You are on page 1of 11

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 6957 – 6967

13th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT-13, 14-18


November 2016, Lausanne, Switzerland

CO2 Sequestration and Enhanced Oil Recovery at Depleted Oil/Gas


Reservoirs
Zhenxue Daia*, Hari Viswanathana, Ting Xiaob, Richard Middletona, Feng Panb, William
Ampomahc, Changbing Yangd, Youqin Zhoud, Wei Jiab, Si-Yong Leee, Martha Catherc
Robert Balchc* and Brian McPhersonb
a
Earth and Environmental Sciences Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA
b
Energy and Geoscience Institute, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA
c
Petroleum Recovery Research Center, New Mexico Tech, Socorro, NM 87801,USA
d
Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin, TX 78713, USA
e
Schlumberger Carbon Services, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

Abstract

This paper presents a quantitative evaluation of the operational and technical risks of an active CO 2-EOR project. A set of risk
factor metrics is defined to post-process the Monte Carlo (MC) simulations for statistical analysis. The risk factors are expressed
as measurable quantities that can be used to gain insight into project risk (e.g. environmental and economic risks) without the
need to generate a rigorous consequence structure, which include (a) CO2 injection rate, (b) net CO2 injection rate, (c) cumulative
CO2 storage, (d) cumulative water injection, (e) oil production rate, (f) cumulative oil production, (g) cumulative CH4
production, and (h) CO2 breakthrough time. The Morrow reservoir at the Farnsworth Unit (FWU) site, Texas, is used as an
example for studying the multi-scale statistical approach for CO2 accounting and risk analysis. A set of geostatistical-based MC
simulations of CO2-oil/gas-water flow and transport in the Morrow formation are conducted for evaluating the risk metrics. A
response-surface-based economic model has been derived to calculate the CO2-EOR profitability for the FWU site with a current
oil price, which suggests that approximately 31% of the 1000 realizations can be profitable. If government carbon-tax credits are
available, or the oil price goes up or CO2 capture and operating expenses reduce, more realizations would be profitable.
2017 Published
© 2017 The Authors. Published
by Elsevier Ltd.byThis
Elsevier Ltd. access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
is an open
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of GHGT-13.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of GHGT-13.
Keywords: CO2 sequestration; enhanced oil recovery; risk factor matrix; reservoir heterogeneity; geostatistical modeling; uncertainty analysis.

* Corresponding author. Tel.:+01-505-665-6387; fax: +01-505-665-8737.


E-mail address: daiz@lanl.gov

1876-6102 © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of GHGT-13.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.08.034
6958 Zhenxue Dai et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 6957 – 6967

1. Introduction

Geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2) is a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. CO2 is also an
attractive displacing agent for enhanced oil recovery (CO 2-EOR) because it has a relatively low minimum miscibility
pressure in a wide range of crude oils [1-5]. Since a large portion of the injected CO 2 remains in place in depleted
reservoirs after CO2-EOR, it is an option for permanently sequestering CO2 with reduced costs [6-8]. However, with
very low viscosity, CO2 tends to finger and break through to production wells and its mobility control is poor. To
overcome this disadvantage, current CO2-EOR projects alternatively inject gas and water (or brine) as slugs in what
is known as water-alternating-gas (WAG) to control CO2 mobility [9-14]. While WAG can be very effective, more
detailed studies of CO2 interaction with oil, formation water, and heterogeneous sediments are needed for
understanding the mechanisms of CO2 geological sequestration in depleted reservoirs. Moreover, since during CO2-
EOR processes, a substantial amount of CO2 may be recovered along with oil from the production wells, a
quantitative evaluation of the total amount of CO2 irreversibly stored in reservoirs is also needed to assess the
sequestration performance [15-18].

This study intends to develop a statistical framework for CO 2 accounting and risk analysis in CO2-EOR sites. The
Morrow reservoir at the Farnsworth Unit (FWU) of the Anadarko Basin in northern Texas is used as an example for
developing the framework. The regional Morrow reservoir in the Anadarko Basin has produced more than 100
million barrels of oil and 14.2 billion m3 of gas since 1950s (including primary and secondary recovery [19-21]).
Chaparral Energy LLC currently operates the FWU and has been injecting CO2 within the site through five-spot
patterns since December 2010 (tertiary recovery). Chaparral will be adding 3-5 new patterns each year for a total of
25 patterns for CO2-EOR. Figure 1 shows the location of the FWU site and borehole distributions. The source of
anthropogenic CO2 used by Chaparral is from a fertilizer plant in Borger, Texas, and an ethanol plant in Liberal,
Kansas. The Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration (SWP) collaborates with Chaparral to monitor
and evaluate the long-term storage of CO2 and examine performance of EOR in the Morrow reservoir. Net CO 2
injection is planned at 10 MMscf/d (about 210,000 tons/yr), for a total of about 1.05 million tons in five years. This
does not include recycled CO2 that is presently at about 2 MMscf/d [19, 22-24].

Our work starts from characterizing reservoir heterogeneity and defining the associated independent parameters,
which can be classified into three types: reservoir property parameters, operational parameters, and oil/gas property
parameters. In most CO2-EOR sites, we do not know exactly values of the independent parameters, but we may
obtain enough information to characterize or define the uncertainty distributions of these independent parameters.
These distributions are used to sample these uncertain parameters using the Latin Hypercube sampling method.
Then, we apply the Los Alamos National Lab developed geostatistical code GEOST [25-27] for simulating the
heterogeneous permeability and porosity fields and to build the geologic and statistical models for Monte Carlo
(MC) simulations. A reservoir simulator SENSOR [28] is used for modeling CO2-oil-water flow and reactive
transport in the reservoir, followed by response surface generation and general statistical analysis. For quantitative
evaluation of the operational and technical uncertainty of the CO2-EOR system, we defined a set of output variables
(or risk factor metrics) to post-process the five-spot-pattern-based MC simulation results for statistical analysis. The
metrics include: CO2 injection rate, CO2 first breakthrough time, CO2 production rate, cumulative net CO2 storage,
cumulative oil production, cumulative CH4 production, water injection rate, and water production rate.

2. Site characterization

In the FWU site, the Morrow reservoir lies at a depth around 2330 m and its typical thicknesses are between 6.7
and 15.24 m, in general, with very decent permeability (0.1 to 500 mD). Previous studies in the Morrow reservoir at
the FWU and nearby oil fields provide prior information about the distributions of regional Morrow reservoir
parameters, such as the depth, thickness, permeability, and porosity [29-31].

The regional Morrow reservoir mainly consists of incised valley-fill sandstones of the Lower Pennsylvanian that
extend into eastern Colorado and western Kansas [32-34]. Recently, more measurements of the Morrow reservoir
Zhenxue Dai et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 6957 – 6967 6959

parameters were collected at the FWU site by SWP and Chaparral [30-31]. A summary of the measured porosity and
permeability and other independent parameters is listed in Table 1. The permeability and porosity distributions at
this site are positively correlated [4], in which permeability is estimated between 0.2 and 783.5 milli-Darcy (mD)
and the porosity is between 0.05 and 0.23. It is estimated that the CO2 storage capacity of the Morrow within the
Farnsworth field may exceed 10 million tons based only on rough estimates of formation volume and porosity.

Fig. 1. The location of the FWU site, its CO2 sources, and locations of wells in the field.

Table 1. Summarized uncertain parameters (independent parameters) and risk (or uncertainty) metrics for CO2-EOR in the FWU site.

The existing spatial-based permeability data are also collected from the FWU site. Figure 1 shows locations of
the wells with permeability data for the Morrow reservoir in this site. By using the permeability data collected from
6960 Zhenxue Dai et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 6957 – 6967

51 wells (see Fig. 1) and Equation 1 [35-37], we computed the log permeability semivariograms in the vertical and
horizontal directions.

¦ Y ( x )  Y ( x )
1 2
γ̂\ (h) i j (1)
2 N ( h) ( i , j )N ( h )

where, γ̂\ is the sample semivariograms of log permeability data Y ( xi ) =log10 (ki ) , \ represents directions of
semivariograms (e.g., vertical and horizontal directions), N(h) is the pair number at a lag distance of h, xi and xj are
two points separated by a distance h. The sample semivariogram can be fitted with an exponential function as:

γ\ (h) V 2 (1  e h / O ) (2)

where, γ\ is the modeled semivariograms of log permeability, V 2 is variance, and O is the integral scale of log
permeability. By fitting Eq. (1) with an exponential function (Eq. 2), we estimated statistical parameters of the log
permeability, which are: a variance of 1.05, vertical integral scale of 3.5 m and horizontal integral scale of 350 m for
the FWU site. On the basis of the prior parameter information in the regional Morrow reservoir and the geostatistical
analysis of recently-measured porosity-permeability data, we summarize the ranges and distributions of the
uncertain parameters for simulating the heterogeneity of the Morrow reservoir in the FWU site in Table 1. Having
limited by the available data, we assume that the permeability anisotropy factor (or ratio of vertical and horizontal
permeability) is assumed to be 0.1. The relative permeability functions for CO 2-oil-water multiphase flow
simulations were calculated on the base of Stone’s approach to define the related coefficients [38-40]. Table 1 also
lists the range of time ratio of WAG for alternatively injecting CO 2 gas and water within each time period or cycle
(such as 10 days or 20 days). This injection time ratio is calculated by dividing CO2 injection time (days) with water
injection time (days) in each time period.

3. Geostatistically-based MC simulations

A geostatistically-based MC simulation of CO2-oil-water flow and transport in the Morrow reservoir is conducted
by coupling the uncertainty quantification tool PSUADE [41], the Los Alamos-developed geostatistical modeling
tool GEOST [25-27] modified from the Geostatistical Software Library [42], and the multi-phase reservoir simulator
SENSOR [28]. PSUADE is used to sample 1000 realizations of the uncertain parameters with Latin Hypercube
Sampling and the sampled results are shown in Figure 2. GEOST is used to analyze the existing permeability data
and to generate heterogeneous permeability distributions for the reservoir with sequential Gaussian simulations. The
reservoir porosity is computed by positively correlated with the generated permeability data. The reservoir simulator
SENSOR is used to model CO 2-oil-water flow and transport in the reservoir for each generated heterogeneous model
under an integrated MC simulation framework.

The five-spot pattern is selected for designing the pattern of injection and production wells, where the production
well is located in the center surrounded by four injection wells at the corners of the pattern with a well spacing (or
injection distance). The heterogeneity in the model area is assumed to be symmetric in all four quadrants of the EOR
pattern. This way, only one quarter of the five-spot pattern is required in the model with one injection well and one
fourth of the production well, which implies that all of the six boundaries (top, bottom, front, back, left and right)
are fixed as no-flow. The numerical model sizes and grid numbers are automatically calculated based on the
sampled well spacing and reservoir thickness and a uniform mesh is used for each realization. The reservoir
simulations using SENSOR start from the sampled initial water and oil saturations at a steady state and then
simulate CO2 injection and oil/CH4 production at the FWU site over 10 years for the 1000 realizations. For each
realization a post-processing step is conducted to compute statistics on eight risk factor metrics: (1) CO 2 injection
rate, (2) CO2 first breakthrough time, (3) CO2 production rate, (4) cumulative net CO2 storage, (5) cumulative oil
production, (6) cumulative CH4 production, (7) water injection rate, and (8) water production rate. The MC
Zhenxue Dai et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 6957 – 6967 6961

convergence test results are shown in Figure 3, which indicate after 850 runs the MC simulations are converged. The
MC simulation results are shown with horsetail plots for net CO2 injection and cumulative oil production (Fig. 4),
which are then used to derive response surfaces or reduced order models (ROMs) for understanding the relationships
of the input parameters and the output variables.

Fig. 2. Parameter distributions developed from 1000 realizations. The reservoir permeability is sampled with a log normal distribution and
porosity is positively correlated with permeability. The well distance is a log uniform distribution. The others are uniform distributions.

Fig. 3. The convergence test of the MC simulations. The mean of the major output variables are converged at about 850 realizations.
6962 Zhenxue Dai et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 6957 – 6967

Fig. 4. Horsetail plots for net CO2 injection (left) and cumulative oil production (right).

4. Response surfaces and statistical analysis

Figure 5 shows the one-dimensional plots of the multivariate adaptive regression spline (MARS) response
surfaces for CO2 injection and oil and gas (CH4) production in relation to the most sensitive independent parameters.
The net CO2 injection rates and oil/gas production rates are positively correlated to reservoir porosity, permeability
and thickness. Note that for the 1000 MC runs the CO2 injection pressures are assumed to be 70% of the hydrostatic
pressures at the reservoir tops, which causes the CO 2 injection rates and oil/gas production rates to be positively
correlated to the reservoir depths. The developed mathematical equations for net CO2 injection, cumulative oil
production, and gas (CH4) production (as examples) are presented in Equations (3), (4) and (5).

Fig. 5. One-dimensional response surfaces for net CO2 injection rates and oil/gas production rates generated with PSUADE.

ROM_NetCO2Inject(Mt) = 721.0091684 - 9.22221633 * max(0, 49.61 - Thick) + 453.9588939 * max(0, Kx -


49.82) - 2.278896357 * max(0, 49.82 - Kx) + 1514.391466 * max(0, Por - 0.12) - 4067.435227 * max(0, 0.12 - Por)
- 1912.404893 * max(0, 0.56899 - Dis) + 245.1777077 * max(0, WAG - 0.68) + 3387.766016 * max(0, WAG -
0.86) - 1254.53875 * max(0, 0.86 - WAG) + 47.52913909 * max(0, 44.71 - Thick) * max(0, 0.12 - Por) -
36.88053072 * max(0, 49.61 - Thick) * max(0, Dis - 0.32329) + 53.32785765 * max(0, 49.61 - Thick) * max(0,
0.32329 - Dis) + 64.93223405 * max(0, Thick - 40.45) * max(0, WAG - 0.86) - 46.66293823 * max(0, 40.45 -
Thick) * max(0, WAG - 0.86) - 367.5922439 * max(0, 49.61 - Thick) * max(0, WAG - 0.99) + 15.98807306 *
max(0, 49.61 - Thick) * max(0, 0.99 - WAG) + 423.797223 * max(0, Kx - 32.9) * max(0, WAG - 0.86) -
62.21762049 * max(0, 32.9 - Kx) * max(0, WAG - 0.86) - 667.6020227 * max(0, 49.82 - Kx) * max(0, WAG -
Zhenxue Dai et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 6957 – 6967 6963

0.99) + 3.356514753 * max(0, 49.82 - Kx) * max(0, 0.99 - WAG) - 4154.706359 * max(0, Por - 0.11) * max(0,
0.56899 - Dis) + 10437.41559 * max(0, 0.11 - Por) * max(0, 0.56899 - Dis) + 849.1741425 * max(0, Dis - 0.38795)
* max(0, 0.86 - WAG) + 106927.0983 * max(0, 0.56899 - Dis) * max(0, WAG - 0.99) + 2890.347273 * max(0,
0.56899 - Dis) * max(0, 0.99 - WAG) - 98.40124912 * max(0, WAG - 0.86) * max(0, 70.56 - Temp) - 15.70587535
* max(0, Thick - 31.38) * max(0, Kx - 32.9) * max(0, WAG - 0.86) + 31.18324799 * max(0, 31.38 - Thick) *
max(0, Kx - 32.9) * max(0, WAG - 0.86) - 32.50322936 * max(0, 40.45 - Thick) * max(0, Kx - 31.93) * max(0,
WAG - 0.86) + 215.6954368 * max(0, 44.71 - Thick) * max(0, 0.12 - Por) * max(0, Dis - 0.29743) - 380.1826063 *
max(0, 44.71 - Thick) * max(0, 0.12 - Por) * max(0, 0.29743 - Dis) + 46.43878683 * max(0, 49.61 - Thick) *
max(0, Dis - 0.37502) * max(0, 0.99 - WAG) - 73.0759722 * max(0, 49.61 - Thick) * max(0, 0.37502 - Dis) *
max(0, 0.99 - WAG) - 5.292934214 * max(0, Thick - 37.6) * max(0, WAG - 0.86) * max(0, 70.56 - Temp) +
1.508686115 * max(0, 37.6 - Thick) * max(0, WAG - 0.86) * max(0, 70.56 - Temp) + 3949.730191 * max(0, Kx -
32.9) * max(0, Dis - 0.50427) * max(0, WAG - 0.86) + 144.0638915 * max(0, Kx - 32.9) * max(0, 0.50427 - Dis) *
max(0, WAG - 0.86) - 252.7477274 * max(0, Kx - 48.62) * max(0, WAG - 0.86) * max(0, 70.56 - Temp) +
2.105008 * max(0, 48.62 - Kx) * max(0, WAG - 0.86) * max(0, 70.56 - Temp) + 22255.02988 * max(0, 0.12 - Por)
* max(0, Dis - 0.15518) * max(0, 0.7 - WAG) + 168.5166173 * max(0, Por - 0.07) * max(0, WAG - 0.86) * max(0,
Temp - 70.56) - 1327.814275 * max(0, 0.07 - Por) * max(0, WAG - 0.86) * max(0, Temp - 70.56) - 656.9645046 *
max(0, 45.49 - Thick) * max(0, 0.12 - Por) * max(0, Dis - 0.15518) * max(0, 0.7 - WAG) - 21371.34003 * max(0,
Kx - 32.9) * max(0, Por - 0.02) * max(0, Dis - 0.50427) * max(0, WAG - 0.86) - 22.33595524 * max(0, Kx - 32.9) *
max(0, 0.50427 - Dis) * max(0, WAG - 0.86) * max(0, Temp - 52.28) (3)

ROM_CumulativeOilProd(MMbbl)= 729.5950188 + 11.76609943 * max(0, Thick - 44.32) - 5.023270873 *


max(0, 44.32 - Thick) + 1502.261512 * max(0, Por - 0.15) - 1394.09396 * max(0, 0.15 - Por) + 962.6264292 *
max(0, Dis - 0.28449)+ 985.4008266 * max(0, Dis - 0.41381) + 2711.625247 * max(0, Dis - 0.58193) -
1550.805594 * max(0, 0.58193 - Dis) - 67.11909029 * max(0, 44.32 - Thick) * max(0, Por - 0.13) + 38.56382832 *
max(0, 44.32 - Thick) * max(0, 0.13 - Por) + 12.02229325 * max(0, Thick - 44.32) * max(0, Por - 0.06) -
42.31841343 * max(0, Thick - 44.32) * max(0, 0.06 - Por) - 33.01371881 * max(0, 44.32 - Thick) * max(0, Dis -
0.27156) + 32.3113546 * max(0, 44.32 - Thick) * max(0, 0.27156 - Dis) - 26.91323641 * max(0, 44.32 - Thick) *
max(0, Dis - 0.41381) + 686.7602889 * max(0, Thick - 44.32) * max(0, Dis - 0.56899) - 26.53306373 * max(0,
Thick - 44.32) * max(0, 0.56899 - Dis) - 2134.074683 * max(0, Thick - 44.96) * max(0, Dis - 0.58193)- 32.5996619
* max(0, 44.96 - Thick) * max(0, Dis - 0.58193) + 142.94276 * max(0, Thick - 47.18) * max(0, Dis - 0.41381) +
62.19916974 * max(0, Thick - 47.81) * max(0, Dis - 0.28449) - 18.80565249 * max(0, 47.81 - Thick) * max(0, Dis
- 0.28449) - 1828.766882 * max(0, Depth - 2.9405) * max(0, Dis - 0.41381) - 94.91044802 * max(0, 2.9405 -
Depth) * max(0, Dis - 0.41381) - 97.4889043 * max(0, 2.95309 - Depth) * max(0, Dis - 0.28449) + 9577.834453 *
max(0, Por - 0.15) * max(0, Dis - 0.34915) - 4720.848917 * max(0, Por - 0.15) * max(0, 0.34915 - Dis) -
12625.10541 * max(0, 0.15 - Por) * max(0, Dis - 0.2457) + 10636.22546 * max(0, 0.15 - Por) * max(0, 0.2457 -
Dis) - 2400.467938 * max(0, 0.15 - Por) * max(0, Dis - 0.31036) + 8908.547896 * max(0, Por - 0.15) * max(0, Dis -
0.20691) - 5115.95259 * max(0, 0.15 - Por) * max(0, Dis - 0.41381) + 216.0717858 * max(0, Thick - 31.38) *
max(0, Por - 0.15) * max(0, Dis - 0.34915) - 183.1080721 * max(0, 31.38 - Thick) * max(0, Por - 0.15) * max(0,
Dis - 0.34915) - 166.1560669 * max(0, Thick - 38.44) * max(0, 0.15 - Por) * max(0, Dis - 0.41381) + 191.0382823
* max(0, 38.44 - Thick) * max(0, 0.15 - Por) * max(0, Dis - 0.41381) - 207.5975304 * max(0, Thick - 42.53) *
max(0, 0.15 - Por) * max(0, Dis - 0.31036) + 143.6271648 * max(0, 42.53 - Thick) * max(0, 0.15 - Por) * max(0,
Dis - 0.31036) + 51.285757 * max(0, 44.32 - Thick) * max(0, 0.13 - Por) * max(0, Dis - 0.27156)- 253.4688226 *
max(0, 44.32 - Thick) * max(0, 0.13 - Por) * max(0, 0.27156 - Dis) + 6241.126054 * max(0, 44.32 - Thick) *
max(0, Por - 0.13) * max(0, Dis - 0.56899)+ 131.0841426 * max(0, 44.32 - Thick) * max(0, Por - 0.13) * max(0,
0.56899 - Dis) + 477.1719364 * max(0, Thick - 46.8) * max(0, Por - 0.15) * max(0, Dis - 0.20691) - 157.048742 *
max(0, 46.8 - Thick) * max(0, Por - 0.15) * max(0, Dis - 0.20691) - 724.1136611 * max(0, Thick - 47.73) * max(0,
0.15 - Por) * max(0, Dis - 0.2457) + 149.188039 * max(0, 47.73 - Thick) * max(0, 0.15 - Por) * max(0, Dis -
0.2457) - 1204.083756 * max(0, Depth - 1.519) * max(0, 0.15 - Por) * max(0, Dis - 0.31036) + 1397.65128 *
max(0, Por - 0.15) * max(0, Dis - 0.20691) * max(0, Temp - 109.5) - 9.927959073 * max(0, Por - 0.15) * max(0,
Dis - 0.20691) * max(0, 109.5 - Temp) (4)
6964 Zhenxue Dai et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 6957 – 6967

ROM_CumulativeCH4Prod(kt) = 12.90849843+ 0.09629156992 * max(0, Thick - 44.32) - 0.09366657327 *


max(0, 44.32 - Thick) + 24.63077806 * max(0, Por - 0.15) - 23.89854828 * max(0, 0.15 - Por) + 10.81241347 *
max(0, Dis - 0.28449) + 22.18903003 * max(0, Dis - 0.43969) + 31.34300675 * max(0, Dis - 0.58193) -
27.56098664 * max(0, 0.58193 - Dis) - 0.8725203247 * max(0, 44.32 - Thick) * max(0, Por - 0.14) + 0.6087068754
* max(0, 44.32 - Thick) * max(0, 0.14 - Por) + 0.3523999733 * max(0, Thick - 44.32) * max(0, Por - 0.06) -
1.176800127 * max(0, Thick - 44.32) * max(0, 0.06 - Por) - 0.9281598413 * max(0, 44.32 - Thick) * max(0, Dis -
0.27156) + 0.6184339087 * max(0, 44.32 - Thick) * max(0, 0.27156 - Dis) + 0.8409776266 * max(0, Thick - 44.32)
* max(0, Dis - 0.31036) - 0.7497816874 * max(0, Thick - 44.32) * max(0, 0.31036 - Dis) + 2.440309488 * max(0,
Thick - 48.37) * max(0, Dis - 0.43969)- 0.8253968567 * max(0, 48.37 - Thick) * max(0, Dis - 0.43969) +
1.717991165 * max(0, Depth - 1.51263) * max(0, Dis - 0.28449) - 4.476996931 * max(0, 1.51263 - Depth) *
max(0, Dis - 0.28449) + 29.1386469 * max(0, Por - 0.03) * max(0, Dis - 0.28449) + 156.4591002 * max(0, Por -
0.15) * max(0, Dis - 0.34915) - 70.39806907 * max(0, Por - 0.15) * max(0, 0.34915 - Dis) - 256.8962092 * max(0,
0.15 - Por) * max(0, Dis - 0.2457) + 181.479065 * max(0, 0.15 - Por) * max(0, 0.2457 - Dis) + 144.5843921 *
max(0, 0.15 - Por) * max(0, Dis - 0.42674) + 150.629533 * max(0, Por - 0.15) * max(0, Dis - 0.20691) -
0.013989748 * max(0, Dis - 0.28449) * max(0, Temp - 60.39) + 0.04097174457 * max(0, Dis - 0.28449) * max(0,
60.39 - Temp) + 0.0879581709 * max(0, 48.37 - Thick) * max(0, Depth - 1.66939) * max(0, Dis - 0.43969) +
0.1632746123 * max(0, 48.37 - Thick) * max(0, 1.66939 - Depth) * max(0, Dis - 0.43969) - 7.244174366 * max(0,
Thick - 5.02) * max(0, 0.15 - Por) * max(0, Dis - 0.42674) + 4.628446792 * max(0, Thick - 31.38) * max(0, Por -
0.15) * max(0, Dis - 0.34915)- 4.50705365 * max(0, 31.38 - Thick) * max(0, Por - 0.15) * max(0, Dis - 0.34915) -
2.049922195 * max(0, 44.32 - Thick) * max(0, 0.14 - Por) * max(0, 0.28449 - Dis) + 40.33623419 * max(0, 44.32 -
Thick) * max(0, Por - 0.14) * max(0, Dis - 0.5431) + 1.570746838 * max(0, 44.32 - Thick) * max(0, Por - 0.14) *
max(0, 0.5431 - Dis) + 6.452385184 * max(0, Thick - 44.42) * max(0, 0.15 - Por) * max(0, 0.2457 - Dis) -
1.946069288 * max(0, 44.42 - Thick) * max(0, 0.15 - Por) * max(0, 0.2457 - Dis) + 25.19787759 * max(0, Thick -
47.15) * max(0, Por - 0.15) * max(0, Dis - 0.34915) - 3.08630696 * max(0, 47.66 - Thick) * max(0, Por - 0.15) *
max(0, Dis - 0.20691)+ 1.399395069 * max(0, 48.37 - Thick) * max(0, Por - 0.07) * max(0, Dis - 0.43969) -
3.142041277 * max(0, 48.37 - Thick) * max(0, 0.07 - Por) * max(0, Dis - 0.43969) - 190.2281807 * max(0, Thick -
49.8) * max(0, 0.15 - Por) * max(0, Dis - 0.2457) + 5.178611109 * max(0, 49.8 - Thick) * max(0, 0.15 - Por) *
max(0, Dis - 0.2457) - 20.79397313 * max(0, Depth - 1.51263) * max(0, Por - 0.14) * max(0, Dis - 0.28449) -
14.49018526 * max(0, Depth - 1.51263) * max(0, 0.14 - Por) * max(0, Dis - 0.28449)+ 18.43276944 * max(0, Por -
0.15) * max(0, Dis - 0.20691) * max(0, Temp - 109.5) + 0.2542735753 * max(0, Por - 0.15) * max(0, Dis -
0.20691) * max(0, 109.5 - Temp) (5)

where, Thick = reservoir thickness (m), Kx = horizontal permeability (mD), Por = porosity, Dis = distance between
injection and production wells (m), Depth = reservoir top depth (m), WAG = time ratio of CO 2 injection time, and
Temp = reservoir temperature (oC).

5. Summary and discussion

This study presents an integrated geostatistically-based MC simulation for modeling the complex multi-phase
flow and transport processes of CO2-oil/gas-water in the reservoir and generating the computationally efficient
response surfaces. These response surfaces are in relation to the uncertain parameters in a reduced order form. The
global sensitivity results indicate that the reservoir thickness, permeability, and porosity are the key parameters
controlling the CO2/water injection and oil/CH4 production rates. The distances between the injection and
production wells (well spacing) and the initial water saturation also have a large impact on the oil/CH4 production.

The response surface analysis shows that net CO2 injection rate increases with the increasing reservoir thickness,
permeability, porosity and well spacing. The oil/CH 4 production rates are positively correlated to reservoir
permeability, porosity and thickness, but negatively correlated to the initial water saturation. The developed
response surfaces are utilized in a framework of economic analysis and risk assessment. We calculated 1000
separate reservoir simulations—including injected CO2 and water as well as produced CO2, water, oil, and gas—
using the response surfaces and combinations of input parameters including reservoir permeability, porosity, and
Zhenxue Dai et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 6957 – 6967 6965

thickness for the Morrow Formation. First, we calculated the net CO2 stored in the depleted reservoir. At the stop
point (5 years), about 40% of the injected CO 2 is permanently stored in the reservoir and 60% of the CO 2 is
produced from the production wells. We assume that this produced CO2 is separated, recycled, and re-injected into
this (or another) reservoir. The CO2-to-oil-produced ratio for our 1000 realizations is 1:2.2; 1 ton of gross CO 2
injection produces 2.2 barrels of oil. When we account for CO 2 recycling and storage, the net ratio is 1:5.5; 5.5
barrels of oil is produced for each ton of CO2 stored. Then, we developed a straightforward economic model to
calculate the profitability of CO2-enhaned oil recovery for the FWU site. Total profit of each realization is estimated
by using a current oil price ($38/bbl) and other cost parameters from the literature including CO 2 capture and
transportation cost ($30/ton_CO2), CO2 separation/recycling cost ($10/tonCO2), water treatment cost ($2/ton_water),
operating expense, capital expense, royalties and production tax [43-46]. Outputs from the economic model suggest
that approximately 31% of the 1000 realizations can be profitable. Profitable realizations tend to consist of some
cases with relatively larger reservoir permeability and thickness. If government carbon-tax credits are available, the
oil price goes up, the CO2-EOR processes can be further optimized; if CO2 capture and operating expenses are
reduced, more realizations would be profitable. These results provide valuable insights for us to understand the
impacts of reservoir heterogeneity and other operational parameters on critical economic decision-making, and the
cost-effectiveness of CO2 sequestration through EOR at other depleted reservoirs.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this work is provided by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE), National Energy Technology
Laboratory (NETL) through the Southwest Partnership on Carbon Sequestration (SWP) under Award No. DE-FC26-
05NT42591. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of George Guthrie, Rajesh Pawar, and Julianna Fessenden-
Rahn for providing guidance and constructive comments on our work.

Disclaimer

This paper 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, express 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 favouring
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.

References

[1] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), IPCC special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by Working
Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2005, p 442.
[2] Dai, Z., E. Keating, D. Bacon, H. Viswanathan, P. Stauffer, A. Jordan, R. Pawar, Probabilistic evaluation of shallow groundwater resources at
a hypothetical carbon sequestration site, Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 4006.
[3] Yang, C., Z. Dai, K. Romanak, S. Hovorka, R. Trevino, Inverse Modeling of Water-Rock-CO2 Batch Experiments: Implications for Potential
Impacts on Groundwater Resources at Carbon Sequestration Sites, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 2798–2806.
[4] Bacon, D., N. Qafoku, Z. Dai, E. Keating, C. Brown, Modeling the Impact of Carbon Dioxide Leakage into an Unconfined, Oxidizing
Carbonate Aquifer, Int. J. of Greenhouse Gas Con. 2016, 44, 290-299.
[5] Bachu, S. Screening and ranking of sedimentary basins for sequestration of CO2 in geological media in response to climate change, Environ.
Geol. 2003, 44, 277-289.
6966 Zhenxue Dai et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 6957 – 6967

[6] Enick, R.M. and D.K. Olsen, Mobility and Conformance Control for Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR) via Thickeners,
Foams, and Gels – A Detailed Literature Review of 40 Years of Research, National Energy Technology Laboratory, DOE/NETL-2012/1540,
Activity 4003.200.01, 2012, 267p.
[7] Bacon, D.H., Z. Dai, L. Zheng, Geochemical impacts of carbon dioxide, brine, trace metal and organic leakage into an unconfined, oxidizing
limestone aquifer, Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 4684-4707.
[8] Godec, M., V.A. Kuusktaa, T. V. Leeuwen, L.S. Melzer, N. Wildgust, CO2 storage in depleted oil fields: The worldwide potential for carbon
dioxide enhanced oil recovery, Energy Procedia 2011, 4, 2162-2169.
[9] Azzolina, N. A., M. J. Small, D. V. Nakles, K. A. Glazewski, W. D. Peck, C. D. Gorecki, G. S. Bromhal, and R. M. Dilmore, Quantifying the
Benefit of Wellbore Leakage Potential Estimates for Prioritizing Long-Term MVA Well Sampling at a CO2 Storage Site, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 2015, 49 (2), 1215–1224.
[10] Christensen, J.R., E.H. Stenby, A. Skauge, Review of WAG Field Experience, SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng. 2001, April, 97–106.
[11] Grigg, R.B., D.S. Schechter, Improved Efficiency of Miscible CO2 Floods and Enhanced Prospects for CO2 Flooding Heterogeneous
Reservoirs, Final report 1997, Contract No. DE-FG22-94BC14977, New Mexico Petroleum Recovery Research Center, New Mexico Institute
of Mining and Technology, Socorro, New Mexico, DOE/BC/14977-13.
[12] Asghari, K., A. Al-Dliwe, N. Mahinpey, Effect of Operational Parameters on Carbon Dioxide Storage Capacity in a Heterogeneous Oil
Reservoir: A Case Study, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2006, 45, 2452–2456.
[13] Bachu, S. Identification of oil reservoirs suitable for CO2-EOR and CO2 storage (CCUS) using reserves databases, with application to
Alberta, Canada, Int. J. of Greenh. Gas Con. 2016, 44, 152–165.
[14] Nuñez-Lopez, V., M.H. Holtz, D.J. Wood, W.A. Ambrose and S.D. Hovorka, Quick-look assessments to identify optimal CO2 EOR storage
sites, Environ. Geol. 2008, 54, 1695–1706.
[15] Ampomah, W., R.S. Balch, M. Cather, D. Rose-Coss, Z. Dai, J. Heath,T. Dewers, P. Mozley, Evaluation of CO2 Storage Mechanisms in
CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery Sites: Application to Morrow Sandstone Reservoir, Energy and Fuels 2016, DOI:
10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01888.
[16] Dai, Z., R. Middleton, H. Viswanathan, J. Fessenden-Rahn, J. Bauman, R. Pawar, S. Lee and B. McPherson, An integrated framework for
optimizing CO2 sequestration and enhanced oil recovery, Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2014, 1, 49-54.
[17] McDonald, J. D., D. Kracko, M. Doyle-Eisele, C. E. Garner, C. Wegerski, A. Senft, E. Knipping, S. Shaw, and A. Rohr, Carbon Capture and
Sequestration: An Exploratory Inhalation Toxicity Assessment of Amine-Trapping Solvents and Their Degradation Products, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 2014, 48 (18), pp 10821–10828.
[18] Dai, Z., H. Viswanathan, J. Fessenden-Rahn, R. Middleton, F. Pan, W. Jia, S-Y Lee, B. McPherson, W. Ampomah, R. Grigg, Uncertainty
quantification for CO2 sequestration and enhanced oil recovery, Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 7685–7693.
[19] SWP, The Southwest Partnership on Carbon Sequestration (SWP) 2013, http://www.southwestcarbonpartnership.org/.
[20] Swanson, D.C., Deltaic deposits in the Pennsylvanian upper Morrow Formation of the Anadarko Basin, In Pennsylvanian sandstones of the
Mid-continent: Tulsa Geological Society Publication 1 1979, 115-168.
[21] White, M.D., B.J. McPherson, R.B. Grigg,W. Ampomah, M.S. Appold, Numerical Simulation of Carbon Dioxide Injection in the Western
Section of the Farnsworth Unit, Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 7891–7912.
[22] Ampomah, W., R. S. Balch, R. B. Grigg, Z. Dai and F. Pan, Compositional simulation of CO 2 storage capacity in depleted oil reservoirs.
Carbon Management Technology Conference, 2015, ID: CMTC-439476-MS, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7122/439476-MS.
[23] Pan, F., B. J. McPherson, Z. Dai, W. Jia, S. Lee, W. Ampomah, H. Viswanathan, R. Esser, Uncertainty Analysis of Carbon Sequestration in
an Active CO2-EOR Field, Int. J.of Greenh. Gas Control 2016, 51, 18-28.
[24] Ampomah, W., R.S. Balch, R.B. Grigg, B. McPherson, R.A. Will, S. Lee, Z. Dai, F. Pan, Co-optimization of CO2-EOR and storage
processes in mature oil reservoirs, Greenhouse Gas Sci Technol. 2016, 00:1–15, DOI: 10.1002/ghg.
[25] Harp, D., Z. Dai, A. Wolfsberg, J. Vrugt, B. Robinson, V. Vesselinov, Aquifer structure identification using stochastic inversion, Geophys.
Res. Lett. 2008, 35, L08404.
[26] Dai, Z., P. H. Stauffer, J. W. Carey, R. S. Middleton, Z. Lu, J. F. Jacobs, K. Hnottavange-Telleen, L. Spangle, Pre-site characterization risk
analysis for commercial-scale carbon sequestration, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 3908−3915.
[27] Dai, Z., A. Wolfsberg, Z. Lu, and R. Ritzi, Representing Aquifer Architecture in Macrodispersivity Models with an Analytical Solution of
the Transition Probability Matrix, Geophys. Res. Lett. 2007, 34, L20406.
[28] CEI, Sensor: System for Efficient Numerical Simulation of Oil Recovery, SENSOR Manual, Coats Engineering, Inc., April 1, 2011.
[29] Xiao, T., McPherson, B., Pan, F., Esser, R., Jia, W., Bordelon, A., & Bacon, D. Potential chemical impacts of CO2 leakage on underground
source of drinking water assessed by quantitative risk analysis. Int. J.of Greenh. Gas Con. 2016, 50, 305-316.
[30] Ampomah, W., Balch, R. S., and Grigg, R. B., Dai Z., and Pan F. Compositional Simulation of CO2 Storage Capacity in Depleted Oil
Reservoirs. Carbon Management Technology Conference November 16-19 2015, Sugarland, Houston-Texas USA. Doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.7122/439476-MS.
[31] Ampomah, W., R.S. Balch, R.B. Grigg, R. Will, S.Y., Lee, Z. Dai, Performance of CO2-EOR and Storage Processes under Uncertainty,
Society of Petroleum Engineering 2016, SPE-180084-MS.
[32] Bowen, D.W., Weimer, P., and Scott, A.J., The relative success of siliciclastic sequence stratigraphic concepts in exploration: examples from
incised-valley fill and turbidite-systems reservoirs: AAPG Memoir 1993, 58, 15-42.
[33] Bowen, D.W., Reservoir Geology of the Morrow Formation, Eastern Colorado and Western Kansas: Implications for CO 2 Sequestration and
EOR, NETL Proceeding, http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/05/carbon-seq/Poster%2039.pdf, 2005.
[34] Balch, R. and McPherson, B. Integrating Enhanced Oil Recovery and Carbon Capture and Storage Projects: A Case Study at Farnsworth
Field, Texas. Society of Petroleum Engineers 2016. doi:10.2118/180408-MS.
Zhenxue Dai et al. / Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 6957 – 6967 6967

[35] Ritzi R., Z. Dai, D. Dominic, Y. Rubin, Reply to comment by Shlomo P. Neuman on “Spatial correlation of permeability in cross-stratified
sediment with hierarchical architecture”, Water Resour. Res. 2006, 42, W05602, doi:10.1029/2005WR004402.
[36] Ritzi, R. and Z. Dai, Introduction: Modeling ground-water flow and reactive transport in physically and chemically heterogeneous media,
Geosphere 2006, 2(2), pp. 73.
[37] Huang, C., Z. Dai, Modeling Groundwater in Multimodal Porous Media with Localized Decompositions, Mathematical Geosciences2008,
40:689-704, doi:10.1007/s11004-008-9167-3.
[38] Stone, H.L., Estimation of three-phase relative permeability and residual oil data, J. Canadian Pet. Tech., Oct-Dec. 1973, 53–61.
[39] Pruess, K. and J. Garcia. Multiphase flow dynamics during CO2disposal into saline aquifers. Environ. Geol. 2002, 42, 282-295.
[40] Dai, Z., J. Samper, A. Wolfsberg, and D. Levitt, Identification of relative conductivity models for water flow and solute transport in
unsaturated compacted bentonite, Physics and Chem. of the Earth 2008, 33, S177-S185.
[41] Tong, C., PSUADE User’s Manual (Version 1.2.0), LLNL-SM-407882, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94551-
0808, May 2011.
[42] Deutsch, C.V. and A.G. Journel, GSLIB: Geostatistical Software Library and user's guide, Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1992, 340p.
[43] Dai, Z., H. Viswanathan, R. Middleton, F. Pan, W. Ampomah, C. Yang, W. Jia, T. Xiao, S.-Y. Lee, B. McPherson, CO2 Accounting and
Risk Analysis for CO2 Sequestration at Enhanced Oil Recovery Sites, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 7546-7554.
[44] Ampomah, W., Balch, R. S., Grigg, R. B., Will, R., Dai, Z., & White, M. D. Farnsworth Field CO2-EOR Project: Performance Case History.
In SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference. Tulsa, OK, USA. April 11-13 2016. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/179528-MS
[45] Jahangiri, H. R., & Zhang, D. Ensemble based co-optimization of carbon dioxide sequestration and enhanced oil recovery. Int. J. of Greenh.
Gas Con. 2012, 8, 22-33.
[46] Leach, A., Mason, C. F., van ‘t Veld, K. Co-optimization of enhanced oil recovery and carbon sequestration. Resource and Energy
Economics 2011, 33(4), 893-912.