WYOMING,USA

BEAVER CREEK MADISON FIELD

COURSE : EOR
TEACHER: DR SEDAEI
AUTHOR : MAHMOUD MEHRABI

25SLIDES

MADISON RESERVOIR

HISTORY OF FIELD

The Beaver Creek field is in

Wyoming and in the Wind
River Basin.

The Beaver Creek field

discovered in June 1938

The structure is dome, with

some fault.

HISTORY OF FIELD

Madison Reservoir discovered in january 1954

at a depth of 11,447 ft. (#BCU30)

14 additional producers drilled Until 1957

WATER INJECTION

One of the Producer

wells converted to
water injection in
February 1959.
(because of pressure
decline) #BCU35

Additional injectors
were added during the
next decade to
successfully water flood
the reservoir.

MAP OF MADISON RESERVOIR

RESERVOIR & GEOLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS

PRODUCTION HISTORY
Peak : 8800
BOPD
(Nov.1962)
1966 Oil Rate
Begin
Declining
1980-86, 4
additional
producer well
completed

RESERVOIR PRESSURE

the reservoir
pressure never
dropped below
the bubble
point

Oil in place was

determined to
be 109 MMBO

44.6MMBO
produced,
Before EOR.So
recovery was
41%.

EOR EVALUATION

This project evaluated in 3 phases:

Phase I:

Started in January 2005

Compare with the geologic and reservoir

characteristics of other Co2 EOR projects.

An analytical simulation was performed to forecast a

general range of expected ultimate recoveries
allowing for a screening economic evaluation to be
completed.
10

EOR EVALUATION

Phase II :

laboratory work and a detailed mechanistic fine scale

simulation of a cross section of the field

The laboratory experiments covered core evaluation

considering rock wettability, capillary pressure, relative
permeability determinations, and CO core flood experiments.
2

The possibility of performing a CO injection pilot was

considered but dismissed because of the reasonably high
certainty provided by the results of the phase II and the lack
of a nearby source of CO for the test.
2

11

EOR EVALUATION

Phase III :

Full field reservoir model

Flood design

Facilities design, construction and implementation of the

project

Various flooding schemes and wellbore utilities were

reviewed to optimize the oil production rates and
recoveries

completing a final economic review ( July 2008)

12

this plan selected

because :

lower CO2
utilization, and
high oil recovery

The plan also

provided
flexibility to
change the flood
configuration, if
needed

13

CO2 PIPELINE

14

EXECUTION PHASE

Build CO2 pipeline

Construct production & injection recycling

facilities

Drill & Complete

When the combined oil and CO2 come up

through the wellhead, the CO2 bubbles out of
the oil, is captured, compressed and reinjected
15

INITIAL RESPONSE

initial response occurred in the BCU#66 and #10-13,

5month after injection.

Increasing produced gas volume is expected, however

gas breakthrough that occurs too quickly can be a sign
of either natural fracturing, heterogeneity, or poor
sweep efficiency.

Fortunately, the Madison proved to be quite well

behaved and has not experienced any serious gas
breakthrough issues.

16

MONITORING

Region 1 encompasses the gravity stable flood

region characterized by high GLR flowing wells.

Region 2 is the center of the peripheral flood and

has been found to be sensitive to pressure
drawdown.

Region 3 is the downdip WAG region.

Region 4, is a lower fault segment of Madison

separated from the main flood area

17

18

19

CONCERNS
FAULT

: Escaping CO2 through the fault boundaries.

Because

CO is compressible there can be diminishing returns with

increasing reservoir pressures.
2

Loss

of injectivity due to relative permeability changes during the WAG

process.

Handling

of supercritial CO2:

a small temperature change in a fixed volume cause a multiply pressure

change.
relatively small temperature change from 80F to 100F will cause a pressure
increase up to 10,000 psi causing potentially explosive conditions.
For that reason, valve selection and placement were critical and pressure
relief valves were installed in locations where trapped gas was possible.

CONCERNS

Scaling issues: near the perforations, not soluble

in water, but is easily removed with an acid wash
applied via coiled tubing.

Well Testing issues: Two testers are employed,

each from a different vendor.Accuracy of both is
impacted by gas rate, and one of the testers is
greatly affected by fluid temperature. Overall test
accuracy is acceptable, but the equipment
requires continuous attention.

DOWNHOLE PRESSURE IN ONE WELLS

22

OIL RATE AFTER CO2

PEAK
OIL
RATE
5645 BOPD
EXPECTED
4600 BOPD

23

REFERENCES

1.Devon Presentation 2010

2.Devon Presentation 2011

3.Beaver Creek Madison CO Enhanced Oil Recovery

Project Case History; Riverton, Wyoming - SPE152862
2

4.Beaver Creek Madison, Wyoming's Deepest Water

Injection Project-SPE001226

5.Estimates of Potential CO Demand for CO EOR in

Wyoming Basins-SPE122921
2

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION 8)

25