Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 35 April 2000.
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. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Carbon dioxide is both the most-recognized greenhouse gas as
well as the second most-used injectant in oil fields, after
water. This coincidence creates the possibility of injecting
previously-vented CO
2
to both reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and increase oil recovery. Such a project has been
evaluated for the Avile reservoir of the Puesto Hernandez
field, located in the Neuquen Basin in west-central Argentina.
This oil field produces associated gas containing
approximately 60 percent CO
2,
which has previously been
vented. The project described below assessed the feasibility
of extracting and injecting the CO
2
into the field to recover
additional oil using an immiscible displacement process.
Following an evaluation including core floods, compositional
simulation, and facilities evaluation, the process was found
both to have technical and economic promise in terms of
improved oil recovery, and to result in reduction of both CO
2
and methane emissions, the latter being an especially potent
greenhouse gas. The success of this type of project would
create a unique common ground for those concerned with
reducing global warming and those concerned with supplying
societys energy needs.
Introduction
This project evaluated the application of a seldom-used
process (immiscible CO
2
flooding) in the Avile reservoir of
the Puesto Hernandez field, located in the Neuquen Basin in
west-central Argentina (see Figure 1), a region with no prior
history of CO
2
injection. Therefore, all aspects of a gas
injection project had to be investigated to arrive at a best
estimate of whether the project made technical and economic
sense. Described below are the properties of the Avile
Reservoir, Puesto Hernandez Field, Argentina; results of the
laboratory fluid characterizations and core floods; pilot area
compositional simulations and the resulting incremental oil
rate projections; the analysis of facility requirements; the
impact of this project on greenhouse gas emissions; and the
estimated economic viability of the project. Significant
tertiary oil recovery potential exists based on laboratory
studies of fluids and core materials from the reservoir
combined with compositional simulation of the laboratory
experiments and a field pilot model. Using a conservative
interpretation of the available laboratory core flood data
resulted in favorable project economics under base
assumptions, with a low likelihood of negative economic
returns. The project was estimated to incrementally recover
approximately 4.0 percent of the original oil in place,
corresponding to 220,000 Sm
3
for the pilot area and 670,000
Sm
3
for the combined pilot and full project expansion. The
potential greenhouse gas emission reductions range from
approximately 185,000 carbon equivalent metric tons for the
pilot to 714,000 carbon equivalent metric tons for the
combined pilot and full project expansion.
Discussion
Reservoir Characteristics. Comprised dominantly of aeolian
sand dune deposits, the Avile Reservoir in the Puesto
Hernandez Field can be characterized as a monotonous,
massive sandstone. Vertical variations in porosity are often
subtle and may have limited lateral continuity (see Figure 2).
For the purpose of this study, the Avile was sub-divided into a
total of eight layers. These eight flow units reflected the
maximum number of vertical divisions that have reasonable
lateral correlation. Each layer top was picked at the top of a
relatively high porosity bed with the shallower reduced
porosity thickness assigned to the layer above. The lower
portion of the Avile (layers 5-8 in this study) had more
consistent thickness, while the upper Avile (layers 1-4 in this
study) was more variable.
Figure 3 illustrates the location of the pilot area, while
Figure 4 is a stratigraphic cross-section (flattened on the base
of the Avile) illustrating thickness variation of the eight layers
in the pilot area. The cross-section traverses the pilot area
where the Avile reaches maximum thickness in wells PH-
0044, PH-0048, and PH-1108. Net thickness, porosity, and
SPE 59328
Immiscible CO2 Flooding for Increased Oil Recovery and Reduced Emissions
Randal M. Brush/William M. Cobb & Assoc., H. James Davitt/William M. Cobb & Assoc., Oscar B. Aimar/Perez Companc
S.A., Jorge Arguello/Perez Companc S.A., Jack M. Whiteside/Barnes and Click, Inc.
2 R. M. BRUSH, H. J. DAVITT, O. B. AIMAR, J. ARGUELLO, J. M. WHITESIDE SPE 59328
water saturation (Sw) were calculated in each well in the pilot
area (plus one pattern larger) for all eight layers. A total of 58
wells were evaluated, of which 47 contained essentially
complete log data.
The proposed pilot area of the Avile Reservoir appears to
be an excellent location to apply an immiscible CO
2
injection
process: high permeability reservoir rock (median
permeability of approximately 100 millidarcies, resulting in
reasonable injection and production rates); low apparent
reservoir heterogeneity (Dykstra-Parsons permeability
variation coefficient, V, is approximately 0.65, which
indicates a low level of permeability stratification, resulting in
potentially a high vertical sweep efficiency and a low
tendency of solvent to bypass oil in the reservoir); and few
apparent faults in the pilot area, which, if present, could
prevent solvent from contacting portions of the reservoir. This
geologic suitability is supported by the production
performance of the pilot area over the last 27 years. The
ongoing waterflood has resulted in a substantial increase in
both the production rate and ultimate recovery of oil. Figure 5
shows the smoothly increasing production rate of water during
this period, supporting the interpreted lack of major reservoir
heterogeneities that might act as conduits to flow, both for the
injected water and for injected CO
2
.
Fluid Characterization. Three laboratory studies of reservoir
fluids taken from the Avile Reservoir were available for
review and for development of a multi-component equation-
of-state (EoS) to match phase behavior and carbon dioxide
(CO
2
) interactions with the oil. These studies included a 1980
PVT study, a 1994 PVT study including CO
2
solubility/swelling experiments and minimum miscibility
pressure experiments, and a 1998 study including CO
2
solubility/swelling experiments and minimum miscibility
pressure experiments. The 1998 results indicate an MMP of
246 Kg/cm
2
with 90 percent CO
2
in the injection gas, much
higher than the 90 Kg/cm
2
expected reservoir pressure.
Therefore, CO
2
will be immiscible with the in-situ oil.
Equation of State (EoS) Development. In order to forecast
and monitor the CO
2
gas displacement process proposed for
the Avile Reservoir, a description of the reservoir fluids was
necessary which captures the wide changes in compositions
and physical properties expected in an immiscible CO
2
injection process. While the approximation of a fully miscible
system by a four component system (oil, water, hydrocarbon
gas, and CO
2
) with a mixing factor formulation for simulation
can be reasonable at times, the varying pressures experienced
by the injected and in-situ fluids during the immiscible
process, coupled with the strong pressure dependency of the
fluid behavior relationships describing the system, required a
fully compositional approach. An EoS was developed based
on the Peng-Robinson formulation. The EoS parameters were
adjusted by regression of the 1998 data and the 1980 data.
The 1994 data were not included because the resulting EoS
was a poorer match of all the laboratory data. Different EoS
parameters were also developed to describe flashing of
reservoir fluids to oil and gas at surface separator conditions
because one set of EoS parameters does not adequately
describe the process over a wide temperature range. A five-
component (CO
2
, CH
4
, C
2
-C
6
, C
7
-C
12
, C
13+
) EoS was
developed to match the fluid behavior. Five was the smallest
number of components that could be used and still reasonably
mimic the phase behavior. The EoS description is detailed in
Table 1.
The EoS was matched to the laboratory swelling and
viscosity data. The oil can swell in volume as much as 35
percent and that the oil viscosity can be reduced by a factor of
four, key mechanisms responsible for increasing oil recovery
in an immiscible system. Figure 6 shows the simulation of the
original 1980 PVT fluid study including a good match of the
oil formation volume factor, solution gas, and oil viscosity as
a function of reservoir pressure.
Core Floods. In a miscible system oil recovery is increased
because residual oil saturations are reduced to very low values
(a commonly quoted value is 12 percent) in rock swept with
the injectant. An immiscible flood is more complex because
one needs to know how the residual oil saturation to gas
flooding changes with pressures below MMP. A series of
unsteady-state core flood experiments were performed to
determine residual oil saturations to waterflooding (S
orw
), and
to CO
2
gas flooding (S
org
) as a function of pressure. The
resulting relationship between pressure and residual oil
saturation after gas flooding is shown in Figure 7. In addition,
one steady-state water-oil relative permeability curve was
developed followed by one unsteady-state gas-water
displacement cycle to determine trapped gas saturation.
Nitrogen was used in the last test because it is essentially
unreactive with the fluid system.
The core flood experiments were simulated using the 5-
component EoS fluid description. The simulation was one-
dimensional using 180 grid blocks to describe the one-foot
composite core. A summary of oil recoveries calculated from
the laboratory experiments and simulation results is shown in
Table 2. Laboratory waterflood oil recoveries averaged 51
percent. Simulation waterflood recoveries were slightly
lower, averaging 47 percent, because a constant S
orw
was used
in all cases. Laboratory waterflood oil recoveries were
probably accurate to within two to three percent. Oil
recoveries attributed to CO
2
injection ranged from 17 percent
at 55 bars to more than 40 percent at 290 bars by laboratory
analysis. Notice that the gas flood oil recoveries by simulation
are within one percent of the reported laboratory data.
Pressure matches were quite good except for Test #1 at 290
bars which was far away from any expected field operating
pressure. Test #1 was done to determine the minimum likely
residual oil saturation for comparison with the other tests. An
example plot of oil rates and volumes (on a reservoir basis) is
shown in Figure 8. Gas-oil ratios (on a surface basis) exhibit
gas break through coincident with the laboratory data.
Figure 9 shows the computed oil saturations along the
core after waterflood and at the end of the gas flood. At the
end of the waterflood there was an oil saturation gradient
SPE 59328 IMMISCIBLE CO2 FLOODING FOR INCREASED OIL RECOVERY AND REDUCED EMISSIONS 3
across the core because only 1.5 to 2.0 pore volumes of water
were injected. Many more pore volumes would be required to
achieve a constant value as required by frontal advance
theories such as Buckley-Leverett. Residual oil saturations at
the end of the gas flood also show a gradient across the core
for the same reason as for the waterflood. Final oil
saturations ranged from zero at the front end of the core in
Test #1 at 290 bars to values approaching 40 percent
depending upon pressure. There was typically a sharp
increase in saturation midway through the core at sub-miscible
pressure conditions indicating a progressive stripping and
displacement of hydrocarbon components.
Pilot Simulation. The pilot area reservoir simulation model
integrated available log, core, fluid, and production data
spanning 30 years. The modeled area covered 835 hectares
contained 84 wells which included the proposed pilot project
encompassing 112 hectares and 22 wells. The geologic model
included eight flow units to ensure that the proposed tertiary
recovery process would be adequately described. The model
was validated using a black oil formulation (for speed of
simulation) to match 30 years of primary depletion and
waterflood recovery. It was then converted to a compositional
formulation in order to model the more complex CO
2
/ oil
mass transfer process.
Two gas injection performance forecasts were reported
based on reservoir pressure at which the process was operated.
A reservoir pressure of 80 bars was used as the base case, and
100 bars were used as the reservoir pressure for the upside
case. The end-point oil saturation to gas displacement was 25
percent at 80 bars and 22 percent at 100 bars, consistent with
laboratory results. The reported incremental oil production
was calculated as the difference between continued waterflood
to a watercut limit of 98.5 percent and the six-year gas
injection project followed by waterflood to the same watercut
limit.
Model Description. The reservoir top of structure values
and each sub-interval thickness as determined by log analysis
was imported into the reservoir simulation mapping package
to develop the structural description. Average porosities were
calculated for each layer in each well from log analysis and
contoured. Air permeabilities were calculated from grid block
porosities using a core-based permeability-porosity
correlation. These air permeabilities were then converted to
liquid permeabilities, which reduced effective permeabilities
more in the low quality (porosity) rock than in the higher
quality (porosity) rock. During the history match process
model permeability values were modified. All permeabilities
were increased by a factor of 2 to get the wells to produce at
required rates; a high permeability streak was created between
Well 2 and Well 40 along the mapped fault to get water to
Well 40 on time; permeabilities were reduced in a perched
water region (northwest corner of the model) by a factor of 0.1
to increase initial water saturations via the J-Function
approach (discussed below); and preferential north/south flow
was created with K
N-S
= 2 K
E-W
. Faults were modeled as
transmissibility barriers, with most faults included as sealing
The oil-water contact was set at 425m subsea and the gas-
oil contact at 295m subsea. Initial water saturations were
established using a J-Function approach to calculate initial
water saturations as a function of height above the oil water
contact and rock quality (porosity and permeability). The J-
Function was calculated from log analysis for each model
layer of those wells logged before water injection had begun.
One normalized relative permeability curve was input into
the model and used throughout the entire model area. This
curve shape was modified to match history. The residual oil
saturation to waterflood endpoint was set to S
orw
= 0.25 based
on a review of available laboratory special core analysis data.
To improve the history match the end point water relative
permeability was reduced to reduce water flow. The end point
gas relative permeability was increased to help match field
pressures.
An orthogonal grid was developed oriented parallel to the
major pattern design and fluid flow direction. The grid was 39
by 31 cells as shown in Figure 10. The smallest grid block
size, which was approximately 0.38 hectares, extended 2 grid
blocks outside of the proposed 6-pattern carbon dioxide (CO
2
)
pilot area. The size of the smallest blocks was set to provide 6
grid blocks between wells in the pilot area. The largest grid
blocks were twice the dimensions of the smallest grid blocks.
The total grid area was approximately 835 hectares, with the
pilot pattern area containing approximately 112 hectares.
Reservoir History Match. Simulating 30 years (January
1968 to June 1998) of reservoir primary production and
waterflood performance was done using a black oil simulator.
Simulations using the compositional simulator was not
practical because of the factor of four difference in
computational speed. Well rates were controlled by total
liquid rates which permitted relative fluid mobilities (oil,
water and gas) to determine producing rates of each
component. Reservoir pressures, oil rates, and watercut were
the major history match parameters. The pressure matches
were reasonable until 1996 when simulated pressures jumped
dramatically to more than 100 bars. The most reasonable
explanation for the erroneously high pressures is that reported
water injection rates into the reservoir are too high either
because of meter error or out-of-zone injection. To control
reservoir pressures to more reasonable levels, a pressure
maintenance option in the simulator was invoked to control
water injection to achieve a target reservoir pressure. The
target pressure was 90 bars because the carbon dioxide
injection cases were to be simulated at 80 and 100 bars.
The black oil model was then converted into the final
compositional model. The only model change was to
substitute a 5-component compositional fluid description for
the black oil fluid description. There were no changes made
to the reservoir description, relative permeabilities or well
rates. The resultant compositional history match of the
proposed pilot pattern area is shown in Table 3. The Avile
waterflood has been very efficient. More than 80 percent of
the mobile oil to waterflood was estimated to have been
displaced from the pilot pattern area. A large fraction of that
displaced oil has already been captured by wells or can
4 R. M. BRUSH, H. J. DAVITT, O. B. AIMAR, J. ARGUELLO, J. M. WHITESIDE SPE 59328
reasonably be expected to be captured in the future. Oil
saturations are estimated now to be approximately 33 percent
with residual saturations to waterflooding of 25 percent.
Production Forecasts. A waterflood forecast was
required to establish a baseline for comparison to carbon
dioxide injection scenarios. Incremental oil production
attributable to carbon dioxide could then be calculated. The
results of the waterflood simulation cases for both the black
oil and compositional simulations were in good agreement as
shown in Table 3. An additional 0.77 0.78 Msm3
recoverable reserves were estimated to remain as of June
1998.
Carbon dioxide injection forecasts were developed with
injection beginning in January 2001. Injection rates were
limited to 100,000 sm3/day of 85 percent CO
2
purity gas.
Two scenarios were examined, Case 1 with reservoir pressure
of 80 bars and Case 2 with reservoir pressure of 100 bars. The
value of S
org
used was 25 percent at 80 bars and 22 percent at
100 bars. Reservoir pressure was controlled automatically to
the target pressure via water injection. CO
2
injection was
alternated with water injection on six-month intervals over a
six-year period to achieve maximum gas/oil contact and avoid
excessive gas production at producers. Approximately 87
percent of the estimated pattern hydrocarbon pore volume
(hcpv) of gas was injected in Case 1 using a water alternating
gas (WAG) ratio of 1.0 reservoir volumes of water per
reservoir volume of gas. For Case 2 at a pressure of 100 bars,
approximately 61 percent of the hcpv was injected at an
average 1.4 WAG ratio.
Incremental oil to CO
2
displacement up to July 2026 was
calculated to range from 0.22 Msm3 at 80 bars reservoir
pressure to 0.28 Msm3 at 100 bars as shown in Table 4. The
production rate forecasts are shown in Figure 11. The
incremental oil volumes represent approximately 4.0 percent
of the pattern original oil-in-place. A useful measure of CO
2
efficiency is the volume of injected gas per volume of
incremental oil production, known as the gas utilization
factor. A gas utilization factor less than 10,000 scf/stb (1,780
sm3/sm3) is considered good. The values calculated range
from approximately 5,000 (upside case) to 6,000 (base case)
scf/stb.
The immiscible CO
2
process works by swelling oil and
reducing its viscosity and saturation. The effect of oil
swelling can be seen in Figure 12 which shows the change in
pilot pattern oil saturation versus time for both continued
waterflooding and the two gas injection cases. Beginning in
2001 (when CO
2
injection would start) the oil saturation
increased as a result of swelling before it was displaced.
Figure 13 shows the predicted incremental oil production
rate for the pilot production wells, along with the expansion
case forecast. The rate forecast for the expansion of the
injection project to the remainder of the Avile Reservoir was
based on the pilot study simulation results. A production rate
prediction tool was used to forecast the impact of project
expansion. This tool scaled the pilot production curve to the
volume of reservoir and injection gas available. The volume
of CO
2
available in the Puesto Hernandez Field appears to be
sufficient to flood approximately three times the volume of
reservoir flooded by the pilot, resulting in a total (pilot plus
expansion) oil recovery of approximately 670,000 m
3
of oil.
Note that the incremental production rate for the expansion
was still at a high level at the assumed end of field life. This
resulted from the limited volume of CO
2
available for the
project. In addition to not having sufficient CO
2
to flood the
expansion areas to completion, approximately 50 percent of
the Avile Reservoir otherwise suitable for flooding would not
be flooded because of the limited volume of CO
2
available at
Puesto Hernandez. The presence of CO
2
in produced gas from
other fields in the region indicates the potential for additional
beneficial use of what otherwise would be one of the waste
products resulting from oil production.
Facility Requirements. The facilities required to execute the
pilot project, including gas compressors, injection flowlines,
and additional production flowlines, were studied in detail.
The pilot facilities would take the available CO
2
from the
existing and currently-planned membrane separators,
compress and dry the gas, and transport the gas to the existing
injection wells. In addition, production flowlines would be
added to handle the increased volume of gas expected from
the production wells.
The facilities required to execute the project expansion
include adding injection and production flowlines as needed,
and potentially fitting larger first-stage cylinders to the pilot
projects compressors. The fields gas production rate is
expected to be low during this period. Therefore, additional
gas separation facilities would not be required.
Greenhouse Gas Reduction. The gas injected into the pilot
area would otherwise be vented as an unwanted byproduct of
the fuel separation process. The pilot project would result in a
net injection of 107,000,000 m
3
of CO
2
and 19,000,000 m
3
of
methane. This volume accounts for the gas injected less the
gas produced over the life of the field, and therefore assumes
no ongoing injection following conclusion of the pilot. The
corresponding reduction in emissions using carbon-equivalent
mass (CO
2
basis)would be approximately 185,000 metric tons.
The additional net gas injection for the expansion case would
be 307,000,000 m
3
of CO
2
and 54,000,000 m
3
of methane,
corresponding to a reduction in carbon-equivalent (CO
2
basis)
emissions of approximately 529,000 metric tons. For the pilot
plus expansion projects, the total net gas injection volumes
would be 414,000,000 m
3
of CO
2
and 73,000,000 m
3
of
methane, equal to a reduction in carbon-equivalent (CO
2
basis)
emissions of approximately 714,000 metric tons.
Project Economics. By their nature, pilot economic
evaluations contain significant uncertainty. This pilot will
evaluate an uncommon oil recovery process in a producing
region not previously subject to enhanced oil recovery through
CO
2
injection. Nonetheless, such uncertainty can be dealt
with. Sensitivity analysis was conducted around the two
principle sources of uncertainty for the economics of the pilot:
the volume oil produced by the pilot and the price of oil
SPE 59328 IMMISCIBLE CO2 FLOODING FOR INCREASED OIL RECOVERY AND REDUCED EMISSIONS 5
received for that production. Oil production was reduced and
increased by 50 percent from the base pilot forecast, and oil
prices were varied by $4.00 per barrel from the base
assumption of $16.00 per barrel West Texas Intermediate
(WTI) benchmark. Using the base oil production forecast and
the $16 per barrel price forecast, the pilot project was
estimated to have approximately a 9 percent after tax rate of
return. This rate of return varied from -3 percent to 19 percent
over the range of oil recoveries and prices examined. Table 4
provides the economic sensitivity analysis results.
As Table 4 also shows, the economics of the expansion
case were more favorable than those of the pilot. This was
because of the small additional capital required by the
expansion. The compressors were assumed already purchased
for the pilot, with only the salvage value to be paid. The
installation of injection and production lines were the other
major capital expenses. The expansion project would have an
after tax rate of return of approximately 20 percent assuming
$16 per barrel WTI. Again, sensitivity analyses were run for
oil production volumes and oil prices, resulting in a range for
the after tax rate of return of -1 percent to 33 percent.
Conclusions
The application of immiscible CO
2
injection into the Avile
Reservoir, Puesto Hernandez Field, Argentina, has been found
to be both technically and economically promising. In
addition, it offers the opportunity to turn what has been a
waste stream of increasingly ill repute into a money-making
product.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the International Finance
Corporation of the World Bank and Perez Companc S.A. for
their financial support of this project, and for their willingness
to publish these results.
Figure 1: Field Location
Puesto Hernandez
Figure 3: Field Map in Pilot Area
Figure 2: Avile Type Log: PH-1108
6 R. M. BRUSH, H. J. DAVITT, O. B. AIMAR, J. ARGUELLO, J. M. WHITESIDE SPE 59328
Figure 6
F i g u r e 4 : N W t o S E C r o s s - S e c t i o n
0
5
1 0
1 5
2 0
2 5
3 0
3 5
4 0
P H - 0 0 5 7 P H - 0 0 5 6 P H - 1 1 6 4 P H - 0 0 5 1 P H - 0 0 4 8 P H - 1 1 0 8 P H - 0 0 4 4 P H - 0 0 4 3 P H - 0 0 3 9 P H - 0 0 3 8 P H - 0 0 3 5
W e l l N a m e
Fi gur e 5: Avi l e CO2 Pi l ot Ar ea Pr oduct i on Dat a
0. 1
1
10
100
1000
10000
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
m
3
/
D
a
y
,

m
3
/
m
3
WO R
GOR
I nj ect i on
Oil+Wat er
Oil
SPE 59328 IMMISCIBLE CO2 FLOODING FOR INCREASED OIL RECOVERY AND REDUCED EMISSIONS 7
F
i
g
u
r
e

7
:


S
o
r
g

v
s
.

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
F
i
g
u
r
e

8
:


E
x
a
m
p
l
e

C
o
r
e

F
l
o
o
d
F
i
g
u
r
e

9
:


C
o
r
e

O
i
l

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

P
r
o
f
i
l
e
F
i
g
u
r
e

1
0
:


M
o
d
e
l

G
r
i
d
8 R. M. BRUSH, H. J. DAVITT, O. B. AIMAR, J. ARGUELLO, J. M. WHITESIDE SPE 59328
F
i
g
u
r
e

1
1
:


M
o
d
e
l

H
i
s
t
o
r
y

M
a
t
c
h

R
e
s
u
l
t
s
,

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
SPE 59328 IMMISCIBLE CO2 FLOODING FOR INCREASED OIL RECOVERY AND REDUCED EMISSIONS 9
F
i
g
u
r
e

1
2
:


C
h
a
n
g
e
s

i
n

P
i
l
o
t

O
i
l

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
F
i
g
u
r
e

1
3
:


O
i
l

R
a
t
e
s

U
s
e
d

i
n

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
10 R. M. BRUSH, H. J. DAVITT, O. B. AIMAR, J. ARGUELLO, J. M. WHITESIDE SPE 59328
Table 1
SPE 59328 IMMISCIBLE CO2 FLOODING FOR INCREASED OIL RECOVERY AND REDUCED EMISSIONS 11
T
a
b
l
e

2
12 R. M. BRUSH, H. J. DAVITT, O. B. AIMAR, J. ARGUELLO, J. M. WHITESIDE SPE 59328
T
a
b
l
e

3
SPE 59328 IMMISCIBLE CO2 FLOODING FOR INCREASED OIL RECOVERY AND REDUCED EMISSIONS 13
After Tax Present Value at 10%
50% 100% 150% 50% 100% 150%
$12/Bbl WTI -$3.0 -$1.6 -$0.2 -$0.9 $0.4 $1.7
$16/Bbl WTI -$2.4 -$0.3 $1.7 -$0.3 $1.6 $3.5
$20/Bbl WTI -$1.7 $0.9 $3.6 $0.3 $2.8 $5.3
After Tax Rate of Return
50% 100% 150% 50% 100% 150%
$12/Bbl WTI -3% 4% 9% -1% 13% 20%
$16/Bbl WTI 1% 9% 15% 7% 20% 27%
$20/Bbl WTI 4% 13% 19% 12% 25% 33%
Oil Rate Risk Factor
Oil Rate Risk Factor
Oil Rate Risk Factor
Expansion Economics Pilot Economics
Table 4: Project Economic Results
Oil Rate Risk Factor