Source: Petroleum Economist

Technical Report

Kiskadee Field
By Amanda Hendy, Jamie Ramkissoon and Rakesh Singh
Abstract

Kiskadee Field is a conventional gas field located off the East Coast of Trinidad in the offshore
lease of the Southeast Coast Consortium (Rosen 1997). The Kiskadee Field was discovered in
1977 by a Texaco-led consortium (Rosen 1997, Baptiste and Jagai 2003), and is currently owned
by EOG Resources, Heritage Petroleum and The National Gas Company of Trinidad and Tobago.
The Kiskadee Field originated from sediment deposition from the proto-Orinoco deltaic system
during the Pliocene-Pleistocene epoch. The presence of trace fossils suggest that the sand was
deposited in shallow marine setting. The caprock is a thick shale between 50-100 metres thick,
that was deposited on top of the Kiskadee Sands. There was no gas/water contact found in the well
data, so this reservoir uses volumetric drive mechanism (Baptiste and Jagai 2003). The Kiskadee
Field has produced for more than 20 years from 9 wells; 2 completions are in the Gallinule Sand
at approximately 9000 feet bsl and 7 in the Kiskadee Sand between 15,000 and 16,000 feet bsl
(Rosen 1997). “The peak production was approximately 3.61 thousand bpd of condensate and 157
MMcfd of natural gas in 1998” (Carmen 2021). Since, the natural gas production has been
declining and its economic limit is expected to be reached in 2050.

The purpose of this report is to (1) review the Kiskadee Field on the basis of reservoir description,
reservoir evaluation, reservoir development, and reservoir management, and (2) outline the
technical and logistical considerations to determine the suitability of the future depleted Kiskadee
Field for CO2 sequestration. After capture, CO2 is compressed and then transported to a site where
it is injected underground for permanent storage (also known as sequestration). Depleted natural
gas fields are promising targets for CO2 sequestration on account of their storage capacity, proven
seal, relatively well characterized (permeability, thickness and extent of storage reservoir,
geological structure, lithology, etc.), existing pipeline infrastructure and wells, and potential for
enhanced gas recovery. The Kiskadee Field was screened against a set of technical and logistical
considerations, in particular, storage capacity, injectivity potential, trapping mechanisms and
containment, proximity to protected and sensitive areas and population centres, existing resource
development, existing CO2 pipelines and right-of-way, and infrastructure and cost, and found to
be a favourable site for CO2 sequestration. Further evaluation of the technical and logistical
criteria, among other criteria such as safety and security, legal and regulatory issues, and public
acceptance, is required for this site to be deemed suitable for geological storage of CO2.

Page 2 of 31
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... 2

1. Review of Kiskadee Field ........................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Reservoir Description............................................................................................................ 5

1.2 Reservoir Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 8

1.3 Reservoir Development ....................................................................................................... 13

1.4 Reservoir Management ....................................................................................................... 16

2. CO2 Sequestration ..................................................................................................................... 18

2.1 Storage Capacity ................................................................................................................. 18

2.2 Injectivity Potential ............................................................................................................. 20

2.3 Trapping Mechanisms and Containment ............................................................................ 20

2.4 Proximity to Protected and Sensitive Areas, and Population Centres ................................ 21

2.5 Existing Resource Development ......................................................................................... 21

2.6 Existing CO2 Pipelines and Right-of-Ways ........................................................................ 21

2.7 Infrastructure and Cost ........................................................................................................ 22

2.8 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 24

3. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 26

References ..................................................................................................................................... 27

Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 29

Page 3 of 31
1. Review of Kiskadee Field
Kiskadee Field is a conventional gas field located 40 kilometres off the East Coast of Trinidad in
the offshore lease of the Southeast Coast Consortium (SECC) (Rosen 1997). The Kiskadee gas
field was discovered in 1977 by drilling two exploratory wells, Kiskadee 1 and Kiskadee 2, in the
primary reservoir sands at 15,500 feet subsea (now called Kiskadee Sand) (Rosen 1997, Baptiste
and Jagai 2003). The Kiskadee Field is expected to recover 51.67 million of barrels of oil
equivalent (MMboe), comprised of 310.01 billion cubic feet (bcf) of natural gas reserves (Carmen
2021). The production peaked in 1998 at approximately 3.61 thousand barrels per day (bpd) of
condensate and 157 million cubic feet per day (MMcfd) of natural gas. Until recently the Kiskadee
Field recovered 79.59% of its total recoverable reserves (Carmen 2021). The field is expected to
reach its economic limit and cease production in 2050 (Carmen 2021).

Figure 1Location of Kiskadee Field (KeyFacts Energy 2020)

Page 4 of 31
1.1 Reservoir Description

The Kiskadee Field originated from sediment deposition from the proto-Orinoco deltaic system
during the Pliocene-Pleistocene epoch. The presence of trace fossils suggest that the sand was
deposited in shallow marine setting. The Kiskadee sands have varying degrees of bioturbation, an
average porosity of 25 percent and permeabilities within the cleaner sands of between 50 to 100
millidarcies (mD) (Baptiste and Jagai, 2003). There are lateral variations in the thickness of the
Kiskadee sands throughout the field which was accounted to the wells being drilled in different
parts of a distributary river mouth system such as some wells being drilled in bar crests and
channels (Ramkissoon 2019). These sands are relatively clean closer to the peak of the anticline
and gets shalier towards the southeast in a pinch-out stratigraphic trap. The cap rock is a thick
shale between 50-100 metres thick, that was deposited on top of the Kiskadee sands. There was no
gas/water contact found in the well data, so this reservoir uses volumetric drive mechanism.

The reservoir characteristics change laterally or vertically because of the rapid change in facies
and varying degrees of bioturbation. For example, three bedforms were found in this reservoir
causing a change in reservoir quality. The three bedforms—massive graded, laminated,
burrowed—dominate Kiskadee cores and are variously represented in different parts of the deltaic
sequence (Rosen, 1997). The bedform with the best reservoir quality in this field was massive
graded beds of very fine-grained, sublithic to subarkosic arenites which are found in the middle
and upper parts of deltaic sequences. This bedform ranges between 1-3 feet with low bioturbation
and it has planar laminations. The second bedform is laminated zones, and are interbedded with
massive graded beds, ranging from 1.5 foot to over 2 feet thick with some bioturbation near the
top of laminated zones. The laminated zones has good-to-marginal reservoir quality and
permeability ranging between 10-50 md. Vertical permeability probably is significantly less than
horizontal permeability due to the presence of horizontal laminations. The third bedform exhibits
extensive bioturbation which destroys most of the pre-existing bedding, only leaving remnants of
the bedding. Bioturbations obstruct the pore throats by mixing of depositional clay with sand. The
true reservoir quality of this bedform is unknown because there were borehole washouts, so tests
were unreliable in these areas. The lateral variation affects the reservoir characteristics which affect
petrophysical parameters as seen in Table 1.

Page 5 of 31
Table 1 Petrophysical parameters extracted from well data

Well Name Well Top Well Bottom Sw Φ Net Res Net Pay Pay/G
(TVD ft) (TVD ft) (ft) (ft)

BA-1 15,397 15,495 0.26 0.18 87 86 0.87

BA-1ST1 15,400 15,456 0.35 0.16 52 45 0.67

KA-1ST2 15,748 15,897 0.38 0.20 129 124 0.83

KA-2 15,602 15,764 0.28 0.17 146 145 0.89

KA-4 15,748 15,855 0.39 0.18 97 84 0.80

KA-7 15,414 15,579 1 0.15 159 0 0

KB-1 15,554 15,652 0.20 0.18 94 94 0.94

KIS-1 15,292 15,383 0.31 0.17 91 90 0.82

KIS-2 15,700 15,845 0.35 0.15 110 110 0.76

Source: Adapted from Ramkissoon (2019)

Kiskadee Field occurs along the northwest flank of a large faulted anticline centered at bp's
(formerly Amoco) Cassia field. The anticline occurs along the gentle dip of the anticlinal flank
and is disrupted by numerous faults associated with the larger northwest-striking faults (Rosen,
1997). The reservoirs in this field, dip to the west and northwest according to seismic interpretation
of the field. Two massive regional faults bound the northeast and southwest of this field as well as
smaller synthetic faults which trend northwest-southeast. Smaller antithetic faults are present,
trending northeast-southwest as they form baffles to hydrocarbon flow. The southwest bounding
regional fault, synthetic and some antithetic faults as well as the dipping anticlinal structure and
stratigraphic trap create the combination trapping mechanism in this field as seen in Figures 2 and
3.

Page 6 of 31
Figure 2 Seismic section along fault strike (Ramkissoon 2019)

Page 7 of 31
Figure 3 Seismic section along fault dip (Ramkissoon 2019)

1.2 Reservoir Evaluation

Interpretation of the seismic volume assisted in determining the Kiskadee sands which displayed
dips to the west and northwest with hydrocarbons between numerous northwest striking faults (see
Figure 4). Some major faults play an important role of the trapping mechanism favouring
hydrocarbon accumulation within compartments caused by faults; evidence for this was
determined by well KA-7 which encountered water bearing sandstones that were structurally

Page 8 of 31
higher than that of other wells. Seismic data displays smaller faults within the field which were
interpreted as barriers to gas flow and small faulted closures seen on structural maps were
penetrated to discover that there is gas trapped within (Rosen 1997).

Analysis of the well log data led to the identification of the Kiskadee reservoir which was
penetrated by wells within the Kiskadee Field. The gamma ray, resistivity, and neutron-density
logs were utilized to investigate the quality of the reservoir. The gamma ray log measured low
concentrations of radioactive material which corresponds to low API readings within the Gallinule
Sands in KA-6 (see Figure 5) indicating good quality sands. Understanding how these gamma ray
signatures work helps determine the size and continuity of the reservoir. The wireline logs and
calculated curves from Kiskadee B-1 (see Figure 6) displayed an upward increase of sandstone
with minor interbedded shales, the high porosity and low water saturation are consistent within the
main reservoir with lower resistivity and porosity in the basal sands which would have indicated
that the reservoir quality is decreasing as we enter the zone of burrowed and laminated beds (Rosen
1997). The signatures displayed coarsening upward sequences which represent progradational
stacking pattern system defined as a shift in the shoreline in a basinward direction. These deltaic
deposits consist of very fine-grained massive/graded beds (sublithic to subarkosic arenites) are
considered the best reservoirs positioned in the middle and upper section of the well logs and
displays outstanding permeability on capillary measurements. The shale above and below these
sharp based sandstone reservoirs can act as possible barriers to flow. The resistivity data displayed
deflection to the right when encountering hydrocarbon bearing zones and to confirm the type of
fluid present, the neutron-density plot displayed a cross over indicating that this zone exhibits gas.
It is clearly seen on Figure 5 that the well penetrated gas for approximately 50 feet.

The reservoir quality varies drastically, also seen on core data, between facies of massive/graded,
laminated beds and zones of extensive bioturbation but overall consist of excellent reservoirs as a
result of the depth of burial (Rosen 1997). The article also discusses that the wireline logs were
ineffective in differentiating zones of marginal laminated rocks from burrowed, non-reservoir
rocks. The laminated zones were identified to be interbedded with massive/graded beds exhibiting
exceptional reservoir quality varying from 1.5 – 2 feet thick with burrowing near the top of the
laminated sections. The heavily bioturbated zones forms baffles and barriers through the mixing
of clay with sand but the reservoir quality is unreliable due to large borehole washouts (Rosen

Page 9 of 31
1997). The permeability seems to be affected by the lateral variation of facies ranging from high
quality massive/graded beds to lower quality laminated or burrowed facies. The lateral variation
of facies in the Kiskadee Sand is reflected by the root mean square (RMS) amplitude and is a useful
tool during drilling. Observation and interpretation of the depth structure maps (see Figure 7) along
with RMS amplitude (see Figure 8) assisted in identifying fault block forming closures and
potential traps for hydrocarbon entrapment and accumulation. This data would have indicated that
gas at Kiskadee accumulated in structural traps with possible stratigraphic contribution in the trap
of the main Kiskadee Sand (Rosen 1997).

Figure 4 3D seismic inline through the Kiskadee A platform. The anomalous signal of the seismic event labelled
Gallinule sands is a result of gas content whereas the Kiskadee sand displays strong amplitude signal which is due to
several factors including the gross thickness of the sandstones (Rosen 1997).

Page 10 of 31
Figure 5 Logs from the Gallinule Sands in KA-5 with an expanded view of a gas-water contact near 9640 ft (gas
zone in red) and below 9700 ft there are no indications of residual gas (Rosen 1997).

Potential hydrocarbon zones

Figure 6 Wireline logs and calculated curves from Kiskadee B-1 (Rosen 1997)

Page 11 of 31
Figure 7 Map of structure distribution in the main reservoir, the Kiskadee sand (Rosen 1997)

Page 12 of 31
Figure 8- Map of seismic amplitude distribution in the Kiskadee sand with thinner gross sandstone in the southeast
portion of the field represented in white (Rosen 1997)

1.3 Reservoir Development

The Kiskadee Field was discovered in 1977 by a Texaco-led consortium drilling two exploration
wells, Kiskadee 1 and Kiskadee 2, that tested gas-condensate from the primary reservoir sands at
15,500 feet subsea (now called Kiskadee Sand) (Rosen 1997, Baptiste and Jagai 2003). The field
is located in South East Coast Consortium (SECC) block. Enron Oil and Gas Trinidad contracted
Digicon to conduct 3-D seismic surveys over the SECC Block in 1992 (Ministry of Energy and

Page 13 of 31
Energy Industries 1993). The seismic acquisition parameters are detailed in the table below. The
seismic data was processed in Houston, Texas by Digicon (Ministry of Energy and Energy
Industries 1993). Thereafter Enron contracted Wimpol Inc. to conduct hazard surveys over the
SECC Block in order to plan the location of the Kiskadee Platform 'A' and Kiskadee 1 and
Kiskadee 2 Wells. Wimpol Inc. employed side scan sonar, echosounder (for bathymetric profiling)
a sub-bottom profiler system and a mini-sparker (for shallow and deeper data) and a magnetometer
to conduct the hazard surveys (Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries 1993). In April of 1993,
Enron contracted Fugro-McClelland to conduct soil boring exercises over the proposed Kiskadee
Platform 'A' location (Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries 1993).

Table 2 Seismic acquisition parameters

Source: Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries (1993)

Enron refurbished a production/drilling deck and facilities capable of processing 150 million cubic
feet of gas per day (MMcfd) and 10,000 barrels of condensate per day (bcpd). A new jacket was
constructed to support the Kiskadee 'A' deck in approximately 225 feet of water (Rosen 1997).
Enron began development of the Kiskadee Field during the latter half of 1993. The 9 slot Kiskadee
platform was set in position and four wells spudded. Two wells, Kiskadee A-1 (KA-1) and
Kiskadee A-2 (KA-2) were replacements for exploratory wells Kiskadee 1 and Kiskadee 2
(Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries 1993). The primary objective of those wells was the
15,000 ft sand (Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries 1993).

The KA-l well was spudded on July 26, 1993. The primary objective was prognosed to be
encountered at 17,400 ft (Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries 1993). The secondary
objective, the 9,600 ft sand was expected at 2,956 m (9,700 ft) DD. The programmed total depth
of the well was 5,456m (17,900 ft) DD. The well was side-tracked at 792 m (2,599 ft) when the

Page 14 of 31
drill pipe twisted off at the cross-over sub. KA-l was again side-tracked, this time below the 9-
5/8" casing. Final total depth was 5,363m (17,595 ft) DD. The objectives were achieved as
forecasted. The interval 5,263.3–5,318.1 m (17,268-17,448 ft) DD was perforated. Production
rates were 28 MMcfd of gas and 1,300 bcpd at year end (Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries
1993). Kiskadee A-2, proposed as an infill well, was spudded on August 2, 1993. The objective
4,572 m (15,000 ft) sand was expected at 4,724 m (15,500 ft) sub-sea at a location 45.7 m (150
ft) up dip of K-2 (Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries 1993). The well was drilled to 4,999
m (16,400 ft) sub-sea and completed. At year-end, two wells were completed, and production
averaged 2.54 MMcfd gas and 390 bopd condensate (Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries
1993). In 1994, Enron completed Phase A of its development of the Kiskadee Field by drilling and
completing five development wells (Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries 1994). The initial
flow capacity exceeded 275 MMcfd gas and 10,000 bcpd. The original in-place reserves for the
SECC, estimated using production history/performance and mapping, was 700 billion cubic feet
of gas with a likely recovery of 75% (Rosen 1997).

Currently, Kiskadee Field is owned by EOG Resources (formerly Enron Oil and Gas Company),
Heritage Petroleum and The National Gas Company of Trinidad and Tobago (Carmen 2021). The
field produced gas and condensate for over twenty years from nine wells recovering 79.59% of its
total recoverable reserves. The production peaked in 1998 at nearly 3.61 thousand bpd of
condensate and 157 MMcfd of natural gas (Carmen 2021), as shown in the Figure below. “The
field is expected to recover 51.67 MMboe, comprised of 310.01 bcf of natural gas” (Carmen
2021).The field is expected to reach its economic limit and cease production in 2050 (Carmen
2021).

Page 15 of 31
Figure 9 Total production of Kiskadee Field (1993-2050) (Carmen 2021)

1.4 Reservoir Management

While seismic acquisition and processing were done, a production/drilling deck and facilities were
refurbished so it would be capable of processing 150 million cubic feet of gas per day (mmcfgpd)
and 10,000 barrels of condensate per day (bcpd). This jack-up platform was called Kiskadee 'A'
platform and a new jacket was also constructed to support this deck in approximately 225 feet of
water. This was a way to reduce overhead costs in the initial stage of exploration of this field.

After drilling a couple of infill wells such as KA-1 and KA-2, an outstep development project was
planned. This project entailed drilling two more wells, KA-3 and KA-4, in strategic areas to test
hydrocarbon accumulations in the field. KA-3 well was proposed to test hydrocarbon accumulation
in the Kiskadee Sand within an untested, upthrown fault block located on the east-south-east of
KA-2 well. KA-4 well was proposed to test the extension of the south-eastern Kiskadee Sand
reserves proven by wells KA-l ST2 and Kis-1 as seen in Figure 10. KA-4 was expected to be
structurally on strike with well KA-l ST2. KA-3 was drilled on December 23, 1993 with a depth
of 367 m (1,205 ft) and KA-4 was spudded on December 29, 1993 (Ministry of Energy and Energy

Page 16 of 31
Industries 1993). These wells exhibited the expanse of the field laterally and also gave evidence
of compartmentalization of this field.

Figure 10 Base Map with exploration and development wells (Ramkissoon 2019)

During the development of this field, a Kiskadee ‘B’ platform was proposed in order to exploit the
southern part of the field more efficiently. However, this platform was not approved, instead the
Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries mediated negotiations between Enron and Amoco who
had the Banyan platform south of Kiskadee Field. It was agreed that there would be a cooperative
venture between the Enron and Amoco, resulting in two wells drilled from Banyan with Amoco
as the platform operator. These wells were KB-1, BA-1 and BA-1ST1 and were drilled to the
SECC concession and completed in the main reservoir, the Kiskadee Sand (Rosen 1997).

The Kiskadee Field has produced for more than 20 years, the field has been depleted significantly,
resulting in the reservoir pressure declining. To allow for production of hydrocarbon to continue,

Page 17 of 31
Kiskadee Gas Compression project was put into place with first gas in October 2010. Thus
production rates increased, and production continues in this field.

2. CO2 Sequestration
After capture, CO2 is compressed and then transported to a site where it is injected underground
for permanent storage (also known as sequestration). Depleted natural gas fields are promising
targets for CO2 sequestration because:

(1) the overlying confining rocks of natural gas reservoirs have prevented upward
migration of hydrocarbons for millions of years, (2) the geologic trapping mechanisms are
also conducive to trapping CO2, (3) the fields have been extensively studied, a large amount
of production history, well log, and other data are available, and (4) there is also significant
infrastructure already in place that, in some cases, could be utilized for CO2 storage. (US‐
DOE 2017)

In addition, recovery factors for gas fields average 75%, consequently when gas fields are
considered to have no economically recoverable gas and condensate, many natural gas fields
contain significant gas reserves that can be potentially recovered by injecting CO2 for Enhanced
Gas Recovery (EGR) (Oldenburg 2003). This additional gas recovery can be used to offset the
cost of CO2 sequestration in depleted gas fields (Oldenburg 2003).

The principal technical and logistical considerations to determine the suitability of the future
depleted Kiskadee Field for CO2 sequestration are outlined below.

2.1 Storage Capacity

Raza et al. (2016) defined storage capacity as “the total volume of a geological medium, such as
saline aquifers, depleted oil and gas reservoirs and unmineable coal beds, that can possibly be used
for CO2 storage”. The storage capacity in depleted gas fields is typically estimated by the pore
volume previously occupied by oil and/or natural gas minus the formation water during or after
the production stage (Raza et al. 2016). However, Van der Meer (2005) explained that the
estimation could be overly conservative since the solubility of CO2 in water is ignored. Storage
capacity depends largely on subsurface pressure and temperature conditions, and at a temperature
of 31.3°C (88.3°F) and a pressure of 7.4 MPa (1,071 psi) where CO2 will be supercritical are
favoured (Raza et al. 2016, US‐DOE 2017). “Under supercritical conditions, CO2 has a high

Page 18 of 31
density, approximately 500 to 800 kg per cubic meter (31 to 50 pounds per cubic foot), and gas-
like viscosity, resulting in increased pore volume utilization and mobility within a reservoir”(US‐
DOE 2017, Raza et al. 2016).

There are several other factors that affect storage capacity, particularly reservoir depth, density of
CO2, porosity, stratigraphic heterogeneity/geometry of depositional facies, buoyancy of CO2, and
irreducible water saturations (Raza et al. 2016). Many authors pointed out that “CO2 density
increases rapidly at approximately 800 m depth or greater, when the CO2 reaches a supercritical
state”(Benson 2005, Raza et al. 2016, Bachu et al. 2009). Benson (2005) explains, “high porosity
values indicate high capacities of the reservoir rocks to contain fluid, however porosity usually
decreases with depth because of compaction and cementation, which reduces storage capacity and
efficiency”. Stratigraphic heterogeneity, also known as geometry of depositional facies, is as-well
a key factor affecting the storage capacity. Hovorka et al. (2004) states, “a buoyant CO2 flow
avoids a significant portion of the rock volume in a homogeneous rock, resulting in having a low
storage capacity”. Conversely, “a large volume of heterogeneous rocks accepts the injected CO2
owing to disperse flow paths” (Ambrose et al. 2008). The other parameters above stated, such as
the mobility and buoyancy of CO2, and irreducible water saturations can also decrease the capacity
of a storage medium (Raza et al. 2016).

Fortunately, the Gallinule Sand at approximately 9000 feet bsl (2,743.2 m bsl) and the Kiskadee
Sand between 15,000 (4,572 m) and 16,000 feet (4,876.8 m) bsl is greater than the depth CO2
generally reaches its supercritical state, i.e., 800 m underground. Furthermore, the subsurface
pressures and temperatures (P>8000 psig, T>179°F) exceed the critical point (Pc = 1,071 psi, Tc =
88.3°F), at which CO2 transitions to the supercritical state. The porosity ranges from 0.15 to 0.20
(refer to Table 1) and are positive (favourable) porosity values, as shown in Table 4 and Table 5
in the Appendix. Additionally, the reservoirs are heterogenous, as previously discussed above
(refer to Section 2.1 Reservoir Description and Section 2.2 Reservoir Evaluation). Assuming the
total capacity is larger than the total amount produced from the CO2 source, the Kiskadee Field is
suitable for CO2 sequestration, in terms of storage capacity.

Page 19 of 31
2.2 Injectivity Potential

“Injectivity is the ease with which fluids can flow through stratigraphic intervals” (Ambrose et al.
2008). Injectivity is the product of permeability and thickness of storage sites and it is an integral
parameter that must be taken into consideration when screening a potential storage reservoir. Thin
reservoirs with low permeability and complex structures do not have good injectivity. Generally
for favourable injectivity, permeability near the wellbore must be greater than 100 mD (Raza et al.
2016). The storage reservoir should have medium to low permeability to prevent CO2 from
escaping from the reservoir so that permanent storage can take place, on the other hand, high
permeable reservoir is cheaper for CO2 storage because less wells would be required for the
favourable injection.

Injectivity in the Kiskadee Field would, therefore, yield good results because of the high
permeability of the reservoir. Reservoir performance in the Kiskadee Sand is related to
depositional facies with the best reservoirs in cores yielding measurements of permeability above
100 mD (Rosen, 1997). However, there is lateral variation in the sands which results in variation
in the thickness of the sands where it is very thick in certain areas but thinner in other parts. The
thicker sands would allow for better injectivity and the thinner sands would have poor injectivity.
Therefore the Kiskadee Field may have favourable injectivity of CO2 but areas of very high
permeability also increase the risk of CO2 escaping from the reservoir so CO2 storage may be
compromised in these areas.

2.3 Trapping Mechanisms and Containment

The efficiency of the trapping mechanism present in a CO2 storage reservoir is integral to CO2
sequestration. The trapping mechanism is greatly affected by reservoir characteristics and in-situ
variables. Structural or stratigraphic trapping occurs when CO2 is no longer a free gas and is
trapped under the supercritical condition as a residual gas. Solubility trapping occurs in a long-
term process whereby CO2 dissolves fluids in the subsurface and has a chemical reaction with the
rock matrix (Raza et al. 2016). Dominant trapping mechanisms are vital to prevent any leakage of
CO2.

Page 20 of 31
In the case of Kiskadee Field, there is a combination trapping mechanism with a stratigraphic trap
or pinch-out, anticlinal structure and normal faults in the reservoir. The pinch-out would be an
effective trap and the anticlinal structure would be key factors for preventing CO2 leaking into any
subsurface reservoirs. The faults that are present in the field with some being sealing faults and
others may serve as migration pathways for CO2 to escape to the surface. Trap integrity tests would
have to be done to determine the transmissibility between fault blocks. However, the wells drilled
within in fault blocks with hydrocarbon-bearing sands, paleo-residual gas was not documented by
well logs so there would be a high chance of the trapping mechanism being very effective for CO2
sequestration.

2.4 Proximity to Protected and Sensitive Areas, and Population Centres

A major concern with carbon capture and storage is that the carbon dioxide can leak out from the
underground reservoirs into the atmosphere which would further contribute to climate change or
contaminate nearby water supplies. Certain precautions should be taken into consideration with
respect to the vicinity of a storage project to ensure that the land, air and water are not affected
(US-DOE 2017). The Kiskadee Field is located miles off the east coast of Trinidad, away from the
general population. This region is within the Columbus Basin which is one of the primary
hydrocarbon producing areas of Trinidad and has been a prime area for hydrocarbon exploration
and production (GSTT n.d.). Furthermore, since there are no protected and sensitive areas that
would be affected within the basin; as well as species population, the Kiskadee Field appears
suitable for CO2 storage.

2.5 Existing Resource Development

The location of a CO2 storage project within proximity of existing hydrocarbon resource
developments can lead to pros and cons. Valuable information about the potential storage reservoir
can be obtained from existing upstream oil and natural gas developments without excessive
investments. Careful analysis should be made of all existing infrastructure which may include
surface and subsurface, industrial and non-industrial, to determine the extent to which their
presence might impact proposed injection and storage operations as potential leaks (US-DOE
2017). According to (Rosen 1997), traps leaked hydrocarbon within the main Kiskadee reservoir
due to local tectonic movement; if CO2 is to be stored within these reservoirs and the traps are

Page 21 of 31
compromised then this area may not be suitable for CO2 storage. Therefore, companies would have
to continuously monitor and evaluate the storage site to ensure that appropriate precautions are
taken to avoid leaking of CO2 throughout the system (Beh et al. 2013).

2.6 Existing CO2 Pipelines and Right-of-Ways

Typically, CO2 is transported from its source, for instance ammonia plants, liquefied natural gas
(LNG) plants, power generation plants, to offshore storage sites through high-pressure pipelines
(Benson 2005). The proximity to existing CO2 pipelines and rights-of-ways (ROWs) should be
evaluated because the construction of pipelines can be capital intensive and pipeline rights-of-
ways are necessary for construction, operations, inspection, maintenance, and testing or in an
emergency. There are no existing offshore pipelines for CO2 in Trinidad and Tobago. However, it
may be possible to use the existing pipeline infrastructure (i.e., non-CO2 pipelines) and ROWs,
shown in Figure 11 in the Appendix. US‐DOE (2017) cautions that “many existing pipelines are
unlikely to be suitable for conversion to supercritical CO2 service due to pressure limitations and
materials used”.

A detailed analysis is required to determine if existing pipelines/gas transmission infrastructure

and pipeline ROWs can be used for transporting CO2 to the Kiskadee Field.

2.7 Infrastructure and Cost

Generally, the infrastructure required for CO2 transport and injection include injection and
monitoring wells, compression equipment, transport pipelines, and various types of monitoring
devices. Reuse of infrastructure and wells may reduce costs at Kiskadee Field. US‐DOE (2017)
advises that “potentially, the most capital-intensive infrastructure costs could be transport of CO2
to the storage site, and that it is a major factor to consider when selecting a CO2 geologic storage
site”. “Carbon dioxide can be moved via truck, railroad, ship, and pipeline, although pipeline is
currently the only economically feasible transport for commercial scale projects” (US‐DOE 2017).
If it is not possible to use the existing pipeline infrastructure (i.e., non-CO2 pipelines) and ROWs,
shown in Figure 11 in the Appendix, a pipeline will have to be constructed and the costs for
building the pipeline and permitting of a pipeline ROW will have to be factored into the capital
costs and schedule of the project. The IPCC Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage

Page 22 of 31
indicated that, “as long as the distance between major sources of CO2 emissions and prospective
sedimentary basins is less than 300 kilometres, transportation may not induce excessive costs on
storage projects”(Metz et al. 2005). The total length of a pipeline to transport CO2 from the Point
Lisas Industrial Estate, home to a majority of the heavy industry in Trinidad and Tobago, to the
Kiskadee Field located 40 kilometres off the East Coast of Trinidad, is estimated to be less than
200 kilometres. Thus, the Kiskadee Field could be suitable for CO2 sequestration, in terms of
infrastructure and cost, even if it is not possible to use the existing pipeline infrastructure (i.e., non-
CO2 pipelines) and ROWs.

It is important to note, (1) CO2 pipelines are operated at ambient temperature and high pressure,
with primary compressor stations located at the pipeline inlet and booster compressors along the
pipeline (US‐DOE 2017), (2) non-condensable impurities such as nitrogen, oxygen, argon and
other trace gases are often mixed with CO2 during the carbon capture and has to be separated
because the impurities may reduce the reservoir storage capacity, and (3) water vapor has to be
removed to avoid corrosions and hydration, which can induce extra costs on storage projects (Raza
et al. 2016).

Detailed cost estimation and analysis is required to determine if the Kiskadee Field is suitable for
CO2 sequestration, in terms of infrastructure and cost.

Page 23 of 31
2.8 Summary

The table below summarizes the suitability of the future depleted Kiskadee Field for CO2
sequestration in terms of the technical and logistical considerations (or screening criteria)
discussed in the previous sections.

Table 3 Suitability of the future depleted Kiskadee Field for CO2 sequestration

Positive Indicators Cautionary Indicators Kiskadee Field

Technical Considerations

Storage capacity

Total storage capacity
Total capacity of the Total capacity of the TBD
reservoir estimated to be reservoir estimated to be
much larger than the similar to or less than the
total amount produced total amount produced
from the CO2 source. from the CO2 source.

Pressure and temperature P > 7.4MPa (1,071 psi), P < 7.4MPa (1,071 psi), P > 55.2MPa (8000psig)
T > 31.3°C (88.3°F) T < 31.3°C (88.3°F) T > 81.7°C (179°F)

Depth ≥800m <800m The Gallinule Sand depth

≈9000 ft bsl (2,743.2m)
and the Kiskadee Sand
15,000 (4,572m) to
16,000 ft (4,876.8m) bsl.
The net reservoirs
Thickness (net)
≥20m <20m thickness ranges from 52
to 159 ft.

>20%
Porosity <10% 0.15- 0.20

Stratigraphic heterogeneity high low high

Residual gas/water saturation low high low

Injectivity potential

Page 24 of 31
 Permeability >100mD 10-100mD Permeability k>100mD
in clean sands, however
the reservoirs are
heterogenous so the
permeability would be
lower in certain areas.

Trapping mechanism and

containment

Faults extensive (or unfaulted) moderate and less There is

(faulted) compartmentalization
due to sealing faults, but
other faults could cause
leakage to the surface.

Anticlinal structure yes no yes

Pinch out yes no yes

Logistical Considerations

Proximity to protected and sensitive far (or remote) close far (remote)
areas, and population centres

Existing resource development major (or extensive) minor TBD

Existing CO2 Pipelines and ROWs yes no There are no existing

offshore pipelines for
CO2, however, it may be
possible to use the
existing non-CO2
pipelines and ROWs.

Infrastructure and Cost

Distance between CO2 emissions <300km >300km <200km

source and target medium

Source: Bachu et al. (2009), Raza et al. (2016)

Page 25 of 31
3. Conclusion
The review of the Kiskadee Field in regard to reservoir description, reservoir evaluation, reservoir
development and reservoir management underpinned the evaluation of the future depleted
Kiskadee Field for CO2 sequestration. The Kiskadee Field was screened against a set of technical
and logistical considerations, in particular, storage capacity, injectivity potential, trapping
mechanisms and containment, proximity to protected and sensitive areas and population centres,
existing resource development, existing CO2 pipelines and right-of-way, and infrastructure and
cost, to determine the favourability of the gas field for CO2 sequestration. The future depleted
Kiskadee Field was found to be a favourable site for CO2 sequestration; wider range of criteria,
for example safety and security, legal and regulatory issues, and public acceptance, and a more in-
depth evaluation of the technical and logistical criteria, is required for this site to be deemed
suitable for geological storage of CO2.

The following characteristics of the Kiskadee Field resulted in the favourable outlook for use of
the future depleted gas field for CO2 sequestration:

• The Gallinule Sand and Kiskadee Sand located at a sufficient depth and pressure so that CO2
can be injected as a supercritical fluid.
• The gas reservoirs developed in the Kiskadee Field have high permeability to allow injection.
• The reservoirs have high porosity and thickness to create sufficient storage capacity. However
the total capacity of the reservoirs must be estimated to be larger than the amount of CO2
produced from emission sources locally to ensure sufficient storage capacity.
• The presence of multiple confining stratum to prevent escape and migration of the injected
CO2. However, the faults that are present in the Kiskadee Field may serve as migration
pathways for CO2 to escape to the surface, and so, trap integrity tests should be conducted to
determine the transmissibility between fault blocks.
• The Kiskadee field is located 40 miles off the east coast of Trinidad, away from protected and
sensitive areas, and population centres.
• Although there are no existing offshore pipelines for CO2 in Trinidad and Tobago, it may be
possible to use the existing integrated network of onshore and offshore pipeline infrastructure
(i.e., non-CO2 pipelines) and ROWs.

Page 26 of 31
• Reuse of infrastructure and wells may reduce costs at Kiskadee field. However, detailed cost
estimation and analysis is required to determine if the field is suitable for CO2 sequestration,
in terms of infrastructure and cost.

References
Ambrose, WA, Srivatsan Lakshminarasimhan, MH Holtz, Vanessa Núñez-López, Susan D
Hovorka, and I Duncan. 2008. "Geologic factors controlling CO2 storage capacity and
permanence: case studies based on experience with heterogeneity in oil and gas reservoirs
applied to CO2 storage." Environmental Geology 54 (8):1619-1633.

Bachu, S, C Hawkes, D Lawton, M Pooladi-Darvish, and E Perkins. 2009. "CCS site

characterisation criteria."

Baptiste, Brian J, and Tennyson Jagai. 2003. "P/Z Analysis of a Mature Gas Condensate Field,
Offshore Trinidad." SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference.

Beh, Behdeen Oraee-Mirzamani, Tim Cockerill, and Zen Makuch. "Risk assessment and
management associated with CCS." Elsevier, 2013.

Benson, Sally. 2005. "Underground geological storage." IPCC Special Repot on Carbon Capture
and Storage:195-276.

Benson, Sally M, and Franklin M Orr. 2008. "Carbon dioxide capture and storage." MRS bulletin
33 (4):303-305.

Carmen. 2021. "Kiskadee Conventional Gas Field, Trinidad and Tobago." https://www.offshore-
technology.com/marketdata/kiskadee-conventional-gas-field-trinidad-and-tobago/.

GSTT. THE HISTORY OF PETROLEUM EXPLORATION IN TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO.

n.d. https://thegstt.org/history/petro.

Hoteit, Hussein, Marwan Fahs, and Mohamad Reza Soltanian. 2019. "Assessment of CO2
injectivity during sequestration in depleted gas reservoirs." Geosciences 9 (5):199.

Hovorka, Susan D, Christine Doughty, Sally M Benson, Karsten Pruess, and Paul R Knox. 2004.
"The impact of geological heterogeneity on CO2 storage in brine formations: a case study
from the Texas Gulf Coast." Geological Society, London, Special Publications 233
(1):147-163.

KeyFacts Energy. 2020. "TRINIDAD & TOBAGO: YEAR IN REVIEW 2019."

https://keyfactsenergy.com/news/6497/view/.

Page 27 of 31
Metz, Bert, Ogunlade Davidson, HC De Coninck, Manuela Loos, and Leo Meyer. 2005. IPCC
special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage: Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries. 1993. Annual Adminstrative Report. Government
Offices, Riverside Plaza Port of Spain: The Central Statistical Office Priniting Unit,
Trinidad and Tobago.

Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries. 1994. Annual Adminstrative Report - 1994/95.
Government Offices, Riverside Plaza Port of Spain: The Central Statistical Office Priniting
Unit, Trinidad and Tobago.

Oldenburg, Curtis M. 2003. "Carbon sequestration in natural gas reservoirs: enhanced gas recovery
and natural gas storage."

Ramírez, Andrea, Saskia Hagedoorn, Leslie Kramers, Ton Wildenborg, and Chris Hendriks. 2010.
"Screening CO2 storage options in the Netherlands." International Journal of Greenhouse
Gas Control 4 (2):367-380.

Raza, Arshad, Reza Rezaee, Raoof Gholami, Chua Han Bing, Ramasamy Nagarajan, and
Mohamed Ali Hamid. 2016. "A screening criterion for selection of suitable CO2 storage
sites." Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 28:317-327.

Rosen, Michael A. 1997. "Geology and development of Kiskadee field, offshore Trinidad."
Offshore Technology Conference.

US‐DOE. 2017. "Best practices: site screening, site selection, and site characterization for geologic
storage projects."

Van der Meer, B. 2005. "Carbon dioxide storage in natural gas reservoir." Oil & gas science and
technology 60 (3):527-536.

(Ambrose et al. 2008, Bachu et al. 2009, Baptiste and Jagai 2003, Benson 2005, Benson and Orr
2008, Carmen 2021, Hoteit, Fahs, and Soltanian 2019, Hovorka et al. 2004, KeyFacts Energy
2020, Metz et al. 2005, Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries 1993, 1994, Oldenburg 2003,
Ramírez et al. 2010, Raza et al. 2016, Rosen 1997, US‐DOE 2017, Van der Meer 2005)

Page 28 of 31
Appendix

Table 4 Site selection criteria for CO2 storage

Source: Bachu et al. (2009)

Page 29 of 31
Table 5 New screening criteria for selection of depleted gas reservoirs

Source: Raza et al. (2016)

Page 30 of 31
Figure 11Trinidad and Tobago’s gas transmission infrastructure (NGC Data 2015)
Page 31 of 31
 THE UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES
Undergraduate and Postgraduate Coursework Accountability Statement

ACADEMIC YEAR: 2021/2022 SEMESTER: 2

COURSE CODE: PENG 6012 TITLE: NATURAL GAS ENGINEERING
NAME: AMANDA HENDY ID: 816002442
JAMIE RAMKISSOON 816002879
RAKESH SINGH 816012749

1. I hereby certify that I am the author of the attached item of coursework and that all materials from reference
sources have been properly acknowledged.
2. I understand what plagiarism is and what penalties may be imposed on students found guilty of plagiarism. [See
UWI Examination Regulations 97 (i)–(iv) and 103 (i) for both an explanation of plagiarism and the penalties.]
3. I certify that this paper contains no plagiarised material.
4. I certify that this is my own work and that I did not receive any unfair assistance from others (including unauthorised
collaboration) in its preparation.
5. I certify that this paper has not previously been submitted either in its entirety or in part within the UWI system or
to any other educational institution.
6. In the case of group work, I certify that the work that is the responsibility of each member of the group has been
clearly indicated and that where no such indication has been given, I take the responsibility for the work as if it were
the section of the paper for which I am solely responsible and that I have not collaborated with any members of the
group to breach the University’s regulations.

04/04/2022
Signature Date

04/04/2022
Signature Date

04/04/2022
Signature Date

EXTRACTS FROM THE EXAMINATION REGULATIONS

FOR FIRST DEGREES, ASSOCIATE DEGREES, DIPLOMAS AND CERTIFICATES INCLUDING GPA REGULATIONS
(http://sta.uwi.edu/resources/documents/Exam_and_GPA_regulations.pdf)

CHEATING
97. (i) Cheating shall constitute a major offence under these regulations.
(ii) Cheating is any attempt to benefit one’s self or another by deceit or fraud.
(iii) Plagiarism is a form of cheating.
(iv) Plagiarism is the unauthorised and/or unacknowledged use of another person’s intellectual efforts and
creations howsoever recorded, including whether formally published or in manuscript or in typescript or other
printed or electronically presented form and includes taking passages, ideas or structures from another work or
author without proper and unequivocal attribution of such source(s), using the conventions for attributions or
citing used in this University.
103. (i) If any candidate is suspected of cheating, or attempting to cheat, the circumstances shall be reported in
writing to the Campus Registrar. The Campus Registrar shall refer the matter to the Chairman of the Campus
Committee on Examinations. If the Chairman so decides, the Committee shall invite the candidate for an
interview and shall conduct an investigation. If the candidate is found guilty of cheating or attempting to cheat,
the Committee shall disqualify the candidate from the examination in the course concerned, and may also
disqualify him/her from all examinations taken in that examination session; and may also disqualify him/her
from all further examinations of the University, for any period of time, and may impose a fine not exceeding
Bds$300.00 or J$5,000.00 or TT$900.00 or US$150.00 (according to campus). If the candidate fails to attend
and does not offer a satisfactory excuse prior to the hearing, the Committee may hear the case in the
candidate’s absence.