[ROCKMAN]

pusher - That first reference shows exactly what I'm talking about. They're just trying to hype it a bit by calling it a "residual oil zone”...a misleading (perhaps intentionally so) use of the term IMHO. Their ROZ is the transition zone I referred to and exists in every reservoir on the planet to some degree. It's that zone where the oil saturation decreases from the oil saturation in the reservoir to zero oil saturation at some depth below the oil/water contact. EOR projects are essentially focused on the residual oil that remains in the reservoir above the "ROZ". That's what they refer to as the “main reservoir” which, again IMHO, is a bit of hype indicating that there is another reservoir below the “main reservoir”…ie: the ROZ. I think what they are implying is that when the oil saturation in a water drive reservoir decreases it's more similar to the ROZ. Which it isn't because the lower portion of their ROZ will have much lower oil saturation then even the depleted reservoir. In fact, at the base of their ROZ the water sat is 100%.

The second reference actually does a good job of pointing out the hype:” Although…data accumulated over the 40-year history of…CO2-EOR research…are available, the work exclusively represents studies of the main pay zones and there are no publicly available geologic and reservoir characterization data on…ROZs nor any comprehensive field studies of CO2-EOR projects in ROZs.”

IOW until oil prices boomed the oil in none of the tens of thousands of ROZ’s in the world were worth a sh*t. LOL. Just like the billions of bbls of oil trapped in the shales weren’t worth a sh*t until prices boomed. LOL…again. Prior to oil prices booming and folks hyping their potential the ROZ’s were universally referred to as the non-commercial oil saturation underlying every reservoir on the planet. I assume the current effort is to add potential value to depleted fields via CO2 floods by adding the ROZ in a field to the residual reserves in the upper main reservoir. I don’t there will be much production gain from such efforts: remember the ROZ by their own definition represents a very low oil saturation…it was never counted as recoverable when the field began producing.

[ROCKMAN]

pusher - From the second reference: " In order to replicate lower initial oil saturation (40 percent) in the ROZ as compared to the initial oil saturation in the MPZ"

Utter BS. A 40% oil sat isn't bad for the main oil reservoir BEFORE THE FIRST BBL IS PRODUCED. The average oil sat in any ROZ will be the average between the sat at the oil/water contact and 0% oil sat at the base of the ROZ. In their cross section you see that nice sharp line at the top and bottom of the ROZ? No where in nature has hat condition ever existed. From the base of commercial oil production (the top of the ROZ) to he base of the ROZ is an oil sat gradient that runs from whatever the sat is in the reservoir to zero oil sat at the base of the ROZ. And that's the condition only before the first bbl of oil is produced from the main reservoir above the ROZ.

You read the paper closely you'll discover that none of the effort actually involved producing any oil. Just running models, looking at cores and doing sample sample testing...and writing this report. And for this the DOE gave then $1.2 million in tax payer money. And then one of the participants used the work paid for with the tax payer $'s to sell the field to another company. You get it: sold the field to another company instead of using all that "valuable" information to develop it themselves. Pretty sweet deal, eh? LOLLLLLLLL

[Scrub Puller]

Yair . . . thanks fellers . . . I sorta understand now . . . I think.

Cheers.

[ROCKMAN]

SP - Me too...maybe. LOL. I've checked with friends in the oil patch and none of them have heard of the great new "ROZ' potential. This might be a tad harsh but it looks like the ROZ is just a made up hype done jointly by academics and promoters. For example in the all encompassing Schlumberger oil field glossary there is no 'ROZ" noted.

There a lot of tech background that well established to support this discussion. But I try to not snow folks with 5,000 word answers.

[toolpush]

Rockman,

Thanks for the insights, as I stated in my first post, there were more questions than answers.

That is the theory, now the question is, has anybody done it? Don't know.
Is is economical? Most likely not at the moment, but it is amazing what some environmental dollars can do for economics.
Will it happen? depends on the price of oil, Carbon and who is in government.

The common denominator and government money. I believe the chatter has been coming for the Carbon Capture people rather than the oil field development people. I am sure the oil production potential has been the teaser to attract more money whether public or private. But to answer my first question, it doesn't look like anybody is currently producing, but they are researching and burning up government money.

[shallow sand]

As I've stated, don't have geology background. What has been discussed about ROZ above is where I am confused. I've read some articles in the Oil & Gas Reporter about the Goldsmith area in the Permian Basin touting this and I guess Kinder Morgan bought a big chunk of the field for a big price. Assume CO2 is involved. I'm near an area where they are doing polymer floods. Not sure how successful this has been but a lot of $$ has been spent. In any event, is ROZ the remaining oil in place in the productive zone, somewhere else, or both? is CO2 always involved or sometimes. Also, with all the horizontal drilling, has there been any in the" old" sandstone formations?

[ROCKMAN]

pusher - To answer it has been done many thousands of times. Once the oil/water or gas/water level reaches the perforations you can continue producing as long at you have positive cash flow. The term we use is "co-production". Essentially you're co-producing oil and water. Which essentially means it's a water well with a little bit of that residual oil being pulled out with the water. Some of that oil might be coming from their "ROZ" but the bulk will still be coming from the original high oil saturated portion of the reservoir. How long one can keep producing such a "depleted reservoir" will depend on how much you're spending to lift the well and dispose of all that water.

But here's the sobering point: there might be X million bbls of such residual oil that might be produced. But you're looking at oil cuts under 10% or less. Maybe a good deal less. Thanks to high prices I see many wells producing positive gas flows with 1% or 2% oil cut. IOW making 30 to 50 bopd and 800 bwpd from say 2 dozen wells. And let's say oil prices stay high and those wells might recover 500,000 bo. That's 20 or so wells making a total of 40 bopd. So there you go: it will only take about 35 years to recover that 500,000 bbls of oil. LOL. If you look at all this oil some folks talk about just sitting out there waiting to be produced, like the tens of billions of bbl from those ROZ "reservoirs" in the Permian Basin, they are freely tossing of big URR numbers but you never see any discussion of the LOE (and thus the net income) and the production rates of those wells.

[shallow sand]

Looked at Goldsmith on RRC interactive. Went from 150 per day in 2007 to 1500per day in 2014. Anyone know if increase is due to new technology or not?

[ROCKMAN]

Shallow – Here’s the best details I could find: http://www.aogr.com/magazine/cover-stor ... elds-new-l

Notice a couple of critical aspects. First, no new technology is being utilized. The report confirms they are doing the same type EOR that’s been done for many decades in the basin. Most important: they aren’t just CO2 flooding the ROZ but also the original reservoir. So here’s the $64,000 question no one can prove: how much of that 1400 bopd is coming from the ROZ and how much from the original reservoir that has produced millions of bbls of oil? 50%? 5%.? Anyone can speculate but no one can prove it one way or the other. Interesting that they don’t pose this obvious question themselves. Notice another glaring (IMHO) lack of info they aren’t providing: how much the CO2 injection is costing and how much water they are producing (and thus need to dispose). Gross production numbers not reduced for operating expenses, royalty and severance tax always look better than net income by a wide margin. And let’s remember there the cost of engineering the injection program: “Legado is deepening the wells by a couple hundred feet. “Once we are finished with all phases of the project, we expect to have 124 injector wells and 150 producers,” he adds.” So now you have the initial investment of 224 re-entries, drill deepers and completions. You have a better idea than most of what that will cost. I'll guess $50 million and I'm pretty sure that's a low estimate. Maybe very low.

And remember what I said about the time issue. As they point out: “One of the trademarks of Permian Basin CO2 EOR projects is a long life cycle that spans decades, and Cantwell suggests that the Goldsmith-Landreth MPZ-ROZ development will be no different. “Look at the SACROC Unit in Scurry County, Tx. (the Permian Basin’s oldest CO2 flood, operated by Kinder Morgan),” Cantwell offers. “It started in 1972 and it still is going strong. We undoubtedly will be producing oil in the Goldsmith-Landreth Unit for at least 30 years.”

So the good news: this field might produce for another 30 years. The bad news: it might take 30 years to recover the reserves they are estimating. Also notice who bought the field: Kinder Morgan…the company that had been selling them the CO2…at a profit of course. Now KM is using the CO2 they own for the project. How much profit do you think the KM production division is allowing the KM CO2 sales division to make? LOL.

The Goldsmith-Landreth project is a little different from other quaternary efforts because Legado is, from the onset of CO2 flooding, simultaneously injecting into both the MPZ and the deeper ROZ in an attempt to produce both at the same time, points out Tom Thurmond, engineering manager. “I believe we are the first to develop the ROZ contemporaneously with the MPZ. It is an opportunity to do something that, on one hand, has not been done before, but on the other hand, is an extension of technology that has been around for 30 years. We have made that our niche, doing something that is a little bit new by taking existing technology and expanding its application.”

The Goldsmith-Landreth project is a little different from other quaternary efforts because Legado is, from the onset of CO2 flooding, simultaneously injecting into both the MPZ and the deeper ROZ in an attempt to produce both at the same time, points out Tom Thurmond, engineering manager. “I believe we are the first to develop the ROZ contemporaneously with the MPZ. It is an opportunity to do something that, on one hand, has not been done before, but on the other hand, is an extension of technology that has been around for 30 years. We have made that our niche, doing something that is a little bit new by taking existing technology and expanding its application.”

Thurmond adds that it stands to reason that the saturation values appear to be the same in the MPZ and ROZ. “Considering that previous waterfloods have swept water through the main pay zone six times in most cases, it makes perfect sense that the saturation levels are practically identical to the ROZ,” he says.

None of what I offer implies that this effort won’t prove profitable. But again there’s the hype surrounding the big ultimate recovery numbers and nothing about how much the cumulative effect of all such projects will have on the daily production rate. As we often are reminded: PO isn’t about reserves or URR. It’s about production rates.

Again consider my project drilling horizontal wells to recover residual oil in a trend that has produced 4.5 billion bo. So if I say my approach can recover 20% more we're talking about 1 BILLION BBLS OF OIL!!! LOL. Not once in the dozen of times I presented my idea did I toss out such a statement. And for good reason: no one that would invest the $100+ million to develop the project would give a sh*t how much more oil could be produced. LOL. They wanted to know the estimated production rate which would allow an estimate of the return on investment. Just like you make decisions in your operations.

[shallow sand]

ROCKMAN. Thanks for your input. No one ever likes to discuss LOE do they? Just like with the shales. All I read is cost to drill and complete. As if that ends the expense and once they have sold enough to pay for drilling and completion its all gravy. They also always seem to talk about gross oil production, not net after royalties, which many times take 1/4 right off the top. Nor the high amounts they are paying in acreage bonuses. Nor differential to WTI, which in the Bakken is bad. Also, although I know very little about CO2, it is my understanding that corrosion is big and therefore costly in down hole chemical, etc. I think with public companies in particular, maybe it a case of re-naming something old to get the money flowing in. Like fast food is now known as "quick serve". After all, its not as easy to sell something boring and straight forward. We aren't selling, however and every boring day with no wells off with a hole, underground burnouts or bearings going bad, etc etc etc, is a good day!

[ROCKMAN]

Shallow - Yep...they luv to toss out those big "potential" ultimate recovery because 1) they want readers to think that 1 million bbls of oil = $100 million of profit and 2) that the $100 million in profit/production will only take a relatively short time. You see it all the time when they are promoting URR from any EOR: they avoid talking about the decades it will take to produce that URR even if it's accurate. I take you're handling a lot of stripper production. Makes watching paint dry feel like a rush. LOL.

[shallow sand]

Yes. A lot of wells, a lot of water, a little oil, but a high stable price keeps it fun. Seems like I check the price on my phone too much, especially when we start to drop like during the past few weeks. Never thought id see $100, let alone $100 drop. That's why I'm always reading about shale boom, etc. Always trying to get some feel for where its headed. I guess should hedge, but don't want to get burned by a price spike, and floors aren't cheap. I guess I'm drawn to this site because: 1. there is a lack of consumers who just moan about the price of gasoline and 2. the general notion of those here that high prices are here to stay. Tend to ignore the gloom and doomers. Assume they mostly live in urban areas and I'm not smart enough to understand a lot of what they are typing anyway. Hope we get a good dose of global warming this winter. Last one really sucked. Ha ha. Just kidding.

[JV153]

[quote="Subjectivist"]I know it does not take a lot of energy to pump one barrel of water out and then reinject it but make that 300 million bbl/d. /quote]

Here's some oil field water injection pumps. 500 kW (63 cubic meters an hour max) power is the smallest one in this list.
http://pumpsland.com/en/petrolium-waterflood-e.htm


Planned water injection in Iraq:

http://www.2b1stconsulting.com/bp-and-c ... tion-prwi/

[ROCKMAN]

JV - Actually if you're lucky it can cost less. All depends on the reservoir dynamics. If you're producing enough NG you can run your pumps with it. Or maybe not need pumps at all: gas lift - the produced NG is injected down the annulus, enters the production tubing via gas lift valves and the now reduced weight of the production stream flows to the surface. And sometimes it takes just a little energy to reject. Best case scenario: gravity drainage...the weight of the water volume is enough to cause it to flow down into the reservoir.

But the examples you show are secondary recovery from the original oil volume. The BS they're are pushing is whatever oil saturation exists below the original oil/water contact. Not that there isn't some oil saturation below the o/w contact but we have a name for that oil saturation: "irreducible oil saturation". It's called irreducible because the oil situation can't be produced...IOW that oil can't be reduced...can't be produced. The ROZ I'm referring to is the residual oil left in the produced ORIGINAL portion of the reservoir...not the area underneath the reservoir below the original oil/water contact. IOW they are misusing the term.

Notice below from http://petrowiki.org/Relative_permeabil ... ationships

"The relationship between initial and residual oil saturation is termed the oil-trapping relationship. For strongly water-wet rocks, the oil-trapping relationship should be identical to the gas-trapping relationship. Indeed, because of this analogy and because it is easier to measure gas-trapping relationships, few oil-trapping relationships have been measured. A set of oil-trapping relationships reported by Pickell et al.[23] are shown in Fig. 12. Oil-trapping relationships are important for estimating reserves in transition zones. In conventional reservoir engineering, residual oil saturation refers to the remaining oil saturation after a displacement that starts near the maximum initial oil saturation, which generally equals one minus the initial water saturation. "

There's no simple way to explain the entire dynamic. There are experienced engineers/geologist that don't fully grasp it. Here's a critical aspect as simple as I can explain it. The oil isn't being sucked from a giant underground chamber full of oil. Consider a sandstone reservoir: imagine a hand full of sand. That would be consider very high porosity compared to most buried rocks. Maybe 32% of the volume your holding is empty space between the sand grains. But in an oil reservoir there's not just oil in those pore spaces...there's water in there also. Not uncommon for 20-30% of the pore volume to be filled with water. IOW a 20-30%/water saturation. And thus a 70-80% oil sat. Produce it and it flows 100% oil. So why no water? This is why we call it "relative permeability" with permeability being a measure of how easily fluid moves thru a rock. It's "relative" to the saturation of the fluid. At 20% water sat the perm to water is ZERO millidarcies (the standard perm metric). IOW the water isn't capable of flowing thru the pores. But at 80% oil sat the relative perm to oil is 600 md...oil flows very easily.

But that's the initial condition. So what happens after you produce a lot of water free oil? Since you pulling oil out it's sat decreases and the water sat increases. At some point around an oil sat of 40-60% oil sat the rock starts to become permeable to water...maybe 50 md. And as more oil is produced it, let's say, gets so low (say 20-30%) that the perm to oil goes to ZERO md and the perm to water goes to 1500 md and the well produces 100% water. And the reason that the average US oil well produces less than 15 bopd is that as the oil sat get so low that it decreases very slowly because the reservoir is producing so little oil. For instance in the field I'm redeveloping there are a few wells still producing after 68 years. But they are producing 1% oil and 99% water...maybe 1-2 bopd.

Now back to their bull sh*t ROZ. This is the area UNDERNEATH the reservoir I just described. IOW an area when the oil sat is so low the perm to oil is ZERO which is why buoyancy forces couldn't get those oil molecules to float up to the oil reservoir. That's the oil they are speculation will produce tens of billions of bo...from the oil even Mother Earth couldn't make move. But there is some small amount of low sat oil there. But there is a way to get some of it out: flow hundreds of billions if not trillions of bbls of water thru their "ROZ". It happens because the frictional force of the moving water reduces the effect of the surface tension preventing the oil from moving. Adding a surfactant (like soap) will improve recovery for the same reason.

But the critical take away is that they are talking about an area of very low oil sat...so low it won't move naturally. What they are talking about is identical to the billions of ounces of gold that could be recovered from the waters of the world's ocean. All you have to do is figure out how to spend less to do so then the gold is worth. Which is the identical problem to recovering those billions of bbls of "ROZ' oil. Until someone shows me some actual documented economics of this being done profitably I'll consider this a scam. And aided with a financial contribution of your gov't. LOL. And not the first time I've seen the gov't aid and abet.