●

SPE6747

A C02TERTIARY
RECOVERY
PILOT SPE
LITTLECREEK
FIELD,MISSISSIPPI

by Philip W, Hansen, Member SPE-AIME,Shell Oil Company

@ UIPyngh! 1977. American Institute of Mmnu. Merallurwcsl. an6 fWoleum Enwnewe. k

This paper waa oreaented al the 52rsdAnnual fall TechmcalConference and ExfuMtwn of the Sorxety of Pelroleum Engineers of AIME. hew m Denver. CoIors~o, Oct. S.12. t977. The material la aubjj to
corrwtonb ytheauthor. Permission tocorrY isreetrcfeIIf oana Lwvactof notmoreman 300woraa. Wr~e 6200N Central ExDy. Dallas. Tema752M

ABSTRACT
—’ productionis now 46.8 million barrels of oil.
Table 1 summarizesaverage reservoirand fluid
A field test of the C02 d~splacetnent process property data.
for tertiaryoil recovery ie being conductedby
Shell Oil Company and its working Interestpartners The field was voluntarilyunitized to permit
in the Little Creek field,Mississippi. The objec- initiationof a peripheralline drive waterfloodin
tive of the test is to more clearlyassess the 1962. This supplementalre’wery operationwae
potentialfor fieldwideapplicationof this process. very successful(see Cro-. st)-increasing oil
Preliminaryresultsare encouraging. recovery from the field by about 21.7 million
barrels. Waterfloodingoperation were discontinued
INTRODUCTION in February 1970. Productionfrom a gradually
decliningnumber of wells has continuedsince then.
It has been s.-ecognized
for some time that Figure 3 shows the prlmery and waterfloodproduction
approximately55 million barrels of oil will remain hlatory of the field.
in the Little Creek field’ssole productnghorizon
at depletionof primary and secondary(waterflood) In August 1973 preliminaryoperation were
resemee. With this significanttarget,Shell Oil initiatedfor a C02 rotsci~ledisplacementfield
Company initiatedan investigationinto possible test at Little Creek. In February 1974 C02 injec-
tertiaryrecoverymethods for Little Creek over 12 tlon began %nto a quarternine--epoc pilot area In
years ago. After considerableresearch,a pilot Sectton 1 of the Little Creek Un%t with operations
test of the moat prospectivemethod wae Inttiated continuingto date.
in 1973. This paper describesthe pilot and
reviews its performancethroughJune 1977. F’re- PILOT DESIGN
limlnaryconclusion concerningthe C02 recovery
method at Little Creek are presented. Prior to initiatingthe C02 pilot, considerable
theoreticaland laboratoryinvestigationefforta
FIE’IJI HISTORY had been expended. A physicalmodel :tudy of the
tertiarymiscible processhad been pursued as well
The Little Creek field was discoveredby Shell as miscibilitytestswith eeveralnatural gases and
011 Company in January 1958. The field is located mixturesof these gasea. Computer simulationsof
in SouthwesternMississippi,approx’hnately 100 various operationalmethods and alternatewell
miles northwestof New Orleans,Louisiana (Figure 1). patternswere also conducted. Baaed on the knowl-
The developmentand waterfloodingoperationsof edge accumulatedfrom this effort, the decieionwas
this deep sandstoneotl reeervoirwere documented ~de to fLeld test the C02 miscible displacement
by Cronquiat.(1) The lone producinghorizon in the process at Little Creek. The pattern choosenwaa
field is a lower Tuscaloosa(UpperCretaceous) an invertednine-spot,which appeared to yield the
“Q-Q “ sandstone whose productiveextent is about best pxocees recoveryefficiencyof those patterns
6,208 acres. The oil accumulationis containedin
a combinationstructural-strat%sraphic trap created
by a winding belt of sand traversingan elongate
I availablewith existingfield development. A semi-
confinedquarternine-spotsyrauetry elementwas
selected for the pilot teec as representinga
structuralnose now buried to a depth of about reasonablecompromisebetwaen acceptablepilot
10,750 feet (10,350feet subsea). Figure 2 shows costs and the optimum pilot deeign. The reservoir
the structuralinterpretationfor the reservoir. geometryin Section 1 of the field (Figure4)
The originaloil-in-placevolume was eetimetedat seemed particularlysuited for conductingthe
101.9 million stock tank barrele. Cumulative pilot. The reservoirshale-outboundary,ae defined
by several local dry holes, provided naturalc
on-
finementof fluid movement to the east and south.
Referencesand illustrationsat end of paper.

4
2 A CO, TKRTUY RECOV=Y PILOT, LITTLE CP&ER FIELD, MISSISSIPPI
Computersimulationindicatedthat a borderingline
of water injactionwelle on the west and north
ptlot sides could form a satisfactorypilot area
fluid confinementboundary. The favorablelocation
of the Section1 wells relativeto the field
productionfacillclee,their good mechanicalcon-
dition and their historyae representativeLittle
Creek field producersall served to recommend this
area as the most logicalpilot location.
The preliminaryoperationalplan was to in-
crease the pilot area resenroirpreesurefrom its
pre-pilotlevel of approximately4400 peig to about
5500 psig by watwt injection. Thie preesurelevel
would enable the pilot producersto flow, even
while producingpure formationsalt waker, and
establisha significantpressurecushionover the
indicatedC02-formetieacrude rmiscibll%ty pressure
of 4500 psig. C02 injectionwould then be initiated
at about 4 MMcf/Daysubject to a surface injection
preseurellmit of 3500 psig. Fluid confinementto
the pilot area would be accomplishedby water
injectionat surfacepreseuresup to 2100 psig into
the welle offsettingthe pilot area to the west and
north. These surfacepressurelimitationswere
intendedto achievenearly equal subsurfaceinjec-
tion pressuresfor water and C02 of elightlyin
excess of 7000 psig-juet belotifracturepressure.
WELL COMPLETIONDESIGN
The obvious problemenvisioneddur~ng pilot
producingoperationswee handling the highly cor-
roeive combinationof formationsalt water and C02S
Stainlesssteel tubinghangers and wellhead con-
trols were inetalledon the producingwells. Iko
of the producers,Wells 1-7 and 1-11, were equipped
with 2 3/8-inch,J-55 and N-80, plastic-coated
tubing strings. As a control check, Well 1-6 was
initiallyequippedwith uncoated tubing. All wells
used tubing-casingpackers. Welle 1-7 and 1-11
were also equippedwith Sperry-SunPermagauge
downholepreesuremonitore to enable monitoringof
subsurfacepressureewithout the neceesityfor
runningwirelinepressurebombs.(2) This is ex-
tremely Importantwhere the Integrttyof plastic-
coated tubing is a major factor in controllingthe
eevere corrosionproblemsencounteredwith wet C02
production.
Well 1-10, the pilot C02 injector,wee com-
pleted using a regularalloy steel wellhead except
for a stainleessteel tubing hanger and lower
master valve. The primary concern rega;dingthis
well was possibletubing couplingleakagewhile
inject%ngdry C02 under surface pressuresae hi h
ac 3500 peig. To foreetallsuch problef~s, modified
A8C couplingeusing Teflon seele were rsed on the
uncoated2 7/8-inchN-80 tubing instal;.ed in
Well 1-10. A permanentpacker wae used for tubing-
casing isolation.
Completionof the water injectionwells, which
served to confine the pilot process on the north
and,west,was straightforwa~d.Uncoaced 2 3/8-inch
EUE tubularswere used with hooks?all packers for
tubing-caetngannuluaisolation. Communication
problemswith these packers resultedin their
replacementwith permanentpackers as the project
progressed.
●
SPE 67~
C02 INJECTIONFACILITIES
Injectionof commerciallyavailableliquid CO
at daily volumes of as much as 240 tons/day(4 MMcl
wee the facilltydesign objective. To provide
flexibilityfor C02 deliveryto the injectionsite,
the facilitywae installedadjacent to a main line
railroadsiding located about six miles from the
field injectionwell. Thus, C02 deliveriescould
be accomplishedeither by rail or truck. Ilro150-
ton rail tank cars providedC02 injectionsite
storage. From etorage, the CO was pumped through
a high pressureptpelinedirec$ly to the C02 pilot
injectionwell using a 100 hp electricmotor driven
triplexpump.
Reinfectionof the producedgee etreamwae
plannedonce C02 productionincreasedto signtfLcar
volumes. To accomplishthis a 1500 hp electric
motor driven compressorwas installedat the Little
kreek field productionfacilities. This eauirnment
eliminatedv;ntingof the expensiveC02 an~ per-
mitted continuedobservationof pilot productionas
gas-oilratios from individualwells increased.
PILOT PERFORMANCE
Pre-CarbonDioxide InjectionOperatio~
Pilot operationsbegan Auguet 31, 1973, with
the initiationof water injectioninto the proposed
C02 injector (Well 1-10). Water injectioninto the
five originalpilot water injectore(Welle 1-2,
1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-12) begen durf.n~September. After
injectinga cumulativewater volume of 185,275
barrele into these six wells, pilot area reservoir
pressurehad increasedto about 5500 psig and
injectionwas discontinuedNovember 11, 1973. In
January 1974, just prior to startingC02 injection,
the pilot area reservoirpressurehad declinedto
about 5100 psig as a result of gradualpressure
bleed-offinto the surroundingreservoir.
Pilot Start-up
On February6, 1974, injectionof purchased
CO waa.initiated”into Well 1-10. Barly injection
razes were approximately3.6 MMcf/D with a surface
tubingpressureof 2400 psig. Wells 1-6 and 1-7
were placed on productionin March 1974 flowing,
unchoked,at 65 BWPD and 73 BWPD,‘respectively.
Well 1-11 began producingin April at an initial
unchokedrate of 607 BWPD. This well was subse-
quently choked back to effect a cloeerbalance of
fluid withdrawalrates among the three pilot pro-
ducing welle. During May 1974 Wells 1-6, 1-7 and
:.-11p?oduced10,713,5,084 and 6,398 barrels of
water, respectively.
F5ret Oil Production
On June 5, 1974, first pilot oil production
was noted as Well 1-11 tested 3 BOPD and 233 BWPD
with 1360 psig tubing pressure. By mid-JuLypro-
duction from thie well had increaaedto 87 B/D oil
and 193 B/O water with a GOR of 4000 Scf/bbl (85%
co ). The rate was not indicativeof the well’e
po$ential ~inceit wae being intentionallycon-
strainedon a 5.5f64-inchchoke during July to
promotereservoirfluid movement toward the other
●
SPE 6747 P. W. Hansen
two produceroand to maintain approximatelyequal
volumetricwith&isi&l&from all three wells. To
avoid venting large volumes of C02 from Well 1-11,
the well was shut In July 11. Thereafter,it wae
only reopenedfor periodicehort test periods until
the producedgae recyclecompressorbecame opera-
tional in March 1975.
DirectionalPermeabilityTrend
Performanceof the pilot producingwells
indicatedexlstenkeof an apparentdirectional
permeabilitycontrastIn the pilot area. Well 1-11
respondedfirst to CO injectionwith early oil
breakthroughin June f974 followedby gmduelly
increasingproducedC02 volumes. During July It
was necessaryto exert significantback preesureon
this well to maintainreservoirvoidage at compara-
ble levelswith Well 1-7. Based on reservoir
simulationstudies,an east-westversus north-south
permeabilitycontraston the order of 2 to 1 was
neceeearyto account for the observed performance.
Early OperationalPlan
Pilot operationalpolicy of maintainingeesen-
tiallybalanced reservoirvoidage ratee among the
three pilot producersdictated that the poorest
producer eet che well producingpace. This proved
to be Well 1-7. Accordingly,total withdrawals
from the pilot were significantlyless than C02
Injectionvolumes. Pilot area rese~o%r pressures
reflectedthis through increasingC02 injection
pressuresand in bottom-holestatic preesuresthat
had risen to 6785 psig in Well 1-11 and 6948 pslg
in Well 1-10 by July 1974. Additionaladjustments
in pilot operationswere made during July to in-
fluencepilot area fluid movement. The north eide
water injectionwells’ (l-2 and 1-3) surface
injectionpressuresware reduced from 2100 psig to
1300 to 1500 psig to encouragemore rapid northerly
fluid movement in the pilot.
AdditionalWells Begin Oil Production
During August,with Well 1-11 shut in to avoid
venting significantquantitiesof producedgae,
Well 1-6 wee opeued up from approximately400 B/D
water on an 8/64-inchchoke to 700 BID water on a
14/64-inchchoke. Well 1-7 cont%nuedto flow
througha l-inch choke with a~out 110 psig flowing
tubing pressure at a rate of 375 BID water. On
August 30, Well 1-7 experiencedoil breakthrough
testing32 B/D oil and 227 BID water. Gss produc-
tion volumeswere too small and erratic to measure.
On September3, oil breakthroughoccurredat Well
1-6. .Initialoil productionwae 30 B/Dwith 656 BID
water. Gas productionfrom Well 1-6 wau also
erraticand too low in volume to measure.
WLth the advent of oil breakthroughto all
three pilot producers,oil productionfrom the
pilot increasedrapidly (Figure5). AlthoughC02
compos%tlonsof the producedgae streams from the
three pilot producersduring Septamberranged from
36 mol percent to 91 mol percent, total produced
gas volumeewere too emell and erratic to meaeure
in all buc Well 1-11 (Figures6, 7, 8). Well 1-11
remained shut in except for short test periods
while awaiting completion of the produced gas
recycle facility. With Well 1-11 shut in, total
3
pilot oil productionwae auppreesedbelow Ita true
potential.
BegInningin late November 1974, a series of
probleme includingtubing leaks, eand plugging,
packer failure,asphalt-paraffinphwing, C02
injectionsyatem mechanicalproblemsand well
damage from workover fluids combined to signifi-
cantly curta%l productionas wall as injection
operationsin the pilot. During the five-month
period from December 1974 throughApril 1975,
average productionwell downtimewas nearly 50
percent. Undoubtedly,the result of this produc-
Cion slump was to reduce ultlmatepilot oil re-
covery and adverselyaffect process efficiency.
During March 1975, a 1500 hp electricmotor
driven compressorwas placed in service to reinject
pilot producedgasee. This allowed the return of
Well 1-11 to continuousproductioneervice. Gradual
rseolueionof pilot problemsby mid-1975 caused a
resurgencein productionrates. Pilot Otl pro-
ductionpeeked in October and November 1975 at
average daily rates of 194 and 196 barrels. At
this etage of pilot operations,the producedGOR
waa approximately16 Mcf/bbl and trendingupward
rapidly.
As the producedgas volume increased,the
reinfectedportion of the total gas injectton
stream assumed the predominaterole (Figure9).
PurchaeedCO injectiondeclinedto below 1 lUlcf/D
in January 1376 while the recycledvolume wae about
3 MMcf/D. Compositionof this Injectedgas stream
was generallywell over 90 percent COQ.
.
ProductionTrends
Pilot 0%1 productionassumedan exponential
decline trend in late 1975. After about 80,000
barrels of pilot oil production,the relationship
between gas-oil ratio and oil productiondata aleo
began to exhibita definite trend. Pigure 10 shows
the relationshipthat the cumulativenet injectad
gas and the cumulativeproducedgas-oil ratto bear
to cumulativeoil production. The value of the net
Injectedgas curve lies in its utility for est2met-
Lng how much purchasedC02 till ultimatelybe
requiredto recovera barral of oil. The reason
the curve breaka sharply at about 115,000barrele
is that gas injectionwas discontinuedat this
point. The producedGQR curve,which Is approach-
ing the 20 Mcf/STB point, reflects the need for a
producedgas rscycle capabilityfor this type of
process. Without reinjecttonof producedgas, C02
purchaserequirementsfor the pilot would have been
essentiallydoubled. ,
Figure 11 shows the relationshipbetween
cumulativeoil productionand cumulativeGOR for
each of the three producers. These curves, at
least in part, probatlyowe their characterto the
directionalpermeabilitytrend believed to exist in
the pilot area. Well 1-11, in the directtonof
highest transmissibilityfrou the C02 Injector,
exhibitsa rapidly rising GOR to oil curve while
Well 1-6 increasealess rapidlyandWell 1-7
least rapidly.
Figuras 12 and 13 presentan interestingtrend
correlatingmonthly vereus cumulativeproducedgas-
oil ratios and cumulativeGOR versus cumulative

4 A COO
. TERTIARYRECOVERYPILOT, LITTLE CF.EEKFIELD, MISSISSIPPI
pilot oil production. By using these Cwo curvee,
the ultimaterecoveryfrcm the pilot can be esti-
mated aesuminggaa injectionoperation were con-
tinued to deplation. For example,if an economic
limit for the monthly COR of 50 Mcf/STBwere
aeaumed,pilot ultimatewould be eetimatedat
approximately130,000barrela.
WATER INJECTIONWELLS
Water injectioninto the pilot regionwaa
intendedco confine the C02 pilot proceee to the
quarternine-epotteat area. Subsurfaceinjection
pressureswere, therefore,initiallyregulatedin
an effort to match the pressurebeing appliedby
che C02 injector,Well 1-10. Early in the pilot
process it became evident that reservoirfluids
were preferentiallymoving in an east-westdirec-
tion throughthe pilot area. In an effort to
discouragethis preferentialmovement,water injec-
tion rates were reduced during July L974 in the
north-boundingpilot water injectorswhile being
maintainedat uximum capacityin the west-bounding
wells. This practicecontinueduntil late December
1974 when water injectionwas temporarilyetopped,
coincidentwith shuttingdown C02 injection,while
eeveralpilot wells were being workad over. With
the resumptionof water inject%onin early February
1975, water injectionpolicy continuadto be
designedto exert generallyhigher injectionpres-
sures to the weet of the pilot, particularlyinto
Well 1-12, offsettingpilot producerWell 1-11.
~is practicewas pursued in an effort to counter
the preferentialflow of pilot fluids in this
directionand to attempt to keep the oil bank from
moving paat the pilot producers.
One originalwater injectorwas removed from
injectioneerwlce Ln December1975. This well
(l-2)was convertedto a pilot producer. Well
36-15was convertedto water injectionCo replacs
Well 1-2.
PILOT STATUS
At the end of June 1977 pilot productionhad
declinedto 35 B/D oil with 297 B/D water and
1,410 Mcf gas. Only Well 1-7 is currentlypro-
ducing oil in meaeureablevolumes. Wells 1-2 and
1-6 are flowingbut make only salt water with a
trace of oil and no measurable gas. PurchasedC02
Injectionwae discontinuedJanuary 19, 1977, and
recyclingof producedgas ceaaed February23, 1977.
Well 1-10. the CO injectionwell, and Well 1-11,
originallya piloz producer,were convertedto
water injectionon February28, 1977. The intent
of thesewell conversionswee to determineif
. mobile oil, either bypaesedby C02 injectionin the
pilot area or lying uncapturedin the interwell
area betweenWell 1-11 and Well 1-6, could be
dieplacedto a producerby water drive. Initial
water injectedinto both of thesewells waa tagged
with radioactivetracers (iodine125 in Well 1-10
and tritiumin Well 1-11) to penxlt monitoringof
breakthroughfrom either injector. Water injection
and pilot productionare continuingin ordar to
evaluatethe effecteof follow-upwater injection
on pilot performance. Table 2 shows ptlot cumula-
tive data throughJune 1977.
.
SPE [
OPEIUTIONALPROBLEMS
1. C02 Injection
Time-consumingdelays were encounteredwhen
injectionof purchasedIiquit CO wae firstbegun,
primarilydue to vapor lockingo$ the injection
pump and intermittentfreezingproblemsat the
injectionfacility. These problemewere ovarcome
with more effectiveinsulationand eventualstabil
izationof C02 supply,plus minor equipmentadjust
mants. When operationswere initiallyundertaken
to reinject the producedpilot gas stream,diffi-
culty waa experiencedcompressingthe small gas
volumee being producedat erratic rates. Wtth
increaeedvolumes and more etable rates,most of
the C02 recyclingproblemswere resolved. Power
outages due mainly to storms preeentedan occa-
sional problem since the C02 injectionPmP and
recycle compressorwere driven by electricmotors.
2. ProducingWell Freezing
3 the liquid rates from a producardecline
and producedgae rates increaae,eurface flowing
tamperatureadecline. As the well fluids are
expanded througha surface choke, sufficientheat
ie ~bsorbedby the expandinggases to cauae fraez-
ing at, and downstreamfrom, the choke. Wellhead
heaterswere neceesaryto control thla freezing
problem on two of the three pilot oil producers
during the latter stages of their producinglife.
3. Sand Control
Significantsand productionwae experienced
during pilot operation from all producers. The
most crit%calproblem seurcewae Well 1-7, which i
an edge-wellthat had been sand-fracedduring its
water injectionlife. The mechanicalconditionof
this well.was unique,and it ta beltevedthie
serious eand controlproblemwaa also unique.
Control of this problemwas accomplishedby carefu
attention to each wall’s sensitivityto aand pro-
ductionas a functionof fluid productionrate.
4. Asphalt-ParaffinPlugging
The problem of pluggingin the well tubulara,
chokas and surface productionllnes and equipaent
by asphalt-likeheavy hydrocarbonsand paraffinhas
been sporadic. The problemappezrs to be at Ieaat
part%allyambient temperatureeenoitivesince it
seeme to increaseduring cold weather periods.
Plugging in the well tubularswould be the neat
troublesomearea for thie problem to exist. This
occurred,to a significantdegree,only in early
1975 when Wells 1-6 and 1-7 both experienced
aaphaltplugging in the tubingstrings. Host of
the difficultiessinca then have been cauaed by
surfacepJ.ugging problems,which occur mainly in
the flowlf.nesduring winter when coolingby gas
expansionis aggravatedby low surface tempera-
tures. Hot water treatmentshave been ueed to
alleviatethe flowlineplugging.
Whether formation.pluggingby asphelt-heavy
oil residue is a problsm of major concernIs not
apparentfrom p%lot operations. At this time we d{
not believe it is a seriousproblem.
SPE 6747 P. W. Hansen 5

5. Corrosion work regardingthie facet of the project. Iiowever,

The moat eevere problemwe envisionedprior to
initiatingthe Little Creek C02 pilot was the
corrosioncontrolproblem--C02and water. It was,
in fact, the meet serious from a monetary stand-
point and alao from a well downtime point of view.
Despite the uee of holiday-free,plastic-coated
tubingand monthly batch-typetubing inhibitor
treactuente, corrosionetill managed to account for
significantproducingwell problemsduring the
pilot. Admittedly,these meaauresserved CO dras-
ticallycurtail the problembut did not completely
controlit. Perhaps the best solution to the well
tubularcorrosionproblemwould involve using
holiday-free,plastic-coatedtubing combinedwith
continuousinhibitionof the tubing by circulation
of an inhibitor-solvent solution. Either open-
ended-typecompletionswith injectiondown che
tubing-caeingannulus or dual tubing etring setups
might be employed to accomplishthis treatment.
it ie still too early to finalizeour evaluationof
the procees. When the final verdict Ie known,we
hope It means a new leaee on life for this once
praud field.
REFERENCES
1. Cronquiet,Chapman: ‘TJaterflooding by Linear
Displacementin Little Creek Field,
Misaisaippi,”J. Pet. Tech. (May, 1968)
525-533.
2. Weeks, Steve G., and Farrie,Gerald F.:
“Pe&gauge--A PermanentSurfaceRecording
Down-HolePressureMeasuringSystem--Througha
Tube,” paper SPE 5607 preeentedat SPE 50th
Annual Fall Meeting,Dallas, Sept. 28-Ott.1,
1975.

Corrosionin the producedgas recycle equip-

Table 1
ment ie a potentialsource of eerious problems.
Reservoirand Fluid Data
Pilot operationsdieclosedno troublesfrom this
system,however,since the recycledgas stream was
effectivelydehydrated. No corroeionproblemswere Pilot Area 31 acres
evidencedin the C02 injectionwell. Surface 693 NAP
Pilot Volume
facilities,which were protectedby inhibition ResidualOOIP in Pilot 200 M STB
treatment,also experiencedno corrosionproblems.
Porosity 0.234
CONCLUSIONS Avg. ResidualOil Saturation 0.210
Initial011 Saturation 0.440
Pilot operationsthroughJune 1977 have pro- Permeability(ResetvoirGee. Mean) 33 md
vided the answers to many of the queetionsconcern-
ing the CO dieplacenentproceee for tertiaryoil 4840 psia
Initial Reeenoir Preesure
reco.eryat Little Creek. It is obvloue that a ReeervoirTemperature 248°F
significantvolume of previouslyiaauobile oil,
OriginalBubble Point 2150 psia
trappedduring the waterfloodhistory of this
GOR 555 Scflsm
field,hae been displacedfrom the pilot area. A
Oil Gravity 39” API
considerableportion of this tertiaryoil bank has
FormationVolume Factor at Pi 1.32 RE/STB
been produceddeepite operationalproblems that
Oil Viscoeityat Pi 0.40 Cp
have caused significantproductioncurtailmentsand Oil Viscosity at Pb 0.30 Cp
shutdowneprimarilyduring the first year of pilot
performance. It would not be unreasonableto
assume pilot recoverycould have been notably
greater,especiallyduring the early oil recovery
phase, had it been possible to matntslnmaximum
Table 2
productionrates from all pilot producere. In
Productionand InjectionData
comparisonwith a eymmetricsl,confinedpattern
(711177J
operation,the semi-confinedpilot area also muet
have resultedin a suppressionof the pilot pro-
Production
ducers’ability to captureazd produce the tertiary
oil Water Gas
oil as it waa displaced toward them.
Pilot Well (Bbls) (Bbls) ~
Aside from the initialrash of productionand
1-2 51,083
injectiondifficulties,pilot operationalproblems 42,523 644,554
1-6 578,175
have been remarkablyfew and generallynot over-
1-7 61,796 180,692 996,489
powering. The corrosionproblem is eevere,but it 1-11 17,880 113,956 568,683
can be controlledsatisfactorilythroughproper
materials’selectionand a comprehensiveinhibition 2,209,726
Total 122,199 923,906
program. Well producingproblemsinvolvingsand
productionand paraffieand aephaltplugging can
Gaa Injection
also be troublesome,but pilot experienceindicatee Purchaeed Recycled Total
these problemswill probablybe eevere only in
random caees. Their control seems within our
operationalcapabilities. Pilot Well

The most importantqueecionposed prior to the 1-1o 1,589,899 1,782,907 3,372,806

pilot test was “How eff%cientis this recovery
method?” We are encouragedby our preliminary
 l?dt

j_.. _._.~J
-- :O#& TUSCALOOSA ( ~.<.r-.—.
! , ,a
I-J:. 1;

FIG, 1- INDEX MAP OF SOUTH MISSISSIPPI

FIG. 2. LITTLE CREEK FIELD STRUCTURE M

#w WJo-

Ea Icw .
*
:
:Y100
uNITIZED
2
1
: Wzz .
:

20 Kw . GOR

0 Q

FIG. 3- LITTLE CREEK FIELKYPRODUCTION HISTORY

 IJA$O,, RAnO
m- evmt

)
so . OILluwms-m
/
‘---~d

WM,*’ . . —
* -—- .
,
m .~ ●A

20 —2-L

! 0. ,m
0
I ml

)
,,,,
WI* —

FIG. 6- PILOT PRODUCER WELL 1-8 PERFORMANCE

● @Wf-=-mLL
● wA7P.n l-m WLL
● mo9wsR
o M-l t7,MVATtOM -LL

-5”
0
SiCTIW 7 SECrlOR 1
XAL1 m Pffl
/’
L17TLSCRSSR UNIT NO. !.7
?/Arm CUT ,%,

FIG. 4. C02 PILOT AREA NET PAY ISOPACH i

&
m

m
I
—-.
!“”
““’!’TI , .—

Ef=r”A
~~
CII1
n

~ $$I$:LRAW :

. w Ou mOOu#m
L #
/

M 4QW-. . —+ ——
M7UCS7W
t
!m-

“’”””’’”3====
~2:~ nnfmImmmm —
F----

lha’ - :-/
>,..,’
m

\ I n
VJ

FIG. 7. PILOT PRODUCER WELL 1-7 PERFORMANCE

;’
ml

s
- cm

,
,. u
. N
9
s
la 1

LWM CRICR WA17 W. 1.1!

,-
.-

m .

m-
\ ‘u.:.. I
-_~
‘“t\/.

FIG. 5. C02 PILOT PERFORMANCE

:!K=+--’”’+- 1 I/ I
to . *W

FIG. 8. PILOT PRODUCER WELL 1-11 PERFORMANCE

 au Illm’mwl

;Xm
3
Sam
i -... . .......-.-’
~ ..---- ‘-”””%:R$”~ 0 CO, .
: ,m

I::
: 30

:.2,
;
$ to
0

FIG. 9- C02 AND PRODUCED GAS INJECTION

t= 1 1 I ,
lm
w , f , 1 , I J
m - cv9NAnvI Smwml[o 64s911RATIO@umNJ I - :
g I I
ml
(-% x:,- ) -w
m
*
m
a
7 -
-a
.n
It

w “
*I-
m-
n -

lo -

m -
: .
7 -
8 -
s -
e -

3 .

z -

cwtnnvl 011 fnowcnn ■ Hu

FIG. 10. PILOT NET INJECTED GAS AND PRODUCED GAS FIG. 11- INDIVIDUAL PILOT PRODUCTION WELLS
PERFORMANCE VEPSUS 01 L PRODUCTION VERSUS 01 L PRODUCTION

MIJMIHLV UOR
IMcmm].

CUWLILAIIVE Pmlwcmoon (HLW3ml

!g

ii
/
m
a F
/

●
/

$ 10 m a
cwwvt nwoucm oon ImFmI cwmnvt OIL~ . MnnfL8 [WI

FIG. 13. CUMUL/%T’lVE GOR VERSUS CUMULATIVE