Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract New technology in horizontal drilling and stimulation has caused production from ultra-tight oil formations to increase rapidly over the last decade. While initial rates are high, recovery factors for these types of reservoirs are predicted to be low, around 5–10%. Unlike conventional reservoirs, water flooding does not appear to be a viable secondary option due to its low injectivity. Recent analysis has shown that gas injection may be an effective alternative. A 4-section area of the Elm Coulee field in eastern Montana is used to study the impact of different gas injection schemes: carbon dioxide, immiscible hydrocarbon and miscible hydrocarbon. This paper examines the difference in total recovery, production rate and efficiency using a flow simulation model. Recovery efficiency is similar for both miscible hydrocarbon gases and carbon dioxide with recoveries increasing from 6% on primary production to around 20% with gas injection. While the increased recovery is encouraging, both methods have some practical limitations. Carbon dioxide is currently unavailable in many basins, and while hydrocarbon gases are available in most oil fields, they are rarely used as injectants because they are marketable. We performed a cost-benefit analysis of selling the hydrocarbon gas versus using it to increase oil production. We assumed a 10 million investment in compression and facilities for the 4-section area, and used a 5/mscf cost for the gas and 80/stb revenue for the oil. The net present value for these criteria in this area is 68 million and the rate of return is 83%. The value of this work is that it demonstrates that injecting gas (both immiscible and especially miscible) will appreciably increase oil recovery in very low permeability reservoirs. These types of reservoirs are becoming more prevalent, and a large prize is available to those who find ways to increase recovery from them. In the case of hydrocarbon gas, the economics appear to be favorable for current commodity prices.
B. Todd Hoffman (Sat,) studied this question.