1

A SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY AND CO-SEQUESTRATION POTENTIAL FOR CO2IN OHIO’S DEPLETED OILFIELDSS. MISHRA, C. MCNEIL, J. HAWKINS, E. HOWAT, A. HAAGSMA, M. YUGULIS,

I. FUKAI, A. PASUMARTI AND T. BARCLAY

Carbon Management Technology Conference 2015

Sugar Land, TX, November 17th – 19th, 2015

AbstractThe goal of this study is to develop process understanding and evaluate technical and economic feasibility of

CO2 utilization foe enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and geologic storage in Ohio. Our focus is on depleted oil fields

in the Clinton sandstone (Eastern Ohio) and the Knox Dolomite Group (North-Central Ohio). These fields are

promising candidates for CO2-assisted EOR because of poor primary recovery efficiency that leaves behind

approximately 80–90% of the original oil in place. A systematic assessment of EOR and co-sequestration

potential for CO2in these depleted oil fields has not been undertaken to date – which is the objective of this

research project. In this paper, we will describe our findings related to:

• Source-sink matching for characterizing potential stationary sources of CO2 with respect to their location and

size, and comparing that to the distribution of depleted oil fields using pipeline routing tools,

• Production history assessment for evaluating CO2 sequestration potential based on production-based

voidage replacement calculations,

• Reservoir characterization for developing geologic framework models for “reference” reservoirs in the Clinton

and Knox formations via integration of well-log and core analysis data,

• Fluid property characterization for evaluating empirical correlations to predict oil, gas, water, and

CO2 pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) relationships,

• Reservoir simulation studies based on the geologic framework models to better understand field-scale areal

and vertical sweep efficiencies for both continuous and water-alternating-gas CO2-EOR processes, and

• Economic analyses including compilation of capital and operating expenses representative of field conditions

in Ohio; and cost-benefit analysis for CCUS operations.

2

Project Goals

• Develop a rigorous framework for fully evaluating the

potential for CO2-assisted EOR and geologic storage in

Ohio’s depleted oil fields,

• Develop process understanding and evaluate technical

and economic feasibility of CCUS in the region,

• Focus on Clinton Sandstone and Knox Group Dolomite

formations (under-pressured, low permeability reservoirs

with poor primary recovery), and

• Provide systematic assessment of CO2-EOR and geologic

storage potential in these reservoirs.

3

4

Project Approach

Ohio’s Oilfields of Interest

5

Storage Capacity Estimation Method

CO2 storage capacity was calculated using a production-based equation,

which uses actual oil and gas production to evaluate storage.

6

Reservoir

Barrels

MCF CO2

CO2 Formation

Volume Factor

Reservoir

Barrels Stock Tank

Barrels

Oil Formation

Volume Factor

x +Reservoir

Barrels

Gas Formation

Volume Factor

MCF Gas

x

Oil Production Gas Production

Storage Capacity Estimation Results

7

CO2 Storage Capacity

(Production Method)

Million Metric Tons (MMT)

72 - 154

0.004 - 25

25 - 72

The 30 major oilfields had a combined

total of 878 million metric tons of CO2

storage capacity.

Representative Field Selection - ECOF

8

Representative Field Selection - MCOF

9

Reservoir Characterization

•

10

Geologic Model Development

11

• Integration of data from

geologic analysis and

reservoir characterization

• Building “static earth model”

for each oilfield of interest

▪ Create a 3D grid incorporating

porosity and water saturation

• Export developed model as

input to dynamic reservoir

modeling effort

Geologic Model Building and Results

12

• Challenges

▪ lack of information on

distribution of natural

fractures,

▪ sparse advanced log

coverage in study

areas, and

▪ minimal availability of

core samples for

developing porosity-

perm relationship.

Reservoir Fluid Properties Study

• An Excel-based toolbox for predicting fluid properties of oil, gas, brine and CO2

has been developed using literature-based and newly developed correlations

▪ Formation volume factor

▪ Solution-gas liquid ratio (gas in oil, CO2 in water)

▪ Density

• These correlations are primarily a function of pressure, temperature, oil gravity,

gas gravity and salinity (as appropriate)

13

▪ Isothermal compressibility

▪ Viscosity

▪ Gas deviation factor

Fluid Property Prediction Toolbox

14

Reservoir Simulation

• Goal Evaluate the feasibility of CO2-EOR for reference

Ohio reservoirs in terms of reservoir performance

following CO2 injection

• Develop reservoir model(s) to integrate known geologic,

fluid and production data

• Calibrate models to observed production history

• Quantify incremental oil recovery following CO2 injection

and amount of CO2 stored

• Examine sensitivity of injection scenarios to geologic and

engineering factors

15

Reservoir Simulation Results - ECOF

16

Cumulative Oil vs Time

Cumulative Stored CO2 vs Time

Strategy Performance at End of EOR Period

Reservoir Simulation Results - MCOF

17

Cumulative Oil vs Time

Cumulative Stored CO2 vs Time

Strategy Performance at End of EOR Period

Ohio’s CO2 Emission Sources

18

Oilfield Sink Capacity vs Emission Source Volume – Source-Sink Matching

19

• Buffer maps were generated to determine the emission sources in close proximity

to ECOF and MCOF.

• A pipeline routing analysis was carried out to determine the optimal routes from

the top 45 emission sources to ECOF and MCOF.

Cost-Benefit Analysis Methodology

• CO2-PROPHET reservoir

performance model

• Ohio-specific well cost data

+ cost models established

in previous studies.

• Results include: NPV (net

present value), IRR (internal

rate of return), and a break-

even cost of CO2.

• Applied to ECOF and MCOF

20

Cost-Benefit Analysis Results

• Example calculations

▪ For both ECOF and MCOF

▪ With representative pattern elements

▪ Using Oil price = [40, 70, 100] $/bbl

▪ Using CO2 cost = [40, 80, 100] $/ton

• NPV analysis shows good project

economics at $100/bbl oil for most

CO2 price scenarios

• Breakeven analysis suggests that

for every dollar increase in oil price,

corresponding increase in break-

even cost of CO2 is ~$4 per ton

21

Project Key Findings

22

Incremental oil

recovery as a % of

primary production

with CO2-EOR for

ECOF & MCOF

70 - 120 %

Tons of CO2 stored

for every 100

barrels of oil

produced

5 - 12

Change in breakeven

CO2 cost per $

change in the

oil price

~4x

30

Depleted Oil

Fields

Original Oil in

Place [MMbbls]

8,851

Cumulative

Production

[MMbbls]

1,274

CO2 Storage

Capacity [MMt]

878

229

Stationary

Sources

Million Metric Tons

CO2 Emitted Per

Year

129

Sources are Coal-

Fired Plants

22

CO2 Emissions

Come From Coal-

Fired Power Plants

63%

800.201.2011 | solutions@battelle.org | www.battelle.org

Collaborators: Neeraj Gupta, Mark Kelley,

Amber Conner, Ola Babarinde, Jackie Gerst, Mark Moody,

Rick Peterson, Samin Raziperchikolaee, Priya Ravi Ganesh,

Jacob Markiewicz, Natalie Zeleznik, Jared Schuetter,

Ashley Kubatko and Jacob Markiewicz.

Funding for this study was provided by Ohio Development

Services Agency’s Ohio Coal Development Office (OCDO) grant

agreement OOE-CDO-D-13-24 in conjunction with the Midwest

Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) grant

agreement number DE-FC26-05NT42589.

Acknowledgments