SPE 139717

Storing CO2 With Next Generation CO2-EOR Technology

R.C. Ferguson, V.A. Kuuskraa, T.S. Van Leeuwen, Advanced Resources International; D. Remson, US
Department of Energy, NETL

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Conference on CO2 Capture, Storage, and Utilization held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 10–12 November 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
CO2 enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) offers the potential for storing significant volumes of carbon dioxide emissions while
increasing domestic oil production. This paper, based on a recently updated report for DOE/NETL, examines the effect that
“Next Generation” technologies will have on the CO2 storage and oil production potential of CO2-EOR. The paper examines
the causes of sub-optimal CO2 storage and oil recovery efficiencies by current CO2-EOR practices and how a group of
advanced or “Next-Generation” CO2-EOR technology could increase both CO2 storage volumes and oil recovery.
Technologies investigated include: using increased volumes of injected and permanently sequestered CO2, optimizing well
placement and pattern alignment, and using reservoir miscibility and viscosity enhancers.

Introduction
CO2 enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) offers the potential for storing significant volumes of carbon dioxide emissions
while increasing domestic oil production. This paper is based largely on an updated report for the U.S. DOE/NETL to
1
examine the effect “Next Generation” technologies could have on both oil production and CO2 storage and utilization .
A six part methodology was used to assess the CO2 storage and EOR potential of domestic oil reservoirs. The six steps
were: (1) assembling and updating the Major Oil Reservoirs Database; (2) calculating the minimum miscibility pressure for
applying CO2 -EOR; (3) using minimum miscibility pressure and other criteria to screen reservoirs favorable for CO2-EOR;
(4) calculating oil recovery from applying “next generation” CO2-EOR technology; (5) applying the updated cost and
economic model; and, (6) performing economic and sensitivity analyses to understand how the combined effects of
technology and oil prices impact the results of applying “next generation” CO2-EOR and CO2 storage technology.
To calculate the incremental oil produced by CO2-EOR from oil reservoirs, the study utilized the PROPHET2 model.
PROPHET2 is a stream tube miscible flood predictive model that was first developed by the Texaco Exploration and
Production Technology Department under a DOE cost share program and has been further modified by Advanced Resources
International. 2

Domestic Oil Resource Base

The U.S. has a large oil resource base, on the order of 597 billion barrels originally in-place. About one-third of this oil
resource base, 204 billion barrels, has been recovered or placed into proved reserves with existing primary and secondary oil
recovery technologies. This leaves behind a massive target of 393 billion barrels of remaining, “technically stranded” oil.
Much of the “stranded” oil resides in East and Central Texas (74 billion barrels), the Mid-Continent (66 billion barrels),
and the Permian Basin of West Texas and New Mexico (62 billion barrels). California, Alaska, the Gulf Coast and the
Rockies also have significant volumes of “stranded” oil.
Not all of the remaining domestic oil resource is technically amenable to CO2-EOR. Favorable reservoir properties for
miscible CO2-EOR include sufficiently deep formations with lighter (higher gravity) oil. A portion of the shallower oil
reservoirs with heavier (lower gravity) oil may be amenable to immiscible CO2-EOR. Within Advanced Resource

1
“Storing CO2 and Producing Domestic Crude Oil with Next Generation Technology: An Update” DOE/NETL, 2010:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/Storing%20CO2%20w%20Next%20Generation%20CO2-EOR.pdf
2
“Post Waterflood CO2 Flood in a Light Oil, Fluvial Dominated Deltaic Reservoir” (DOE Contract No. DE-FC22-
93BC14960).
2 SPE 139717

International’s Large Oilfield’s Database 1,719 out of 2,790 reservoirs screen favorably for CO2-EOR. These 1,719
reservoirs contain 305 billion barrels of OOIP.

Impediments to Current CO2-EOR Performance

Large volumes of oil are left unrecovered (“stranded”) after completion of primary and secondary oil recovery methods.
The reasons for these large volumes of “stranded” oil include: oil that is bypassed due to poor waterflood sweep efficiency;
oil that is physically unconnected to a wellbore; and, most importantly, oil that is trapped by viscous, capillary and interfacial
tension forces as residual oil in the pore space.
The main mechanism by which CO2-EOR can recover this trapped oil is by creating, with the assistance of pressure,
miscibility between the residual oil and the injected CO2. Additional mechanisms such as viscosity reduction, oil swelling
and improved reservoir contact further contribute to efficient oil recovery.
Laboratory tests and reservoir modeling show that very high oil recovery efficiencies are theoretically possible using
innovative applications of CO2 enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR). Under ideal conditions, gravity-stable laboratory core
floods using high pressure CO2 have recovered essentially all of the residual oil. Similarly, reservoir simulation models,
using innovative well placement and process designs that facilitate contact of the majority of the reservoir’s pore volume with
CO2, also show that high oil recovery efficiencies are possible.
However, the actual field performance of CO2-EOR projects has not exhibited the high oil recovery efficiency shown in
laboratory tests. Geologically complex reservoir settings combined with lack of reliable performance information or process
control capability during the CO2 flood are some of the challenges facing optimum oil recovery using CO2-EOR. Field data
shows that currently practiced CO2-EOR technology recovers only 5% to 15% of a reservoir’s OOIP as opposed to
theoretically possible oil recoveries using “next generation” CO2-EOR technology of over 20% of OOIP.
The causes of less-than-optimum past-performance and modest oil recoveries by currently used CO2-EOR technologies
include the following:

1. Insufficient Injection of CO2. The great majority of past CO2 floods injected insufficient volumes of CO2 for
optimum oil recovery. This was due in part to high CO2 costs relative to oil prices and the inability to control CO2
flow through the reservoir.

Figure 1 shows that low reservoir sweep efficiency results from using small volumes of CO2 injection. This figure
highlights the theoretical improvement in the sweep efficiency (EA) by 14% from increasing the volume of CO2
injected (VpD) from 1.0 HCPV to 1.5 HCPV (0.72 to 0.82 EA).

2. Poor Sweep Efficiency. In many of the previous CO2 floods, the injected CO2 achieved only limited contact with
the residual oil in the reservoir (poor sweep efficiency). This was due to a variety of causes, including: gravity
override by the less dense CO2; viscous fingering of the CO2 through the reservoir’s oil; and channeling of the CO2
in highly heterogeneous reservoirs. Using the same plot of sweep efficiency against the mobility ratio, Figure 2
shows that improving the mobility ratio from 4.4 to 1.0 would theoretically improve sweep efficiency (EA) by 18%
(EAfrom 0.73 to 0.86).

3. Poor Displacement Efficiency. Analysis of past CO2-EOR projects also shows that, in many cases, the CO2
contacted, but did not mobilize a significant portion of the residual oil (poor displacement efficiency) due to lack of
effective miscibility between the injected CO2 and the reservoir’s oil. Poor displacement efficiency is caused by
unexpected pressure declines in portions of the reservoir and less than optimum injection and production well
operating practices.

4. Lack of CO2 Conformance. An often overlooked but important cause of poor CO2-EOR performance is the
inability to efficiently target injected CO2 to preferred (high residual oil) reservoir strata and then capture and
produce the mobilized oil. Figure 3 shows how the lower permeability portion of the reservoir strata (Layer 1) is
less efficiently swept by a waterflood, leaving behind much higher residual oil saturations in this layer of the oil
reservoir. Injection of CO2 into this type of reservoir, without undertaking selective CO2 placement, would cause
the CO2 to enter the higher permeability (100 md) Layer 2, bypassing the lower permeability, higher oil saturation
Layer 1.

5. Inadequate Reservoir Characterization and Project Surveillance. Finally, a variety of other initial characterization
and operating issues have contributed toward less-than-optimum performance. If a CO2 flood is conducted after
secondary waterflood, operators traditionally do not revisit their understanding and assumptions of the reservoir. In
order to better delineate flow patterns and predict performance, it may also be necessary to take new core samples,
examine historical production, conduct new 3D seismic surveys, and reprocess log data.
SPE 139717 3

After the CO2 flood has started, it is crucial to maintain a thorough surveillance program that will monitor real-time
process and performance information in order to improve the conformance and sweep efficiency of the CO2. This may
include varying the WAG schedule depending on CO2 breakthrough rather than injecting set quantities or certain ratios
of CO2 and water. Surveillance will also help determine how wells should be controlled and worked over to reduce CO2
channeling.
Figure 1. Sweep Efficiency in Misicble Flooding as a Function of Pv CO2.
2
1.0

0.9

0.8
Sweep Efficiency, EA

0.7

0.6

0.5 V pD V pD
at 5.0
0.4 3.0
B.T

2.0
. vs

0.3 1.5
.M

1.0
0.2 0.6

0.1 0.2
0.1

0
0 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 500 1000

Mobility Ratio, M

Note: VpD is displaceable fluid pore volumes of CO2 injected.

Source: Claridge, E.L., “Prediction of Recovery in Unstable Miscible Displacement”, SPE

Figure 2. Sweep Efficiency in Misicble Flooding as a Function of Mobility Ratio.

1.0

0.9

0.8
Sweep Efficiency, EA

0.7

0.6

0.5 V pD
V pD

5.0
at

0.4 3.0
B.T

2.0
. vs

0.3 1.5
.M

1.0
0.2 0.6

0.1 0.2
0.1

0
0 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 500 1000

Mobility Ratio, M
Note: VpD is displaceable fluid pore volumes of CO2 injected.

Source: Claridge, E.L., “Prediction of Recovery in Unstable Miscible Displacement”, SPE

4 SPE 139717

Figure 3. Lack of CO2 Conformance Control

Layer #1 (k = 2 md; Sor = 0.60*)

478 Days
Layer #2 (k = 10 md; Sor = 0.32*) (Breakthrough

Layer #1 1839 Days

Layer #2 (Channeling in
Layer 2)
0 100 200 300
Distance, ft

*Bo = 1.07
Source: Adapted by Advanced Resources Int’l from “Enhanced Oil Recovery”,
D.W. Green and G. P. Willhite, SPE, 1998.

“Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technology

In order to address the impediments to current CO2-EOR flood performance, this paper examines four individual
technologies aimed at improving oil recovery and CO2 storage potential. Below, each technology is discussed in detail
including specific contributions to the increased performance of currently used CO2-EOR technologies.

Technology Option #1. Increasing CO2 Injection

The first “next generation” technology option involves increasing CO2 injection volumes to 1.5 HCPV. Higher HCPVs of
injected CO2 enable more of the reservoir’s residual oil to be contacted (and even multiply contacted) by the injected CO2.
However, higher volumes of CO2 injection lead to longer overall project length and higher gross CO2 to oil ratios. Field
operators will need to carefully consider this option to evaluate its cost effectiveness.
In the past, the combination of high CO2 costs and low oil prices led operators to use small-volume injections of CO2
(traditional 0.4 HCPV) to maximize profitability. This low volume CO2 injection strategy was also selected because field
operators had very limited capability to observe and then control the sub-surface movement of the injected CO2 in the
reservoir. With adequate volumes of lower cost CO2 and higher oil prices, CO2-EOR economics today favor using higher
volumes of CO2. However, these increased CO2 volumes would need to be “managed and controlled” to assure that they
contact, displace and recover additional residual oil rather than merely circulate through a high permeability interval of the
reservoir.

Technology Option #2. Innovative Flood Design and Well Placement

Technology Option # 2 assumes that through optimized well design and placement, more of the residual oil in a reservoir
would be contacted. The well design and placement objective is to ensure that both the previously highly waterflood-swept
(with low residual oil) portions of the oil reservoir and the poorly waterflood-swept (with higher residual oil) portions of the
oil reservoir are optimally contacted by injected CO2.
Examples of such innovative well design and placement options include: (1) isolating the previously poorly-swept
reservoir intervals (with higher residual oil) for targeted CO2 injection; (2) drilling horizontal injection (and/or production)
wells to target bypassed or poorly produced reservoir areas or intervals; (3) modifying the injection and production well
pattern alignment; (4) using physical or chemical diversion materials to divert CO2 into previously poorly-contacted portions
of the reservoir; and (5) placing the injection and production wells at closer spacings.
Progressive CO2-EOR flood operators are beginning to use these different conformance enhancing technologies both
individually and in combination. For example, to physically divert CO2 from high permeability zones within an injection
well, operators are using expandable liners to facilitate the dual injection of CO2 into lower permeability and higher residual
oil bearing zones. An operator may also use a foam or surfactant to alter streaking flow lines and to improve conformance
once within the reservoir.
To model Technology Option #2, we assume that one new vertical production well would be added to each pattern
targeting previously bypassed or poorly contacted portions of the reservoir. (The model assumes that each CO2-EOR pattern
already has one production and one injection well).
SPE 139717 5

Technology Option #3. Improving the Mobility Ratio

Technology Option # 3 assumes that an increase in the viscosity of the injected water (as part of the CO2-WAG process)
is achieved using polymers or other agents. (The viscosity of the CO2 itself was left unchanged, although increasing the
viscosity of CO2 with CO2-philic agents, such as those being pursued in the joint DOE/University of Pittsburgh research
program 3 , could theoretically further improve performance.)
To model Technology Option # 3, we assume the viscosity of injected water is increased to 3cps 4 , or three times the
viscosity of water. In the future, we plan to calibrate the model so that the viscosity of the injected water will match the
viscosity of the oil, creating a mobility ratio of one.

Technology Option #4. Extending Miscibility

Technology Option # 4 assumes that “miscibility extenders” are added to the CO2-EOR process to reduce minimum
miscibility pressure requirements by 250psi (pounds per square inch). Examples of miscibility enhancing agents would
include: addition of Liquefied Petroleum Gasses (LPG) to the CO2, although this would lead to a more costly injection
process; addition of H2S or other sulfur compounds, although this may lead to higher cost operations; and, use of other (to be
developed) miscibility pressure or interfacial tension reduction agents. Successful application of Technology Option # 4
could allow 21 previously immiscible fields to become suitable for miscible CO2-EOR operations.

Technology Option # 5. Integrating Application of “Next Generation” Technology Options

The maximum benefits, in terms of increased oil recovery, accrue when these four individual “next generation”
technology options are applied jointly, and as part of a highly instrumented and process-controlled reservoir characterization
and surveillance strategy.

Costs and Benefits of Applying “Next Generation” Technology

Insights on the costs and benefits of conducting an integrated “next generation” CO2-EOR flood may be gained by
examining the changes in oil production, capital investment, CO2 requirements and operating costs between using today’s
“best practices” and using, in an integrated fashion, “next generation” CO2-EOR technologies. The example set forth is
representative light oil field, Table 1.

Table 1. Comparing Costs and Benefits of Best Practices and Next Generation Technologies
Current Application of “Best
“Next Generation” Technology*
Practices”

Oil Recovery (Million Barrels) 276 433

Oil Recovery (% OOIP) 17% 27%

Project Life (years) 22 32

CapEx ($/Bbl) $2.20 $3.00

CO2 Costs ($/Bbl)** $19.40 $17.00

OpEx ($/Bbl) $3.10 $5.20

*Includes extra costs for applying “next generation” CO2-EOR technology.

**Assumes long-term oil price of $70 per barrel, adjusted for gravity and location differentials, and $45/metric ton of CO2 .

As seen in the example, oil recovery increases from 276 to 433 million barrels, but the project length and costs also
increase. Overall capital investment increases from $615 million to $1,305 million due primarily to additional well drilling,
but also due to improved reservoir characterization, better real-time performance analysis, and a larger CO2 recycle plant.
One of the largest expenses, the cost of purchasing and recycling CO2 increases from a total of $5,358 million from injecting
1.0 HCPV under “best practices” technology to $7,345 million from injecting 1.5 HCPV under “next generation” technology.

Technically and Economically Recoverable Resources

Our reservoir-by-reservoir assessment of the 1,715 large oil reservoirs amenable to CO2-EOR (extrapolated to national
totals) shows that a significant volume, 128 billion barrels, of domestic oil may be recoverable with the application of “next
3
DOE Program Reference Number: DE-FC26-01BC15315.
4
A centipoise (cp) is the unit of measure for dynamic viscosity. Water has cp value of 1 at 20 degrees Celsius.
6 SPE 139717

generation” CO2-EOR technologies, Table 2. Subtracting the 2.3 billion barrels of oil that has already been produced or
placed into proved reserves by CO2-EOR (as of 2006), “next generation” CO2-EOR would add 126 billion barrels of
technically recoverable oil to domestic supplies. For perspective, the current domestic proved crude oil reserves are 22
billion barrels, as of the end of 2007.
The Permian Basin of West Texas and New Mexico, with its world class size, favorable geology and carbonate reservoirs,
offers the largest volume of technically recoverable oil resource from CO2-EOR. In addition, significant potential exists in
East and Central Texas, the Mid-Continent, the Gulf Coast and California.

Table 2. Technically Recoverable Resources from Applying “Next Generation” CO2-EOR:Totals from
Extrapolating Advanced Resources’ Database to National Level
OOIP Technically Recoverable
OOIP Favorable for (Billion Barrels)
Basin/Area
(Billion Barrels) CO2-EOR “Best Practices” “Next Generation”
(Billion Barrels) Technology Technology
1. Lower-48 Onshore 500.3 345.4 69 109.4
2. Offshore GOM 46.1 29.6 5.7 5.7
3. Alaska 50.7 42.5 8.6 12.7
Total 597.1 417.5 83.4 127.9

Please see DOE/NETL report for expanded basin level tables.

The Economically Recoverable Base Case evaluates the “next generation” CO2-EOR potential using an oil price of $70
per barrel (constant, real) and a CO2 cost of $45 per metric ton ($2.38 per Mcf) (constant and real, delivered at pressure to the
field). In the Base Case, 57.9 billion barrels of incremental oil become economically recoverable from applying “next
generation” CO2-EOR technology, after subtracting the 2.3 billion barrels of oil already produced through existing CO2-EOR
operations, Table 3.
The estimates of economically recoverable domestic oil from applying CO2-EOR have been calculated using a minimum
financial hurdle rate of 15% (real, before tax). Higher financial hurdle requirements, appropriate for rapidly installing “next
generation” CO2-EOR technology in new basins and geologic settings, would reduce the volumes of economically
recoverable oil.

Table 3. Economically Recoverable Resources from Applying “Next Generation” CO2-EOR: National
Totals at Base Case Economics*

Incremental Incremental
Technically CO2-EOR Currently
Technically Economically
Basin/Area Recoverable Underway
Recoverable Recoverable**
(Billion Barrels) (Billion Barrels)
(Billion Barrels) (Billion Barrels)

1. Lower-48 Onshore 109.4 -2.3 107.1 49.4

2. Offshore GOM 5.7 5.7 0.7

3. Alaska 12.7 Note 1 12.7 7.8

Total 127.9 -2.3 125.6 57.9

CO2 Market and Storage

A subset of the technical CO2 storage capacity offered by domestic oil fields is the volume of CO2 that oil producers may
be willing to purchase (and then store) for use in economically feasible CO2-EOR projects. Table 4 tabulates the economic
CO2 demand for EOR as a function of oil price and CO2 cost.
SPE 139717 7

Table 4. Economically Feasible Market for CO2 for “Next Generation” CO2-EOR: Base Case*
(Eleven Basins/Areas)

Gross Market for CO2 CO2 Already or Net New Market for CO2
Scheduled to be
(Million Metric Tons) Injected (Million Metric Tons)
Basin/Area
“Best “Next (Million Metric “Best “Next
Practices” Generation” Tons) Practices” Generation”

1. Lower-48 Onshore 9,061 10,752 660 8,401 9,912

2. Offshore GOM 200 200 - 200 200

3. Alaska 440 1,399 - 440 1,399

Total 9,701 12,171 660 9,041 11,511

*Base Case: Oil price of $70 per barrel; CO2 cost of $45 per metric ton.

Summary

In order to take advantage of the theoretical potential that CO2-EOR has in unlocking the large “stranded” domestic
resource base, each of the individual technologies outlined in this paper must be applied on a customized basis to specific
reservoirs. Each of the technologies has incremental associated costs, but when applied correctly can also greatly improve
the performance of CO2-EOR floods beyond current “best practices”. Nationwide, “next generation” technologies increase
technically recoverable oil from 83 to 128 billion barrels. These technologies also improve economic CO2 storage capacity
from 9 to 11.5 billion metric tons. Each of the “next generation” technologies outlined in this paper provides an opportunity
for future research and development that will help to utilize and store CO2 while also producing domestic crude oil.