Integrated Study for Development of a

CO2 Pilot in the Naturally Fractured

Spraberry Trend Area

David S. Schechter
 Spraberry Trend Area
O’Daniel

“Largest Uneconomic

rs
ply rie
up Car
Martin Co

Field in the World”

f
CO Ree
2 S
on
ny
Shackelford

Ca
Midland Co Glasscock Co Preston

Driver
Midkiff
Tippett
North
Merchant
Pembrook

Sherrod

Pembrook

Aldwell

Upton Co Reagan Co
Benedum
Spraberry Trend
Area
I. Reservoir characterization
• matrix characterization
• fracture characterization

II. Fluid Flow/Transfer Mechanisms

• imbibition/wettability
• CO2 gravity drainage

III. Scaling imbibition to match

waterflood performance

IV. Prediction of CO2 Performance

 Summary of Spraberry Reservoir Study
Core Core-Log Log
Whole Core Analysis Shaly Sand Analysis Open hole Analysis
Identification of fluorescing Gamma ray Neutron
Fluorescing intervals intervals
Directional perm Sonic Induction
Modified q-plot FMI
Sponge core saturation Logging identification of fractured
Fracture description intervals
Paleomagnetic orientation Mapping pay zones in pilot area
CO2 gravity drainage Outcrop Study
Plug Analysis Spacing
Length
Imbibition
Connectivity
Capillary Pressure
Wettability
Fracture Correlation
Relative Permeability Orientation Degree of mineralization
Spacing (density) Length Horizontal Core well
Fabric Analysis Aperture Connectivity
Stress sensitivity
Thin section
Termination at lithology contrast
X-ray diffraction Spacing
SEM Aperture
Minipermeametry Degree of mineralization
Stress measurement
 Fracture Correlation

Well Tests Data Collection

Multi well Rock Properties &
Reservoir Simulation Fluids
Interference Test
Pulse/Step-Rate Test Core Log
Tracer Surveys
Humble Pilot PVT Seismic
O’Daniel
Single well
Waterflood Pressure/Production
PBU/PDD CO2 Pilot
Injection profiles
Imbibition Lab Exp.
At ambient and reservoir
CO2 Lab Exp. Management Decisions conditions
Static and Dynamic imbibition
MMP determination
IFT determination Numerical modeling
Phase behavior
determination Gravity
drainage Pilot
Drill the wells
Waterflood
Inject CO2
Spraberry Primary Depletion - 1951
Rapid Increase in GOR - 1951
Low Recovery Below Bubble Point - 1951
ARCO Waterflood
Pilot
1954
 Humble
Waterflood
Pilot 1956
1956 Humble Waterflood Pilot
144:1 Anisotropy Ratio
Upper Spraberry Type Log
 Shackelford #1-38A
November 1993
1U Core Only
Standard Core
Matrix Characterization
Fluorescent Intervals in 1U Sand

• Sharp transition
between oil
saturated pay and
non-pay observed
by fluorescence in
core samples
Spraberry Rock Types
GR-Porosity Log O’Daniel #37
GR-Porosity Log O’Daniel #26
 Clay
Point
1.0
Modified q-plot for Spraberry

0.8
Trend Area
Compacted

0.6 Shales
q-Factor

Undercompacted
0.4
Tight
Non-Producible
0.2
Thin laminated
30 pay zones
.15
(< 2 ft thickness)
.10 20 Producible
Massive clean pay zones
(< 5 ft thickness)
0
Fluid
0 0.7 10 20 30 40
Sand Point
Effective Porosity, (%)
Point
Shaly-sand producibility chart of q-factor vs.
effective porosity for the E.T. O’Daniel #37
(Upper Spraberry)

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Fluorescing Intervals
q-factor

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Effective Porosity
 Shaly sand producibility chart (q-plot) for the
Shackelford 1-38A (Upper Spraberry).
Intervals appearing in dashed box fluoresced strongly.

0.3

0.25

0.2
q-factor

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Effective porosity
 Rock Type A: Main Pay
• 0 > 7%
• k > 0.1 md
• Clay < 7%
• Intergranular
Porosity
• Swi: 35 - 40 %
 CLAYS AFFECT POROSITY AND PERMEABILITY
Authigenic clays occur as
pore linings, pore bridgings
Depositional clay occurs as
or discrete particles
dispersed clay particles or as
laminae

0.125mm

Shale
Laminae
 Secondary Porosity
Due to Dissolution of Grains and Cements

Depth: 7230.3 ft

Grain Size: 55
mm

Rock Type “A”

Porosity: 12%
DP
E.T. O'Daniel #37
5U unit
0.05 mm
 Authigenic Cements
Destroy Pore Space

Quartz Quartz Dolomite

 Spraberry Rock Type A

•Very fine grained sandstones and coarse siltstones

•Well sorted

•Very well consolidated

Composition:
Outcrop Study
SE New Mexico
 Conclusions
 Fracture network maps show that
fractures are non continuous with
varying length and spacing.
 Length frequency distributions are log-
normal.
 Fracture distribution are dominated by
short closely spaced fractures.
 Average fracture spacing increase with
fracture length.
Fracture Characterization
Vertical, Mineralized Fracture: 1U
Payzone Shackelford 1-38A
Vertical, Mineralized Fracture: 1U
Payzone Shackelford 1-38A
Mineralized Fracture: 1U Payzone
Shackelford 1-38A
Shackelford 1-38A (1-U in the Upper Spraberry) water saturation with
different m & n compared with measured water saturation from whole
core analysis. Sharp contrast between pay and non-pay is observed,
by fluorescence, at a depth of 7092 ft.

0.9
Pay Non-pay
0.8
Water saturation (Sw)

0.7 Sw (a=0.81, m=2, n=2)

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
Sw (a=1, m=1.66, n=1.46) Sw (core)
0.1

0
7083 7084 7085 7086 7087 7088 7089 7090 7091 7092 7093 7094 7095 7096
Depth, ft.
 Potential for Fractured Zone
Identification
0.3

Fractured Zone (pay) Non-fractured

zone (Non-pay)

0.2 Porosity (neutron)

Porosity

0.1

Porosity (sonic)
Porosity (core)

0
7083 7084 7085 7086 7087 7088 7089 7090 7091 7092 7093 7094 7095 7096
Depth, ft.
 E.T. O’Daniel #37
October 1995
5U Core Only
Sponge Core
Oriented
Paleomagnetic - FMI
Fracture
Detection
Sponge Core -
5U Zone
O’Daniel #37
Fracture
Detection
FMI
O’Daniel #37
5U
Spraberry Unsolved Mysteries
 E.T. O’Daniel #28
October 1997
Dual Lateral Horizontal
Core Well
Wellbore Diagram - Horizontal Core
E. T. O’Daniel #28

12 1/4" Hole

KOP 6689'
400'R 450'
KOP 6838'
150' Core
1U Sand
400'R

5U Sand
150' Core
5 1/2" Liner Top @ 9068'

Strawn Perfs 10,237-10,419'

(49 holes) 1 JSPF

PBTD = 10,669'
TD = 11,100'
Horizontal Core Well - O’Daniel #28
5U ENE & NNE Fractures in
Fluorescing Pay Sand
5U Basal Contact
Bedding Plane in Horizontal Core
Fracture Intersection of Upper Spraberry 5U
NNE (older set) and ENE (younger set)
E.T. O’Daniel 28 (1U interval – Horizontal log section)
E.T. O’Daniel 28 (1U interval – Horizontal core section 1)

7390 ft
E.T. O’Daniel 28 (1U interval – Horizontal core section 2)

7407 ft
E.T. O’Daniel 28 (1U interval – Horizontal core section 3)

7417 ft
 360
0 N
N 36°
36° E
E
330 30
N
N 56°
56° E E
Avg
Avg.. •N56E orientation.
300 60 •Average spacing
N
N 76°
76° E
E
of 3.2 ft
• Smooth
270 90 mineralized
surfaces.

240 120

210 150
180
• N36E orientation.
• Average spacing of
Overlay of 1U and 5U 1.62 ft.
Fractures • Fractures have
stepped surfaces.
• No mineralization

• N76E orientation.
• Spacing skewed normal distribution
with an average of 3.79 ft.
• Fractures have smooth surfaces
• No obvious mineralization.
 Geomechanical Properties of Upper (1U) and
Lower (5U) Sand Intervals
600

• Low average Poisson’s 500

ratio (0.11)

Confining Stress (MPa)

Lower
• Elastic moduli of these 400
Sandstone/
Silstone
units are nearly equal Upper
Sandstone/
(about 2.4 x 104 MPa). 300 Siltstone

• Yield stress (mechanical

200
yield strength) of the
upper unit is nearly twice 100
that of the lower unit.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Yield Stress (psi)

Fracture variability between 1U and

5U due to differences in the clay
and quartz content, 1U low clay,
high cementation - stronger rock
than 5U
 E. T. O'Daniel #38 PBU

1800

1600

1400

1200
Pressure (psi)

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500
De lta Time (hrs)

Original Build-Up Build-Up June 2000

Cased Hole Temperature Profile Log
 Seismic Detection of Fractures
O’Daniel

rs
ply rie
up Car
Martin Co

f
CO Ree
2 S
on
ny
Shackelford

Ca
Midland Co Glasscock Co Preston

Driver
Midkiff
Tippett
North
Merchant
Pembrook

Sherrod

Pembrook

Aldwell

Upton Co Reagan Co
Benedum
West Shackelford Cross Section (Upper Sp. Green Curve)
East Shackelford Cross Section
3-D Seismic Shackelford Unit

Cross Section from Cross Section from Eastern Part

Western Part of Unit of Unit Higher Cumulative Oil
Lower Cumulative Oil
Cumulative Production Map Overlain on Amplitude Anomalies
3 Wells Cumm > 500,000 bbls
 Ave ra ge fracture s pa cing
3.17 ft (N42E)

Sand layer
1U (10 ft)
Pay zone,1U
Siltstone,
Vshl<15%,
f>7%
Shale layer
(140 ft)
Non-pay zone,
2U,3U, and 4U
Siltstone+
Dolomite,
Vshl<15%,
f <7% Sand layer
5U (15 ft)

Pay zone, 5U
Siltstone,
Vshl<15%,
f>7%

Avera ge fra cture s pa cing S pra berry Fra cture

1.62 a nd 3.8 ft (N32E a nd N80E)
S yste m S chematic
Fluid Flow Experiments
Transfer Mechanisms
• imbibition/wettability
• CO2 gravity drainage
We Have Come A Long Way
Since the Sugar Cube Model
We Have Come A Long Way
Since the Sugar Cube Model

But Not Far Enough

 Overview of Imbibition Study
• Wettability Index • Oil recovery profile
• Aging effect on oil • modeling the
recovery experiments

oil
• Effect of P and T on • Capillary pressure
oil recovery curve
• Upscaling the data • Key variables in dual
• Capillary pressure porosity simulation
curve • Determine critical
injection rate

Water
Field dimension
 Schematic Diagram of Imbibition
Process in Laboratory
138oF Imbibition model with one end closed

1.5” X 2.5 - 3.0”

Core

core
oil
Synthetic
water brine

beaker
Experimental Set-up for
Imbibition Test under HPHT
Side View

Air Bath
NV

BV BV
Brine Tank
PR
High
Pressure
Imbibition
Cell core
Graduate
Cylinder BV

N2 Bottle Top View

(2000 psi)
BV = Ball Valve
NV = Needle Valve
PR = Pressure Regulator
Inlet for creating
tangential flow
 Effect of Pressure and Temperature
on Imbibition Rate using Berea Sandstone
70 60
B -13, P = 13.5 p s i
B -10, P = 13.5 p s i
60 B -11, P = 1000 p s i
50
Re fe re n c e T re s = 138 o F
Oil R e co v e ry , % IOIP

50

R e c o v e ry , % IOIP
40

40
T ro o m = 70 o F
30 Ex te n d e d to
te m p e ra tu re 138 o F
30
T exp = 138 o F 20
20 Swi = 0 % P = 13.5 p s i
S w i = 0%

10 10

0 0
0 1 100 10000 -100 400 900
Tim e , h o u rs Ti m e , h o u rs
 Effect of Temperature on Imbibition Rate
using Spraberry Reservoir Rock
25 25
Co re S P R-1H R Co re S P R-1H R
Co re S P R-12H
Co re S P R-12H
20 Co re S P R-13R 20 Co re S P R-15R
Co re S P R-14R
Oil Recovery, % IOIP

Oil Recovery, % IOIP

15 o 15 138oF
138 F

10 10 70oF

70oF
Ex te n d e d to
5 5
re s e rv o ir te m p e ra tu re

0 0
0.1 10 1000 100000 -100 400 900 1400 1900
Time, Hours Time, Hours
 Composite Imbibition Curves
1.00
Aranofsky Eq. :
N o rm a liz e d R e c o v e ry

0.90
R n = 1 - exp (-  t D )
0.80
S WW Co re
0.70 "re fe re n c e c u rv e "
(Ma & Mo rro w , 1995)
0.60
S p ra be rry Co re s
0.50
a t R e s e rv o i r Co n d i t i o n

0.40  = 0.0053

0.30

0.20 S p ra be rry Co re s
a t Am bi e n t Co n d i t i o n
0.10  = 0.0015

0.00
0.01 1 100 10000 1000000

D i m e n s i o n l e s s Ti m e , t D
Scaling Equations for Static Imbibition

km ( md )  ( dyne / cm ) cos( )
t D  Ct ( year ) 2
 g ( cp ) Lc ( ft 2 )

g  b  o ; C = 10.66

R  Rimb 1  exp   t D  

 t
qo   Vo e
km  cos( )
  0.0053C
 g Lc 2
 Imbibition
A
Amott Wettability Index

RA
WI 
RA  R B
Displacement

B
0 1

less more
Water-wet
Static imbibition Wettability index vs aging time
for different experimental temperatures
A 1.0
Process A = 138F and Process B = 138F
0.9 Process A = 70F and Process B = 70F (without aging)

Wettability Index to Water, WI

0.8 Process A = 138F and Process B = 70F

0.7 RA
WI 
0.6 RA  R B
0.5

0.4
Displacement
0.3
B 0.2

0.1 Spraberry cores

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Aging Time, ta (days)
 Up-scaled Recovery Profile
1U h = 10 ft
Ca lculate d Re co v e ry B ase d o n Im bibitio n Mo de l, % IOIP
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
7080

Ls = 3.79 ft 7082

Depth in Well Shackelford 1-38A, feet

7084

7086
Upper Spraberry
1U Formation
(Shackelford-1-38A) 7088

7090

7092 1 year 5 year > 10 year

7094
 OIL RATE VS. % OOIP
100000

good imbibition process

Oil Rate (STB/m)

10000

decline in imbibition
1000 process efficiency

100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Oil Recovery (% OOIP)
 Effect of Matrix Permeability and Fracture Spacing
14
on Oil Recovery
14
Ls = 1.62 ft
k = 0.3 md
12 12
Ca lcula te d Oil Re co v e ry , %IOIP

k = 0.1 md Ls = 2.86 ft
Ls = 3.17 ft

10 10
k = 0.03 md
Ls = 3.79 ft
8 k = 0.01 md 8

6 6
P a ra m e te rs :
P a ra me te rs :
IOIP = 712,404 - 735,957 rb
IOIP = 712,404 - 735,957 rb
4 4 R i m b = 13%
R im b = 13%
P o ro s ity = 10.02% P o ro s ity = 10.02%
B o = 1.294 rb/S TB B o = 1.294 rb/S TB
2 2
F ra c tu re s p a c i n g , L s = 2.86 ft Ma trix p e rm e a bility = 0.1 m D
S w i = 0.2 + 0.13e -0.6(k-0.1) S w i = 0.2 + 0.13 e -0.6(k-0.1)
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Tim e , Ye a rs Tim e , Ye a rs
 Concept of Imbibition Flooding Process
( Brownscombe, 1952 )

Invaded Oil production by water imbibition

zone
Matrix
Water

Fracture Oil production

Matrix fracture fluid

exchange mechanism
fracture matrix
Important variables for this process : Viscous force
• The oil is stored in matrix
• The matrix rock is water wet
• The fractures must sufficiently water
close to each other,
oil
to permit water imbibe into the
matrix in a reasonable length of
Capillary force
time
Experimental Set-up for Dynamic Imbibition Tests at
Reservoir Temperature
Air Bath

Confining
pressure
gauge

Brine
Core holder
tank

Graduated
cylinder
Artificially
fractured core
N2 Tank Ruska
(2000 psi) Pump

Fracture
Matrix
 Oil Recovery from Fractured Berea and
Spraberry Cores using Different Injection
Rates

70 60
Qi n j = 1 c c /h r

60 Qi n j = 2 c c /h r
50
Oil Re c o v e ry , % IOIP

Qi n j = 4 c c /h r

50 Qi n j = 8 c c /h r

Oil Re c o v e ry
Qi n j = 8 c c /h r (re p e a te d ) 40

40 Qi n j = 16 c c /h r
Qi n j = 40 c c /h r 30
30

20
20 U n fra c tu re d c o re , Qi n j = 0.2 c c /h r
F ra c tu re d c o re , Qin j = 0.2 c c /h r
10
10 F ra c tu re d c o re , Qin j = 0.5 c c /h r
F ra c tu re d c o re , Qin j = 1.0 c c /h r

0 0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
P V Wa te r In je c t e d P V Wa te r In je c t e d

Berea Cores Spraberry Cores

 Dimensionless Fracture
Viscous Force  w Af Capillary Number
Nf  
VC Capillary Force  cos Am

Viscous force
Capillary force (v w Af )
Lab Units: ( cos  Am)

1.27 E  5 * qinj ( cc / sec) w ( cp ) w

Nf 
VC k m ( md ) h
Pc , max( psi )
Am ( cm 2 )
J ( swi ) m dz

Am
Af
Field Units:

9.05 E  5 * qinj ( STB / Day ) w ( cp )

Nf 
VC k m ( md )
Pc , max( psi )
Am ( ft 2 )
J ( swi ) m
 Injection Rate versus Oil-cut
1.00
Experimental data from Berea cores
Oil Produced From Matrix, PV

0.90
Experimental data from Spraberry cores
Total Water Injected, PV

0.80
1 Capillary force dominant
0.70

0.60
2 Capillary and viscous forces dominant
0.50

0.40
Critical Injection rate
0.30 for Berea cores, 20 cc/hr

0.20
3 Viscous force dominant
0.10

0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Critical Injection rate Injection Rate, cc/hr

for Spraberry cores, 10 cc/hr
 Up-scaling of Critical Injection Rate
P o rou s B e re a s a n d s to n e S p ra be rry
m e d iu m
D im e n s io n Co re s ize F ie ld s c a le Co re s ize F ie ld s c a le
N f,c a 2.8e -7 1.0e -7
Are a - 80 a c re - 80 a c re
w a te r 0.68 c p 0.68 c p 0.68 c p 0.68 c p
L in j-p ro d 7.12 c m 1320 ft 6.8 c m 1320 ft
h 3.63 c m 10 ft 3.7 c m 10 ft
Am 25.81 c m 2 13200 ft 2 24.8 c m 2 13200 ft 2
k 63.41 m d 63.41 m d 0.1 m d 0.1 m d
 16.6 % 16.6 % 10% 10%
P cm a x 1.2 p s i 1.2 p s i 7 psi 7 psi
J (S w i) 0.99 0.99 0.27 0.27
Crit ic al Wat e r 20 c c /h r 1433 b bl/d ay 10 c c /h r 556 bbl/d a y
In je ct ion Rat e
 Dynamic Imbibition Modeling
Dual porosity, 2 phase and 3-D
Rectangular grid block with grid size : 10 x 10 x 3
(Berea) ; z = 9 layers for Spraberry
Fracture layer between the matrix layers
Inject into the fracture layer
Alter matrix capillary pressure only to match the
experimental data
 zero Pc for fracture
 straight line for krw and kro fracture
 use krw and kro matrix from the following equations (Berea
core):
k rw  S w 3 k ro  ( S o  S or ) 3
 Berea Core

Match
Between
Cumulative water production vs. time Cumulative oil production vs. time
Experimental
Data and
Numerical
Solution

Spraberry Core
Cumulative water production vs. time Cumulative oil production vs. time
Capillary Pressure Curves Obtained by Matching
Experimental Data (Berea and Spraberry Cores)

2.0 10

1.8 9

Capillary Pre s s ure fo r S prabe rry Co re , Pc

1.6 8
Capillary Pre s s ure fo r Be re a Co re ,

1.4 7

1.2 6

1.0 5

(ps i)
P c (ps i)

0.8 4

0.6 3

0.4 2

0.2 1

0.0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Wate r Saturation, S w (%PV)
Slow Imbibition is the
Rate-Limiting Step

Imbibition analogous to sieve slowly

leaking fluid onto conveyor belt

Conveyor belt
analogous to
water injection
into fractures
 Evidence of Weakly Water-Wet Behavior
in Spraberry
• Spontaneous imbibition of oil into water saturated
Spraberry core
• Spontaneous imbibition of oil into water saturated
core during static Eq. Pc meas.
• Low Pc during drainage and imbibition
• Low Amott wettability indices Iw~ 0.2 - 0.3
• Scaled mercury contact angle of 50o
• Reservoir condition contact angle measurements
of 50o (within 10o)
 Reservoir Properties
Net pay zone thickness 20 ft. log and core
Matrix permeability 0.03 md well test
Matrix porosity 0.12 core
Gas saturation 0 assumed
Overall contact angle 50 degrees measured
Effective fluid viscosity 0.9 cp measured
Oil-water IFT 36 mN/m measured
Oil FVF 1.35 rb/STB measured
Imbibition efficiency 13% measured
Capillary pressure history match
Fracture spacing 2.86 ft. horizontal core
Initial water saturation Swi 0.38 measured
Residual oil saturation 0.40 sponge core
144:1 Anisotropy Ratio
 T-1
B-8
B-11 Reservoir Simulation
B-1

B-2
B-3

Humble Pilot
B-4

B-10
B-5
B-9

B-7
B-6

A-4
Model
SHB-10
N SHB-9 SHB-2
Grid system
15O
N50OE SHB-6 SHB-4
Fracture Trend

matrix
fracture
fracture
vugs matrix

80 ACRES
NO COMMUNICATION
BETWEEN LAYER
GRID DIMENSION IS 22X18X3
History Matching of Humble Pilot
O’DANIEL LEASE
 History Match - Section 4 Production Plots

Section 4 Oil Rate Section 4 GOR

300 35
250 30
200 25

GOR, mcf/stb
Oil Rate, stb/d

20
150
15
100 10
50 5
0 0
Jun-59 Feb-67 Oct-74 Jun-82 Feb-90 Oct-97 Jun-59 Feb-67 Oct-74 Jun-82 Feb-90 Oct-97
Time, days
Time, days

Section 4 Cumulative Oil Section 4 Pressure

2000 1400
1200
1500

Pressure, psia
1000
Cum. Oil, mstb

800
1000 600
500 400
200
0 0
Jun-59 Feb-67 Oct-74 Jun-82 Feb-90 Oct-97 Jun-59 Feb-67 Oct-74 Jun-82 Feb-90 Oct-97

Time, days Time, days

 CO2 Gravity Drainage Experiments

L R L R
V7 V1

L R
V2

H2O L R
Oil V5
CORE V3 or
HOLDER CO2
L R

BPR

PT

N2 PUMP
V6 H2O
V4

A Schematic Diagram of
Experimental Setup
 Objectives of CO2 Lab
Experimentation
 Efficiency of CO2 gravity drainage
 Effect of Swi on the efficiency
 Effect of K on the efficiency
 Effect of core discontinuity and
impermeable layers on the efficiency
 Effect of water imbibition followed by
CO2 drainage on the efficiency
 Effect of fractured core on the efficiency
 Experiments Performed
No Core D, in L, in K, md Objective
1 Berea 4 21.75 500 1, 2, 3
2 Berea 4 21.75 47.7 1, 2, 3
3 Spraberry 4 21.65 0.01 1, 2, 3
4 Spraberry 3.5 21.75 0.38 1, 2, 3
5 Spraberry 2.5 19.63 0.057 1, 2, 3, 4
6 Berea 4 21.75 610 1, 5
 Experimental Procedures

 Core preparation • methanol, THF/toluene/chloroform,

• cleaning methanol, N2
• until weight doesn’t change
• drying • under vacuum
• injecting brine • saturate with brine
• injecting dead oil • to get initial water saturation, Swi
• at least 2 weeks at high T
• aging
• for experiment of water imbibition
 Water imbibition followed by CO2 drainage
• either injecting CO2 at a very low
 CO2 drainage flow rate or releasing/injecting CO2
periodically
Set-Up for CO2 Gravity Drainage
N2

core sam ple

BPR

drainage

cylinder
CO2
pum p

Schematic Setup of CO2

Drainage Experiment
Materials Used in Experiments
 Core samples
– Berea  Oil samples
– Spraberry – Spraberry dead oil
– Whole diameter – density: ~0.87
 Brine – viscosity: ~3 cp
– Synthetic – average molecular
 =1.08 @26 oC weight: ~225
 =1.21 @ 26 oC – MMP: ~1550 psi
 Experimental Conditions
 Pressures
– pback > 1650 psi (1450 psi for Experiment 1)
– pconfining > 1950 psi (during water/oil injection)
 Temperature
– whole system: 1382 oF
 CO2 drainage cell
– vertical during CO2 drainage
 Properties of Core Samples
N
o. 1 2 3 4 5 6
2
4 .7
7
L
,cm5
5.2
555
.2
5 5
5 .0 5
5 .2
5 2
5 .0
8
5
5.2
5
6.53
D
,cm1
0.1
610
.1
610.16 8.89 6.58 1
0.1
6

 ,%18.7 1
3.0 1
0.0 1
1.1 10
.7 2
2.4 3
K
br,md5
00 47.7 0
.01 0
.38 0
.0
57610 .0
S
w i,%3
5.0 2
9.3 3
8.6 4
5.0 37
.6 42.1
T
yp
eBe
re
aBe
re
aSp
ra
berry S
pra
berry S
pra
berry B
ere
a
 Recovery Curves From CO2
Drainage
0.6
500md Berea core, Swi=0.35

47.7md Berea core, Swi=0.293

0.5
0.01md Spraberry core, Swi=0.386
O il Re c o v e ry , O O IP

0.38md Spraberry core, Swi=0.45

0.057md stacked Spraberry core, Swi=0.376
0.4
610md Berea core, Swi=42.1 - total
610md Berea core, Swi=66.5 - CO2 drainage
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time, day
 Oil Recovery from CO2 Gravity Drainage
Experiments
0.60
500 md Berea Core, Sw = 0.35
50 md Berea Core, Sw = 0.293
0.50 0.01 md Reservoir Core, Sw = 0.386
Oil Recovery (OOIP)

0.38 md Reservoir Core, Sw = 0.45

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Time (day)
 Results of CO2 Drainage

N
o. 1 2 3 4 5 6
S
oi,% 6
5.0 7
0.7 6
1.4 5
5.0 6
2.4 3
3.5
S
or,% 3
7.5 3
2.5 4
2.5 4
1.8 5
0.5 2
9.3
O
OIPc5
,c 4
4.5 4
11.1 2
73.8 2
09.3 1
11.0 3
36.3
O
WIPc2
,c 9
3.2 1
71.2 1
72.1 1
71.3 6
7.0 2
94.3

o,% 4
2.2 5
3.9 3
0.8 2
4.1 1
9.0 1
8.4
T
ime
,d 5
.6 2
20 1
90 1
67 3
31 3
6
 Effect of K on Oil Recovery
60

50

40
O il Recovery, %

stacked
Spraberry
cores
30

Berea Cores

20

Oil Recovery
Sor
10
Spraberry Cores

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Permeability, md
Effect of Swi on Oil Recovery
60

50

40
O il R e c o v e ry

Berea Cores

30

20
stacked Spraberry
Spraberry Cores core
10

0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Initial Water Saturation, Swi
 The Sixth Experiment

 Water imbibition followed by CO2

gravity drainage
 Also to investigate effect of pressure
change (cycle)
– decrease from 1750 to 1450 then
increase back to 1750 psi
– one cycle per day
Results during Various Stages
W a te r C O2 Tempera
ture Cyclic
Im
b ib itionD rainage C hange C O 2

S
oi/
S f 5
o 7.9/3 8 .5 3
8 .5/2
9.3 29.3
/29
.2 2 9
.2/28.0
S
wi/
S f 4
w 2.1
/66
.5 6
6.5
/39
.0 3
9.0
/38
.9 3
8.9
/36
.5
S
g+
CO2 0
.1 3
1.7 3
1.7 3
5.5

o,% 3
3.4 4
9.4 4
9.5 5
1.8
T
ime
,d 2
2 3
6 7 5
 Oil/Water Producing History
350

610 md Berea core

300

250
V a lu m e , c c

200

increase temperature to 180F

150
cyclic pressure [1450,1750]
CO2 drainage
100

Vo, cc
50
water imbibition Vw, cc

0
0 240 480 720 960 1200 1440 1680
T ime, hr
Oil Recovery and Saturation
History
70
610 md Berea core
60

50

40

30

temperature
20 OOIP%
CO2 drainage increase to
water imbibition So,%
cyclic CO2 injection
10 Sw,% [1450,1750]

0
0 240 480 720 960 1200 1440 1680
Time, hr
 Oil Samples During CO2
Drainage

t=10hr t=37hr t=42.5hr t=50.5hr t=89hr t=155.5hr

t=209.5hr t=250.5hr t=301hr t=330hr t=469hr t=657.5hr

Produced Fluids in Midale Pilot
Weight Percent of Oil Samples
20
sample #0, dead oil

15
Weight Percent, %

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Component
Weight Percent of Oil Samples
20

sample #0, dead oil

sample #1, 10 hr

15
Weight Percent, %

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Component
Weight Percent of Oil Samples
20

sample #0, dead oil

sample #1, 10 hr
sample #2, 37 hr
15
Weight Percent, %

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Component
Weight Percent of Oil Samples
20

sample #0, dead oil

sample #1, 10 hr
sample #2, 37 hr
15 sample #3, 42.5 hr
Weight Percent, %

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Component
Weight Percent of Oil Samples
20

sample #0, dead oil

sample #1, 10 hr
sample #2, 37 hr
15 sample #3, 42.5 hr
sample #4, 50.5 hr
Weight Percent, %

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Component
Weight Percent of Oil Samples
20

sample #0, dead oil

sample #1, 10 hr
sample #2, 37 hr
sample #3, 42.5 hr
15
sample #4, 50.5 hr
Weight Percent, %

sample #5, 89 hr

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Component
Weight Percent of Oil Samples
20

sample #0, dead oil

sample #1, 10 hr
sample #2, 37 hr
sample #3, 42.5 hr
15 sample #4, 50.5 hr
sample #5, 89 hr
sample #6, 269.6 hr
Weight Percent, %

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Component
Weight Percent of Oil Samples
20

sample #0, dead oil

sample #1, 10 hr
sample #2, 37 hr
sample #3, 42.5 hr
15 sample #4, 50.5 hr
sample #5, 89 hr
sample #6, 269.6 hr
Weight Percent, %

sample #7, 301 hr

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Component
Weight Percent of Oil Samples
20

sample #0, dead oil

sample #1, 10 hr
sample #2, 37 hr
sample #3, 42.5 hr
15 sample #4, 50.5 hr
sample #5, 89 hr
sample #6, 269.6 hr
Weight Percent, %

sample #7, 301 hr

sample #8, 330 hr
10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Component
Weight Percent of Oil Samples
20

sample #0, dead oil

sample #1, 10 hr
sample #2, 37 hr
sample #3, 42.5 hr
15 sample #4, 50.5 hr
sample #5, 89 hr
sample #6, 269.6 hr
Weight Percent, %

sample #7, 301 hr

sample #8, 330 hr
sample #9, 469 hr
10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Component
Mole Fraction of Oil Samples
0.18

0.16 sample #1
sample #2
0.14 sample #3
sample #4
0.12 sample #5
Mole Fraction

sample #6
0.1 sample #7
sample #8
0.08 sample #9
sample #0
0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Component
Distribution of Component Groups
Weight percent of components of oil samples during CO2 drainage

90

80

70

C1 ~ C10
60

C11 ~ C20
W e ig h t. %

50
C21 ~C30

40 C31+

30

20

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Time, hr
 Properties of Oil Samples
Average molecular weight and density of oil samples during CO2 drainage

350 0.95

310 0.91
Ave. Molec. Weight

270 0.87

Density
230 0.83

190 0.79

150 0.75
0 100 200 300 400
Time, hr
Comparison of Experiment 1 and 6
CO2 drainage CO2 drainage after
water imbibition
Core Berea Berea
LxD 55.25 x 10.16 55.25 x 10.16
Porosity 18.7 22.4
Kbrine, md 500 610
Swi 35.0 42.1
Recovery 42.2 Total:51.8;18.4 by CO2
 Projection of Oil Recovery for the CO2 Pilot,
Fracture Spacing 3.2 ft, Sw = 0.38
0.25

0.2
Oil Recovery (IOIP)

0.15
k = 0.3 md
k = 0.6 md
0.1
k = 0.9 md

0.05

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (years)
Pilot Area 1998 Drilling
1B

36

21
4
1C 47 4
23
ACTIVE PRODUCER
PLUGGED AND ABANDONED
25
28 46 40 SHUT IN WELL
INJECTION WELL
39
PILOT PRODUCING WELL
29 1
PILOT WATER INJECTION WELL
45
7 38 Pilot
Area
1 48 37 3

6
16

1A 14

1
1
4
1-4 13

3 10
9

5
15
1
14

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 FEET

Pilot Area 2000 Drilling
1B

36

21
4
1C 47 4
23
ACTIVE PRODUCER
PLUGGED AND ABANDONED
25
28 46 40 SHUT IN WELL
INJECTION WELL
39
PILOT PRODUCING WELL
29 1
Proposed LOGGING OBSERVATION WELL PILOT WATER INJECTION
45 WELL
7 38 Pilot
Proposed LOGGING
Area
OBSERVATION WELL
1 48 37 3
Proposed PILOT GAS
6 INJECTION WELL
16

1A 14

1
1
4
1-4 13

3 10
9

5
15
1
14

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 FEET

Facility Design
Aerial View of E.T. O’Daniel
Unit and Pilot
 Application of Tracers to Determine Fracture
Orientation in the O’Daniel Pilot Spraberry Trend Area
1
31
26

36 1B

1C
47
42

33 50 40
28
46 44 25
49

39
1
29
45 41

38
43
37
3
48

14

1A

13

5 500 Ft/In

PETRA 9/7/00 10:32:25 AM

Injection of Tracer Material
 Brunson D-1

47
40
46 25
39

45 38
37
48

O’Daniel A-1

Fracture orientation as a
result of tracer injection.
 RESPONSE OF SURROUNDING WELLS ON TRACER INJECTION
AT E.T O'DANIEL PILOT AREA
200,000.0
180,000.0
TRACER CONCENTRATION (PPT)

160,000.0
140,000.0
120,000.0

100,000.0
80,000.0

60,000.0
40,000.0
20,000.0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
TIME (DAYS)
WIW #47-Brunson D-1 WIW #46-Brunson D-1
WIW #45- Pilot Well #38 WIW #48-O'Daniel A-1
Oil Production Response due to Water Injection
In O’ Daniel Pilot

300 3600.0

250 3000.0

200 2400.0

150 1800.0

100 1200.0

50 600.0

0 0.0

BOPD, 7 On-Trend Wells BOPD, 23 Off-Trend Wells BWIPD, 7 Injectors

 O'Brien "B1" and Brunson "F1" Oil Production

100

90 Conclusions
80

• Volume of shale vs. effective porosity

70

60 crossplots better describe the location of

BOPD

50 Spraberry pay zones.

40
• Horizontal cores demonstrate that even a
30

20
flat lying structure like Spraberry is subject
10
to complicated, multiple fracture sets.
-
12/21/1998 3/31/1999 7/9/1999 10/17/1999 1/25/2000 5/4/2000
O'Brien 1"B" Brunson 1"F"
 On-Trend and Off-Trend Wells
250

200

150

100

50

BOPD (7 On-Trend Wells) BOPD (23 Off-Trend Wells)