Back to Menu
SPE 49078
Problem Identification and Improved Treatment Method of a Thief Zone in a West Texas
CO2 WAG for Profile Modification
E.D. Dalrymple, SPE, P. Creel, SPE, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., and J.B. Hirth, Fina Oil & Chemical Co.
Copyright 1998, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference held in New
Orleans, Louisiana, 27-30 September 1998.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledg-
ment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A, fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
During a field’s pilot evaluation of a CO2 water-alternating-gas
(WAG) injection into the San Andres formation in a central west
Texas unit, a problem was identified: Profile information and no
offset response showed the CO2 and water injections were being
lost into an upper high permeability layer. This problem was
allowing one of the pilot injectors to communicate into a tempo-
rary abandoned injection well 21/4 miles away.
To remedy the situation, a chemical treatment was needed
that would account for such factors as continual injection of CO2,
degradation of the material caused by bacterial growth, deep
penetration into the thief interval, development of sufficient
strength to withstand pressure extrusions, intermixing, and pos-
sible removal.
A diagnostic analysis of selected injection wells was accom-
plished through multirate injectivities combined with profiled
entry analysis; this technique established other criteria for the
solution. The solution was governed by two conditions: (1)
injection had to occur at a precise rate without significant
pressure resistance so that entry would occur only in the problem
interval, and (2) the treatment had to be placed deep enough to
prevent the CO2 WAG from re-entering the thief interval.
One of the pilot injectors selected for treatment indicated
100% of the injection was being lost through a 10-ft interval in the
upper portion of the payzone at a determined rate. After the
application, the thief zone had been shut off, and the injection was
reaching the remaining reservoir. Because this action required
fluid entry into more restrictive permeabilities, an increase in
pressure was necessary to flood the payzone effectively.
This paper discusses the optimal treatment selection and the
laboratory investigations regarding the chemical resistance to
References at the end of the paper.
CO2. It also discusses the placement techniques chosen and
provides field results, which indicate a modified injection pro-
file.
Introduction
During a field-wide preliminary evaluation of a CO2WAG injec-
tion into a San Andres formation located in central West Texas,
a vertical profile problem was identified. The profile data and
lack of offset production-well responses indicated that severe
losses of the CO2 WAG were occurring because injections fluids
were entering into a high-permeability layer in the upper portion
of the targeted zone. No offset producers showed any repsonse
from the WAG pilot based on the CO2 content of produced fluids.
The only indication of produced CO 2 came from a temporary
abandoned injection well located 21/4 miles away from the
determined communicating injector.
The unit is located in the North Central Platform of the
Permian Basin. Reservoirs in the Permian San Andres carbon-
ates on the Northern Shelf of the Central Basin Platform are
interbedded dolomite, anhydrite, siltstone, and salt. Within much
of the San Andres Formation, several transgressions are indi-
cated by widespread porous dolomite that was deposited under
subtidal conditions. Hydrocarbon traps are both structural and
combined structural/stratigraphic. Porosity and permeability are
directly related to depositional and diagenetic changes.
Intercrystalline, leached, and fracture porosity occur primarily
in wackstones.
The San Andres is also characterized by multiple layers with
discontinuous areas caused by widespread impermeable layers.
Most of the current recovery in the central platform is attribut-
able to pressure maintenance through waterfloods and miscible
floods with carbon dioxide. The permeability contrasts fre-
quently found within the various layers are responsible for the
varying effectiveness of water and CO2 injections.
Problem Identification and Diagnostics
To address any issue in conformance control, researchers must
begin with an accurate evaluation of the problem(s). Researchers
performed a diagnostic analysis on the candidates that displayed
this loss. The analysis consisted of multirate injectivities per-
formed during profiled entry analysis. The lack of offset re-
sponse during the multirate injection was also noted. Based on
2 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND IMPROVED TREATMENT METHOD OF A THIEF ZONE
IN A WEST TEXAS CO2 WAG INCREASES PRODUCTION
the range of injection rates with each corresponding bottomhole
injection pressure, the high permeability thief interval was taking
most of the injectant up to the point of fracturing pressure.
The first well assessed had a daily injection rate ranging
from 150 to 300 BWPD at a bottomhole pressure of 4,575 psi,
with 100% of the injection entering and traveling through the
high-permeability streak located at 5,165 to 5,175 ft. For com-
plete well data, refer to Table 1. The estimated permeability of
the thief interval was 10 md, compared with an estimated average
permeability of 0.5 for the other intervals.
The second well in the study had a daily injection rate of 245
BWPD at a bottomhole pressure of 4,550 psi, with 100% of the
injection entering and traveling through a high-permeability
streak located at 5,173 to 5,177 ft. For complete well data, refer
to Table 2. Estimated permeability of the thief interval is 10 md
while the average permeability of the rest of the pay is 0.5 md.
The analysis determined the required injection rates to place
a sealant only into the thief zones without entry into other
portions of the flood interval. Analysis of any occurring crossflows
between layers was also determined at the conclusion of the
injectivity analyses.
Solution Criteria
After the reservoir conditions that caused the efficiency loss and
communication problems were identified, the evaluation criteria
were determined for selecting an optimal, cost-effective solu-
tion. The diagnostics and injectivity analyses established the
criteria for the ideal treatment: material injection at a precise rate
and with nominal pressure resistance. These conditions were
imperative for gaining entry only into the problem interval and
for placing the chemical deep enough to form an effective seal
from the thief interval.
The chemical treatment best suited for this particular
operation would need to satisfy a number of requirements: (1)
it must withstand continued injection of CO 2 and the acidic
environment it created; (2) it must be inert to the degradation
of bacterial growth; (3) it must be placed deep into the thief
interval without resistance caused by increased viscosity which
results from the addition of predeveloped polymer gel chains or
viscosity; (4) it must have sufficient in-situ gel-strength devel-
opment to provide pressure-extrusion resistance; (5) it must
withstand any crossflow intermixing; and (6) it must facilitate
possible removal.
Method of Treatment Selection
Researchers considered and rejected a number of treatment
options. Metal-crosslinked polymers were discounted because
of their inherent viscosity and a suspect compatibility of the
crosslink mechanism to CO2 exposure.1,2 Silicate systems were
excluded because of their uncontrolled, rapid gelation in a low-
pH environment and because of their interaction with divalent
salts in the formation brine.3 Cement squeezes were rejected
because, at best, neither conventional cement nor the small-
particle cements could penetrate the rock. Because of this
SPE 49078
limitation, any blockage of the higher-permeability interval by
cement squeezes would be face-plugging only; the CO 2 would
quickly divert around the seal and into the wellbore.
An in-situ generated polymer (IGP) system was selected to
seal off the high-permeability streak. The nonionic IGP was
chosen because it goes into the formation as a water-thin
monomer solution but polymerizes in situ into a stiff, resilient
gel. Because the permeability level of this particular thief zone
was only 10 md, a fluid with an extremely low viscosity was
needed.
Another factor that influenced the selection of the IGP was
its expected nonreactive response to the low-pH environment
created by the CO2 injection, the reservoir brine or crude oil, and
the lithology of the formation. Moreover, the IGP system incor-
porates a thermally controlled activator. These properties con-
tribute to a fluid system that injects as easily as water and does
not divert or react prematurely during placement.
Expanded Profile of the IGP
The principal components of the IGP conformance-control
system are a low-toxicity acrylate monomer and a thermally
controlled “azo” activator. Potassium chloride (KCl), fresh,
potable water, and a pH adjuster are incorporated into the
formula to furnish a standardized ionic concentration and the
ideal pH ambience for the in-situ polymerization process,
which transforms the monomer into a polymer. The additional
components also help make the IGP compatible with most
formation conditions.4
The IGP system is user-friendly because it can be custom-
ized for a particular conformance problem through adjustments
in the mixing concentration. These selected, formulated combi-
nations establish the ultimate viscosity, solubility, and strength
that the material will exhibit downhole, and will determine the
final nature of the IGP, which can range from a strongly
crosslinked, “ringing” gel to a viscous polymer slug.4-6
The activator for IGP, an “azo” compound that undergoes
thermal degradation (a process that forms a free radical),
initiates the polymerization of the monomer in situ. Premature
gelation can occur with monomer solutions in the simultaneous
presence of free radicals and transition metals (iron, cobalt,
etc.). Therefore, elevated temperature is required with the
“azo” to form the free radicals with the IGP system. The
specific activator chosen for the fluid system is dictated by
design temperature, which, in turn, is dependent on well con-
ditions. Through the azo-initiator selection process, gel times
can range from 1 to 20 hours at temperatures ranging from 70
to 150°F (21.1 to 65.5°C). 4
Laboratory Testing
As part of the diagnostic and design process, a laboratory bench-
top model was built to simulate formation conditions. Flow tests
of the proposed IGP treatment fluid were conducted and moni-
tored for the fluid’s effectiveness. Following is a detailed de-
scription of this procedure.
SPE 49078 E.D. DALRYMPLE, P. CREEL, J.B. HIRTH
Supercritical CO2 Gas-Generation System. Supercritical CO2
gas (~1,500 psi at 120°F) was generated with the system shown
in Fig. 1. A laboratory feed pump transferred the liquid CO2 from
the storage cylinder to the test equipment while maintaining the
1,500-psi pressure level. A cooling coil on the intake side of the
pump precooled the liquid CO2 to maintain prime with the pump.
This cooling was accomplished with a submersible laboratory
pump that circulated antifreeze at 32°F through the coil. A
carbon dioxide reservoir, stored in a temperature bath at 120°F,
vaporized the CO2 liquid into supercritical CO2 gas. The gas was
then adjusted to the necessary test pressure with a high-pressure
regulator.
Test-Core Holder and Flow System. A Berea sandstone core
in a Hassler-sleeve device served as the test medium. Stainless-
steel high-pressure fittings, valves, and tubing were used in the
flow system to prevent corrosion from the CO2 and to accommo-
date a working pressure of more than 2,000 psi. The flow system
was designed so that flow rates for both the water and CO2 could
be determined. Heating jackets and controllers maintained the
temperature at 120°F, and a backpressure regulator maintained
the pressure level at 1,500 psi. A 200-psi differential pressure-
transducer monitored the pressure between the test cell’s inlet
and outlet points.
The backpressure and gas-flow regulators were submerged in
a temperature bath at 120°F, which compensated for heat loss
caused by the expansion of the CO2 under the Joule-Thompson
effect. A precision gas-flow regulator subjected effluent gas to a
constant, predetermined pressure while the gas was passed through
a liquid/gas separator, a drying chamber, and a mass flowmeter.
Laboratory Test Procedure. The test core was placed in a
Hassler sleeve apparatus. The physical dimensions of the core
are indicated in Table 3. System pressure was maintained at
1,500 psi, and the temperature was maintained at 120°F. Under
stable flow conditions, API brine (9% NaCl + 1% CaCl2) and
kerosene were sent in alternating sequences through the core
until the permeability variations caused by the relative saturation
levels of water and oil reached acceptable limits.
After the core was stabilized to residual oil, the effective
permeability to API brine was determined. At this point, the core
was stabilized to the flow of supercritical CO2; then the flow of
the API brine was stabilized through the core to benchmark the
starting permeability to brine that would be used in the test. Next,
the core was treated with 100 mL of the IGP solution and shut in
for 48 hours to allow in-situ polymerization of the system.
The evaluation continued with API brine and supercritical
CO2 sequences cycled to stable flow. Table 3 and Fig. 2 contain
results from this test series.
Treatment Design
Researchers used a “fuzzy-logic” water-control design com-
puter program to formulate the treatment designs, which incor-
porated the appropriate solutions, the proper techniques, and the
3
treatment volumes.7 Results from the diagnostics program and
injectivity investigation indicated that a bullhead placement
technique should be used. Data on well-spacing, injection rates,
and breakthrough parameters were also considered before the
IGP was actually pumped into the candidate wellbores.
This knowledge-based arrangement organizes and quanti-
fies the experiences of water-conformance personnel both in the
laboratory and in the field. The program contains many built-in,
common engineering programs for calculating values, but its
principal function during the problem-identification phase is to
serve as a pattern-recognition generator. The program helps the
user to find relevant, existing data.
Quality Control
Through laboratory analysis, the gelation time for the monomer
based on the downhole injection temperature was determined.
The intermixing of the monomer with injected water was also
monitored to reveal possible adverse effects on gelation time.
None were observed.
Treatments
The injection rate of the treatments was based on rates estab-
lished during the injection survey previously administered to
guide profile modification. IGP placement with a high injection
pressure was possible only because of the monomer’s water-like
viscosity. Downhole injection temperature and initiator concen-
tration dictated the reaction time (pump time) for the polymer-
ization. Because the initiator for this system requires an elevated
temperature to activate the polymerization process, the probabil-
ity of a premature reaction was extremely low.
A minimal volume of 2,000 gal of a treated 2% potassium
chloride (KCl) preflush solution was injected to remove oxygen,
and the same 2% KCl solution was used to displace the IGP out
of the tubing and into the perforations. Each treatment consisted
of 4,000 gal of IGP that had been batch-mixed in a clean
transport; initiator was added just before pumping.
Results
In Well 1, 100% of the injection was flowing into the upper 10-ft
portion of the targeted injection zone because it had a much greater
permeability than the rest of the interval. After treatment, the thief
zone was sealed, and the injection profile indicated that the CO2
WAG was now being applied uniformly into the remaining pay at
an increase in pressure (necessary to maintain previous injection
rates). For detailed well data, compiled before and after the IGP
treatment, refer to Table 4. Fig. 3 shows the well-injection profile
in the San Andres formation, both before and after treatment on
Well No. 1.
Well 2 in the treatment plan was losing the entire injection
to a 4-ft section in the upper portion of the zone. Since treatment,
the thief interval has been sealed off, but because of the scale
damage of the remaining payzone, a follow-up acid treatment
will be required before testing modifications in the injection
profile. Itemized well data collected before and after the IGP
4 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND IMPROVED TREATMENT METHOD OF A THIEF ZONE
IN A WEST TEXAS CO2 WAG INCREASES PRODUCTION
treatment are contained in Table 4. This well is a candidate to be
deepened, which would expose more of the reservoir to flooding.
Conclusions
A diagnostic schedule based on multirate injectivities and pro-
filed entry analysis significantly enhanced the planning process
for the treatment program of a water-control problem encoun-
tered in a CO2 (WAG) operation in the San Andres formation of
Texas’ Permian Basin. The improved oil-recovery efforts were
proving unsuccessful because the injected CO2 and water were
being lost to a higher-permeability interval located in the upper
part of the reservoir. The pretreatment diagnostic procedures
helped pinpoint the cause of the problem and to determine the
optimal sealant—in this case, an in-situ generated polymer (IGP)
pumped downhole as a monomer—and the proper placement
technique.
As a result, the thief zone was isolated, and the CO2 WAG
injections entered the targeted zone, which had more restrictive
permeabilities. Based on the modified injection path, the offset
response should be significantly increased in hydrocarbon pro-
duction.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., and Fina
Oil & Chemical Company for allowing us to prepare and present
this paper.
SPE 49078
References
1. Turner, D., Dalrymple, D., Vinson, E., Woods, P., and Schramko,
K.: “In-Situ Polymerization Controls CO2/Water Channeling at
Lick Creek,” paper SPE/DOE 14958 presented at the 1986 SPE/
DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Apr. 20-23.
2. Moffitt, P.D. and Zornes, D.R.: “Postmortem Analysis: Lick
Creek Meakin Sand Unit Immiscible CO2 Waterflood Project,”
paper SPE 24933 presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Washington, D.C., Oct. 4-7.
3. Samari, E., Scott, D.L.T., and Dalrymple, D.: “Water Shutoff
Treatments in Eastern Alberta: Doubling Oil Production, De-
creasing Water Cut by 20%,” paper SPE 39617 presented at the
1998 SPE/DOE Annual Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery,
Tulsa, Apr. 19-22.
4. Dalrymple, D., Tarkington, J.T., and Hallock, J.: “A Gelation
System for Conformance Technology,” paper SPE 28503 pre-
sented at the 1994 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhi-
bition, New Orleans, Sept. 25-28.
5. McLaughlin, H.C., Diller, J., and Ayers, H.J.: “Treatment of
Injection and Producing Wells with Monomer Solution,” paper
SPE 5364 presented at the 1975 SPE Regional Meeting, Okla-
homa City, Mar. 24-25.
6. Sinclair, B.C. and Ott, W.K.: “Polymer Reduces Channeling, Ups
Waterflood Oil Recovery,” World Oil (Dec. 1978) 187, No. 7,
101-104.
7. Dalrymple, E.D.: “Expert System for Water-Control Treatment
Design,” paper presented at the 1997 International Conference on
Reservoir Conformance, Profile Control, and Water and Gas
Shutoff, Houston, Aug. 6-8.
SPE 49078 E.D. DALRYMPLE, P. CREEL, J.B. HIRTH 5

Table 1—Data for Well 1

Well Type Injector
Formation Chambliss
Formation Type Dolomite
Casing 4 1/2 in., 10.5 lb
Casing Depth ±5,500 ft
Tubing 2 3/8 in., 4.7 lb, J-55 CL
Packer at ±5,070 ft
Perforations 5,165 ft to 5,310 ft
Stimulation History Acidized with 13,500 gal HCl
Injection Rates 1990 to June 1996 (±150 to 300 BWPD)
BH Injection Pressure ±4,575 psi
Surface Injection Pressure ±2,200 psi
BH Static Pressure ±4,300 psi
BH Injection Temperature 115°F
Apparent Problem High-permeability streak
Squeeze Rate ±8 gal/min
Squeeze Down Injection string under injection packer

Table 2—Data for Well 2

Well Type Injector
Formation Chambliss
Formation Type Dolomite
Casing 4 1/2 in., 10.5 lb
Casing Depth ±5,500 ft
Tubing 2 3/8 in., 4.7 lb, J-55 CL
Packer at ±5,120 ft
Perforations 5,173 ft to 5,305 ft
Stimulation History Acidized with 14,500 gal HCl
Injection Rates Sept. 1994 to April 1996 (±245 BWPD)
BH Injection Pressure ±4,550 psi
Surface Injection Pressure ±2,220 psi
BH Static Pressure ±4,300 psi
BH Injection Temperature 115°F
Apparent Problem High-permeability streak
Squeeze Rate ±1 to 2 gal/min
Squeeze Down Injection string under injection packer
6 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND IMPROVED TREATMENT METHOD OF A THIEF ZONE SPE 49078
IN A WEST TEXAS CO2 WAG INCREASES PRODUCTION

Table 3—IGP Compatibility with CO2 (1 of 2)

Physical Data
System Pressure (psi) 1,500
Rock Berea Sandstone
Core Diameter (cm) 2.4
Core Length (cm) 9.99
Test Temperature (°F) 120
Viscosities (cp) at Temperature
API Standard Brine 0.69
Kerosene 1.15
CO2 0.0175 (est.)
Flow Test Results
Cumulative Flow Calculated Total Cumulative Average
∆P
Fluid Volume Rate Permeability Volume Permeability
(psi)
(mL) (mL/min) (md) (mL) (md)
API Brine 200 9.20 48 72.3 200.0 71.3
600 8.30 44 70.4 600.0
650 8.10 42 72.0 650.0
700 7.90 42 71.1 700.0
750 8.00 42 72.0 750.0
800 7.90 42 70.2 800.0
Kerosene 300 3.60 31 73.4 1100.0 78.2
350 3.20 27 75.1 1150.0
400 3.60 28 80.0 1200.0
450 3.70 28 82.2 1250.0
500 3.60 28 80.0 1300.0
API Brine 500 0.88 45 7.4 1800.0 7.4
550 0.92 46 7.5 1850.0
575 0.93 46 7.6 1875.0
625 0.87 44 7.4 1925.0
650 0.89 45 7.4 1950.0
Kerosene 300 5.20 24 134.8 2250.0 133.4
400 5.00 23 133.5 2350.0
450 4.90 23 132.6 2400.0
500 4.90 23 132.6 2450.0
API Brine 175 1.40 39 13.4 2625.0 13.4
200 1.40 39 13.4 2650.0
250 1.40 39 13.4 2700.0
Kerosene 775 5.30 27 122.1 3475.0 123.7
800 5.40 27 124.4 3500.0
825 5.40 27 124.4 3525.0
API Brine 100 1.90 29 24.9 3625.0 24.9
150 1.90 29 24.9 3675.0
Kerosene 750 5.30 24 140.3 4425.0 141.2
775 5.40 24 143.0 4450.0
800 5.30 24 140.3 4475.0
API Brine 150 1.90 27 26.8 4625.0 26.8
200 1.90 27 26.8 4675.0
250 1.90 27 26.8 4725.0
CO2 1020 3.00 2 14.2 5745.0 14.2
API Brine 200 3.40 14 90.7 5945.0 91.3
250 3.40 14 90.7 5995.0
300 3.50 14 93.3 6045.0
325 3.40 14 90.7 6070.0
IGP Treatment 100 — — — 6170.0 —
SPE 49078 E.D. DALRYMPLE, P. CREEL, J.B. HIRTH 7

Table 3—IGP Compatibility with CO2 (2 of 2)

Flow Test Results
Cumulative Flow Calculated Total Cumulative Average
∆P
Fluid Volume Rate Permeability Volume Permeability
(psi)
(mL) (mL/min) (md) (mL) (md)
API Brine — 0.00 15 — 6170.0 1.9
20 0.13 26 1.9 6190.0
CO2 60 0.15 16 0.1 6249.8 0.1
API Brine 35 0.53 23 8.6 6284.8 8.6
100 0.53 23 8.6 6349.8
CO2 43 0.03 2 0.2 6393.2 0.2
API Brine 125 0.75 28 10.0 6518.2 10.1
150 0.77 29 9.9 6543.2
225 0.88 31 10.6 6618.2
250 0.81 30 10.1 6643.2
300 0.77 29 9.9 6693.2
CO2 64 1.07 14 0.7 6757.2 0.6
96 1.07 12 0.8 6789.2
146 1.67 19 0.8 6839.2
176 1.00 10 0.9 6869.2
212 1.20 12 0.9 6905.2
252 1.33 14 0.9 6945.2
285 1.10 11 0.9 6978.2
297 0.41 21 0.2 6990.6
300 0.08 17 0.0 6993.0
301 0.03 79 0.0 6993.8
301 0.02 84 0.0 6994.4
317 1.60 20 0.8 7010.4
327 0.93 13 0.7 7019.7
343 1.60 20 0.8 7035.7
347 1.33 15 0.8 7039.7
API Brine 50 0.84 28 11.2 7089.7 11.0
100 0.78 29 10.0 7139.7
150 0.89 29 11.5 7189.7
200 0.89 29 11.5 7239.7
CO2 32 1.07 18 0.6 7271.7 0.7
82 1.67 24 0.7 7321.7
126 1.47 21 0.7 7365.7
172 1.53 24 0.6 7411.7
220 1.60 22 0.7 7459.7
262 1.40 20 0.7 7501.7
290 0.93 16 0.6 7529.7
314 0.80 14 0.5 7553.7
356 1.40 18 0.7 7595.7
412 1.87 24 0.7 7651.7
452 1.33 18 0.7 7691.7
500 1.60 20 0.8 7739.7
548 1.60 20 0.8 7787.7
558 1.00 16 0.6 7797.7
8 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND IMPROVED TREATMENT METHOD OF A THIEF ZONE SPE 49078
IN A WEST TEXAS CO2 WAG INCREASES PRODUCTION

Table 4—Well Data Before and After IGP Treatment

Well 1: Well 1: Well 2: Well 2:
Pretreat Post-Treat Pretreat Post-Treat
Injection Perforations (ft) 5,165 to 5,310 5,166 to 5,310 5,173 to 5,305 5,173 to 5,305
Thief Interval (ft) 5,165 to 5,175 — 5,173 to 5,177 Sealed
BHIP (psi) 4,575 4,640 4,550 4,619
BHSP (psi) 4,300 4,300 4,300 4,300
BHST (°F) 115 — 115 —
Injection Shut-in awaiting
150 to 300 300 245
Rate (BWPD) AFE
Entry Profile (ft) 5,165 to 5,175 5,165 to 5,310 5,173 to 5,177 Not run
Percent of Entry (%) 100 See Fig. 4 100 —
Permeability—
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Average (md)
Average Porosity (%) 13 13 13 13
Permeability—
10 — 10 —
Thief Interval (md)
Permeability—
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Other Intervals (md)
Fracture Gradient (psi/ft) 0.86 — 0.86 —

32°F Bath
Circulating
Isco Pump Pressure Chart Pump
Transducer Recorder
Reservoir

Kerosene/Brine Hassler Sleeve Whitey Feed Pump CO2 Bottle

Source Model LP10
120°F
Water Bath
Back-pressure regulators
used to maintain system Reservoir
pressure of 1,500 psi

Back-Pressure
Drying Regulator
Chamber
Separation
Chart Gas Reservoir
Back-Pressure
Recorder Flow Meter Regulator
120°F
Water Bath

Liquid Rate Collection

Fig. 1—Supercritical CO2 gas-generation system.

SPE 49078 E.D. DALRYMPLE, P. CREEL, J.B. HIRTH 9

100

CO2
API Brine

Treatment with IGP

10
Permeability (md)

0.1
4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000
Cumulative Volume (ml)

Fig. 2—CO2 WAG flow study for IGP.

10 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND IMPROVED TREATMENT METHOD OF A THIEF ZONE SPE 49078
IN A WEST TEXAS CO2 WAG INCREASES PRODUCTION

5,100 ft

Thief Zone

Upper
Chambliss Profile After Treatment Profile Before Treatment

5,200 ft 5,165 ft
5,175 ft

Chambliss

Entry into top of

5,300 ft Brahaney Interval
Brahaney

5,310 ft

Lower Brahaney 30% 20% 10% Profile at maximum injection rate

under fracturing pressure based on
velocity estimates

Profile at design treatment rate

100% out thief interval

Fig. 3—Pre-treatment and post-treatment profile in the San Fig. 4—Well No. 1 injection profile.
Andres formation.