Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

SPE 107445 Quebrache, a Natural CO2 Reservoir: A new source for EOR projects in Mexico

Heron Gachuz Muro/Pemex E&P, Sergio Berumen Campos/Pemex E&P, Luis O. Alcazar Cancino/Pemex E&P, Jos A. Rodrguez Pimentel/Schlumberger
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1518 April 2007. 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, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

This paper discusses the evaluation of potential supply of CO2 of Quebrache reservoirs for EOR projects in the North of Mexico. The main region studied contains estimated proven reserves of 1.9 Tscf of CO2; however, this volume could be extended to larger amounts associated to areas under study. The CO2 from Quebrache field could be the beginning of a new era of EOR projects in Mexico. A field example of potential EOR application in a mature oil field is shown. Introduction Quebrache Region contains numerous occurrences of natural CO2 that have been discovered during exploration of oil fields. Most CO2 fields are similar to conventional natural gas fields, with the gas trapped in dome-like structures. The most common reservoir lithologies are sandstones and dolomite, with mudstone and anhydrite being the most common sealing rocks. Carbon dioxide occurs naturally as a result of geologic processes in large, often high-purity (>90 %) deposits in many sedimentary basins. Several CO2 fields in the United States, Hungary, Turkey, and Romania have been or are being developed to provide an efficient source for enhanced oil recovery projects. On average, the global risk of encountering >1% concentrations of CO2 in a gas reservoirs is < 1 in 10, and the risk of encountering >20% concentrations of CO2 is < 1 in 100. However, here is the issue: the mean CO2 content of reservoirs with >20% CO2 is 50% CO2. In other words, when CO2 is abundant, it is frequently so abundant. Furthermore, high CO2 concentrations are encountered in diverse areas. The scientific study of natural CO2 deposits is still at an early phase. Previous work has included documentation of worldwide occurrences of natural CO2 deposits and preliminary assessment of commercial CO2 fields in the USA. This paper discusses the results of the first study oriented to evaluate the CO2 proven reserves of Quebrache field and its potential application as EOR project in a mature field in the North of Mexico.

Abstract CO2 injection is one of the most efficient methods used to improve oil recovery, and, as world statistics shows, its use has increased recently. Under a high crude oil price scenario, field applications of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) processes are becoming economic in todays environment. The natural CO2 sources come to be an excellent opportunity because of its low cost. Since 60 years ago, 2500 km2 of carbonate formations containing CO2 were discovered in North of Mexico. The Quebrache region contains several occurrences of natural CO2 that have been discovered during exploration of oil fields. The CO2 that has been naturally trapped in carbonate formations in this region is present in concentrations that can exceed 90% purity. Due to the high concentrations of CO2, some wells were shut-in 60 years ago, others, have been developed for CO2 production intended for industrial uses and some others as a source of gas lift operations in nearby heavy oil fields. Recently, a plan of acquisition of information and studies to evaluate the CO2 proven reserves has been designed. In addition, analysis of wells deliverability of these natural CO2 reservoirs, located in the southwestern portion of Tampico, has been carried out. In order to understand better this field, a geological model was built and its dynamic behavior and potential was examined through several well tests. Results of the interpretation of these tests showed excellent results associated with a reservoir of good permeability, high conductivity, large drainage radius, etc. According to the geology of this region and the geochemical signatures observed, the CO2 of Quebrache field has an inorganic origin.

SPE 107445

Sources of CO2 in Natural Gas Acumulations, Quebrache Field Organic sources (i.e., kerogen cracking, and bacterial degradation of petroleum). Thermal decarbonation of carbonate minerals. Exsolution from magmas. Thermochemical hydrocarbons. sulfate reduction (TSR) of

The CO2 is of organic origin when 13CO2 is lighter than 10, and it is of inorganic origin when is heavier than -8. The organic CO2 is widely distributed in the tectonically stable oil- and gas-bearing basins where there are no deep faults or magmatism. Common geological circumstances for the presence of high volumes of CO2 include carbonates associated with post-trap igneous activity, reservoirs close to hot basement and deep faults close to traps. In the TampicoMisantla Basin, igneous rocks occur throughout a large part of the Tampico Embayment. The rocks of Cretaceous and Tertiary age have been intruded by dykes and plugs of basaltic character. According to the geology of this basin and the geochemical signatures obtained, we conclude that the CO2 of the Tampico-Misantla Basin has an inorganic origin. Therefore, it could be concluded that the gases of the Tampico-Misantla Basin have characteristics of thermogenic gases. These gases are very homogeneous implying a single source and a very narrow range of maturity. The gases of this basin were generated from the primary cracking of kerogen, corresponding to an open system, without any evidence of secondary cracking. In the Tampico-Misantla Basin, natural gases contain high amounts of inorganic CO2. Quebrache Field-General Data The wells drilled in the Northeast of Mexico since 1946 have revealed two areas with a CO2 content ranging between 71 and 98 % mol. The Quebrache producing formations are rocks of Cretaceous and Tertiary ages. Due to the high concentrations of CO2, some wells were shut-in 60 years ago, others, have been developed for CO2 production intended for industrial uses and some others as a source of gas lift operations. A private company exploited and operated a well for industrial use (dry ice, bottled liquid, etc). Nevertheless, the main information is unknown for us (core and fluid data, reservoir simulation studies, production history and other information). For these reasons, the information of the reservoirs is incomplete. Quebrache field is still largely undeveloped. It extends over an area of 2,500 km2, figure 3. The boundaries have not yet been defined. Currently, 17-20 wells provide about 12 MMscfd of carbon dioxide, and this volume is transported via pipeline to a nearby heavy oil field where is used in operations of gas lift. Other important reservoir conditions of these wells are: well depths ranges from 480 to 1,000 m, average reservoir pressure and temperature are 91 kg/cm2 and 56 oC, respectively. New Studies In order to evaluate the proven reserves of CO2 located in the southwestern portion of Tampico, the engineering team selected an area of 80 km2 where a plan of acquisition of information, geological and reservoir modeling studies has been under operation. These include, well tests, lab tests, coring, new cased well logging, and modeling studies.

Various geochemical characteristics can be used to distinguish CO2 from each of these sources (figure 1). These techniques have revealed that, in gases with very high (>50%) CO2 content, the CO2 is typically derived from thermal destruction of marine carbonates and/or exsolution from magmas. TSR does not yield gases with very high concentration of CO2 (>50%). Similarly, CO2 derived from organic sources (kerogen cracking and bacterial degradation of petroleum) rarely exceeds 20% of an accumulation and is only important in special cases, such as certain heavily biodegraded oil fields. Regardless of the source of the CO2 in an accumulation, its abundance is controlled not only by its origin, but also by in-reservoir reaction of the CO2 with silicate minerals, a temperature-dependent process. Hydrocarbons in the Tampico-Misantla basin were generated from shaly limestones from the Upper Jurassic source rocks. It is known that thermogenic gases migrate from relatively deep reservoirs into shallow reservoirs of biogenic gases and form mixed gases. Nevertheless, there are two ways to interpret isotopic light methane: bacterial contribution or segregation during migration. In order to distinguish a mixing hypothesis of thermal gas with bacterial methane, or diffusion of thermal gases, Prinzhofer and Pernaton (1997) suggested a diagram using ethane/methane ratio versus 13C of methane. To prove the segregation process or an evidence of bacterial contamination, an ethane/propane ratio versus 13C of propane diagram is recommended. The geochemical diagram 13C2-13C3 against C2/C3 reveals the thermogenic signature of a gas, the maturity of the gases and their source in terms of primary or secondary cracking. A comparison between gases from different fields is possible. The gases of the Tampico-Misantla Basin present all the characteristics of thermogenic gases, representing products generated at the end of the oil window (VR of 0.8-0.9%), in an open system without any evidence of secondary cracking, figure 2. CO2 in the reservoirs can be originated from diverse sources. However, when the CO2 volume is very important it comes from an external source to the petroleum system, as the thermal degradation of carbonates caused by the heat generated by igneous intrusions.

SPE 107445

In 1959, Quebrache field was discovered by a well drilled up to a total depth of 1,413 m. The main objective of this well was to find oil reserves, however, well tests revealed, surprisingly, gas flow wih high CO2 concentration. The well test showed a total open flow of 5.1 MMscf of gas per day. Produced gas is 95 mol % CO2 with minor amounts of nitrogen and the rest being hydrocarbon gases. The well remained closed few years. Corrosion of the casing occurred, leading to gas leaking problems requiring control operations. Production began in 1997 and has continued at a rate of approximately of 2.2 MMscfd since then. This gas production has been used in gas lift operations in a heavy oil field nearby. Additional well tests were conducted to determine the properties of the formation. Applying Dynamic Reservoir Characterization Techniques developed by Cinco-Ley (1998), we could interprete, acceptably, the well test data. The analysis uses the dynamic information of the well-reservoir, ie, production history, well tests data and fluid composition. It was determined, through a partial penetration model, an infinitely acting reservoir along with a gas/water contact of active aquifer. A drainage radius of 1,000 m without interference problems was predicted, figure 4. Project Status Initial development of the Quebrache field includes 2 new wells, drilled up to 1,000 m deep. Well tests were conducted to characterize the reservoir formation as well as to determine the effectiveness of well stimulation by acidizing. The wells are expected to sustain flow rates of about 3 MMscfd. The gathering system will consist of 4-inch flowlines. The preliminary predictions identify cumulative gas production per well, during 10 years, of 10 Bscf, figure 5 (reserve per well). This would allow increasing the production in the Quebrache field until 20 MMscfd of carbon dioxide. The applicacion of Material Balance and Montecarlo Analysis yields an estimated 1.9 Tscf of CO2 proven reserves, table 1. A stratetegy for the field delimitation was designed, including drilling 22 new wells and data acquisition. Based on results of new geological and dynamic models, and supported by the 2D seismic lines available, the new locations are being placed as far as 8 km to detect the reservoir limits and validate potential zones (figure 6). EOR Potential Application The T-C oil field is located in the Tampico-Misantla basin, approximately 35 km northeast of Tampico, figure 7. The field was discovered in 1951, although, its production started in 1956. T-C oil field covers approximately 60 km2 and produces a heavy oil of 18 oAPI crude from five formations ranging from 1,250 to 2,100 m depth. The original pressure and temperature at the main reservoir, Jurassic San Andres (JSA), were 215 kg/cm2 and 90 oC, respectively, with a bubblepoint pressure 156.2 kg/cm2. Field development under primary production was designed by using a 400-m well spacing scheme, 517 wells completed until 1968.

Peak production (19,115 bpd) was achieved in 1961, however, after that, the production began to decline, figure 8. In 1968, and in order to optimize the reservoir management, a waterflooding program was implemented. Water injection was started using an inverted 7-spot pattern. Reservoir pressure was maintained and eventually, increased. During the 1980s and 1990s an infill drilling program was initiated to improve sweep efficiency (124 additional wells). Analysis To understand and analyze the field and well performance, a large quantity of data is being collected and stored. Since 2004, the geological model is being reinterpreted to identify locations for several step-out wells and to optimize the location of infill wells. A new plan considers reducing well spacing to 200 m and shifting from a seven-spot to a five-spot pattern. A study for CO2 injection in the T-C field is being developed. The work started with laboratory measurements as well as compositional model calculations to investigate the phase behavior of mixtures of JSA reservoir oil and CO2. The first results have shown that a CO2 flood in the field is technically feasible under current reservoir pressure. Results of these lab testing are shown on figures 9 to 11. Some whole core samples were selected for water displacement and carbon dioxide (CO2) displacement testing. Each sample had followed a different procedure based on core orientation, sequence of fluid injection and pore pressure. The objectives were to determine water-oil relative permeability and displacement efficiency as a function of orientation and pore pressure. The displacement efficiency was compared between a vertical orientation with downward injection, a horizontal orientation and a water-alternating-gas (WAG) process in the horizontal orientation. The slim tube experiments were designed to determine the effect of reservoir pressure and the injection gas composition on the miscible displacement process. The experiments were performed with two different CO2 gases. The first gas was about 100 mol % CO2 and the second gas (figure 12) contained 93 mol % CO2 from Quebrache field. CO2 Displacement Scheme Based in the studies, a spot pattern was selected to evaluate several CO2 displacement schemes. Water and gas flood prediction software was used to predict CO2 continued injection and water alternated gas (WAG) injection. The results using this model are quantitative. Production increases were observed in all the simulations, and results describe potential benefits for WAG processes, figure 13.

SPE 107445

Quebrache CO2 as a Potential Supply to Mexican EOR Projects An estimated production of 300 MMscfd would be produced by Quebrache. Only T-C oil field would demand between 4060 MMscfd. However, many other fields lying along the Mexican oil provinces are good candidates as well, figure 14. Summary Studies of development of CO2 of Quebrache field located in North of Mexico show that large CO2 reserves are a new source for EOR projects in Mexico. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Pemex E&P for permission to publish this paper. The contributions of Jose Luis Celestino, T-Cs team and Aspetrol Co. are also appreciated. Conversion Factors API ft3 o F km2 kg/cm2 bbl acre in
o

References
1. Guntis, Moritis: Special Report EOR/ Heavy Oil Survey, Oil and Gas Journal, week of April 17, 37-57, 2006. 2. Asghari, K.; Dong, M.; Shire, J.; Coleridge, T.; Nagrampa, J.; Grassik, J.: Development of a Correlation Between Performance of CO2 Flooding and the Past Performance of Waterflooding in Weyburn Oil Field, paper SPE 99789, SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, April, 2006. 3. Hosgrmez, H.; Yalin, M.N.; Soylu, C.; Origin of carbon dioxide and hydrocarbon gases in Dodan and Silivanka fields (SE-Turkey), 22st International Meeting on Organic Geochemistry, Seville, Spain, 1, 526-527, 2005. 4. Gachuz Muro, Heron: Yacimientos de CO2 en Mxico. Alternativa Viable para Programas de Recuperacin Terciaria. (2005 CIPM), Exitep 2005, Veracruz, Mexico, Feb., 2005. 5. Mohammed-Singh, Lorna J.; Singhal, Ashok K.: Lessons From Trinidads CO2 Immiscible Pilot Projects 1973-2003, paper SPE 89364, SPE/DOE Fourteenth Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 17-21, 2004. 6. Reingeniera de los Proyectos de Inyeccion de Agua y Diseo de Nuevos Proyectos de Recuperacion Secundaria y Mejorada en la Region Norte, Comesa/PEP, Internal Report, 2004. 7. Reid B, Grigg: Improving CO2 Efficiency for Recovering Oil Heterogeneous Reservoirs, final Report, DOE Contract No. DEF626-01BC15346, October 31, 2003. 8. Henson, Richard; Todd, Adrian; Corbett, Patrick: Geologically Based Screening Criteria for Improved Oil Recovery Projects, paper SPE 75148, SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April, 2002. 9. Jokhio, Sarfraz A.; Tiab, Djebbar; Escobar, Freddy H.: Quantitative Analisis of Deliverability, Decline Curve, and Pressure Tests in CO2 Rich Reservoirs, paper SPE 70017, Presented at the SPE Premian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, May 15-16, 2001. 10. Prinzhofer, A.; Mello, M.R.; da Silva Freitas, L.C.; Takaki, T.: New geochemical characterization of natural gas and its use in oil and gas evaluation, AAPG, Memoir 73, 107-119, 2000. 11. Cinco Ley, Hber: Caracterizacin Dinmica de Yacimientos, Asesora y Servicios Petroleros S.A. de C.V. DEPFI, UNAM. Nov., 1998. 12. Lorant, F.; Prinzhofer, A.; Behar, F.; Huc, A.Y.: Carbon isotopic and molecular constraints on the formation and the expulsion of thermogenic hydrocarbon gases, Chemical Geology, 147, 249264, 1998. 13. Popp, V. V.; Marinescu, M. ; Manoui. D.; Ploiesti, A.: Possibilities of Energy Recovery from CO2 Reservois, SPE 48925, Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, September 27-30, 1998. 14. Prinzhofer, A.; Pernaton, E.: Isotopically light methane in natural gas: bacterial imprint or diffusive fractionation?, Chemical Geology, 142, 193-200, 1997.

x x x x x x x

141.5/(131.5+oAPI) 0.02831 (oF-32)/1.8 247.1 14.22 0.158 9873 0.00405 0.0254

= g/cm3 = m3 = oC = acres = lb/pg2 = m3 = km2 =m

SPE 107445

15. Dai, J.X.; Song, Y.; Dai, C.S.; Wang, D.R.: Geochemistry and accumulation of carbon dioxide gases in China, AAPG, Bulletin, 80 (10), 1615-1625, 1996. 16. Taber, J.J.; Martin, F.D.; Seright, R.S.: EOR Screening Criterial Revisited Part 1: Introduction to Screening Criteria and Enhaced Recovery Field Projects, paper SPE 35385, Presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 21-24, 1996. 17. Taber, J.J.; Martin, F.D.; Seright, R.S.: EOR Screening Criterial Revisited Part 2: Aplications and Impact of Oil Prices, paper SPE 39234, SPERE, August, 1997. 18. Diaz, Daniel; Bassiouni, Zaki; Kimbrell, William; Wolcott, Joanne: Screening Criteria for Application of Carbon Dioxide Miscible Displacement in Waterflooded Reservoirs Containing Light Oil, paper SPE/DOE 35431, Presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 2124, 1996. 19. Thrasher, J.; Fleet, A.J.; Predicting the risk of carbon dioxide pollution in petroleum reservoirs, Paper from the 17th International Meeting on Organic Geochemistry, San Sebastin, Spain, 1086-1088, 1995. 20. Dobitz, J.K.; Prieditls, John: A Stream Tube for Model the PC paper SPE/DOE 27750, Presented at the SPE/DOE Ninth Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, April 17-20, 1994. 21. Doleschall, S.; Szittr, A.; Udvardi, G.: Review of the 30 Years Experience of the CO2 Imported Oil Recovery Projects in Hungary, paper SPE 22362, Presented at the SPE International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China, March 24-27, 1992. 22. Surguchev, L.M.; Regnhild, Korbol; Haugen, Sigurd; Krakstad, O.S.: Screening of WAG injection Strategies for Heterogeneous Reservoirs, paper SPE 25075, Presented at the European Petroleum Conference, Cannes, France, November 15-18, 1992. 23. Martin, F. David; Taber, J.J.: Carbon Dioxide Flooding, JPT, paper SPE 23564, April, 1992. 24. Santiago Acevedo, J.; Carrillo Bravo, J.; Martell, B.: Geologa Petrolera de Mxico: Evaluacin de Formaciones en Mxico. Shlumberger, Mxico, I.1-I.36, 1984. 25. Schoell, M.: Genetic characterization of natural gases, AAPG Bulletin, 67 (12), 2225-2238, 1983. 26. Tiab, Djebbar: Real Gas Pseudopressures for CO2 Reservoirs, paper SPE 10128, Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, October 5-7, 1981. 27. Weeter, Robert F.; Halstead, Louis N.: Production of CO2 From a Reservoir - A New Concept, paper SPE 10283, Presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, Oct 5-7, 1981 . 28. Renfro, J.J.: Sheep Mountain CO2 Production Facilities A Conceptual Design, paper SPE 7796, Presented at the SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, February 25-27, 1979.

29. Hunt, J.M.: Petroleum Geochemistry and Geology, San Francisco, W. H. Freeman and Company Ed., 617, 1979. 30. Enhanced Oil Recovery Potential in the United States, Office of Technology Assessments, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 77-600063, January, 1978. 31. Zana, E.T.; Thomas, G.W.: Some Effects of Contaminants on Real Flow, paper SPE 2577, Presented at SPE 44th Annual Fall Meeting, Denver, Colorado, September 28-October 1, 1969. 32. Muir, J.M.: Geology of the Tampico Region, Mexico,Published by The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 280, 1936.

SPE 107445

0
Bacterial methanogenesis and sulfate reduction Bacterial oxidation of hydrocarbons Fault delivery of CO2 from high T silicatebuffered system

C3 C2-

13

13
Silicate CO2 buffer

-5

-10

Thermochemical sulfate reduction

Mantle CO2 dissolved in magma

-15

Thermal decarbonation of argillaceous carbonate

-20
Catagenesis and metagenesis of coally kerogen Mantle CO2 from deep faults

C 2/C 3

10

15

Figure 2.- Diagram 13C2-13C3 against C2/C3 from Tampico-Misantla Basins.

Figure 1.- Sources of CO2 in natural gas accumulations.

Prediction
New well

1000 m.

TAMPICO

U.S.A.

EBANO

MEXICO
OCEANO PACIFICO

GOLFO DE MEXICO

TOPILA

The first response in pressure comes after 60 days.

Heron Gachuz Muro, M Sc

GUATEMALA

QUEBRACHE

Figure 3.- Quebrache field.

Figura 4.- Drainage radius predicted using Dynamic Reservoir Characterization.

Table 1
SCGIIP (Bscf) STOIIP (MMSTB)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mean Reward Standard Deviation 90 Percent Probability 50 Percent Probability 10 Percent Probability 5811.64 3917.38 1952.68 4614.97 11626 46.4980 31.3797 16.1385 37.5580 92.8672

Figura 5.- Cumulative gas production in new wells.

SPE 107445

Mapa Antecedente

C 341 C 340 C 333 C 339 C 328 C 324 C 325 C 321 C 323 C 332 C 320 C 312 C 335 C 331 C 337 C 298 C 306 C 292 C 343 C 345 C 346 C 151 CORLS 1 C 316 C 317 CONSTITUCIONES 101 C 351 C 305 C 304 C 318 C 349 C 348 C 128 C 350 C 130 C 270 C 156 C 152 C 660 C 668 C 159 C 162 C 160 C 141 C 148 C 103 C 166 C 637 C 105 C 167 C 115 C 154 C 158 C 611 C 604 C 610 C 106 C 155 C 599 C 598 C 169 C 169T C 169D C 198 C 118 C 572 C 134 C 134D C 161 C 161D C 142 C 137 C 648 C 104 C 137D C 137T C 143 C 633 C 102 C 144 C 640 C 170 C 113 C 165 C 178 C 173 C 171 C 174 C 186 C 122 C 196 C 564 C 580C 588 C 175 C 175D C 125 C 185D C 185 C 180 C 187 C 179 C 184 C 249 C 259 C 260 C 431 C 251 C 263 C 430 C 264 C 124 C 183 C 182 C 248 C 258 C 189 C 194 C 192 C 193 C 177 C 164 C 181 C 163 C 274 C 282 C 111 C C 150D 150 C 112 C 281 C 280 C 278 C 257 C 275 C 279 C 284 C 109 C 655 C 153 C 654 C 644 C C 157 643 C 255 C 191 C 110 C 147 C 140 C 149 C 131 C 283 C 277 C 347 C 299 C 293 C 295 C 307 C 294 C 272 C 297 C 300 C 319 C 313 C 301 C 326 C 334 C 338

C 329 C 327

C 322 C 314

C 315

C C 303 C 302

C 296

C 271 C 276

C 126

C 190

C 628 C 133 C 133D

C 172 C 172D C 107

C 138 C 145 C 135 C 135D C 108 C 596 C 108D C 136 C 589

C 215 C 221

C 574 C 226 C 565 C 559 C 558

C 146 C 146D C 593 C 139

C 216
CAM CAM PO PO CON STIT AU UCIO LIPA S

C 247
TAM

C 636

C 536 C 505
NES

C 213 C 217

C 222

Wells recommended New wells drilled Wells producing CO2 )


T 38

PEDRERA 1

T 77

T 52

T 49 T 49D

T T 43D T 43

C 540 C 526 C 203 C 240 C 539 C 235 C 525 C 250 C 209 C 533 C 235D C 240D C 209D C 188 C 503 T 730 T 91 C 511 C 206 C 538 C 238 C 200 T 708 C 534 C 121 T 739 C 510 C 218 C 261 C 518 C 524 C 502 T 88 C 224 C 509 C 523 C 285 T 728 T 92 C 241 C 236D T 90A C 210 C 224D C 241D C 236 C 508 C 204 T 90 T 738 T 705 C 204D C 210D C 501 C 241T T 109 T 550 C C 227D C 232T 232 T 111 C 207 C 227 C 500 C 239 T 749 PEDRERA 2 T 725 T 704 C 232D T 84 C 207D C 286 T 703 T 748 T 514 T 737 C 237D C 237 T 93 C 230D C 228 T 85 T 702 C 233 C 290 T 93D T 770 T 110 C 230 C 228D C 237T T 76 T 112 T 722 C 229 T 81 T 746 T 100 T 81D T 79 T 78 C 231 C 266D T 791 T 778 T 105 T 83 T 744 T 94 T 78D T 94D T 734 T 719 T 567T 83D C 266 T 105D T 55 T 743 T 80 T 55D T 113 C 433 C 265 C 245 T 108 T 113T T 565 T 755 T 741 101 C 265D T T 54 T 65 T 113D T 823 T 65D C 268 C 408 T 82 C 309 T 764 T 95 T 106 T 121D T 787 T 799 C 434 T 82DT 82T T 121 T 102 T 106D T 95D T 82T T 53 T 68D C 310 T 837 C 246 T 208 T 68 T 786 T 114 T 822 T 811 T 198 T 761 T 798 T 785 T 51D T 775 T 810 T 51 T 63 C 409 T 213 T 73 T 123 C 311 T 63D T 107 T 73D T T 858 T 107D T 783 96D T 213D T 96 T 50D T 834 T 808 T 50 T 67 T 103 T 782 C 412 T 210 T 115 T 199 C 402 T 142 T 48D TT 97 97D T 64D T 115D T 72D C 410 T T 64 875 T 48 865 T 72 T 122 T 209 T 214 T 831 T 211 T 805 T 66D T 122D T 44D T 66 C 404 T 201 T 223 T 44 T 116 T 215 T 104D T 843 T 89 C 223 C 512 T 39 T 32 T 31D T 31 T 852 T 30 T 30D T 33D T 33 T 26 T T 28D 28 T 70 T 29D T 29 T 118 T 118D T 69 T 27 T 119 T 104 T 200 T 71 T 71D T 828 T 98 T 135 T 117 T 117D T 141 T 99D T 99 T 134T T 134 T 194 T 134D T T 137 T 138D 138 T 140D T 140 T 190D T 190 T 148 T 143 T 143D T 149 T 168 T 168D T 156 T 155 T 25 T 34 T 35 T 220 T 60 T 59 T 181 T 159 T 158 T 69D T 160 T 157 T T 145 145D T 151 T 150 T 191 T 195 T 196 T 205 T 244 T 207 T 245 T 197 T 130 T 193 T 186 T 187 T 146 T 233 T 184 T 183 T 189 T 185 T 136D T 136 T 206 T 203 T 202 T 204 T 212 T 226 T 221 T 224 T 225

C 515 C 212 T 710 C 504 C 214

C 195D C 195 C 196D C 196T C 195T C 576 C 197 C 120D C 569 C 205 C 556 C 563 C 567 C 557 C 202D C 234D C 208 C 555 C 234 C 202 C 554 C 562 C 575 C 549 C 211 C 123 C 541 C 119 C 553 C 528 C 527 C 199 C 119D C 201D C 201 C 117 C 544

C 176 C 176D

C 262

C 428

C 413

C 423 C 414

C 424

C 405 C 406

C 415 C 418 C 416 C 403 C 417 C 419

C 273

T 39D T 42D T 42

C 407 C 411 C 420

T 47

T 41D T 41

T 222 T 229 T 228 T 227

Figure 6.- Area Selected, 80 Km .


Tampico Tampico

T 18 T 18D T 40D T 40 T 19

T 192

T 23 T 21D T 21 T 10 T 11

T 24

T 15-D T 15 T9 T 16 T 8D T 17 T 20

T4

T 12

T 139D T 139 T 120

T T 133D 133 T 152 T 153

T 5D T5 T8

T 3T

T 3D T3

T 13 T 13D T 75 T 14

T 154

T 188 T 132 T 246 T 131

T 233

T 1D TAMAULIPAS 1 T6 T 2D T7 T 22 T2

T 144D T 144 T 161

T 182 T 166 T 248 T 247

T 232

T 147 T 147D

T 162 T 167 T 250

T 230 T 239

T 36

T 58

T 124 T 86

T 129 CHMPYN 1005

EMPACADORA 1

Figure 7.- T-C field.


100
OIL WATER GOR

4000

90

3600

80

3200

70

Field Discovery First Production Waterflood Infill Wells

1951 1956 1968 1980-1990 1980-

2800

GOR (sft /sbl) GOR (sft3/sbl)

Water and Oil (Mbpd)

60

2400

50

2000

40

1600

30

1200

20

800

10

400

0
19 56 19 58 19 60 19 62 19 64 19 66 19 68 19 70 19 72 19 74 19 76 19 78 19 80 19 82 19 84 19 86 19 88 19 90 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00 20 02 20 04 20 06

Figure 8.- Production history, T-C field (JSA).

SPE 107445

Saturated (Oil-CO2) Mixture Viscosity (192 F)

Figure 9.- Solubility and swelling tests.

6.00

Measured Data Points

Oil Viscosity at Saturation Pressure, cp

4.00

2.00

0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Mole% CO2 in Mixture

Gas-Oil Interfacial Tension Measurement


6

Figure 10.- Oil viscosity reduction.

Gas-Oil Interfacial Tension, dyne/cm

Figure 11.- Interfacial tension effects.

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Mole % Injection Gas in Mixture

SPE 107445

Slim-Tube Displacements
105.00

100.00

Recovery at 1.2 PV, % PV

95.00

90.00

MMP: 3675 psia 93 mol% CO2

85.00

80.00

75.00 3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Displacement Pressure, psia

Figure 12.- Slim tube experiments, 93 mol % CO2.


3.2

WAG Injection (Spot Pattern Selected)


160

2.8

140

2.0 Qo (Mbpd) 1.6 Iw (Mbpd) ICO2 (MMscfd) Np 1.2

100

80

60

0.8

40

0.4

20

0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

Years

Figure 13.- Displacement Scheme in T-C field.


T-C Field 18 o API Candidate Fields 22-30 oAPI
O

A B a r d o c

D e C a

r e a e t r a T m i p c M o a e t n

A m L o s a d e l Re a l

L D CHA . E MP A A Y N

L J O EIT . S S O

L L PU N E . A E T

L D CHA AY N . E MP A

LTO . QU I L L A

L .DE C AM A A H P Y N L L SPN A . A I T S

L .DE Q IN E O U T R

L D E C H MP Y N . A A A

RI

TAM E SI

L JOP . OY

A l ami ra t
A V I STA

L D E C H MP Y N . A A A

L.

BUEN

L G N A U A

LA

T O T GA R U

L AGU NA
S A I L L AT O T G R U A

VEGA ESCON DIDA

CD. MADERO

RIO TAMESI LAGUN LAGUNA DEL CHA IREL A CH AIREL

TAMPICO

EBANO
L A NADE CHL GU I A

MATA REDONDA

RIO

PANUC

ANAHUAC

L.

NAC T A A

L GU NA D E PUEB L VI EJO A O

VILLA CUAUHTEMOC

CE R L P E R O A Z

IS A L L A NACE RO GU R L AP Z E MA L N D R A

L GU A S C A N E A

CACALILAO
L . DE T NC C N A HI UI L . D E L S OL S A A

TAMPICO ALTO
L GU A C H JI L A N A

ESTERO D E

TAMACUI L

LAG LA U G UN N

A A

G I GU U

A ALA LA

PANUCO

E T RO S E

TO I A PL

PA NU CO

L. LA MI LLA

L . E L T ULE

RIO

L. NAH UAT LAN

Candidate Fields 08-11 oAPI

H ORC ON CITOS

YAN

Quebrache Field
RIO
O ZULUAM A

CHICA

S I LAFRONT ON

ISLA JUAN A. RAMIREZ


ISL PE A REZ

ISLA BURROS

Candidate Fields 27-32 oAPI

Figure 14.- Oil fields for potential EOR application of CO2 from Quebrache field.

Cumulative Oil Production(Mb)

2.4

120

G G O L F D E

M E X I C O