Chemically Assisted Ignition Technologies for a Light Oil Air Injection Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A light oil (API 30 º) reservoir is an excellent candidate for high pressure air injection, but the oil is not believed to be capable of self-ignition at the reservoir temperature. Several chemical additives and catalysts are studied to evaluate their effectiveness of ignition improvement for this light oil sample. Pressurized Differential Scanning Calorimetry (PDSC) and Accelerating Rate Calorimetry (ARC) experiments are examined in this study. The oil sample, which is mixed with certain catalysts and chemical additives, is subjected to a controlled heating schedule under a constant flow rate of air at 4.14 MPa (600 psig) and 13.8 MPa (2,000 psig) pressure for the PDSC and ARC tests, respectively. The amount and rate of heat released by the oxidation reactions is analyzed for those tests. In the presence of a metallic catalyst and chemical initiators, oxidation behaviour of the oil tested is dramatically improved. Also observed are a significant reduction in the onset temperature of significant exotherm and an increased rate for the release of heat. Introduction Air injection has been proven as a viable process in improving oil recovery from light oil reservoirs, and as a result, it has received much interest in recent years(1, 2). The concept of recovery increment is when air is injected into a light oil reservoir and exothermic chemical reactions occur. The desired reactions result in heat generation and the production of carbon dioxide. Downstream of the reaction zone, the combustion produced gas sweeps oil toward the production wells, combining with light hydrocarbon fractions vapourized by heat released from oxidation reactions. Therefore, incremental oil production is achieved. However, air injection for a light oil reservoir is a complex process involving simultaneous heat and mass transfer in a multiphase environment coupled with oxidation chemical reactions. Ignition is the first phase of this process and a satisfactory ignition is of prime importance in initiating a successful air injection process(2). In high temperature reservoirs, the air injection process is initiated by injecting air, which may spontaneously ignite the oil-in-place(1). However, in some cases, spontaneous ignition of the reservoir oil is not likely to occur so that several artificial means have been implemented(3), including down hole electrical heaters, a gas burner or injection of steam, but it is highly desirable to avoid having to run heaters or burners when air injection is to be applied in deep, high pressure reservoirs. As a result, chemical ignition is proposed(2). The concept of chemical ignition is where a slug of chemicals with reactive oxidation characteristics is injected into an oil bearing zone prior to the injection of air from an injector. If heat released from an oxidation reaction is continually generated at a rate greater than it is dissipated, starting at the native reservoir temperature, oil can be spontaneously ignited without the application of artificial means. The reactive nature of the base oil present in the ignition zone can be enhanced or stimulated. A spontaneous ignition may occur within the formation. Bednarski(4) reported on a chemical ignition improvement experiment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".