1 / 32

Carbon Dioxide Flooding in Central Kansas Reservoirs

Carbon Dioxide Flooding in Central Kansas Reservoirs. G. Paul Willhite Tertiary Oil Recovery Project. Tertiary Oil Recovery Advisory Board October 19-20,2001. Minimum Miscibility Pressure. Requirements for Carbon Dioxide Miscible Flooding.

satya
Download Presentation

Carbon Dioxide Flooding in Central Kansas Reservoirs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Carbon DioxideFlooding in Central Kansas Reservoirs G. Paul Willhite Tertiary Oil Recovery Project Tertiary Oil Recovery Advisory Board October 19-20,2001

  2. Minimum Miscibility Pressure

  3. 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

  4. Minimum Miscibility Pressure in Hall-Gurney LKC Tertiary Oil Recovery Project

  5. 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

  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. 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

  8. Components of Carbon Dioxide Program • Phase I:Conduct 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. Field Demonstration of CO2 Miscible Flooding in the L-KC, Central Kansas March 7,2000 Class II Revisited DE-AC26-00BC15124 MV Energy LLC

  12. L-KC Recoveries in Hall-Gurney and Trapp Cumulative Production Primary + Secondary Lansing-Kansas City (Per Section Basis) > 8 MBO/acre 6-8 MBO/acre 4-6 MBO/acre 2-4 MBO/acre Kansas Geological Survey

  13. 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

  14. 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)

  15. 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 • >80,000 BO estimated recovery during DOE • >20,000 BO in 3 years after DOE Project

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. William Flanders

  19. 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

  20. 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 pressure~1050-1150 psi • Well connected to an aquifer

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. Location of Ethanol Plant & CO2 EOR Site Kansas Geological Survey

  24. Field Demonstration of CO2 Miscible Flooding in the L-KC,Central KansasProject Extension http://www.kgs.ukans.edu/CO2/reports.html October 1, 2001 Class II Revisited DE-AC26-00BC15124 MV Energy LLC

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. Expanded DemonstrationProject • 60 acre • 2 CO2 injectors • 6 Producers • 6 Containment Water Injectors • 0.85 BCF CO2 injected-WAG • 8 year operating life • >96,000 BO estimated recovery • Final pattern is still evolving

  29. 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 CO2 Pilot Project Team Kansas Geological Survey Tertiary Oil Recovery Project

  30. Critical Issues Remaining • Pattern Selection • Recompletion of old wells • Arbuckle reevaluation • Arbuckle potential • Properties of oil • MMP-nitrogen content

More Related