Paul Button and Chris Peterson KinderMorgan

1
Paul Button and Chris Peterson KinderMorgan
Enhanced Gravity Drainage Through Immiscible CO2
Injection in the Yates Field (Tx)

• 10th ANNUAL CO2 FLOODING CONFRENCE
• Midland, TX
• December 2004
• www.spe-pb.org

2
Yates Field Unit - Location Map

• 90 miles South Midland/Odessa
• SE tip of Central Basin Platform
• Structural high point of the CBP
• 26,423 Acres

3
General Facts History

• Field Discovery - October 28, 1926
  (Ira Yates 67th birthday)

• Discovery Well I. G. Yates A No. 1 (Unit
  Well No. 4901)

4
Structure on Top of the San Andres Formation
Vertical Exaggeration 9x.
North
5
Type of Reservoir

• Highly Fractured Carbonate

6
Stratigraphy
7
East-West Permeability Slice
High Permeability Zones
8
3-D View of San Andres Structure with Fracture
Connection Overlay
9
Yates Original Oil in Place (OOIP)
Gross BBO .
7Rv/Qn/Gbg 0.5 SA (above 1,050)
2.8 SA (950 to 1,050) 1.4 Total
(above 950) 4.2 SA (below 950)
0.3 TOTAL 5.0
1,050
950
10
Production History
BOPD
11
General Facts History

• Field Discovery - October 28, 1926
• Highest Oil Rate 205,000 BPD
  (Well No. 4930 in 1929)
• Total Wells in 1929 315
• Total Production Capacity of Wells Exceeded
  2 MMBOPD!
• Unitized July 1, 1976

12
General Facts History
Gas Plant built in 1961 to recover natural
gas liquids and prevent flaring
13
General Facts History

• West Side of Field
• Waterflood started in 1979
• Produced using pumping units
• Polymer injection from 1983 - 1989

• East Side of Field
• In-field drilling continued into the mid 80s
• East side had flowing wells
• A distinct east/west line of demarcation was
  considered to exist in the field

14
General Facts History
1985-1991 CO2 injected into the gas cap on east
side of the field for pressure maintenance
15
General Facts History

• 1993 Nitrogen injection from ASU 1 (30 MMCFD)
  initiated for pressure maintenance
• 1996 ASU 2 (60 MMCFD) increased nitrogen
  injection.

16
General Facts History

• 1998 - WALRUS program initiated
• Acronym for Wettability Alteration of Reservoirs
  Using Surfactant
• Surfactant was added with produced water and
  injected into the reservoir to enhance oil
  movement

WALRUS Process
17
General Facts History
1998 Water Export commenced for
reservoir management
18
General Facts History
1999 2002 Steam injection pilot was run
post-evaluation in progress.
19
Historical Recovery Techniques

• Primary Depletion/Natural Bottom Water Drive
  (NBWD) (1926 1976)
• Gas Injection/Limited NBWD (1976 1985)
• West Side Water Flood/Polymer Augmented WF
  (1981-1988)
• East Side CO2 Injection (1985 - 1991)
• Double Displacement Process (Co-Production)
  (1993-2000)
• Gravity Drainage (2000 Present)

20
Yates Field Reservoir
Tertiary DDP
Recovery Processes
Secondary Pressure Maintenance
Tertiary Thermal WALRUS
Tertiary CO2 PAW
Primary Depletion
Gravity Drainage Process
Unit Formed
21
YFU Extraneous Gas Injection
120000
90000
Effective Free Gas Additions (MCFPD)
60000
30000
0
Jul-76
Jul-77
Jul-78
Jul-79
Jul-80
Jul-81
Jul-82
Jul-83
Jul-84
Jul-85
Jul-86
Jul-87
Jul-88
Jul-89
Jul-90
Jul-91
Jul-92
Jul-93
Jul-94
Jul-95
Jul-96
Jul-97
Jul-98
Jul-99
Jul-00
CO2
C1
N2
Solution gas
Flue gas
22
Yates Reservoir History
23
Yates Field Unit Saturation Profile
Frac
Frac
Frac
GOC
1200
Frac
Matrix
Matrix
Matrix
Matrix
GOC
WOC
WOC
1050
GOC
WOC
WOC
850
1926
1976
1990s
Present
24
Reservoir Review
So, Why Gravity Drainage?
25
Reservoir Recovery Process Screening
30
Gravity And Capillary Replacement Processes
Yates
Formation Porosity
Displacement Processes
Neutral Zone
Depletion Processes
0
Low
High
Total Formation Heterogeneity
26
Matrix surrounded by fluid-filled fractures
27
Matrix exposed to gas-filled fractures
28
Matrix exposed to gas-filled fractures
29
Matrix exposed to gas-filled fractures
30
Mobilization
1) Oil drains vertically through matrix until
downward movement is limited by phase mobility.
GOC
WOC
31
Mobilization
1) Oil drains vertically through matrix until
downward movement is limited by phase mobility.
GOC
WOC
2) When vertical mobility is limited, the oil
migrates laterally into fractures and is
Mobilized to be available for Capture.
32
Operations Material Balance
109 MMCFD CO2

222 MMCFD
113 MMCFD Prod
17.6 MMCFD N2 Vent
14.8 MMCFD Fuel
417,000 BWPD
3.3 MMCFD Gas Sales
550 NGLPD
151 MMCFD
24,500 BOPD
1040 Current GOC
1050 Original WOC
1015 Current WOC
392,000 BWPD
25,000 BWPD Export
33
Average Contacts Connected Wells
34
Resaturation
1) Resaturation is controlled by maintaining the
position of the contacts 2) Goal - prevent
downward movement of the oil column
So to .89
Sw to .11
GOC 1045
WOC 1015
35
Yates Horizontal Drilling Operations/Results
Production response from HDH wells
36
Why CO2 at Yates ??

• After active fluid contact movement stopped need
  to develop method to enhance gravity drainage
  above Nitrogen injection
• Possible EOR Processes
• Thermal - Expensive and doesnt replace voidage
• Methane Injection Expensive for voidage
  replacement
• NGL Injection Expensive and technically
  challenging
• Immiscible CO2 Reasonable cost and positive
  compositional effects

37
Why Immiscible CO2 Will Work at Yates

• Compositional effects of Nitrogen Injection
• Strips light end components
• Increase oil viscosity
• Negative impact on Kro
• Compositional effects of Immiscible CO2
• Decrease oil viscosity
• Lab tests -25 from Non-stripped sample
• Lab tests -50 from N2 stripped sample
• Model 30 from N2 processed oil
• Positive impact on Kro
• Lab tests 5 from Non-stripped sample
• Lab tests 12 from N2 stripped sample
• Model 7-8 from N2 processed oil
• CO2 injection results in improved oil mobility
  vs. Nitrogen injection

Oil Mobility K Kro m
38
Yates Compositional Model History Match

• Reasonable match on all
• fluids
• Major oil difference due to
• documented leak oil
• Water match on exported
• water

• Reasonable pressure match
• Discrepancy due to large
• difference in fluid contacts across
• the reservoir in late 80s and 90s

39
Yates Compositional Model History Match

• Reasonable fluid contact match
• based on available data early time
• Very good fluid contact match
• late time

• Reasonable oil saturation match
• based on 1984 log saturation study
• Projection of current matrix oil
• saturation

40
Projected Oil Response from Yates Immiscible CO2
Injection Project
41
Immiscible CO2 Injection Design

• Vertical Placement
• Concentrate CO2 within 50 of current GOC
• Areal Placement
• NW portion of Field (Area with high N2 content)
• Planned CO2 Migration
• Vertical
• Migration Upward to GLM
• Areal
• Recycle through Gas Plant and injected in SE Area

CO2 Target Area
CO2 Recycle Area
42
Implementation of Immiscible CO2 Injection

• CO2 injection started March 1st 2004
• Used existing infrastructure to distribute CO2 to
  injection wells
• Converted gassed-out horizontal producers to CO2
  injectors within 50 of current gas-oil contact
• Initiated injection at 42.5 MMCFD of CO2
• N2 Rejection started March 2005
• Current CO2 injection rate 109 MMCFD

43
Cumulative CO2 Injected Since March, 2004
Total CO2 Injected 45.7 BCF
CO2 Inj. Well
Gas Inj. Well
CO2 Area
Non-CO2 Area
44
CO2 Injection Assessment
Different GOR Behavior
CO2 Area Is Oilier
Different Vertical Declines
Non-CO2 Area
45
CO2 Injection Assessment
46
CO2 Injection Assessment
47
CO2 Injection Assessment
48
CO2 Injection Assessment
49
CO2 Injection Assessment
50
Current Production
51
Yates Field Response VS. Modeling Predictions

• Field response much earlier than model predicted
• Portion of early oil production response may be
  response to redistribution of gas injection

52
Projected Oil Response from Yates Immiscible CO2
Injection Project
53
8801 OBS
8816
8815
Flush oil from thinning Imitates CO2 response
54
Yates CO2 Expansion Options

• Modify Existing Facilities
• Increase N2 Rejection (to 30 MMCFD)
• CO2 Processing
• Expand Delivery Capacity
• Pipeline Pump
• Mix CO2 with Recycle Gas
• New Facility Potential
• New gas processing facility N2 Rejection
• Additional Pipeline for CO2 Delivery
• Simulation Driven