Field Demonstration of CO2Miscible Flooding

in the Lansing-Kansas City Formation, Central Kansas

April 7, 2005Sixteenth Oil Recovery ConferenceWichita, KSG. Paul Willhite

Class II Revisited DE-AC26-00BC15124

Murfin and WI Partners

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

• Oil in tank and provide sufficient information to expand to commercial scale

Type LogCO2#18

L-KC “C” divided into 6 Layers-three flooding cycles

• General Properties*– C1: 8 md, 18.8%– C2: 150 md, 25.8%– C3: 40 md, 22.0%– C4: 6 md, 19.4%– C5: 2 md, 14.7%– C6: 0.3 md, 12.0%

• *- CO2#18 exhibits better properties than average for site

0.0 0.5 1.0Neutron

C1C2C3C4C5C6D

Gamma10

Murfin ColliverCO2 Project

• 70 acre lease• ~10 acre half of

five spot• One CO2 injector• Two Producers• Two Containment

Injectors• 0.290 BCF CO2

injected• 4.6 year operating

life

MurfinColliver

MurfinTB Carter

KM Carter

28

33

14S-13W Russell Co., Kansas

7

10

12

16

1318

CO2I-1

Overview

• Budget Period 1(March 2000-January 2004)– Drill CO2 injection well, technical and economic

evaluation, develop WI partnership(2000-2003)– Drill water supply well and recomplete production

and water injection wells(2003).– Prestartup Activities(August –November 2003)– Continuous CO2 Injection(December -2003)

• Budget Period 2(February 2004-December 2008)-Implementation

• Budget Period 3(January 2009-March 2010)– Post CO2 flood monitoring

CO2#13

CO2#16

CO2#10

Carter 2

CO2#I-1

CO2#12

CO2#18

Carter 5

PPV

Project ManagementPPV= Processable pore volume contacted by carbon dioxide

that is produced by pattern production wells

• PPV~170,000 RB• Must be able to inject at 84.8 RB/D(to account for losses)

and produce from PPV at a rate of 14 PPV%/year(65.2 RB/D).

• Adequate productivity in CO2# 12 and 13 to complete demonstration project within the 5 year time window in the DOE project.

)1( 2orCOiwp SSVPPV −−=

Project Management• Control injection rates into CO2I-1, CO2#10 and

CO2#18 to maintain minimum miscibility pressure(~1200 psi) in most of the PPV to ensure miscible displacement and control CO2 loss to the north

• Monitor production rates and balance with CO2 injection – ~29% of the production from CO2#12 is from the PPV– ~87% of the production from CO2#13 is from the PPV

• Control Injection/Withdrawal Ratio from PPV to 1 after allowance for carbon dioxide losses to the north.

Prestartup Activities

• Demonstrate connectivity between CO2I-1 and CO2#13

• Demonstrate that the estimated pattern volume can be processed within the time frame of the project(5 years)

• Installation of CO2 injection equipment• Pressurization of pilot area• Establish withdrawal rates at CO2#12 and

#13

AplexA-50

Portable Storage Tank

ControlValve

Vent

P TFlowmeters

Data Acquisition Control System

P

CorkenCharge Pump

AplexA-50

Portable Storage Tank

ControlValve

Vent

P TFlowmeters

Data Acquisition Control System

P

CorkenCharge Pump

CO2 Injection Facilities

Injection Skid

Aplex A-50 Triplex

Flowmeter at CO2I-1

Carbon Dioxide Injectivity

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005

Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

MC

FD

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004

Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Ven

t Los

s, %

of I

njec

ted

CO2

Replace Plungersin Aplex A-50

Vent Loss from Portable Storage Tank

Estimated Reservoir Pressure Distribution

Summary of CO2 InjectedFebruary 2005

• Cumulative Injected– 112.25 MMSCF

• CO2 Available for Project– 290 MMSCF

• % Injected– 38.7

• % Surface Losses– 11.4% of amount injected

• PPV Injected– 33.5%

• CO2 Loss to North and Out of Zone – 29-39%

CO2 Injectivity TestCO2 I-1January 27, 2005

•14% in C1/Upper C2

•0% in Middle C2 zone

•34% in Lower C2/Upper C3

•52% in C3

•Middle C2 zone-shingle with limited lateral extent??

•86% of injection is into low permeability intervals of C2/C3 zone

•Production response will be delayed

Transition in Permeability

Gonzalez & Eberli (1997)

Tidal Channel Spillover Lobe

Ripples on Top ofSand Bars

Prograding ForesetsSand WaveBase Level

Ripples on Channel Floor

Gonzalez & Eberli (1997)

Tidal Channel Spillover Lobe

Ripples on Top ofSand Bars

Prograding ForesetsSand WaveBase Level

Ripples on Channel Floor

Higher Permeability100’s md

Moderate Permeability10’s md

Higher Permeability100’s md

Moderate Permeability10’s md

Low k contact

CO2I#1 Colliver #13

Oil Production-Total Pattern

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005

Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

Oil

Rate

, B/D

CO2#13CO2#12

Treated CO2#13 with Two tanks of CO2 12-9-04 and SI for26 days

0

50

100

150

200

250

2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005

Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

Liqu

id R

ate,

B/D

CO2#12CO2#13

CO2#13-Huff and PuffSI-December 9

Liquid Production Rates

Cumulative Oil Production

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Sep-03 Dec-03 Mar-04 Jul-04 Oct-04 Jan-05 Apr-05

Cum

ulat

ive

Oil

Prod

uced

, STB

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Nov

Dec

Jan

FebMarc

h

April

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

GO

R, S

CF/S

TB

CO2 Production in CO2#12

CO2 Production in CO2#13

Produced GOR-Total Pattern

Summary • Oil and carbon dioxide production rates differ from

West Texas experience.– Oil rate increases before substantial amount of CO2 is

produced.– CO2 rate and GOR are relatively constant.– Do not know if this is related to reservoir heterogeneity,

saturation distributions or the pore structure.• CO2 production rate still within acceptable values.-

WAG not needed yet to control CO2 yet.• Carbon dioxide injection rate has exceeded and fell

behind the fluid withdrawal rate from the PPV. Need to provide better control in the field.

Summary • Injected CO2 is confined to the C zone• Primary oil bank generated by CO2 injection has

not arrived at either CO2#12 or CO2#13• GOR is relatively constant at ~4000-little CO2

channeling • Late arrival of oil bank appears to be due to

more complex areal reservoir heterogeneity in the pattern

• CO2#13 responded to CO2 stimulation-cannot determine if increased oil production is due to stimulation or connection with the oil bank

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2/27 3/4 3/9 3/14 3/19 3/24 3/29 4/3 4/8

Patte

rn O

il R

ate,

B/D

0

50

100

150

200

250

Wat

er P

rodu

ctio

n R

ate,

B/D

Replace PumpCO2#12

Vent CO2#12 Annulusto Atmosphere