SPE-169103-MS

Taking CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery to the Offshore Gulf of Mexico

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOR/proceedings-pdf/14IOR/All-14IOR/SPE-169103-MS/1518395/spe-169103-ms.pdf by University of Michigan user on 16 January 2022

Phil DiPietro, U.S. DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory; Vello Kuuskraa and Taylor Malone,
Advanced Resources International

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 12–16 April 2014.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

This paper evaluates the recoverable crude oil resource associated with applying carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO2
EOR) to reservoirs in the offshore Gulf of Mexico (GOM). Using data maintained by the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM), a database containing 531 oil fields with a total original oil in-place (OOIP) of 69 billion barrels was
used for the study. A total of 391 fields, representing 35% of the OOIP, were screened out at as not amenable to CO2 EOR
based on size, residual oil saturation, and/or well-spacing. For the remaining 140 oil fields (containing 696 reservoirs), the
data elements required to model a CO2 EOR flood, such as sweep efficiency and heterogeneity, were derived using a variety
of methods. Crude oil production and CO2 demand profiles were produced from stream-tube finite-difference simulations for
each oil-bearing reservoir. The study assumes that groups of proximate fields will be served by an anchor CO2 supply
pipeline (one billion scf per year CO2) at a levelized transportation cost of $1.06/MscfCO2 (equivalently 20$/mtCO2). The
economic determinations are based on a crude oil price of $90/bbl, CO2 price of $1.59/Mscf (30 $/MtCO2) at the capture
facility plant gate, 18.75% royalty, and a 20% rate of return before taxes. BOEM projects that 182 billion barrels of OOIP
remain undiscovered, two and a half times the discovered resource. Data from the analysis of discovered oil fields was used
to estimate the expected CO2 EOR oil recovery from the undiscovered oil fields. Under the current CO2 EOR Technology
scenario, the economically recoverable resources (ERR) is 0.8 billion barrels, a small fraction of the technically recoverable
resource (TRR) of 23.5 billion barrels. The average efficiency of CO2 use in the ERR oil fields is estimated to be 7.2
Mscf/bbl and the associated demand for CO2 supply is 5.8 TCF. Under a scenario with Next Generation CO2 EOR
performance, the ERR increases significantly to 14.9 billion barrels and 74 TCF of CO2 demand, consistent with an improved
use efficiency of 5.0 MscfCO2/bbl.

Introduction

Currently, all of the CO2 EOR operations in the United States are onshore. It is more expensive to conduct a CO2 EOR flood
offshore due to the expense of transporting CO2 to offshore locations, the higher cost of processing and re-compressing
produced gas in offshore settings, the higher cost of drilling and re-working wells, and the higher cost for operations and
maintenance of an offshore facility. Still, the offshore GOM oil resource is large and the current price range for crude oil,
average $86/bbl over the past 5 years (EIA 2014), can support ambitious tertiary oil production projects in favorable offshore
reservoirs.

Several pilot tests of CO2 injection were conducted in the offshore GOM during the 1980s (Moore 1896, Hsie and Moore
1988, Nute 1983). None led directly to commercial projects but were generally regarded as technically successful. The most
significant current activity related to offshore CO2 EOR is the CO2 EOR pilot test being conducted by Petrobras at the Lula
field off the coast of Brazil (Pizarro and Branco 2012). The setting at Lula is highly favorable to CO2 EOR; the produced gas
contains 8 to 15% CO2 and core samples indicate the residual oil saturation after water flood would be relatively high. The
main insight from the Lula project thus far is that incorporating CO2 EOR into the designs for primary and secondary
recovery reduces capital outlay and eliminates platform downtime for well re-works at the initiation of a CO2 EOR flood.
2 SPE-169103-MS

The U.S. Federal Government has an interest in application of CO2 EOR in the offshore GOM for two reasons. First it
receives a royalty of 18.75% on oil production in federal waters (BOEM 2012). Also, in the longer term, geologic formations
in the offshore Gulf of Mexico are intriguing as possible CO2 storage repositories (Litynski, Brown and Vikara et al. 2011).

CO2 supply is always a critical component for any CO2 EOR project. While CO2 supply is not the focus of this study, we
note that recent increase in natural gas supply from shale gas has engendered a boom in the planning and building of natural
gas conversion facilities along the Gulf Coast. Many of these facilities will vent relatively pure streams of CO2 and could
provide CO2 supply for EOR at a competitive cost.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOR/proceedings-pdf/14IOR/All-14IOR/SPE-169103-MS/1518395/spe-169103-ms.pdf by University of Michigan user on 16 January 2022

The opportunity for CO2 EOR in the GOM is time-sensitive in both the shallow and deep waters. Primary and secondary oil
production in the shallow GOM is winding down. As of 2008, 95% of the ultimate proved oil reserves in the GOM offshore
had been produced (BOEM 2012b). CO2 EOR would need to be implemented before the offshore platforms are shut down
and dismantled.

At the same time development in the deep offshore GOM is emerging. Primary production is scheduled to begin at eight
fields during 2014 (EIA 2013), and most of the undiscovered reserves are in the deep water. Designing primary production
with an eventual CO2 flood in mind could significantly reduce the cost of implementing CO2 EOR.

Analysis Methodology and Models

The study methodology first identified the oil reservoirs in the offshore GOM that are amenable to CO2 EOR and then
simulated a CO2 EOR flood for each oil reservoir. The study then combined the crude oil production and CO2 demand from
each simulation with estimates of the cost of implementing and conducting CO2 EOR to determine which oil fields are
economic for CO2 EOR. The methodology is similar to that employed in Kuuskraa, Van Leeuwen and Wallace (2011).

All reservoirs (referred to as sands in the BOEM data set) with OOIP less than 10 million barrels were screened out as too
small, as were fields with OOIP less than 50 million barrels. Next, the minimum miscibility pressure was estimated for each
reservoir using the Cronquist equation. If the MMP is greater than the maximum allowed reservoir pressure, the reservoir
was screened out. Fields with residual oil saturation after water flood (Sor) of less than 20% were screened as not having
enough crude oil left to motivate a tertiary operation.

CO2 EOR simulations were conducted using PROPHET, a model developed by Texaco for the U.S. Department of Energy
and extensively modified by Advanced Resources International to account for CO2 solubility in water and other model
features. The PROPHET model defines stream lines to create one-dimensional displacement calculations across cell blocks,
which it solves using finite difference method. Single point estimates for model inputs (e.g., thickness, porosity, oil gravity,
reservoir temperature, etc.) are used to represent the each reservoir. The injector/producer fluid flows from the PROPHET
simulation represent a single injection well pattern and this representative well pattern is scaled (based on well spacing and
reservoir area) to reflect the entire reservoir.

A spreadsheet-based cash flow model is used to assess the economics of a CO2 flood at each reservoir. The model tracks
revenues and expenditures over the life of a CO2 EOR project and returns a pre-tax rate-of-return. A 20% rate of return is the
minimum for a field to be included in the ERR. The model inputs the field-level CO2 purchase and crude oil production
profiles from PROPHET. The number of new wells that are required is estimated by comparing the current well density to
the established well density in the PROPHET simulation. The cost for the CO2 supply pipeline and the produced gas
processing and compression facilities are assumed to be shared by more than one project.

We judged it to be important to include an estimate for the undiscovered GOM offshore resource base because it is so large,
182 billion barrels of OOIP. We accomplish this by starting with the reserve estimate from BOEM and applying the average
values for the expected ultimate crude oil recovery from primary and secondary production (P/S EUR), the percent of OOIP
that is amenable to CO2 EOR, and percent OOIP recovered from CO2 EOR.

Ou = (Ru/Pd) * Sd (1)

Cu = (Ou*Id) * Ed (2)

Where:

Ou - Total amount of Original Oil in Place in undiscovered fields that is amenable to CO2 EOR
Ru – Reserve estimates for the undiscovered fields (Bbbls), from BOEM
SPE-169103-MS 3

Pd – Estimated ultimate recovery from primary and secondary operations, average from discovered fields in
the deep Gulf of Mexico
Sd Percent of discovered OOIP in the deep offshore GOM that screens as amenable to CO2 EOR
Cu – Recoverable Resource from CO2 EOR applied to undiscovered oil fields in the GOM
Id – Incremental recovery from CO2 EOR (%OOIP), average from discovered fields in the deep Gulf of
Mexico
Ed – Percent of discovered OOIP in the deep offshore GOM that is economic for CO2 EOR (equal to 1.0 for
TRR calculation)

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOR/proceedings-pdf/14IOR/All-14IOR/SPE-169103-MS/1518395/spe-169103-ms.pdf by University of Michigan user on 16 January 2022

Sources of Data Used for the Models, Methods for Deriving Data Elements Not Available from Primary Sources

The PROPHET input parameters for the design of a CO2 flood under the Current Technology scenario are consistent with a
five-spot pattern, total CO2 injection of 1.0 hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV) and tapered water-alternating-gas (WAG)
injection. While the CO2 flood design is constant across all reservoirs and all floods are simulated as if implemented after a
secondary water flood, the well spacing used for the CO2 flood are reservoir specific.

Several changes are made to PROPHET input parameters to represent Next Generation CO2 EOR capability. A tapered WAG
is maintained and the maximum amount of CO2 injected is increased to 1.5 HCPV. For improved reservoir conformance, the
highest permeability reservoir layer is blocked off after eight to nine years and injection is resumed into the remaining
reservoir layers. For improved mobility control, the viscosity of the injected water is increased to 2.0 cp. Finally, a second
CO2 injector (or pattern re-alignment) is used to contact the unswept portion of the reservoir with CO2. These improved
technologies modifications to the CO2 flood are described more fully in Wallace, Kuuskraa and DiPietro (2013).
Fundamental data on properties are acquired from BOEM (2011) including original, produced and remaining oil and gas. For
each reservoir, the area flooded is constrained to 80%, by deletion of the lower quality edge areas of the reservoir.

The following are data that are needed for the PROPHET simulations but are not contained in the BOEM data set.

The fraction of the reservoir that is swept during primary and secondary recovery is estimated based on the P/S EUR, the
initial oil saturation and the residual oil saturation. The residual oil saturations in the swept and un-swept area of the
reservoir are calculated based on oil remaining after the waterflood and the swept zone oil saturation.

The Dykstra Parsons reservoir heterogeneity factor is estimated by applying stream tube simulation results relating mobility
ratio, sweep efficiency and water oil ratio published by Hirisaki, Morra and Wihite (1984).

Water and CO2 injectivity are estimated using a correlation based on the reservoir depth, thickness, and permeability and the
injectant viscosity at the reservoir conditions. The correlation is described in Munoz and Ray (1983). A maximum injection
rate is set at 20,000 bpd water, based on reported rates at the Mars Ursa water flood (Alkindi, Prince-Wright, Moore, et al.
2007).

The residual oil saturation after CO2 contact is assumed to be 10% based on past post CO2 flood measurements under the
Current Technology scenario and 8% under the higher CO2 injection volumes in the Next Generation scenario.

The well count compiled from BOEM (2014) is overlaid with the field area to estimate well spacing. In the shallow water
wells, spacing ranges from 80 acres to 1280 acres, with most fields falling between 320 and 640 acres. The range of well
spacing is less varied in the deep offshore, median spacing is 1280 acres. In the shallow GOM there is some iteration using
PROPHET to determine a spacing for each reservoir that gives a flood that lasts 20-25 years. In the deep offshore GOM all
fields are drilled to 640 acres to transition from water flood to CO2. In cases where multiple reservoirs (sands) are stacked
within one field, we assume that each well can only serve a single reservoir.

Well costs, Table 1, were derived from a variety of public and industry sources. Staff at BOEM were consulted to ensure the
well costs used in this study were in-line with current offshore GOM well costs.
4 SPE-169103-MS

Table 1. Estimated Well Costs in the Offshore Gulf of Mexico

Shallow GOM Deep GOM

Reservoir Depth Reservoir

Water Well Cost Water Well Cost
(Ft Below Depth
Depth (Ft) ($MM) Depth (Ft) ($MM)
Mudline) (Ft Below
Mudline)

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOR/proceedings-pdf/14IOR/All-14IOR/SPE-169103-MS/1518395/spe-169103-ms.pdf by University of Michigan user on 16 January 2022

50 5,000 11.1 2,000 10,000 26.3

50 10,000 15.6 2,000 15,000 46.4

200 8,000 13.9 4,000 16,000 55.2

200 12,000 17.6 4,000 25,000 91.4

400 8,000 14.1 6,000 16,000 59.9

400 12,000 17.7 6,000 25,000 96.1

A one year lag between the initiation of CO2 injection and the start of crude oil production is input into the cash flow model
to account for time to raise reservoir pressure to above MMP.

The pipeline cost estimate is based on a conceptual anchor pipeline going from East Baton Rouge Parish Louisiana to the
Mission Canyon area in the Gulf of Mexico (100 miles onshore, 150 miles offshore). Onshore pipeline cost is estimated to
be 3 MM$/mile based on Denbury (2011); offshore pipeline cost is estimated to be 6.2 MM$/mile based on Smith (2013).
This gives a total pipeline capital cost of $1.2 billion. Assuming 85% utilization, the pipeline requires $20/mt CO2
($1.06/Mcf) delivered to recover capital and cover operating costs. The $20/mtCO2 surcharge is applied to each metric ton of
CO2 as it is consumed. In addition, each field bears the expense of a 15-mile-long distribution pipeline connecting the main
CO2 trunkline to the oil field.

The gas processing and recompression unit operation is also assumed to be shared among several facilities. For shallow
water oil fields (water depth less than 1,000 feet), the CO2-EOR floods make use of existing platform structures and
pipelines. CO2 recycling plants are housed on currently existing platforms or on a central platform shared by a number of oil
fields. For deep water oil fields (water depth greater or equal to 1,000 feet), production facilities consist of subsea systems
connected to major floating or moored processing centers where CO2 recycling facilities and major oil production facilities
are housed. This is modeled after the Independence, Na Kika, and Canyon Express hubs in the Gulf of Mexico where
multiple fields are tied back to the same platform. Independence serves 6 fields and 5 operators in 8,000 ft of water and the
Na Kika serves 6 fields and 2 operators in 6,3000 ft of water. This deep water production facility design is also similar to
Petrobras’ Lula development, which includes subsea completions tied-back to an FPSO containing CO2 separation and
recycling facilities. The levelized cost of gas processing is estimated to be $1.15 per Mcf of recycled gas under Current
Technology and, due to higher recycle volumes, $1.00 per Mcf under the Next Generation scenario.

For the undiscovered calculations, in the deep GOM 71.4% of the OOIP screens as amenable to CO2 EOR (Sd). Under the
current CO2 EOR technology scenario 1.5% of the screened-in OOIP is economic (Ed) and the average incremental oil
production from applying CO2 EOR to those fields is 18% OOIP (Id). Under the next generation CO2 EOR technology
scenario 29% of the OOIP is economic and the CO2 EOR production from those fields is 25.5% OOIP.

Results

The dataset from BOEM contains 531 fields consisting 4,709 reservoirs (sands), representing 68.6 billion barrels of OOIP.
The initial screen, deleting all reservoirs below 10 million barrels OOIP removes 3,618 reservoirs containing 9.3 billion
barrels of OOIP. The subsequent screens, for MMP, residual oil saturation, permeability and well-spacing, remove an
additional 395 reservoirs containing 15.0 billion barrels of OOIP. (Two reservoirs were determined to have maximum
allowable CO2 pressures below MMP). The final data set composed of 696 reservoirs in 140 fields, contains 44.3 billion
barrels of OOIP, Figure 1.
SPE-169103-MS 5

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOR/proceedings-pdf/14IOR/All-14IOR/SPE-169103-MS/1518395/spe-169103-ms.pdf by University of Michigan user on 16 January 2022

Table 2 shows the screening results broken out by shallow and deep GOM oil fields. The average P/S EUR for fields in the
deep GOM is 30% OOIP, significantly less than the 42% for the fields in the shallow GOM.

Table 2. OOIP and Reserve Data for Oil Fields in the Gulf of Mexico

Shallow GOM Deep GOM Undiscovered

Estimate
Original Reservoirs Original Reservoirs
BOEM amenable
BOEM screened for BOEM screened for
Estimate to CO2
Database CO2 EOR Database CO2 EOR
EOR

No. Fields 404 80 127 60 -- --

No. Sands (Reservoirs) 4,044 512 665 184 -- --

OOIP (B Bbls) 28.7 15.8 39.9 28.5 182 130

Average OOIP / field 71 198 314 475 -- --

Cum P/S Prod. (B Bbls) 11.0 6.4 3.4 2.9 0 0

Remaining Reserves (B 6.0 5.6 42.8 38.7

0.6 0.2
Bbls)

P/S Estimated Ultimate 24% 30% 24% 30%

40% 42%
Recovery (%)

The map in Figure 2 shows geographic clustering of deepwater targets in Green Canyon (GC) and Mississippi Canyon (MC)
to support the concept of jointly-utilized CO2 pipeline transport and produced gas processing assets.
6 SPE-169103-MS

Figure  2.  Location  of  Fields  Amenable  to  CO2  EOR  in  the  Deep  Gulf  of  Mexico

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOR/proceedings-pdf/14IOR/All-14IOR/SPE-169103-MS/1518395/spe-169103-ms.pdf by University of Michigan user on 16 January 2022

Under the Current Technology scenario the TRR for CO2 EOR in the offshore GOM is 23.5 billion barrels, Table 3. Two
hundred and thirty five TCF of CO2 supply would be required to achieve that production. The ERR is significantly less, 0.8
billion barrels. The TRR under a Next Generation Technology scenario is 52.9 billion barrels, slighly more than double the
Current Technology case. This is due to the use of advanced technologies that support greater CO2 contact of the reservoir
and the injection of 50% more CO2. The ERR under the Next Generation CO2 EOR technology scenario is 14.9 billion
barrels, only 28% of the TRR but much more significant than the ERR under Current Technology. CO2 use is more efficient
in the Next Generation scenario, 5.0 to 5.4 Mscf/bbl compared to 7.2 to 10.0 Mscf/bbl in the Current Technology scenario.
SPE-169103-MS 7

Table 3. Technically and Economically Recoverable Resource for CO2

EOR in the Offshore Gulf of Mexico

Technical Economic

Current Next Gen Current Next Gen

Crude Oil
23.5 52.9 0.8 14.9
Resource, Bbbls

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOR/proceedings-pdf/14IOR/All-14IOR/SPE-169103-MS/1518395/spe-169103-ms.pdf by University of Michigan user on 16 January 2022

CO2 Demand, Tcf 235 285 5.8 73.9

Average CO2 Use

10,000 5,400 7,200 5,000
(scf/bbl)

Figure 3 shows the ERR for reservoirs in the shallow and deep GOM and also undiscovered reservoirs. Undiscovered
reservoirs represent 64% of the total ERR.

Figure  3.  Economically  Recoverable  Resource  for  CO2 EOR  for  the  Shallow,  Deep  and  
Undiscovered  Gulf  of  Mexico

Crude  Oil  ERR CO2  Demand

 16 80
 14 70
 12 60
Billion  Barrels

 10 50
TCF

 8 40
 6 30
 4 20
 2 10
 -­‐ 0
Current Next Current Next
technology generation technology generation
Shallow 0.39 3.26 Shallow 2.84 13.6
Deep 0.08 2.1 Deep 0.57 11.0
Undiscovered 0.34 9.56 Undiscovered 2.46 49.3

Table 4 presents a comparison of the populations of reservoirs in the shallow and deep offshore GOM. In general, reservoirs
in the deep offshore GOM are significantly bigger (median size 182 Bbbls compared to 42 Bbbls in the shallow GOM) and
also less homogeneous (median Dykstra Parsons factor of 0.88 compared to 0.82 in the shallow GOM).
8 SPE-169103-MS

Table 4. Distributions of Key Variables in the Shallow and Deep Offshore GOM

Percentile of OOIP

10% 25% 50% 75% 90%

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOR/proceedings-pdf/14IOR/All-14IOR/SPE-169103-MS/1518395/spe-169103-ms.pdf by University of Michigan user on 16 January 2022

Reservoir Size (Bbbls OOIP) 15 23 42 74 151

Depth (feet) 5,350 6,400 7,800 9,450 10,800

Shallow Offshore*

Soi 67% 70% 75% 79% 82%

Dykstra Parsons 0.91 0.87 0.82 0.75 0.75

P/S EUR (% OOIP) 25% 33% 43% 51% 56%

Next Generation (% OOIP) 24% 26% 29% 31% 32%

Reservoir Size (Bbbls OOIP) 45 82 186 402 655

Depth (feet) 9,200 13,200 20,500 25,100 28,500
Deep Offshore**

Soi 73% 76% 83% 85% 87%

Dykstra Parsons 0.93 0.93 0.88 0.84 0.81

P/S EUR (% OOIP) 20% 24% 32% 42% 44%

Incremental Oil Production from Next

21% 23% 24% 26% 29%
Generation CO2 EOR (% OOIP)
* Distributions are within the population of reservoirs in the shallow offshore GOM that are economic for CO2 EOR with
Next Generation Technology (352 reservoirs, 11,332 Bbbls OOIP). An additional160 reservoirs (4,474 Bbbls OOIP)
are technically possible but uneconomic.
** Distributions are within the population of reservoirs in the deep offshore GOM that are economic for CO2 EOR with
Next Generation Technology (76 reservoirs, 8,257 Bbbls OOIP). 108 reservoirs (20,228 Bbbls OOIP) are technically
possible but uneconomic.

In the shallow waters 109 of the 512 reservoirs achieved maximum injectivity of 20,000 bpd. In the deep water 95 of the 184
reservoirs achieved the maximum injectivity. The average permeability for the deep water reservoirs is 750 md and the
average net pay is 60 feet compared to 480 md and 30 feet average in the shallow water.

The results from the cash flow analysis vary widely from field-to-field. For example, one field will have a higher gas-to-oil
ratio and the gas plant will be a more significant cost component. Another field will have relatively wide initial well spacing
where drilling costs dominate. As such, we hesitate to the use the word typical. Figure 5 presents the cash flow results from
a sample oil field in the offshore GOM. Under the Current Technology scenario, 0.9 B$ is invested in the first five years of
the project to produce 26 million barrels of crude oil, 90% over the first 11 years of the project. Under the next generation
scenario 1.7 B$ is expended over the first five years and 50 million barrels of crude oil is produced. The next generation
project requires a greater investment in injection wells, CO2 purchases, and also operation and maintenance costs.
SPE-169103-MS 9

Figure  4.  Cash  Flows  and  Cost  Components  for  CO2  EOR  at  a  Typical  Oilfield  in  the  Offshore  GOM

Next  Generation  Technology Scenario  

Current Technology  Scenario  
600 600

26   Bbbls crude  oil   50   Bbbls crude  oil  

400 produced.    Flood   400 produced.    Flood  

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOR/proceedings-pdf/14IOR/All-14IOR/SPE-169103-MS/1518395/spe-169103-ms.pdf by University of Michigan user on 16 January 2022

duration  23   years. duration  20   years.
Cash  Flow  (MM$/yr)

200 200

0 0

-­‐200 -­‐200

-­‐400 -­‐400

-­‐600 -­‐600

cost  components* cost  components*

wells
wells
gas  plant
gas  plant
other  capital
other  capital
CO2  purchase
CO2  purchase
CO2  recycle
CO2  recycle
O&M
O&M

*cost  components  are  discounted  to  year  zero  using  a  0.1  discount  rate.
10 SPE-169103-MS

We exercised the cash flow model to estimate the sensitivity of the ERR to changes in the assumed prices for CO2 and crude
oil, Figure 5. Under the Current Technology scenario, increasing the cost of CO2 from $2.64/mscf of CO2 ($1.59 purchase
price and $1.06 pipeline cost) to $3.70 eliminates all the ERR. Decreasing the cost of CO2 to $1.06 increases the ERR from
0.8 to 2.5 billion barrels. Keeping the price of CO2 at $2.64 and increasing the price of crude oil from $90/bbl to $135/bbl
produces an effect of a similar magnitude, the ERR increases to 2.8 billion barrels. Under the Next Generation Technology
scenario, an increase in the cost of CO2 to $3.70 decreases the ERR 40%, to 9.3 billion barrels. A decrease in the cost of CO2
to $1.06 increases the ERR 45% to 22 billion barrels. Clearly, the biggest impact is the combination of Next Generation CO2
EOR technology and crude oil price at $135/bbl. Under that scenario the ERR is 38 billion barrels, an amount equal to 77%
of the TRR.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOR/proceedings-pdf/14IOR/All-14IOR/SPE-169103-MS/1518395/spe-169103-ms.pdf by University of Michigan user on 16 January 2022

Figure  5.  Sensitivy of  ERR  to  CO2  price,  Crude  oil  Price  and  Technology  Scenario

40
Economically  Recoverable  Resource  (Bbbls)*

Next  Generation  CO2

35 EOR  Technology,  Crude
Oil  Price  90$/bbl
30
Next  Generation
25 Technology,  135  $/bbl

20
Current  CO2  EOR
15 Technology,  Crude  oil
price  90  $/bbl
10
Current  CO2  EOR
5 Technology,  135  $/bbl

0
1.06 1.59 2.12 2.65 3.17 3.70
CO2  Price  ($/mscf @  the  offshore  field)**

*  based  on a  20%  rate  of  return  on  capital,  pre-­‐tax

**  includes  a  CO2  pipeline  fee  of  $1.06/mtCO2

Conclusions

Next Generation CO2 EOR technology opens-up the opportunity to economically use CO2 EOR in the offshore Gulf of
Mexico. The higher efficiency of CO2 use and the greater recovery of OOIP available with Next Generation CO2-EOR
technology are key.

The opportunity for CO2 EOR in the GOM is time-sensitive in both the shallow and deep waters but for different reasons.
Primary and secondary oil production in the shallow GOM is winding down. CO2 EOR would need to be implemented
before platforms are shut down and dismantled. Development in the deep offshore GOM is growing. Designing for CO2
EOR at the outset of these projects could greatly reduce the overall cost.

Acknowledgements

The underlying study of Offshore Gulf of Mexico CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery, prepared by Vello Kuuskraa and Taylor
Malone of Advanced Resources International, Inc. were supported by funding from the U.S. Department of Energy’s
National Energy Technology Laboratory under contract DE-FE0004001. The authors would like to acknowledge the
valuable technical contributions from Evelyn Dale, Don Remson and Traci Rodosta.

References

Alkindi, A., Prince-Wright, R., Moore, W. et al. 2007. Challenges for Waterflooding in a Deepwater Environment. Paper
OTC-18523. presented at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, 30 April – 3 May 2007
BOEM. 2011. http://www.data.boem.gov/homepg/data_center/gandg/gandg.asp The file used for this report is named
“2008sands” (updated June 30, 2011)
BOEM. 2012a. Gulf of Mexico Lease Terms & Royalty Relief.
http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Oil_and_Gas_Energy_Program/Energy_Economics/Fair_Market_Value/GOMLeaseTermsRR
Summary.pdf
BOEM. 2012b. Estimated Oil and Gas Reserves Gulf of Mexico OCS Region December 31, 2008. OCS Report BOEM
2012-103, UD DOI, BOEM, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, Louisiana (2012)
BOEM. 2014. Borehole online query. http://www.data.boem.gov/homepg/data_center/well/borehole/master.asp (accessed August
2013)
SPE-169103-MS 11

Denbury Resources. 2011. Corporate Responsibility Report. Page 6 states the Green Pipeline cost nearly $1B, page 39 states
it is 325 miles long. http://www.denbury.com/files/doc_downloads/DenburyCRR_Final_050313.pdf
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2014. Spot Prices Petroleum and Other Liquids, West Texas Intermediate.
http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/data.cfm (accessed January 23, 2014)
Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2013. Short Term Energy Outlook Supplement: Key drivers for EIA’s short
term U.S. crude oil production Outlook http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/special/pdf/2013_sp_02.pdf 14 February
Hirasaki,G. J., Morra F., and Willhite, G. P. 1984. Estimation of Reservoir Heterogeneity from Waterflood Performance.
SPE 13415
Hsie, J.C., and Moore, J. S. 1988. The Quarantine Bay 4RC CO2 WAG Pilot Project: A Post Flood Evaluation. SPE

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOR/proceedings-pdf/14IOR/All-14IOR/SPE-169103-MS/1518395/spe-169103-ms.pdf by University of Michigan user on 16 January 2022

Reservoir Engineering 3 (3): 809-814. SPE 15498-PA
Kuuskraa, V. A., Van Leeuwen, T., and Wallace, M. 2011. Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2
Emissions with “Next Generation” CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery. DOE/NETL-2011/1504. Appendix A. (June 2011)
http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/refshelf/PubDetails.aspx?Action=View&PubId=391
Litynski, J. T., Brown, B. M., Vikara, D. M. et al. 2011. Carbon Capture and Sequestration: The U.S. Department of
Energy’s R&D Efforts to Characterize Opportunities for Deep Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide in Offshore Resources.
Paper OTC-21987-PP presented at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, 2–5 May 2011.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/refshelf/project%20portfolio/2011/SelectedPubs/OTC-21987-PP%20-
%20Litynski%20Offshore%20CCS%20Manuscript_Final.pdf
Mansoori, J. 1982. Compositional Modeling of CO2 Flooding and the Effect of CO2 Water Solubility. SPE 11438 MS
Moore, J.S. 1986. Design, Installation, and Early Operation of the Timbalier Bay S-2B(RA)SU Gravity-Stable, Miscible
CO2-injection Project. SPE Production Engineering 1 (5): 369-378. SPE 14287-PA
Nute, A.J. 1983. Design and Evaluation of a Gravity-Stable, Miscible CO2-Solvent Flood, Bay St. Elaine Field. SPE 11506-
MS presented at the Middle East Oil Technical Conference and Exhibition, Bahrain, 14-17 March
Ray, R. M. and Diaz Munoz, J. 1986. Fossil Energy Supporting Technology For Enhanced Oil Recovery Polymer Predictive
Model. DOE/BC-86/10/SP (December 1986)
de Sant´Anna Pizarro, J.O., and Moreira Branco, C.C. 2012 Challenges in Implementing an EOR Project in the Pre-Salt
Province in Deep Offshore Brazil. Paper SPE 155665 presented at SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia, 16-18
April 2012, Muscat, Oman
Smith, C. E. 2013. Worldwide Pipeline Construction: Crude, products plans push 2013 construction sharply higher. Oil and
Gas Journal 04 February http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-111/issue-02/special-report--worldwide-pipeline-
construction/worldwide-pipeline-construction-crude-products.html (subscription required)
Wallace, M., Kuuskraa, V.A. and DiPietro, J.P. 2013. An In-Depth Look at “Next Generation” CO2 EOR Technology.
National Energy Technology Laboratory (September 2013) http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-
analyses/refshelf/PubDetails.aspx?Action=View&PubId=497
Darman, N.H., and Hashim, N.B.T. 2006. EOR Technologies and Applications in Malaysia (Petronas). presentation for the
Petroleum Policy and Management Project, 4th Workshop of the Indonesia – Kutai Basin Case Study, Jakarta, Indonesia, 13-
17 June 2006