SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1997 83

Kuparuk LargeScale
Enhanced Oil Recovery Project
S.P. Hoolahan, SPE, and G.S. McDuffie, SPE, Arco Alaska Inc.; D.G. Peck, SPE, Arco E&P Technology; and
R.J. Hallam, SPE, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.
Summary
The Kuparuk River oil field has had a miscible water-alternating-
gas (MWAG) enhanced-oil-recovery (EOR) pilot in place since
1988. This original pilot was implemented on two drillsites pre-
viously on waterflood. The pilot was expanded to a third drillsite in
1993 to test the MWAG process in an area previously flooded by an
immiscible water-alternating-gas (IWAG) recovery technique.
Large-scale application of MWAG at Kuparuk is in progress, with
a project that will more than triple current MWAG injection. Full im-
plementation is slated for mid-1996. When completed, the Kuparuk
large-scale EOR (LSEOR) project will be among the largest of its
kind in the world. This paper covers the basic aspects of moving the
EOR process at Kuparuk from pilot to large-scale application. A
number of hurdles had to be overcome, including scaleup of field
and simulation results in a consistent manner and the need to use ex-
isting infrastructure to ensure economic viability.
Introduction
The Kuparuk River field is on Alaskas North Slope, approximately
260 miles north of the Arctic Circle and 30 miles west of the Prudhoe
Bay field (Fig. 1). On the basis of remaining reserves and a current
production rate of nearly 300,000 BOPD, Kuparuk is the second larg-
est field in North America. From the time of first production in 1981,
Kuparuk has operated under a variety of recovery mechanisms, in-
cluding primary depletion, waterflood, lean-gas reinjection, and both
IWAG and MWAG injection. Reservoir development decisions are
often complex and interrelated, requiring the integration of reservoir
recovery mechanisms and surface facility constraints.
1-4
This was es-
pecially true for the Kuparuk LSEOR project.
Kuparuk Development History. Discovered in 1969, the decision
to develop the Kuparuk River oil field was delayed until 1979 be-
cause of economic uncertainties and resource constraints tied to the
startup of the Prudhoe Bay oil field. By late 1981, the Kuparuk River
field began producing 80,000 BOPD from 40 wells on five drillsites.
Production exceeded expectations. Fluids were processed by a
single central production facility (CPF-1), with the oil being trans-
ported 27 miles to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS)
through a 16-in. common-carrier pipeline. Gas not burned as fuel
was reinjected into an area of the reservoir designated for gas stor-
age. The field did not have an original gas cap. Because of the prom-
ising results, a plan was in place in 1982 to develop the entire field
with three CPFs. Estimates at that time were to spend more than
U.S. $8 billion in capital to recover approximately 1.3 billion bbl of
oil, with an estimated peak production rate of 250,000 BOPD.
The second CPF (CPF-2) was commissioned in 1984. To accom-
modate the increased oil production, the 16-in. pipeline from Kupa-
ruk to TAPS was replaced with the current 24-in. Kuparuk pipeline.
Fieldwide expansion of a waterflood pilot initiated in 1983 was made
possible with the 1985 startup of the 300,000-BWPD capacity sea-
water treatment plant (STP). Concurrent with STP startup, an IWAG
pilot was initiated on three drillsites. IWAG injection was intended to
provide a means of both storing gas and improving recovery.
5,6
To
date, a total of 19 drillsites have been subjected to IWAG, with expan-
sion to two additional drillsites currently under way.
Copyright 1997 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review 11 March 1996. Revised manuscript received
11 March 1997. Paper peer approved 12 March 1997. Paper (SPE 35698) first presented at
the 1996 SPE Western Regional Meeting held in Anchorage, 2224 May.
The third and final CPF (CPF-3) was commissioned in 1986 to de-
velop the northern portion of the field. An extensive fieldwide re-
fracturing program was initiated in 1988 to increase withdrawal
from the less prolific A-sand.
7,8
An EOR pilot was initiated in 1988
on two drillsites,
9,10
and subsequently expanded to one of the IWAG
drillsites in 1993 to test the MWAG after IWAG process. Large-
scale expansion of EOR at Kuparuk is in progress.
Development capital expended to date has been nearly U.S. $5 bil-
lion to drill and equip more than 700 wells (approximately half of
which are injectors) at 42 drillsites. Peak production reached 353,000
BOPD on 15 December 1991. With cumulative production topping
1 billion bbl on 26 May 1993, Kuparuk became only the 14th field in
North America to reach this milestone. Ultimate recovery is now ex-
pected to top 2 billion bbl of oil at a total capital cost of around U.S.
$7 billion. A simplified schematic depicting major Kuparuk facilities
and pre-LSEOR recovery mechanisms is shown in Fig. 2.
Geologic Setting. The Kuparuk River formation resides at a nominal
depth of 6,000 ft; is a laterally extensive, slightly dipping anticline
(0.8) covering over 200 sq miles; and comprises two primary pro-
ducing horizons of Early Cretaceous sandstone. The trapping mecha-
nism is a combination of structural closure to the north and east and
stratigraphic closure to the south and west. The geologic history and
reservoir stratigraphy have been discussed in detail elsewhere.
11-14
The lower horizon (A-sand) is subdivided into six imbricated in-
tervals (A-1 through A-6) of interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and
mudstone, which together contain roughly two-thirds of the approx-
imately 6 billion bbl of original oil in place (OOIP). The upper hori-
zon (C-sand) is hydraulically separated from the lower horizon by
the Lower Cretaceous unconformity and is subdivided into four in-
tervals (C-1 through C-4) of poorly sorted, glauconitic, siderite-
cemented, intensely bioturbated sandstones. While net pay for the
C-sand can reach 80 ft, the average is just over 30 ft. Average net pay
for the A-sand is typically less than 30 ft. Production from both hori-
zons are hydraulically commingled at the wellbore.
The Kuparuk River formation is heavily faulted, with regional
fluid movement influenced predominantly by the north-south fault
system.
9
Virtually all Kuparuk faults are normally oriented and be-
have as barriers to flow in some cases and as fluid conduits in others.
Throws of up to 300 ft are observed in some of the larger faults; how-
ever, fault throws of 30 to 80 ft are most common.
11
Faulting plays
a key role in reservoir management and in determining infill-well
placement. Even fault throws of as little as 10 ft are capable of dis-
rupting the lateral continuity of otherwise floodable intervals.
12
A
map depicting major faults within Kuparuk is shown in Fig. 3.
Rock and Fluid Properties. The reservoir was undersaturated at
the time of discovery, with an average reservoir pressure of 3,100
psi, an average bubblepoint pressure of 2,800 psi, and a solution-
gas/oil ratio (GOR) of 500 scf/STB.
9
Oil gravity varies from 18 to
27API throughout the field, but is 24API on average. Table 1 con-
tains a boiling-point breakdown of oil currently being shipped from
the field. No discernible differences have been detected between A-
and C-sand fluid samples. Asphaltene content (pentane insolubles)
ranges from 3 to 17 wt% of the C
7+
fraction. Laboratory experi-
ments with the Kuparuk fluid system have identified the formation
of a third hydrocarbon phase, high in asphaltene content, when mis-
cible injectant (MI) is mixed with reservoir oil. Onset of third-phase
formation was found to be directly related to the asphaltene content
of the reservoir oil.
15
The A-sands, with an average permeability-thickness of 1,000 md-
ft, are considerably less prolific than the C-sands, which have an aver-
84 SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1997
Fig. 1Kuparuk field locator map.
age permeability thickness of 5,000 md-ft.
1,2
The more-permeable
C-1 interval often behaves as a thief zone when present. Both sands
have an average porosity in the 23 to 24% range. Wettability is inter-
mediate. Laboratory derived values for S
orw
and S
orm
for the A-sand
are approximately 42% and 5 to 13%, respectively. The laboratory-
derived S
orw
for the C-sand is approximately 34"2% for a small
number of pore volumes (PVs) throughput. A single-well tracer test
indicated that the S
orw
after many PVs is approximately 27"3%.
9
The tracer-test results were dominated by a thief zone. These two in-
dependent values of S
orw
are reasonable estimates for S
orw
in a few
of the subunits of the C-sand at field conditions, which range from
low to high throughput. An S
orm
value has not yet been measured in
the C-sand. The high S
orw
values provide a significant target for EOR.
Laboratory corefloods show that S
orm
increases with core dispersivity
and with asphaltene content (Table 2).
Application of Miscible EOR Process
In the mid-1980s, the suitability of a miscible WAG process was re-
viewed for Kuparuk. The process appeared to be applicable in terms
of the following.
1. The reservoir pressure of 3,000 psi (normal range required is
between 1,500 and 3,000 psi
16,17
).
2. The presence of a number of thin, low-permeability sands with
vertical flow barriers, which are needed to minimize gravity segre-
gation in horizontal floods.
16,17
3. A high residual oil saturation of 28 to 42% (better than the pre-
ferred value of 25%
17
).
4. The required MI could be manufactured from approximately
70 to 80% lean gas and 20 to 30% enriching fluid, depending on the
enriching fluid composition.
5. Lack of a gas cap.
However, the oil properties were not ideal. The oil viscosity of 2
cp was not in the preferred range of less than 1 cp (although up to
5 cp is considered acceptable). Formation of a second liquid phase
at high MI concentrations was a concern. The presence of high-
permeability thief zones in the C-1 sand was also a concern.
It was determined that the prudent development strategy was a
phased approach. The initial stage was to manufacture some low-
cost MI and evaluate the required MI quality and process perform-
ance on a number of patterns within two drillsites. Later, the volume
of indigenous MI and number of patterns could be expanded. The
third phase would be to import a much larger volume of enriching
fluid from another field.
SmallScale EOR (SSEOR) Pilot
An EOR pilot project was implemented at Kuparuk in late 1988 at
two drillsites (1Y and 2Z) that had previously been on waterflood.
The pilot consisted of 11 patterns covering an area of 3,300 acres
with an OOIP of 210 MMSTB. The EOR flood on 1Y and 2Z was
bisected by an area set aside to evaluate waterflood performance on
80-acre well spacing. Fig. 4 depicts the original EOR and 80-acre
waterflood pilot areas.
Early performance of the original EOR pilot area has been dis-
cussed in detail elsewhere.
9,10
The EOR response from the original
project area, after accounting for the effects of subsequent infill drill-
ing and well work, is clearly evident (Fig. 5). This performance has
been corroborated by extensive one-dimensional, 2D, and 3D reser-
voir simulation studies
10
and is backed by 10 years worth of labora-
tory data involving more than 75 experiments ranging from static
pressure/volume/temperature to sophisticated flow measurements.
Fig. 2Kuparuk field area map.
SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1997 85
Fig. 3Kuparuk fault map.
Table 3 lists the types of experiments that have been performed. The
effect of the extensive faulting on field performance has been ad-
dressed first by a gas tracer injection project in the plot area.
9
Direct
communication between injectors and producers was confirmed
across low throw faults. When the fault throw was on the order of the
sand thickness, the faults act as sealing faults. These effects were in-
cluded in performance analysis by defining the pattern boundaries on
the basis of the presence of sealing faults. Juxtapositioning of sands
across faults was included in the 3D reservoir simulation studies. An
example of site-specific simulation results is presented in Fig. 6.
In 1992, the 80-acre waterflood area separating the 1Y and 2Z
EOR pilot areas was converted to MWAG injection. Drilling of 11
infill wells at 1Y was initiated in late 1993 and drilling of two infill
wells at 2Z in early 1995. This brings the total number of SSEOR
patterns on 1Y and 2Z to 28. Areal SSEOR coverage stands at 5,800
acres, with a corresponding OOIP of 390 MMSTB.
The MI for this pilot was made by blending separator off-gas with
indigenous enriching fluids in the form of gas-scrubber and low-
temperature separator liquids. At CPF-1, the indigenous enriching
fluids were made up of natural gas liquids (NGLs) from the CPF-1
NGL plant and scrubber liquids from the CPF-1 artificial-lift gas-
compression system. At CPF-2, the indigenous enriching fluids
were scrubber liquids from the CPF-2 artificial-lift gas compression
system. The injection history for the SSEOR pilot is shown in Fig.
7. This project was able to make approximately 30 MMscf/D of MI
from the produced fluids. With recycle (bootstrapping), which is
discussed later, the injection rate rose to approximately 50
MMscf/D. The MI injection rate dropped in 1995 owing to lengthy
equipment downtime associated with startup of the SSEOR expan-
sion project described below.
Incremental EOR recovery from the SSEOR pilot to date has been
estimated to be 15 to 20 MMSTB, which represents 3.5 to 5% of the
OOIP. The ultimate incremental EOR recovery is expected to be 30
to 40 MMSTB, which corresponds to 7 to 10% of the OOIP.
SSEOR Pilot Expansion
The SSEOR pilot-expansion project, once fully operational, increased
the volume of MI that could be manufactured from Kuparuk fluids by
approximately 14 MMscf/D. At CPF-1, the increased MI capacity
came from additional scrubber liquids in the artificial-lift gas-compres-
TABLE 1KUPARUK CRUDE DISTILLATION
Crude
Yield
Component (vol %)
Propane 0.2
Isobutane 0.1
Normal butane 0.5
Pentane
To boiling point of 175F 3.0
Boiling-point range of 175 to 350F 11.6
Boiling-point range of 350 to 450F 8.1
Boiling-point range of 450 to 650F 21.6
Boiling-point range of 650 to 1,000F 27.9
At boiling points of 1,000+F 27.0
TABLE 2KUPARUK COREFLOOD RESULTS FOR A-SAND
AT 2 HPV INJECTED
Asphaltene
Content Peclet S
orm
Component Recovery
(%)
(%) Number (%) C
10
to C
22
C
36+
3.8 648 5.3 98 87
12.0 648 7.8 98 81
3.8 64 10.5 91 74
12.0 64 13.0 93 68
sion system and naphtha from the Kuparuk River Unit crude-oil top-
ping plant. At CPF-2, the increased MI capacity came from additional
scrubber liquids in the artificial-lift gas-compression system and NGLs
from the fuel-gas conditioning skid. With these plant modifications, all
low-cost MI liquids available at CPF-1 and CPF-2 were extracted.
Although early performance from the SSEOR pilot was very en-
couraging, it did not correspond directly to the reservoir mecha-
nisms associated with the majority of future expansion opportuni-
ties. As noted previously, the original SSEOR pilot was initiated
following waterflood. Future expansions will be almost exclusively
into areas previously on IWAG. Taking advantage of the existing
IWAG high-pressure-gas distribution infrastructure is key to the
economic viability of expanding Kuparuk EOR.
A number of mechanistic, fully compositional simulation studies
were undertaken to address the impact of prior IWAG injection on
the MWAG process. These studies incorporated compositionally
consistent relative permeability treatment and the effects of hystere-
sis on gas trapping. Of particular concern was the change in in-situ
oil composition following lean-gas injection, miscible gas dilution
by prior lean-gas injection, and the potential formation of preferen-
tial gas paths that could lead to excessive cycling of the miscible gas
and thus lower incremental EOR recoveries.
Simulation results indicate that IWAG will negatively impact
incremental MWAG recoveries, but that the magnitude is minimal
and is not sufficient to alter the decision whether to proceed with
the project. The reduction in MWAG recovery is primarily the re-
sult of a reduction in target oil saturation attributed to the IWAG
recovery process. The combined recovery from MWAG and
IWAG was found to be greater than that of MWAG alone by an av-
erage of 1% OOIP. However, because IWAG recoveries on a stand-
alone basis average 2% OOIP, the stand-alone MWAG incremen-
tal is reduced by the difference, or 1% OOIP. The incremental
average IWAG recovery of 2% OOIP is consistent with the 1 to 3%
OOIP reported elsewhere for Kuparuk.
6
Although simulation results indicate that MWAG/IWAG interac-
tion should not be a concern, there were no known precedents for
IWAG preceding MWAG. As such, there were neither field data nor
experience to rely on for assessing the impact of IWAG on the
MWAG process. Given the magnitude of investment associated
with a major EOR expansion at Kuparuk, a field test was initiated
in 1993. The existing pilot was expanded to an adjacent mature
IWAG drillsite (1A). This expansion increased the total number of
EOR patterns in the field to 40 and the total areal EOR coverage to
86 SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1997
Fig. 4SSEOR area map.
8,700 acres, with a corresponding OOIP of 575 MMSTB. As shown
in Fig. 8, early field results from 1A show that the miscible process
has worked effectively following IWAG.
LargeScale EOR (LSEOR) Project
The SSEOR and SSEOR pilot-expansion projects manufacture all the
low-cost MI possible from the Kuparuk CPF-1 and CPF-2 enriching
fluids. Therefore, any major expansion of EOR at Kuparuk requires
solvent from an external source.
9
Without solvent import, future EOR
expansions would be limited to between two and five additional drill-
sites. With solvent import, the number grows to 18 or more.
Project Overview. As depicted in Fig. 2, a high-pressure-gas dis-
tribution system was installed as part of the Kuparuk IWAG project.
This existing infrastructure forms the facility backbone of the
LSEOR project, serving to enhance the economic viability of the
project while minimizing capital investment risk. Reliance on exist-
ing infrastructure has always played a key role in North Slope devel-
opment. Had it not been for the infrastructure constructed as a result
of the Prudhoe Bay discovery, Kuparuk itself would not have been
economically viable.
14
Current plans are to expand EOR into all 18
drillsites currently on IWAG. This expansion will be staged, with 9
to 12 drillsites initially converted to MI injection. The remaining six
to nine drillsites will be converted as the initial drillsites mature.
The significant volume of MI required for this EOR expansion
will be provided by blending NGLs from Prudhoe Bay with Kupa-
ruks produced gas. Prudhoe Bay NGLs are the only North Slope
enriching fluid that meets Kuparuks requirements of immediate
availability, reservoir compatibility, and facility compatibility.
While other solvent sources may become available in the future,
Prudhoe Bay NGLs are the only substantial source of North Slope
enriching fluid currently available for use at Kuparuk. Although
miscibility at Kuparuk is controlled by the combined condensing/
vaporizing mechanism,
18
the reservoirs strongly condensing char-
acter makes it well suited to an NGL-based solvent. Because the Ku-
paruk reservoir has very little indigenous CO
2
, introducing CO
2
into
the system could potentially trigger significant corrosion mitigation
costs. Prudhoe Bay NGLs do not pose a CO
2
concern.
Facility modifications associated with the LSEOR project are de-
picted in Fig. 9 and include the following.
1. Tie-ins at Prudhoe to allow a portion of the Prudhoe Bay NGL
stream to be diverted into the original 16-in. pipeline between Kupa-
ruk and TAPS (the Oliktok pipeline).
Fig. 5SSEOR production history.
SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1997 87
TABLE 3KUPARUK EOR EXPERIMENTAL DATA LIST
Data Types Number of Experiments Utility
Saturation pressures, saturation temperatures,
densities
12 Black-oil endpoint; correct component volatility.
Injectant properties 14 Proper phase behavior after injection; ensure single
phase when injected.
Single-cell solvent/oil contacts
Swelling 3 Examine condensing mechanism.
Titration 6 Examine vaporization mechanism.
Single contacts 21 Tune to specific conditions; viscosities.
Multiple contacts 3 Extension of single contact utility.
Solvent displacements
Slim Tube 13 Low dispersion displacement; multicontact miscibility.
Corefloods 2 Higher dispersion displacement; multicontact miscibility.
Micromodel 2 Visual observation of miscible process.
2. Modification of the Oliktok pipeline for conversion from gas
to NGL service.
3. Installation of three pipeline pumps at CPF-1 to boost the pres-
sure of the incoming NGLs for transport to CPF-2 via a new 8-in.
NGL line and for entry into the new enriching fluid collection drums
to be installed at both CPF-1 and CPF-2.
4. Rewheeling the SSEOR expansion-pilot injection pump at
CPF-1 from 220 to 360 gal/min.
5. Replacing the existing 180-gal/min SSEOR injection pump at
CPF-2 with a new 800-gal/min injection pump.
6. Linking the CPF-1 and CPF-3 power systems to accommodate
the increased electrical demand at CPF-1, especially during winter
months when power consumption peaks.
While typical North Slope modular development can require 3
years from the start of final design engineering to plant startup,
19
the
LSEOR project is expected to be fully operational within 18 months
of final engineering owing to the use of truckable modules. Unlike
sea-lift designs, which have a limited 6-week North Slope delivery
window, truckable designs can be transported to the North Slope
virtually year-round. This has enabled startup of the CPF-1 portion
of the project within 10 months of final engineering; well in advance
of full project startup.
Discussion
The LSEOR project will more than triple Kuparuks MI injection ca-
pacity, raising the annual average injection rate from [65 to [220
MMscf/D. Coupled with infill drilling, the number of patterns re-
ceiving MI will increase from 40 patterns on three drillsites to
Fig. 6DS-2Z simulation vs. performance.
approximately 230 patterns on 21 drillsites. Areal coverage will be
increased from 8,700 acres to approximately 68,000 acres, with the
corresponding OOIP coverage increasing from 575 to 2,900
MMSTB. Incremental reservoir recovery resulting from the
LSEOR project is expected to top 200 MMSTB. These factors easily
place the Kuparuk LSEOR project among the largest hydrocarbon-
miscible gasfloods in the world.
20
Cumulative NGL-import volume over the life of the project will
be approximately 100 MMSTB, one-third of which is expected to
be recaptured and sold as part of the Kuparuk oil stream. This recap-
tured NGL volume is above and beyond the 200 MMSTB incremen-
tal reservoir recovery noted earlier.
While the number of factors that go in making a go/no-go deci-
sion on a project of this magnitude are well beyond what can be con-
densed into a single paper, some of the more salient aspects are de-
scribed next. Each, taken in combination with the positive pilot
performance observed in the field, contributes to the confidence
needed to proceed with project funding and execution.
Recovery Estimates. The recovery estimates for the LSEOR proj-
ect are based on (1) injection of 1 Tcf of MI, (2) execution of the
planned infill-drilling program, (3) adequate well injectivity, and
Fig. 7SSEOR MI injection history.
Fig. 8Drillsite 1A EOR production.
88 SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1997
Fig. 9LSEOR facility schematic.
Fig. 10LSEOR type curves.
(4) expansion into all targeted drillsites. Simulation studies indicate
that, while the rate of injection affects recovery timing, total recov-
ery is not impacted provided these conditions are met.
To ensure reasonably that estimated recoveries are achieved with-
in the expected remaining life of the Kuparuk River field, the scope
of the LSEOR project was designed so that injection of the 1 Tcf of
MI will be completed within 15 to 20 years of project startup. The
1 Tcf of MI will be generated from a combination of imported Prud-
hoe Bay NGLs and enriching fluids indigenous to Kuparuk, includ-
ing the solvent bootstrap volumes discussed later.
Reservoir modeling and field performance indicate that the opti-
mum MI slug size is 20 to 30% on a hydrocarbon PV (HPV) basis.
In Fig. 10, diminishing returns are evident as slug size increases. Re-
sults from 3D modeling of drillsite 2Z on the basis of the Todd-Long-
staff
21
approach have been discussed elsewhere.
10
In that work, the
mixing parameter, w, was adjusted to fit historical performance. It
was implicitly assumed that the value remained constant for a variety
of slug sizes. The predictions were consistent with those derived from
finely gridded compositional simulations. A 30% HPV slug size will
be targeted at the main sand in each pattern. Because of different A-
sand and C-sand injectivities and volumes, not all sands will receive
a 30% slug. As such, the incremental recovery from individual drill-
sites is expected to range from 4 to 10% OOIP.
EOR Process Efficiency. Table 4 provides a comparison of the
process characteristics between MI made from Prudhoe Bay NGLs
and MI made entirely from enriching fluids indigenous to Kuparuk.
The actual MI will be a combination of these two sources.
Third-Hydrocarbon-Phase Formation. The formation of a third
heavy-liquid phase was of initial concern to Kuparuk EOR develop-
ment. Onset of third-phase formation was observed to be directly re-
lated to the compositions generated during the multicontact mis-
cible mechanism of the condensing/vaporizing process. Simulation
results with Michelsens three-phase algorithm
22
indicate that a
third phase forms near the critical point and that all three phases are
rich in solvent range components.
The impact of third-phase formation is no longer viewed as being a
major cause for concern because (1) all three phases are light, with rea-
sonably similar physical properties; (2) the heaviest, most dissimilar
phase only occurs in very low saturations, typically less than 10%; (3)
the three phases appear for only a small range of compositions; and (4)
there is no experimental (slim tube, coreflood, and micro-model) or
field evidence indicating that there is an impact on the process or proj-
ect performance. Additional details regarding these observations are re-
TABLE 4EOR PROCESS EFFICIENCY
MI Enriching Fluid (EF)
Prudhoe Kuparuk
NGLs Indigenous
Enrichment at MMP of 2,900 psi, STB of EF/Mcf of MI 0.170 0.215
Gross solvent utilization, STB of EOR oil per Mcf of MI injected 0.22 0.20
Gross solvent utilization, STB of EOR oil per total STB of EF injected 1.3 0.93
Net solvent utilization, STB of EOR oil per net STB of EF injected 1.8 1.5
Net solvent utilization, STB of EOR oil per STB of trapped saleable EF

2.7 4.4

Assumes 50% of Kuparuk indigenous EF and 100% of Prudhoe Bay NGLs are saleable liquids before injection.
SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1997 89
TABLE 5MMP CORRELATION vs.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Slim-Tube
Experiment
Experimental MMP
(psi)
Correlation MMP
(psi)
1 2,825 3,039
2 3,500 3,538
3 3,200 3,273
4 2,825 2,675
5 2,825 2,999
6 2,825 2,665
7 2,825 2,819
8 2,825 2,799
9 2,825 2,702
10 2,150 2,540
11 3,600 3,431
12 3,850 3,848
13 3,050 2,801
TABLE 6TYPICAL LSEOR LEAN-GAS AND
NGL COMPOSITIONS
Component
Lean Gas
(mol%)
Prudhoe NGLs
(mol%)
CO
2
1.0
C
1
85.0
C
2
8.0
C
3
4.0 0.1
i-C
4
0.5 4.1
n-C
4
1.0 24.5
i-C
5
14.4
n-C
5
0.5 19.8
C
6
19.2
C
7
12.5
C
8+
5.4
ported by Godbole et al.
15
The most significant effect might well be a
slight increase in S
orm
already present in the laboratory data.
Injectivity. Injectivity calculations accounting for three-phase flow
and gas trapping indicate that water injectivity should be noticeably
reduced as a result of gas injection. However, this effect has not been
observed in the field data. Overall, water injectivity does not appear
to have been affected, while gas injectivity is 15 to 20% greater than
that of water. This is in contrast to several CO
2
WAG injection proj-
ects in west Texas that have seen substantial losses in water injectiv-
ities following gas injection.
23
Minimum Miscibility Criteria. To ensure that the resultant mix-
ture of enriching fluids and separator off-gas will achieve the de-
sired miscible behavior in the reservoir, a simplified minimum mis-
cibility pressure (MMP) correlation that can be implemented in the
field is needed. In developing this correlation, the primary objec-
tives were to (1) focus on the NGL solvent to be used in the LSEOR
project, (2) base the correlation strictly on experimental data, (3)
minimize the number of adjustable parameters, and (4) maintain
consistency with the equation-of-state (EOS) model. Too many pa-
rameters can limit the use of a correlation to the immediate vicinity
of the data points from which it is derived and can present a level of
complexity that is problematic from a facility-controls standpoint.
As shown in Table 3, a total of 13 slim-tube experiments has been
conducted. These experiments cover a wide range of solvents, from
very lean MI to relatively heavy (high molecular weight) MI. Be-
cause the empirical MMP correlation was developed over a wide
range of MI compositions, the correlation will robustly handle sea-
sonal variations in the enriching fluid and gas compositions. Data
from these experiments exhibit a clear trend whereby the MMP in-
creases slightly for heavier oils and decreases significantly with in-
creasing MI molecular weight.
The following equation represents the MMP correlation that will
be used in controlling blending levels in the field.
p
M, min
+a

b )y
i
T
c
ci

M
C7)
. (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The summation is over all single carbon number components in the
MI, with i-C
4
, n-C
4
, i-C
5
, and n-C
5
being treated separately (i.e., they
are not combined together). The critical temperature for CO
2
is taken
to be 435R rather than 548R on the basis of the fact that CO
2
is
known to be much more effective in developing miscibility
17
than a T
c
of 548R would indicate. The dependence of MMP on oil composition
is reflected by a 100-psi increase for every 10-unit increase in M
C
7)
.
As shown in Table 5, the correlation has an average prediction er-
ror of 137 psi, which is within the "200 psi uncertainty in the exper-
imental data. Further, there is essentially no error for the experiment
with MI made from NGLs (Slim-tube Series 7), which is the closest
analog to the LSEOR injectant. For the typical LSEOR lean-gas and
NGL compositions presented in Table 6, a blending ratio of 18.7
mol% NGLs renders the desired MMP of 2,900 psi for an oil having
an M
C
7)
of 285.
Fig. 11Bootstrap process.
90 SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1997
Fig. 12Kuparuk EOR enriching fluid. Fig. 13LSEOR dimensionless recovery curves.
Infill Drilling. Infill drilling is directly related to EOR recovery at
Kuparuk in at least two different ways. First, infill drilling provides
improved reservoir sweep through underperforming patterns and in-
creased reservoir contacting in areas of partial or total structural isola-
tion (see Fig. 3). The more reservoir oil that can be contacted with MI,
the higher the EOR recovery potential. Second, infill drilling provides
for increased injectivity on a given drillsite, allowing the target slug
size to be injected in a shorter period of time. This allows for more
rapid drillsite expansion and reduces field life associated risks.
Up to 66 new wells are expected to be drilled within the Kuparuk
LSEOR area. These wells include 13 peripheral wells, 19 pattern in-
fill wells, and 34 structural infill wells. The incremental EOR recov-
eries cited earlier do not include the non-EOR incremental benefits
associated with the infill-drilling program.
Solvent Bootstrap. Bootstrap refers to the process by which in-
jected fluids are reproduced and become available for reuse. Fig. 11
is a schematic representing the process. During the first pass through
the reservoir, 40 to 45% of an injected barrel of NGL-range compo-
nents is trapped in the reservoir and 55 to 60% returns to the surface.
Of the returned volume, approximately 40% is stabilized in the oil and
sold, while the other 60% is available for reinjection (determined by
compositional reservoir and surface-facility simulation). For
LSEOR, this process, on average, will complete two to three cycles.
In this way, the 100 million bbl of imported NGLs will be injected
approximately 1.4 times, or the equivalent of 140 million bbl.
The NGL-import volume is directly influenced by the desired MI
enrichment level, pump capacity constraints, and the degree of
bootstrap. The higher the bootstrap, the lower the required NGL im-
port and vice versa. Fig. 12 depicts the anticipated NGL-import vol-
umes along with the combined indigenous/bootstrap enriching-
fluid rate profiles.
Reservoir Scaleup. Laboratory studies, reservoir simulations, and the
SSEOR pilot project provided confidence in the EOR performance of
a typical Kuparuk MWAG pattern. The next challenge was to scale up
individual pattern performance to predict the composite injection re-
quirements and production benefits associated with 230 MWAG pat-
terns in various stages of maturity over a 15- to 20-year project life. The
cornerstone of the reservoir scaleup process is the dimensionless recov-
ery curve. By use of the MWAG process evaluation techniques dis-
cussed in this paper, unique curves describing EOR and MI recovery
(% OOIP) as functions of total MWAG injection (% HVP) were estab-
lished for several ultimate MI slug sizes. Two such EOR curves are
shown in Fig. 13. Multiple dimensionless curve sets are needed to scale
up patterns with various WAG ratios. For simplification, the LSEOR
analysis assumed a constant WAG ratio of 1:1.
Conceptually, the scaleup process involves the following steps
for each time increment.
1. Predict the MI and water volumes injected in each MWAG
pattern.
2. Find the corresponding EOR and MI production for each pat-
tern from the appropriate dimensionless curves.
3. Multiply each patterns dimensionless EOR and MI production
by the patterns OOIP.
4. Sum all pattern recoveries.
Because the LSEOR project scope includes approximately 230
patterns of multiple zones, the scaleup tool treats each of the 18 drill-
sites as two patternsone each for the A-sand and the C-sand.
Even with reliable dimensionless recovery curves, the scaleup
process will produce unreliable performance forecasts unless each
drillsites MWAG conversion timing and injection rate are accurate-
ly predicted. The A-sand and C-sand MWAG injectivities (% HPV/
year) for each drillsite have been calculated on the basis of the drill-
sites historical gas and water injectivities and estimated future
conditions, such as number of injection wells, WAG ratio, reservoir
pressure, MI composition, and MI injection wellhead pressure. The
drillsite conversion timing, or project development scenario, is de-
termined primarily by facility constraints.
For example, the field MI injection rate will be constrained by ei-
ther a contractual NGL-import rate limit or by the injection-pump
capacity, which prohibits simultaneous MWAG conversion of all 18
LSEOR drillsites. On the other hand, the MI distribution piping con-
figuration requires that specific drillsites convert to MWAG simul-
taneously because the high-pressure gas trunk line to each group of
drillsites can carry either lean or enriched gas, but not both.
Another potential facility impact on the LSEOR project is produc-
tion-well proration based on high GOR or water/oil ratio (WOR).
While production and injection proration are common in the Kuparuk
field, these constraints were not incorporated into the scaleup process.
On the basis of reservoir simulation of Kuparuks MWAG process
following IWAG, it is expected that the LSEOR project will maintain
or even reduce the average GOR and WOR of the affected wells.
Reservoir Surveillance. In terms of operating the LSEOR project
in the field, there are certain data that should be collected to answer
the following two questions: How well is the process proceeding?
and How can the process be improved? The information required
to address these questions can be broken down into three categories:
(1) placement of MI, (2) location and amount of MI production; and
(3) maintenance of optimal miscibility. The first consideration, in-
jectant placement, involves metering the total amount of injected
miscible gas and the split of MI among the dominant zones. This is
one of the primary criteria for MI scheduling and pattern abandon-
ment. The second issue, MI production, is slightly more complex.
Gas compositions and oil gravities are enormously useful for deter-
mining when EOR response has been observed and how much re-
turned MI and lean gas make up the produced gas. Single-zone pro-
duction tests are used to determine from which zone water, gas, and
oil production originates. Finally, miscibility is ensured by main-
taining reservoir pressure, which is estimated through pressure fall-
off at injectors and pressure buildup at producers.
The initial focus will be directed toward optimal placement of MI
by avoiding areas where MI thief zones exist. When these are de-
tected, MI will be diverted from these patterns, and remedial action
will be taken, if warranted. Once the first-pass optimization is under
way, further optimization can proceed. One example is the determina-
SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1997 91
Fig. 14Typical Kuparuk slim-tube results; MME+minimum
miscibility enrichment.
Injectant Enrichment Level (mol%)
tion of pattern-abandonment criteria on the basis of field data and
compositional reservoir simulations. Produced-gas samples and cu-
mulative MI injection will be the basis for determining when (or if)
MI should be replaced by lean-gas injection. Compositional simula-
tions will be used to develop guidelines on the threshold amount of
returned MI in a pattern before the pattern should be abandoned or
placed on lean-gas injection to recover the remaining enriching fluids.
Future Opportunities. Even with the LSEOR project, less than half
of Kuparuks OOIP will be under EOR. Access to the remaining
OOIP presents a formidable challenge given the lack of facilities
infrastructure. However, a project is under way to use the NGL in-
jection pump that will be removed from service as a result of the
LSEOR project. High-pressure-gas piping will be extended from
drillsite 1Q to CPF-3, where two drillsites will be placed on IWAG
and a third placed on MWAG.
With two-thirds of the injected NGLs remaining trapped in the
reservoir following LSEOR, the merits of conducting a lean-gas
chase project will certainly be investigated. As shown in Fig. 14,
Kuparuks EOR process exhibits a gradual transition between mis-
cible and immiscible behavior. With the LSEOR project being high-
ly leveraged by NGL-volume requirements, opportunities to opti-
mize the blend ratio will be continually scrutinized. As field
experience is gained, operating parameters (such as WAG ratios and
conversion timing) will also be refined. And finally, should Kupa-
ruk development expand to include other potential horizons and/or
nearby satellite accumulations, opportunities for expanding EOR
will likely be more than just a passing consideration.
Conclusions
The Kuparuk LSEOR project is among the largest of its type in the
world. Incremental oil recovery from the project is expected to top
200 MMSTB. The enriched-gas EOR recovery process at Kuparuk
has been confirmed both in the laboratory and in the field with two
successful pilot programs. The following are key aspects of the Ku-
paruk LSEOR project.
1. Maximizing the utilization of existing infrastructure enhances
economic viability and minimizes capital investment risk.
2. Significant EOR expansion at Kuparuk requires more solvent
than is available from indigenous sources.
3. Approximately 100 MMSTB of Prudhoe Bay NGLs will be
imported during the life of the project.
4. MI injection capacity will be increased by more than a factor
of three.
5. EOR coverage at Kuparuk will be increased by 18 drillsites
through a staged expansion program.
6. The strongly condensing character of the Kuparuk fluid system
is well suited to an NGL-based solvent.
7. One-third of the imported NGLs is expected to be recaptured
and sold with the Kuparuk oil stream.
8. Infill drilling within the LSEOR project area will provide for
improved reservoir contacting and the ability to reach targeted slug
sizes for a given drillsite in a shorter period of time.
9. With less than half of the Kuparuk OOIP subject to the EOR
recovery process, the potential for future EOR expansions at Kupa-
ruk is significant.
Acknowledgments
The opinions expressed in this paper are the authors and do not nec-
essarily represent the views of the Kuparuk River Unit owners. We
thank Arco Alaska Inc. and BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. for per-
mission to publish this paper and all others who contributed to the
successful evolution of this project. Special thanks go to Gary Youn-
gren for his hands-on guidance on reservoir simulation and phase
behavior issues and to Andy Spence for directing a highly success-
ful laboratory program.
Nomenclature
a+ regression constant+*1.7010
*3
b+ regression constant+*2.6610
4
c+ regression constant+1.6
M
C
7)
+ molecular weight of the C
7+
fraction of the oil
p
M,min
+ minimum miscibility pressure, m/Lt
2
, psi
S
orw
+ residual oil to waterflood, % total PV
S
orm
+ residual oil to miscible gas, % total PV
y
i
+ mole fraction of Component i in the MI
T
ci
+ critical temperature of Component i, T, R
References
1. Weiss, J.L. et al.: Large-Scale Facility Expansion Evaluations at the
Kuparuk River Field, paper SPE 20046 paper at the 1990 SPE Califor-
nia Regional Meeting,Ventura, California, 46 April.
2. Starley, G.P. et al.: Application of Full-Field Simulation to Develop-
ment Planning and Reservoir Management at the Kuparuk River Field,
paper SPE 20045 presented at the 1990 SPE California Regional Meet-
ing,Ventura, California, 46 April.
3. Stoisits, R.F. et al.: Application of Nonlinear Adaptive Modeling for
Rigorous Representation of Production Facilities in Reservoir Simula-
tion, paper SPE 24898 presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC, 47 October.
4. Stoisits, R.F., Scherer, P.W., and Schmidt, S.E.: Gas Optimization at the
Kuparuk River Field, paper SPE 28467 presented at the 1994 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana,
2528 September.
5. Champion, J.H. and Shelden, J.B.: An Immiscible WAG Injection Project
in the Kuparuk River Unit, paper SPE 16719 presented at the 1987 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 2730 September.
6. Ma, T.D. and Youngren, G.K.: Performance of Immiscible Water-Al-
ternating-Gas (IWAG) Injection at Kuparuk River Unit, North Slope,
Alaska, paper SPE 28602 presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2528 September.
7. Pospisil, G. et al.: Results of a Large-Scale Refracture Stimulation Pro-
gram, Kuparuk River, paper SPE 24857 presented at the 1992 SPE Annu-
al Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC, 47 October.
8. Pearson, C.M. et al.: Optimal Fracture Stimulation of a Moderate
Permeability Reservoir, Kuparuk River Unit, paper SPE 20707 pres-
ented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, Louisiana, 2326 September.
9. Reinbold, E.W. et al.: Early Performance and Evaluation of the Kupa-
ruk Hydrocarbon Miscible Flood, paper SPE 24930 presented at the
1992 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington,
DC, 47 October.
10. Hallam, R.J., Ma, T.D., and Reinbold, E.W.: Performance Evaluation
and Optimization of the Kuparuk Hydrocarbon Miscible Water-Alter-
nating-Gas Flood, New Developments in Improved Oil Recovery, H. J.
de Haan (ed.), Publication No. 84, Geological Soc. (1995) 15364.
11. Masterson, W.D. and Paris, C.E.: Depositional History and Reservoir
Description of the Kuparuk River Formation, North Slope, Alaska,
Alaskan North Slope Geology, Pacific Section SEPM, Bakersfield,
California, and AGS, Anchorage, AK (1987) 1, 95.
2c 1/4 Drilling
Circle 1 on Reader Service Card
92 SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1997
12. Gaynor, G.C. and Scheihing, M.H.: Shelf Depositional Environments
and Reservoir Characteristics of the Kuparuk River Formation (Lower
Cretaceous), Kuparuk Field, North Slope, Alaska, Giant Oil and Gas
Fields, SEPM Core Workshop No. 12 (1988) 1, 333.
13. Carman, G.J. and Hardwick, P.: Geology and Regional Setting of Ku-
paruk Oil Field, Alaska, AAPG Bulletin (June 1983) 67, 1014.
14. Masterson, W.D. and Eggert, J.T.: Kuparuk River FieldU.S.A.:
North Slope, Alaska, Stratigraphic Traps III (1992) 257.
15. Godbole, S.P., Thele, K.J., and Reinbold, E.W.: EOS Modeling and Ex-
perimental Observations of Three-Hydrocarbon-Phase Equilibria, pa-
per SPE 24936 presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Washington, DC, 47 October 1992.
16. Herbeck, E.F, Heintz, R.C., and Hastings, J.J.: Fundamentals of Tertiary
Oil Recovery, Energy Publication (1982).
17. Stalkup, F.I. Jr.: Miscible Displacement, SPE Monograph Series, SPE,
Richardson, Texas (1984) 8.
18. Zick, A.A.: A Combined Condensing/Vaporizing Mechanism in the
Displacement of Oil by Enriched Gases, paper SPE 15493 presented
at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Or-
leans, 58 October.
19. Bass, J.W.: Modular Route for Prudhoe Bay, CEP (November 1982)
70.
20. Moritis, G.: Production Report: OGJ Biennial EOR Survey, Oil & Gas
J. (26 September 1994) 92, No. 39, 51.
21. Todd, M.R. and Longstaff, W.J.: The Development, Testing, and Ap-
plication of a Numerical Simulator for Predicting Miscible Flood Per-
formance, JPT (July 1972) 874.
22. Michelsen, M.J.: The Isothermal Flash Problem Parts 1 and 2, Fluid
Phase Equilibria (1982) 9.
23. Schneider, F.N. and Owens, W.W.: Relative Permeability Studies of
Gas-Water Flow Following Solvent Injection in Carbonate Rocks,
SPEJ (February 1976) 23.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
acre 4.046 873 E*01+ha
API 141.5/(131.5)API) +g/cm
3
bbl 1.589 873 E*01+m
3
cp 1.0* E*03+Pa@s
ft 3.048* E*01+m
ft
3
2.831 685 E*02+m
3
F (F*32)/1.8 +C
gal 3.785 412 E*03+m
3
in. 2.54* E)00+cm
mile 1.609 344* E)00+km
psi 6.894 757 E)00+kPa
sq mile 2.589 988 E)00+km
2
*Conversion factor is exact. SPERE
Shaun P. Hoolahan is currently a senior staff reservoir engineer
for Arco in Plano, Texas, where he is working on EOR redevelop
ment of the Rhourde El Baguel field in Algeria. He worked on
Prudhoe Bay and Kaparuk development projects for the com
pany since 1982 and supervised all EORrelated Kapuruk activi
ties from1992 to1996. Hoolahanholds aBS degreeinpetroleum
engineering and an MS degree in engineering management.
Gregory S. McDuffie, currently a senior analyst in Arco Alaska
Inc.'s Planning and Evaluation Group, has worked for Arco for
13years invarious facilityandreservoir engineeringassignments
supporting Arco operations in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.
McDuffie holds BS and ME degrees in engineering from Harvey
Mudd College. Douglas G. Peck is a principal research engi
neer with Arco E&P Technology in the Gas/EOR Group. His pri
mary interests aredevelopingEOS characteristics andapplying
miscible gas displacement simulation to solve reservoir engi
neering problems. Peck holds BS and PhD degrees in chemical
engineering from the U. of Texas at Austin. Photograph is un
available. Richard J. Hallam is a staff reservoir engineer with BP
Exploration (Alaska) Inc. currently working for the Shared Petro
technical Resource Group in Houston. Before that, he worked
on the Kuparuk and Badami fields in Alaska and on heavyoil
development in Canada. Hallam holds a BS degree in chemi
cal engineering from the U. of Surrey, England, and an MS de
gree in petroleum engineering from the U. of Alberta.
Hoolahan McDuffie Hallam