Field Demonstration of CO2 Miscible Flooding

in the Lansing-Kansas City Formation, Central Kansas

Alan P. Byrnes (KGS, PM-BP1)

Class II Revisited DE-AC26-00BC15124

Murfin Drilling Co.

G. Paul Willhite (TORP, 2&3)

Central Kansas CO2 Pilot Overview

• Producibility Problem

• Central Kansas Resource Target

• Project Overview

• Pilot Site

• Demonstration Site Characteristics

• Present Status

• Producibility Problem

• Central Kansas Resource Target

• Project Overview

• Pilot Site

• Demonstration Site Characteristics

• Present Status

Kansas Oil Production History6.6 Billion Barrels to Date

Kansas Geological SurveyKansas Geological Survey

Gorham Oil Field –1928(Walters, 1991)

Producibility Problems• Primary producibility problem is that the

reservoirs have been depleted by effective waterflood

• Require technology that can mobilize residual oil

• Uncertainty in effectiveness of CO2 flooding process for central Kansas reservoir conditions

• No present economic supply of CO2 to Central Kansas

• Primary producibility problem is that the reservoirs have been depleted by effective waterflood

• Require technology that can mobilize residual oil

• Uncertainty in effectiveness of CO2 flooding process for central Kansas reservoir conditions

• No present economic supply of CO2 to Central Kansas

Central Kansas Oil Production

Kansas Total

6.6 Billion

Central Kansas Uplift Total

2.4 Billion

Kansas Total

6.6 Billion

Central Kansas Uplift Total

2.4 Billion

Arbuckle1,629 MMBO

L-KC613 MMBO

Mississippian53 MMBO

Shawnee73 MMBO

Ten County Central Kansas Uplift Production

LKC Pilot

Kansas Geological SurveyKansas Geological Survey

Purpose of Demonstration

• Determine the technical and economic feasibility of using CO2 miscible flooding to recover residual and bypassed oil in LKC shallow shelf carbonates.

• Develop reservoir data for the LKC and Hall-Gurney for other floods

• Develop an understanding of operating costs and operating experience for CO2 miscible flooding in Lansing-Kansas City reservoirs and central Kansas

• Prove up process and resource base to bring a pipeline in to central Kansas

General Demonstration Tasks

• Characterize the reservoir• Model the flood using reservoir simulation• Drill new injector for demonstration site• Design and construct facilities, rework wells, and

perform preliminary injection/connectivity tests• Implement the planned flood (BP2)• Monitor the flood process (BP2 & BP3)

BP1

Comparison Summary of Project Costs

Original 10+ acre

Total Project $5.40 $4.42CO2 Purchase & Transport $2.00 $0.87Research, Technology Transfer $1.50 $1.70Capital Costs (wells, etc.) $1.10 $0.92Operations $0.80 $0.93

FundingShell CO2 Company Inc. $1.63Kinder-Morgan CO2 Company LP $0.25US Energy Partners / ICM Inc. $0.38MV Energy LLC $0.83

Murfin Drilling Partnership $0.90U.S Department of Energy $1.89 $1.70University of Kansas $0.94 $1.00State of Kansas (KDOCH) $0.10 $0.19

Costs (millions $)

Pilot Site Located in Largest LKC Field: Hall-Gurney

Pilot Site Located in Largest LKC Field: Hall-Gurney

55 MMBO

19 MMBO

Evolution of Flood Pattern

10+Acre Pattern

• 10+ acre, four-spot

• 1 CO2 injector

• 3 Producers

• 2 Containment Water Injectors

• 0.29 BCF CO2 injected-WAG

• 6 year operating life

• 28,000 BO estimated recovery

• 10+ acre, four-spot

• 1 CO2 injector

• 3 Producers

• 2 Containment Water Injectors

• 0.29 BCF CO2 injected-WAG

• 6 year operating life

• 28,000 BO estimated recovery

Originally CO2 was being trucked 200 miles from Guymon,OK

CO2 now being supplied by USEP ethanol plant only 7 miles away in Russell, KS

Colliver-Carter CO2 Injection Well drilled October 2000 (view from the SE corner of the Colliver lease

Colliver 13

Carter-Colliver #1 CO2 I Coring

Conventional core in upper 2 feet (right) was successful. High-pressure core (above) was disaggregated in porous intervals

(Scholle & James, 1995)

Modern Ooid Shoal,Great Bahama Banks

LKC Oomoldic Limestone pervasive across KS Shelf

and similar worldwide

L-KC CO2 I #1 2903 ft

•Early pore cementation•Ooid dissolution•Crushing

Carter-Colliver #1 CO2 I

0102030

Neutron-Density

Porosity %

Neutron-Density

Porosity %Gamma RayGamma Ray

LansingLansing“A”“A”

“B”“B”

“C”“C”

“D”“D”

“E”“E”

Conventional CoreConventional Core

10’ Pressure Cores10’ Pressure Cores807

441

RF

T P

ress

ures

IPP 1BO + 50 BWPD, NatIPP 1BO + 50 BWPD, Nat

Kansas Geological SurveyKansas Geological Survey

2888

2890

2892

2894

2896

2898

2900

2902

2904

2906

2908

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Permeability (md)

De

pth

(ft

)

CO2 #1 Plug K

Colliver #1 Whole Core K

24 Layer

CO2 #1 Whole Core K

Water Saturations in Carter-Colliver CO2 I#1

Minimum Miscibility Pressure in Hall-Gurney LKC

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350

Average Slimtube Pressure (psig)

Slim

tub

e R

eco

very

(%

)

API = 37.5o-38.4oAPI = 37.5o-38.4o

TORP

Demonstration Site Description• Lansing-Kansas City “C”

zone• Oomoldic Limestone• Depth – 2,900 feet• Net thickness - 15 feet• Porosity – 24-30%• Permeability – 10-200 md• Estimated residual oil

saturation after waterflooding - >30%

• Initial Pressure - ~1250 psig

• Primary Drive - Solution Gas

• Lease location- – Colliver: E/2SW/4&SE/4

Sec 28-14S-13W

• 10+ acre, four-spot• 1-injector, 3-producers, 2-

containment injectors• Estimated Lease Primary

Recovery – 23% OOIP• Estimated Lease

Secondary Recovery – 27% OOIP

• Estimated Site CO2 Recovery 23,000-36,000 BO

Model Characteristics• 6 & 13 layer models (15 ft thick

reservoir)• Grid blocks : 110’x110’ block size• Models :

– Black oil for history match of primary & secondary production

– Six pseudocomponent, fully compositional model for CO2 simulation

• Single initial average (pseudo-) water saturation for each layer

• Pseudo-relative permeability curves and capillary pressure curves for each layer

Reservoir Simulation of 10+acre CO2 Flood182 days 367 days 762 days

1097 days 3714 days

Tertiary Oil

Recovery Project

Layer 2

Model-Predicted Production10+acre Predicted Production

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Time (years)

Pro

du

cti

on

(M

ST

B/Y

r)

K-M High PPV

K-M Mid PPV

TORP VIP Sorw=S171

TORP VIP Sorw = 30%

Range = 22,300-36,600 BO

CO2 Supply and Sequestration

•Multiple Goals

•Prove viability of process and extend pipeline from Guymon, OK to central KS

•Perform CO2 sequestration utilizing CO2 from ethanol plant and demonstrate linked-systems

Summary•Kansas EOR potential using CO2 flooding may exceed 200-500 MMBO – if potential proves up, the LKC and Arbuckle in central KS have sufficient resource to support a pipeline

•Partners in Lansing-Kansas City Demonstration Flood

•Murfin Drilling Company, Inc.

• Kinder-Morgan CO2 Co. LP

•US Energy Partners LLC/ICM

•U.S. Department of Energy

•KGS and TORP, University of Kansas

•Kansas Department of Commerce & Housing

•Reservoir Characterization and Simulation are Complete

•New CO2 Injector– being prepared for initial water injection

•Producers (#12, #13, #16) being reworked

•CO2 being supplied from ethanol plant and in-kind contribution

•Initial CO2 injection begins in 2nd quarter 2003

www.kgs.ukans.edu/ERC/CO2Pilot

Read more about it

Sunrise on CO2

flooding in Kansas

Sunrise on CO2

flooding in Kansas