Carbon Dioxide
Flooding in Kansas
Reservoirs
G. Paul Willhite
Tertiary Oil Recovery
Project
14th Oil Recovery Conference, March 14-15,2001
Minimum Miscibility Pressure
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
Minimum Miscibility Pressure
in Hall-Gurney LKC
Sample Information
Average
Lab
Slimtube Slimtube Measured
Field
Field
Sample Pressure Percent
API
Name
Operator
Location (psig) Recovery Gravity
Hall-Gurney Shields Oil Producers Letsch #10 1006
47.4
37.5
1208
85.3
1210
86.3
1297
90.2
Hall-Gurney Hallwood Petroleum Olson C#5 1225
89.1
38.4
Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
Outline of Presentation
Research on Carbon Dioxide Miscible
Flooding Technology Applied to Kansas
Reservoirs
 Carbon Dioxide Flooding in Central
Kansas Reservoirs
 Field Demonstration Project Hall-Gurney
Field
 The Carbon Dioxide Supply

Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
Research on Carbon Dioxide
Miscible Flooding Technology
Potential Application of CO2 Process in
Kansas(1979-1981)
 Evaluation of LKC CO2 Potential(19861989)
 The Southwest Kansas CO2 Initiative
(1997-1998)
 The Central Kansas Initiative(1998- )

Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
Outline of Presentation
Research on Carbon Dioxide Miscible
Flooding Technology Applied to Kansas
Reservoirs
 Carbon Dioxide Flooding in Central
Kansas Reservoirs
 Field Demonstration Project Hall-Gurney
Field
 The Carbon Dioxide Supply

Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
Carbon Dioxide Flooding in
Central Kansas Reservoirs
Central Kansas Initiative
(1998 KTEC
(1999-2000)
 DOE Class Revisited Project
(2000-2005)
Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
Carbon Dioxide
Flooding in Central
Kansas Reservoirs
A Cooperative Program Involving Shell
CO2 Ltd(Kinder Morgan), Energy
Research Center at University of
Kansas( TORP, KGS)
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
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
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(Shell CO2, Ltd/Kinder Morgan)
Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
KTEC Contract Results

Collected representative Arbuckle oil
samples and determined the MMP and
basic properties of these oils

Compiled a data base of LKC reservoirs
and identified potential sites where
pilot-scale demonstrations would be
effective
Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
KTEC ContractResults(Continued)

Measured rock properties to provide
input to reservoir characterization and
simulation

Performed reservoir characterization of
potential LKC sites within Hall Gurney
and to identify optimal sites for CO2
screening simulations
Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
KTEC ContractResults(Continued)
Simulated CO2 miscible flood response at
selected sites with screening models
 Developed an economic model of the
demonstration sites and the regional resource
 Prepared a proposal for the DOE Class
Revisited Program to support a field
demonstration program in the Hall-Gurney
Field(May 1999)
 Project Completion Report(September 2000)

Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
Hall-Gurney
LKC Oil Resource10 County Area
Lease Scale Economic
Variables-CO2 Flooding
CO2 cost
$1/mcf
Oil price
$20/bbl
Capital cost
$4,000,000/sec
CO2 utilization 5/10 mcf/bbl (net/gross)
Recovery
30% Primary + Secondary
Operations
$400-600M/yr/sec
NRI
84%
Residual Oil Volume
????
Kansas Geological Survey
CO2 Costs vs. Oil Price for 20 % IRR
CO2 Cost / MCF
$2.50
$2.00
Assumes all other
parameters in "Base Case"
remain constant
Base Case:
$20/bbl Oil
$1.00/mcf CO2
$1.66 / MCF CO2
12% OOIP
$1.50
$1.00
$1
7
$0.50
$15
$20
$25
Oil Price / BBL
Kansas Geological Survey
$30
Base Case:
Sensitivity to Oil Price
$20/bbl Oil
$1.00/mcf CO2
$25 Oil
$20 Oil
$15 Oil
2.1 MBO
IRR (BFIT)
Approximate Lower
Economic Limit
Kansas Geological Survey
3.5 Net MBO/ Acre
12% OOIP
Probable Upper Limit
L-KC Reservoirs
Central Kansas Uplift
Required Recovery for 20% IRR
$20 Oil
Recovery Required: 2,500 gross BO/acre
Recovery Factor
Resource Threshold
30% P+S
8,500 BO/acre
25% P+S
10,200 BO/acre
$25 Oil
Recovery Required: 1,650 gross BO/acre
Recovery Factor
Resource Threshold
30% P+S
5,500 BO/acre
25% P+S
6,600 BO/acre
Kansas Geological Survey
Outline of Presentation
Research on Carbon Dioxide Miscible
Flooding Technology Applied to Kansas
Reservoirs
 Carbon Dioxide Flooding in Central
Kansas Reservoirs
 Field Demonstration Project HallGurney Field
 The Carbon Dioxide Supply

Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
Field Demonstration of CO2 Miscible
Flooding in the L-KC,
Central Kansas
March 7,2000
Class II Revisited DE-AC26-00BC15124
MV Energy LLC
L-KC Recoveries
in Hall-Gurney and Trapp
Hall-Gurney
Cumulative Production
Primary + Secondary
Lansing-Kansas City
(Per Section Basis)
Pilot Site
> 8 MBO/acre
6-8 MBO/acre
Trapp
4-6 MBO/acre
2-4 MBO/acre
Kansas Geological Survey
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
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)
Demonstration
Design
Summary
55 acre, nine-spot
 2 CO2 injectors
 7 Producers
 5 Containment Water
Injectors
 0.843 BCF CO2 injectedWAG
 4.6 year operating life
 >80,000 BO estimated
recovery during DOE
 >20,000 BO in 3 years
after DOE Project

Outline of Presentation
Research on Carbon Dioxide Miscible
Flooding Technology Applied to Kansas
Reservoirs
 Carbon Dioxide Flooding in Central
Kansas Reservoirs
 Field Demonstration Project Hall-Gurney
Field
 The Carbon Dioxide Supply

Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
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 HallGurney Field anchor a pipeline?

Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
Pipeline Cost Estimates*
Distance is 220 miles to Hall-Gurney
 Other LKC areas would require 110
miles of lateral lines
 Pipeline cost is $22,000/inch-mile
 Ten year amortization of capital cost at
10% based on 80% of line capacity
 CO2 is available at Postle Field at
pipeline pressure

*William Flanders, Transpetco Engineering
Pipeline Considerations
CO2 oil recovered is 25% of Primary
and Secondary
 Net CO2 required is ~4 mcf/BO
 Risk assessment=fraction of operators
who would install floods

Hall Gurney “Golden Trend”70%
 Nearby LKC areas(Lateral)50%

William Flanders
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

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

Determining Distribution of “Low”
Pressure Arbuckle
Concept: Low SIP on DST’s in mature production indicates
less effective water drive than in areas with higher SIP
Methodology: Map SIP for infill and replacement wells in
mature Arbuckle fields. DST’s in top 30 feet and
> 80 feet of fluid recovery.
Preliminary results: Significant contiguous areas have lower
pressures than would be anticipated for strong water drives.
Original BHP
“Normal” pressured areas
Moderate pressured areas
“Low” pressured areas
Kansas Geological Survey
1150#
1050#
550-750#
300-550#
“Low” Pressure Arbuckle,
Bemis Field, Ellis Co. Kansas
Arbuckle Production
Total Cum.: 221 MMBO
More than 8 MBO/acre
All
200 MMBO
550-750 psi* 70 MMBO
<550 psi*
20 MMBO
“High”
Moderate
*recent DST’s in top of Arbuckle
Note: Data is very preliminary
Low
DST SIP overlain by Arbuckle Structure
Kansas Geological Survey
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
Location of
Ethanol Plant &
CO2 EOR Site
Kansas Geological Survey
Carbon Dioxide Supply-ICM Plant



CO2 supply capable of supporting small scale
commercial operation in the Hall Gurney Field(~1
BCF/year)
Cost to deliver CO2 at 1500 psi at the field is on the
order of $1.00/mcf for commercial scale operation
Working with ICM to secure CO2 supply for LKC CO2
demonstration project
Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
http://www.kgs.ukans.edu/CO2/reports.html
UPDATE: Field Demonstration of CO2
Miscible Flooding in the L-KC,
Central Kansas
Martin K. Dubois
Class II Revisited DE-AC26-00BC15124
Kansas Geological Survey
MV Energy LLC
KGSociety Tech Meeting, March 1, 2001
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)

Tertiary Oil Recovery Project









MV Energy LLC





G. Paul Willhite
Don W. Green
Shapour Vossoughi
Jyun-Syung Tsau
Richard Pancake
Rodney Reynolds
Rajesh Kunjithaya
Ed Clark
Dave Murfin
Jim Daniels
Larry Jack
Niall Avison
U.S. Department of Energy


Edith C. Allison (Prgrm Mngr)  State of Kansas (Dept. of Commerce)
Daniel Ferguson (Project
Mngr)
 ICM, Inc. Dave Vander Griend
Kansas Geological Survey
Tertiary Oil Recovery Project
The Potential for Carbon
Dioxide Flooding in Kansas
Kansas oil production
96,000 B/D
 Oil production from CO2* 12,500 B/D

*CO2 Pipeline @ 50 MMCFD
CO2 oil production at 4 MCF/BO
Tertiary Oil Recovery Project