This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Final Report FEASIBILITY STUDY OF HEAVY OIL RECOVERY IN THE UNITED STATES for Management and Operating Contract for the Department of Energy's National Oil and Related Programs
Work Performed Under Contract No. DE-AC22-94PC91008
Prepared for Thomas B. Ried, Program Monitor Thermal and Novel Technology U.S. Department of Energy Bartlesville Project Office
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
BDM-Oklahoma, Inc. P.O. Box 2565 Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74005
A study was initiated in 1990 to evaluate the potential of increasing U.S. heavy oil production to lessen the U.S. domestic oil production decline. In California, heavy oil production was increased in the 1960s as light oil production declined to meet the petroleum demand, suggesting that similar trends are possible elsewhere. Changes in refining were made in accordance with the production trends. This study researches the U.S. petroleum industry to determine if it could undergo similar modifications. The U.S. heavy oil resource, production characteristics, and existing refining capacity were evaluated. The resource was comprised of a total 1,025 heavy oil reservoirs; 535 were characterized in more detail. Reliable information was not available for the other 490 reservoirs which include Alaskan heavy oil reservoirs. Heavy oil remaining in the 535 heavy oil reservoirs characterized was estimated to be 68.3 billion bbl. As much as 18% of the 68 billion bbl, or 12 billion bbl may be recoverable using current technology. At the current oil price (projected flat price of $18/bbl for WTI), heavy oil production rates are expected to decline through the year 2010. An incentive of $2.90/bbl U.S. heavy oil would be needed to increase production over current levels by 300,00O/day in the year 2010. U.S. refining capacity will need to be expanded to process the increased heavy oil production.
Southern Arkansas.S. 2. An estimated . estimates what is realistically recoverable from this resource and the feasibility of projected production increases. Market incentives for bringing about the proposed production increases were postulated.S.5 billion bbl is located in the Gulf Region (Alabama. Based on the current oil prices (calculated on a flat rate of $18/bbl for WTI). In addition to the originally proposed 930. 3. Most of the heavy oil (62. refinery capacity to process heavy ends. California. Currently. Virtually all of this oil was in California. California produces more heavy oil than light oil. Anticipated global market trend models were developed to estimate the impact of heavy oil production on refinery regions in the US. Permian Basin. reservoirs. Precedence for such a change has already been demonstrated in the California petroleum market.000 bbl/D increase by the year 2010 was also considered.000 bbl/D increase. As light oil reservoirs matured and production declined during the years 1955 to 1985. Mississippi. an intermediate 300. Louisiana. It was estimated that up to 4 billion bbl heavy oil could be recovered using waterflooding for low viscosity oils and up to 8 billion bbl heavy oil could be recovered using steam injection.S. reservoirs. and Gulf Region) to identify obvious targets currently underdeveloped. and 3.3 billion bbl of heavy oil remains in 535 U. 5. Appalachian Basin. Illinois Basin. Heavy oil reservoirs were screened by individual regions (Midcontinent Region. Refineries in California were upgraded to process the heavy ends as part of this transition. including 25 to 40 billion bbl heavy oil in Alaska. Department of Energy (DOE) to direct their heavy oil program in the most advantageous way.S. 1. The result was an increase in total oil production to meet demand. and to recommend future technology improvements and field demonstrations.S.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study was initiated in 1990 to evaluate the potential of increasing U. heavy oil production to impact US.8 billion bbl) is located in California (half of which lies in seven fields). Alaska.S. This study evaluates the total U. Approximately 56 billion bbl of the oil left behind and another 5 to 40 billion bbl heavy oil in Alaska remain a production target for improved technology. 4. Black Warrior Basin. An undetermined additional amount remains in 490 less well documented U. Additional studies were conducted to evaluate the current U. These recommendations are made to the U. production of heavy oil gradually increased. heavy oil resource. An estimated 68. Michigan Basin. domestic oil production decline. The following were concluded from this study. and Texas excluding the Permian Basin). heavy oil production rate is expected to decline through the year 2010.
S. the thinner reservoirs in this region presents a production challenge. The next largest heavy oil resource is in Alaska. 3. 1. The estimated plant utility costs associated with an increase of 300.S.S. This is the only other large domestic heavy oil resource in the U. it is uncertain what the actual impact of a U. Increasing heavy oil production would require expansion in refinery capacity for processing heavy ends.000 bbl/D over current production levels by the year 2010. The Trans Alaskan Pipeline System (TAPS) may close before significant amounts of heavy oil can be produced (decisions driven by overall costs). directed toward maximizing U. Heavy oil production is possible in Alaska if technological and economic challenges are met. Overall oil production rates are expected to decline in the U. by 2% annually.S. consider the following observations. production increases are most likely to come from California. 6.$2. with deposits of heavy oil. However. Existing refining capacity in this region can accommodate increased production making the economic adjustments more realizable.S.90/bbl incentive is needed to achieve heavy oil production increase of 300. It is recommended that future government programs. The Gulf Region is the third largest region in the U.000 bbl/D was $7 billion (no offsites included) 7 . Due to a perceived oil surplus market currently in California. although actual size of the resource is less certain.S. and petroleum product demand is expected to increase by 1%annually (through the year 2010). Any program effectively targeting heavy oil production is likely to impact California production operations. However. Most of the U. . Moderate increases in heavy oil production from the Gulf Coast Region can be processed with existing refining capacity. However. heavy oil incentive would be on the overall oil industry. heavy oil is likely to be produced from California where resource and production characteristics are more favorable. heavy oil production. 2. the window of opportunity may quickly close if light oil production rates decline as projected.
C. Department of Energy under the Work Authorization Number AC/15054/BC/42. vii . The author wishes to thank Thomas B. Jones of BDM-Oklahoma for his review and input. Arfon H. David Mitchell. Rev. Reid of BPO for his support and encouragement.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work is sponsored by the U. CA District Engineer for his personal attention and information supplied to us at our request.S. and Herman Dykstra for his input and review of selected California reservoirs.
..................... Black Warrior...................................... Guariguata...... Oklahoma) (Olsen 1993... Illinois......... Ramzel..................................CONTENTS 1....... 3 3 Refining Capacity (Olsen............................... 32 IMPACT OF ACCELERATED . 3 2................. HEAVY OIL RESOURCE... 21 Gulf Region (Sarkar and Sarathi 1992...51 REFERENCES ..................30 Summary .......................................................... 16 U.................. and Salmen 1994)......4 5............ Alaska (Olsen..........................................................38 47 Incentive Study (Pautz and Welch 1995).................................................. Strycker..............7 4............... 1995)..............0 INTRODUCTION .. 17 3............................. Missouri.............................3 3 4.................. and Mahmood 1992..........................................53 APPENDICES A Heavy Oil Resource Tables ........................ and Michigan Basins (Olsen 1992) .......71 B Stratigraphic Maps of Major California Heavy Oil Fields ..........................................................................0 Accelerated Heavy Oil Production .0 6..................1 2......................................... Taylor...................................................................................... Sarkar and Sarathi 1993) .... 12 Summary .............................................................2 2.........................................................................2 3.4 3.................. 1 CHARACTERIZATION OF .......................................6 3.......................................................................................0 Midcontinent Region (Kansas...........................................................................................................................0 Datafiles....................1 4...................................................................................................................................19 19 Permian Basin (W...........................................................117 ......S..................................................3 3.......2 4...1 3.............3 3......................5 3.................................................................... Texas. Final Summary ..................................... 1993)...........................................3 4. 4 Resource Estimate ....................................................................................................................... 48 CONCLUSIONS....................... 20 California ..... REGION STUDIES ........ SE New Mexico) (Olsen and Johnson......0 2..................17 Appalachian....
.....................S..................................................29 California Crude Oil Production by Region Since 1960...........71 List of Additional Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U...........................................................................................22 U.......................................36 Low Heavy Oil Production Rates Through 2010............................................ Base Case 1990.......... Heavy Crude Oil Production by Region Defined for Base Case.........S.......S....................................S................................. 45 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil reservoirs in the U............................. Crude Oil Supply and Demand From 1990 to 2010. 1 Comparison of Screening Methods on Selected California Heavy Oil Reservoirs....................................................................... FIGURES 3-1 3-2 California Heavy and Light Oil Production Since 1940.....................5 Database Fields Sorted and Internal Checks Calculated to Identify and Correct Entry Errors in 1 Table 7-1 (Appendix A) ................... Mbbl/D ................................................................................................................................................. Crude Oil Prices from the Year 1983 to Year 2010....42 44 Crude Representation for Regional LP Models.......................... 30 Historical U.........37 38 Alternate High Heavy Oil Production Rates Through 2010 ........................... Not Analyzed in this Feasibility Study95 Reservoir Parameter Ranges for Selected Heavy Reservoirs and Selected Reservoir 105 Parameters .................13 Summary Estimate of U......S.....S............... Heavy Oil Resource Based on Reservoirs in Table 7-1 (Appendix A) ................TABLES Primary References and Estimation Methods for Data Elements in Table 7-1 ........................................................................ Crude Oil Supply by Region From 1990 to 2010 .......... 39 4-1 4-2 ......... Refining Capacity by Region in 1990 (MB/SC) .......................................................................................................................... 1990.............................. 15 List of California Heavy Oil Fields Ranked by Heavy Oil Resource and Production ......S.......................... Production and Consumption History of Crude Oil (API 1995)........42 Projected U.............................34 Ten Defined Regions With Separate Linear Programming Models in DOE Refinery Feasibility Study ....................................................................40 Projected U.....................
1992). reservoirs were included in this study if the API gravity was between 10" and 20" inclusive with no consideration of viscosity. review the transportation and refining limitations to increased heavy oil production. DOE definition of heavy crude oil is oil with API gravity between 10" and 20' inclusive at 60°F. This study had an advantage that the total number of heavy oil reservoirs was manageable and reasonably accurate data was available from the State of California where most of the heavy oil is located. Second. Many factors have influenced this shift. It is recognized that many productive zones have crude oils that range from heavy to light within the same reservoir. collecting reservoir rock and fluid information to assess how readily heavy oil production could be increased. an assessment of the U. major oil companies found ways to produce and refine the heavier crude oil cost effectively.INTRODUCTION The availability of heavy crude oil and the market economy for production. A reservoir was considered if the average API gravity for the crude oil was in the defined heavy oil range. The purpose of this project was to determine if stimulating domestic heavy oil production is feasible in the U. and one producing predominantly natural gas was considered a natural gas . This assessment included identifying the reservoirs. the reservoir was classified as heavy. For purposes of simplicity. A major shift in domestic oil production rates started in 1972 with the increase in imported crude oil. heavy oil resource was made.S. but the dominant reasons are the maturing of US. and refining has been the focus of many studies in recent years. to estimate the potential cost (qualitatively). transportation. and how much heavy oil production can be expected.S. evaluate the additional cost to achieve increases in U. heavy oil production. The state of California underwent a similar change (decline in light oil production with maturing fields) in the middle 1950s (Olsen et al. The result was a relatively seamless transition from predominantly light crude oil to predominantly heavy crude oil as the petroleum resource. or having a gas free viscosity > 100 cp and less than 10. The obvious question was whether a similar transition could take place in other parts of the U. If the average or preponderance of oil produced was heavy. fields and the availability of cheap oil from other countries. an estimate of refining capacity and cost limitations could be reasonably well benchmarked and projections reasonably determined. First. Viscosity values were obtained or estimated. because of the historically successful production and refining of heavy oil grades in California. The U.S. Third.S.000 cp inclusive at reservoir temperature. a reservoir producing predominantly light oil was considered a light oil reservoir. and estimating the remaining oil.. There was and still is an abundance of heavier crude oils in the state of California. no attempt was made to estimate the heavy oil portion for these reservoirs. Also.S. Consequently. Despite expensive production and refining.
reservoir. the heavy ends must still be processed and upgraded.S. Furthermore. Delayed coking requires the lowest investment and is the most often used. and resid hydrocracking. refineries as a medium gravity oil resulting from blending with light crude oil (Olsen et al. Also. refineries (Olsen 1993). Engineering judgment was applied to determine the most reliable data where conflicting data exists. It is suspected that more heavy oil produced by major importing countries reaches U. an overall assessment is summarized.000 bbl/D of heavy oil is imported to U. To increase the quality of hydrocarbons from heavy oil several processes may be implemented by the refinery: coking. Regardless of what average density oil reaches the refinery.000 bbl/D. the available refining capacity to process. as with all studies of this type. and discusses estimates made of the amount and location of heavy oil in the U. prioritized from best to worst for advanced recovery processes. the results are limited by what information is available. even if heavy oil is known to be produced also.S. . only heavy oil reservoirs were included in this study. Within fields with multiple reservoirs. a total of about 900. flexicoking.S. if the production wells flowed lighter gravity oil. Known API gravity ranges are listed in the report. and reviewed for an estimate of producible heavy oil. The next section reviews the impact of accelerated heavy oil production scenarios. Reservoirs were screened. In evaluating the potential of heavy oil. However. summarizes the methodology to develop datafiles. more energy is required to upgrade lower quality crude oils and is the greater economic penalty to the refinery. 1994). Finally. and the market price of other crude oils. The first section of the report reviews the heavy oil resource.S. Consequently. hydrotreating. the cost of increasing refining capacity for upgrading heavy oil must be added to the cost of production. must review the impact to the refining capacity and the discounted prices the producer is likely to receive for the oil. Approximately 153. refineries (Energy Information Agency 1992). The configuration of a given refinery limits the intake and throughput capacity of the heavy oil. Any consideration of increasing heavy oil production rates in the US. the reservoirs were eliminated from further consideration. the refinery will adjust the offering price to the producer for the crude oil based on a number of factors including its quality. Combined with estimated domestic heavy oil production of 750.000 bbl/D heavy oil is going to U. Some sources have listed certain reservoirs as heavy oil reservoirs because the discovery well showed heavy oil. categorized by production methodology.
and the information is often collected in different ways.S. Due to the technical challenges of producing heavy oil in Alaska. Such visual review of the reservoirs enables the user to utilize past experience to judge the relative value of the reported resource. is located in California and Alaska. Point Pendernalas Offshore. does not convey how much of that heavy oil is realistically recoverable in the future.S. State publications are often the best sources of information. In addition. Midway-Sunset. Self-consistency in methodology is needed to allow for meaningful comparisons from one reservoir to the next and to understand the limitations of the data and intended use. Nearly half of this heavy oil resource can be found in seven fields located in California: Wilmington. Some heavy oil is found in the Gulf Region. Differences will always exist between different sources reporting data. The intent was to get a reasonable estimate of the aggregate resource and sufficient detail to determine whether this oil was readily recoverable. The following sections discuss the methodology for collecting information. and Huntington Beach. A datafile of heavy oil reservoirs was generated with the ability to trace each data element to a specific reference source. . an assessment of the resource was performed. Sometimes values reported to the state and reproduced in state publications reflect discovery well data and are not always updated to reflect a better representation of the entire reservoir as the production operation expanded. Engineering judgment was used to minimize these differences. Visually screening the raw data in a convenient form enables the user with experience in heavy oil recovery to qualitatively assess the resource and the recoverable oil. Self-consistency and traceability were considered key elements of the reservoir datafiles being constructed. In the main file 535 heavy oil reservoirs are listed (excluding Alaska). very little of it is currently being produced and is a potentially large target for technology development. Simply concluding that x amount of heavy oil remains unrecovered in the U. how the information was compiled and reported. each state compiles different information. self-consistency was sought in generating the datafile.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF U S . Many studies rely on screening methods calibrated to past practices for making this estimate. Most of the heavy oil in the U. Cat Canyon. the approach centered on self-consistency and traceability. and an assessment of the potential recovery of heavy oil using current technology. Unfortunately. One objective was to create a spreadsheet type format that could be sorted easily to enable visual scanning of different reservoir properties.2. HEAVY OIL RESOURCE To target geographic regions or technology developments for stimulating heavy oil production. Santa Maria Valley. Hondo Offshore. This allows other users of the datafile to review the data and judge whether to accept it or revise it as needed depending on the data source and intended use. but these screening methods have their own biases and assumptions.
API gravity or oil production could not be obtained. net pay. oil production. The key elements include reservoir name. individual geological survey reports. heavy oil resource characterization. For this file.Therefore. In addition to the reservoir data. A listing of reservoirs in the primary datafile required that certain key data elements be known. Additional references were used when available. Appendix A. This information is to be used by the DOE to guide the development of future heavy oil programs. initial oil saturation. and estimate from this data what is realistically recoverable. Appendix A). depth. such as specific publications on the respective reservoirs. the reservoir may be too small (< 1 MMbbl oil-in-place). reservoir area. any effort to substantially change U. API gravity. A number of other heavy oil reservoirs identified are listed in the secondary datafile. the value defaulted to the primary reference unless a review of the particular situation indicated for specific reasons that other values were more accurate.S. The secondary or unconfirmed file was not considered a working file and was not rigorously reviewed or documented. the value of the data is a direct function of the source and methodology used. secondary elements.If reservoir name. Basically. Heavy oil reservoirs were listed either in a primary or a secondary datafile (see Tables 7-1 and 7-2. heavy oil production for the purpose of reducing domestic production decline will need to consider these seven fields.1 Datafiles As previously stated. Consequently. Resource characterization was not conducted on this datafile.S. However. net pay. . This file was the basis of the U. Because much of the available reservoir information is based on reports of other studies. identify where it is located. respectively).. the primary purpose for creating a heavy oil database was to identify how much heavy oil is in the U. Evidence that the reservoir was a heavy oil reservoir was still needed. When more than one reference was available and conflicting information was reported. Table 2-1 lists a cross reference table for the principal sources of the data in Table 7-1 (Appendix A). the data elements fall into three category types: key elements. a separate datafile containing the source citation for each data element was considered just as important to this study as the data itself. original-oil-inplace (OOIP). and current oil-in-place (OIP).S. or the field may be listed as abandoned. and optional elements. depth. the reservoir was listed in the secondary file (see Table 7-2. Large heavy oil reservoirs with good data were listed in the primary file. Any comparison of data for reliability must include a consideration of its source. etc. porosity. reservoir area. some of the key data elements may be missing or unreliable. 2. a relational file was created to enable input of the information source for each data element. a significant amount of oil may be contained in these reservoirs and they should be included in any future review of heavy oil resource. It was useful for indicating the additional heavy oil resource not being evaluated in this study due to incomplete information.
1140.10 1 14.2 1 9 1J 1.6 16 1 1 1 1 1 14. (1989) 12 1991T X O&G Ann..14 1 Net Pay 1. p. Prod..l 1 12 1. 3-L 3 temperature grab. Rpt.1969 (calc. none none none none none none none none none 5 6 17 none 5 5 5 12 15 5 5 6 17 none 5 5 5 12 15 5 1. TRll (1985) . 2). &Drill Ops. Field Stats. TR12 (1991) 17 California Division of Oil &Gas. 10 technical papers 11 MS O&G Ann. 8. Rpt. calc.10 1 1. Disc. using method JPT 9/75 p. Vol.2 6. 1981 9 1978 LA Summ.1 1. 8428. Gross Pay 1. 62 6 AR Ann.2 1 9 1 1. Cum. PRO6 (1991) 18 California Division of Oil & Gas. Area Porosity Perm. p. Yr. Ann. Oil Scouts V.Table 2-1 State Alabama Arkansas California Kansas Louisiana Mississippi Oklahoma Texas Wyoming Other FieldlResewoir Primary References and Estimation Methods for Data Elements in Table 7-1 Visc. Series Lith. API Gravity Depth Temp.l 16 1 1 1 1 1 14. Prod. dead oil 5 1991 Int.15 1 10 1 1 1 14 1 none none none none 13 none none none 10 none none 13 none none References: 1 USGS 1885 2 1988 AL O&G Rpt. ass. 28 (1990) 7 US. O&G Rpt. 1 13 Railroad Commission Applications 14 WGA/Bighorn & Wind River (1989) 15 WY O&G Stats (1989) 16 California Division of Oil & Gas. 4 est. Bureau of Mines Cir.l 1 1 1 18 1 1 1 1 1 14.5 SWI Geo Saturation Wells Wells SO1 bbllacre*ft Total Prod.) 8 DOE/ET/12380-1 (V.
the basis of deciding which values are used (and associated assumptions) is important. If available. for example. discovery well and date. optional elements were added to the data elements. but using privately reported information prevents anyone else from identifying the methodology used in generating the numbers (often proprietary). primary recovery. The methodology for creating the datafiles and the degree of self-consistency in the datafiles help to define the end result. district. In practice. However. Where more than one source was available. The following guidelines were followed in generating the datafiles. as opposed to production pools. Reservoirs containing certain key data elements that are unsubstantiated (cumulative production. is not adequate for input to a simulator studying production processes. extensive effort was not directed toward obtaining this information. greater value was placed on traceability. geological series of formation. Because complete reservoir information is never known and multiple sources for a given reservoir often report different estimates. This delineation does not conform to production figures and associated nomenclature. and amount of sulfur in oil. often reported by pools. Dykstra-Parsons Coefficient. a preferred source was selected and used unless mitigating circumstances suggested alternate values to be better. but in principal this approach promotes an understanding of the limitations involved in the estimation process. some care was taken to develop the methodology that would best provide consistency throughout the datafiles. reservoir depth) by the primary information sources were listed in the secondary or unconfirmed file (Table 7-2. reservoir pressure. and if not found. API gravity. Use of the data must always be limited to the appropriate level of detail available. formation volume factor. Data in Table 7-1 (Appendix A). Appendix A) and were not used in the resource assessment (2) (3) . Secondary elements include formation name. estimates will always be required. GOR. gross pay. and to enable the reviewer to evaluate each data element on its own merits (references for each data element would be made available). reservoir temperature. Both primary elements and secondary elements that helped the resource evaluation process were evaluated. number of wells. Public documents were reviewed and used as primary sources. It is recognized that individual operating companies will have more accurate information. initial gas saturation.An accepted methodology for estimating the key element values was followed. lithology. Thus. salinity. the ideal was not fully achieved. Optional elements include initial water saturation. Recognizing this. the data elements were left blank (a value was entered into the database of "-1"). county. secondary recovery. (1) Reservoir delineation was by geological formations (defined by stratigraphic maps). dip angle. area. net pay. permeability. basin. Because all the elements defining a reservoir are usually not known. and depositional environment. oil concentration (bbl/acre-ft). reservoir viscosity. The relative merit of an estimate is determined by the individual engineer's experience and availability to direct information.
It was presumed if not stated that the depth value was that of the top of formation. both data elements were entered and reported in Table 7-1 (Appendix A). and viscosity (empirical calculation based on API gravity and temperature). However. but the resource estimate could not be reliably made. a geometric mean was entered. it was found that the two values in the same publication gave different oil saturation values. the reservoir was excluded from the primary file used to evaluate the U. oil saturation (60%). In this study. The principal references were considered the best sources. These key elements were needed to delineate and estimate the heavy oil resource value. depths vary making the average a poor representative of the overall reservoir. and the reported values from these sources were accepted in preference to other sources.evaluation. However. an average was taken. To minimize difficulties in selecting values between conflicting information sources. In publications by the State of California. and the range was given in the reference file. When permeability values were reported as a range. If the reservoir was determined to be heavy oil.S. heavy oil resource and was instead listed in an alternate file (secondary or unconfirmed file) to indicate an undefined potential. the average was taken as an acceptable approximation and no attempts were made to improve it. if reliable sources did not report f these values selected methods of estimating the values were adopted and listed. . state geological surveys were considered the next best choice. Technical information from peer-reviewed journal publications on specific reservoirs or fields were considered more representative when available and applicable to the entire reservoir. initial oil saturations were reported both as percent saturation and as bbl/acreSft (from which percent saturation could be calculated using reported porosities). I listed in the primary file. published journal publications were not available for specific reservoirs. This is an accepted practice by many engineers and is based on the observation that distribution of permeability values tend to conform to exponential rather than linear distributions. When a range was given for depth. temperature (temperature gradient as a function of depth for the respective region). Parameters often estimated include porosity (25% or formation average). In most cases. The percent oil saturation value was used in calculating original-oil-in-place. unless a weighted average was given in the literature. For dipping reservoirs. For the remaining key data elements. the method of estimating the value was inserted. one or two principal reference sources were selected for each state. The reported bbl/acreSft value was compared to identify potential outliers in the data.
the lower of net or average pay was entered as net pay. they were similarly reported in the datafile. Soi was not estimated by this method when only S~ values were reported.000 ppm TDS) or high salinity (>100. Some maps indicated reservoirs to be much larger than is currently under production because values were revised upward to reflect perceived potential of the reservoir. The primary purpose for uniformly using this equation was to maintain consistency throughout the datafile. OOIP was found to be statistically most sensitive to reservoir area. estimates were made based on typical formation salinities. In addition to all of these known situations. if one value was reported as the reservoir pay value. (12) When reported salinities were not available.3678*porosity*area*net pay*Soi.000 ppm TDS). Gross pay was considered the entire production zone. In general. This situation occurred for 55 reservoirs in Table 7-1 (Appendix A). Instead. Individual sands within the reservoir are likely to be thinner and have smaller net pay values. it was entered as net pay if consistent with other parameters. Net pay was an estimate of total oil sands for a given production zone. it was sufficient to determine whether it was low salinity (<100. For the State of California. the most consistent value for net pay was determined from representative logs usually included with the principal information sources if values were not reported directly. Original-oil-in-place (OOIP) was always calculated according to the formula: 7758. Salinity values were not listed in Table 7-1 (Appendix A) and did not impact directly the resource assessment discussed in this report. (10) Reservoir thickness estimates vary depending on the methodology used. net and average pay. Refined estimates of reservoir acreage are highly variable since extrapolation is always required between wells. acreage for some reservoirs varied widely with no apparent or obvious reasons. the better the refinement. whether currently in production or not.Often. (11) Reservoir acreage has the greatest influence in calculating oil-in-place. When net and gross pay values were separately reported. Some situations of acreage conflicts were decided on a case-by-case basis. The greater the number of wells and the tighter the spacing. Engineers often calculate Soi of heavy oil by this approach. This study estimates the full acreage of the reservoir with oil present. In many cases. values were entered in the file and were available for reservoir review as needed. Generally. . an average value (Soi = 60%) was considered a better estimate for the total resource. For those states reporting gross. net pay values listed in Table 7-1 (Appendix A) tended to be larger than net pay values used in detailed steam simulation studies. However. However. initial oil saturation (Soi) is determined by measuring water and gas saturation to obtain the oil saturation.
and reservoirs in fields that have been abandoned and have no reported production wells (i. productive acreage (published value) rather than reservoir acreage (reported value in our datafile based on isopach maps) was used to prorate the production between reservoirs. plugged). and others (marine.S. no multiple completions of a given well) and proportioned to each reservoir OOIP. The assignment was based on knowledge of formations in the region when specific information was not available. SS stands for consolidated sandstone matrix. (16) Some additional information not reproduced in this report in Table 7-1. based on commonly available information. and these assignments. and multiple references related to each data element. if permeability and/or viscosity of a given reservoir appeared to have a significant impact on predicted prorated production (production verified from field engineers where possible). number of production wells. For lithology. The primary and secondary datafiles were formatted into relational files for Macintosh FoxBase. a revised basis of prorating production was used.e. unless introduction of viscosity or permeability substantially changed the overall result. The electronic file was developed with provisions for entering additional auxiliary data elements not discussed here including comments.The heavy oil reservoirs listed in the secondary datafile were not used for estimating U. Detailed references were not always available and in-depth studies were not conducted on a reservoir by reservoir basis. these values for heavy oil were spread over the entire field (light & heavy oil. Instead of OOIP. Included are reservoirs for which key parameters could not be verified (mentioned in paragraph three).) are for carbonate reservoirs. This qualification is particularly important for two reasons: (a) definition and characterization of reservoirs according to degree of consolidation is not well standardized. was incorporated in the study as available. In prorating oil production between reservoirs of a field. Tulare). and total number of wells are available for the entire field but not for the specific heavy oil reservoirs in the field. are not easily made. Where productive acreage was known to be significantly different from reservoir acreage (Midway-Sunset.. Although not included in this . UFS for friable or unconsolidated sandstone matrix.The preferred choice was to prorate on the basis of OOIP alone. Appendix A. heavy oil resource. and (b) degree of consolidation is particularly important to the potential success of steam injection processes as a means of oil recovery. etc. cumulative production. Reservoirs with missing gravities were not listed in the secondary file unless a reference source specifically identified it as a heavy oil reservoir. small heavy oil reservoirs (OIP less than 10 MMbbl for California or less than 1 MMbbl for other states). notes. Where annual production. There still needed to be strong indication that API gravity was between 10' and 20' to be listed in the secondary file. production was prorated on the basis of OOIP/viscosity or 00IP*sqrt(permeability)/viscosity.
a number of parameters will have similar values within certain variation limits. directly contacting a representative such as the California District Engineers to double check the information with their sources. Having no record of any steamflood operations would cast further doubt on the parameter values. For example. this additional information constituted a part of the study and was available for internal use on the project. Errors are an inevitable part of the process. (17) For fractured shale reservoirs. 70% recovery is expected from 80 acre spacing pattern with reservoir oil viscosity at 5. and all reservoirs with remaining saturation values less than 20% or greater than 80% were reviewed. Table 2-2 summarizes the individual review processes completed for the datafile listed in Table 7-1 (Appendix A). South so that Belridge.e. North and Belridge.report. even when reported permeability values were available. permeability. when sorted by region and formation. Differences are identified quickly with spreadsheet comparison commands. If no additional information was available. oil saturation values were reported separately as Soi (percent) and Soi . Since sorting is dependent on spelling.. geological series. For example. Such a review included checking against the original source for possible entry error. no changes were made and the differences were accepted. and depositional environment all will be somewhat similar within a given formation. porosity. permeabilities were not reported and a value of "1" was entered into the datafile. (18) A key part to the development of any reservoir information file includes the procedures used for reviewing and checking entered information for errors. Slight differences in word orientation are also identified by this procedure and were corrected to enable more convenient sorting (i. Acreage was checked by calculating spacing (acres/total wells) and comparing with reservoir viscosity and recovery. Numerical errors are easily spotted by downloading the file into spreadsheets and comparing entry values with calculated values. Self-consistency checks are more difficult and were based on engineering judgment. Self-consistency checks were performed comparing one number with another for a given reservoir. Extreme cases were reviewed. Cumulative production should not exceed OOIP. net pay. For California.000 ft. South sorted together). these errors are easily identified when sorting by columns and visually comparing by groupings.000 cp and depth at 1. Reservoir parameters falling outside the normal ranges for each of these formations were reviewed again for accuracy. reported cumulative production and OOIP are derived from separate data. All text entries were reviewed for spelling errors and spelling consistencies. For example. South Belridge changed to Belridge. Depth. reviewing other sources not normally checked. and sometimes contacting the operators directly.
) consistent with calculated number cumulative production should be <80%of OOIP if cumulative production is >60%of OOIP. When it was not possible to identify the better choices. Table 2-2 State Field Reservoir Formation County District Basin Geo Series Dep. Region Temp. double check all values Soi should be = Sat. Depth Porosity Perm. Prod. Reservoir State State State/formation Geo Series Geo Age Formation Formation Formation Formation Formation Formation Lithology check check check check check check check check check check check check check check check check check check check check check Checks Made spelling.(B/AF)/(porosity*units factor) Soi should be = Sat. Env. Tot Wells. Cum. review all data OOIP should equal 7758. (B/AF) Wells. etc. Salinity Geo Age Geo Series Geo Series Dep.(B/AF)/(porosity*units factor) Soi should be = Sat. wells) should be consistent with viscosity & oil recovery gross pay should be > net pay net pay should be consistent with representative logs Soi+Swi=l (some exceptions) Soi should be less than 1 if Soi is >0. wells) should be consistent with viscosity & oil recovery # production wells should be 0 if annual production is 0 # production wells should be < #total wells check inconsistencies (SS if porosity<21% & mD<500. district.3678'por*area*netpay%i OIP should equal OOP-Cum. state consistent with county. OIP should be 400% reservoir volume OIP should be >20% reservoir volume should equal (cumulative production)/OOIP calculated well spacing (acres/tot.8. Env.Both values were compared after conversion. Prod Wells.dolomite or limestone <200. & basin spelling spelling spelling. basin consistent with district and state spelling spelling spelling spelling field code consistent with field name field name consistent with field code reservoir number consistent with reservoir name reservoir name consistent with reservoir number state consistent with region temperature consistent with temperature gradient salinity consistent for formation group within reason geological series should be consistent with geological age geological age should be consistent with geological series geological series should be consistent with depositional environment depositional environment should be consistent with formation depth consistent for formation group within reason porosity consistent for formation group within reason permeability consistent for formation group within reason net pay consistent for formation group within reason lithology should be consistent w/ permeability (fractured shale =-I. UFS if ~01727%& mD>1000) 11 . Prod Lith Database Fields Sorted and Internal Checks Calculated to Identify and Correct Entry Errors in Table 7-1 (Appendix A) Field Sorted State Field Reservoir Formation County District Basin Geo Series Dep Env. OOIP OIP OIP OIP Recovery Area Gross Pay Net Pay Swi Soi Soi Porosity Soi Sat.(bbl/acreSft).(B/AF)/(porosity*units factor) calculated well spacing (acres/tot. Estimates differing by more than 15% were reviewed for errors in porosity or initial oil saturation. Net Pay Permeability Viscosity cum. Prod. formation consistent with reservoir spelling. district consistent with county spelling. Lithology Region Field Code Field Reservoir No. Lith Region Field Field Code Reservoir Reservoir No. Prod. county consistent with district spelling. the reported Soi (percent) was accepted.
marginally favorable. As already discussed.S. or simply. As used in this datafile. These reservoirs are often targets for waterflood recovery. and not favorable (see Table 2-3). ranges of values were also entered when known (see Table 7-3). how easily the methods and assumptions for deriving individual values can be identified for comparison with other reported or derived values (reference citations).2 Resource Estimate A method of screening the heavy oil reservoirs in the datafile was developed to provide estimates of heavy oil reservoir candidates for known recovery technologies. Indeed. Anytime an average value is reported as a representation of an entire reservoir. To test this approach. A screening criteria for steamflood recovery (Chu 1985) was applied to the remaining 119 candidate heavy oil reservoirs to separate the reservoirs into three groups: favorable. favorable. and grouping these reservoirs into three categories. More importance was placed on aggregate resoure estimates than on individual reservoirs. All aspects of this process were incorporated. anyone familiar with the reservoir is likely to consider the reported values not representative. those reservoirs with viscosities less than 100 cp were removed. where the resource is located.. The usefulness of the compiled reservoir information is a function of how easily this compiled information can be assessed (database format). Permeability is a critical variable in predicting the potential for steam injection. California heavy oil reservoirs were first reviewed and prescreened.S. Robustness was built into the approach by developing a method of ranking the heavy oil reservoirs from best to worst. the purpose of this data base was to estimate the heavy oil resource for the U. All of the reservoirs identified as having successful thermal recovery projects (52 total) should be categorized as favorable or . reservoir volumetric parameters were calculated based on regular configurations. To mitigate this difficulty. The purpose for the database was to guide DOE funding programs in developing the U. and how thoroughly the data elements in the file have been reviewed for entry errors (self-consistency checks). the needed detail for assessing the economic prospects of production on a leaseby-lease basis is lost. Those reservoirs missing permeability values were removed. In addition.. heavy oil resource and not to select individual heavy oil reservoirs for development. i. and to estimate how difficult it will be to recover the heavy oil. Screening Criteria The first approach was to identify heavy oil reservoirs acceptable for thermal recovery based on screening criteria. one of the disadvantages of a single entry database is the inability to represent an irregularly shaped and variable property formation by individual numbers.e.In summary. wrong. 2. marginally favorable and unfavorable. consistency of the methodology for obtaining and compiling the information (consistent choices between conflicting information).
One possible explanation for the discrepancies between performance and screening criteria is that successful field thermal projects have been operated in reservoirs with high oil viscosities (>3. Table2-3 Comparison of Screening Methods on Selected California Heavy Oil Reservoirs Steamflood Screening Crit.marginally favorable. Consequently. net pay>lO ft.. However. Furthermore. Chu 1985.000ft. OR 400<depth<3. However. Canadian heavy oil and bitumen deposits. Reservoirs)' 24 16 12 Total 52 52 52 119 1 Reservoirs where 1 or more thermal recovery projects lasted longer than 4 years. porosity+Soi>0. permeabilityhet pay /viscosity>50 Not Favorable: The rest of the heavy oil reservoirs with viscosity >I00 cp and permeability values known. 2 California Heavy Oil Reservoirs: Permeability > 0 mD (excludes fractured shales). depth>3. R e s e r ~ o i r s ) ~ Total ReservoirsZ 35 13 4 47 42 30 Chu S O R ~ (No. However. 4 Defined as net pay*steam penneability/steam viscosity 5 Ref. high oil viscosity values produce poor transmissibility values in screening criteria and do not reflect the successes just mentioned. This approach was not considered effective in separating favorable from unfavorable reservoirs for steamflood candidates.000 cp)..08. The resulting reservoirs were ranked according to the steam/oil ratio and grouped by favorable. also with very high oil viscosities. SteamIOil Ratio Another approach was to estimate the required instantaneous steam/oil ratios (SOR) based on reservoir parameters. An empirical parameter set was developed based on 20 heavy oilfield projects (Chu 1985). very little distinction was observed between the favorable by this approach as shown (21 successful field projects) and the marginally favorable (21 successful field projects) groups. marginally favorable. Reservoirs)' Favorable Marginally Favorable Not Favorable 21 21 10 Steam 1njectivity4 (No. net pay>30 ft. not favorable and . a limiting criteria in this screening approach.000 ft. 500<deptM3.. only the equation for SOR>5 was used in screening reservoirs even though some of the values exceeded the recommended SOR range. Chu developed two empirical formulas for a range of SOR values. These formulas were applied to the same 119 reservoirs evaluated with the screening criteria discussed in the previous paragraph.l5.000 ft. ten of the successful field projects (19% of total) were identified as not favorable by this approach as shown in Table 3-5. the equation for SOR15 was based on only eight reservoirs and was found to be unreliable for our dataset. 400<depth<3. (No.000 ft.. in situ viscosity >I00 cP 3 Favorable: porosity"%i>O. have been successfully recovered. penneability*net pay/viscosity>lOO Marginally Favorable: Otherwise favorable reservoir.
000 ft appear more favorable and reservoirs less than 1. The purpose was to estimate the total resource amenable to recovery. marginally favorable. This may be true up to about 3.000 ft thermal efficiency decreases due to increased heat losses from the wellbore and decreased heat capacity of steam (overall higher temperatures).were poorly predicted by this approach. Recovery factors were applied to these categories. For groups favorable to steamflooding. Some distinction was observed between the favorable (24 successful projects) and the marginally favorable (16 successful projects) groups.000 ft deep less favorable as compared to the other ranking methods. For the marginally . As can be seen in Table 2-3. Reservoirs deeper than 3. but beyond 3. Only four reservoirs considered successful were ranked in the not favorable category by this approach. two were low in permeability ( ~ 4 0 0 md) and two had a net pay of 150 ft. Although somewhat better. this approach was accepted in this study as a first approximation to characterize the potential for oil recovery by thermal methods. one of which was a fireflood and not likely to be a successful steamflood due to the low permeability (200 rnd). A major difference between the empirical SOR approach and the other two screening approaches (screening criteria. this screening approach was more successful in ranking California reservoirs with successful field projects. ultimate recovery for the entire reservoir was estimated at 50% of total OOIP less the cumulative production to date. As before. this approach was not considered very effective in separating favorable from non-favorable reservoirs for steamflood candidates. The remaining reservoirs were sorted by steam injectivity and categorized according to favorable.000 ft (very few examples used by Chu were for depths >3. As can be seen in Table 2-3. Steam Injectivity A third approach to screen reservoirs was developed based on steam injectivity. steam injectivity) is that the formula correlates increasing depth favorable to the SOR ratio criteria. and that reservoirs more favorable to steam injection would be successful. but not to vigorously determine heavy oil reserves for each reservoir. and not favorable.000 ft). Of the other four. The same 119 California reservoirs were ranked from highest to lowest injectivity with respect to steam. The rankings were further grouped to favorable. or not favorable. Reservoirs with unknown permeability values were removed. Therefore. The idea was based on the principal that oil production is a function of the steam injected. marginally favorable. Resource Assessment The steam injectivity screening method was applied to all reservoirs in the primary datafile. Waterflooding candidates (those with viscosity less than 100 cp) were analyzed separately. 12 of the successful projects (23% of total) were in reservoirs identified as not favorable and were poorly predicted by this approach. the results were very similar to that of the screening criteria.
Approximately 4 billion bbl heavy oil (viscosity less than 100 cp) is candidate for waterflooding and nearly 8 billion bbl for steamflooding.1 68.5 0 4. Other known recovery methods including gas flooding and in situ combustion are expected to contribute. Most of this heavy oil is not likely to be recovered applying current technology and economics (waterflooding.8 0. estimated recovery was 35% of OOIP less the cumulative production to date. For the waterflood favorable group.6 5. they are consistent with the upper limits found in the database. MMbbl Total Heavy Oil (OOIP) Total Heavy Oil (OIP) Recoverable Steam (Favorable) Recoverable Steam (Marg. Estimates for steamflooding were a bit conservative and were arbitrarily selected. This is a bit high for waterflooding. Favorable) Recoverable Waterflood Recoverable Total 79.S.22 . That is..0 4. As shown in Table 2 4 . the ultimate recovery was estimated as 25% of total OOIP less the cumulative production to date. of which 17.favorable group.3 6. Table 2-4 Summary Estimate of U. There are also a number of other reservoirs excluded accounting for potentially another 5 to 6 billion bbl heavy oil.5 billion bbl was excluded from thermal and waterflooding recoverable (fractured shale with unspecified reservoir permeability values).8 6. steamflooding). of which 63 billion bbl is located in California.8 California.S.8 Other. which could account for another 25 to 40 billion bbl. much of the remaining heavy oil is not recovered with current steam and waterflooding technology.. Not included in Table 2 4 is the Alaskan heavy oil. but recovery was estimated high due to the application of advanced recovery processes. One of these targets is the Monterey formation in California with 21 billion bbl heavy oil.0 11. MMbbl 71. Finally.S.2 12. about 1 1 billion bbl of heavy oil have already been produced in the U. but are relatively small..18 0. Table 2 4 also shows that a substantial amount of heavy oil is potentially recoverable if suitable technologies are developed.6 62. 9 billion bbl was produced from California reservoirs. MMbbl 7.Heavy Oil Resource Based on Reservoirs in Table 7-1 (Appendix A) US. About 68 billion bbl of heavy oil remain in the U. However.
535 heavy oil reservoirs have been identified and were used to make resource estimates. A brief discussion of these investigations is given in the next section. specific evaluations were conducted on different geographic regions to explore in more detail geological and reservoir characteristics of these heavy oil reservoirs. On this basis.8 billion bbl is located in California and half of this oil is located in seven fields. A qualitative estimate was made of the total resource target based on current production technology. Virtually all of this recoverable oil is in California. 62. This suggests technology development is needed to have a significant impact on heavy oil production outside of California. It was estimated that 68. As part of this study.5 billion bbl heavy oil. Unfortunately. about 12 billion bbl of the total 68. Alaskan heavy oil-in-place is estimated to be 25 to 40 billion bbl. The Gulf Region has about 3.3 billion bbl heavy oil remain in these reservoirs in the U. and are meant to add to the understanding of the reservoirs outlined in this section. . technological and economic challenges prevent current production of West Sak and Ugnu. Of the 68.2 .S. 3 Summary Based on the data collected. An additional 490 heavy oil reservoirs have been identified including substantial deposits of heavy oil in Alaska. The reader should refer to the individual reports for more detailed discussions.3 billion bbl heavy oil.3 billion bbl may be recoverable-4 billion bbl by waterflooding and 8 billion bbl by steamflooding. The deposits of West Sak and Ugnu in Alaska are potentially comparable with California deposits.
Additional heavy oil has been reported in the Northeast section of Oklahoma. and Missouri. For Missouri. and Bourbon counties (Ebanks et al. Several reservoirs in Oklahoma were excluded from the main file due to missing key information. Other estimates of total heavy oil resource for this region have been higher. 1977). Production from these reservoirs has been very low both individually and collectively. Ebanks et al. Kansas.US. HEAVY OIL RESOURCE. Estimated resource values reported elsewhere were also reviewed. Where available. Of these. 3.9 billion bbl (Heath 1979). REGION STUDIES The following sections are divided more or less by geographic region: Midcontinent Region. For Oklahoma. and another 13 MMbbl is potentially . but firm numbers are elusive (Olsen 1993). The particular studies focused on a more detailed description of the reservoirs in the respective regions. Of the total heavy oil resource. Crawford. the economic variables are not as favorable as for friable or unconsolidated formations more common in the younger rock formations of California. Most of the reservoirs are in consolidated or highly cemented rock formations. Geological descriptions were also summarized or discussed as appropriate. Although a number of recovery projects have been tried. Missouri. the only one of potential significant size is Osage reservoir in the Carrier field. Harrison estimated the resource at 800 MMbbl for the South-Central region of Oklahoma (Harrison 1982). 14 MMbbl of oil is potentially recoverable by thermal methods.4 to 1. For Kansas. There are a number of small carbonate reservoirs in Kansas containing heavy oil that are not included in the main file due to insufficient information. Appalachian Basin.1995) From the database. Bradshaw indicated there was 200 to 250 MMbbl of heavy oil in Missouri (Bradshaw 1985). The heavy oil in Missouri has been pretty much confined to the reservoirs listed in Table 7-1 (Appendix A). Based on the screening procedures and the reservoir data in the datafile. California. The primary reason for low recoverables is attributed to the geology of the reservoirs. estimates 225 MMbbl heavy oil in Cherokee. Michigan Basin. most of which (584 MMbbl) is located in Oklahoma. 1995). and Gulf Region. Permian Basin. Heath estimated 1. Alaska. Acreage and porosity were not confirmed making resource estimates tentative. documented information on successes and failures of advanced recovery processes were discussed. 45 MMbbl is estimated as recoverable-most from Oklahoma (Olsen 1993. Oklahoma) (Olsen 1993. approximately 606 MMbbl of heavy oil remains in-place in Oklahoma. Illinois Basin.1 Midcontinent Region (Kansas. Later estimates were much lower and total recoverable is estimated as being less than 5 MMbbl (Olsen 1993). Black Warrior Basin.
Attempted in situ combustion projects in Allen County. (1963-1966). Inc.ca. Attempted Vapor Therm process in Carlyle Pool. The projects found to be technically and economically successful were conducted in reservoirs with permeabilities > 500 md.000 bbl. Attempted in situ combustion in southwestern Missouri. Benyon Energy Co.S. Additional oil was recovered. (1965-1976). A number of early thermal recovery projects are surveyed. Conducted a carbon dioxide-steam project in Missouri. Sinclair Research. (1955-1958). Attempted in situ combustion in Allen County. Heavy oil recovery did not appear to be economically viable. Carmel Energy. Inc. Additional oil was recovered.recoverable by waterflooding. but in general. project expansions were not pursued. Little is known about this project. Steam drive was attempted in Warner Formation. (1955. Inc. Shell Oil Co. Carter Oil Co. Some 18. Allen County. An air injection process was tried in Missouri. Dotson Oil Co. . These estimates are based on the lower permeabilities and thinner sands commonly found in the Midcontinent. Some 133. Projects have been successful in recovering heavy oil from the Midcontinent region. A sustained fire front was not obtained. the largest production project from a field in Missouri. Steam injection was attempted in Missouri. Sun Oil Company (1965-1968). The Vapor-Therm recovery process was conducted in Missouri. Missouri. (1966-1980). Additional oil was recovered.000 bbl of heavy oil was recovered. Kansas. Henry Petroleum Co. Kansas. U. Some additional oil was recovered. Cumulative production exceeded 550. (1982-1987). 1959). production increases were marginal and economic values are expected to be unfavorable.000 bbl of heavy oil was recovered. Phillips Petroleum Co. Some additional oil was produced. The following is a listing of projects discussed in the DOE report (Olsen 1993). Kansas. All the oil identified as potentially recoverable is located in Oklahoma. Department of Energy (1978-1981). Attempted in situ combustion projects in Labette County. Details are not available. although details of the projects are lacking and economic failure was the norm (Olsen 1993). (1978-1992). (1956-1960). Survey of Kansas TEOR Projects (1966). but based on known information. Inc. (1976-1978). Kansas. Conducted a carbon dioxide-steam project in Missouri. Economics were not attractive due to required operating and capital investment costs associated with using old wells. Carmel Energy. Jones-Blair Energy.
Mobil Oil Co. (1953). In situ combustion was successfully applied to a reservoir in southern Oklahoma. Approximately 25% of the pattern was swept by the combustion front. Shell Oil Co. (1964-1966).Shell Oil implemented a steam project in Oklahoma. Mobil Oil Co. (1962-1968). Mobil implemented a fireflood in Carter County, Oklahoma. Some oil was produced. Mobil Oil Co. (1986-1992). This steam project is still going in Carter County, Oklahoma. Of all the formations in Oklahoma, this one (Fourth Deese Sand in Sho-Vel-Turn field) was most like those found in California. The sands were friable to unconsolidated and relatively clean of swelling clays.
Appalachian, Black Warrior, Illinois, and Michigan Basins (Olsen 1992)
Heavy oil deposits in these basins constitute a negligible contribution to the total in the U.S. Approximately 12 MMbbl heavy oil is the estimated remaining resource in these basins. Using the screening method described earlier, none of the heavy oil is readily recoverable by waterflooding or thermal recovery methods. Some small amounts may be produced in isolated pools. A more detailed discussion of these areas is provided in a separate publication (Olsen 1992).
3 . 3
Permian Basin (W. Texas, SE New Mexico) (Olsen and Johnson, 1993)
This basin comprises reservoirs in West Texas and Southeast New Mexico. From the datafiles, the estimated resource for the Permian Basin is between 105 and 247 MMbbl remaining heavy oil in place. Although notable, it is not as large as that of the Midcontinent, and is certainly much smaller than that of California or Alaska. Only five reservoirs are listed in the primary datafile (estimated 105 MMbbl remaining OIP). Trinity reservoir in Toborg field, Texas, and all of the heavy oil reservoirs from New Mexico were listed in the secondary datafile due to uncertainties in key data elements. The resource estimate is not well defined for several reasons. The largest heavy oil reservoir in this basin, Trinity in Toborg field, was estimated with 100 MMbbl OOIP. About 41 MMbbl of heavy oil has been reported as produced from this reservoir, which constitutes 39% recovery from primary and waterflooding processes. Some concerns on the accuracy of the reported production from this reservoir and associated API gravities (varies from 10" to 30") are discussed in a separate report (Olsen and Johnson 1993). This reservoir was not included in the primary datafile because of these well known discrepancies.
In addition, a number of heavy oil reservoirs from this basin are located in New Mexico and were not included in the primary datafile due to unavailability of reliable information. As much as 52 MMbbl of heavy oil may remain in these reservoirs. Combined with that of Trinity (Toborg) and other reservoirs in West Texas, our basic estimate of 105 MMbbl heavy oil in the Permian Basin may be low by as much as 142 MMbbl, giving a total of 247 MMbbl OIP. From the screening method described earlier (steam injectivity), none of the five reservoirs in the primary datafile were candidates for thermal recovery and an estimated 1 MMbbl may be recoverable by waterflooding in one reservoir, Wolfcamp (E. Blalock Lake Field in Texas). A more detailed discussion of the geology and characteristics of reservoirs in the basin are given elsewhere (Olsen and Johnson 1993).
Alaska (Olsen, Taylor, and Mahmood 1992; Mahmood, Olsen and Thomas 1995)
Limited information on the heavy oil resource in Alaska has prevented its inclusion in the primary datafile. Estimates of OOIP vary from 25 to 40 billion bbl or more for the combined West Sak, Lower Ugnu, and Upper Ugnu formations. Estimates of heavy oil for other unexplored areas such as the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) are non-existent. West Sak formation underlies Kuparuk River and Milne Point operating units and is the deepest of the three major formations. The Ugnu sands lie above West Sak, and all formations slope downward to the North and East (Milne Point Unit area). More details of reservoir parameters and geology are discussed elsewhere (Olsen, Taylor, and Mahmood 1992; Mahmood, Olsen and Thomas 1995). Current heavy oil production is minimal, and is only a fraction of the total production from Alaska (3,000 bbl/D from Schrader Bluff Pool, Milne Point unit). Because Schrader Bluff Pool is from the deepest section of the heavy oil formations (West Sak, Ugnu), viscosities are lower. Current declines in the major light oil reservoirs are causing producers to look for other attractive properties in Alaska to maintain the flow of oil through the TransAlaska Pipeline System (TAPS). Increasing production from these giant heavy oil reservoirs are seriously being considered ( O i l6 Gas Journal 1995). Resource estimates from West Sak vary from 15 to 25 billion bbl OIP (Thomas, Allaire, Doughty, Faulder, Irving, Jarnison, and White 1993; Werner 1984; Werner 1986). West Sak viscosities are generally lower than those found in the Ugnu sands. Resource estimates for Lower Ugnu range from 6 to 1 1 billion bbl and for Upper Ugnu range from 5 to 8 billion bbl (Werner 1984, Werner 1986). The state of Alaska has estimated technical recovery of 0.5 to 1 billion bbl from West Sak (Thomas, Allaire, Doughty, Faulder, Irving, Jamison, and White 1993). Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) has estimated 0.5 billion bbl recoverable
(Sullivan 1991). Technical issues need to be resolved pertaining to recovery techniques, environmental sensitivity and transportation/marketing of Alaska North Slope heavy oil.
Remaining heavy oil in California is estimated at 62.8 billion bbl, and nearly 12 billion bbl of this may be recoverable economically with existing technology. One-half of this remaining oil lies in seven fields: Wilmington, Hondo Offshore, Point Pendernalas Offshore, MidwaySunset, Cat Canyon, Santa Maria Valley, and Huntington Beach. Another one-fourth of this remaining oil lies in eight fields: Orcutt, San Ardo, Kern River, Coalinga, South Belridge, McKittrick, Poso Creek, and Mount Poso. A more detailed discussion is presented on some of these fields. California reservoirs are listed in Table 7-1 (Appendix A). Information from a variety of sources reflect variations across the fields (see Table 3-1). Natural variation in depths, thickness, etc. are expected across the larger fields. For example, Monarch (Spellacy) reservoir (Midway-Sunset) is given as 1,300 ft deep, but depth ranges from 600 to 2,000 ft (Table 3-1). The following paragraphs discuss in more detail some of the more important characteristics of California's largest heavy oil fields.
Wilmington Field: Wilmington field (Appendix B) is the largest heavy oil field in California (see Table 3-1) with an estimated nearly 10 billion bbl heavy oil currently in place. It is also a major heavy oil producer (currently fourth largest in California) and is in a distinguished group of fields having produced over a billion bbl heavy oil to date.
This field is an asymmetrical anticline located in the southeast portion of Los Angeles County on the Orange County border, and inside and offshore of the City of Long Beach. This field is approximately 1 1 miles long and 3 miles wide covering a productive area of roughly 13,500 acres. Estimated heavy oil resource is 1 1 billion bbl OOIP. This field is the largest heavy oil reservoir in California and the Continental U.S. Faulting contributes to the complexity of the Wilmington field. Most discussions show 10 major fault blocks trending north to northeast. On the flanks, the formation dip ranges from 20" in the north to 60" in the south. The Conservation Committee of California Oil & Gas Producers in their annual production report segregates production into 74 reservoir units, described by 19 fault blocks, four areas (Town Lot, Terminal, Harbor, and East), and eight production zones. Included in the heavy oil producing zones are Ranger, Tar, and Upper Terminal. Light oil producing zones include Lower Terminal, Union Pacific, Ford, 237, and Schist. Production zones span a geographical region that includes both inland and California offshore properties. These reservoirs were split between onshore and offshore in this study, but
7 billion bbl heavy oil.842. Other sources separate the isolated sections by fault blocks. Federal OCS Blackwells Corner Cascade Casmalia Castaic Junction Cat Canyon Chico-Martinez Cienaga Canyon Coalinga Cymric Devils Den Edison Fruitvale Guadalupe Hasley Canyon Holser Hondo Offshore. using steam and in situ combustion processes.734 1 52.903 A . Field Aliso Canyon Ant Hill Antelope Hills Arroyo Grande Barham Ranch Belridge Beta Offshore.785. rank OIP. rank 6. Table 3 1 List of California Heavy Oil Fields Ranked by Heavy Oil Resource and Production OOIP.otherwise were combined by formation type.-OCS Huntington Beach Jasmin Jesus Maria Kern Bluff Kern Front Kern River King City Kreyenhagen Las Posas Lompoc Los Angeles City Lost Hills McDonald Anticline McKittrick Midway-Sunset bbl Cum Prod.374 - 1. bbl Ann Prod. rank Cum Prod. Midway-Sunset Field: Midway-Sunset (Appendix B ) is the second largest heavy oil field in California. OCS Huasna Hueneme. Fed. MMbbl OOIP. MMbbl OIP. Fed. It has produced over 1.159 - 4. rank Ann Prod.047. It is a major heavy oil producer (currently the largest producer in California).
It lies to the south of the town of McKittrick. Venice Pleito Point Pendemales. Canada De La Brea Summerland Tapia Oil Field Tapo Canyon Tapo. rank 60 OIP. California.Table3-1 List of California Heavy Oil Fields Ranked by Heavy Oil Resource and Production (Cont.6 MMbbl rank 33.) OOIP. The field is approximately 25 miles long and three miles wide covering a productive area of approximately 25.6 billion bbl OOIP .089 18 The Midway-Sunset field is a NW-SE trending field located on the west southwest edge of Kern County with a small portion in San Luis Obispo County. OIP.3 59 Cum Prod.779 Prod. and runs between the towns of Maricopa on the southwest edge of the field and Taft on the northeast edge of the field.001 72 Ann Ann Prod.OCS Poso Creek Pyramid Hills Railroad Gap Raisin City Ramona Richfield Rosedale Ranch Round Mountain Salt Lake San Ardo Sansinena Santa Maria Valley Sirni. The field is estimated to have had about 6. North Tejon Torrance Union Avenue West Mountain Wheeler Ridge White Wolf Whittier Yorba ~ k d a MMbbl 33.049 18 '910. The field's name is derived from the Midway production area near Taft and the Sunset production area near Maricopa. OOIP. Cum Prod. Field Monroe Swell Montalvo West Montebello Mount Poso Newhall Newport. Sulphur Mountain Olive Orcutt Paris Valley Placerita Playa Del Rey. rank 72 239 37 153 40 86. Fed. bbl rank 295. bbl 3. West Ojai.000 acres.300.
Metson. all are extensively steamed. slightly to the southeast. Obispo. which accounts for over 90% of the total field production. Monarch (Spellacy). For this report the productive acres for Tulare was assumed to be 5. and Wilhelm.316 acres. Republic. The field generally dips 13" as it thickens to the east. For Midway-Sunset. Some confusion occurs when comparing names associated with production pools to names associated with vertically aligned formations. there is a noseout area that in times past was called the Belgian Hills area. other sources cite this reservoir with 320 acres. For Midway-Sunset. It . Potter (or Olig). The larger value was used in the original datafile. The Midway Valley Syncline lies on the northeast edge of the field. Top Oil. and estimates of other reservoirs reported in the literature may be more conservative. Potter (or Olig). isopach maps were not available for all of the reservoirs in Midway-Sunset field. To the extreme north. Antelope Shale. These include the following heavy oil producing zones: Calitroleum. Leutholtz (Metson). Potter. Subparagraph 14 Subsection 2.000 acres for the purposes of estimating individual reservoir production from field production. Unfortunately.5 miles northeast of Maricopa. The three major producing zones are the Tulare. Webster. isopach maps of Tulare indicate the reservoir to be much larger at 18. exiting the northeast edge of the field 2. Production numbers separate the reservoir into separate pools. This is compounded by the "Others" production zone as reported by the Conservation Committee of California Oil and Gas Producers. Often. However. but reservoir acreage was listed as 18.000 acres in our datafile and is supported by documentation. and Monarch. Pulv. Tulare. It is currently the number one producing field in the state of California. Marvic.5 billion of light oil. the acreage is given as 3. Gusher.1 of this report discusses this calculation method in more detail. with cumulative production in 1993 approaching 2. Leutholz and. In addition to the reservoir data already discussed. This difference also impacts the estimate for reservoir production determined according to reservoir size (OOIP) which is a direct function of acreage. Kinsey. An example is Leutholtz (Metson) reservoir. There are a number of oil-bearing zones in the Midway-Sunset Field. Mya Tar. we were forced to artificially divide the production to individual reservoirs. Light oil zones include Lakeview.which includes 0.316 acres in the database and the larger value was used in estimating the ultimate resource. However. the acreage is given as 5. individual zones are combined differently making crossreferencing of production numbers to individual horizons nearly impossible. In the absence of clear assignment of production to individual formations. Moco. Pacific. and Pioneer.2 billion bbl. Tulare. specific points need to be mentioned that point out issues needing clarification critical to Midway-Sunset field analysis. It starts one mile northwest of the Republic pools and cuts to the east of the northern Republic pools. The Spellacy Anticline runs through the southern Republic pools and cuts across the field to the southeast. Sub-Lakeview.000 acres in the literature (California Division of Oil and Gas 1985).
Estimates of productive acres range from 9. The productive Kern River Sand series consists of an alternating sequence of unconsolidated sands with considerable interbedded silts and clays.000 acres) than the value accepted for this study. The principal formation of the field is a braided alluvial system deposited by the westwardly-flowing Kern River. The trapping mechanism is predominantly stratigraphic with an updip tar seal and stratigraphic pinch outs.9 billion bbl is by no means the highest. Appendix B) is the ninth largest of the heavy oil fields in California (including federal OCS). Kern River field is located about five miles northeast of Bakersfield on the southeastern edge of the San Joaquin Valley. South Belridge Field: Although Belridge (North and South. This field was discovered in 1899 when several wells were drilled to supply Bakersfield with lubricating oil. 4 billion bbl (Brelih 1990). Republic. the primary information sources accepted for California were those published by the California Division of Oil & Gas (DOG).000-12. the acreage given by the California Division of Oil and Gas was 80 acres. The resource estimate of 1. unless specific information suggests more reliable parameters.660 to 12. . An intermediate value of 205 acres was selected. For Midway-Sunset. the field was producing 17 MMbbl/yr. An aggressive steam injection program in this field is the reason for strong production. 1966). It has produced over a billion bbl of heavy oil to date. The reported porosities and net pay vary as shown in Table 7-3 (Appendix A). After this.was determined that the 320 acres included only the Olig pool in the far northern section of the field. they are major heavy oil producers (currently the third largest producer in California). The structure of the field is a simple homocline that dips 3' to 6 O to the southwest. The resource value in this study is based on volumetric calculations from DOG numbers and represents a reasonably conservative estimate. and 3. Appendix A).9 billion bbl (ths would be about 60% of OOIP in Table 7-1. These sands consist of up to nine thick productive sand bodies varying from 30 to 100 ft thick. production declined until World War I1 when increased drilling produced dramatic increases in production.6 billion bbl (Energy Development Consultants/Stone & Webster 1983). but consultants to this project estimated this value to be higher. separated by mudstones averaging 20 ft in thickness. South Belridge is the dominant producer of the two Belridge fields. Ultimate recovery from the Kern River sands is estimated at 1. and it is a major heavy oil producer (currently the second largest in California). Acreages from these references are higher (11. Kern River Field: Kern River (Appendix B) is the seventh largest heavy oil field in California (including Federal OCS).100. By 1904. not the entire reservoir. As stated earlier. Other estimates include 4 billion bbl (Bursell et al. and an aggressive steam injection program in South Belridge has enabled it to be a major producer for the state of California.
000 acres. Maximum proved . if combined with California proper. the original 30. and 1. Two-thirds of current production comes from the offshore area. It currently ranks 13th in heavy oil production. It also contains Antelope Shale and Diatomite light oil zones.5 billion bbl OOIP in almost 20. The Upper Tulare Oil Zone extends over 5. Productive reservoirs are in the Lower Pliocene Repetto and Upper Miocene Puente formations. Point Pendernalas was discovered in 1982. California. Hondo Offshore.000 ppm. this reservoir represents a very large heavy oil resource.South Belridge field is located on the western side of Kern County about 40 miles west of Bakersfield and 10 miles north of McKittrick. However. the field produces oil ranging in gravity from 11" to 31°API. and the oil viscosity is low for heavy oil at 6 cp.3 billion bbl. Federal Ofshore Fields: Point Pendernalas and Hondo Offshore fields (Appendix B) are not officially considered part of California. The field lies along a NW trending anticline and is ten miles long. it is deep (8. Furthermore. Because of the depth (6. Due to extensive waterflooding with fresh water sources. is very similar in characteristics to Point Pendernalas. the potential is huge as indicated by the volumetric calculation in this study: 4. From a resource and refining viewpoint. However.200 ft) and hot (210°F) resulting in a low viscosity of 9 cp. NW to SE. Monterey formation. This study estimated the OOIP to be 6. The Tulare zone can be divided into three sections: (1)nonproducing top zone.600 ft) the reservoir temperature is relatively hot at 215"F. Huntington Beach Field: Huntington Beach (Appendix B) ranks as the fifth largest heavy oil field in California (including federal OCS) with 3. although cumulative production for Huntington Beach ranks it fifth. these fields rank fifth and seventh currently as heavy oil producers. Data reported on these fields are sparse. 1990). The Lower Tulare Oil Zone pay covers 9. making it also a major heavy oil producer for California (see Table 3-1). The field was discovered in 1911. The average dip is 7" to 9". (2) Upper Tulare Oil Zone. NE to SW. Some E-W faults lie in the northern part of the field. the salinity in parts of the field has dropped to 14.400 ppm vs. and (3) Lower Tulare Oil Zone. Cumulative production from the heavy oil Monterey formation is still low (24 MMbbl).5 miles wide.760 acres with a 90 ft net pay (Miller et al. Although the oil is considered heavy by density (17"API).4 billion bbl OOIP. Huntington Beach has the sixth largest waterflood operation in California. Overall. and initial production was commingled with the Diatomite zone. South Belridge Field contains the Tulare heavy oil zone. The Tulare zone generally dips to the NE and varies from 0" to 3' at the crest and 15" at the edge. Huntington Beach field lies southeast of Wilmington field and the City of Long Beach. The field lies both onshore and offshore. the size of the heavy oil reservoirs is substantial and deserves some mention.600 acres and is 75 ft thick (net). in Los Angeles County.
Another downthrown block pinches out the Upper Monterey Brooks sand in the East area. Dip is 3040" near the Newport-Inglewood fault zone to the NE.1 MMbbl. This fault terminates in the Sisquoc S9-S10 sands. Production has fallen considerably since 1981 (then at 5. It currently ranks 16th in heavy oil production. 16-25" further away from the fault to the NE.acreage is 6. . and the dip is to the North. The crude oil varies in gravity from 6" to 24OAPI. Cat Canyon Field: Cat Canyon field (Appendix B) ranks as the sixth largest heavy oil field in California (including federal OCS) with about 3. depth and dip of the reservoirs vary throughout the field.385 acres for offshore and 1. Estimated field reserves in 1993 stood at 25.0 billion bbl OIP. Due to the highly faulted nature of the field.295 acres with 3. although cumulative production for Cat Canyon ranks it ninth. Cat Canyon field is located in the Santa Maria Basin in Santa Barbara County. and is currently being tried in the Gato Ridge area. Waterflooding was conducted in the Central area between 1965 and 1986. sands. Central and Gato Ridge areas lie progressively further southeast of the Sisquoc area. The smaller Olivera Canyon and Tinaquaic areas lie to the extreme east of the field and have relatively little production. This fault is downthrown to the SW.930 acres being onshore and 2. Steamfloods were conducted in the East and Sisquoc areas between 1967 and 1990. East and Central areas to the NE of the fault dip towards the NE. The proven productive areas are 2. The major Newport-Inglewood fault zone runs NW-SE for one mile away from and parallel to the shore line.163 acres for onshore. This fault terminates in the Sisquoc S9-S10 sands. California.3 billion bbl OOIP and 3. where it runs into another fault that cuts more to the center of the West area. annually) to current levels of near 1 MMbbl/annually. Another major fault line lies along the NE edge of the East and Central areas. One major fault line in Cat Canyon field lies along the NE edge of the West area. Sisquoc area dip is to the NW. Olivera Canyon and Tinaquaic areas are upthrusted areas like Gato Ridge. The East and Central areas to the SW of the fault dip towards the NW. 0-5' SW for the fault onshore and 16-25" offshore. PR06.7 MMhbl (California Division of Oil & Gas. Gas injection was conducted in the West area between 1947 and 1955. East. and lies southeast of Santa Maria Valley field and East of Orcutt field.365 acres being offshore (California Division of Oil & Gas 1991). This fault is downthrown to the SW. The west area lies SW of the Sisquoc area to the extreme north. and dips towards the NW. This fault continues in a SE direction along the SW edge of the upthrusted Gato Ridge area. The Los Flores cherty zone in the West area is intensively fractured (Huey 1954). 1994). Dip in the Gato Ridge area is to the east. Huntington Beach is highly faulted with numerous fault blocks onshore and offshore. and cherty zones at the top of the Upper Miocene Monterey formation. Production is primarily from below the SIB electric log marker in the Lower Pliocene Sisquoc formation and from fractured shale.
A majority of the heavy oil produced comes from the Bradley and Main areas of the field. which lies in the center of the NW-SE trend line. The crude oil varies in gravity from 9" to 14"API. Estimated field reserves in 1993 stood at about 16 MMbbl (California Division of Oil & Gas. Production is currently on the rise from its lowest level reached in 1991. 1994). Clark and Southeast areas. The Los Lobos Thrust Fault cuts slightly across the extreme WNW corner of the San Ardo Field. from fractured shales.2 h4h4bbl. The shallower Lombardi is 2" or 3" heavier than the Aurignac. annually) to current levels of about one MMbbl annually. annually) to current levels of about 3. Field areas are non-continuous.2 billion bbl OOIP and 1. The dip is steepest on the SW and NE flanks. The field trends from NW to SE. The West area is to the extreme NW. annually. originally called the Lombardi or North Lombardi area was discovered in 1957 and abandoned in 1986.320-acre. Dip in all areas is to the SW. PR06.2 MMbbl. only waterflooding is being conducted in this field. NW-SE trending Main area is about five miles long and two miles wide. The downthrust portion lies towards the field to the ENE. The large 4. All of these areas are considerably smaller than the Main area. It is approximately 16 miles long and 0. Currently. Basal Sisquoc formation. although cumulative production for Santa Maria Valley field ranks it 11th.8 billion bbl OIP.Santa Maria Valley Field: Santa Maria Valley field (Appendix B) ranks as the eighth largest heavy oil field in California (including federal OCS) with 3 billion bbl OOIP and 2.7 MMbbl. primarily in the Bradley area. San A r d o Field: San Ardo field (Appendix B) ranks as the tenth largest heavy oil field in California (including federal OCS) with 2. and from sands in the Middle Miocene Point Sal formation. Most of the faults in Santa Maria Valley run NE to SW across the Main area. Production has fallen since 1981 (then at 3 MMbbl. somewhat gentler in the NW part of the field and flatter to the SE. . The small 70-acre North area. in about 1989. The Bradley area lies in the SE part of the field and NW of the Clark area. Estimated field reserves in 1993 stood at 101.9 billion bbl OIP. However. The crude oil varies in gravity from 7" to 19" API.5 to two miles wide. Santa Maria Valley Field is located in the Santa Maria Basin in Santa Barbara County. It currently ranks tenth in heavy oil production. A majority of the oil has been produced from the Aurignac sands through most of the 1980's. sands. It currently ranks 15th in heavy oil production. California to the northwest of Cat Canyon Field and north of Orcutt Field. although cumulative production for San Ardo field ranks it sixth. production from Aurignac sands has decreased below that of Lombardi. Most of the production comes from basal sands in the Lower Pliocene Foxen and Sisquoc formations. Dip of the field ranges from 0" to 5". but three NW-SE faults run along the NE edges of the Main. which has continued to rise slowly since the middle 1980s. Production in the Main area comes from the unconsolidated friable Middle Miocene Lombardi and Aurignac sands. Production has fallen since 1981 (then at 10. San Ardo field is located in Monterey County in the Coastal Region of California. and cherty zones in the Upper Miocene Monterey formation.
Some method of EOR is usually needed to reduce the oil viscosity. exceeding the production rate of light oil in 1950.S. most of the heavy oil in the U.000 md). and Pendergrass I1 1992) As already discussed. Currently. By 1985. Furthermore. -----. the San Joaquin Valley is the dominate heavy oil producing region of the state. 1979) exempting most heavy crude oils from federal price controls. As can be seen in Figure 3-2 production within each of these regions increased and decreased as the reservoirs matured. All of these reservoir characteristics improve the economics of a steamflood operation. Figure 3-1 shows that historically dominantly lighter crude oils were produced during 1940 to 1960.Heavy Oil as % of Total Oil R .100 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 YEAR Figure 3-1 California Heavy and Light Oil Production Since 1940 . Steam injection has been most successful because of favorable geology. and the overall sand thicknesses exceed 50 ft in many of the reservoirs. production of heavy oil peaked in California. is located in California. much of this resource has been developed. However. California is also the largest producer of crude oil by enhanced oil recovery methods (EOR). --s- e20° API + Total Oil ---++>20° API 12. each peaking at a different time. This has been the case in spite of the most stringent environmental regulations in the nation and deeply discounted heavy oil prices.Total California Heavy Oil Production (Olsen. Los Angeles Basin. and because of the high viscosity of most heavy oils. Production of heavy oil was predominantly in three regions-San Joaquin Valley. Most of the reservoirs are less than 4.000 ft deep. since 1955. Heavy oil production was further stimulated by the Presidential Order (August 17. Ramzel. the production of light crude oil declined as the light oil reservoirs matured and heavy oil production increased. permeabilities are high (>1. and Coastal region.
Only about 3. the current oil supply to refiners in California is sufficient to satisfy product demand.5 billion bbl was identified in 190 reservoirs in the Gulf Coast Region. and California is the fourth largest producing state in the nation (Petroleum Producer 1992). Total production of crude oil in California is 960. increased resid hydrotreating and coking capacity is needed. Such increased refining capacity was also ideal for processing the medium gravity oil (27"API) produced from Alaska (started in 1977). .- - San Joaquin Region Coastal Region Los Angeles Region 60 65 70 75 YEAR 80 85 90 Figure 3-2 California Crude Oil Production by Region Since 1960 To process heavy oil at the refiner.000 bbl/day (1991) or nearly 13% of the nation's total production. Prices are not sufficiently high to encourage production of less economically favorable oil (Grigsby 1990). Indeed. and at least half of these were considered successful and profitable by the operators (Sarkar 1994). Sarkar and Sarathi 1993) Outside of California only Alaska and the Gulf Coast Region have sizable heavy oil deposits. The best reservoirs were studied in detail using simulation tools. 3 . over 30 thermal recovery projects in the Gulf Coast Region have been conducted and documented. Thus. A more detailed study was conducted to evaluate the reservoirs in the Gulf Coast Region to determine the feasibility of increasing heavy oil production. 6 Gulf Region (Sarkar and Sarathi 1992.
cyclic steam process simulation results were not encouraging and considered uneconomic at current conditions. GOMAA. geologic characterization. Jones. Unfortunately. Navarro formation was selected for detailed study. Reservoirs were screened based on established steamflood screening tools (published screening criteria. Taylor-ha field.700 acres) suggested a significant potential if found to be economic. As with the Charivari Creek field. Due to the low permeability and relatively thin formation. Detailed simulation studies determined that cyclic steam injection was ineffective due to the lack of strong gravity drainage (formation was thin and flat). use of horizontal wells with steamflooding was found to be beneficial. Recommendations to further study this approach were made. Because of the typical reservoir characteristics and the availability of detailed reservoir data. Because the reservoir parameters in Table 7-1 (Appendix A) are fieldwide average values. current oil market prices would provide only marginal profits at best. However. Simulation of the in situ combustion recovery processes were not conducted due to the limitations of the software and hardware. the formation was relatively thin (18 ft). it was relatively thin (23 ft). and Troy. and Intercomp). production history. 16 were found promising. Thirty-one heavy oil reservoirs were initially identified. five reservoirs were identified as promising for steamflood. permeability was low (50 to 240 md). The sand was poorly consolidated and the large field (7. low permeability (186 md). The Nacatoch formation in the Chavirari Creek field was selected for more detailed study. etc. . Use of horizontal wells with steamfloods improved the steam injectivity and overall oil recovery. Additional information was obtained directly from the operators including well logs. fluid properties. A similar study was conducted of 73 reservoirs in Texas (Districts 1 through 4). nor were they suitable for detailed simulation studies. the thinner and less permeable formations are amenable to injected gases such as air. Using predictive models (SUPRI.The first group of reservoirs considered were in the Nacatoch formation of southern Arkansas and northern Louisiana. As with many of the Texas heavy oil reservoirs. prediction models) to narrow the selection. overall economics remained only marginally favorable in even the best cases. The reservoir parameters listed in Table 7-1 (Appendix A) were then modified based on the detailed information received to reflect the better sections of the field and were studied in more detail using CMGfs STARS simulation software. As compared to California heavy oil reservoirs. the three best Nacatoch reservoirs were Chavirari Creek. Economics of continuous injection benefited from higher injection rates. Irma. but the oil saturation was good (46 to 62% oil). they did not accurately represent the selected sections from within the reservoirs better suited for thermal recovery processes. Of the 31. with an average oil saturation (44% oil) and moderate viscosity (180 cp at reservoir conditions). A pilot cyclic steam injection project was conducted in 1966 in the Hutzler "A" lease and would serve as a useful comparison to simulation results for other parts of the field. Of the 73 reservoirs. However.
However. . 7 Summary It is fortunate that most of the heavy oil in the U. including the Midcontinent. economic success has generally been limited to the thick unconsolidated sands in California. and the environmental challenges associated with production operations appear to be too costly for the current oil market. Permian. Thick and unconsolidated formations enable efficient injection of steam for viscosity reduction and efficient production of the oil. However.S. Only a limited amount of heavy oil was located in the Gulf Coast Region.3 . the transportation costs to California refineries. Steam injection projects have been tried in other regions of the U. the deep permafrost.S. Many of these projects have successfully recovered heavy oil. Simulation and economic studies showed that the better reservoirs had only marginal potential. is also located in formations that are relatively thick and unconsolidated (California). very little of the heavy oil resource is currently under development. and Gulf Coast Regions. Alaska has the next largest deposits of heavy oil outside of California.. As a result.
P-1). .0 IMPACT OF ACCELERATED PRODUCTION ON U S . this cost translates into less value to the oil producer in a competitive market. This study was later expanded to include an estimate of the level of incentives needed by the government to support expansion to the proposed production levels. Unfortunately.4. and to determine to what extent increased heavy oil production could lessen the decline of domestic crude oil production. If additional refining capacity was needed to process the additional heavy oil.S. The bulk of the projections and expansion cost estimates were developed in 1992. Artificially increasing the heavy oil supply to the refiner by incentive programs may saturate the U. the cost associated with its conversion is higher. The following study was initiated to evaluate the impact of accelerated heavy oil production to the current U.S. the impact to refining capacity was also considered. The production and refining of heavy oil in California represents an excellent example of domestic heavy oil replacing domestic light oil as resources are depleted (see Fig. domestic oil production continues to decline (see Fig. the most logical choice between cheap light crude oil and the more expensive to produce and refine heavy crude oil is the light crude oil-even if imported. The result would be counter productive in the shortterm without balanced incentives for refining with appropriate timing. In addition to considering production potential. but was completed in 1995. Previous sections of this report estimated the heavy oil resource in the US. Because heavy oil requires additional refining. These figures were calibrated to known values in the year 1990. refinery capacity. REFINING As previously mentioned. because the original study predicted that projected open market prices were too low to support proposed expansions. an estimate of the additional costs were made. the purpose of this overall project was to determine if stimulating domestic heavy oil production is feasible and at what cost.1 Accelerated Heavy Oil Production U. and because heavy oil has substantially more heavy ends. 4. Knowing these values provides an understanding of how big an impact an accelerated heavy oil production program might have on the domestic production decline. refineries and artificially lower the spot oil price.S. The expanded incentive evaluation was somewhat delayed. 3-1). and a fraction of the total that is potentially recovered. and any resource evaluation of this type must pose the question of whether accelerated production of heavy oil could make a favorable impact to the overall industry. The first phase of the evaluation required that an initial market analysis of the global oil supply/demand trends be developed along with projected changes through the period being studied (years 1990 through 2010). Upgrading processes are required in the refinery to convert the heavy ends of a crude oil into usable petroleum products.
and Pendergrass I1 1992). Based on preliminary information. Could the current industry justify increasing heavy oil production? If refiners are not willing to buy the oil at a reasonable price. National Energy Strategy 1991).S. This increase in heavy oil production was made possible by the presence of large heavy crude oil deposits with relatively favorable depositional environments. production of heavier crude oil increased and peaked in the mid-1980s. Production and Consumption History of Crude Oil (API 1995) In California. The subsequent decline was in part due to the decrease in the worldwide oil price. Steamflooding. A related question is the impact to existing refining capacity associated with a major shift in refinery feedstock composition. The industry in the State of California was able to justify long lead times and high capital investments to add capacity in the 1960s. These trends underlie the increases in crude production for the State of California during the same time period. The higher value was selected based on a separate study for U. heavy oil production (Brashear et al. two production rate increases were hypothesized: 300 Mbbl/D and 900 Mbbl/D by the year 2010. production of lighter crude oil peaked in the 1950s but have declined since then (Olsen.S. 1993). A cost is associated with this change. A more detailed discussion of how these production increases were assigned to various regions of the U. the primary method of choice for heavy oil. was discovered to be a successful process (late 1950s to early 1960s). Ramzel.000 bbl/D in less than 20 years was unprecedented and inconsistent with known required lead times to make major .1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 YEAR Figure 4-1 Historical U. is given in a separate report (Olsen. producers are not going to produce it regardless of how much remains in the reservoir.S. 1991. At the same time. The lower value was considered because the proposed increase of 900.
and acceptable alternatives are not readily available. a preliminary economic assessment of the industry worldwide indicated that oil production from Alaska would see a substantial production decline through this 20-year period and would not be a major producer from the year 2010 and beyond. it was argued that Alaska would not see such large heavy oil production increases. The export of Alaskan North Slope (ANS) crude oil to other countries was not considered. determine the required adjustments to local refineries to accommodate such production increases. That is. The objectives were to determine from which regions of the country incremental heavy oil production would occur. the market price to the producer is likely to decrease. Alaska with the next largest heavy oil resource. it was argued that heavy oil production increases in California would likely occur before substantial production of heavy oil occurred in Alaska. and the Gulf Region with a limited but producible quantity of heavy oil. In either case. The current refineries are operating near capacity with existing local heavy oil production and the large volume of medium gravity oil being shipped from Alaska. the Gulf Region has only a limited heavy oil resource of about 3. or the refinery capacity would need to be increased beyond what is currently required. Unfortunately. the penalty to the producer will be less. In fact. Production increase was to happen within a 20-year period. the impact of exported ANS crude oil to other countries was not addressed by these studies. most of the fuel products from refineries in California are consumed on the west coast. California is a closed market from the refining standpoint. From a production perspective. Furthermore. a major technological change is needed before any proposed increases in heavy oil production from the Gulf Region can occur. a determination was made as to which regions could accommodate accelerated production rates. the oil would either have to be shipped or pipelined to another region. It would appear that a major change in the overall California market would be required before any proposed increases in heavy oil production would result. The Gulf Region has a much larger refining capacity (see Table 4-1) and a less restrictive product market. the oil in the Gulf Region is primarily located in thinner and less permeable reservoirs.expansions. .5 billion bbl. Considering the added costs and technical challenges of producing heavy oil in Alaska's severe environment and the costs of transporting Alaskan heavy oil to California for processing. as will be described in the following section. Increased production rates are feasible in California given that the market price to the producer is adequately high. and the market price is more likely to support the proposed accelerated production. However. A significant technological breakthrough would be needed to make the Alaska heavy oil resource a serious consideration prior to the year 2010. To accommodate increased production. Given the time frame and known locations of heavy oil deposits. Again. and determine what costs would be associated with the expansion of existing capacity. Based on the heavy oil resource assessment in previous sections of this report. The impact of increased heavy oil production would be less. Such reservoirs are not as economically suitable for steamflooding. such as the Gulf Coast. The options available included California where most of the heavy oil is currently being produced.
1 1 = Isomerization. Refining Capacity by Region in 1990 (MBISC) Production Capacity AROM~' LUBES . 7 = Catalytic Hydrorefining..... 10 =Polymerization. Hydro Process .S.... RE@ C R K ~ REFINE' T R T ~ A L K ~ POLY~O IS OM'^ Hz COKE ASPH'~ D E A S P ~ ~ MMCUSD MTJSD Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Region 8 Region 9 Region 10 I = Crude Distillation.. 13 =Asphalt. 12 = Aromatics.4 = Fluid Catalytic Cracking..TABLE 4-1 Charge Capacity DOE Region CRD1 VAC' THRM3 FCC? U. 3 =Thermal Processing.. 8 =Catalytic Hydrotreating. 6 = Catalytic Hydrocracking.. 5 = Catalytic Reforming.... 14 = Deasphalting..9 = Alkalation.... . 2 = Vacuum Distillation..
Unfortunately. Region Incremental Production Rate Alaska Incremental Production Rate California Coastal Region Incremental Production Rate Los Angeles Basin Incremental Production Rate San Joaquin Valley Incremental Production Rate Total Production Rate Total Incremental Production Rate 0 63. The discussion summarizes the impact to existing refining capacity should the proposed heavy oil production increases occur. An assignment of production on a regional basis was required to evaluate refining issues.This study assumed proposed increases in heavy oil production for the purpose of evaluating the impact to the refining capacity. KS. both this study (base case) and a subsequent related incentive study have determined that neither proposed increase (300. MS) Incremental Production Rate West Coast (except Regions 8. Ramzel. 900. and Salmen 1994). Table 4-2 Proposed Region Low Heavy Oil Production Rates Through 2010 DOE Estimates of Incremental Domestic Heavy Oil Production MbblID Mbbl/D MbbIID MbblID MbblID As of 1990 As of 1995 As of 2000 As of 2005 As of 2010 General Location East Coast Incremental Production Rate Upper Midwest Incremental Production Rate Midwest (OK.00 142.000 B/D. Strycker. Guariguata. Olsen. Therefore. It was expected that production rates would soon thereafter decrease in the Gulf Regon as reservoirs matured and increased production rates would come from California. The details of the production increases by region for hypothesized production targets are given in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. production was primarily assigned to be California and the Gulf Region. but a greater increased production was assigned to the Gulf Region temporarily (through year 2010).00 . and discussed in separate reports (Olsen 1993.9.00 300.00 206.000 B/D) is likely to occur in the foreseeable future without a major change in current petroleum market forces.10) Incremental Production Rate Gulf States Incremental Production Rate Rocky Mt.
There are no additional government restrictions or fees on importing crude oil. Within each region.S. and Salmen 1994) The objective was to determine costs associated with the expansion of existing capacity to accommodate the hypothesized production rate increases. product output.2 Refining Capacity (Olsen.00 4. 1. . Guariguata. the crude oil input. The refining industry operates in a free world market economy. 2. Ramzel. EPA does not regulate oil field produced water or oil as hazardous waste. KS. 9. 3. A number of assertions were made in developing this study for the base case (no proposed production increases). The U.lO) Incremental Production Rate Gulf States Incremental Production Rate Rocky Mt. was divided into ten homogenous regions (see Fig.Table 4-3 Proposed Region Alternate High Heavy Oil Production Rates Through 2010 DOE Estimates of Incremental Domestic Heavy Oil Production MbblID MbblID MbblID MbblID MbblID As of 1990 As of 1995 As of 2000 As of 2005 As of 2010 General Location East Coast Incremental Production Rate Upper Midwest Incremental Production Rate Midwest (OK.00 930. 4-2).60 400. MS) Incremental Production Rate West Coast (except Regions 8.00 159. and refinery capacity were assigned average values. Region Incremental Production Rate Alaska Incremental Production Rate California Coastal Region Incremental Production Rate Los Angeles Basin Incremental Production Rate San Joaquin Valley Incremental Production Rate Total Production Rate Total Incremental Production Rate 0 64. Strycker.
A Figure 4-2 Ten Defined Regions With Separate Linear Programming Models in DOE Refinery Feasibility Study There is no government incentive program to stimulate heavy oil production. Growth was expected for jet fuels and automotive diesel supplies. . do not make a major push to take their crude to dedicated refineries so they can corner the market in a given area. Market Outlook (1990) The petroleum products were expected to grow a modest 1% yearly throughout the 20-year period. Nationalized state oil companies. Continued environmental pressure keeps the Los Angeles refineries from expanding. U. The trends in Los Angeles and Coastal Range basins continue to follow the decline established over the past few years. Fuel efficiency of automobiles was expected to compensate for population growth and keep the demand for this fuel sector flat. Environmental and economic restrictions continue to prevent the construction of new grass root heavy oil refineries. but allows them to operate within the Los Angeles Basin at the current processing levels. Most of the product categories were expected to remain flat. or major international companies.S.
The over the 50% import dependency threshold was projected to occur on or before 1996. primarily from the Middle East.7 38.61 35. prices were forecasted to increase in constant 1990 dollars. Cost WTI Spot Year Inflation OPEC Basket Brent Dubai Maya (US) ("Wyr) 1983 3. Table 4-4 Crude Oil Prices from the Year 1983 to Year 2010 Crude Oil Prices ($/bbl) (Constant 1990 Dollars) US Ave. to replace lead quality stabilization. The difference in crude oil volume was to be made up by imported crude oil.67 Industry Profile The most important market-driven events to impact US. refining margins are expected to average about $2.57 37. and "bottom of . Other domestic crude oil was expected to decline moderately.00 /bbl.S. Based on world supply/demand of crude oil. Significant investments took place for the production of high octane components.Domestic production was expected to decline 2% yearly. although only at modest rates (see Table 4-4).82 36. A spike is expected in 1998 due to a temporary high utilization capacity in OPEC. have been the motor gasoline lead phasedown and the need to accommodate declining consumption of residual fuels for electric power generation. Acq. Price/capacity would self-correct and make the spike short lived. U. refineries to date. This was due largely to the decline in production of Alaska North Slope (ANS) crude oil.
Gulf States: New Mexico. Kentucky. Virginia Pennsylvania. Ohio. Carolina. During 1990. The industry accommodated itself to meet the increasingly stringent air quality regulations which require higher oxygen content gasolines in winter and less volatile gasolines in the summer. crude demand and supply balance shows moderate increases in crude requirements for refinery runs from 1990 to 2010 (Table 4-5). East Coast: Florida.the barrel conversion" to increase volume of higher value products. Montana. Nevada. Despite all efforts by producing countries to increase their crude production capabilities. the incremental production of import crude oil will come from the Middle East. providing the industry with the necessary operational flexibility to address the demand within the prevailing regulatory constraints in a profitable manner. California: San Joaquin Valley . Capacities of primary downstream refining processes. S. the thermal conversion to distillation capacity ratio was nearly doubled. most of it from ANS decline production (Table 4-6). Alaska 8. Upper Midwest: Tennessee. the refining industry responded to mounting environmental concerns. Arkansas (several southernmost counties). S. Nebraska 4. As a result. Kansas. which yield gasoline and diesel. Utah. West Coast: Washington. Wyoming 7. Wisconsin. Rocky Mt. Michigan. Iowa. Colorado. Minnesota. Dakota 3. Alabama 6. logged gains. Louisiana. Illinois. Midwest: Oklahoma. Carolina. W. lo). The domestic oil production decline averages 2% yearly. and earmarked significant investments to meet reduced emission motor gasoline specifications before the end of 1992. Virginia. Domestic heavy oil production in 1990 was about 750 Mbbl/D (Olsen 1993). and New York 2. Dakota.: Idaho. Georgia. Mississippi. N. California (excluding regions 8. 9. Texas. while processes that treat feeds for the secondary units increased because of feed requirements for acceptable quality conversion and light fuels. Oregon. N.S. California: Los Angeles Basin 10. Arkansas. Indiana. Arizona 5. Missouri. Forecasted Crude Oil Supplies A forecasted U. Projection Scenarios The following ten regions were defined: 1. California: Southern Coastal 9.
543 13.543 30 337 13 1443 Domestic Refined 7.272 0 1049 14. Crude Oil Supply by Region From 1990 to 2010 DOE Regions 3 4 5 6 529 6 3340 585 405 648 1101 2745 460 682 1194 6060 466 6 587 970 682 1194 415 5 512 791 699 1221 365 5 432 603 717 1254 308 5 367 475 735 1287 3144 2590 6061 2884 2363 6201 2598 2104 6367 2435 1932 6533 7 8 9 1 1773 48 223 8 855 217 237 8 1046 51 239 9 785 9 1046 54 9 9 252 678 1071 0 672 108 108 692 108 108 707 108 108 703 114 114 691 116 116 Total x10E-3bbYD 1 2 Year 1990 Domestic Produced 7.463 1386 2516 521 1490 363 182 461 237 472 1070 336 131 471 242 422 660 299 81 481 249 360 400 262 49 497 256 55 254 9 581 9 1099 54 251 9 521 9 1128 .918 20 289 6.416 1286 2332 10 249 6.S.089 1350 2449 0 165 4.724 1316 2386 0 210 5.669 14.Table 4-5 Projected U.410 1285 2330 Total Refined 1995 Domestic Produced Domestic Refined Total Refined 2000 Domestic Produced Domestic Refined Total Refined 2005 Domestic Produced Domestic Refined Total Refined 2010 Domestic Produced Domestic Refined Total Refined 6.669 0 938 4.118 4 1186 13. Crude Oil Supply and Demand From 1990 to 2010.S.272 5.918 9 1315 13.1Mbbl/D Demand 13231 13235 13174 13107 13226 13246 13380 13514 13632 13522 13551 Supply Domestic Foreign 7356 5867 7339 5889 7230 5955 7050 6087 6930 6298 6757 6499 6588 6802 6423 7100 6263 7361 6106 7418 5953 7603 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Table 4-6 Projected U.118 6.
These regions were divided approximately according to Petroleum Administration for Defense Districts (PADD). Similarly. refining capacity in region 8 was very low and as with region 10. 2000. obvious deviations from this intent were observed. 2005. A base case was calculated based on projected increases in demand. most of the production was transported to other regions. which is known. These regions (8 and 10) were eventually combined in the study.000 bbl/D was produced from California. regions 2 and 3 were later combined. Refining capacity in region 10 was only sufficient to support product demand in the local area.000 bbl/D. most of the heavy oil production is California Heavy. and California Heavy (13. projected decreases in domestic crude oil supply. Table 4-7 lists these oils and shows daily production by region for the year 1990. but adjusted based on a preliminary assessment of heavy oil production and refining characteristics. As the study progressed. of which 654.9. Regions 8. Also.000 bbl/D. the heavy oil was represented by four average oils: Midwest Heavy (18. Low Incremental Heavy Oil Proposed Scenario Over the time period of 1990 to 2010. and 197. No incremental heavy oil production was added in this case and the results were used to validate the models to 1990 data. Tables similar to Table 4-7 were constructed for 1995. the total heavy oil production was increased by 300. The intent was to ensure the most realistic homogeneity for each region with respect to production and refining characteristics. and the refining process optimization of total input was calculated to determine the required refining capacity.1" API). and to balance the input/output equations. As can be seen in Table 6 8 . most of the heavy oil produced in region 10 is transported to region 9 or to San Francisco in region 4 to be refined. most particularly in regions 8. and 10. 9. and to minimize crude oil transport between regions. foreign supply was reduced.5"API). Total heavy oil production was 734. The increased production volume from California was 90. Gulf Coast Heavy (19. and 10 were defined primarily based on known production trends. The supply mix was divided into 18 crude oils (11domestic and 7 foreign). . However. and prevailing economic projections as outlined previously.000 bbl/D.000 bbl/D was from the Gulf Coast Region. The data was then processed with the Linear Programming Models developed for each region. Rocky Mountain Heavy (19.8"API). Of the domestic crude oils.8" API). and 2010.
Table 6 7 Region Eat Light Cushing Sweet Mid West Sour Mid West Hvy Rocky Mt Hvy West Texas Int. Louisianan Sweet Gulf C Heavy Alaska No Slope California Med California Hvy Canada Blend So America Med So America Hvy Middle East Africa Europe Asia Total
MBID Vol. Frac
Crude Representation for Regional LP Models, Base Case 1990 Proposed DOE Region %S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Heavy Crude Oil Production by Region Defined for Base Case, 1990
Region " API Production MbbllD 4 20 64 646 211
2 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 100 0
Crude Oil Midwest Heavy Rocky Mt. Heavy Gulf Coast Heavy California Heavy South American Heavy Total U.S. Total
5 4 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
18.8 19.8 19.5 13.1 16.5
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 4 9 0 327 0 0 1110 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 286 0 0
10 0 0 0 33 0
Region 1 had no domestic heavy oil production, and was heavily dependent on foreign imported crude oil to meet product demand. This region was not affected by factors tested in this study. Regions 2 and 3 were combined for several reasons. Very little oil is produced in Region 2, and much of the petroleum needs in this region are provided by surplus production from Region 3 through crude oil pipelines. Heavy oil production increases in these regions were very small, and increased bottom conversion capacity was needed. Region 4 processed an additional 45,000 bbl/D heavy oil in the year 2010, nearly all of it coming from regions 8, 9, and 10. Refineries in this region are specifically designed to efficiently handle heavy crudes, and existing capacity is sufficient to process this crude oil. The investment costs specifically for the heavy crude oil was expected to be negligible. Region 5 is the largest producer of crude oil in the U.S. (light and heavy oil, 44% of total domestic production) and has the largest refining capacity concentration (43% of primary distillation). Even so, imports made up almost 55% of the total crude oil processed in 1990. Heavy oil production amounted to only 64 Mbbl/D during 1990 (less than 2% of total region production). Although proposed increases of heavy oil production is substantially higher, existing processing capacity was adequate until about the year 2005. Investment dollar increases were about $2 billion, approximately the same as that of Region 9. Region 6 was unusual in that the existing refining capacity is relatively isolated and selfcontained. Furthermore, much of the oil currently processed in this region comes from Canadian fields nearby. The small demand for fuel oil created an unusual supply/demand balance in this region that required additional bottoms conversion capacity in each of the years 1995 through 2010 to process the proposed modest increases. Regions 8 and 10 were combined because of their geographical proximity, their significant heavy oil production, and their limited refining capacity. Most of the produced oil is transported to region 9 or region 4 for processing. Thus, the refining capacity is limited to
supplying local demand and includes no catalytic crackers for processing heavy oil. No refining capacity upgrading was assigned to these regions. Region 9 contains a substantial capacity to process heavy oil. Because of an anticipated decline in heavy oil production in region 9, no need was identified for increasing capacity for heavy oil processing (bottoms conversion). However, overall capacity expansion and upgrading was indicated (distillation and motor fuel quality), and the facility costs are estimated at near $2 billion. In summary, this study indicated a need for increasing the conversion capacity by 230,000 bbl/D over the 20-year period. This expansion incorporated increased domestic heavy oil production and increased imported crude oil needed to accommodate the increasing product demand. The cost associated with this expansion was estimated to be $7 billion dollars (plant utility costs, no offsites included). Regions 2, 3,5, and 9 accounted for about $5 billion of this total. High Incremental Heavy Oil Proposed Scenario An additional study was made to determine what difference resulted from increasing heavy oil production by 930,000 bbl/D instead of 300,000 bbl/D as discussed in the previous scenario. The production increase assigned to California was 249,000 bbl/D, and to the Gulf Coast Region 544,000 bbl/D. As before, the data was processed with the Linear Programming Models developed for each region, and the total production was used to determine the required refining capacity. Results from the models indicated a need for refinery expansion of 310,000 bbl/D. This is 80,000 bbl/D higher than that for the low incremental heavy oil scenario. Although heavy oil production was increased by 630,000 bbl/D, most of that crude simply displaced other foreign crude. The additional 80,000 bbl/D capacity represents the increase of bottoms conversion capacity needed over the low incremental heavy oil scenario. Also, since most of the increased oil production occurred in region 5, 75% of the total increased capacity was in that region. Since this increase is small relative to the total refining capacity for the region, the facility capacity requirements incurred a modest additional $200 million price tag over the investments required to meet the low oil scenario. In summary, the investment costs for upgrading the refining capacity sufficiently to process the incremental heavy oil crude volumes specified in the two scenarios is small relative to the total upgrade requirements. Price penalties from the refiner to the producer will largely be determined by the processing costs and should not differ significantly from what they are currently. One very important consideration in this study was that the greatest percentage heavy oil production increase came from the Gulf Region where actual supplies are limited. Because of the limited supply in this region, such increased production rates could not be sustained, and based on the review of estimated recoverable oil outlined in the previous sections, such production increases would require large price incentives and development of cost effective
000 bbl/D increase in production of heavy oil (compared to 1993 production) by the year 2010. To achieve the proposed production increase scenarios. The models indicated that current heavy oil production would decline. Several approaches were investigated. the source of the heavy oil production was not constrained to the regions previously defined. This presumes that all of the incentive is directed to newly started projects and that existing projects operate without incentives.000 bbl/D incremental increase in heavy oil production. this is based on an economic projection of $20-24/bbl projected market price for WTI with suitable discounts for heavy oil during this time period. Income from ongoing projects and added incentives were combined to cover cash outlays (capital outlays.S.00/bbl would be needed to achieve the 300. What the previous study did not determine was the incentive levels required to compensate producers and refiners to bring about the proposed heavy oil production increases.50/bbl for produced heavy crude oil.50 to $2. Results indicated that to achieve a 300. a second market price projection of crude oil was analyzed (flat $18/bbl for WTI). and an incentive much higher than $4. These incentives were restricted to heavy oil production projects started between the years 1994 and 2010.50/bbl would be needed to achieve the 900.production methods for heavy oil in thin reservoirs. This price projection has turned out to be optimistic for the period 1993 through 1995.000 bbl/D increase by the year 2010. To achieve the 900.50/bbl. etc.00/bbl.25/bbl would be needed.3 Incentive Study (Pautz and Welch 1995) The previous section concluded that if heavy oil production was increased in the U. However. but a cash-flow model was the only method found to give plausible results. an incentive of about $3. a $2.000 bbl/D increase. an incentive of about $4. The reservoir locations and oil resource potential were evaluated using a steamflood predictive model. return on investments.) and for investing toward new development. Additional sensitivity runs may need to be conducted to assess the impact if most of the increased production levels came from California or Alaska where most of the resource is located. Furthermore. An estimated $0. Current trends indicated production levels are likely to decrease rather than increase.10/bbl incentive would be needed. A spreadsheet model was developed that used cash flow as a means of measuring the industry's willingness to initiate new thermal recovery projects. 4. $3. capital investment in refining would be necessary. $1.. California and Gulf Coast regions were analyzed separately to determine the effects of four scenarios: base case or no incentive. and $4. Consequently.20/bbl portion of the incentive would be needed by . An incentive evaluation study was conducted based on the same economic projections outlined in the previous section. operation.
Proposed increases were assigned to both California and the Gulf Region. However. most of the economics show this to be unreasonable and that technical improvements are needed for production from thinner. The objectives were to determine from which regions of the U. no offsites included). California and the Gulf Coast were evaluated separately. the incremental heavy oil production would occur. Most of the domestic heavy oil is located in principally three regions: California. Results indicated that nearly all of the increased production would come from California.S. . to determine the required adjustments to regional refining capacity to accommodate such production increases. Total projected costs associated with the expansion was about $7 billion (plant utility costs.4 Final Summary U. Natural open market forces would allocate incentives between producers and refiners so that distinctions would get blurred.000 bbl/D and 930. However. Because of the additional economic penalties associated with the harsh environment in Alaska. tighter heavy oil reservoirs. This study investigated the feasibility of increasing domestic heavy oil production to mitigate the decline rate. For the purposes of this study. and the Gulf Coast Region. It was concluded that existing technologies were not economically competitive in the Gulf region and that development of new technologies are needed to significantly impact Gulf region production. Incentives to producers would favor domestically produced heavy oil over imported oil. principally in the Gulf Region. The U. increases in heavy oil production were expected to occur preferentially in California.the refiners to justify capacity expansion sufficient for the increased production scenarios. Early incentives to refiners is desirable to encourage capacity. in the Los Angeles Basin. domestic oil production is expected to continue to decline. The difference was made up with imported Middle East crude oil. Alaska. and to a smaller degree in the Midwest and Upper Midwest. Expansion of refining capacity was expected for the period studied. petroleum products demand is expected to grow a modest 1% annually between the years 1990 and 2010. and to determine what costs would be associated with expansion. 4. Domestic production is expected to decline 2% annually. more production was assigned to the Gulf Region initially (1990-2010) due to the more favorable refining capacity. Two incremental oil production scenarios were evaluated: 300. The Alaskan oil was assumed to be refined in California.S. Heavy oil production in Alaska was not considered in the proposed scenario. heavy oil deposits in Alaska were not considered even though by size the heavy oil resource is potentially nearly equal to that of California. As stated.000 bbl/D increases by the year 2010. most of the decline coming in production of Alaska North Slope crude oil. Greater increases from California would occur later (beyond 2010).S.
Since the original study was conducted.000 bbl/D increase would be $2. the incentive level required to support an increase of 300. The same incentive is needed by the refiners to justify capacity modifications.000 bbl/D heavy oil was estimated at $4.000 bbl/D heavy oil was estimated at $2. Because much of the increased heavy oil production was assigned to the Gulf Region refineries. Based on a projected flat $18/bbl. Unfortunately. . the technical challenges facing production in the Gulf Region led to the conclusion that projected heavy oil production increases would have to come from California even if the production is refined in the Gulf Region. existing refinery capacity was able to process most of the oil. An additional $0.000 bbl/D incremental heavy oil production. The projected incentive for a 930.90/bbl. current heavy oil production rates are expected to decline rather than remain flat as expected at the higher prices forcing the incentives higher for the scenarios studied.50/bbl and was not considered a reasonable target.Some of this expansion is a direct result of projected increases in heavy oil production.25/bbl. The increased conversion capacity needed was 230. The incentive level required to support a 300. a lower more conservative oil price trend has been evident.50 to $2.000 bbl/D at 300. Based on the original projected market oil price. It was clear from these studies that additional developments in production technology are needed to competitively produce the substantial amounts of heavy oil located in Alaska and Gulf Region. Higher market prices and financial incentives would stimulate additional domestic heavy oil production.20/bbl incentive is needed for refinery modifications.000 bbl/D at 930.000 bbl/D increase was well above $4.10/bblf and for an increase of 930.000 bbl/D incremental heavy oil production and 310.
and Gulf Region) to further clarify these estimates.8 billion bbl) is located in California (half of which lies in seven fields). The following conclusions were made from this study. for technology improvements. 2.CONCLUSIONS The objective of this project was to assess the potential of increased U. Most of the defined heavy oil (62. Approximately 56 billion bbl of the oil left behind and another 5 to 40 billion bbl heavy oil in Alaska rernairt a production target for improved technology. Michigan Basin. 5. Additional studies were conducted in individual regions (Midcontinent Region. An estimated $2.90/bbl incentive is needed to achieve a heavy oil production increase of 300.000 bbl/D over current production levels by the year 2010. by 2% annually and petroleum product demand is expected to increase by 1% annually (through the year 2010). Illinois Basin. Permian Basin. Increasing heavy oil production would require expansion in refinery capacity for processing heavy ends. Black Warrior Basin. Based on the current oil prices (calculated on a flat rate of $18/bbl for WTI). and Texas excluding Permian Basin). reservoirs.S. These recommendations are to be made to the U. Southern Arkansas.S. An undetermined additional amount remains in 490 less well documented U.50 to $2. An estimated 68. and recommend those areas appropriate for future development. heavy oil production as a means of reducing the domestic oil production decline rate. oil production rates are expected to decline in the U. Alaska. heavy oil resource was made. Mississippi.S. Virtually all of this oil is in California. reservoirs that were well defined in this study. 3. and for field demonstrations. identify obvious targets currently underdeveloped. including 25 to 40 billion bbl heavy oil in Alaska.5 billion bbl is located in the Gulf Region (Alabama. 6. It was estimated that up to 4 billion bbl heavy oil could be recovered using waterflooding for low viscosity oils and up to 8 billion bbl heavy oil could be recovered using steam injection.000 bbl/D was $7 billion (no offsites included) . Department of Energy (DOE) to direct their heavy oil program in the most advantageous way for the U.S. The estimated plant utility costs associated with an increase of 300. 1.S. The heavy oil reservoirs were screened to estimate the recoverable oil. An additional $0. Louisiana. Overall. 4.20/bbl incentive is needed to encourage refiners to invest in equipment to process heavy oil into marketable transportation fuels. and 3. An assessment of the U.3 billion bbl of heavy oil remains in 535 U.S.S. Appalachian Basin. the heavy oil production rate is expected to decline through the year 2010. California.
Due to a perceived oil surplus market currently in California. Development of new production technologies is needed before any sizable production is economically possible. Heavy oil production is possible in Alaska if technological and economic challenges are met. consider the following observations. The TAPS may close before significant amounts of heavy oil can be produced. heavy oil incentive would be on the overall oil industry. The Gulf Region is the third largest region in the U. Moderate increases in heavy oil production from the Gulf Coast Region can be processed with existing refining capacity. However. Any program effectively targeting heavy oil production is likely to impact California production operations. 3. production increases are most likely to come from California. heavy oil production. However. U. 1. Existing refining capacity in this region can accommodate increased production making the economic adjustments more realizable. although actual size of the resource is less certain. . 2. the thinner reservoirs in this region present a production technology challenge.7.S. it is uncertain what the actual impact of a U.S.S. directed toward maximizing U. heavy oil is likely to be produced from California where resource and production characteristics are more favorable. It is recommended that future government programs. with deposits of heavy oil. This is the only other large domestic heavy oil resource in the U.S. the window of opportunity may quickly close if light oil production rates decline as projected. However.S. The next largest heavy oil resource is in Alaska.
"East Wilmington comes alive. p. El Dorado. Oil and Gas Journal. AR: State of Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. OK. W. Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. and J. Annual Oil 6 Gas Report. The "200" Sand Steamflood Demonstration Project. Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. 1979. Hanzlik. Ted. Santa Barbara County. 15.1948 and Vol. Armstrong.1949 (same article). 1968. Annual Production Report. Dept. American Petroleum Institute 1995. El Dorado. AR: State of Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. 1985. R. (July 24). 34(1). 73. Presented paper at 5th Annual DOE Symposium. Petroleum Industry Statistics. 75-78 (January 29). 0. Barger. El Dorado. 15. M. Vol. AR: State of Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. California." Oil and Gas Journal. Adamson. Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. 1991. p. pp. California Oil Fields. 1989. Tulsa. Gary R. R. Annual Oil & Gas Report. Vol. 1988.6. Steamflood Demonstration Pilot Williams Holding Lease. Summary o f Operations. El Dorado. . Ted A. of Energy. and Edward J. pp. 1988. 1948 and 1949. U. Basic Petroleum Data Book. AR: State of Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. 1967. AR: State of Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. January. Armstrong. Annual Oil 6 Gas Report. First Automated Field 5 Years Old and Going Strong. 1990.0 REFERENCES Aalund. Annual Oil 6 Gas Report. Fossil Energy Report DOE/ET/12059-7 (October). San Ardo Oil Field. 35(2). L. Zulberti. Annual Oil 6 Gas Report. XV(l). L. Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. Seventh Annual Report for June 1982 -June 1983.S. 1986. p. August 22-24. El Dorado. Oil and Gas Journal. 33-73 (April 18). Alfred. Cat Canyon Field.
Mathias. Barnes. M. Bolin. 1975. February 26-27. H. LA. Bertholf. J. D. R. Main Area of Edison Oil Field. Summary o f Operations. Garner. M. and S. SPE paper 20073 presented at the 60th California Regional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. 1966. April 4-6. SPE paper 23782 presented at the SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control. Tertiary Heavy Oil Fields. 1987. 1958. Geological Oil and Gas Division. AL: Geological Survey of Alabama. Kovacevich. Lafayette. . R. 1979. A." Oil and Gas Fields Symposium. Louisiana. California. L. Sediment Alteration and Fines Migration in Enhanced Recovery Operations. Moore. C. South Belridge and West Cat Canyon Oil Fields. A (United States Geological Survey). Technology. 44(2):21. David E. 1985. Porosity of Unconsolidated Sand. P. Beyer. Bilden. CA. S. 52(2)-Part 2:31.. L. Summary o f Operations. Barrett. Estimating the Viscosity of Crude Oil Systems. 48fl):63. Northeast Area of McKittrick Oil Field. pp. and Fractured Shale Reservoirs. Beggs. California Oil Fields. Bates. California Oil Fields. THUMS-Here's how four-island project taps East Wilmington. Vol. 1140 (September). 1990. J. In Exploration for Heavy Crude Oil and Natural Bitumen Reservoirs. Efthin. Ventura. LA: Department of Natural Resources. Jr. Baton Rouge. J. W. Vol. D. 1992. Burroughs. Montana Geological Society. M. 1968. Bennett. Powers. 1989. California Oil Fields. D. Tuscaloosa. "Bowes Dome Field. Summary of Operations. Pet. D. 1. Bleakley. 88-107 (January 29). Summary of Field Statistics and Drilling Operations. California. Evaluation and Treatment of Organic and Inorganic Deposition in the Midway Sunset Field. Pence.. pp. S. and R. State of Louisiana. Energy and Coastal Geology Division. D. California. Diatomite. 1978. Petroleum Atlas of Southwestern Alabama: Geological Survey of Alabama Atlas 23. W. E. South Belridge Thermal Recovery Experiment. R. T. Mann. and J. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Geological Study No. Oil and Gas Journal. Kern County. 395413. F. J. Harold W. and T. 1962.Barger. J. T.. Robinson. 25. H. Vol. B. Vol.
Pet. Memorandum to Robert Folstein (U. W. G. H. Also in J. . Pet. D. pp. T. Greater Green River Basin. 1985. M. G.. Evaluation of Horizontal. J. pp. pp. 1979. (October 4-7). May 3. 1991. A. WY: Wyoming Geological Association. Incremental Oil Production Attributed to the Oil Research Program. A. Detailed Mapping of Fluvial Sand Bodies Improves Perforating Strategy at Kern River Field. J. Carlos. California Oil Fields. pp. G. Richardson. Kodl. (April 4 4 ) . in SPE Reprint Series No. Technology. A. C. DeMirjian. Taggert. Technology. Vol. 1970. in SPE Reprint Series No. 1505-1514 (December 1975) . Thermal Displacement Tests and Results. Fireflood Blossoms in North Louisiana. Byars. M. River Field. 1956. Bursell. Vol. J. of Energy) from ICF Resources Inc. W. Godec and B.C. Casper.. 195-202.Blevins. Also in J. H. Master's thesis. Symposium: Wyoming Oil and Gas Fields. 203-210. R. Bradley. Missouri. TX. J. Pittman. 1985. 1990. C. California. pp. and Vertical Injection Wells in a Pilot Steamflood. Pet. 1225-1231 Bursell. Oil and Gas Journal. Vernon County. 18-21 (September). 1985. 7-Thermal Recovery Processes o f the Society o f Petroleum Engineers. T. 1 & 2. Billingsley. Steam Displacement-Kern (October). and H. San Ardo Oil Field. SPE paper 24630 presented at 67th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Bradford. Summary o f Operations. 1970. Geologzc Variables Influencing Production in Eastburn Field. TX. C. D. Colorado State University. pp. Producers Monthly.S. Kern River Field. 7-Thermal Recovery Processes o f the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Kern River Field. Buller. Technology. Wood. California. Brelih. Dept. Bursell. C. 1992. et al. and G. Richardson. Washington. SPE paper 20080 presented at the 60th California Regional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. 997-1004 (August 1975). Eds. pp. Performance of Steam Displacement in the Kern River Field. Lawrence. CA. Brashear. 1985. The Ten-Pattern Steamflood.. and E. 58-62 (August 3). and E. and R. Bradshaw.. D. S. D. Ventura. 42(2):27. 1966. Radial. M.
TR11.. 1989. 1. and C. Bighorn and Wind River Basins. California Division of Oil & Gas. Sacramento. T. 1991. of Oil & Gas. R. Murer. C. 1989. of Oil & Gas. and T. R. (September 23-26). Publ. Publ. F. TR12. Sacramento: California Department of Conservation. California Oil & Gas Fields: Southern. Chiou. California Division of Oil & Gas. Casper. TX. SPE paper 19659 presented at 64th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Div. Div. Div.California Division of Oil & Gas. OfjCshore California. Kiven. 1984. pp. 72nd Annual Report of the State Oil & Gas Supervisor. Cato. Donald F. 1986. Frnka. C. 1985. Sacramento: California Department of Conservation. PR06. of Oil & Gas. . California Division of Oil & Gas. Sacramento. 319-332 (October 8-11) . of Oil & Gas. SPE paper 20727 presented at 65th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Chiou. New Orleans. 1985. A. 2. 76th Annual Report of the State Oil 6 Gas Supervisor. 9(2) (December). 77th Annual Report of the State Oil & Gas Supervisor. Publ. CA: California Department of Conservation. TR12. of Oil & Gas. Stewart. Central Coastal. 1991. PR06. California Oil & Gas Fields: Central California. CA: California Department of Conservation. Publ. Vol. Div. South Salt Lake Oil Field. 2. of Oil & Gas. Central Coastal.. "Results of an In Situ Combustion Pilot Project. PR06. B. Div. 1990. 3rd Edition. S. Sacramento: California Department of Conservation. of Oil & Gas. 1967. S. California Division of Oil & Gas. 2nd Edition 1974. California Division of Oil & Gas. Lost Hills Oil Field. California Division of Oil & Gas. TR32. Cyclic Steam Pilot in Gravity Drainage Reservoir. Sacramento: California Department of Conservation. San Antonio. Publ. WY: Wyoming Geological Association. Div. Reprinted 1984. Div. W. Kirst. 3rd Edition. California Division of Oil & Gas. Vol. Cardinal. & Offshore California. W. California Oil & Gas Fields: Southern. and J. Trotter. Publ. Sacramento: California Department of Conservation. Publ. of Oil & Gas. S. 1985. W and W. 71st Annual Report of the State Oil & Gas Supervisor. PR06. L. W. 1991. Publ. Sacramento: California Department of Conservation. Reservoir Description and Steamflood Development in Lost Hills Field. T. Symposium: Wyoming Oil and Gas Fields. Eds." Interstate Oil Compact Commission Bulletin Vol. Vol. Miller. Div. 1990. 6 . LA.
Smith. Los Angeles. Pet. L. Chu. Technology. R. (October 4-7). 402-419. 1887-1902 (October 1985) and presented as SPE paper 11733 at California Regional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. South Belridge Tulare Simulation Study: Steamflood in a Heterogeneous Stratified Reservoir. CA: Conservation Committee of California Oil and Gas Producers. J. Tulsa. Chieh. Los Angeles. R. 256-282. R. 1992. Bakersfield. S. (September). Chu. 19-36. G. SPE paper 24633 presented at 67th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers.. October. pp. Pet. Richardson. SPE paper 21547 presented at the International Thermal Operations Symposium of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Los Angeles. Technology. 1991 Annual Review of California Oil and Gas Production. State-of-the-Art Review of Steamflood Field Projects. 1985. and R. Conservation Committee of California Oil and Gas Producers. Energy Resources Group. 1990 Annual Review of California Oil and Gas Production. 7-Thermal Recovery Processes of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Also in J. . C. TX. R. TX. 861-862 (April 1982). 1977. Pet. 1985..Chiou. 1985.1983). pp. U . CA: Conservation Committee of California Oil and Gas Producers. C. Richardson. P. January 1982 with Discussion in J. and D. in SPE Reprint Series No. C. 37(11) 1887-1902. pp. 1993. Clampitt. S. pp. 1985. R. CA. Conservation Committee of California Oil and Gas Producers. Applying a Novel Steam-CO2 Combination Process in Heavy Oil and Tar Sands. Eson. Washington. CA: Conservation Committee of California Oil and Gas Producers. State-of-the-Art Review of Steamflood Field Projects. Department of Energy Report SAN-1189-2. Pet. D.C. Also in J. 1991. 7-Thermal Recovery Processes of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. 1992 Annual Review of California Oil and Gas Production. 1991. C. 1992. L. Tech. W. Ventura. Chu. Cities Service Company. OK. A. CA (March 6-8. Bodcau In Situ Combustion Project: First Annual Report. Technology. State-of-the-Art Review of Fireflood Field Projects. Weinstein. Barrett. in SPE Reprint Series No. DuBois. pp. Cooke. H. Conservation Committee of California Oil and Gas Producers. (February 7-8).
Tulsa. 5-11. James and N. 1988. United States Department of the Interior. Dietzman. 1977. and Cherokee Counties. Ebanks. M. Crysdale. D. Jirik. J. pp. U. In Publ. Crown. United States Geological Survey Bulletin 1885. Polymer Flooding in Wilmington Oil Field. James K. 1941. Evaluation of Heavy Oil and Tar Sands in Bourbon. Revised version in SPE Reservoir Engineering. Freeman. Weber. Laboratory Design and Field Demonstration of Steam Diversion with Foam. and Harrison L. J. Muscatello. N. Djabbarah. L. Kansas. E. 1979. SPE paper 17453 presented at California Regional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Information Circular No. W. Energy Development Consultants/Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation.. of the 5th Annual DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery and Improved Drilling Technology. of Energy Report No. Sacramento. C. CA. Dietrich. OK. 1990. C. A. Dept.S. 5(3):275-284. 8263. A. B. Earlougher. Carrales. Dowd. W. December. 1983. of Energy Report No. Ventura. March 23-25. Residual Oil Saturation Determination Wilmington Micellar-Polymer Project October 1978-May 1979. Robert. S. Bureau of Mines. Steamflooding in a Waterdrive Reservoir: Upper Tulare Sands. W. TR 22. CA (April 4-6). Ashbaugh. Livingston. California Oil Fields. Vol. C. Division of Oil & Gas (originally published August 1974. A Technical and Economic Assessment of Domestic Heavy Oil-Final Report. . J. 1990. J. 1978. J. CA: California Department of Conservation. revised 1977). 1965. U. G. D. Staub. R. DOE/PC/30259-1. Vol.. Timothy. South Belridge Field. 1: 112-120.. L and Schenk. Kuuskraa. 26. August 22-24. Heavy Crude Oil Reservoirs in the United States: A Survey. Heavy Oil Resources of the United States. An Evaluation of Heavy Oil Mining: Final Report. U. P. SPE paper 20067 presented at the 60th California Regional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Godec. V. In Vol 2. and C. Dept. (January). Department of Energy Report DOE/BC / 10840-1. 1988. F. W. and T. Ranger Zone. S. Long Beach. and M. Fault Block 5. 1990. March. 479-494.Crowder. L. D. Summary of Operations. Crawford. Wilmington Oil Field. Covington. BERC /RI-77/20. pp.S. Vol. J. Walter J.
Technology. Petroleum Marketing Annual. Woo. 1559-1568 (December 1977). Summary o Operations. 1974. Mackay. Also in J. Dept. J. Gomaa. F. North Kern Front Steam Drive with Ancillary Materials. G. U. and Donald K. Gates. 343 (March 1975). SPE paper 10775 presented at the 1982 California Regional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. 1981. Steam Injection into the D and E Zone.. Technology. 7-Thermal Recovery Processes of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. W. Jon P.. W. (April 5-8). Fitch. Vol. p. pp. Vol. April 22-24. "Reservoir Properties Control Recovery" Oil and Gas Journal. Brewer. Technology. Tulsa . 1957. Current Steamflood Technology. R. 1965. OK. f Frame. Emmett. H. and P. C. Secondary Recovery of Petroleum in Arkansas-A Survey. . A Review of Water Flooding in the Wilmington Oil Field. E. and R. Shannon. pp. Tulare Formation. Designing a Steamflood Pilot in the Thick Monarch Sand of the Midway-Sunset Field. DOE/EIA 0487(91). F. 1982. Vol. 1971. South Belridge Field. OK. M. Pet. Eson. Rod L. George H. 43(1):59. SPE paper 4760 presented at Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME. 246-255. 1985. San Francisco. Fireflood Peps Up Old Arkansas Field. Kern County. SPE/DOE paper 9778 presented at SPE/DOE Second Joint Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Eson. CA (March 24-26). Tulsa. Pet. 31(10):1332-1342 (October). R. Vol. and Albert M.S. S. AR: State of Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. Duerksen. pp. E. Evaluation of a Conventional Steam Drive with Ancillary Materials: North Kern Front Field.Energy Information Agency.August. and S. CA. 1992. 69(39):85-90 (September 27). Meldau. TX. Richardson. 1991. El Dorado. and Stephen K. AR. Oil and Gas Journal. California Oil Fields. 1979. O'Nesky. of Energy Report No. Pet. Also in J. 63(41):100-101 (October 11). T. El Dorado. Rodney L. 271-282. 1946. Fancher. in SPE Reprint Series No. J. Farouq Ali.
L. Hunter. and D. W. 1980. 1976. 44(1):13. Potter. and R. 41(1): 61-68. Vol. Hanna and D-J Basins. Table E. Southeast f Operations. Kentucky. E. L. Extension of Townlot Area. South-Central Oklahoma. SPE/DOE paper 8834 presented at First Joint SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Vol. Himmelblau. Wyoming Oil and Gas Fields. Inc. Tulsa. Reservoir and Fluid Characteristics of Selected Oil Fields in Oklahoma. and R. Englewood Cliffs. Grigsby. and Dennis R. p. J. Oklahoma Geological Survey. 1958. 1984. Comparison of Conventional Cyclic Steaming and Steamflooding in a Massive.l of Appendix E. E.Greaser. George C. Allen.S. California Oil Fields. Operation and Performance of the Slocum Thermal Recovery Project. Steamflood Performance in the Kern River Field. Huntington Beach Oil Field. Tulsa. R. 1955. and C. Sept. Summary of Operations. Gill. and B. Frank Birdwell. Eds. Harrison. W. August. Gary R. A. Hollis. 402-408 (April). Steamflood of Heavy Oil Cat Canyon Field. E. Laramie. A.DOE/LC/10730-TI. Symposium: S. Technology. Clayton. David M. 1973. Hazenbush. Allen. Huntington Beach Oil Field. 1990. C. 1984.. Department of Energy Report NO. and M. Bowman. Pet. 19. E. Presented paper at ERDA Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery. R. Oil & Gas Investor. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Tar-Sand Potential of Selected Areas in Carter and Murray Counties. pp. E. OK. 81-1. California Oil Fields. W. OK (April 22-24). Bradford. A. Tulsa. Paper presented at National Tar Sands (Heavy Oil) Symposium. OK. Shore. Tar Sand Resource Appraisal in South-Central Oklahoma. Midway Sunset Reservoir. SPE/DOE paper 24197 presented at SPE/DOE Eighth Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery. and Eric C. Summary o . W. Special Publication No. 110-128. Hanzlik. Hall. 1992. April 20-23. Paper and Pencil Exercise or Treble Damages in Kern County by D. Stephen H. A. and D. 1981. U. Casper. Burchfield.. Harrison. WY: Wyoming Geological Association. Basic Principles and Calculations in Chemical Engineering. R. Harrison. Edward J. Lexington. L. W. L. Routh. 1974. 1982. Dipping. 9-10. pp. Harrigal.
P. Journal o f Petroleum Science and Engineering. 1991. J. Summary o 22. Jay. U. 1473-1480 (December 1976). Conrad. September. Edison Oil Field. J. M. West Cat Canyon Area of Cat Canyon Field. W. 5: 309-322. Vol.2 & 3 (February). Petroleum Independent. Gordon Harris. Cawthon. Division of Oil and Gas. Interstate Oil Compact Commission. Sequential Steam: An Engineered Cyclic Steaming Method. and H. Technology. of Energy Report DOE/ET/12380-1. Sharma. Gordon Harris. & Eng. Heavy Oil Reservoirs Recoverable B y Thermal Technology . Summary of Operations. 1990. 389-402. SPE paper 10766 presented at 1982 California Regional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Jeff and J. Trond B. 1583-1598. Patrick. Mundis. Independent Producers Association of America. 42(7):848 Uuly). Vol. 1990. Joseph. Krebs. J. Pet. Polymer Flood: A Case History. E. September. 62(7): 84..1976. California Department of Natural Resources. Evaluation of an In-situ Combustion Process by Post Burn Core and Log Analysis. California Oil Fields. Major Tar Sand and Heavy Oil Deposits o f the United States. M. Pet. . Jensen. Trond B.. J. Fred E. Also in J. Jensen. Pet. 1984. Sharma and H. 31(2):5Kaplow. Oklahoma City. F.. March 22-24. California Oil Fields. H. Vol. Vol. 5: 67-85. Dept. 1992. and Charles J. Jones. Wilmington Field. Coalinga Oil Field. 1941.S. 26: 12-18. Eslinger. f Operations. OK. Sci. Tulsa. Oklahoma: Interstate Oil Compact Commission. P. Steam Drive Model for Hand-Held Programmable Calculators. SPE paper 5828 presented at Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME. CA (March 24-26). 1976. Vol. pp. Eric V. A critical evaluation of preliminary design techniques for steam drive projects. 1982. 1945. Kujawa. pp. California. Technology. Kasline. 1. Pet. Charley B. An Improved Evaluation Model for Steam-Drive Projects. J. 1981. J.Huey. Summary of Operations. San Francisco. Vol40(1). 1954. California Oil Fields. Vol. Technology. pp. Jones. The Oil & Natural Gas Producing Industry in Your State. 1981.
D. 1981. at Sixth UNITAR International Conference on Heavy Crude and Tar Sands.. Casper. 1985. February 12-17. Portals Fairfax Area of Edison Oil Field. K. Montana Geological Society. Jr. Lennon. SPE/DOE paper 10708 presented at SPE/DOE Third Joint Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. 2. Olsen and C. A. Annual Production Report: EOR set to make significant contribution. M. Vol. R. Oil and Gas Journal. Masingill. Pet. L. Symposium: Oil and Gas Fields. Matthews.'s Successful In-Situ Combustion Project in the Bellevue Field. Matthews. Geological Factors in Steam-Soak Projects on the West Side of the San Joaquin Basin. 1 & 2. in SPE Reprint Series No. LA: Department of Natural Resources. TX. and C. P. State of Louisiana. California Oil Fields. Louisiana Annual Oil and Gas Report. Luebking. 7-Thermal Recovery Processes of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. and Mark F. Also in J.. WY: Wyoming Geological Association. pp. Summary o f Operations. Vol. OK. Powder River Basin. John F. pp. Vol. J. Houston. Leonard. Edison Groves Area of Edison Oil Field. 1984. Richardson. 1988.. 1956. Mayuga. Nuar. 1988: Oil and Gas Report 3-L. Ernest A.Lawyer. Tulsa. In Geology o f Giant Petroleum Fields. The Petroleum Industry in Alabama. et al. Mancini. A Study of Getty Oil Co. Annual Production Report. 1985. Technology. N. 1986. . G. 1982. 238-245. Association of American Petroleum Geologists. 71-101 (April 14). 82(14):83-105 (April 2). Long. Eger. AL: Geological Survey of Alabama for the State Oil and Gas Board. Oil and Gas Fields Symposium. Baton Rouge. M. Heavy Oil Production from Alaska. Melancon. 1995. Jim. pp. Thomas. 41(2):11-18. Tuscaloosa. J. 42(2):33-36. 1955. S. G. Jr. Paper 112 pres. 741-748 (July 1985). pp. Ralph E. Leonard. Mahmood. B.. Newcomer. Vol. California Oil Fields. and John H. Jim. John F. 1976. Soap Creek Field. 1968. Geology and Development of California's Giant-Wilmington Oil Field. Vol. Summary of Operations. Oil and Gas Journal. 481486 (April 4-7).
Summary o f Operations. Open File Report Series. p. Earl A. Donald D. OK (April 22-25). Annual Production Report: C@ and HC injection lead EOR production increase. July 1960. AME Tech. Jackson. 1947. February. Steam-Foam Pilot Project at Dome-Tumbador. 1990. Washington. pp. 1990. Missouri Department of Natural Resources. First Edition. December 31. Oil and Gas Journal. MS: Mississippi State Oil and Gas Board. Oil and Gas Journal. Moritis. Publ. 1946. Dept. and Studlick. and J. Vol. Oil and Gas Journal. OFR. Vol. Chapter 5. of Energy. Netzler. S. S. Jackson. 64(24): 54-55 (June 13). Mississippi State Oil and Gas Bulletin. Geothermal Gradients in Mid-Continent and Gulf Coast Oil Fields. Powerful Ideas for America. Murray-Aaron. 109-130. Tulsa.Mississippi State Oil and Gas Board. Gruntis. Midway Sunset Field: Part 2. Calgornia Oil Fields. 1994. Mississippi State Oil and Gas Board 1989. 51-79 (April 20). Heavy Oil Resource Potential of Southwest Missouri. Tidelands Pool of Huntington Beach Oil Field. Mobil will kick off giant thermal project in Arkansas. in Petroleum Technology. John G. Mississippi: Mississippi State Oil and Gas Board. edited by J. Gruntis. 51-79 (September 26). SPE/DOE paper 20201 presented at SPE/DOE Seventh Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery. National Energy Strategy 1991. 1960. D. Gruntis. Eugene R. New steam generator uses brackish water. Oil and Gas Journal. 1967. Tenzer. Mississippi Oil and Gas Production Annual Report. South Belridge Field. Vol. Bruce W. Fluviodeltaic Reservoir. 60(5). Covington 1990. Annual Production Report. H. R. Vol. Nichols.: US. Oil and Gas Journal. San Joaquin Valley. Annual Production Report. Moritis. 88(17):49-82 (April 23). p 44 (November). Banvis. California.90-80-OG (January). pp. McPherson.. Vol. 1966. 1992. 1959. 33(1):3-11.C. 1990. 2114. Sandstone Petroleum Resmoirs. Annual Report: Oil and Gas Reservoirs o f Mississippifor the Year Ending December 31. Miller. New York: Springer-Verlag. Moritis. & Thomas E. Mohamrnadi. 65(35):30-31 (August 28). McPherson. .
R. U. Monger-McClure. North Slope Operators Pressing Marginal Oil Field Development. U.S. Olsen.C. Transportation.S.S. Illinois. D. at Sixth UNITAR International Conference on Heavy Crude and Tar Sands. K..S. Johnson 1995. C. G. A. K. 1978. Refining Industry. U. U. M a h o o d . Ramzel. Guariguata. 31-36 (May 1). and William I. G. 1993. Dept. Strycker. of Energy Report NIPER-560. May. April. Paper 110 pres. Marketing. David K. I. Pendergrass 11. December. 1993. Olsen. 1992. 1995. B. April. K.S. Sacramento. Dept. of Energy Report NIPER-620.S. and T. Midcontinent (Kansas. U. SPE paper 24645 presented at 67th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Oklahoma). Olson. and W..S. A. and Michigan Basins. Projections of the Impact of Expansion of Domestic Heavy Oil Production on the U. Washington. D. Olsen. of Oil & Gas. D. Missouri. J. of Energy Report NIPER-606. Dept. February 12-17. Feasibility Study of Heavy Oil Recove ry in the Midcontinent Region. and F. K. 1993. Olsen. Div.S. Schroeder. Dept. and Refining Constraints to Increasing Heavy Oil Production in Alaska. D.S. K. L. (October 4-7). 1992. G. of Energy Report NIPER-610. May. Feasibility Study of Heavy Oil Recovery-Production. and S. E. Haines. D. Salmen. Dept. 1994. E. Feasibility Study of Heavy Oil Recovery in the Permian Basin (Texas and New Mexico). Oil and Gas Journal. Black Warrior. F. K. U. . M.S. V. H. Steve. Olsen. TR 22.Oil and Gas Journal. Olenick. pp.. Feasibility of Heavy Oil Recovery in the U. and R. I. In Publ. Dept. 1992. and E. Ramzel. E. of Energy Report NIPER-584 (June). A. Olsen. D. Cyclic C 0 2 Injection For Heavy-Oil Recovery in Halfmoon Field: Laboratory Evaluation and Pilot Performance. of Energy Report NIPER-587. B.. Rawn-Schatzinger. Ramzel. K. Johnson. Houston. U. CA: California Department of Conservation. Shallow Aquifers and Surface Casing Requirements for Wilmington and Belmont Offshore Oil Fields. of Energy Report NIPER-578. Feasibility Study of Heavy Oil Recovery in the Appalachian. D. 1992. B. Dept. Olsen. Refining Industry from 1990 to 2010. December. Taylor. Estimates of Future Regional Heavy Oil Production at Three Production RatesBackground Information for Assessing Effects on the U. and W. Trends in Heavy Oil Production and Refining in Calgornia. Olsen. Johnson. K. D.
1984. Nautiyal." SPE paper 13035 presented at 1984 Annual SPE Technical Conference. Oil and Gas Division. C.Park. April. Information Circular 8428. TX: Railroad Commission of Texas. Oil and Gas Division. Pautz. F. Moore. Level of Incentives Required for Large-Scale Development of the Nation's Heavy Oil Resources. Allison. C. California Oil Fields. W. G. United States Department of the Interior. Cymric Oil Field. TX (September 16-19). Vol. A Survey of Secondary and Enhanced Recovery Operations in Texas to 1982. Vol. Jr. 1 & 2. S. Vol. "Commercial Application of Steamflooding in an Oil Field Comprised of Multiple Thin-Sand Reservoirs. of Energy Report NIPER/BDM-146.. F. Park. U. C. M. NIPER-583. Oil and Gas Division. Dept. L. G. 1969. Vol. and Robert A. Riddell. 82. Oil and Gas Division. Edward M. H. Sellers.S. and Robert H. (June 15). Heavy Oil Reservoirs in Arkansas. 1980. A. J. 1 . 51(1):13-22. Summary of Operations. Adam W. of Energy Report No. and M.S. Dept. W. TX: Railroad Commission of Texas. Austin. Typical Oil and Gas Fields of South Texas. Powers. A. 1. Vol. TX: Railroad Commission of Texas. U. G. U. May. Corpus Christi. and E. California Oil Fields. Ghasserni.. Bulletin No. 1947. 1991 Oil and Gas Annual Report. Carrales. Oil and Gas Division. 1983. 1992. Vol. Dept. An Evaluation of Heavy Oil Mining: Final Report. Railroad Commission of Texas. Wood. of Energy Report No. Pautz. 1989 Oil and Gas Annual Report. Oil and Gas Division. Summary of Operations. S. C. Bulletin No. 1990. 1995. Enhanced Oil Recovery Projects Data Base. Oil and Gas Division. Bureau of Mines. Pierce. J. Austin. Piper. Austin. 0 . Kern Front Oil Field. Pyle. Railroad Commission of Texas. Oil and Gas Division. 1965. A Survey of Secondary and Enhanced Recovery Operations in Texas to 1980. Trent. 1982. 1988. Houston. TX: Corpus Christi Geological Society.S. 33(2):715. 11.. Railroad Commission of Texas. .. DOE/PC/30259-1 (March). Welch. Austin. James F. Dodson. 1992. TX: Railroad Commission of Texas. 80. and J. Railroad Commission of Texas.
September. and P. . A. Lick Creek Meakin Sand Unit.Ramey. and D. Stedman. p. 1979. and A. E. of Energy Report NIPER/BDM-101.. and P. Robertson. Steamflood Performance. H. W. Long Beach. Restine.. K. CA (February 7-8). L. Reid. Sarkar. S. B. December. Blesener. DiJulio. Wilmington Oil Field: A Case Study. of Energy Report NIPER-661. Vol. Sarathi.S. and Samuel Soo Hoo. April 11-13. S. OK (April 22-24). J.. Case History of South Belridge. S. LowPermeability Heavy Oil Resevvoir of Arkansas-A Numerical Simulation Study. A Laboratory Study of Wilmington Tar Zone C 0 2 Injection Project. Sarathi. U. J. A. S. Shah. Stamp. 184 (August 17). K. California. and J. December. of Energy Report NIPER-722. Stephen D. Tulsa. 1992. Elliot. In-Situ Combustion Oil Recovery. SPE paper 21526 presented at the International Thermal Operations Symposium of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. 1:95-104. Raj P. 1992. and H. p. J. Dept. Department of Energy Publ.S. California.S. Immiscible CO2Waterflood Project. 1987. Bakersfield. Tulsa (April 5-8). Feasibility of Steam Injection Process in a Thin. Thermal Processes for Heavy Oil Recovery. U. D. J. U. Frost. SAN/1582-1 (January). Emanuel. 1986. Oil and Gas Journal. L. Jeffery A. Fertl. Robinson.S. 1981. Subzone Redevelopment of the Long Beach Unit. 1984. E. Thermal Recovery in the Gulf Coast Region: Past Performances and Future Potentials. SPE/DOE paper 24200 presented at SPE/DOE Eighth Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery. Elmer E. SPE/DOE Paper 9795 presented at SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery. F. J. Pet. H. Single-Zone. Roux. A Study of C 0 2 Recovery and Tertiary Oil Production Enhancement in the Los Angeles Basin: Final Report-September 1978. T. 1229 (October). CA. Revised version in SPE Reservoir Engineering. 1991. Sankur. 1994. U. On the Effect of Viscosity and Sand Thickness on Kern River Field. Wittrneyer. Vega. N. Sarkar. S.. 1993. C. Dept. SPE paper 12751 presented at California Regional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME. Jr. Sarkar. Dept.. Mallinson. A. Creek. Sharp. V. W. and Raymond W Griep. Jack A. 1981. Well logs evaluate and monitor heavy oil steamflood in Kern County. Technology. Pebdani. K.
. Wilmington Field. Vol. P. C. One Field Environmentalists Want. G. and John P. Clampitt. McGuire. Spivak. S. F. CA (February 7-8). Allan and C. Sugioka. and Wayne R. N. 1 of the 5th Annual DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery and Improved Drilling Technology. Section B1. 1988. A. 51(1):23-27. D. V. E. U. Mechanisms of Immiscible 0 0 2 Injection in Heavy Oil Reservoirs. Putz and M. Vol. CA. H. T. Richardson. Allan. R. L. C. Stevenson. I. 1955. Chima. 1984. Tulsa. Harrison L. Garrison. 1991. Thomas. SPE paper 12667 presented at the California Regional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. and G. V. Atkinson. Burnett. Arkansas. Pet. I. A. Wilmington Field. E. White. Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. December 31.Shea. Chung. Long Beach. Doughty. Hause. Templeton. 1979. B. M. California (June. E. OK (August 22-24). Summary o f Operations. 1973. WY. 1979). Stalkup. 1965. Sullivan. B. Allaire. M. 1991. D. D. 1993. Sullivan. Technology. Alaska North Slope National Energy Strategy Initiative: Analysis of Five Undeveloped Fields. 1978 through April.. Fault Block V." J. CA (March 23-25). and C. Nguyen. Vol. SPE paper 17407 presented at California Regional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Wilmington Field. Race Track Hill Area of Edison Oil Field. P. pp. Summary of Operations. A. 883-889 (August). SPE paper 21528 presented at the International Thermal Operations Symposium of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. L. TX: Society of Petroleum Engineers. Dept. M. Review of an Inuniscible 0 0 2 Project. S. . California. 41(2):19-23. 1992. Faulder.. R. of Energy Report DOE/ID/01570-T164. F. Enhanced Oil Recovery Field Reports. 17(2). Long Beach. Mullen. Steeply Dipping Reservoir at South Casper Creek. John C. "Recovery of Oil by Steam Injection In The Smackover Field. Hawes. Wall Street Journal. J. Tar Zone. Bakersfield. J. Calfornia Oil Fields. Evaluation of a Successful Steamdrive in a Geologically Complex. Smith. and R. R. Vol. Pitts. A. Irving. S. Staub. C. California Oil Fields. Enhanced Oil Recovery Field Reports Committee. William H. West Area of Edison Oil Field. S. Micellar-Polymer Joint Demonstration Project. D. May. Spivak. Bertuzzi. CA (April 11-13). J. Jamison.
Inventovy of Heavy Oil in Western Missouri: Final Report. International Oil and Gas Development Yearbook (Review of 1986). 51(2):5. and J. Wells. Meyer. 1955. Austin. Part 2: Production. Vol.. H. Part 2: Production. International Oil and Gas Development Yearbook (Review of 1991). 1939. . Werner. Austin. Northeast Area of McKittrick Oil Field. TX: Mason Map Service. 62. TX: Mason Map Service. and L. Premier Area of the Poso Creek Oil Field. 57. W. F. Interstate Oil Compact Commission Committee Bulletin. and International Oil Scouts Association. E. 1986. J. 1988. James R. Vol. 1982. BETC-1808-1." Summary of Operations. June. pp. 1989. California Oil Fields. Wells. J.. Eds. Inc. Margie and Marilyn Lay. Inc. Margie and Marilyn Lay. Summary of Operations. Eds. North Slope Alaska. Wells. J. West Sak and Ugnu Sands: Low Gravity Oil Zones of the Kuparuk River Area. V . Jr. 1935. and International Oil Scouts Association. of Energy Report No.S. M. Energy Research and Development Administration. Dept. 19(1):78 ('January). Alaskan North Slope. S. White. October/November. Heath. Werner. Heavy Oil Resources of Kansas-MissouriOklahoma. AAPG Studies in Geology No. 1979. 24(4):23. 58. Part 2: Production. Margie and Marilyn Lay. and International Oil Scouts Association. Kuparuk River Unit Area. J. Vol. F.Updike. Eds. V . 59. TX: Mason Map Service. Normal Geothermal Gradient in United States. In Exploration for Heavy Crude Oil and Natural Bitumen. J.. S. California Oil Fields. Vol. Austin. Vol. Ebanks. and International Oil Scouts Association. Part 2: Production. M. Van Orstrand. Wells. Weddle. Austin. 537-547. R. V . Vol. International Oil and Gas Development Yearbook (Review of 1988). Inc. Roberts. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bull. R.. Tertiary and Upper Cretaceous Heavy Oil Sands. Lloyd. Wells. Summary of Operations. Margie and Marilyn Lay. edited by R. "Edison Oil Field. F. XXVIII (1): 76-84. Wells. U. 1984. 41(2):5-9. C. International Oil and Gas Development Yearbook (Review of 1987). 1966. 1990. California Oil Fields. Eds. 1993. 25. Inc. TX: Mason Map Service.
A. WY: Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Wooten. Jones. SPE paper 7548 presented at 1978 Annual Conference of Soc. 1989. California Oil Fields..Williams. McKittrick Oil Field. M. 1991. Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Wyoming Oil and Gas Statistics. Vol.TX (September 27-30). 1978. Dallas . California Oil Fields. 1992. WY: Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Expansion of a Successful In-Situ Combustion Pilot in Midway Sunset Field. 1990. Zulberti. 1-3). 42(1):49-59. Eng. Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Casper. Robert Walter. Vol. 1987. Pet. SPE paper 16873 presented at 62nd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. R. A. . John L. TX (Oct. Summary of Operations. Case History of a Successful Steamflood Project-Loco Field. Summary of Operations. Stockton. 1964. L. Ybarra R. Casper. Wilmington Oil Field. D. Wyoming Oil and Gas Statistics. Ford Pool of Fault Block I. Counihan. and T.. and A. J. 50(1):69-75. 1956. Houston.
APPENDIX A HEAVY OIL RESOURCE TABLES .
S. .Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U.
.Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U.S.
S.Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U. .
S.Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U. .
.Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U.S.
Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U.S. .
.S.Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U.
S. .Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U.
.Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U.S.
S. .Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U.
Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U.S. .
Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U.S. .
.Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U.S.
Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U. .S.
S. .Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U.
.Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U.S.
S.Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U. .
Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U.S. .
Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U. .S.
Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U. .S.
Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U.S.
Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U.S.
C Reservoir Tensleep Tensleep Phosphorla Mmelusa Dmwoody Tensleep Mmnelusa Nugget
1 - -Field 2 State. 531 WY Ttsdale, East 532 WY Ttsdale, North 533 WY Warm Spmgs, East W Y Whisler 534 Y Wtllow Draw 535 W 536 WY W S w Draw 537 WY WmdnuU 538 WY Wmkleman
Tens&p Tensleep__ Phosphona Mmnelusa Dmwoody -Tensleep Mtnnelusa Nugget
Basin Powder hver Powder hver Btghom PowderBighorn Bighorn Powder Rwer -Wtnd Rwer
F API - Gravity20 19 19
H I G Depth, Temp., Visc., O F cP
26,250 185 2244 901 7,028 240 90 2030 80 -130 850 38,400 63,102 72008304 204,469 28 142 4333 18 5,292 33 4548 17 7 197 8119 2 0 e 42,102 1000 1154 92 14
K Cum. Prod,, barrels
2,776,164 155,416 600,431 667,382 339,190
1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 19% 1991
-401,672 3,329,254 5,421,331
Table 7-1 Reservoir Parameters for Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U.S.
AE AD AC AA AB Wells Wells - Disc., -- Lith. Geo Series Prod. Prod, year year SS 11. 1959Pennsylvman 1991 SS -1 1960 Pennsylvanian -1 Do1 1917 Permlan -1 SS man 3 1967 P e g l v 1991 DNSS 12 1989 1972 Triassic SS/Dol -1 1989 1972 Pemsylvan~an ss -1 -1 - 1967 -P e ~ s y l v ~ ~ a n SS 18 1958 Jurassic 1989
N P A OOIP, OIP, 1 MM barrels 2 State MM barrels 531 WY 6 3 1 532 WY I 533 WY 2 3 2 534 WY 3 . 535 WY 6 7 536 WY 6 10 5 3 7 W Y 6 538 WY 5 11
50 11 20 24 6 6 34 50
V X R S T U W Area, Porosity, Perm., Gross Swi, Soi, Net % acres % mD Pay, ft Pay, ft _ % 12 30 -1 -1 500 20 900 6 - -1 -1 -1 320 16 300 -1 12 -1 -1 240 22 30 -1 -1 -1 240 14 18 22 -1 -1 -1 76- 19 800 8 18 -1 -1 42 800 10 --1 -1 -1 19 23 -1 480 300 80 63 -1 -1 23 160 481
Y Saturation bbllacreSft
Z Wells Total
-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
temp. 1989 abandoned. 1989 17 Hill AR Falcon 17 2300 abandoned 1971 Falcon Tuscaloosa AR 16 3120 key data missing AR Fouke. 1962 I / 2980 abandoned 1964 19 Tuscaloosa AR /Garland City Nacatoch 1I 16 / 2286 abandoned 1958 AR IHamvton I 2350 abandoned. East AR Berrv Bragg Camden AR AR Buckner AR Calion AR Careyville Landing Careyville Landing AR AR Clear Creek I ~~uscaloosa. 1980 !small !small abandoned 1970 abandoned 1984 . 1990 small 'key data missing abandoned 1970 key data missing abandoned. 1975 /abandoned. 1983 AR Graves Cypress Creek 20 2749 abandoned. East Tensaw Lake AL AR Artesian. West Moro Bav I /Mt. temp. temp. North 1 l raves AR / / 1 1 / AR AR AR AR AR AR IAR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR I Lewisville. Lower. South Midwav Midway.temp. temp. temp.temp. temp. Not Analyzed in this Feasibility Study State / Field I Reservoir / : API Gravity 19 17 17 19 18 19 20 14 14 16 20 20 19 20 15 / I / Depth ft / I Status p p p - AL Foshee AL Gilbertown. temp. temp.S. Massive ! Eutaw Dantzler Paluxy Eutaw Eutaw Paluxy Blossom Graves Nacatoch Tokio Meakin Blossom Travis Peak Tokio ! / I 1 I I / I 6140 3423 6617 8675 3742 3794 8385 2854 2627 2025 2503 2314 2740 2901 2432 /keydata missing /abandoned key data missing key data missing abandoned abandoned key data missing abandoned. temp. temp. 1989 /abandoned. I~raves 16 2755 abandoned. 1966 /abandoned 1957 I AR IAR / 2596 !abandoned. 1989 16 /cross~ o u n t r v SL. South AL Hubbard's Landing AL Hubbard's Landing AL Langsdale AL 1 Langsdale.temp. temp. temp. 1987 AR / 2694 small 18 Lawson. Old Town LickCreek LickCreek LickCreek LickCreek Little Bodcaw locust Bavou McKinney Bayou McNatt Meriwether Lake Meriwether Lake Meriwether Lake. 1981 abandoned 1990 'small abandoned. North Tokio 18 2410 abandoned 1969 Buckrange AR ~ a r l a n City d Paluxy ~ a r l a n City d AR I 15 I 3805 abandoned. 1990 /abandoned. 1980 /abandoned.Pleasant /NewLondon / Tokio Blossom Cotton Vallev Graves Nacatoch Tokio I Meakin Tuscaloosa James Mooringsport Tuscaloosa Paluxy /Tuscaloosa Paluxy Cotton Vallev Tokio Smackover I I i 1 I 11 19 14 12 17 17 20 15 20 20 18 20 14 12 18 13 15 12 I I 1 / 2589 2675 3386 2574 2270 2122 1990 3050 2666 3418 2700 2816 2390 2908 3460 2456 6049 /abandoned. 1975 abandoned 1976 . 1984 14 Paluxy AR Ikons 1545 I abandoned 1967 Nacatoch 17 AR ILake Tune I I 1 /Lake June / ~ o k i o 1 19 1 2550 /abandoned. temp.abandoned 1975 small ismall I abandoned. temp. 1990 1 Langley I~acatoch l3 1375 abandoned.Table 7-2 List of Additional Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U. 1990 AR Dry Creek Graves 2384 [abandoned. temp.
North Antelope Hills. / . 1986 key data missing key data missing ismall jabandoned. Pic0 Point of Rocks Button Bed ILA ~ackwood itto ton Bed Button Bed I i / .- / / 1 losso om Uncontrolled Buckrange Tokio ' Tuscaloosa Tokio Paluxy Tokio Nacatoch Rodessa I Graves INacatoch Nacatoch Rodessa I Meakin I I / 3 A ./ ~ a u Spur AR /PigeonHill AR / ~ r u d h o e Bay AR Ramsey Creek AR /RiverBend AR ~ e m i n aChurch r~ AR khiloh AR lshiloh AR /short AR Smackover AR Spirit Lake AR Spirit Lake. Williams Area Arroyo Grande. North Willisville. temp.temp.abandoned. 1986 abandoned. East /Troy. AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA /stamps. temp.North IUrbana I~esson Wesson. 1990 /abandoned. North AR /spirit Lake. West Wilmington I /~legia l~naheim Antelope Hills. temp. temp. 1986 /abandoned. 1986 /abandoned 1963 /small ikey data missing /small labandoned. North AR /Stamps. 1989 /small 1 - ITO~~O 1 . 1990 /abandoned. temp.temp. Tiber Area iAsphalto /Belgian.Northwest Area I 1 I Ismall /abandoned. North IAntelope Hills. temp. temp. Southwest w i h i l l e . North Antelope Hills. V / I 1 / 4350 / i 1 1 I 1 / . Hopkins Area Antelope Hills. temp.abandoned 1973 abandoned 1971 /abandoned 1990 I 1 1 P / I 18 18 16 17 19 16 18 14 19 20 19 19 17 18 19 17 18 17 16 16 15 16 20 20 15 Is 15 19 18 18 11 17 16 15 11 17 17 12 17 19 16 1 / I 1 I ! / I 1 / ITO~~O IBIOSSO~ / / Tokio ITO~~O 1 Tuscaloosa / . 1987 abandoned. 1969 abandoned. East Patmos AR I AR p . temp. North AR Pace City AR Pacy City.Table 7-2 List of Additional Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U. 1980 small abandoned 1960 I I I 1 . Nacatoch I~acatoch I~okio (Graves I in con /oilSand.S.temp.North /Troy. Williams Area Antelope Hills. Hill AR Olin Forest. 1989 abandoned.West Stephens Ste~hens Stow Lake Troy. 1989 abandoned. North AR Nichols AR Nichols AR Nichols. 1987 Ismall 'abandoned.East i V / Reynolds Lime /Hill James Lime Rodessa Cotton Valley Graves /TravisPeak /I~uscaloosa /TravisPeak /Travis Peak I /Tokio I I1 Depth ft 1 / 1 Status / / I 6050 2800 2800 4807 2350 2817 2220 4260 2688 2978 2731 2540 2700 2975 2858 1920 2650 2540 3015 2490 3310 2568 1350 2939 2764 1309 1723 2853 2500 1500 1358 2070 2135 2120 /abandoned 1988 /abandoned 1969 key datamissing abandoned. Upper Martin I~tchegoin IPhacoides abandoned abandoned 2250 small 2340 small 2360 small 950 /small 2100 /small 2100 small 1122 small 2000 key data missing 3050 key data missing 1400 key data missing .temp. 1970 abandoned 1986 . temp. Not Analyzed in this Feasibility Study State / Field 1 I Reservoir 1 I APIGravity 12 18 18 18 18 I I I AR New London. Williams Area Antelope Hills.
Carneros Cat Canyon. Not Analyzed in this Feasibility Study Depth / Status ft 12 700 small I 14 1 1400 lsmall 17 2100 /keydata missing 16 i 1250 iabandoned ! 2100 small 13 3600 key data missing 10 600 abandoned 14 150 abandoned 18 650 key data missing 13 13 2340 abandoned 12 790 small 7100 abandoned I 20 13 900 small 20 4050 small 20 1 4150 small 19 4400 abandoned / 4300 abandoned 20 10 1500 abandoned 12 1700 /abandoned I 20 5250 1 abandoned 14 j 600 jabandoned 16 / 1000 /keydata missing 17 2550 abandoned 17 6835 small / 17 / 7125 small 17 7045 small 12 1950 small 13 1860 small 1 16 2450 small 2400 abandoned l9 18 1900 abandoned 3100 'abandoned 19 4770 small 20 2000 key data missing 19 2375 abandoned I 15 1500 small 14 17 7500 small 19 2500 key data missing 20 i 3500 I abandoned 3500 /keydata missing 20 12 / 2250 /small .Second. Calloway Area Fruitvale. r North 1 Del Valle Del Valle. Granite Canvon AqVedder ! l ~ o u nPoso. Northeast m 40-7 Fruitvale.West. East Area CA CA /CharlieCanyon CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA / /First.Table 7-2 List of Additional Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U. Greenacres Area ' Chanac Lerdo . Prado Dam Area Michelin /Mahala. Offshore Area a . . . Main Area .Prado Dam Area E IMcCool Ranch Lombardi McCoolRanch McKittrick. 2150 small 12 1900 small 15 1050 small 12 17 10300 key data missing 13 6410 small 15 1750 small 15 1390 small ! 16 / 2575 /small API Gravity State Field Devilwater i Grit Reservoir I I CA Blackwell Comer ICA I Blackwell Comer CA / ~rea-0linda CA /capitan. t West Area ~edder 1 I - 1 / / A. Offshore Area ~Sespe 'Moorpark.S. West 'unnamed Mount Poso. CA . Northeast Area . I / I / I I . Baker-Grove Area Vedder Mount Poso. Greenacres Area Pliocene Gaffey Gonyer Gonyer Anticline Zilch Hanford /Hopper Canyon North Area [Unnamed /I /Hopper Canyon. Abacherli Area Michelin Mahala. Los Angeles City Etchegoin Los Lobos Abarcherli Mahala. Kinler Chanac Edison. Fruitvale. Sal Lopez Canyon Third . Northeast Area Olig San Joaquin McKittrick. Monterey IHuasna-Tar Springs Area Nodular IHvuerion Schist Hyperion Schist Cong Hyperion Monterey Jesus Maria East Area Thorup King City 3-1-32 Area King City Kent-Bashman Area ThoKraemer Kraemer Kraemer Upper Puente IKraemer. Calloway Area 42-0 Fruitvale.Montalvo. Salt Creek Main Area Etchegoin Vedder /DeerCreek Santa Margarite / ~ e eCreek. Third Pliocene I~aaueros Button Bed Brooks Umamed Unnamed Cymric. Old Area Pt. West Unnamed Las Posas Upper Wilbur Long Beach.
North Area CA C-3 Sansmena. Lower Prado-Corona. Northeast Area Hargood CA Lower Wluther Heights. Alamos Canyon CA Monterey CA / Slsquoc Ranch Sockeye Offshore. Mesa Area CA Miocene Qai. Beach Area Puente Newport.Not Analyzed in this Feasibility Study I state / Field Reservoir 1 API Gravity I Depth 15 20 12 12 14 14 14 20 17 13 16 13 15 15 I ? 2 18 19 17 17 19 15 13 13 20 12 14 17 17 14 20 13 10 12 19 13 16 18 16 19 19 17 16 16 20 16 16 12 17 16 1I 1 Status I 1 I Pic0 l~ewhall. Slsar Creek Area CA Pomt Arguellos. New England Area 1st Wtuther CA Sansmena. East CA 'Santa Margarita Terra Bella CA 1st Walnut Walnut CA Tumey Welcome Valley CA Wheeler Edge. Federal-OCS Topanga. McVan Area CA l~anta Margarita Poso Creek. Townsite Area CA Puente CA Newwort. Goedhart Area Hunter. Norm Area CA Qumado Canyon I Gambob-Kelly CA Ramona 1~en. Upper CA IB-1 CA Somls Talbert E Sands CA Talbert 1 ~amb CA Tapo fidge 1 1325 Sand CA 12-1Sand Tejon. Upper CA Hunter. North CA Ramona. New England Area C-3 CA Sansmena. Sharktooth A. North IDeaton CA Rosedale Ranch 'Etchegom Sand CA Round Mountam. S~sar Creek Area CA --. Goedhart Area /Hunter. Sardco Area CA M~ocene (Temblor) Pyramid H~lls. North CA / / .Table 7-2 List of Additional Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the US. Elsmere Area CA Braille Newhall. Sisar Creek Area CA Pliocene Qal. 1 lack / I - 1 ' ft 780 2735 1225 500 3680 1070 750 7900 3150 1800 2425 2350 2425 2350 850 2030 6500 7900 3100 3500 3500 2600 2400 2382 2100 3100 1800 1760 2600 3600 2250 2600 825 1400 1900 4880 5200 3950 5700 5400 1750 2670 400 2060 860 1200 100 5100 1600 I abandoned /small /abandoned abandoned key data nussmg key data mlssmg key data missmg /key data mlssmg . 12-G Area CA Pliocene (1st Wtuther) Sansmena. Alma Area Vedder CA /Round Mountam. Upper Prado-Corona.n~ CA Ramona 1 Lower CA Ramona. 12-G Area CA Sansmena. Lower CA Prado-Corona.small small small small small small small abandoned small small small small key data rmssmg small small abandoned abandoned small small small small small abandoned key data rmssmg key data mlssmg key data mlsslng abandoned key data mlssmg key data rmssmg abandoned abandoned abandoned small key data missmg small abandoned abandoned small abandoned abandoned abandoned . Federal-OCS Monterey CA I Pyrarmd Hill Poso Creek.Vedder CA Unnamed CA Rowland Lombard1 San Ardo. Southeast Area CA Plaocldes(Wyga1) Temblor Ranch CA Wygal(Phaco~des) Temblor. Sect~ons 23&26 Coldwater CA First Sand 1 S m . Sardco Area CA Hunter. Federal-OCS Monterey CA Sockeye Offshore. New England Area D-3 CA Foxen Santa Mana Valley CA Santa Maria Valley. McVan Area CA Prado-Corona. Southeast A Foxen CA / Sespe.--Saugus Qai.
20 9445 key data missing -1 key data missing 19 -1 key data missing 19 17 16337 key data missing 17 -1 key datamissing kev data missing. N KS /Dunessw I~ashville KS KS Paxico KS Solomon Solomon KS KS Solomon.Cypress Creek. North CA Whittier. Not Analyzed in this Feasibility Study I state 1 Field 1 I Reservoir / API Gravity 19 18 15 1 Depth / Status I CA Whittier Heights.abandoned 20 1742 /abandoned 13 6462 /key data missing 19 1420 /keydata missing 1711 key data missing 20 1867 key data missing 20 1 742 key datamissing 20 16 / 1200 . Central Area CA Whittier.data missing I 2411 /keydata missing l9 19 3629 /keydata missing 2990 key data missing 19 3682 key data missing I l8 l9 I 3733 key data missing 19 3386 key data missing 18 1 1055 key data missing 20 4865 key data missing 20 800 key data missing 20 1278 abandoned 20 1 1425 . SE KS Williams KS Williams Bellevue LA LA Big Bayou LA Caddo Pine Island LA Colgrade ILA crossroads LA Manifest LA Minden LA Nebo Hemphill LA Nebo Hemphill LA Rogers LA Starks ILA I!WhiteCastle LA /WhiteSulphur Springs MO IBellamv Avera MS MS Bolton I MS ~annichael MS /~havarral MS Clara West MS Cypress Creek MS . 19 I -1 " I I 1 17 6221 lkey data missing I 1 v / 1 I 1 / I 1 I d . Rideout Heights Area CO Armstrong CO Cope CO DeNova CO Tustice CO Mount Hope. North Davis MS MS Ellisville Junction MS .key . East / Upper 4th Sand A-3 0 sand 1 J sand I 1 /J / J sand ~akota .key data missing 789 abandoned 20 60 /keydata missing 10 18 -1 key data missing 1 15 8124 abandoned -1 key data missing 19 4313 key data missing 20 + .Arb L-KC L-KC 1~ r b / / 1 I /Hun / Pc o n L. East CO Stallion Walker CO Brock KS KS Chris KS Cochran KS iCrocker I KS / ~ a v iRanch s KS IDeglaff. East MS j~ucutta. Upper v ft 1100 abandoned 2100 1 key data missing 800 ismall 5797 k e y data missing 17 20 3591 key data missing 3672 /keydata missing 1 20 I 20 4009 / kev data missing.S.Table 7-2 List of Additional Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U.I Eucutta. 5259 key data missing 16 20 3918 key data missing 18 5000 key data missing 20 3680 key data missing 3042 key data missing 19 I Is 3328 key data missing / 19 3913 key datamissing 19 2950 /key data missing 15 / 2473 /key data missing 20 / 3728 /keydata missing 15 / 2510 1.KC 11nd cv Hun Arb /TOP /Arb /~ r b shaw i0zan i wilcox I~acatoch ~ilcox / wilcox / Sparta /~odessa 1 Cockfield Sparta Cockfield/Sparta / 1 / / -1 / IIberville Cockfield Lower Zone IPaluxy / ~ a s h i t Fredericksburg. a 8124 Selma Chalk Eutaw Washita Fredericksburg Eutaw Eutaw Smackover Washita Fredericksburg Tuscaloosa 1 /~uscaloosa.
key data missing I - - I .NW MS ~Ralston MS \ReedyCreek MS / ~ e eCreek d ~ / Reedv Creek MS MS Reedy Creek MS Reedv Creek I / /Tuscaloosa. Lower / ~ o w eTuscaloosa r Tuscaloosa Tuscaloosa. Cretaceous ' Amsden Lakota Sawtooth Sawtooth 'Amsden 14 13 -1 -1 . 9411 Oil /~uscaloosa. South Summerland East Thompsons Creek Thompsons Creek Thompsons Creek. 11203 / 7862 9112 9699 9643 I 7940 8010 -1 10178 9352 / -1 6264 6136 I x i I 1 I / 17 20 15 10 17 12 20 19 20 18 19 13 16 17 14 15 19 18 18 la 19 l2 / / / / / 1 1 1 1 ansi sin^ -1 7480 -1 -1 7391 3584 2828 3374 2450 2412 4115 /keydata missing /key data missing /keydata missing /key data missing lkeydatamissing key data missing abandoned kev data missing key data missing .data missing /keydata missing /key data missing key datamissing key data missing small key data missing key data missing key data missing key data missing key data missing . North Wausau. Upper.Macklin Canyon Christmas Stanley 10914 Mooringsport 17554 Tuscaloosa I 18785Frederikburg 9417 Paluxy Oil 'Paluxy. API Gravity Depth / Status MS ~ l aBranch t MS / ~ i t a n o Gitano MS Gitano MS MS Laurel Laurel MS Laurel MS Martinville MS MS IMartinville I MS 10vett MS / Pistol Ridrre " I MS Quitman MS Quitman.Upper / ~hristmas i Eutaw Tuscaloosa Eutaw. North Wausau. 9300 Washita Fredericksburg Eutaw I ~oorin~s~ort /~odessa ~uscaloosa Massive. -1 / -1 9930 / 9787 9639 11530 3715 11400 -1 -1 6100 1 7100 1 7187 7200 7282 / /key data missing /kevdata missing key datamissing key data missing key data missing key data missing key data missing key data missing key data m i s s a I /key data missing i kev data missing P key data missing keydatamissing key data missing i key data missing i key data missing /keydata missing /keydata missing key data missing kev data missing L . L. West PoleCreek Roscoe Dome Rudyard Utopia Woman's Pocket . Massive Paluxy /U.Table 7-2 List of Additional Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U.S.key data missing key data missing /key data missing /key data missing key data missing key . Upper 9930 Washita/Fredericksburg Paluxv Washita Fredericksburg 11560 Paluxv 1 . I Eutaw Smackover C Eutaw Lower Tuscaloosa 6100 7100 7150 '7200 7300 I ! / 20 12 16 19 17 13 12 20 13 11 13 15 20 17 16 13 13 19 19 19 / 1 / -1 -1 1 6878 / -1 i -1 . Vallev Park Wausau Wausau. - - Iv MS Reedy Creek 6264 /key data missing I I I MS MS MS IMS MS MS MS I MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MT MT MT MT MT NB / Sandersville ! Sandersville %so SOSO I /%so /soso \soso !%so. Not Analyzed in this Feasibility Study / state I Field I Reservoir . South Tribulation I Ivalley Park . North Yellow Creek. East MS Quitman. Lower Tuscaloosa. Lower Stanley Tuscaloosa. Upper Lower Tuscaloosa Massive Washita Fredericksburg .
S. D sand 1 / i 18 19 19 16 20 20 18 20 20 17 19 20 20 20 18 15 16 17 18 16 1 / 1 / I / 1 1 480 key data missing 4846 key data missing 1484 key data missing 570 key data missing 6786 key data missing 2179 key data missing 4063 key data missing 2358 /key data missing . East OK Carrier OK Chigley.NW OK OK I OM San Andres San Andres San Andres .W. 1500 key data missing 4833 key data missing 4148 key datamissing 560 key data missing key datamissing 628 738 key data missing 5110 key data missing 4170 key data missing 6686 key data missing 2134 key data missing 1440 key data missing 1308 key data missing 1 . - I - Bone Spring Tansill San Andres / ans sill Yates San Andres San Andres I Pontotac A I~ontotac B 'Pontotac D Pickens Viola Osage Hoxbar Booch Penns. NM Jenkins NM Leslie Spring NM Magruder NM Maroon Cliffs NM Maroon Cliffs NM Mescalero INM /Parallel NM IPCA NM / lXanger Lake NM ITower I OK /Alden OK iAlden OK Alden OK '~lma. Not Analyzed in this Feasibility Study State / I Field I Reservoir Pennsylvanian Basal Yates i API Gravity I / iI Depth ft -- / i Status key data missing key data missing NB NM /SpringCreek I~arber 20 20 1 / 4230 1400 I NM 'Crossroads.NE Byars.Table 7-2 List of Additional Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U. West OK Conway.
S.A 'wilcox 1990 TX 1088 key data missing 20 Era. Upper ' 1994 key data missing 19 Emily. Not Analyzed in this Feasibility Study I State 1 Field Reservoir 1 / API Gravity / Depth / Status ft 20 7103 key data missing TX j~orchester. North 42 key data missing TX Grassroots 1 sand 19 1826 key data missing 20 TX Hagist Ranch I Purple Sand I / - . 2870 TX Fritcher Sand / Sand 18 TX Galba 19 1578 key data missing TX Goldfinch 1 Austin Chalk 20 6095 key data missing 920 small TX Govt. North 1 Ordivion Limestone 20 1223 key data missing 1200 l~trawn TX 'Doreen 13 3708 key data missing Dove !PennsylvanianBasal TX 13 6351 key data missing TX Dozier 10il Creek 1 / 18 1 4438 /small I 1 8 20 1 1886 /keydata missing TX /ElmGrove ( Wilcox. North TX I 1547 small TX 1550 20 Govt.Table 7-2 List of Additional Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U. Wells / 900 sand I 19 1167 Ismall 1150 20 Govt. Wells. West 1 Ellenburger TX 987 key datamissing 17 TX Everett / San Angelo 5160 key data missing 15 TX ~eonard Fluvanna key data missing. Wells.
Table 7-2 List of Additional Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U.S. Not Analyzed in this Feasibility Study State 1 I Field I 1 Reservoir / API Gravity / I / Depth I ft / Status .
Tensleep Tensleep / Minnelusa Minnelusa Phosphoria Tensleep Minnelusa Sundance E~ay Muddy Phosphoria Minnelusa Minnelusa .data missing I 3429 key data missing 4165 key data missing 7804 key data missing i 2004 . 1 1 / 1 I / -1 I en sleep / I w / Phosphoria 1 adi is on 1 1 Minnelusa i Phosvhoria I 1 / Phosvhoria / Phosphoria 20 17 19 20 18 20 20 h Minnelusa p /Mielusa 20 /~innelusa Minnelusa Curtis Miinnelusa I Minnelusa Phosphoria Madison Minnelusa Minnelusa /. 845 key data missing 8330 key data missing 762 key data missing key data missing 3180 4328 key data missing -1 . North WY Gray (abandoned) WY WY Hamilton Dome Horse Ranch WY WY IHugie Draw WY 1 King Dome WY Kohler WY K m e r f e l d West WY Lamb & Lamb Anticline WY Lite Butte Little WY I WY I Love11 Draw WY Mapes WY Mamie Moorcroft WY WY Mule Herder WY Murphy Dome WY Neta WY I Pebble Beach WY Pine Mountain WY 'Pitchfork WY Ponderosa Ridge WY Prong Creek.key data missing / 574 /key data missing 1 8156 /keydata missing -1 key data missing 5176 key data missing 5406 key data missing 7880 small 1100 key data missing 3378 key data missing key data missing -1 836 key data missing 7805 key data missing 7995 key data missing 7908 /keydata missing 1 / 1 / - 1 1 . 4435 /key data missing 7680 .Minnelusa I 14 19 18 I 20 20 19 p p 1! 1 1 I I \ \ 20 20 19 15 13 20 17 It5 20 17 17 20 19 19 20 18 20 18 20 I I 1227 key data missing 5824 /key datamissing 1 -1 lkey data missing j -1 key data missing key data missing -1 / 7899 key data missing 3200 key datamissing . West WY Rawhide WY Red Springs Rozet WY WY Rumph WY Shoshone North WY Shoshone North WY Simpson Ranch WY Spindletop WY Spindletop North WY i Thompson Creek WY /Travis WY /WellCreek (R-T) WY I Well Creek (Unnamed) WY /WellCreek (Well Creek) / / & I I I 20 18 20 19 16 18 20 19 20 20 13 16 XI / / .S. North WY Crystal Creek Double Shield WY WY Dutton Basin Fourbear WY Garland WY Gibbs.key data missing 7915 /keydata missing 1200 /key data missing 5160 l key data missing 1 -1 ]keydata missing / 2864 lkey data missing. Not Analyzed in this Feasibility Study State / I Field Yegua-HI~arwin Minnelusa Miielusa Minnelusa Tensleep Tensleep Tensleep Minnelusa Phosphoria Amsden Jefferson .key data missinn key data missing -1 / -1 key data missing i -1 !keydatamissing key data missing -1 1 3176 key datamissing -1 key data missing -1 key data missing I 1600 key data missing 4250 key data missing key data missing -1 -1 1 key data missing 5298 . key .Minnelusa /~innelusa chugwater Status TX /~irnet WY 1 Alkalai Anticline WY IAsh Baumfalk WY WY Brosa Draw Bud WY WY Casper Creek.Table 7-2 List of Additional Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U.
Table 7-2 List of Additional Heavy Oil Reservoirs in the U.S. Not Analyzed in this Feasibility Study [1 state / Field Status 1 I WY / Zimrnerman Butte / ! en sleep i 1 16 i ft 4606 ! /key data missing .
Westside Area Cymric. South Casmalia Cat Canyon. Pay. "API ft O F acre % md ft ft % % bbYacre*ft Dantzler Nacatoch Pico Olcese Pismo Monterey Sisquoc Tulare/Etc hegoin Tulare Monterey Sisquoc Sisquoc Monterey Sisquoc Monterey Sisquoc Etchegoin/ Temblor Temblor Aliso Canyon Aliso Ant Hill Arroyo Grande. Perm. Porosity. Old Area Belridge.T a b l e 7-3 State Field Latham Wesson Reservoir Dantzler Nacatoch Reservoir Parameter Ranges f o r Selected Heavy Reservoirs a n d Selected Reservoir Parameters (va1ue:value range) Gross Net soi. East Cat Canyon. West Area Cat Canyon. Temp. Area. Gato Ridge Cat Canyon. West Area Coalinga. Saturation SWi. Pay. Etchegoin Tulare Monterey Sisquoc Sisquoc Monterey Sisquoc Los Flores Sisquoc EtchegoinTemblor Carneros Unit . Tiber Area Barham Ranch. Depth. Old Area Barham Ranch. Gato Ridge Cat Canyon.. Salt Creek Main Area Olcese Dollie Monterey Sisquoc. Basal Tulare. North Belridge. Central Cat Canyon. Formation Gravity.
.Table 7-3 State CA Field Cymric. Sheep Springs Area Cymric. Lower Bolsa. Reservoir Formation Gravity.Chanac Schist Wicker Nozu Chanac Santa Margarita Fairhaven Kernco Monterey Sisquoc Santa Margarita Jones. Reservoir Parameter Ranges for Selected Heavy Reservoirs a n d Selected Reservoir Parameters (va1ue:value range) Cont. Main Area Guadalupe Guadalupe HuasnaLavoieHadley Area Huntington Beach. Main Area Edison. Upper Kern River/Cha nac Basement Fruitvale Round Mountain Chanac Santa Margarita Etchegoin Chanac Monterey Sisquoc Santa Margarita Puente Repetto Puente . Upper (Garfield) Jones. Perm. Main Area Edison. Groves Area Edison. Gross Net Saturation SWi. Porosity. Main Area Edison. Race Track Hill Area Edison. Pay. bbYacrerft "API ft "F acre % md ft ft % % Etchegoin Etchegoin 16 2450 97 170 35 480:lOO105 75 68 1707 "54-21" Tulare Tulare (Amnicola) Kern River Kern . West Area Edison. Offshore Area Huntington Beach. Welport Area Edison. Groves Area Edison. soi. Depth. West Area Fruitvale.Chanac River/Cha nac Olcese Olcese Kern River . Temp. Area. Onshore Area Huntington Beach. Pay. Main Area Fruitvale.
Main Area McKittrick. Pay. Monterey Main Area Kern Bluff Santa Margarita Kern Bluff Transition Kern Front Kern River Kreyenhagen Las Posas Lompoc. Northeast Area MidwaySunset MidwaySunset MidwaySunset MidwaySunset Reservoir Parameter Ranges f o r Selected Heavy Reservoirs a n d Selected Reservoir Parameters (va1ue:value range) Cont. Basal Tulare-San Joaquin Tulare (Amnicola) Calitroleu rn Gusher Kinsey Leutholtz (Metson) . Pay. Perm. Onshore Area Cantleberr Jasmin y Sand Jasrnin Pyramid Hill Jesus Maria. Main Area McKittrick. Depth. Porosity. SWL soil Saturation bbYacre*ft % md ft ft % YO OAPI ft "F acre Main Puente 19 4300 170 790 30 1000:630 -1 277 30 70 -1 Vedder Jewett Monterey Santa Margarita Transition Etchegoin/ Chanac Kern River Monterey & ~embior SespeLiajas Monterey Tulare Monterey Reef Ridge Reef Ridge Tulare-San Joaquin Tulare Etchegoin Etchegoin Etchegoin Monterey 3200 117 EtchegoinChanac Kern River Temblor Sespe Eocene Monterey Tulare Antelope Olig Reef Ridge. Area. Main Area Lost Hills Lost Hills. Temp.. Main Area McKittrick.Table 7-3 State Field Huntington " Beach. Gross Net Reservoir Formation Gravity. Northwest McKittrick.
Table 7-3 State Field MidwaySunset MidwaySunset MidwaySunset MidwaySunset MidwaySunset MidwaySunset MidwaySunset MidwaySunset MidwaySunset MidwaySunset MidwaySunset MidwaySunset Monroe Swell. ft 200 SWi. Onshore Area Mount Poso.. % 28:20-35 Perm. ft O F 1000 105 Area. md 700:200- Gross Pay. Dorsey Area Mount Poso. Main Area Reservoir Marvic Moco Monarch (Spellacy) Mya Tar Obispo Pacific Potter Republic Top Oil Tulare Webster WilheIm 44 Reservoir Parameter Ranges for Selected Heavy Reservoirs and Selected Reservoir Parameters (va1ue:value range) Cont. % -1 Saturation bbYacre*ft -1:55-77 1645:1350-1940 soi. % Beedy Doud Colonia Vedder Vedder Pyramid Hill . acre 200 Porosity. Old Area Montalvo West. Formation Monterey Monterey Monterey San Joaquin Monterey Monterey Reef Ridge Monterey San Joaquin Tulare Monterey Etchegoin Monterey Monterey Monterey Sespe Vedder Vedder FreemanJewett Gravity. Temp. Old Area Monroe Swell. OAPI 13 Depth. ft 270 Net Pay. Old Area Monroe Swell. Dominion Area Mount Poso.
Basal Etchegoin. Enas Area Poso Creek. Norris Area Pyramid Hills. Towsley Canyon Area Orcutt.. Federal-OCS Poso Creek. Basal Repetto. Basal Chanac Etchegoin. Premier Area Pyramid Hills. Creek Area Point Pendernales. OF ft 1750 110 Area. % %I % 15 Saturation bbYacre*ft 85 2075:1950-2200 Etchegoin. "APE 15 Depth. acre % md 33 6000:150 1750 Gross Pay. Perm. Basal Point of Rocks Point of Rocks Point of Rocks Del Valle Breen Chanac. Main Area Newhall.Table 7-3 State CA Field Mount Poso. West Slope Area Ramona Richfield Rosedale Ranch Rosedale Reservoir Vedder Unnamed Monterey Ansberry. McVan Area Poso Creek. ft 22550- SWi. Temp. Upper (KCL 3138) Lerdo Etchegoin . Porosity. Formation Vedder Modelo Monterey Monterey Repetto Santa Margarita Monterey Chanac Etchegoin Etchegoin Chanac Etchegoin Kreyenhag en Kreyenhag en Kreyenhag en Modelo Puente Chanac Gravity. Premier Area Poso Creek. Main Area Paris Valley. Enas Area Poso Creek. Main Area Playa Del Rey. ft 400 Net Pay. Venice Pleito. Upper Santa Margarita Monterey Chanac Reservoir Parameter Ranges for Selected Heavy Reservoirs and Selected Reservoir Parameters (va1ue:value range) Cont. Dagany Area Pyramid Hills.
Pay. Temp. Porosity. Main Area Round Mountain. Gross Net Reservoir Formation Gravity. Bradley Area Santa Maria Valley. . bbl/acre*ft "API ft O F acre % md ft ft % YO FreemanPyramid 19 1500 104 475 34 40:6-214 150 120 40 60 1600 ill Jewett FreemanJewett Vedder FreemanJewett Vedder Puente Puente Puente Puente Monterey Monterey Puente Puente Monterey Sisquoc Foxen Point Sal Pyramid Hill Vedder Pyramid Hill Vedder B Zone C Zone D Zone E Zone Aurignac Lombardi C-3 D-3 Monterey Sisquoc Foxen Point Sal . soi. Main Area Sansinena. Pyramid Area Salt Lake Salt Lake Salt Lake Salt Lake San Ardo. Area. Main Area San Ardo. Saturation ~. Main Area Santa Maria Valley.. West Area Santa Maria Valley. Perm. West Area Sansinena. Pyramid Area Round Mountain. Pay. Bradley Area Santa Maria Valley. Main Area Round Mountain. Coffee Canyon Area Round Mountain. Main Area Reservoir Parameter Ranges for Selected Heavy Reservoirs a n d Selected Reservoir Parameters (va1ue:value range) Cont.. SWi.Table 7-3 State Field Round Mountain. Depth.
Saturation Reservoir Formation Gravity. Pay. West Area Santa Maria Valley. Eastern Area Tejon. Upper Transition Sisquoc CA CA CA Foxen Monterey Sisquoc Santa Margarita Transition Santa Margarita Fruitvale --.Table 7-3 State CA Field Santa Maria Valley. bbl/acre*ft % md ft ft % % "API ft O F acre 3330 90 480 25 1300:800 400 75 65 35 -1 Sisquoc Sisquoc 15 Monterey CA Houk CA Sisquoc. Temp. Central Area Tejon. w . Gross Net SWi. Basal Foxen Monterey Sisquoc Santa Margarita Transition TransitionSM Reserve. Southeast Area Santa Maria Valley. Western Area Tejon. Central Area Tejon. Pay. Southeast Area Tejon. Onshore Union Avenue Union Avenue Whittier. Depth. Southeast Area Santa Maria Valley. West Area Tejon. Area. soi.. Western Area Torrance. Rideout Height ~ilmington. Perm. I CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA Santa Margarita Valv Round Mountain Tar Ranger Repetto Chanac Santa Margarita Fifth Sand Ranger Chanac Santa Margarita Puente Repetto/P . - Reservoir Parameter Ranges f o r Selected Heavy Reservoirs a n d Selected Reservoir Parameters (va1ue:value range) Cont. Porosity. West Area Santa Maria Valley. Main Area Santa Maria Valley.
Y O Saturation bbvacre*ft 141:120. Eutaw East Yellow Creek. West Soso Depth. 12799 Summerland Washita Fredericks burg. Tar offshore Area Wilrnington.6359:620 Tuscaloosa Tuscaloosa Massive.Table 7-3 State Field Reservoir Reservoir Parameter Ranges for Selected Heavy Reservoirs and Selected Reservoir Parameters (va1ue:value range) Cont. Ranger Onshore Area Wilmington.. Upper Yellow Creek. Tar Zone Onshore Area Wilminaton. OF 122 151 Area. ft -1 Net Pay. Terminal.5069:506 130 9-7150 150:125. ft 2100 3000 2500:23504521 2200:20003413 3000:2850- Temp. Y O soi. acre 4030 4898 Porosity. "API 1432-15 19:14-25 19:11-33 1431-21 20:12-28 Wilrnington. Formation Repetto Puente Repetto/P uente Repetto Puente Repetto La Habra Repetto Nacatoch Gravity. Offshore Area Upper Wilmington. Eutaw West Loco Loco . md 1000 Gross Pay. % 35 Perm. Upper Summerland Washita Fredericks burg.7242:620 150 0-7242 124:100. Tuscaloosa Lower Eutaw Eutaw Hosston Washita Fredericks burg Washita Fredericks burg Eutaw Eutaw Hoxbar 20:16-24 350:50-1200 62 2300:230 Hosston. Lower Tuscaloosa. Terminal. ft 120 SWi. onshore ~ r e aUpper Yorba Linda Main (Signet Sand) Yorba Linda Shallow (Conglome rate) Yorba Linda Shell (F Sands) Bellevue Nacatoch Baxterville BaxtervilIe. SE Heidelburg.
. Saturation Field Reservoir Formation Gravity. South Campana. SW Eagle Hill Edlasater. so$. Poth SubClarksville Austin Chalk Strawn 1600 Carrizo Strawn Strawn Gov't Wells McElroy Jackson Cole 950 Jackson Cole 950 . Pay. 5600 East Charamousca Cole . Gross Net SWi. Temp. South Casa Blanca Cedro Hill Wilcox. W.Wilcox 2 Carrizo 1870 Sand Chemosky Cole Jackson Carrizo 1870 Sand Chernosky Whitsett Jackson Paluxy Whitsett Jackson Jackson Poth SubClarksville Austin Chalk Strawn 1600 Carrizo * Tx TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX Paluxy Chapel Hill.Reservoir Parameter Ranges for Selected Heavy Reservoirs a n d Selected Reservoir Parameters (va1ue:value range) Cont.South Charco Jackson Redondo Jackson Colemena Colony Como. Perm. Pay. Porosity. NE Cost Dangle Dinsmoor Dove Dragoon Creek. Area. State OF acre % md ft ft % % bbYacre*ft "API ft Sho-Vel-Tum Fourth Deese 14 1500 ' OK 78 -1 (Des Moines Deese Unit) SubSubTX Alba Clarksville Clarksville Annacacho Navarro TX Alta Vista Wilcox TX Boggy Creek Wilcox Table 7-3 TX TX TX TX TX TX I I Burmil Camp Hill Campana. Depth.
Carrizo South Sand Simmons City Govt. Area. Porosity. Depth. Pay. Wells. North Jeanie Joe Moss Jourdanton Los Olmos Lundell McCrary Newsome Oa kville Petrox Pewitt Ranch Pittsburg Reservoir Parameter Ranges f o r Selected Heavy Reservoirs a n d Selected Reservoir Parameters (va1ue:value range) Cont. 500 Reklaw Frio Cole SubClarksville SubClarksville Jackson Chernosky Eagle Ford SubClarksville Pleasanton.Table 7-3 State Field Forest Hill Forest Hill Foss Gloriana Govt. Perm. West Bayder Shallow Slocum Carrizo Sutil Viola 4000 Yantis C&H Clark Ranch Cowley Austin Catahoula SubClarksville Minnelusa Tensleep WY c en sleep c en sleep . Saturation Reservoir Formation Gravity. Pay. % % bbYacre*ft "API ft O F acre % md ft ft -1 -1 9:9-20 Eagle Ford Eagle Ford 16 4452 159 1320:132 29 740 Harris Caddell Wills Point Catahoula Serpentine Jackson Reklaw Frio Whitsett SubClarksville SubClarksville Jackson Whitsett Eagle Ford SubClarksville Carrizo McElroy Catahoula Carrizo Austin Catahoula SubClarksville Minnelusa Tensleep 20:20-23 4538 109 200 14 110 -1 16 -1 -1 Harris sand Mirando Poth A Catahoula.. Temp. Gross Net Swir soi. Wells Sinton. 900 sand Serpentine Jackson.
SWi. Perm. Depth. "API ft OF acre % md ft ft % % bbYacre*ft Mimelusa Mimelusa 20:19-20 6005 160 160 19 300 -1 23 -1 -1 -1 Darwin Darwin 14 3470:3470115 350 9 15 35 34 -1 -1 -1 3480 Dinwoody Dinwoody 14 3268:3268112 1528 10 13 -1 3 -1 -1 -1 3296 Madison Madison 15 3702:3470119 273 13 4 -1 72 -1 -1 -1 3702 Phosphoria Phosphoria 14 3370:3370113 1217 10 2 -1 22 -1 -1 -1 3502 Tensleep Tensleep 14 2905:2905130 982 9 7 -1 169 -1 -1 -1 3350 Minnelusa Mimelusa 20 7900 130 200 19:16-19 150 -1 23 -1 -1 -1 . Pay.Table 7-3 State WY WY WY WY WY WY WY Field Eitel Fourbear Fourbear Fourbear Fourbear Fourbear Glo North Reservoir Parameter Ranges for Selected Heavy Reservoirs a n d Selected Reservoir Parameters (va1ue:value range) Cont. Gross Net soil Saturation Reservoir Formation Gravity. Area. Pay.. Temp. Porosity.
APPENDIX 6 STRATIGRAPHIC MAPS OF MAJOR CALIFORNIA HEAVY OIL FIELDS All maps reproduced with permission from the California Division of Oil and Gas. T R l l (1985) and TR12 (1991) .
WILMINGTON OIL FIELD .
MIDWAY-SUNSET OIL FIELD .
MIDWAY.SUNSET OIL FIELD .
MIDWAY SUNSET OIL FIELD - .
MIDWAY SUNSET O I L F I E L D - .
ECTRlC LOG REEF RIDGE .SOUTH BELRlDGE TYPICAL .
NORTH BELRIDGE CONTOURS ON TOP OF BLOEMER SAND .
USB .HONDO OFFSHORE OIL FIELD FEDERAL OCS CONTOURS ON TOP MONTEREY SILICEOUS STRUCTURE HONDO "A" CROSS SECTION RINCON . l2OOO COZY DELL - 13000 MATILUA I COURTESY OF EXXON CO.1000 A SACATE .~ O U E R O S ~ SESPE/ ALEGRlA - loo00 (UNDIFFJ ~ ~ ~ O T ..
HUNTINGTON BEACH OIL FIELD .
a Z = a I : 3 TOPANGA I U YIOCUIE) .WO .HUNTINGTON BEACH OIL FIELD Offshore Area 'ORMATION AN0 ZONE I I TYPICAL ELECTRIC LOG FOR DATA ON ENTIRE FIELD SEE ONSHORE AREA ' REPETTO" E - 1 Y CONTOURS ON TOP OF LOWER MAIN ZONE YUL 0 I P 2000 I I . PUENTE r W a a 0 .
CONTOURS ON S I B ELECTRIC LOG MARKER .
CAT CANYON OIL FIELD
Area and West Area
C A N Y O N O I L FIELD
East Area and Central Area
SANTA MARIA VALLEY OIL
SAN ARDO OIL FIELD 1 T23S RIIE I CONTOURS ON TOP OF LOMBARD1 OIL SAND OR EOUIVALEM GRANITIC BASEMENT .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.