Buffalo Combustion for Montana Tech

8/12/2019 Buffalo Combustion for Montana Tech

1/27

Candace Cantrell

April 15, 2011

MontanaTechTHE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA

16th Annual SPE Spring Technical Symposium


2/27


3/27

3

Location


4/27

4

The Units

CHNUWCHU

MPHUWMPHU

SMPHU

BRRU

WBRRU

SBRRU

Buffalo South Dakota

Cedar Hills Montana & North

Dakota

Medicine Pole Hills

North Dakota


5/27

5

History

Shell

Drilled 1st well in 1954 Rapid pressure depletion

Unsuccessful water injectivity test

Pennzoil

Bought 1964

Oil price at $3/bbl Results economically unattractive

Koch Exploration Company

Bought in 1974

High decline rate & reservoir depletion

Injected 1st air into BRRU in 1979 Formed SBRRU & WBRRU units

Continental Resources

Bought 3 units in 1995

Began horizontal re-entry in 2005


6/27

6

Formation Characteristics

Red River B Limestone ~ Dolomite

Pay Zone (15 feet)o Upper & Lower

Depth (8,500 feet TVD) Pressure (3,600 psi)

Temperature (215F)

Oil Gravity (30API)

Permeability (10 md)

Porosity (17%) Water Saturation (50%)

Mixed Wet Reservoir

Red River B Core (CHSU)


7/277

High Pressure Air Injection

In-Situ Combustion Viscous, heavy oil

Fireflood

High Pressure Air

Injection HPAI Deep, light oil


8/27

8


What is HPAI? Air Composition ~ 80% N2 & 20% O2 Combustion

o CnH2n+2 + O2 CO2 + H20 + heat

Continuous Injection

Why not use pure O2? Flammable

Corrosive

Expensive


9/27

9


Flue-Gas Sweeping

Repressurization

Oil Swelling

Viscosity Reduction

Combustion Front


10/27

10


CO2 & N2


11/27

11

Why use HPAI?

Advantages: Availability

Rapid Repressurizationo

Eliminate Pumping Equipment

High displacement efficiencyo Follow another IOR method

Cost

o Cheaper than other gases

Disadvantages: Facilities

o High Start-Up Cost

O2 Contento Emulsion

o Corrosive

o Explosion


12/27

12

Reservoir Testing

Combustion Tube Test Air Requirement

Oxygen Utilization

Combustion Front Mobility

Temperature Profile

Equivalent oil burned as fuel, STB/acre-ft 269

Fuel deposition, lbm/ft3

2.1

Air required to burn, Mscf/acre-ft 15,703

Water of combustion, bbl/acre-ft 208

Average combustion temperature, F 893

BRRU Combustion Tube Test Results


13/27

13

Reservoir Testing


14/27

Accelerating RateCalorimeter Test AKA ARC Test

Reactivity

Combustibility

Packed-ColumnDisplacement Study AKA Slim Tube Test

Flue Gas Displacement

14

Reservoir Testing

BRRU Slim Tube Test Results

*Miscibility: 90% oil recovery at 1PV of gas injected


15/27

15

Key Requirements

Sustain Combustion Combustion tube test

Sufficient Air Capacity Reservoir deliverability

Facilities


16/27

16

Facilities

New install at SBRRU


17/27

17

4,000 Horsepowerreciprocating compressor(13.5 - 17 MMcf/d Capacity)

Facilities


18/27

18

Facilities

Thermal Oxidizer


19/27

19

Facilities

Production Facility


20/27

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

0.1

1

10

100

1000

6/1/1980

6/1/1982

6/1/1984

6/1/1986

6/1/1988

6/1/1990

6/1/1992

6/1/1994

6/1/1996

6/1/1998

6/1/2000

6/1/2002

6/1/2004

6/1/2006

6/1/2008

6/1/2010

GOR(cf/bbl)

Production(Mcf/d,

bbl/d)

Oil

Gas

GOR

20

Flue Gas vs. HPAI

Oil Recovery

GOR


21/27

21

Monitoring

Halite

Is the oil really burning? Empty pores

Halite

Oil saturation < 5%

Gas Analysis

BRRU 14-22R Thin Section

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Mole%

N2

CO2

WBRRU 12-6


22/27

22

Primary & Secondary Recovery

*Cum Production through 12/2010

OOIP ~ 183 MMbbl Primary Recovery ~ 6%

Secondary Recovery ~ 22%

Cum Prod* ~ 24,073 MMbbl

Current Recovery ~ 13%

Production Response

22 months


23/27

23

Where are we today?

1,330 BOPD in 3/2011 Peak in 1991

3,030 BOPD

First Injection 1979

79 Total Wells 57 Producers

o Half are flowing

24 Injectors

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1954

1959

1964

1969

1974

1979

1984

1989

1994

1999

2004

2009

BOPD,BWPD,MCFGPD

Oil Prod

Gas Prod

Water Prod

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

20 03 20 04 2 005 20 06 2 00 7 20 08 20 09 2 01 0 20 11


24/27

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

MCF

GIPD

Ainj

24

Where are we today?

27,000

29,000

31,000

33,000

35,000

37,000

39,000

41,000

43,000

45,000

Jan-1

0

Feb-1

0

Mar-10

Apr-10

May-1

0

Jun-1

0

Jul-10

Aug-1

0

Sep-1

0

Oct-10

Nov-1

0

Dec-1

0

Jan-1

1

Feb-1

1

Mar-11

MCFGIPD

31 MMCFPD

43.5 MMCFPD


25/27

25

Future Plans

Drilling Program 7 Injectors

7 Producers

Injection 30MMCFD additional compression

Water alternating gas (WAG)

Expansion NW Buffalo ~ 7,500 net acres

Graves area unitization

Cedar Hills Units

Buffalo Units

Medicine Pole Hills Units

NW BuffaloExpansion


26/27

26

References

Kumar, V.K., et al. 30 Years of Successful High-Pressure Air Injection: Performance Evaluation ofBuffalo Field, SD. 2010. SPE 133494.

Fassihi, M.R., et al. Estimation of Recovery Factor in Light-Oil Air-Injection Projects. 1997. SPE28733.

Kumar, V.K., et al. Case History and Appraisal of the MPHU Air-Injection Project. 17-20 April1994, Tulsa, Oklahoma. SPE 27792.

Gupta, Pankay, et al. In situ combustion delivers results. November 2007. World Oil Magazine,Vol. 228, No. 11.

Gutierrez, D., et al. Buffalo Field HPAI Projects: Technical Performance and OperationalChallenges. 19-23 April 2008, Tulsa, Oklahoma. SPE 113254.

Gutierrez, D., et al. Recovery Factors in HPAI Projects Revisited. 11-14 November 2007,Anaheim, California. SPE 108429.

Montes, A.R., et al. Is HPAI Simply a Flue-Gas Flood?. 17-19 June 2008, Calgary, Alberta,

Canada. CIPC Paper 2008-180.Moore, R.G., et al. An Engineers Guide to HPAI Based Oil Recovery. 13-17 April 2002, Tulsa,Oklahoma. SPE 75207.


27/27

Any

Questions?

Documents

Buffalo Combustion for Montana Tech