Carbon%20Dioxide%20Flooding%20in%20Central%20Kansas%20Reservoirs

1
Carbon DioxideFlooding in Central Kansas
Reservoirs

• G. Paul Willhite
• Tertiary Oil Recovery Project

Tertiary Oil Recovery Advisory Board October
19-20,2001
2
(No Transcript)
3
Minimum Miscibility Pressure
4
Requirements for Carbon Dioxide Miscible Flooding

• Minimum miscibility pressure must be determined
  for Kansas crude oils
• Must be possible to re-pressure reservoir to
  reach MMP during the displacement process
• Carbon dioxide must be available at a price that
  will make the process economic

Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
5
Minimum Miscibility Pressure in Hall-Gurney LKC
Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
6
Outline of Presentation

• The Central Kansas Initiative
• Field Demonstration Project Hall-Gurney Field
• The Carbon Dioxide Supply
• New Partner
• Expanded DOE Project

Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
7
Outline of Presentation

• The Central Kansas Initiative
• Field Demonstration Project Hall-Gurney Field
• The Carbon Dioxide Supply
• New Partner
• Expanded DOE Project

Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
8
Central Kansas Initiative Overall Objective

• Verify technical and economic viability of the
  application of CO2 miscible flooding to Central
  Kansas oil fields
• Critical element Demonstrate sufficient field
  performance(oil in the tank) to justify the
  development of a carbon dioxide pipeline into
  Central Kansas

Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
9
Components of Carbon Dioxide Program

• Phase IConduct a feasibility study on Arbuckle
  and Lansing Kansas City Reservoirs(KTEC Contract)
• Phase II Select a site and design one or more
  field pilot CO2 miscible floods(DOE Class Program
  Revisited)

Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
10
Components of Carbon Dioxide Program(Continued)

• Phase III Construct and operate the CO2
  pilot(DOE Class Program Revisited)
• Phase IV Evaluate technical and economic
  performance of pilot(DOE Class Program Revisited)
• Phase V Build a CO2 pipeline into Central
  Kansas(Kinder Morgan)

Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
11
Outline of Presentation

• The Central Kansas Initiative
• Field Demonstration Project Hall-Gurney Field
• The Carbon Dioxide Supply
• New Partner
• Expanded DOE Project

Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
12
Field Demonstration of CO2 Miscible Flooding in
the L-KC, Central Kansas
March 7,2000
Class II Revisited DE-AC26-00BC15124
MV Energy LLC
13
L-KC Recoveries in Hall-Gurney and Trapp
Cumulative Production Primary
Secondary Lansing-Kansas City (Per Section Basis)
gt 8 MBO/acre
6-8 MBO/acre
4-6 MBO/acre
2-4 MBO/acre
Kansas Geological Survey
14
Project Economics

• Total Project 5.4 million
• 2.0M CO2 Purchase, transport, recycling
• 1.5M Research, Technology Transfer
• 1.1M Capital Costs (wells, etc.)
• 0.8M Operations (6 years)
• Funding
• 2.4M Kinder-Morgan CO2 Co. LP and Murfin
  Drilling Company
• 1.9M U.S. Department of Energy
• 1.0M KGS and TORP
• 0.1M Kansas Department of Commerce

15
DOE Class Program Revisited

• Central Kansas CO2 Demonstration Project
• Phase 1-Reservoir Characterization( 1 Year)
• Phase 2-Field Demonstration(4 years)
• Phase 3-Monitoring(1 year)

16
Demonstration Design Summary

• 55 acre, nine-spot
• 2 CO2 injectors
• 7 Producers
• 5 Containment Water Injectors
• 0.843 BCF CO2 injected-WAG
• 4.6 year operating life
• gt80,000 BO estimated recovery during DOE
• gt20,000 BO in 3 years after DOE Project

17
Outline of Presentation

• The Central Kansas Initiative
• Field Demonstration Project Hall-Gurney Field
• The Carbon Dioxide Supply
• New Partner
• Expanded DOE Project

Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
18
Carbon Dioxide Supply

• Is the resource base in LKC reservoirs large
  enough to support a pipeline that could deliver
  CO2 at 1.00/mcf?
• Can the Golden Trend in the Hall-Gurney Field
  anchor a pipeline?

Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
19
William Flanders
20
LKC Pipeline Results

• Risk weighted CO2 for LKC is 60-65 BCF -10
• CO2 oil potential from LKC 15-16MMBO
• Not enough LKC resource base to anchor pipeline
• Need 184 BCF risk weighted CO2 to deliver at
  1.00/mcf at 10 IRR/10 year amortization

21
Carbon Dioxide Pipeline

• Need an additional 120 BCF risk weighted CO2
  potential to build 8 pipeline to Central Kansas
• Are Arbuckle reservoirs potential carbon dioxide
  miscible flood candidates?
• Minimum miscibility pressure 1600 psi
• Initial reservoir pressure1050-1150 psi
• Well connected to an aquifer

22
Outline of Presentation

• The Central Kansas Initiative
• Field Demonstration Project Hall-Gurney Field
• The Carbon Dioxide Supply
• New Partner
• Expanded Pilot/DOE Project

Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
23
Carbon Dioxide Supply

• ICM(U.S. Energy Partners, LLC) announces ethanol
  plant to be constructed in Russell(February
  5,2001)
• On stream November 1,2001
• CO2 production 3.4 MMCFD(wet at atmospheric
  pressure)
• 8.5 miles from CO2 demonstration project

Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
24
Location of Ethanol Plant CO2 EOR Site
Kansas Geological Survey
25
Field Demonstration of CO2 Miscible Flooding in
the L-KC,Central KansasProject Extension
http//www.kgs.ukans.edu/CO2/reports.html
Class II Revisited DE-AC26-00BC15124
October 1, 2001
MV Energy LLC
26
Outline of Presentation

• The Central Kansas Initiative
• Field Demonstration Project Hall-Gurney Field
• The Carbon Dioxide Supply
• New Partner
• Expanded Pilot/DOE Project

Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
27
Expanded Pilot Project

• Kinder Morgan reduced financial support
• CO2 available from ICM plant in Russell
• Pilot size increased to provide acceptable
  economic and technical risk to MV Energy, ICM and
  Kinder Morgan
• Budget Period 1 extended to March 2002
• Additional funding obtained from DOE effective
  October 1,2001
• Project extended to 2008
• ICM/Kinder Morgan to provide CO2

28
(No Transcript)
29
Expanded Project Economics

• Total Project 7.56 million
• 2.34 M CO2 Purchase, transport, recycling
• 2.21 M Research, Technology Transfer
• 1.33 M Capital Costs (wells, etc.)
• 1.68 M Operations (8 years)
• Funding
• 2.03 M MV Energy
• 0.52 M Kinder-Morgan CO2 Co. LP
• 0.97 M ICM
• 2.77 M U.S. Department of Energy
• 1.17 M KGS and TORP
• 0.10 M Kansas Department of Commerce

30
Expanded DemonstrationProject

• 60 acre
• 2 CO2 injectors
• 6 Producers
• 6 Containment Water Injectors
• 0.85 BCF CO2 injected-WAG
• 8 year operating life
• gt96,000 BO estimated recovery
• Final pattern is still evolving

31
CO2 Pilot Project Team

• Kansas Geological Survey
• Alan P. Byrnes
• Marty Dubois
• W. Lynn Watney
• Timothy R. Carr
• Willard J. Guy
• John Doveton
• Dana Adkins-Heljeson
• Kenneth Stalder
• Kinder-Morgan CO2 Co. LP
• Russell Martin
• Paul Nunley
• William Flanders(consultant)
• U.S. Department of Energy
• Edith C. Allison (Prgrm Mngr)
• Daniel Ferguson (Project Mngr)

• Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
• G. Paul Willhite
• Don W. Green
• Jyun-Syung Tsau
• Richard Pancake
• Rodney Reynolds
• Rajesh Kunjithaya
• Ed Clark
• MV Energy LLC
• Dave Murfin
• Jim Daniels
• Larry Jack
• Niall Avison
• State of Kansas (Dept. of Commerce)
• ICM, Inc. Dave Vander Griend

Kansas Geological Survey
Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
32
Critical Issues Remaining

• Pattern Selection
• Recompletion of old wells
• Arbuckle reevaluation
• Arbuckle potential
• Properties of oil
• MMP-nitrogen content