See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/314938627

Overview of CO2 Injection and WAG Sensitivity in SACROC

Conference Paper · January 2016

DOI: 10.2118/179569-MS

CITATIONS READS

4 328

4 authors, including:

Reza Barati
University of Kansas
55 PUBLICATIONS   293 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Aqueous Foam Engineering: Fundamentals and Applications View project

Low Salinity waterflooding in Limestone rocks View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Reza Barati on 06 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE-179569-MS

Overview of CO2 Injection and WAG Sensitivity in SACROC

Reza Barati Ghahfarokhi, The University of Kansas; Steve Pennell, Michael Matson, and Mark Linroth, Kinder
Morgan

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 11–13 April 2016.

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
This paper presents an overview of the SACROC Unit’s activity focusing on different CO2 injection and
WAG projects that have made the SACROC Unit one of the most successful CO2 injection projects in the
world. The main objective of this work was to review CO2 injection and injection rate losses due to the
CO2 /WAG miscible displacement process in the SACROC Unit and recommend an injection strategy for
WAG-sensitive patterns.
Two types of pattern CO2 /WAG injection rate performance were observed, 1) WAG-sensitive and 2)
WAG insensitive. WAG-sensitive patterns displayed loss of CO2 injectivity, exceeding 80% in some
patterns, during water-alternating-gas (WAG) injection, and an apparent reduction in water injectivity
during the follow-up brine injection. This injectivity loss was observed in over 150 injection patterns.
Over time, CO2 injectivity tended to return to prior-to-WAG values. WAG-insensitive patterns suffer from
these injectivity losses and were characterized by differences in 1) injectivity profiles, 2) Dykstra-Parsons
coefficients, and 3) injectivity indexes.
In the majority of WAG-sensitive patterns, injectivity profiles redistributed after CO2 injection, while
WAG-insensitive patterns did not show a significant change in their injectivity profiles over time. In a
limited data set, the mean Dykstra-Parsons coefficient calculated for WAG-sensitive patterns was 0.83,
while for WAG-insensitive patterns the mean Dykstra-Parsons coefficient was 0.76. However it was
observed that in the lower Dykstra-Parsons patterns (WAG-insensitive patterns) much larger injectivity
indexes were also observed; 19.5 bbl/day/psi, compared to 8.5 bbl/day/psi for higher Dykstra-Parsons
patterns. This suggests that the WAG-insensitive patterns were dominated by fracture flow rather than
matrix flow. These observations indicate that the WAG injection process in these heterogeneous SA-
CROC wells is successful in diverting the injected fluids from zones with higher permeability to zones
with lower permeability.
For wells with injectivity values of less than 10 bbl/day/psi it is recommended to begin CO2 /WAG
injection with a long CO2 cycle since they are likely to show sensitivity to WAG.
A simulated 5-spot pattern was used to study the injection schedule for WAG-sensitive patterns.
Longer CO2 cycles and shorter water cycles improved the injectivity and pattern production. Most
importantly, it was observed that increasing producing BHP to MMP resulted in significantly lower GOR.
2 SPE-179569-MS

Introduction
The Kelly-Snyder field is the largest of a chain of fields along the Pennsylvanian-aged Horseshoe atoll in
the Midland Basin. Within this field, the Scurry Area Canyon Reef Operators Committee (SACROC) unit
covers approximately 56,000 acres with 2,800 MMSTBO of original oil in place (OOIP) [1]. Limestone
is the dominant mineral within the Canyon Reef formation, and less than 3% of the formation exists as
thin sections of shale (1-10 ft in thickness) that are important stratigraphic markers [6]. The four main
lithofacies are: (1) shale, (2) carbonate mudstone/wackstone, (3) carbonate packstone, and (4) carbonate
grainstone/boundstone
The formation is divided into four major zones (Figure 1): the Cisco, the Green Zone (GZ), the Upper
Middle Canyon (UMC), and the Lower Middle Canyon (LMC) [4]. Of these, the GZ shows (a) the highest
matrix permeability, (b) significant non-matrix flow features, and (c) high conductivity channels. More-
over, the transition zone (TZ) below the oil-water contact has recently been developed in parts of the
SACROC unit [1, 5].

Figure 1—Type log of Canyon Reef. gamma ray curve on left (0-100) and neutron porosity on right (0.1-0.3) [1].

Aims
This work has three primary aims:
1. Presenting a comprehensive review of the SACROC unit
2. Reviewing CO2injectivity losses in the SACROC unit
3. Recommend injection strategy
Review
Primary Production
Completed in November 1948, the Standard No.1 Jessie Brown 2 was drilled to 6700 ft and produced 530
bbl/D from the Canyon Reef formation [2, 7]. Located 9 miles northwest of Snyder, Texas, this well was
SPE-179569-MS 3

the discovery well of the North Snyder field. The Railroad Commission of Texas eventually merged this
field with the neighboring Kelly field (rendering the Kelly-Snyder field) upon recognizing both fields
produce from the same reservoir. The reservoir thickness varies from 10 ft on the flanks to 900 ft on the
crest of the reef [2, 1]. SACROC unit reservoir properties are listed in Table 1, and a map of the unit’s
three-dimensional structure and thickness is shown in Figure 2.

Table 1—SACROC properties [2, 5].

Discovery date November 1948
Formation Canyon Reef limestone
Depth, ft 6200-7000
OOIP, BSTB 2.8
Average porosity, % 7.6
Average permeability, mD 19
Reservoir temperature, °F 130
Pressure, psig 3300
Rsi, SCF/BBL 1000
Bo, RB/STB 1.65
Viscosity, cP 0.33
Soi,% 80
Sorw, % 36
Pb, psig 1800
MMP, psig 1850
Drive mechanism Solution gas
API gravity 42
Gas gravity 1.13
Salinity, ppm 59000
Sulfur content 0.32
Water-oil mobility ratio 0.3
CO2-oil mobility ratio 8
CO2 flood GOR, SCF/STBO 2600
NGL, BBL/MMSCF HC gas 230

Figure 2—SACROC 3-D structure and thickness map.

4 SPE-179569-MS

Initial reports on produced oil suggest the crude was undersaturated with an initial solution gas-oil ratio
(GOR) slightly under 1,000 scf/STB and a bubble point pressure of 1,805 psig. Moreover, the crude was
rich in intermediates [3].
By late 1950 (only 2 years post-discovery), 1600 production wells were drilled on the Kelly-Snyder
field on irregular 40-acre spacing [8]. Reservoir pressure typically dropped by 50% (3122 psi at discovery
to 1650 psi [8]), and ultimate recovery was forecast around 19% due to solution gas drive being the
primary producing mechanism [2]. This led to the formation of the SACROC unit in 1953.

Waterflooding
By 1954, the unit converted producers to water injectors along a line in the center of the formation (Figure
3) in a massive pressure maintenance program [3]. This unique injection scheme allowed injection of large
volumes of water to the thickest portion of the reservoir, ultimately re-pressurizing the reservoir and
increasing oil production. By the end of 1971, the SACROC unit was producing 134,000 BOPD and had
a cumulative oil production of 528 MMSTB (19% recovery factor) [9]. Moreover, the percentage of
reservoir area with bottom-hole pressure (BHP) values above the bubble point pressure had increased from
1% to 80% in 7.5 years [3].

Figure 3—Production timeline of SACROC before the recent developments by Kinder Morgan.

Early CO2 Flooding

In 1968, an intercompany engineering planning committee recommended water-alternating-gas (WAG)
injection using inverted 9-spot injection patterns (Figure 4) [2]. Three pilot areas of similar hydrocarbon
pore volume (HCPV) were initially flooded (sequentially due to limited CO2 supplies). Positive results
prompted the initiation of Phase One in January 1972. Prior to CO2 injection, however, a high-pressure
water slug was injected into this low-pressure area (below 1600 psi) to attain minimum miscibility
pressure (MMP, 2300 psi). Phase One’s oil production increased from 30,000 BOPD to 100,000 BOPD
within 18 months [2].
SPE-179569-MS 5

Figure 4 —Map of SACROC unit divided into three phases (1968) [2].

Phase Two utilized began waterflooding in June 1972 and injecting CO2 in March 1974. Incremental
oil production was observed within several months; however, most of the CO2 was injected using irregular
patterns and below MMP [8]. Phase Three began waterflooding in April 1973, and CO2 was first injected
in November 1976. The majority of the incremental oil most likely can be attributed to secondary
production [2].
By the mid-1990s, using knowledge of other successful CO2 floods in Texas, PennzEnergy started
three focused CO2-flood tests in Norflood, Southwest Bank, and Center Line (Figure 6). high-WAG-ratio
CO2 injection was conducted at pressures below MMP due to variation of MMP due to hydrocarbon
components not separated during recycling (Figure 5).,

Figure 5—MMP calculated from slim-tube measurements for different mixtures of CO2 and HC gas [9].
6 SPE-179569-MS

Figure 6 —Early CO2-injection projects: Center Line, Norflood, and SW Bank. 1997

Water injection wells provide a water curtain surrounding the project area prior and during the CO2
injection. It provides a physical water front around the project which improves utilization efficiency by
reducing pressure communication to the outside areas [8].

Recent Developments
Kinder Morgan (KM) purchased the SACROC unit in 2000 and expanded upon PennzEnergy’s successful
Center Line CO2-flood project. By 2003, KM installed the Centerline Pipeline, delivering an additional
300 MMSCFD of CO2 (Figure 7). KM developed both new and previously-existing project areas, and all
contributed significant incremental oil production. KM’s fully-miscible CO2 flood in the SACROC unit
expanded phase-by-phase from the central area outward, after it began with injection into a limited area.
These phases are referred to as ⬙expansion areas⬙ [5]. Table 2 and Figure 8 summarize a timeline of the
SACROC unit re-development from 1996 to 2008. Figure 9 shows the contribution of each developed area
to the total SACROC unit performance between 1996 and 2013. The current estimate of OOIP as of June
2014 for different project areas is reported in Figure 10. Figure 11 shows the oil, water, and gas production
history of SACROC.
SPE-179569-MS 7

Figure 7—Kinder Morgan’s CO2 pipelines supporting the SACROC unit.

Table 2—SACROC flood redevelopment project areas, 1996-

2014
Year Project

1996 Center Line 1 & 2 Expansions (CL1 & CL2)

2001 Center Line 3 (CL3)
2002 Center Line 4 (CL4)
2002 Center Line 5 (CL5)
2003 Bull’s Eye (BE)
2004 Center Ring 1 (CR1)
2005 Center Ring 2 (CR2)
2007 Southwest Center Line 1 & 2 (SWCL1 & 2)
2008 Southwest Center Line 3 (SWCL3)
2008 Gilligan’s Island (GI)
2008 South Platform (SP)
2009 P1
2010 Chiquita
2011-2012 South Shore
2012-2013 P2
2013-2014 P3S
2014 Chiquita Expansion
8 SPE-179569-MS

Figure 8 —SACROC CO2 flood redevelopment project areas (1996-2013).

SPE-179569-MS 9

Figure 9 —1996-2013 CO2 flood project area contribution to total SACROC unit production (prepared by Sebastian Bohn) [16].

Figure 10 —Estimated OOIP by project area for SACROC as of 2014 (prepared by Sebastian Bohn) [16].
10 SPE-179569-MS

Figure 11—SACROC unit performance history.

Platform Developments The Platform area (black, Figure 8) contains the thickest pay in the entire unit
with an OOIP of 951 MMSTB spanning 5,700 acres (145 patterns). Unfortunately, the area is highly
heterogeneous and severe CO2-channeling issues have been observed within hours of starting CO2
injection. Four key development options were recommended for this area: horizontal wells, infill drilling,
zonal shut-ins, and use of dual injectors. Treatment of conformance problems using gel will be reported
in the next sections. In addition to that, economic justifications were implemented to have three separate
completions in the Cisco, the GZ, and the UMC for some of the injection wells to better distribute injected
CO2 (Figure 12).

Figure 12—SACROC pattern 37-11 triplet injection completion.

SPE-179569-MS 11

Poor reservoir processing rates in the LMC coupled with lower drilling costs encouraged KM to drill
horizontal injectors with multiple gelled acid fracture stages. P3 South and P3 North expansion areas were
selected for these horizontal injector pilots, as the processing rate of horizontal wells was estimated to be
2.5 times the processing rate of vertical wells in this area. Moreover, drilling horizontal producers reduced
the overall development expansion capital. Figure 13 presents the location and production of a horizontal
producer in the Platform area.

Figure 13—Location and production profile of a horizontal producer in the eastern thin flank of the SACROC Platform area.

Geologically-isolated GZ pinch-outs were also targeted in the Infill Drilling Expansion Area (IDEA)
using infill drilling (Figure 14). Early CO2 breakthrough was initially a problem, though this has since
been fixed using large-scale gel treatments. In addition to gel-based conformance and squeezed cement,
10-acre infill drilling and conversion resulted in high-efficiency patterns. This infill drilling project
created 10-acre, 5-spot patterns resulting in incremental recovery by connecting discontinuous pay and
allowing faster processing of lower permeability layers; unfortunately, this has also resulted in connection
of high permeability channels as well inevitable. Overall, IDEA pattern recoveries have been around 3%,
higher than some of the offset areas [10].
12 SPE-179569-MS

Figure 14 —IDEA infil drilling project area.

South Shore Transition Zone Development The TZ is an interval with water saturations ranging from
the connate water saturation (~20% water for the SACROC unit) to 100% water at the base. The oil cut
will decline when producing deeper in the TZ, until producing pure water at the waterflood residual oil
saturation (Sorw, ~26% oil for the unit). While all depths from the Sorw to the base of the TZ will produce
100% water under waterflood, oil saturation still exists at these depths, and some can be mobilized by CO2
injection acting effectively like a residual oil zone [11].
Since the early development of the SACROC unit, a thorough set of producing oil/water contact
(POWC) has been reported by lease operators. In the South Shore expansion area (brown, Figure 8), the
POWC has been reported as shallow as ⫺4420 ft subsea, with oil saturations as deep as ⫺4600 ft subsea.
Two patterns, 296-1 and 296-2, were successfully tested for CO2 EOR from the TZ. One major challenges
is that the rock quality in the TZ is not always reservoir quality. Several wells are planned to be perforated
in the TZ in the South Shore area in order to help further understanding.
The thickness of the TZ can be established by equilibrium between capillary pressure differences
between the oil and water and their density differences. No active ground water influx is reported at the
SACROC unit. The first occurrence of oil above the free water level is where the capillary pressure at
100% water saturation is balanced by the difference in the oil and water density gradients. Recent capillary
pressure measurements indicate that for most reservoir quality rocks, the base of TZ is 6 to 10 feet above
the free water level (around ⫺4550 ft subsea) [11].
Cores from four wells were used to both estimate the base of the TZ and calculate the TZ thickness.
TZ thicknesses as high as 127 ft suggest strong potential for future TZ development in this area. Moreover,
single-well chemical tracer tests measured significant residual oil saturations in the TZ for four wells
within the South Shore area.
Injectivity Loss
Injectivity loss of both CO2 and water slugs have been a continual concern since the first field tests were
conducted [12, 13]. Declining CO2 and water injectivity while on a tapered WAG schedule has been noted
on numerous injection wells since the early 2000’s. A literature review on the critical factors, reasons, and
remedies to injectivity loss are summarized below [12, 13, 14].
SPE-179569-MS 13

Factors affecting WAG injection include

● Heterogeneity, anisotropy, and stratification
● Wettability
● Fluid properties
● Miscibility conditions
● Injection techniques: tapered WAG vs. constant WAG
● WAG parameters: ratio, slug size, etc.
● Physical dispersion
● Flow geometry (linear, radial and pattern influence)
● Chemical effect: acidic reactions
● Entrapment
● Relative permeability effects
● IFT
● Salinity and pH
Reasons for Injectivity loss include
● Effective mobility reduction across all layers results in lower injectivity of both phases.
● Redistribution of pressure profiles from higher to lower permeability zones
● Relative permeability hysteresis due to three-phase trapping
● Carbon dioxide makes oil- or mixed-wet systems more water-wet
Recommended remedies following injectivity loss include
● 4-6 years of continuous CO2 injection followed by a 1:1 WAG injection (known as the Denver
Unit WAG or DUWAG)
● Increasing injection pressure while staying below parting pressure
● Addition of injection wells in order to compensate for the reduced injectivity

Methods

An investigation of injectivity losses observed during WAG injection was conducted across the entire
SACROC unit.

Well Selection & Aerial Analysis

A data set containing daily CO2 and water injection rates for all WAG injectors was collected and
subdivided into two subpopulations:
1. Injectors that demonstrate an injectivity loss over time (⬙WAG sensitive⬙)
2. Injectors that demonstrate a fairly constant injectivity over time or their injectivity returned to
prior-to-WAG values rapidly (⬙WAG insensitive⬙)
The WAG-sensitive subpopulation was then highlighted on a map of the SACROC unit (Figure 15) to
determine if there were certain areas of the unit that had a high affinity for injectivity losses.
14 SPE-179569-MS

Figure 15—Map of WAG-sensitive wells in SACROC.

Injection Profile Analysis

An extensive record of both water- and CO2-injection profiles for the majority of WAG-injector wells
across the unit has been collected and maintained for the SACROC unit. This record was analyzed
specifically looking for differences between the WAG-sensitive and WAG-insensitive subpopulations.
SPE-179569-MS 15

Dykstra-Parsons Coefficient Analysis

A Dykstra-Parsons coefficient of permeability variation, a widely-used representation of reservoir
heterogeneity, was calculated for all cored wells with injectivity loss problems and the values were
compared with the values from the cored wells with no injectivity issues.

Injectivity Index Analysis

Reported injectivity index values were compared for a large set of WAG-sensitive and WAG-
insensitive wells (Table 4).

Table 4 —Average injectivity indices

WAG Insensitive WAG Sensitive

Average 19.48 8.48

Stdev 17.75 7.98
Median 16.3 5.5
Min 1.3 0.9
Max 99 37
n 136 83

Single Pattern Simulation

One WAG-sensitive, representative pattern in the SACROC unit was selected for this study. The
pattern’s cycle was an 18-year waterflood, followed by 1-year continuous CO2 slug, followed by 3.5 years
of 1:1 WAG injection, and concluding with a ⬙chase⬙ waterflood. More specifically: this 5-spot pattern has
received water injection since 01-01-1986 with injection rates of 6000 bbl/day and maximum BHP of
3000 psi. Continuous CO2 injection was applied for one year starting in 01-01-2004 with varying rates of
60,000-10,000,000 scf/day. Starting 01-02-2005, the pattern received WAG injection (1:1 ratio on 6
month cycles) WAG was followed by waterflooding starting on 07-01-2008. Once a model was
established that matched the historic data, various sensitivity analyses were conducted by the WAG ratio.

Results and Discussion

Well Selection & Aerial Analysis

Injectivity loss was observed in more than 150 SACROC wells with a significantly higher concentration
in the newly-developed Platform areas (Figure 15). Figure 16 shows an example of a well with good CO2
injection rates and increasing production versus time. As soon as WAG injection started, both injectivity
and productivity of the pattern started to decline. This injectivity damage has been repaired in cases where
injection was switched back to long cycles of CO2 for many months (Figure 17). Pattern productivity also
increased as a result of this repaired injectivity.
16 SPE-179569-MS

Figure 16 —Pattern (262-7) production damage due to WAG in SACROC.

Figure 17—Example of a WAG sensitive pattern indicating that productivity damage has been repaired in cases where injection was
switched back to long cycles of CO2 for a long period of time starting at the beginning of 2011. The red and pink curves are presenting
CO2 monthly injection in MSCF/month and BBL/month, respectively.
SPE-179569-MS 17

Injection Profile Analysis

WAG-sensitive wells typically show a wider vertical distribution of flow for both water and CO2 during
WAG injection. Figure 18 shows the CO2 injection profiles taken during the continuous CO2 slug, as well
as during WAG injection for a WAG-sensitive SACROC unit injection well (Figure 16). Similarly, Figure
Figure 19 shows the water injection profiles taken pre-, mid-, and post-WAG for the same well. (A CO2
profile was not collected post-WAG injection). WAG injection resulted in two more layers being affected
by the injection as shown by redistribution of injection profile during the WAG. Only water was injected
after WAG injection was stopped (⬙chase⬙). The bottom zone was effectively plugged following WAG
injection, and water was only entered the upper zones. These two profiles demonstrate WAG injection
causing injection profile redistribution, ultimately resulting in loss of injectivity.

Figure 18 —CO2 injection profile before and during WAG injection for the WAG-sensitive well in Figure 16.
18 SPE-179569-MS

Figure 19 —Water injection profile before, during and after WAG injection for the WAG sensitive well reported in Figure 16.

Conversely, injection profiles were not redistributed for WAG-insensitive wells as shown in Figure 21
and Figure 22; both water injection profiles remained unchanged after switching from injecting only water
to WAG injection. Water was primarily injected into the upper zone following WAG injection.

Figure 20 —Pattern (262-7) production for a WAG-insensitive well in SACROC.

SPE-179569-MS 19

Figure 21—CO2 injection profile before and during WAG injection for the WAG insensitive well reported in Figure 20.

Figure 22—CO2 injection profile before and during WAG injection for the WAG insensitive well reported in Figure 20.

In summary, injectivity loss occurs when WAG injection redistributes CO2 into zones that were
previously not flooded on continuous CO2. Numerous factors could underlie this injectivity loss,
including: heterogeneity, anisotropy effects, stratification effects, wettability effects, entrapment effects,
relative permeability effects, and IFT effects [12, 13].
Dykstra-Parsons Coefficients Analysis
A meaningful difference was observed in the average Dykstra-Parsons coefficient values. WAG-sensitive
wells had Dykstra-Parsons coefficients of 0.83⫾0.02, while WAG-insensitive wells had 0.76⫾0.02
coefficients (Table 3). Note: permeability values of 0.1 mD and below were not included in the
calculations. This result indicates that wells with injectivity losses typically have more vertical hetero-
geneity with more vertical variation of permeability vs. depth. This finding is in line with the results of
20 SPE-179569-MS

injection profile analysis results, as well as with the findings of Saneifar et al. (conducted independently,
and subsequently to this project) [15].

Table 3—Dykstra-Parson’s coefficients calculated for a group of WAG sensitive wells and compared with a group of WAG insensi-
tive wells.

Injectivity Index Analysis

WAG-sensitive wells showed an average injectivity index (bbl/psi/days) of 19.48, while WAG-insensitive
wells showed an average injectivity index of 8.48. Due to the limited number of cored wells, the standard
deviations are quite large for each population; however, both distributions have a median value close to
the average values. Until more data can be collected, it is currently recommended to use continuous CO2
flooding of all patterns with injectivity indexes under 10 bbl/psi/days until GOR reaches uneconomical
values before starting WAG injection.

Single Pattern Simulation

The simulation results show the smaller the water:gas ratio becomes (or the ⬙drier⬙ the WAG injection
becomes), the injection well will have a lower BHP (Figure 23). This suggests that overall injectivity will
significantly improve if only 2 weeks of water injection is coupled with 1 year of CO2 injection when
cycling WAG injection; however, GOR will also increase as a result of this change. It will be important
to optimize the WAG injection to be as ⬙dry⬙ as possible, while maintain an acceptable GOR. Of note:
increasing the BHP of the producing wells on the simulated 5-spot pattern to equal the MMP significantly
helped in the reduction of high GORs.
SPE-179569-MS 21

Figure 23—Effect of injecting water cycles of different size on injected BHP. Injection is applied at constant rate.

Conclusions
All these observations indicate that WAG-injection has been successfully redistributing CO2 and water
into low permeability zones and improved sweep efficiency in more heterogeneous areas of SACROC. In
areas where high permeability and less heterogeneous zones exist, WAG injection has not been able to
redistribute the injection profiles significantly.
In summary, wells with redistributed injection profiles, DP coefficients of 0.81 or above, and injectivity
indexes of 10 bbl/psi/day or below have strong potentially to show injectivity loss. It is recommended to
use continuous CO2 flooding of all patterns with injectivity indexes under 10 bbl/psi/days until GOR
reaches uneconomical values before starting WAG injection. Wells with high injectivity index were
previously selected by Pipes and Schoeling [1] as candidates for conformance control treatments.
Summarized Take-Aways
● Injectivity of both water and CO2 dropped significantly due to WAG injection in more than 150
SACROC wells (⬙WAG-sensitive⬙ injectors)
● Pattern oil, gas and water production decreased for WAG-sensitive wells
● The majority of patterns in the SACROC unit are insensitive to WAG injection and showed no
production decline
● CO2 and water injection profile redistributions were typically observed in WAG-sensitive wells
● WAG-sensitive wells average Dykstra-Parsons coefficients of 0.83, while WAG-insensitive wells
with rapid increases in CO2 injectivity average Dykstra-Parsons coefficients of 0.76. This helps
confirm that WAG injection in more heterogeneous wells of the SACROC unit is successful at
diverting injected fluids from zones with higher permeability to zones with lower permeability.
● WAG-sensitive patterns showed average injectivity index of 8.5 bbl/day/psi, while WAG-insen-
sitive patterns showed average injectivity of 19.5 bbl/day/psi.
 22 SPE-179569-MS

● Longer CO2 cycles and shorter water cycles (⬙drier⬙ WAG cycles) improved injection BHP in a
simulated 5-spot pattern.
● Increasing producing BHP to MMP resulted in significantly lowers GOR values.

References
1 J. W. Pipes and L. G. Schoeling, ⬙Performance Review of Gel Polymer Treatments in a Miscible CO2 Enhanced
Recovery Project, SACROC Unit Kelly-Snyder Field.,⬙ in SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Okla-
homa, USA, 2014.
2 M. V. Langston, S. F. Hoadley and D. N. Young, ⬙Definitive CO2 Flooding Response in the SACROC Unit.,⬙ in SPE
Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1988.
3 R. M. Dicharry, T. L. Perryman and J. D. Ronquille, ⬙Evaluation and Design of a CO2 Miscible Flood Project-
SACROC Unit, Kelly-Snyder Field.,⬙ Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 1309 –1318, 1973.
4 S. Weon, B. McPherson, P. Lichtner and F. Wang, ⬙Evaluation of trapping mechanisms in geologic CO2 seques-
tration: Case study of SACROC northern platform, a 35-year CO2 injection site,⬙ American Journal of Science, vol.
310, no. 4, pp. 282–324, 2010.
5 M. A. Linroth and A. E. Rickard, ⬙Pressure and Rate Re-balancing to Improve Recovery in a Miscible CO2 EOR
Project,⬙ in SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 2014.
6 E. Vest, Jr., ⬙Oil fields of Pennsylvanian-Permian Horse-shoe Atoll, west Texas,⬙ AAPG Mem., no. 4, pp. 185–203,
1970.
7 J. C. Smith, ⬙Kelly-Snyder Oilfield,⬙ Texas State Historical Association, 15 June 2010. [Online]. Available: https://
tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/doksu. [Accessed 04 February 2016].
8 M. Raines, ⬙Tertiary Recovery at the SACROC Unit,⬙ West Texas Geological Society Oil & Gas Fields in West Texas
Vol. VIII.
9 M. Linroth, ⬙Rejuvenating A Mature EOR Asset: Miscible CO2 Flooding at SACROC,⬙ in 18th Annual CO2 Flooding
Conference, Midland, TX, December 3-7, 2012.
10 S. Pennell, SACROC CO2 Flood Project Challenges: Past, Present, and Future, Midland, TX, 2013.
11 South Shore AFE Book, 2011: Kinder Morgan, Houston, TX.
12 S. Gorell, ⬙Implications of Water-Alternate-Gas Injection, for Profile Control and Injectivity,⬙ in Society of Petroleum
Engineers, 1990.
13 J. D. Rogers and R. B. Grigg, ⬙A Literature Analysis of the WAG Injectivity Abnormalities in the CO2 Process,⬙ in
Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2000.
14 L. M. Surguchev, R. Korbol, S. Haugen and O. S. Krakstad, ⬙Screening of WAG Injection Strategies for Heteroge-
neous Reservoirs,⬙ in Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1992.
15 M. Saneifar, Z. Heidari and M. Linroth, ⬙An Investigation on the Impact of Heterogeneity on Fluid Injectivity Loss
during Water-Alternating-Gas Injection in Carbonate Formations,⬙ in SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, TX, 28-30 September 2015.
16 S. Bohn, SACROC Project Area Production & Economic Analysis, Houston, TX: Kinder Morgan, 2014.

View publication stats