygen
consumption is given by the equation:
Rate =
dt
dn
2 O
=K
o
.e
-E/RT
.(Fuel)
m
.(PO
2
)
n
(1)
Where K
O
is the Arrhenius pre-exponential factor, E the
activation energy per mol, R the gas constant, T the
temperature measured in Kelvin, Fuel the fuel concentration,
PO
2
the oxygen partial pressure, m and n the reaction orders
relative to fuel concentration and oxygen partial pressure
(assumed to be equal to one).
When oxygen is introduced to a rock containing oil, low
temperature oxidation will start after a time depending of the
activation energy. High activation energy gives longer time for
starting the oxidation. As oxidation goes on at adiabatic
conditions, the temperature will increase until autoignition
takes place and the reaction is accelerated into a high
temperature oxidation process.

Results
Field Pilot Screening. A suitable area for an air injection pilot
was located on the east flank of the main Ekofisk field, see
Figure 2. Preliminary evaluations based on simulations for a
pilot area sector model gave promising results, and indicated
that as much as 25% of the remaining oil after water flooding
could potentially be recovered by the air injection process.
Sensitivities were run with respect to reservoir parameters
believed to be essential or critical to the effectiveness and
safety of the air injection process. These included effective
permeability, anisotropy and pre-exponential factors. The
results expose that, within variations of these parameters
normally found in the Ekofisk reservoirs, air injection may be
a safe and attractive oil recovery mechanism after the water
flooding has been exploited to its maximum. The simulations
were done in a single porosity mode. Consequently, the results
are only indicative to how the dual porosity and dual
permeability reservoir will behave.

Supporting Experiments
Oxidation experiments on crushed core. The oxidation
kinetics of Ekofisk crude oil was investigated in the presence
of brine and chalk, conducting three types of experiments
19
.
One set of experiments was conducted in a small batch
reactor, having a nominal liquid charge capacity of 100 ml,
and a similar air header volume. Various saturations of
Ekofisk oil and brine were introduced in crushed Ekofisk core
material filling the small batch reactor. The experiments were
operated isothermally, in the temperature range 130 150 C,
and at a total pressure of 300 bars. The rate of oil oxidation, or
rate of oxygen consumption, was determined by measuring the
rate of decline of the total pressure versus time. The rate of
reaction was influenced significantly by the temperature, and
initial saturations of oil and brine. Ekofisk crude oil was
sufficiently reactive in the temperature range investigated, that
the oxygen charged into the reactor was completely consumed
over a number of days.
Another set of experiments were also done on crushed
Ekofisk core material containing various ratios of Ekofisk oil
and brine saturations. These experiments were run in an
accelerating rate calorimeter with continuous injection of air at
300 bars pressure. The calorimeter volume was charged with a
few grams of Ekofisk chalk and a fraction of ml of oil and
brine. The calorimeter was operated adiabatically and self-heat
rate of the crude oil during oxidation was monitored. The
experiments gave information of the Ekofisk crude oil reaction
features. It was observed that the time between the initial onset
of the oxidation reaction and autoignition was reduced with
increasing initial oil saturation. Autoignition started in the
temperature range 155 200
o
C.
A third set of experiments were done on crushed limestone
containing various ratios of Ekofisk oil and brine saturations.
SPE 97481 3
The experiments were run in a combustion tube cell with
continuous injection of air at 200 bars pressure. The
combustion tube was 125 cm long and had a diameter of 10
cm. Experiments were done both at adiabatic and non-
adiabatic conditions. The produced fluids were separated, and
gas flow rate, CO and CO
2
production, and O
2
combustion
were monitored. The non-adiabatic tests showed that stable
combustion front propagation was achieved at sufficiently
high air injection rate. Oil recovery was dependent on air
injection rate.
The experimental results from the small batch reactor and
the accelerating rate calorimeter were used as screening data,
in order to guide the selection of parameters for more detailed
experiments on Ekofisk core. The combustion tube tests were
conducted primarily to provide a onedimensional physical
simulation of the air injection process, against which selected
reaction models of the crude oil oxidation could be validated.
Oxidation experiments on Ekofisk core. Oxidation
kinetics of Ekofisk crude oil in Ekofisk core was investigated
in the presence of brine, conducting three types of
experiments. Key parameters to be used in computer
simulation of the air injection process were measured. In one
experiment the rate of diffusion of nitrogen and oxygen into a
matrix plug was measured under reservoir conditions of
pressure, temperature and fluid saturations. Such experiments
are important to quantify the gas-gas diffusion between the
reservoir fractures and matrix. The experimental setup is
illustrated in Figure 3. A 20 cm
3
pore volume cylindrical chalk
sample was mounted into a steel reactor and was sealed except
at the top of the core. A narrow flow space, the diffusion
chamber, allowed for flow of air past the top side of the plug.
Synthetic air, composed of 20% O
2
and 80% N
2
, was injected
through the diffusion chamber. The effluent from the chamber
was continuously analyzed, thus to determine the amount and
type of hydrocarbons diffusing out of the core as well as the
amount of O
2
and N
2
diffusing into the core.
The matrix plug temperature was kept close to 80
o
C, and
the air was injected at a constant pressure of 275 bars. The
pressure was maintained by a back-pressure valve located
downstream. The air injection rate was constant during the
experiment at a value of 0.2 cm
3
/hr (pump conditions: 45C,
275 bars).
The molar fractions of produced O
2
, N
2
C
1
, C
2
and C
3
are
shown in Figure 4, and the molar fractions of and C
4
, C
5
and
C
6
, are shown in Figures 5. As expected the O
2
and N
2

concentrations increase with time while the hydrocarbon
component fractions decrease.
The experiment was simulated using diffusion coefficients
based on kinetic theory. See Table 1. These results were
essential for the understanding of the air injection process and
formed a basis for the field simulations.
Another set of experiments was performed at simulated
reservoir conditions using Ekofisk core plugs to characterize
the kinetics of the oxidation and combustion reactions. The
experimental setup, called an adiabatic disc reactor, is
illustrated in Figure 6. An Ekofisk core plug with a volume of
approximately 20 cm
3
was sealed inside the reactor. Synthetic
air (20% oxygen, 80% nitrogen) was injected at constant rate
and constant pressure of 276 bars from top to bottom. At the
reactor inlet air was preheated to the internal core temperature
to avoid thermal losses by gas convection.
In the first phase of the experiment the temperature was
increased in steps via heaters wired around the core. At each
step the oxygen consumption and exothermic response of the
core was measured. The step-wise increase was continued
until the core temperature started increasing by itself. During
the second phase the core temperature evolved freely and the
system was controlled to be at adiabatic conditions.
Experiments were done with cores containing brine and
recombined Ekofisk oil.
Results from experiments with different initial water
saturations are shown in Figures 7 and 8. The temperature for
start of auto-ignition increases with increasing initial water
saturation, and varies in the range 160 350
o
C. The
cumulative oxygen consumption shown in Figure 8 verifying
that oxidation takes place also before self-ignition starts.
The experiments were simulated, and it was possible to
estimate the activation energies both for the oxidation reaction
and the combustion reaction. The average values are given in
Table 2. These values were used in the field simulations. It
was observed that the self-ignition temperature increased with
increasing water saturation. Indeed, if no water is present in
the system, the heat released is transferred to the rock and the
oil. However, when water is present, for the same heat rate
released by the reactions, the heat transferred to the oil is
smaller since part of it is transferred to the water.
A set of long core experiments was performed to
characterize the efficiency of flue gas sweeping, the velocity
and temperature of the combustion front and the air
requirement to sustain a stable front. Three experiments were
performed; first an air flood at reservoir conditions, then an
isothermal flue gas sweeping and finally a high temperature
adiabatic air flood. The experiments were performed on a
composite core (20 plugs) being 85.2 cm long and having a
cross section of 10.7 cm
2
. The core was sealed to the core
holder along its length. The two first experiments were
performed at 130
o
C temperature and 275 bar pressure. In the
third experiment the first zone was heated to 350
o
C.
The reservoir core plugs showed micro-fractures after
mounting in the core holders. To some extent this masked the
interpretation of the experiments, but important results were
obtained. During the air flood at reservoir conditions, no
increase of temperature was observed, but the entire injected
oxygen was consumed inside the core. The cumulative oil
production and nitrogen content in the produced gases of the
two first gas sweeps are shown in Figure 9. Flue gas sweep
efficiency was estimated to 9 % of the hydrocarbon pore
volume after 2.15 pore volume flue gas injection. It was not
possible to sustain a stable combustion front in the core after
the flue gas sweeping, mainly due to too high water saturation
in the first zones and very low core permeability. The entire
injected oxygen was consumed inside the core.
Flue gas flooding test. A flue gas flooding test was carried
out on a composite Ekofisk core (six plugs) at simulated
reservoir conditions. A temperature of 60
o
C and pressure of
320 bars were chosen for the experiment, and the initial water
saturation was 70%. Nitrogen was injected from the top of a
vertically mounted core and was allowed to pass outside the
core but inside the sleeve, thus simulating nitrogen flow
4 SPE 97481
through a reservoir fracture. Hydrocarbons in the core could
only be produced through diffusion. The experiment
demonstrated that the lighter hydrocarbons were stripped from
the reservoir oil originally present in the matrix.
Subsidence and compaction. Rock mechanics experiments
and subsidence and compaction modeling were performed.
Two combusted Ekofisk core samples were used in pore scale
analysis and rock mechanics studies. The samples came from
the experiments performed in the diffusion chamber and the
adiabatic disc reactor, and had been exposed to temperatures
of 80
o
C and 490
o
C, respectively. A combination of electron
microscopy and mercury porosimetry was use to characterize
the grain surfaces and texture.
Figure 10 shows results from constrained pore volume
compressibility measurements on combusted and
uncombusted plugs, indicating that combustion has weakened
the chalk. It was concluded that low temperature oxidation
would not lead to any increased compaction and subsidence.
For the high temperature case, the field center could subside
an additional 5 m at most, with a corresponding reservoir
compaction of up to 6 m. The high temperature combustion
process did not alter pore geometry by melting or destroying
grains other than depositing carbon rich coating on the grains.
The estimated overall field subsidence and combustion is not
considered to be prohibitive for an eventual air injection
project at the Ekofisk field. However, near wellbore effects
impacting well failures are still considered to be a serious
concern.

Reservoir Simulator. In order to reduce complexity without
losing accuracy the reservoir fluid thermodynamics was
adapted to a 7 component fluid model for air injection. It was
compared with a fluid model with 15 components, and the 7
component model reproduced the phase behavior of the 15
component model with reasonable accuracy. It was necessary
to use a reservoir simulator that could handle dual porosity,
gas-gas diffusion, and in-situ oxidation and combustion
18
.
The contact of the reservoir fluid with air (79% N
2
, 21%
O
2
) and flue gas (85% N
2
and 15% CO
2
) was simulated
thermodynamically at various temperatures. The results show
that the oil stripping effect is greater than the swelling effect,
as the oil density increases with increased flue gas contact
with the oil.
Phenomenological simulation results showed that diffusion
has a great impact on recovery. The light fractions of the
matrix oil are stripped when air enters into the matrix by
gravity drainage and diffusion. The vaporized oil is recovered
very quickly in the fracture without oxidation. Air mainly
oxidizes the heavy hydrocarbons left in the matrix. Results
from mechanistic simulation runs for a two dimensional model
with 500 m distance between injector and producer are shown
in Figure 11, clearly showing the importance of diffusion and
gravity segregation for the oil production rate.
Simulations of the diffusion experiment and the adiabatic
disc reactor experiment, were essential for the air injection
process understanding and for the field scale simulations. The
activation energies for low temperature oxidation and high
temperature combustion were tuned to fit with the
experimental results. The diffusion coefficients used were
based on kinetic theory of gases. Parameters used in the
simulations are listed in Tables 1 and 2.
Simplified reservoir scale modeling (same two
dimensional model as mentioned above) led to the conclusion
that there is a prevailing probability that the Ekofisk oil will
commence in-situ oxidation when contacted by injected air,
even in the low temperature environment in the vicinity of
water injectors. It is unlikely that oxygen breakthrough will
occur in the producing wells. The importance of diffusion and
segregation for this result is shown in Figure 12. (The first part
of the curve is believed to be masked by a modeling artifact.)
In the Ekofisk case the contribution to oil recovery by
oxidation itself (heat and steam generation etc.) is probably
insignificant. Most of the reservoir will be outside the
oxidation region and will actually experience recovery
mechanisms identical to those of flue gas injection, primarily
gravity segregation and stripping of light components (C
1
-C
4
)
by nitrogen. Simplified reservoir scale simulation confirmed
that the oil production from air injection is close to identical to
the oil production when injecting flue gas. The oxygen is
being consumed by oxidation in a small reservoir volume
close to the injection wells.
The schematics of the process shown in Figure 1 may
therefore be somewhat misleading in this case. Evaporation
and condensation will take place, but not due to the heat itself,
but rather through stripping and swelling initiated by flue
gases from the oxidation process.
Under favorable conditions, we consider that as much as
25 % of the oil remaining after the waterflood may be
recovered through air injection. Under normal circumstances
however, the most likely recovery factor is estimated to 5 % of
the original oil in place, primarily owing to limitation in gas
sweep efficiency (gas override). If a gravity stable gas front
can be established and maintained, this recovery factor may be
significantly improved.

Surface Facilities and Wells. An evaluation was made of the
need for investment in new surface facilities and upgrade of
wells. For full field implementation of air injection on the
Ekofisk field it was concluded that it will be necessary to build
new injection and gas cleaning facilities, and upgrade 30
injection and 30 production wells, summing up to a total
capital expenditure of 2700 million USD. The facilities were
designed to have a capacity of injecting 13 million Sm
3
air per
day and processing 14 million Sm
3
of produced gas. The main
components included in the downstream processing facilities
were units for gas sweetening, dehydration, nitrogen rejection
and gas recompressing. It was assumed that it will be
necessary to handle 6% CO
2
and 52% N
2
in the total gas flow.
The processing facilities were designed to separate flue gas
from sales gas to obtain the current gas sales requirements. An
illustration of how the downstream processing facilities can be
arranged on a separate processing platform is shown in Figure
13.

Economic Evaluation. Production profiles for the Ekofisk
field were produced to estimate the incremental hydrocarbon
production from full field implementation of air injection. The
incremental oil recovery factor is shown in Figure 14, as
percentage of the original oil in place, in three cases.
SPE 97481 5
1. The gas production rate was limited to 700 million SCF
per day on field scale. The gas injection was controlled by
injection pressure (400 bars) without rate limitation. This
resulted in a stabilized injection rate slightly above 700
million SCF per day (Air_700).
2. The gas production rate was limited to 700 million SCF
per day. The gas injection was controlled by injection
pressure (400 bars) with rate limitation of 450 million
SCF per day. Water injection was added to maintain
pressure (Air_450we).
3. The gas production rate was limited to 410 million SCF
per day. The gas injection rate was controlled by injection
pressure (400 bars) without rate limitation. This resulted
in a stabilized injection rate of 450 million SCF per day
(Air_450).
The incremental recovery was 3-4 % of original oil in place,
when injecting air in the period from 2017 to 2041, based on
optimistic assumptions. In addition substantial amounts of
associated gas are being produced resulting in incremental
recovery on the order of 10% of original oil equivalents in
place.
In the economic evaluation the investments were made in
2016 and 2017. Sensitivities were run on capital expenses,
operational expenses, production volumes and product prices.
Expected values in terms of net present values were calculated
through a decision tree analysis using a combination of the
above parameters. Figure 15 shows a negative expected value
of the project in terms of net present value, and low
probability for a positive net present value.

Conclusions
Through laboratory experiments and computer simulations it
was shown that air injection is a feasible process for improved
oil recovery after water flooding in a light oil fractured chalk
reservoir.
It was shown that in-situ oxidation and combustion will
take place when injecting air in a waterflooded Ekofisk
reservoir, resulting in additional hydrocarbon recovery.
Activation energies for in-situ oxidation and combustion were
estimated. There is a prevailing probability that the Ekofisk oil
will commence in-situ oxidation when contacted by injected
air, even in the low temperature environment in the vicinity of
water injectors.
Diffusion of air into a reservoir sample, and stripping of
lighter hydrocarbons, was demonstrated, and diffusion
coefficients from kinetic theory of gases were confirmed. The
stripping of light oil components is greater than the swelling of
the oil. Diffusion has a significant impact on recovery.
It was demonstrated that a stable combustion front can
form and propagate under favorable reservoir conditions (low
water saturation), and that additional hydrocarbons will be
produced. It is unlikely that oxygen breakthrough will occur in
the producing wells.
Most of the reservoir will be outside the combustion region
and will experience recovery mechanisms being identical to
those of flue gas injection, primarily gravity segregation and
stripping of light components (C
1
-C
4
) by nitrogen.
Additional subsidence and compaction caused by air
injection and in-situ oxidation and combustion was estimated,
and is not considered to be prohibitive for an eventual air
injection project at the Ekofisk field. However, possible well
failures caused by compaction might be a serious concern.
Substantial investments will be necessary to implement an
air injection process at the Ekofisk field, including an air
injection platform, a produced gas processing platform and
wells upgrading.
An additional oil recovery can in an optimistic case be as
high as 5% of the original oil in place, when injecting air in
the period from 2017 to 2041, but the project economics was
estimated to be negative, when taking into account capital and
operational expenses and project uncertainties.
Even optimistic assumptions resulted in unattractive
economics. Consequently, further work to reduce
uncertainties both on production and cost profiles were not
considered.
Presently, competing technologies, e.g. depressurization,
CO
2
injection, and continued water injection are considered to
be more likely options to further increase recovery from
Ekofisk than air injection.


Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the European Commission,
ConocoPhillips and the Ekofisk Coventurers, including
TOTAL, ENI, Hydro, Statoil and Petoro, for financing the
work and for the permission to publish this paper.
The project partners IFP, University of Bath and Fabricom
are acknowledged for their contribution to the work.
IFP is also acknowledged for making their ATHOS
software available for the simulation work.

Abbreviations
IFP Institute Francais du Petrole
USD US Dollar
SCF Standard cubic foot
C
i
Hydrocarbon molecule with i carbon atoms

Conversion factors
1 foot =0.3048 m
1 SCF =0.028317 Sm
3

References
1. J ensen, T.B., Harpole, K.J . and Oesthus, A: EOR Screening for
Ekofisk, paper SPE 65124 presented at the 2000 SPE European
Petroleum Conference, Paris, Oct. 24-25.
2. Fraim, M.L., Moffitt, P.D. and Yannimaras, D.V.: Laboratory
Testing and Simulation Results for High Pressure Air Injection
in a Waterflooded North Sea Oil Reservoir, paper SPE 38905
presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 5-8.
3. Sakthikumar, S., Madaoui, K. and Chastang, J ., An
Investigation of the Feasibility of Air Injection into a
Waterflooded Light Oil Reservoir, paper SPE 29806 presented
at the 1995 Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, March 11-14.
4. Clara, C., Durandeau, M., Quenault, G. and Nguyen, T.H.:
Laboratory Studies of Light Oil Air Injection Projects:
Potential Application in Handil Field, paper SPE 54377
presented at the 1999 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference
and Exhibition, J akarta, April 20-22.
5. Glandt, C.A., Pieterson, R., Dombrowski, A. and Balzarini,
M.A.: Coral Creek Field Study: A Comprehensive Assessment
of the Potential of High-Pressure Air Injection in a Mature
6 SPE 97481
Waterflood Project, paper SPE 52198 presented at the 1999
SPE Mid-Continent Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City,
March 28-31.
6. Fassihi, M.R., Yannimaras, D.V., Westfall, E.E., and Gillham,
T.H.: Economics of Light Oil Air Injection Projects, paper
SPE 35393 presented at the 1996 SPE/DOE Improved Oil
Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, April 21-24.
7. Kumar, V.K and Fassihi, M.R.: Case History and Appraisal of
the Medicine Pole Hills Units Air Injection Project, paper SPE
27792, SPE Reservoir Engineering Journal 10 (1995), 198-202.
8. Fassihi, M.R., Yannimaras, D.V. and Kumar, V.K., Estimation
of Recovery Factor in Light-Oil Air-Injection Projects, paper
SPE 28733 presented at the 1994 International Petroleum
Conference and Exhibition of Mexico, Veracruz, Oct. 10-13.
9. Clara, C., Zelenko, V., Schirmer, P. and Wolter, T.: Appraisal
of the HORSE CREEK Air Injection Project Performance,
paper SPE 49519 presented at the 1998 Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, Nov. 11-14.
10. Watts, B.C., Hall, T.F. and Petri, D.J .: The Horse Creek Air
Injection Project: An Overview, paper SPE presented at the
1997 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper, May 18-
21.
11. Gillham, T.H., Cerveny, B.W., Turek, B.W. and Yannimaras,
D.V.: Keys to Increasing Production Via Air Injection in Gulf
Coast Light Oil Reservoirs, paper SPE 38848 presented at the
1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Oct. 5-8.
12. Fassihi, M.R. and Gillham, T.H.: The use of Air Injection to
Improve the Double Displacement Processes, paper SPE 26374
presented at the 1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 3-6.
13. Yannimaras, D.V. and Tiffin, D.L.: Screening of Oils for In-
Situ Combustion at Reservoir Conditions by Accelerating-Rate
Calorimetry, paper SPE 27791, SPE Reservoir Engineering
Journal 10 (1995), 36-39.
14. Le Gallo, Y., Le Romancer, J .F., Bourbiaux, B. and Fernandes,
G. : Mass Transfer in Fractured Reservoirs during Gas
Injection : Experimental and Numerical Modeling, paper SPE
38924 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 5-8.
15. Turta, A.T. and Singhai, A.K.: Reservoir Engineering Aspects
of Oil Recovery from Low Permeability Reservoirs by Air
Injection, paper SPE 48841 presented at the 1998 SPE
International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China,
Beijing, Nov. 2-6.
16. Ren, S.R., Greaves M. and Rathbone, R.R.: Air Injection LTO
Process: An IOR Technique for Light-Oil Reservoirs, paper
SPE 57005, SPE Journal 7 (2002), 90-99.
17. Surguchev, L.M., Koundin, A. and Yannimaras, D.: 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, Kuala Lumpur, Oct. 25-26.
18. Okamoto, M. and Bourbiaux, B.: A Review of the Challenging
Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Modeling the Recovery from
a Light Oil, Fractured Reservoir by Air Injection, paper
presented at the 2005 European Symposium on Improved Oil
Recovery, Budapest, April 25-27.
19. Greaves, M., Bentaher, A. H. and Rathbone, R.R.: Air Injection
into Light Oil Reservoirs Oxidation Kinetics and Simulation,
paper presented at the 2005 European Symposium on Improved
Oil Recovery, Budapest, April 25-27.
SPE 97481 7
Component Mol fraction
Mol.
Weight
(g/mol)
Gas-Gas diffusion
coefficients
(10
-3
m
2
/day)
N
2
0.0010 28 4.8
O
2
0.0000 32 4.9
CO
2
0.0083 44 4.0
CO 0.0000 28 3.4
C
1
0.4406 16 5.5
LITE 0.1210 35 2.2
MEDIUM 0.0844 80 1.8
HEAVY 0.3445 254 1.0

Table 1. Diffusion coefficients used in simulations

Activation energy from diffusion experiment 36-40 kJ /mol
Activation energy from adiabatic disc reactor experiment 36-40 kJ /mol

Table 2. Acti vation energy estimates from simulation of experiments



Figure 1. Schematic of the air injection process.

Oil
Bank
8 SPE 97481


Figure 2. Greater Ekofisk Area


Analysis
Core
PV = 20 cm
3
Atm Pressure
High Pressure
Diffusion chamber
0.48 cm
3
Liquid trap


Figure 3. Experimental setup for diffusion experiments


Pilot area
SPE 97481 9
Molar fractions of O2, N2, C1, C2 and C3 in produced gas
0
1
10
100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (days)
M
o
l
a
r

f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
%N2 %O2 %C1 %C2 %C3


Figure 4. O
2
, N
2
, C
1
, C
2
and C
3
molar fractions in produced gas vs. time

Molar fractions of C4, C5 and C6 in produced gas
0,01
0,10
1,00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (days)
M
o
l
a
r

f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s

(
%
)
%iC4 %nC4 %iC5 %nC5 %C6


Figure 5. C
4
, C
5
and C
6
molar fractions in produced gas vs. time


10 SPE 97481



Figure 6. Experimental setup for kinetics experiment

EKOFISK ADR : Temperature variations
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Time (hours)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(

C
)
Swi = 0 Swi = 13.3% Swi = 22.9% Swi = 42%
165C
347C
268C
323C


Figure 7. Temperature curves for different initial water saturations

SPE 97481 11
Cumulative oxygen consumption
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (hours)
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

O
x
y
g
e
n

C
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

(
m
o
l
e
)
Sw = 0% Sw = 13.3% Sw = 22.9% Sw = 42%


Figure 8. Cumulati ve oxygen consumption vs. time

Oil Production and N
2
History
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Time (days)
V
o
l
u
m
e

-

c
m
3

(
1
3
0

C
,
2
7
5
b
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
m
o
l
a
r

f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
Oil Prod. % N2
N
2
Breakthrough
Oil produced due to Air and Flue Gas sweep


Figure 9. Oil production from long core experiment
12 SPE 97481


Figure 10. Constrained pore volume compressibility



Figure 11. Oil production sensitivity to diffusion and gravity segregation



Constrained Pore Volume Compressibility of Air-Oil Test Plugs
Ekofisk Reservoir Chalk, Initial Porosity ~39%
0.0E+00
5.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.5E-05
2.0E-05
2.5E-05
3.0E-05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Test Number
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d

P
o
r
e

V
o
l
u
m
e

C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

/
p
s
i
Combusted Composite Plug
UncombustedIntact Plug
Uncombusted Composite Plugs
Air Diffusion Plug
AirOilMaterilProps
Constrained Pore Volume Compressibility of Air-Oil Test Plugs
Ekofisk Reservoir Chalk, Initial Porosity ~39%
0.0E+00
5.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.5E-05
2.0E-05
2.5E-05
3.0E-05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Test Number
C
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d

P
o
r
e

V
o
l
u
m
e

C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

/
p
s
i
Combusted Composite Plug
UncombustedIntact Plug
Uncombusted Composite Plugs
Air Diffusion Plug
AirOilMaterilProps
SPE 97481 13

Figure 12. Outflow of oxygen as function of diffusion and gravity segregation

Figure 13. Downstream processing facilities

UTILITY
GAS
SWEETENING
FIREPUMP-
ROOM
NITROGEN
REJ ECTION
RECOMPRESSION
PKG.
MOLECULAR
SIEVE PKG.
14 SPE 97481
Increased Oil Recovery due to Air Injection
-0,5 %
0,0 %
0,5 %
1,0 %
1,5 %
2,0 %
2,5 %
3,0 %
3,5 %
4,0 %
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
O
i
l

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

F
a
c
t
o
r

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

O
O
I
P
,

%
Ai r_450we
Ai r_700
Ai r_450


Figure 14. Increased oil recovery factor as percentage of original oil in place



























Figure 15. Cumulati ve probability plot of expected values in terms of net present values

Cumulative Probability Plot
Air Inj ection Value
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000
Net Present Value
C
u
m
P
s
0
Positive
Negative
Cumulative Probability Plot
Air Inj ection Value
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000
Net Present Value
C
u
m
P
s
0
Positive
Negative