Feasibility of CO

2

Flooding
Higher Viscosity Oils, Field
Results, and Screening
Presented by:
Richard Baker,
December 7, 2012
Steves Challenge; Population of CO
2

Flooded Oils: Gravities and Viscosities
SanAndresCO2FloodOilViscosities*
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
00.5 0.51.0 1.01.5 1.52.0 2.02.5 2.53.0 3.03.5 3.54.0 >4but
<10
>10
OilViscosityDegreesAPI
N
o
.

o
f

C
O
2

F
l
o
o
d
s
*OGJProductionVolume,Apr2,2012
MeansReservoirOil6cp
U.S.andSanAndresCO2FloodOilGravities*
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
<28 2830 3032 3234 3436 3638 3840 4042 4244 >44
OilGravitiesDegreesAPI
N
o
.

o
f

C
O
2

F
l
o
o
d
s
SanAndres(PB)
Al l US
*OGJProductionVolume,Apr2,2012
Means
Eastern
Mississippi
Floods
Cdn

Immiscible CO
2
Cdn
Immiscible
CO
2
Organization of Immiscible CO
2
Talk
Executive Summary
Summary of Field experience in immiscible floods

California (Wilmington)

Arkansas (Lick Creek)

Trinidad

Malaysia

Turkey

Canada (Retlaw)
Screening Criteria
Executive Summary
Limited immiscible pilots in literature show the promise immiscible
CO
2

flooding
Laboratory work seems to show promise of improved recovery
(RF=6-15%OOIP)
Review of Old CO
2

Pilot Project in Canada shows good response
Rough simulation @
oil

= 30cP (RF
CO2-wtrfld

=7%OOIP)
@
oil

= 20cP (RF
CO2-wtrfld

=16%OOIP)
@
oil

= 5cP (RF
CO2-wtrfld

~+20%OOIP)
Criteria;

Oil saturation S
O current

>50%

Successful waterflood; volumetric sweep E
vol

>50%

Biggest hurdle;
Inexpensive CO
2
corrosion hurdle existing pipe systems +CTP

API gravity 15-25API
Insitu viscosity= 10- 1000cP
Why Medium Grade Oil Pools? 20-25 API, oil
viscosity 10-1000cP, CRF>20%

In excellent quality reservoirs, predictable and well
understood water flood development

High permeability and porosity

High oil saturation

Thin (3-5m), but good continuity
Map of Alberta Pools
20 -25 API
As well as Sask. side
~8 Bbbl
USA Target

2009 Baker Hughes Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. 7
Heavy oil fields
OLD IMMISCIBLE CO
2
PILOTS

2009 Baker Hughes Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. 8
Summary of Field Experience in Immiscible
Floods
Wilmington Calif. USA
Lick Creek Arkansas USA
Trinidad
Malaysia
CO
2

Recovery of Heavy Oil: Wilmington Field
Test
Saner, W.B., Patton, J.T., CO
2

recovery of Heavy Oil: Wilmington Field Test, SPE paper 12082, JPT , July 1986
CO
2

Recovery of Heavy Oil: Wilmington Field
Test
Saner, W.B., Patton, J.T., CO
2

recovery of Heavy Oil: Wilmington Field Test, SPE paper 12082, JPT , July 1986
CO
2

Recovery of Heavy Oil: Wilmington Field
Test
Saner, W.B., Patton, J.T., CO
2

recovery of Heavy Oil: Wilmington Field Test, SPE paper 12082, JPT , July 1986
CO
2

Recovery of Heavy Oil: Wilmington Field
Test
Saner, W.B., Patton, J.T., CO
2
recovery of Heavy Oil: Wilmington Field Test, SPE paper 12082, JPT , July 1986
14 API oil after waterflood
Five fold increase in oil rate
Decrease in watercut
Wilmington Field
Actually, CO
2

displacement of viscous crude is not as
efficient as the miscible displacement lighter crude.
However, the difference in efficiency is more than offset
by the generous oil saturation present at the end of
waterflooding in reservoirs that contain viscous crudes.
Saner, W.B., Patton, J.T., CO2 recovery of Heavy Oil: Wilmington Field Test, SPE paper 12082, JPT , July 1986
CANADIAN IMMISCIBLE
FLOOD
Retlaw

Mannville

V

2009 Baker Hughes Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. 15
Mannville

Retlaw

V

map view
Oil viscosity @ initial reservoir conditions

30cp
CO2 allocation to HC gas injected is at an
average of 0.5 (ranges from 0.4-0.6)
1 mile
Summary Data for Retlaw

Mannville

V Oil Pool
Pay Thickness 5.03 ft
Porosity 18.9%
Water Saturation 28.4%
Bo 1.12
Initial Pressure
1743 psia

~Psat=MMP
Fm Temperature 89.6 F
API Gravity 18.1 API
OOIP 12 MMBbl
OOIP Remaining 71%
Number of wells 47

oil

= 30 cP
CO2 & Gas Injection Rate, Oil Production Rate
vs

Time
1000 Stk

bbl O/ d
10 MMcf/d
Water Rate Injected, Gas Rate and CO2 Rate
Injected vs

Time
Start, middle and late time CO
2

injection.
6 mmcf/d
Retlaw

Mannville

V background

Current RF = 29%

47 wells in total, 33 Oil producers, 13 injection wells (6
CO2

injectors)

1
st

cycle of CO2 injection began October 1983 and
concluded on April 1989.

2
nd

cycle of CO2 injection began on January 1991 and
concluded on April 1996.

Water injection began on May 1987
Recovery Factor vs. HCPVI
Injection of
CO2 Stops
For the geeks
Total (water +CO
2

)
RF vs

HCPVI
Injection of
CO2 Stops
Water injected
Cum Gas & CO2

Inj

for Retlaw

Mannville

V
Cum Gas Injected : 1.1 MMMcf
Cum CO2

injected : 4.8 MMMcf
Cum Oil Prod for Retlaw

Mannville

V
July 2012
Cum Gas Prod for Retlaw

Mannville

V
North South Pressure Regions
1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
0
2500
5000
7500
10000
12500
15000
17500
20000
22500
25000
0
1
_TIME_ [Years]
O
I
L

P
R
E
S
S
U
R
E

[
k
P
a
]

OIL PRESSURE
NORTH PRODUCERS
SOUTH PRODUCERS
UNTITLED PROJECT
DATE 2008 -7 All Wells
GROUP1
GROUP3
NORTH PRODUCERS
SOUTH PRODUCERS
More Injection in South Region
Initial pressure P
si

=P
bubbble

= MMP
SIMULATION MODEL
History Matching Parameters

Liquid Rate Constraint

Frac

Pressure Injection Well Constraint

Perm Increase around producing wells

K = 100mD

Kv/Kh

= 0.1

Pi = Pb

= 120bar

2 perm streaks introduced between inj

prod pairs
Ternary Saturation Diagrams
Feb 1971 Aug 2008
Injected water into
gas cap
Well location
30
History Match

Water Production
31
History Match

Gas Production
Sensitivity to oil viscosity; What did we do?

2009 Baker Hughes Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. 32
20

cp
Waterflood
CO
2
Waterflood
CO
2
Waterflood
CO
2
Incremental recovery vs. Oil Viscosity

2009 Baker Hughes Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. 33
Incremental recovery factor for CO
2

immiscible flooding vs. waterfloods
SCREENING FOR
IMMISCIBLE CO
2

2009 Baker Hughes Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. 34
Screening for Immiscible CO
2

criteria
Oil saturation S
O current

>50%
Successful waterflood; volumetric sweep E
vol

>50%
Biggest hurdle;

Inexpensive CO
2

corrosion hurdle existing pipe systems +CTP
API gravity 15-25API

Insitu

viscosity= 10-

1000cP

But at low temperatures and higher viscousity

there is a larger
viscosity effect on Oil

2009 Baker Hughes Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. 35
Insitu

viscosity= 10-

1000cP
why is screening problematic

2009 Baker Hughes Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. 36
As temperature

thechangeinoil
viscositygoesup
~50 time drop
~10 time drop
37
What Really Controls Recovery?
Recovery Factor = E
Recovery Factor = E
d
d

E
E
vol
vol
Without Horizontal Well
E
E
vol vol

volumetric efficiency
volumetric efficiency
E
E
d d

displacement efficiency
displacement efficiency
Maximize the
contacted rock
volume
Epic Copyright 2009
38
where:
E
d

=

displacement efficiency
S
oi

=

initial oil saturation
ROS

=

the remaining average oil saturation after
one movable pore volume has been
injected.
oi
oi
d
S
ROS S
E
) (

Displacement Efficiency
ROS is high for heavy
oils therefore change
Is significant if oil
saturated with CO
2
Summary
Limited immiscible pilots in literature show the promise
immiscible CO
2

flooding
Laboratory work seems to show promise of improved
recovery (RF=6-15%OOIP)
Field projects show promise
Simulation of Canadian pilot shows;
@
oil

= 30cP (RF
CO2-wtrfld

=7%OOIP)
Simulation sensitivity @
oil

= 5cP (RF
CO2-wtrfld

~+20%OOIP)
Screening
Oil saturation S
O current

>50%
Successful waterflood; volumetric sweep E
vol

>50%