DOE 11123-28 Final Report PDF

Final Report
Field Demonstration of Chemical Flooding of the

Trembley Oilfield, Reno County, Kansas
11123-28.Final
Stan McCool
Mark Ballard, Paul Willhite
Tony Walton, Kaixu Song
The University of Kansas Center for Research

2385 Irving Hill Rd
Lawrence, KS 66045
September 2016
Legal Notice
This report was prepared by The University of Kansas Center for Research as an account of work
sponsored by the Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America, RPSEA. Neither RPSEA,
members of RPSEA, the National Energy Technology Laboratory, The U.S. Department of Energy,
nor any person acting on behalf of any of the entities:
a. MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WITH

RESPECT TO ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, OR USEFULNESS OF THE INFORMATION
CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT, OR THAT THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS,
METHOD, OR PRCESS DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT INFRINGE PRIVATELY
OWNED RIGHTS, OR
B. ASSUMES ANY LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF, OR FOR ANY AND ALL
DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE USE OF, ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, OR
PROCESS DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
This is a final report. The data, calculations, information, conclusions, and/or recommendations
reported herein are the property of the U.S. Department of Energy.
References to trade names or specific commercial products, commodities, or services in this report
does not represent or constitute an endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by RSPEA or its
contractors of the specific commercial product, commodity, or service.
i
mostly BLANK PAGE
ii
Executive Summary
Chemical flooding technology has the potential to significantly increase oil production in many of
the mature oilfields in the US, most of which are operated by small producers and independent oil
companies. This potential is realized using existing infrastructure with little additional
environmental impact. Chemical flooding encompasses many variations but targets the
mobilization and displacement of waterflooded residual oil using surfactants (or saponification of
active oils) and mobility control using polymers to increase the viscosity of the injected chemical
slug. Most technical literature on chemical flooding describes laboratory studies with little
information in the public domain on field application. The objective of this work was to design and
implement a small chemical flood and provide the results to the industry. The chemical flood was
conducted in the Trembley Oilfield, located in Reno County, Kansas.
Laboratory work was conducted to select the chemical formulation for the flood. Formulations
were identified using phase behavior tests and were evaluated for oil recovery performance using
corefloods. A chemical system was selected that recovered over 90% of the residual oil that
remained after waterflooding. Surfactant adsorption was measured at 0.18 milligrams of surfactant
per gram of rock in flow experiments in reservoir rock material. Adsorption was reduced by a third
using sodium polyacrylate as a sacrificial agent in the chemical formulation.
Historic reservoir performance was assembled and interpreted to design the field application. The
present-day field consists of three injection and three production wells. Primary production began
in 1978 and totaled 325,000 bbls, 27% of the original-oil-in-place (OOIP). The field was unitized for
a waterflood that was initiated in 1996 and operated by Berexco LLC, Wichita, KS. The field
responded well to the waterflood with oil production of 311,000 bbls, 26% OOIP. The reservoir
consists mostly of oomoldic to bioclasic limestone. Logs for Trembley wells did not correlate with
laboratory core analyses. There was difficulty in determining initial water saturation values and
correlations between porosity-permeability and porosity-neutron density were not attained.
Simulations of primary and waterflood recovery process did not adequately match historic
performance, probably due to an inadequate reservoir model.
Reservoir tests provided pertinent information for the field design. The inter-well tracer study
showed the preferential flow directions of the injections wells that allowed for the selection of the
injection well for the chemical flood. Selection of the molecular weight level of the polymer was
based on an injectivity test. Measurement of reservoir temperatures provided the temperature
range to conduct the laboratory work.
The chemical flood utilized one injection well and targeted the most productive area of the
reservoir. The flood design consisted of injecting a low salinity preflush, a 36,000 bbl slug of the
chemical formulation followed by a polymer solution drive. Portions of the preflush and chemical
formulation contained the sacrificial agent for surfactant adsorption.
A field injection unit was designed, fabricated and utilized. A section of the injection unit prepared
stock polymer solutions from dry polymer and fresh water. A well provided the fresh water stock
and stocks for concentrated brine and a liquid mix that contained the surfactants and solvent were
iii
delivered by truck to storage tanks. The injection unit was automated to meter and mix the polymer
solution, fresh water, concentrated brine and the surfactant mix. The mixed formulation was
filtered and then injected in the well by a high pressure pump. The field injection unit worked well
and was operated by an oilfield pumper working about an hour a day.
Chemicals produced in large quantities for the field were tested for performance. The chemical
flood was delayed for about a year due to one chemical that did not meet the specifications used to
design the chemical formulation. A second production of the chemical met specifications. Injection
of the chemical slug proceeded smoothly over a period of about five months. The reservoir
responded well without significant increases in the injection pressure. There was no oil response in
the production wells during injection of the chemical slug.
Participation of the U.S. Department of Energy in this project had to be terminated at the end of
September 2016, which corresponded to the end of the injection of the chemical slug and this
report. The polymer drive and subsequent brine injection will be continued by the remaining
partners [University of Kansas, Berexco LLC, Huntsman Petrochemical LLC and SNF Holding
Company].
Oil recovery response to the chemical flood is the important result of this project. The project will
be monitored for oil recovery and operation issues. These results will be disseminated through
technical papers, seminars and an addendum to this report.
iv
Table of Contents
Executive Summary iii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations vi
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-1
Chapter 2. Selection of the Chemical Formulation----------------------------------------------------------- 2-1

A. Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2-1
B. Experimental Procedures-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-2
a. Phase behavior tests 2-2
b. Corefloods 2-3
c. Sandpack floods 2-3
C. Results ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2-4
a. Phase behavior and corefloods 2-4
b. Surfactant adsorption 2-14
c. Selected chemical system 2-15
Chapter 3. Field Investigation and Design -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-1

A. Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3-1
B. Petrography of Sniabar Limestone Member, Hertha Limestone, in the Trembley Unit 3-1
a. Introduction 3-1
b. Materials and methods 3-10
c. Results 3-12
d. Discussion 3-28
e. Conclusion 3-38
C. Historic reservoir performance ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3-39
D. Simulations of reservoir performance --------------------------------------------------------- 3-43
E. Field testing ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-50
a. Inter-well tracer test 3-50
b. Polymer injectivity test 3-53
c. Reservoir temperature measurements 3-54
F. Field Design ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-56
Chapter 4. Chemical Flood Implementation and Results -------------------------------------------------- 4-1

A. Field injection unit: Description and operation ----------------------------------------------- 4-1
B. Chemical Flood Injection -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-9
a. Timeline 4-9
b. Performance 4-11
C. Field performance --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-13
Chapter 5. Conclusions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-1
References ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6-1
Appendix A. Example of a Coreflood Report ---------------------------------------------------------------- 7-1

Appendix B. Oil and Water Production Rates and Water Injection Rates ------------------------------ 8-1
v
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
APSL Aqueous phase stability limit

ASP Alkali-Surfactant-Polymer
bbl, bbls barrels (42 gallons)
C Celsius
cc cubic centimeter
cm centimeter
CMG Computer Modelling Group LTD
cp centipoise
Da Daltons
DOE United States Department of Energy
F Fahrenheit
FIU Field Injection Unit
ft feet
g gram
HMI Human machine interface
KUCR Kansas University Center for Research
LKC Lansing-Kansas City [rock formation group name]
mL milliliter
min minute
mg milligrams
mm millimeter
MW molecular weight
NaCl Sodium chloride
Na 2 CO 3 sodium carbonate
NCRA National Cooperative Refinery Association
NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy
nm nanometer
PLC Programmable logic control
OOIP Original oil in place
PV pore volume
RPSEA Research Partnership to Secure Energy for America [DOE contractor]
TDS total dissolved solids
UCS Underground Cavern Stabilization, LLC
WOR Water-oil ratio
wt% weight percent
vi
Chapter 1
Introduction
Chemical flooding technology has the potential to significantly increase oil production in many of
the mature oilfields in the US, most of which are operated by small producers and independent oil
companies. This potential is realized using existing infrastructure with little additional
environmental impact. Small producers have historically not employed chemical flooding
technology due to the potential benefits that are only based on laboratory studies and the
significant financial resources required. There is little information in the public domain on field
applications of chemical flooding.
The objective of the study was to design and implement a chemical flood and to provide field results
of the flood to the small-producer community and the industry. This demonstration project should
promote the technology to small producers, resulting in increased domestic oil production and
reserves with minimal environmental impact.
Chemical flooding encompasses many variations but targets the mobilization and displacement of
waterflooded residual oil using surfactants (or saponification of active oils) and mobility control
using polymers to increase the viscosity of the injected chemical slug. The basic design of a chemical
flood is the possible injection of a preflush to condition the reservoir, the injection of a chemical
slug (formulation) to mobilize and displace residual oil, and the injection of a polymer drive to
displace the chemical slug through the reservoir to the production wells. At some point the polymer
drive is replaced by brine injection by scaling down the polymer concentration in one or several
steps.
The project was conducted in two phases. The objective of Phase 1 was to design the field chemical
flood, through laboratory work to formulate an efficient chemical system and through investigation
and prediction of field response. With success in Phase 1, Phase 2 was conducted with the
objectives to implement the field trial, analyze the performance and disseminate the results
through reports, technical papers and presentations to small producers and the industry.
The chemical flood was conducted in the Trembley Oilfield, located in Reno County, Kansas. The
field consists of nine wells starting with completion of the discovery well in 1978. Primary
production was 325,000 bbls, 27% of the original-oil-in-place (OOIP). The field was unitized for a
waterflood that was initiated in 1996 and operated by Berexco LLC, Wichita, KS. The field
responded well to the waterflood with oil production of 311,000 bbls, 26% OOIP. The reservoir
consists mostly of oomoldic to bioclasic limestone.
The Trembley Oilfield was selected for study because it is a suitable candidate for chemical
flooding. The response to the waterflood was among the best in Kansas oilfields [McCool et al.,
2012a] indicating good reservoir sweep of injected fluids. The Trembley reservoir is small and
contained which reduces the probability of injected fluids migrating off pattern. Although the
limestone reservoir rock presents a challenge with respect to surfactant retention, the biggest
1-1
percentage of waterfloods in Kansas are in this formation group and limestone rock issues need to
be addressed for future applications.
University of Kansas personnel managed and directed the project with assistance and technical
advice from personnel from Berexco LLC, Huntsman Petrochemical LLC and SNF Holding Company.
The project was funded by these organizations with support from the Research Partnership to
Secure Energy for America (RPSEA), a subcontractor to the National Energy Technology Laboratory
(NETL; U.S. Department of Energy).
The project design work (Phase 1) is reported in Chapter 2 where laboratory work to identify and
test the performance of chemical formulations is presented and in Chapter 3 where reservoir
studies, field testing and field equipment design are presented. Field implementation and results
(Phase 2) are described in Chapter 4. Conclusions are reported in Chapter 5.
1-2
Chapter 2
Selection of the chemical formulation
A. Introduction
This chapter describes the laboratory work conducted to select the chemical formulation for the
flood. Formulations were identified using phase behavior tests and were evaluated for oil recovery
performance and surfactant retention in flow experiments in rock material. This work was
conducted in parallel with the field study (Chapter 3) so that the formulation would be appropriate
for the constraints and opportunities of the field situation.
Chemical selection was limited by several factors. Surfactant selection was limited to products that
Huntsman Petrochemicals LLC makes in commercial quantities. Similarly, polymer selection was
limited to those provided by the SNF Holding Co. These two companies were partners in the
project. Economics were always a consideration for selection of all chemical components.
Clean and consistent water to prepare the chemical formulation is critical for quality control. Water
from a fresh water well was available for use and it was decided to use this water for the chemical
flood. Salinity was required for the fresh water and the use of field brine was ruled out since a
significant effort in both cost and complexity would have been required to upgrade the produced
brine. Use of a briner with sodium chloride was initially explored. Although salt mines are in the
vicinity of the field, the cost of sodium chloride was a concern. It was determined that using a
saturated sodium chloride brine (26% NaCl) that was being produced from salt caverns was the
best opportunity for cost and simplicity. The brine was purchased from Underground Cavern
Stabilization, LLC (UCS) located about 20 miles from the field. UCS disposes nonhazardous solid
waste at the bottom of the salt caverns coinciding with production of saturated brine from the top
of the cavern. Costs of brine purchase and trucking along with a storage tank on site was less than
the purchase and delivery of solid NaCl product and the purchase of a briner.
Alkali often reduces surfactant absorption in carbonate rocks and previous work [McCool et
al.,2012a] on the Trembley crude oil identified alkali-surfactant-polymer (ASP) systems that were
efficient at recovering waterflooded residual oil. The formulation initially proposed for this project
included alkali (sodium carbonate) and no or relatively low concentrations of solvent. It was
thought that a system could be formulated with little solvent. Early results from testing with
Huntsman surfactants available at that time showed low oil recoveries in systems containing alkali
and no solvent. It was determined that typical amounts of solvent (1-3%) were required to achieve
high oil recoveries. Alkali was not used due to the added costs of solvent, the relatively low
surfactant adsorption values measured in the reservoir carbonate rock material and it field
operations simpler. It was also determined that sodium polyacrylate reduced surfactant adsorption
in reservoir rock and, due to its relatively low cost, was used as a sacrificial agent.
It is appropriate to conduct corefloods in cores obtained from the reservoir. Only one core was
taken from the Trembley reservoir and unfortunately the core was the subject of several earlier
studies. Mostly rubble was left from the zones that were identified as reservoir rock. Nine small
2-1
pieces (approximately 7cm x 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm) were cut from the rubble and encased in epoxy for
potential flow experiments. All of the pieces had permeabilities below 0.2 md, unsuitable for flow
experiments. Therefore, flow experiments were conducted in Berea cores to test the ability of the
chemical formulation to mobilize residual oil and displace it under flow conditions. Interactions of
the chemical formulation with reservoir rock were studied in sandpacks using crushed rubble
material. Laboratory experiments were conducted at the initial reservoir temperature (115F, 46C)
unless otherwise noted.
B. Experimental procedures
Phase behavior tests. Chemical formulations for high oil-recovery performance are identified for
a particular crude oil by phase behavior studies. The procedures followed here for phase behavior
studies are comparable to those developed at The University of Texas[Flaaten, 2008] and described
in more detail elsewhere.[McCool, 2012a] Formulations that form middle-phase microemulsions,
type III, with appropriate characteristics are sought. These characteristics include: (1) a type III
microemulsion phase that coalesces and equilibrates in less than seven days, (2) values of the
equilibrium solubilization parameters for both oil and brine are greater than ten, (3) the absence of
viscous phases and macroemulsions, and (4) the aqueous chemical formulation selected for
injection must be a one-phase, clear homogeneous mixture at both room temperature (simulated
surface mixing facilities) and at the reservoir temperature (46C). Formulations exhibiting these
criteria have been shown to correlate with efficient recovery of crude oil from rock material.
Phase behavior studies are conducted by selecting a chemical system (surfactants, co-solvents,
polymer, etc.) and preparing a series of solutions of the chemical system where only one
formulation parameter or concentration is varied. Most often the series is prepared over a salinity
range, i.e., a salinity scan. The solutions are contained in ten-milliliter disposable glass pipettes with
sealed bottoms and with markings to determine liquid phase volumes. Two series, or salinity scans,
are prepared, one with and one without the crude oil being tested. The aqueous-phase stability
limit, APSL, is determined with the series without oil. The series with crude oil is used to determine
optimum salinity, solubilization ratios and the appearance of viscous phases and gels. The pipettes
are sealed, shaken and then allowed to equilibrate in an oven at reservoir temperature. The tubes
are visually inspected periodically to measure phase volumes and then tipped to determine fluidity
of the phases. Pictures of the pipettes were taken periodically. The images were utilized to measure
solubilization ratios from the levels of the microemulsion interfaces and the original level of the
chemical formulation. The microemulsion phase was also visually observed for viscosity and
macroemulsions. Pipettes at and near optimum salinity were the focus of the visual observations.
The formulation must remain a clear single phase solution at the optimum salinity at reservoir
temperature. This is to ensure the formulation can be transported through the reservoir without
separation of phases that alters composition. Aqueous phase stability limit (APSL) is defined as that
salinity (NaCl only) at which the formulation becomes unstable either by precipitation or phase
separation. For formulations that look promising, their aqueous phase stability limit (APSL) was
determined. Pipettes were prepared similar to a salinity scan but without oil. A salinity gradient of
2-2
0.1-0.3wt% NaCl was used for a range of salinity encompassing the salinities below and above the
optimum value. The pipettes were sealed and put in the oven at reservoir temperature. The
aqueous phase appearance was observed over several weeks to check for haziness or separation of
phases. Chemical formulations selected from phase behavior studies are then tested in flow
experiments (corefloods) to determine the performance of the system to mobilize and displace
waterflooded residual oil.
Corefloods. Great care during lengthy coreflood procedures is required in order to obtain
meaningful results. Procedural details used for conducting corefloods in consolidated rocks is given
elsewhere [Ahmed, 2012]. All but one coreflood were conducted in one-foot long, 2-inch diameter
quarried Berea sandstone. The cores were prepared for flow experiments and then saturated with
brine, oil flooded and water flooded to residual oil saturation. The chemical flood consisted of
injecting an optional pre-flush, then a volume of the chemical formulation (surfactant slug) is
injected followed by a polymer solution to displace the slug through the core (polymer drive). The
chemical flood was conducted at an interstitial velocity of about two foot per day. The principle
result is the percentage of the waterflooded residual oil that is recovered. Many other results were
also obtained including tracer studies and pressure gradients along the core length during all the
floods. An example report from a coreflood run is given in Appendix A.
Sandpack floods. Sandpack floods were used to determine adsorption values of the surfactants in
reservoir core material. Rubble material from the field core was mildly crushed and sifted to obtain
material between 20 and 50 mesh sizes. The sand was rinsed with toluene to remove crude oil.
Many washes were required until no visual evidence of oil was in successive toluene rinses.
Sandpacks were 1-foot long, 1-inch diameter and temperature controlled at 46C. All fluids flowed
through the sandpacks contained sodium chloride at a concentration of the optimal salinity of the
tested chemical formulation. The flow experiment consisted of two floods: (1) a step-input injection
of 1 wt% potassium nitrate to determine the pore volume (followed by removal of the tracer) and
(2) a step-input of approximately two pore volumes of the chemical formulation being tested. These
floods were conducted at a flow rate of 0.02 mL/min which corresponds to an interstitial velocity of
1 ft/day. The sandpack was shut in for 24 hours and then a sample was displaced from the pack to
determine if additional adsorption occurred during the shut-in time. This procedure was repeated
at 48 hours after the flow experiment. Effluent samples were collected automatically and analyzed
for tracer and surfactant concentration in the two floods. Potassium nitrate was measured by
spectrophotometry (wave length of 305 nm) and surfactant concentration was measure by aqueous
phase titration using a surfactant-specific electrode. Surfactant retention in mg of surfactant per
gram of rock were calculated by material balances.
It is noted that the values of surfactant adsorption are dependent on the differences between the
effluent profiles of the tracer and surfactant. At low values of adsorption, the difference is small
which required a meticulous laboratory procedure to assure accurate material balance calculations.
Development of the laboratory procedure required a substantial effort.
2-3
C. Results
Phase behavior and corefloods. Selection of the chemical formulation was based on three
primary requirements: (1) high oil recovery performance, (2) ease of implementation in the field,
and (3) budget constraints. Results of the laboratory work are presented in a manner to relate the
activities/decisions conducted through the design process in view of these requirements.
Formulations typically consist of a surfactant, a co-surfactant, polymer and additional components
to increase field performance, based on the particular oil-brine-rock system. Huntsman
recommended using XOF100S as the principle surfactant and XOF600S as the co-surfactant. Both of
these products are commercial and sufficient quantity would be available for a field project. Some
formulations were prepared with XOF101S and XOF202S that were substituted for XOF100S.
Trembley is a carbonate reservoir and carbonates often exhibit high adsorption values for anionic
surfactants. Surfactant adsorption can be reduced using alkali or sacrificial agents in the
formulation. Initial phase behavior studies focused on using XOF100S and XOF600S surfactants
with alkali (sodium carbonate or sodium hydroxide) but without solvent, such as 1-butanol. Solvent
is often required for surfactants at the low temperature of Trembley (46C) to keep the surfactants
in solution and to lessen the formation of viscous phases.
Formulation #34 contained alkali and no solvent and exhibited all phase behavior criteria for an
efficient oil-recovery system. A salinity scan for Formulation #34 is shown in Figure 2.1 where the
NaCl concentration in weight % is given at the top of each tube. The middle phase microemulsion is
observed over a wide range of salinity (<4.0% NaCl to > 5.5% NaCl) with the optimum salinity at
4.5% NaCl. This formulation was selected for a coreflood test.
A 50% pore volume of formulation #34 was displace through waterflooded Core 51 by a polymer
drive as given in Table 2.1. The chemical flood recovered 51% of the waterflooded residual oil. Oil
recovery was relatively low and might be due to viscous phases trapping of chemical within the
core. Inclusion of solvent often mitigates viscous phases. Two additional formulations containing
alkali and also solvent were identified in phase behavior tests and were tested in Corefloods 52 and
53. Principal parameters and oil recovery response for these and all other corefloods are presented
in Table 2.2. Addition of SURFONIC L4-2 solvent improved oil-recovery performance. 90% of the
waterflooded residual oil was produced in Core 53 although it required twice as much surfactant as
Core 52 that recovered 73% of the oil. It is noted that during previous research [McCool, 2012a]
using different chemicals, about 90% recovery of waterflooded residual oil was the maximum
recovery that can be achieved for the Trembley crude oil. Around 90% recovery was the benchmark
for success for much of this work.
2-4
Formulation #34 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5%
Composition:
0.5% XOF-100S,
0.1% XOF-600S,
0.2% Flopaam 3330S
2% Na 2 CO 3
WOR=4
After 6 days
APSL:
4.5%NaCl
Optimum salinity:
4.5% NaCl
Solubilization ratio:
13.68
Figure 2.1. Salinity scan of formulation with alkali and without alcohol.
Table 2.1. Injection design based on Formulation 34 for Core 51.

Brine 6.5 wt% NaCl
ASP slug 0.5PV
0.5wt% XOF100S,
0.1wt% XOF100S,
2wt% Na2CO3,
2000 ppm Flopaam 3330S,
4.5wt% NaCl
Injection Velocity: 0.15ml/min
Polymer drive 1.4 PV
2500 ppm Flopaam 3330S
in 4.5% NaCl
2-5
Table 2.2. Summary of chemical floods to determine oil recovery performance.
# Chemical conc. Salt Slug Chem inj. Oil rec. Comment
Type and volume (mg surf/ (% res.)
conc. (% PV) g rock)
0.5% XOF100S 4.5% NaCl 6.5% NaCl brine in core.
51 0.1% XOF600S 2.0% Na 2 CO 3 50 0.27 51 Polymer drive salinity @ 80% of
0.2% FLOPAAM 3330S chemical slug.
0.5% XOF100S 3.7% NaCl brine in core.
2.6% NaCl
0.05% XOF600S Polymer drive salinity @ 80% of
52 1.0% Na 2 CO 3 50 0.25 73
0.8% SURFONIC L4-2 chemical slug.
0.2% FLOPAAM 3330S
4.25% NaCl
53 1.0% Na 2 CO 3 50 0.50 90
0.2% FLOPAAM 3330S
54 4.25% NaCl 50 0.25 86
0.2% FLOPAAM 3330S
55 3.5% NaCl 50 0.37 92
0.25% FLOPAAM 3330S
0.75% XOF100S Indiana limestone core.
57 3.5% NaCl 50 0.37 34
1.5% SURFONIC L4-2 Polymer drive salinity @ 80% of
0.25% FLOPAAM 3330S chemical slug.
1.0% L6-6 Polymer drive salinity @ 80% of
56 4.0% NaCl 50 0.37 90
0.2% FS 3000 chemical slug.
0.25% FLOPAAM 3330S Emulsion in effluent
59 3.2% NaCl 50 0.37 92
0.3% FLOPAAM 3330S
0.75% XOF100S Synthetic field brine in core.
60 3.2% NaCl 50 0.37 90
0.3% FLOPAAM 3330S
61 3.0% NaCl 50 0.37 86
0.3% FLOPAAM 3330S Temperature =39C
62 3.2% NaCl 50 0.37 88
0.3% FLOPAAM 3230S
63 3.0% NaCl 50 0.37 85
0.3% FLOPAAM 3230S 0.1 PV polymer pre-flush.
2-6
Table 2.2 (continued). Summary of chemical corefloods.
# Chemical conc. Salt Slug Chem inj. Oil rec. Comment
Type/conc. volume (mg surf/ (% res.)
(% PV) g rock)
64 3.0% NaCl 30 0.22 78
0.3% FLOPAAM 3230S
0.75% XOF100S Synthetic field brine in core
65 1.6% 1-butanol 2.5% NaCl 50 0.37 81 chemical slug.
0.2% Flosperse 3000
0.2% FLOPAAM 3330S
66 1.6% 1-butanol 2.4 % NaCl 50 0.37 89 chemical slug.
0.2% Flosperse 3000 Preflush 0.1 PV Flosperse and
0.3% FLOPAAM 3330S FLOPAAM 3330S
67 1.6% 1-butanol 2.4 % NaCl 20 0.15 57 chemical slug.
0.2% Flosperse 3000 Preflush 0.1 PV Flosperse
0.3% FLOPAAM 3330S
0.038% XOF600S Preflush 0.1 PV Flosperse.
3.1 % NaCl
68 1.5% SURFONIC L4-2 30 0.22 72 Polymer drive salinity @ 80% of
(UCS brine)
0.2% Flosperse 3000 chemical slug.
0.3% FLOPAAM 3330S UCS brine.
2.4 % NaCl
69 1.5% SURFONIC L4-2 50 0.37 68 chemical slug.
(UCS brine)
0.2% Flosperse 3000 Reformulation using of 1st
0.3% FLOPAAM 3330S batch of field XOF100S and
XOF202S

0.038% XOF600S Preflush 0.1 PV Flojet.
1.5% SURFONIC L4-2 Field FLOPAAM3330S and field
3.1 % NaCl
70 0.2% Flojet SC TS 32 50 0.37 83 Flojet.
(UCS brine)
0.3% FLOPAAM 3330S New batch of field XOF100S.
Polymer drive salinity @ 80% of
chemical slug.
2.7 % NaCl
71 1.5% SURFONIC L4-2 50 0.37 98 50% salinity in polymer drive.
(UCS brine)
0.2% Flosperse 3000
0.3% FLOPAAM 3330S
0.% XOF329 Preflush 0.1 PV Flosperse.
3.0 % NaCl
72 0.2% Flosperse 3000 50 0.37 92 Field delivered XOF329
(UCS brine)
0.3% FLOPAAM 3330S 50% salinity in polymer drive.
2-7
It was decided to explore the use of sacrificial agents in lieu of alkali for reduction of surfactant
retention due to budget concerns of the added expense of solvent in the chemical slug. Phase
behavior tests and corefloods were continued to fine-tune the chemical formulation and to test
other factors defined by the field study and this occurred while procedures were developed to test
the effect of sodium polyacrylate on surfactant retention in reservoir core material.
It was observed that a larger difference between the aqueous phase stability limit (APSL) and the
optimal salinity occurs as the ratio of surfactant to co-surfactant increased. Increasing this ratio
also mitigated some higher viscosity phases that were observed in salinity scans at salinity values
much higher than the APSL. The optimal salinity decreased with higher ratios. Runs in Core 54, 55
and 59 were conducted at higher ratios with oil recoveries of 86, 92 and 92%, respectively. Work
focused on formulations prepared at the higher ratio which corresponded to a lower concentration
of XOF600.
The same formulation used in Core 55 was tested in an Indiana limestone, Core 57. Flow in this
limestone is much more heterogeneous than in the Berea cores as shown by comparison of the
tracer curves for the cores at 100% water saturation. Only 34% of the oil was recovered. The lower
recovery was probably due to the heterogeneous flow as well as increased adsorption on the
limestone rock. Surfactant adsorption was addressed with the use sodium polyacrylate and is
described below.
An alternate formulation using the solvent SURFONIC L6-6 in place of SURFONIC L4-2 and
without XOF600S passed the phase behavior criteria. It was tested in Core 56 and recovered 90% of
the waterflooded residual oil. Pressure gradients measured along the core length were appreciably
higher than those measured in the preceding runs and correlated with production of
macroemulsions in the effluent. For these reasons this formulation was not considered.
In Corefloods 51 through 59 described above, the NaCl brine resident in the core at the start of the
chemical flood was at the optimal salinity of the formulation tested. The brine composition in the
Trembley reservoir is quite variable as described in Chapter 3. A synthetic version of the injected
water at the start of this project was used in Coreflood 60 and thereafter. Analysis of the field
injected brine and the synthetic version is given in Table 2.3. Coreflood 60 was the same as
Coreflood 59 except for the brine in the core. Oil recovery in Core 60 was 90% showing the
presence of synthetic field brine in the core did not significantly affect oil recovery performance.
A portion of the reservoir around the injection wells are at lower temperatures due the injection of
cooler brine during the waterflood. Bottomhole temperature in injection Well 4X was measured at
39 C (102F) as compared to the initial reservoir temperature of 46 C (115F). This is described in
more detail in Chapter 3. Coreflood 61 was conducted at 39 C with a formulation that was at
optimal salinity at 46 C. Phase behavior pictures of the formulation at different water-oil ratios and
at these temperatures are shown in Figure 2.2. The formulation changed to a lower-phase
microemulsion at the lower temperature. The optimal salinity was 3.25% NaCl at 39 C. Oil recovery
performance at 39 C was 86% of the waterflooded residual, a small reduction from the performance
at 46 C. Effluent salinity values during the chemical flood are shown in Figure 2.3. The chemical slug
encounters an optimal salinity condition as it mixes with the higher salinity brine in core.
2-8
Table 2.3. Field brine analysis and synthetic brine composition.
Polymer in the chemical slug and polymer drive for Cores 62, 63 and 64 was Flopaam 3230, a lower
molecular weight polymer than Flopaam 3330 used earlier. Oil recovery in Core 62 was 88%
indicating no significant effect of the lower MW polymer. A 0.1 PV preflush of polymer solution was
injected prior to the chemical slug in Core 63. The preflush produced a high pressure gradient in the
entrance section of the core. All the corefloods described above were conducted with a 50% pore
volume of chemical slug. A 30% pore volume slug was injected in Core 64 resulting in a lower but
acceptable oil recovery of 78%.
Several factors affected the design of Coreflood 65. A less expensive solvent was sought to replace
SURFONIC L4-2. 1-butanol at a small increase in concentration was identified and used. Positive
results of using sodium polyacrylate (Flosperse 3000) as a sacrificial agent for surfactant
adsorption were obtained and was used in the chemical formulation. A field test was conducted and
it was determined there were no issues involved with injecting either the Flopaam 3230 or the
Flopaam 3330 polymers in Well 4X. The higher molecular weight Flopaam 3330 was selected for
the remainder of the work because it takes less concentration to achieve the same viscosity of a
polymer with lower molecular weight. A concentration of 0.2% of Flopaam was used as it was about
the same viscosity of 0.3% Flopaam 3230 used in the previous corefloods. Oil recovery dropped to
81% in Core 65 after making these several adjustments in the formulation.
2-9
Temperature 46 C. WOR=8 WOR=4 WOR=2 WOR=1
Composition of
formulation
0.75% XOF100S
0.0375% XOF600S
1.5% SURFONIC L4-2
0.3% FLOPAAM 3330S
3.0% NaCl
After 5 days, the

aqueous phase is
clear.
Temperature 39 C. WOR=8 WOR=4 WOR=2 WOR=1
Composition of
formulation
0.75% XOF100S
0.0375% XOF600S
1.5% SURFONIC L4-2
0.3% FLOPAAM 3330S
3.0% NaCl
After 7 days, the

aqueous phase is
clear.
Figure 2.2. Phase separations at 46C (optimal salinity) and at 39C for formulation used in Core 61.
2-10
14% 14
Equivalent NaCl Conc. (% NaCl)
12% 12
10% 10
Viscosity (cP)
Equivalent NaCl Conc. Of waterflooding Brine
of core #61(%)
8% Equivalent NaCl Conc. Of Polymer Drive of 8
core #61(%)
Equivalent NaCl Conc. Of core #61(%)
6% 6
Equivalent NaCl Conc. Of ASP Slug of core
#61(%)
4% 4
2% 2
0% 0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60
Pore Volume Injected
Figure 2.3. -The viscosity at 39C and the equivalent NaCl concentration of the aqueous phase of
effluent vials from chemical flood of Core 61.
Concentration of Flopaam 3330 was increased to 0.3% in Core 66. Additionally, a 0.1 pore volume
preflush that contained Flopaam, Flosperse and NaCl (at concentrations as in the chemical slug)
was injected prior to the chemical slug. Oil recovery was back to 89%. Due to pressure gradient
during injection of the preflush, Flopaam was not included in future preflushes.
A 0.1 pore volume preflush containing Flosperse and NaCl (same concentration as in slug) preceded
the smallest (0.2 pore volume) chemical slug tested in Core 67. The smallest chemical slug
produced 57% of the waterflooded residual oil.
Saturated NaCl brine (UCS brine) replaced the brine prepared with NaCl in Core 68. Also, it was
decided by the management team to use SURFONIC L4-2 instead of 1-butanol as the solvent even
though the SURFONIC L4-2 is slightly more expensive. A 30% pore volume of the slug produced
72% of the residual oil from Core 68.
The UCS brine was assigned a concentration of 26% NaCl and salt concentrations were based on
that value. For example, a formulation with 3.1% NaCl (UCS brine) contained 3.1/26= 0.119 weight
fraction, or 11.9 wt%, UCS brine. The 26% value was based on correlating salinity scans of
formulations prepared with NaCl brine and with UCS brine.
Performance of the chemical slug is displayed in Figure 2.4 by comparing the amount of residual oil
produced verses the amount of surfactant injected. The blue symbols represent the corefloods
without alkali and in Berea sandstone cores. Most of the core floods were conducted with 0.78%
surfactant concentration and a 50% pore volume slug size that give about 0.37 g of surfactant per
gram of rock and recoveries between 80 and 92%. Reduction of the slug size or surfactant
concentration (four data to the left) resulted in modest reductions in recovery.
2-11
100
Core/Run # 71
72
70
80
69
Oil recovery (%)
60
40
20
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Surfactant injected (mg surfactant/gram of rock)
Figure 2.4. Oil recovery performance as a function of the amount of surfactant injected.
Flosperse 3000 was available as a concentrated liquid and a flakey solid. The laboratory
experiments had been conducted using a sample of the liquid version. It was decided to use the
solid version and load it in the hopper with the Flopaam for the field application. A sample of the
solid version was tested and it was found that it produced cloudy solutions which was determined
to be an additive to assist the drying step of processing. Flojet SC TS 32 was the same product
(sodium acrylate; MW 4,500 Da) that was dried without the additive. Flojet SC TS 32 was
substituted for the Flosperse 3000
The formulation for the chemical slug was set, field operations were planned and an injection
plant/unit was designed to inject the chemical slug and polymer drive. This concluded Phase 1, the
design of the field project. All participating parties in the project agreed to conduct Phase 2,
implementation of the field project. The chemical slug was to contain 0.75% XOF100S, 0.038%
XOF600S, 1.5% SURFONIC L4-2, 0.02% Flojet SC TS 32, 0.3% Flopaam 3330S and 3.1% NaCl (UCS
brine). The polymer drive was to contain 0.32% Flopaam 3330S and 2.48% NaCl (UCS brine). It is
noted that the concentrations were adjusted for the field injection.
Chemicals for the field operation were ordered and samples were acquired and tested in the
laboratory. Field samples of surfactants and solvent were tested to determine if they produced the
2-12
same phase behavior in salinity scans. Flopaam was tested for viscosity. All the field samples of the
products passed the laboratory tests except XOF100S. A criterion for phase behavior tests was the
APSL be higher than the optimal salinity. Salinity scan tests revealed the value of the aqueous phase
stability limit (APSL) was lower than the optimal salinity when using the field sample of XOF100S.
Practically, this means that the injected chemical slug would not be a one-phase, homogenous
solution when it was injected at optimal salinity (usual condition). This would damage the integrity
of the slug by separation of the phase as it flowed through the reservoir.
An effort was undertaken to reformulate the chemical system by substituting other Huntsman
surfactants for a portion of the XOF100S content. One system using XOF202S passed phase
behavior criteria. However, the middle phase microemulsion at optimal salinity appeared to be
layered with several phases. The reformulated system was tested for oil recovery performance in
Core 69. Oil recovery was 68% of the waterflooded residual. Performance of the reformulated
system (Core 69; red symbol) was significantly less than previous corefloods as shown in Figure
2.4.
Huntsman conducted research on their manufacturing process to make XOF100S and developed a
method to test the salt tolerance of the resulting product. With this work, they decided to make a
new batch of XOF100S. Phase behavior criteria for tests conducted with the second batch/run of
XOF100S along with the other field samples were successful. The chemical system was tested in
Core 70 giving an oil recovery of 83%. This was a significant improvement over the 68% oil
recovery achieved with the first batch of XOF100S.
Some time was available so additional phase behavior studies were conducted with samples from
the chemicals prepared for the field trial. Throughout the laboratory studies it was recognized that
the ratio of XOF100S to XOF600S was a principal parameter affecting phase behavior. Maintaining
the concentration of XOF100S at 0.75%, a reduction of the XOF600S concentration from 0.038% to
0.03% provided a larger gap between the optimal salinity and APSL.
The salinity gradient concept was utilized in the corefloods where the salinity of the polymer drive
was set at a lower value than the optimal salinity of the chemical slug. This is done to make the
phase behavior go through a lower-phase microemulsion in the mixing zone between the chemical
slug and the polymer drive. This ensures the mixing zones will pass through the optimal salinity
value. The lower-phase microemulsion can then mobilize trapped slug that is encountered and,
thereby, reducing retention of the slug by phase separation.
The salinity of the polymer drives in the corefloods was originally set at 80% of the optimal salinity,
which is a typical or rule-of-thumb value. Phase behavior tests were conducted to test the mixing of
polymer drive with the surfactant slug. The tests showed that the 80% value was too high and that
a value of 50% of the optimal salinity was required for the polymer drive to transition to a lower-
phase microemulsion as it mixes with the chemical slug.
The lowering of the XOF600S concentration to 0.030 and the lowering of the polymer drive salinity
to 50% of the optimal salinity value of the slug were tested in Core 71. Oil recovery was 98%, the
highest value attained in this project.
2-13
Composition of the chemical slug and the polymer drive for the field trial was set to the values used
in Core 71. The chemical slug was to contain 0.75% XOF100S, 0.03% XOF600S, 1.5% SURFONIC
L4-2, 0.02% Flojet SC TS 32, 0.3% Flopaam 3330S and 2.7 % NaCl (UCS brine). The polymer drive
was to contain 0.32% Flopaam 3330S and 1.35% NaCl (UCS brine).
Huntsman blended the XOF100S, XOF600S and the SURFONIC L4-2 at a chemical plant and the
surfactant/solvent blend was designated XOF329. The ratio of XOF100S to XOF600S was the most
sensitive parameter affecting phase behavior and having it pre-blended avoided issues of
maintaining the ratio in the field. XOF329 was transported to the field, stored in tanks and metered
into the injection stream.
A sample of XOF329 was acquired from the first tanker arriving at the field and the final coreflood
was conducted in Core 72 using it and the other samples obtained from the field. Oil recovery was
92% of the waterflooded residual. Use of the field chemicals in Cores 71 and 72 gave the highest oil
recoveries as shown in Figure 2.4. A detailed report of the work conducted with Core 72 to
determine the oil recovery performance is given in the Appendix A.
Surfactant adsorption. Minimizing surfactant retention during flow through the reservoir is one
element of a successful flood. Retention due to phase separation is mitigated by criteria in the phase
behavior tests and by designing a negative salinity gradient from the resident brine through the
chemical slug and to the polymer drive. Surfactant adsorption can be reduced in carbonate rocks
using alkali to alter the charge on the rock surface and/or by using sacrificial agents to occupy
adsorption sites on the rock. Alkali was initially explored but was not pursued due to field
complexity and budget constraints.
The use of sodium polyacrylate as a sacrificial agent for surfactants during chemical flooding was
published in a technical paper [Shamsijazeyi, 2013] and was investigated for the Trembley chemical
flood. Flow experiments in sandpacks prepared with crushed core material from the Trembley
Oilfield were conducted to measure the level of surfactant retention due to adsorption and
determine if sodium polyacrylate could be used to reduce the adsorption level. The interstitial
velocity of the chemical slug during injection of the chemical slug was 1 ft/day through the 1-ft long
sandpack. Between 2.1 and 2.7 pore volumes of the slug were injected. Effluent surfactant
concentrations rose quickly after 1 pore volume was inject to the injection concentration values.
Approach to equilibrium adsorption values was verified by displacing small volume samples from
the sandpack after 24 and 48 hour of shut-in time. Surfactant concentration in these samples were
also at the value of the injected chemical slug.
Experimental parameters and results of adsorption experiments are given in Table 2.4. An
adsorption value of 0.18 mg surfactant per gram of rock (mg/g) was measure in Run RT#15 that
was conducted without sodium polyacrylate (Flosperse 3000; MW 4,500 Da). Surfactant adsorption
was reduced by 33% to 0.12 mg/g when Flosperse 3000 was added to the chemical slug in Run
RT#16. This reduction can significantly expand the activity of the chemical slug in the reservoir.
The relative low cost and concentration of Flosperse 3000 easily offsets the value of the expanded
2-14
Table 2.4. Parameters and results of surfactant adsorption tests in crushed reservoir core
material.
Sandpack RT#15 RT#16
Retention 0.18 mg/g 0.12 mg/g
Temperature 46oC
Sand Toluene washed core material, Trembley Well#7, 20~50 mesh
Glass column L=30 cm A=2.06 cm2
Sand weight 89.8 g 86.35 g
Preflush solution 3.0% NaCl 3.2% NaCl
with its density (1.01887 g/cc) (1.02031 g/cc)
Tracer solution 3.0 % NaCl 3.2% NaCl
1% KNO 3 1% KNO 3
Pore volume based on tracer 28.8 ml 28.71 ml
tests
Tracer test 0.05 ml/min
Surfactant solution 0.75% XOF100S, 0.75% XOF100S,
with density 0.0375% XOF600S, 0.0375% XOF600S,
1.5% SURFONIC L4-2, 1.5% SURFONIC L4-2,
0.3% Flopaam 3230S, 0.2% FLOSPERSE 3000,
3.0% NaCl 0.2% Flopaam 3330S,
3.2% NaCl
Inject rate 0.02 ml/min
Total inject volume 78 ml 60 ml
Sampling 2 ml/each
sweep of the chemical slug. The Flojet SC TS 32 was substituted for Flosperse 3000 later due to
issues with drying additives. Both products are sodium polyacrylate at an average molecular weight
(MW) of 4,500 Da.
Selected chemical system. Chemical compositions of the three stages of the chemical flood are
given in Table 2.5. Volumes of the stages were determined by budget constraints and field
operations.
Table 2.5-Composition of chemical slug and polymer drive.

Preflush A 3.0wt% NaCl (UCS brine)
Preflush B 0.2% Flojet SC TS 32
3.0wt% NaCl (UCS brine)
Surfactant slug 2.28wt% XOF329
0.2% Flojet SC TS 32
0.3% Flopaam 3330S
3.0wt% NaCl (UCS brine)
Polymer drive 0.32% Flopaam 3330S
1.5% NaCl (UCS brine)
2-15
Chapter 3
Field Investigation and Design

A. Introduction
The formulation for the Trembley chemical flood was determined through laboratory work
described in Chapter 2. The effort to understand the Trembley reservoir in order to apply the
chemical formulation in the field is described in this chapter. This information was used to design
the chemical flood and to allow for the best opportunity for a successful field test. The effort was in
the range that an Independent Oil Operator might undertake. However, it is significantly less than
the effort a major or midmajor oil company would apply to design and monitor a test flood.
A geologic study of the Trembley reservoir was accomplished using logs, core reports and
petrographic thin sections. Attention was directed at log interpretations and the existence of
anhydrite that is problematic if alkali was to be used in the chemical formulation.
Injection and production data were assembled and interpreted to understand the historic reservoir
performance. These data were simulated to provide relative permeability curves for the reservoir.
Chemical flooding performance was simulated.
Field tests were conducted. Reservoir flow characteristics were interpreted from an interwell
tracer study. An injectivity test was performed to determine if there were issues with the injection
of polymer solutions in Well 4X. Reservoir temperatures were measured in the injection Well 4X
and in a temporarily abandoned production well. Information from these studies were used to
design the chemical flood field test.

B. Petrography of Sniabar Limestone Member, Hertha Limestone, in the Trembley Unit
Introduction.
The Trembley oilfield was discovered by the National Cooperative Refinery Association (NCRA) in
January, 1978, with successful completion of the Trembley 1 well in Section 34, Township 24 South
Range 8 West in Reno County, Kansas (Figure 3.1). The field and some additional acreage have
been unitized. The Trembley Unit is now operated as a waterflood by Berexco, LLC. of Wichita,
Kansas. The field has produced 325,000 bbls of oil on primary between 1978 and 1996 and
311,000 bbls since waterflooding began in 1998. The Sniabar Limestone Member of the Hertha
Limestone of the Kansas City Group is the reservoir, and the field is believed to be representative of
a large number of waterfloods in oolitic grainstones of the Lansing and Kansas City groups1 of the
Central Kansas Uplift and adjacent areas in northwestern and central Kansas. [Senior and Walton,
2012]

1 The Kansas City Group and the overlying Lansing Group are similar in many ways and can be referred to collectively as
the LKC interval. The underlying Marmaton Group is also similar, but has conventionally not been linked with the others.
31

Success of the Trembley field as a waterflood, the size and nature of the field, and its similarity to a
large number of other fields have made it a target for a demonstration of use of surfactants to
enhance oil recovery in LKC reservoirs. If Trembley can be successfully flooded with surfactant
chemicals to improve oil recovery, perhaps many other LKC reservoirs in Kansas and adjacent
Nebraska can also be so flooded economically and successfully [Senior and Walton, 2012; McCool,
2012b].
Senior and Walton [2012] described the geology and development history of the field; this
contribution extends and modifies that report. It emphasizes petrographic studies and
petrophysical analyses that attempted to understand the relationship between various
compositional, textural, and diagenetic aspects of the reservoir.
In evaluating a chemical flood of the Trembley Unit, it is important to know the volume of oil
originally in place, or OOIP, so that the remaining target can be estimated by deducting the
production to date. To make a volumetric calculation of the original oil in place requires an
estimate of the reservoir extent, reservoir thickness, average porosity, and average oil saturation,
which in the Trembley field is 100% minus the water saturation because the field was above its
bubble point when discovered, according to a report by the NCRA [1989].
It is straightforward to map the elevation and thickness of the reservoir. To determine its capacity
and fluid saturation requires determination of porosity, which helps to define reservoir boundaries
and is a term in the Archie equation for water saturation. Determining the porosity for the
Trembley field, like that of many LKC fields with oolitic grainstone reservoirs is not
straightforward.
Oolite in the Trembley field has undergone diagenesis that has cemented it together firmly with
interparticle or intergranular calcite, and many of the ooids and other originally aragonite
allochems have subsequently dissolved, leaving oomoldic porosity. Some of the oomolds have
subsequently been filled with calcite or ferroan dolomite (Fedolomite) cement. Oomoldic textures
form blind voids that act to negate the assumptions of the Archie equation for water saturation, if
total porosity is not the same as effective porosity [Doveton, 2001]. Key to accurate estimates of
original oil in place is the measurement of porosity and fluid saturation, which in oomoldic
grainstones is problematic as the effective porosity may be significantly lower than the total
porosity.
Stratigraphy
The Sniabar Limestone Member of the Hertha Limestone of the Kansas City Group is the reservoir
for the Trembley oil field in Reno County, Kansas (Figure 3.2, 3.3). This formation lies below the
Ladore Shale and the Swope Limestone, which includes the prominent dark gray to black
Hushpuckney Shale Member. The Stark Shale Member of the Dennis Limestone is another
prominent marker about 35 to 40 feet higher in the section. The strong gammaray peaks of the
two black shale beds form a reliable correlation guide to locating the Hertha Limestone. The Hertha
Limestone is also referred to as the LansingKansas City L zone [Morgan, 1951; Parkhurst, 1959].
32

Trembley Unit
boundary

Figure 3.1. Top: map of central Kansas showing the location of the Trembley field in Reno
County (red arrow). Bottom: Blowup of a portion of Reno County showing the location of
the Trembley field and the slightly larger Trembley Unit. Base maps from
http://maps.kgs.ku.edu/oilgas/. Modified from Senior and Walton [2012].
33

Figure 3.2. Stratigraphy of the Kansas City Group [Zeller, 1968]. The Sniabar Limestone Member of
the Hertha Limestone lies near the bottom of the Kansas City Group. The Hushpuckney Shale and Stark
Shale members are reliable correlation markers in the lower part of the LKC interval.
http://www.kgs.ku.edu/General/Strat/Chart/paleozoic_11.html, downloaded August 20, 2016.

Trap
The Trembley oil field lies on a structural nose that extends southeast from the prominent high of
the Morton Field to the northwest. There does not appear to be structural closure [NCRA, 1989;
Senior and Walton, 2012] on the Trembley reservoir bed, but the porosity of the Sniabar Member
decreases up dip to the west and along strike to the north, forming a stratigraphic trap.
Commenting on the dry hole at the NCRA Trembley A #3 (1515520571), wellsite geologist T.G.
Wright wrote [1979]:
This well checks structurally as one of the higher points on the Trembly [sic] Pool
structure, however since the #2 Trembly [sic] A, somewhat more than one
location north west, is a dry hole and holds a good structural position, it would
appear that favorable structure is not all important in the reservoir of the Trembly
[sic] Pool. It is apparent that nondeposition of the porous zone controls the
productive area and that possibly the pay pinches out updip.
34

Figure 3.3: Well log showing gamma ray, neutron, and resistivity curves through the reservoir
interval in the Sniabar Limestone Member of the Hertha Limestone in the Trembley A 1 well (API #
1515520495, now Trembley Unit 4X). Low neutron count (high porosity, > 20% in part) and high
resistivity at 3484 to 3496 indicate the reservoir. Log modified from
http://www.kgs.ku.edu/PRS/petroDB.html.
35

_ _ _ _
-1850
-1860
-1870
7 -1880 8
8 15-155-21148
9 10 11 12 -1890
-1900
15-155-20737 -1910
-1920
15-155-20710
-1930
-1940
-1
90
15-155-20736
15-155-02342
15-155-70973 -1950
0
15-155-02063 15-155-02061
18 -1960 17
17 16 15 14 13 15-155-02331 -1970
15-155-02060 15-155-02104
15-155-20276
15-155-20848-0001 15-155-21239-0001
15-155-02332
-1980
15-155-20848 15-155-02334
15-155-00115 15-155-02330 15-155-03081 -1990
T24S-R8W
15-155-30160 15-155-21239 15-155-20823
15-155-02341
15-155-20240
15-155-02084
-2000
15-155-20320 15-155-03082
15-155-03088
15-155-03083 -2010
-1
15-155-00369 15-155-90155 15-155-01920
15-155-03089 - 19
15-155-90154 0 0 15-155-02022 -2020
95 0
15-155-02337
15-155-20824 15-155-01996 15-155-02335 15-155-02336
15-155-20884
15-155-02346 15-155-01921 -2030
15-155-02338
-2040
20 21 22 2315-155-30158
15-155-02345
24 15-155-02344
15-155-02343 19 -2050
20
15-155-20357 15-155-20845 15-155-02339
15-155-00372
15-155-01994 15-155-02340
15-155-02347 15-155-21020
15-155-20967 15-155-02348
15-155-20870 15-155-21244 15-155-02065 15-155-90152 15-155-20223
15-155-20969 15-155-03092 15-155-03186
15-155-20894 15-155-00150 15-155-00372-0001 15-155-21076 15-155-20223-0001
15-155-00216
15-155-21293
15-155-20881 19 15-155-01019 15-155-03095
-
15-155-03093 15-155-71008
A
15-155-01019-0001 15-155-03096
50
15-155-02025 0
15-155-03094
15-155-21256
95
15-155-20599 15-155-02349
15-155-38284 -1
29 28 9 0 B 27 26 15-155-02026
25 30 15-155-20218
29
0
-1 15-155-20879-0001 15-155-20927 15-155-71019 15-155-20216

15-155-20581 15-155-00157
15-155-20507 15-155-03086
15-155-00433-0002
15-155-20565 15-155-00433 15-155-20225
F 15-155-02066
C
15-155-03185
15-155-20477 15-155-21440
15-155-00433-0001
15-155-20496 15-155-02027
15-155-20879 15-155-20582-0001
15-155-19028-0001
32 33 E
15-155-20495
15-155-20557-0001 34
15-155-20512
15-155-20557 35 36 31 32
- 1 9 50 15-155-20571
15-155-20566
15-155-20495-0001
15-155-20537 15-155-20582 15-155-20354
15-155-20131 15-155-20537-0001
15-155-21016
15-155-00426 15-155-00231
15-155-21242
15-155-21344
D
15-155-21266
15-155-21231
00
20
5 4 15-155-21323 3 2 15-155-21328 1 6 5
-
15-155-38682
15-155-21152
15-155-21204 15-155-21251
15-155-21204-0001 15-155-21268 15-155-20476
15-155-20788
15-155-21182
15-155-01013-0001
15-155-01013
15-155-00386
15-155-21213
8 9 15-155-21198 10 11 12 7 8
15-155-00386-0001
- 2 015-155-01013-0002
00
15-155-21477
15-155-21205
15-155-00174 15-155-01947
15-155-21199 15-155-30134
15-155-30023
15-155-00215
17 16 15 14 13 18 17
15-155-01011-0001
15-155-00252 15-155-21156
T25S-R8W15-155-01011
15-155-01946
20 21 22 23 24 19 0 3,691
20
FEET
PETRA 8/21/2016 5:40:33 PM

Figure 3.4. Structure contour map on the base of the Kansas City Group in the area of Trembley Unit,
outlined in a green dashed line. The field lies on northeast flank of a nose that projects SE from an
anticlinal structure. The Morton and Morton SE fields and the abandoned Trembley N field lie along
the NE side of this anticline. Crosssections AA, BB, CC, and DD (Figures 58) show that the
porosity in the Sniabar Limestone Member decreases up dip to the northwest, trapping oil.
36

E (W) y j C (E)
15-155-20571 15-155-20495 15-155-21440 15-155-20512 15-155-03185
Subsea Subsea
Depth(ft) Depth(ft)
-1600 -1600
3300
-1700 -1700
3400
-1800 -1800
3500
HUSHPUCK
NEY_SHAL
E_MEMBE
-1900 R -1900
KANSAS_CITY_GROUP
3600
-2000 -2000
3700
-2100 -2100
HS=404
PETRA 8/21/2016 4:50:17 PM

Figure 3.5. Crosssection EC. Oil has accumulated on the flank of an anticlinal nose, confined by a drop in porosity up dip to the west.
See Figure 3.3 for location; red rectangles show location of perforations. On this and other crosssections, the brown line indicates the
base of the Kansas City Group, which is mapped on Figure 3.4.
37

D (S) B (N)
Remake of Trembley Project
15-155-20599 15-155-20507 15-155-20879 15-155-21440 15-155-20495 15-155-20537 15-155-21266
Subsea Subsea
Depth(ft) Depth(ft)
-1600 -1600
3300
-1700 -1700
3300
3400
-1800 -1800
3400
3500
BER
E_MEM
-1900 _SHAL -1900
UCKNEY
HUSHP
3500
OU P
_CITY_GR
KANSAS
3600
-2000 -2000
3600
3700
-2100 -2100
3700

HS=514
PETRA 8/21/2016 4:28:05 PM (N_S Cross Section.CSP)

Figure 3.6. Crosssection DB, which extends south to north through the heart of the Trembley Unit. The apparent structure
closure reflects the path of the section across the structural nose. Red rectangles show perforations. Lithoology and porosity are
more favorable in the productive wells and injectors than in the dry holes at the south and north ends of the section. See Figure
3.4 for location.
38

A (NW) C (SE)

Figure 3.7. Structural cross section AC showing the lack of porosity in the Sniabar Limestone Member north and east of the field. The log
scale for Well 1515520599 is not readable, but the curves displayed are gamma ray in track one and deep resistivity and API neutron counts
in track 2, on the right. Porosity can be estimated from the scale at the bottom of track 2. Well 1515520881 was perforated in the Hertha,
but not in the same member as the Trembley reservoir. The well came in at 3 bbls per day and was abandoned after 8 years of production.
39

E (S) F (N)
y j
15-155-20571 15-155-20496 15-155-20565
Subsea Subsea
Depth(ft) Depth(ft)
-1600 -1600
-1700 -1700
-1800 -1800
M BER
HALE_ME
CKNEY_S
-1900 HUSHPU KANS
AS_C -1900
IT Y_GR
OUP
-2000 -2000
-2100 -2100

Figure 3.8. Crosssection EF, just west of the productive wells, showing that the Sniabar reservoir bed
both becomes interbedded with shale and has lower porosity than is present in the core of the Trembley
Unit.
Materials and Methods.
This study drew on several sources of information, including data available on the Kansas
Geological Survey website, from the Walters Electronic Library of the Kansas Geological Society,
and from Berexco, Inc., the industry partner for this effort.
Logs were available for all of the wells in the field Table 3.1; most wells had a combined log of a
gammaray curve with a neutron curve and a deep resistivity curve (Figure 3.3). The neutron curve
generally was calibrated with the neutron count rate, but had scales printed on the log that
converted that count rate to estimated porosity for limestone (Figure 3.3), and, on some logs, for
dolomite and sandstone. Similar logs were available for many nearby wells. Sonic logs were run on
five of the wells in the field, and cores were taken from three wells, including two wells that also
had sonic logs.
Also available were production and injection data for each well, well histories, various proprietary
maps, and an internal waterflood feasibility report from NCRA [1989]. Another report was
available from the Tertiary Oil Recovery Project of The University of Kansas and Berexco proposing
a CO2 enhanced oil recovery effort [Kansas CO2 Team, 1999]. Logs and other well data were
analyzed in PETRA, a subsurface GIS program developed by GeoPLUS and now sold by IHS.
310
A report from an earlier stage of this project mentioned field behavior under waterflood, which
operators had used to define a permeability barrier between the northern and southern parts of the
field [Senior and Walton, 2012]. This barrier was important in design of the current chemical flood;
only the wells north of the barrier are involved.
Table 3.1: Wells Within the Trembley Unit With Available Logs & Cores
BEREXCO
API
Well Name Gamma
Number Neutron Density Sonic Resistivity Core
(Trembley Ray
(15155
Unit )
'X' 3 20477 X X X
'X' 4 20495 X X X X X
20496 X X X X
20512 X X X X
'X' 6 20537 X X X
'X' 5 20557 X X X X
'X' 7 20566 X X X X X
20571 X X X
'X' 9 20582 X X X
'X' 2 20879 X X X X
'X' 8 21440 X X X
'X' 1 20507 X X X
20565 X X X
In addition to some remapping of the field, studies of lithology, diagenesis, and porosity were part
of this effort. Materials here included not only logs and core reports, but petrographic thin sections
of several samples of two cores from the Trembley reservoir were prepared at the University of
Kansas (Table 3.2). Samples to be thin sectioned were not chosen purposefully, but from among the
intervals of the cores that were sufficiently intact and indurated to provide an adequate blank for
sectioning. Thin section blanks were impregnated with blue epoxy to mark connected pore spaces.
About half of each thin section was stained with alizarin red S to mark calcite and potassium
ferricyanide to mark ferroan dolomite (Fedolomite). Sections were not permanently covered, but
temporary coverslips were used during petrographic examination. During point counting 400 or
more individual points were examined on a 1 by 1 mm grid covering most or all of the sample area.
Subsequently, most thin sections were counted again on a 2 by 2 mm grid where the long axis of
each allochemical grain encountered was measured. Here only points on grains, not cement or pore
space, were counted. One hundred to 112 grains were measured against a gradicule in the ocular
of the microscope. Long axis is taken as a rough measure of grain size, despite the fact that many
311
fossil fragments are decidedly elongate. Accuracy of the measure of grain size is also reduced by
the random position of the cut through individual grains. However this approximation should be
adequate; the objective of these point counts to measure grain length is comparison of grain size
among samples of this set rather than making an absolute and accurate statement of how big the
grains are individually or as an average.
Results:
General Character of the reservoir rock
Allochems (ooids, fossil fragments, pellets, intraclasts, etc): The Sniabar Limestone Member at the
Trembley field is a ooid grainstone, a limestone composed of ooids with more or fewer fragments of
fossils and other components of approximately and dominantly sand size (0.0625 to 2 mm) that are
cemented together by a precipitated cement and contain little or no finegrained (<0.03 mm) lime
mud. No clay or siliciclastic grains were observed.
The fossils, ooids, and other grains form a selfsupporting framework and make up over half of the
whole rock; point counts of original grain volume averaged 54.5% (Table 3.3). The most obvious
components of the rock are the ooids, which average about 0.5 to 0.7 mm diameter, varying
somewhat from sample to sample, but with low standard deviation (or good sorting) of the size in
each. Ooids make up an average of 32.8% of the original volume of the rock. Cores of the ooids in
the Sniabar Limestone Member are not generally preserved, which suggests that they were limy
fragments, perhaps a fossil fragment, pellet, or small intraclast, rather than quartz sand grains.
Diagenetic dissolution, replacement, and crushing of the ooids are major factors in the reservoir
properties and will be discussed below.
The average abundance of fossils is 13.7% of the whole rock, but the range of values is from 1.5% to
nearly 23%. Prominent fossil grains include fragments of echinoderm skeletons (23.3% of total
fossil fragments; Table 3.4) and brachiopod shells (20%). Other identifiable fossil types include
remains of gastropods, bryozoans, foraminifera, and bivalves. Many fossil fragments have been
dissolved or replaced by finegrained calcite that obscures their organic textural features, leaving
them unidentifiable. Some fossil fragments are unidentifiable despite having preserved biogenic
structure. Allochemical grains thought to be fossils but not identifiable formed a plurality of the
fossil component: 45.4% of fossil grains.
Other framework components are fecal pellets from various organisms and intraclasts, which are
fragments of somewhat older limestone or limy sediment that have been incorporated into the
rock. Many of the fossil fragments and intraclasts are larger than the ooids, ranging up to several
mm long, but others are of the same size range as the ooids, or smaller.

312
Table 3.2 Thin Sections from Trembley Reservoir Rocks.
Sample depth (feet) in core Maximum apparent length

Point count available?
and designation determined?
Trembley 4X (1515520495)
3493 4B
3494 4C 665 points 109 points
3494.2 4D
3495 4E 401 points 112 points
3491 4F 451 points 150 points
Trembley 7X (1515520566)
3504 7A 400 points
3507 7B
3512 7C
3512.5 7D 376 points 95 points
3513 7E
3513.5 7F 401 points
3506.5 7G
3508.5 7H 669 points 100 points
3505 7I 400 points 100 points
3506 7J 733 points 112points

Table 3.3: Average of Components in Thin Sections of Hertha Limestone reservoir Interval of the
Trembley Oilfield2.
Component Percentage
Primary Grain Volume 54.8%
Fossils 13.9%
Intraclasts & Pellets 7.7%
Ooids & Coated Grains 33.2%
Porosity 21.4%
Moldic Pores 20.4%
Total Cement 50.8%

Intergranular Cement 43.4%
Fedolomite 4.2%

2 Total exceeds 100% because many items are double counted: cement can form inside dissolved ooids, leading to double
counting of primary grain volume and cement. Or dissolved ooids might not have had anything deposited in them, so they
add to porosity as well as grain volume. Of course, intergranular cement is a fraction of total cement and fossils,
intraclasts and pellets, and ooids and coated grains are part of primary grain volume. Fedolomite is both a cement and a
replacement of some grains.
313
Table 3.4. Average Relative Abundance of Fossils of Different Groups of Organisms.
Fossil Group Abundance
Brachiopods 20.0%
Echinoderms 23.3%
Bryozoans 5.3%
Foraminifera 2.5%
Gastropods 3.5%
Dissolved or otherwise
45.4%
unrecognizable fossils

Small amounts of lime mud, i.e carbonate grains of less than 30 m diameter, are present as well.
This lime mud can be differentiated from finegrained replacement calcite in that it (the lime mud)
is accumulated on sheetlike fossil fragments, rather than within the boundaries of grains, and
perhaps has formed geopetal structures that indicate the up and down directions of the samples.
Grain size and sorting. While grain size and sorting were not measured directly, they were
estimated for purposes of comparison by measuring the length of grains as encountered in thin
section. Average observed maximum length of grains in seven samples ranged from 0.42 mm to
1.52 mm. The standard deviation ranged from 0.13 to 1.98 mm. The sample with the longest
average maximum observed grain length also had the greatest standard deviation and stood out far
removed from the loose cluster of other samples. With or without the anomalous sample, grain size
and standard deviation were positively correlated. If all samples were considered the correlation
was statistically significant (Figure 3.9).
1.6
1.4
Average Maximum Observed
1.2
Grain Length, mm
0.8
y = 0.5635x + 0.3668
0.6 R = 0.9572
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Standard deviation
Figure 3.9. Average maximum observed grain length versus standard deviation in thin sections from
Sniabar Limestone Member in cores from the Trembley field. A clear trend of increasing variance of
size exists even without the one possibly anomalous point.

314
Relationships among components.
Plots of some measured quantities show interesting trends: First, porosity increases with the
fraction of ooids present, but decreases with the abundance of fossils (Figure 3.10). Even
discounting one outlying point, porosity decreases with increasing grain size (as approximated by
average maximum grain length; Figure 3.11). Neither of these later trends is statistically
significant, owing to small sample size as well as noticeable variability.
On the other hand, some possibilities can be discounted: Neither fossil abundance nor porosity
varied systematically with vertical position, as determined by plots of their value against distance
from prominent marker horizons, the Hushpuckney Shale Member above and the base of the
Kansas City Group below. Porosity was not developed by more intense alteration at the top of the
reservoir, as though by weathering. Fossil fragments, which are coarser than ooids on average, did
not accumulate preferentially at the base of an avalanche face on an oolite shoal of the height that
the reservoir is thick.
Finally, the low and uniform level of grain volume between 46 and 61% (Table 3.3) is similar to or
greater than that of freshly accumulated siliciclastic sand [Pryor, 1973] and in the range that
Scholle and UlmerScholle [2003, p.305] describe for modern carbonates. That suggests that the
reservoir has undergone little compaction, except by the rather minor grain crushing and
stylolitization described below.
Diagenesis
Diagenesis, including the various processes that postdate formation of the accumulation of
sediment or occur during its burial, is an important aspect of this reservoir because it controls the
kind and distribution of porosity. The most important type of porosity here is moldic porosity,
where ooids and some fossil fragments have been dissolved and not subsequently filled by later
precipitates. Over 95% of the pore space in the rock is molds (Table 3.3), rather than primary
intergranular pores or other types.
Grain alteration
Many of the ooids and some of the fossil fragments have undergone dissolution, either leaving a
secondary pore or acting as a site for later drusy or porefilling cements to form (Figure 3.12, 3.13,
3.14). Primary shapes of such grains are preserved by micrite envelopes that comprise some
combination of very early rimming cement and marginal boring of the ooids by organisms.
Gastropod and bivalve shells, recognizable by their distinctive shapes, have also dissolved (Figure
3.14). These organisms form shells of aragonite, a different polymorph of CaCO3 than calcite.
Aragonite is more soluble than calcite in seawater and shallow groundwater. Conversely,
fragments of brachiopod shells, echinoderm plates, and bryozoan fragments are generally not
dissolved (Figure 3.14); they were originally composed of calcite or highmagnesium calcite (hiMg
calcite), which are less soluble than aragonite under diagenetic conditions. Many other fossil
fragments have also been dissolved, but, lacking any characteristic shape or texture, are impossible
to identify.

315

35%
30%
25%
Porosity
20%
15%
y = 0.4707x + 0.0646
10% R = 0.4397
5%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Abundance of ooids and coated grains

35%
30%
25%
Porosity
20%
15%
10% y = 0.6456x + 0.3078

R = 0.3964
5%
0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Fossil Abundance

Figure 3.10. The porosity increases with the abundance of ooids and coated grains (top) but
decreases with the abundance of fossils (bottom)..

316
35%
30%
25%
Porosity
20%
15%
y = 0.1724x + 0.3713
10% R = 0.711
5%
0%
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60
Average Grain Length, mm

Figure 3.11. Porosity decreases with increasing grain size, as approximated by average
maximum grain length. Without the one outlying point, the correlation is much smaller.

Figure 3.12. Thinsection view of oomoldic porosity and cementfilled oomolds. Bluedyed epoxy
marks pores. Some oomolds are filled with calcite or Fedolomite cement. Fossil fragments have also
dissolved, but some material remains, perhaps from trapped sediment or encrustations. Sample is 3
mm long and is from sample at depth of 3513.5 feet KB in well 1515520566. Viewed in plane
polarized light and sample has been impregnated with bluedyed epoxy to mark pores.
317

Figure 3.13. Oomolds filled with rims of fine crystals that pass out into coarser sparry calcite cement
that fills pores. Some oomolds remain open (marked by blue dyed epoxy), some are filled with
coarser crystals of calcite spar, and others contain Fedolomite fillings. Some of the ooids did not
dissolve and remain as finely crystalline calcite showing some indication of concentric layering in
their cortex. Section stained with alizarin redS and potassium ferricyanide and viewed in plane
polarized light. Image length is 2.2 mm, sample has been impregnated with bluedyed epoxy to mark
pores. Sample from well 1515520566, 3507.0 below KB.

Many of the originally calcite or hiMg calcite fossil fragments, such as brachiopods, also display
marginal alteration to finegrained calcite; this process is also referred to as micritization. This
micritization is irregularly distributed along the margin of the grain. In some places, it displays
rootlike extensions into the otherwise unaltered body of the grain. This kind of alteration and
replacement may be attributed to the action of organisms [Scholle and UlmerScholle, 2003].
A few calcite or highMg calcite grains, especially brachiopod fragments, and to a lesser extent
echinoderm fragments, are partially replaced by spherulitic to irregular masses of chalcedony, i.e.
finegrained, fibrous crystals of quartz arranged in a radial pattern. The fibers in the spherulites
are optically length slow. Most of these silica masses are tens of micrometers to tenths of
millimeters across. Some anomalous masses are substantially larger (Figure 3.15).
Some echinoderm fragments and other fossil fragments that were originally highMg calcite have
been replaced by small crystals of dolomite, in part. Dolomite is easily distinguished from Fe
dolomite as the crystals are only a few microns to tens of microns across and display a
characteristic euhedral rhombic shape. They also lack the undulose extinction of Fedolomite
between crossed polarizers and fail to accept the potassium ferricyanide stain. Dolomite, as
opposed to Fedolomite, is sparsely distributed in other circumstances as well, primarily as partial
replacements of grains. No crystals of dolomite were encountered among the 5000+ individual
points studied: they form less than 0.02% of the rock.

318

Figure 3.14. Top: fossil of gastropod that has dissolved, leaving pore space plus sediment that filled the former
chamber of the shell. Little or no secondary growth of cement has occurred, except for crystals nucleated in the
chamber near the apex. Bottom: Encrusted bryozoan fragment; the encrustation is probably a foraminifer. Such
fragments are generally composed of calcite, so they, like fragments of brachiopods, echinoderms, and
foraminifera, are not dissolved during diagenesis. Plane polarized light, images are 2.2 mm long. Blue epoxy
marks open pores; calcite in the top image has been stained with alizarin redS. Sample from well 1515520566
at a depth of 3506 feet.

Ooids: Many ooids did not dissolve, instead they are now a finegrained mosaic of calcite crystals. In
some such ooids the original concentric banding of the coating may be preserved, suggesting that
an original concentric or radial structure has been converted to microspar (Figure 3.12, 3.16).
Other ooids underwent partial dissolution that led to their having a microspar mass that does not
fill the entire oomold. After dissolution, oomolds may be left as secondary pores, may have
discontinuous drusy linings of small crystals of calcite, or may be more or less filled by coarse
calcite or ferroan dolomite (Fedolomite; Figure 3.12, 3.13, 3.16).

319

Figure 3.15. Chert replacement of ooids, cement, and fossil fragments. Sample from depth of 3495
in 1515520495. Image shows an area 2.2 mm long; sample has been impregnated with bluedyed
epoxy to mark pores

Cementation
The rock is more or less firmly cemented by calcite that fills nearly all of the primary pores of the
rock and has precipitated into secondary pores as well (Figure 3,12, 3.13, 3.16). Calcite forms 93%
of the cement in the rock; Fedolomite is a very noticeable cement, but at ~7% of cement volume, is
much less abundant that calcite
Calcite. Slightly elongate calcite crystals project outwards from grain surfaces to form a coating a
few microns thick. Crystals are a few microns long and grade outward from the micrite coatings on
grains. The layer of graincoating crystals grades into the mass of equant crystals that fills most
pore centers. On some grains, such as echinoderm fragments, the druse may be absent or patchy.
But on originally finegrained grains, such as ooids, the druse is generally continuous. Cement of
this drusy texture makes up about 10% of the calcite cement in the samples examined. The initial
druse layer of cement is important because it preserves the outlines of the grains, some of which
have subsequently been dissolved away or crushed.
Individual crystals of the porefilling mosaic spar are about 0.05 mm across and make up about
84% of the calcite cement in the samples examined. Calcite of this texture formed during the
dominant cementation event; it fills most of the intergranular pore space available at the time it
formed. Similar crystals of calcite have filled secondary pores where fossil fragments and some
ooids have dissolved. Coarser (to ~0.5 mm) crystals of calcite have formed fillings of some
dissolved ooids and partially fill some primary pores.
320

Figure 3.16. Field of view in thin section of oolitic Sniabar Limestone. A thin rim of calcite cement
formed on the ooids, followed by coarser, sparry, porefilling calcite cement. Most ooids have dissolved
and been filled by even coarser calcite cement. Two grains, in the right part of the image, have not
dissolved, the one in the upper right is an ooid with a rectangular core and a concentric coating of calcite.
Two grains in the center of the field are tangentially encountered by the thin section. Section is stained
with alizarin red S. Horizontal length is 2.2 mm. Sample from well 1515520566, 3507.0 below KB.

A separate form of calcite cementation overlaps the mosaic spar in time of development and makes
up over 2 percent of the calcite cement in the rock. It consists of syntaxial overgrowths on
echinoderm fragments (Figure 3.17). These overgrowths form continuous crystals that fill adjacent
pores, both primary and secondary. In some situations, centers of pores are filled with large
crystals of such calcite that are not obviously connected to echinoderm fragments that are visible in
the thin section, but may have lain just above or below plane of the section. In places, the thickness
of the layer of drusy spar on grain surfaces increases with distance from origin of a porefilling
epitaxial overgrowth, suggesting that the two forms of cement were growing at the same time,
although echinoderm fragments may have a partial and discontinuous coating of drusy spar.
The amount of cementing calcite varies from place to place on the scale of a thin section, i.e. on the
centimeter scale, suggesting that the rock is finely bedded with permeability and grain nature of
each bed controlling the amount of cementation. Crossbedding is common in oolitic grainstones,
as they formed in shallow marine water where waves and tidal currents roll the grains around.
Fedolomite. The final phase of carbonate cementation is the formation of coarse crystals of Fe
dolomite, which makes up 7% of the cement in the rock. Ferroan (or baroque) dolomite is
marked by its acceptance of a potassium ferricyanide stain, which colors it blue or purple
(Figure 3.18), and by distinctive undulose extinction. The cleavage surfaces of Fedolomite are
also curved. In unstained thin sections, it can be identified by its undulose extinction and
curving cleavage. Individual crystals range up to several millimeters across and may fill the
oomolds left by dissolution as well as surrounding primary pores. Fedolomite postdates
dissolution of the ooids and some precipitation of the mosaic spar; it fills spaces that remained
open as that spar formed.
321

Figure 3.17. Echinoderm fragment with syntaxial overgrowth of calcite. Small crystals are present
on the upper side of the fragment, indicating a partial drusy coating formed before being engulfed by
the overgrowth. Crossed polarizers, image is 2.2 mm long. Sample from depth of 3506 in well 15
15520566.

Other cements. Chalcedony, or fibrous microquartz is noticeable without being truly common.
However as noted earlier, it is a replacement of primary grains and earlier cements, rather than a
true cement. Fine euhedra of quartz are also present in a few samples. At least one patch of
chalcedony replacement contains micronsize rhombs of dolomite. Pyrite forms masses or crystals
that are thousandths of a millimeter across up to 0.05 mm in some exceptional situations. It is
commonly associated with Fedolomite. While pyrite is opaque to transmitted light, it can be
identified by its brassy yellow color in reflected light and, in a few examples, by its crystal form.
Concerns for chemical flooding. During chemical IOR, any gypsum (CaSO4 2H2O) or anhydrite
(CaSO4) that is present in the reservoir rock can dissolve into the injected fluids. Both minerals are
highly soluble. Increased Ca2+ content can lead to precipitation of a fraction of the carbonate
present, lowering the pH of the solution and reducing the effectiveness of sodium carbonate. No
anhydrite or gypsum was observed in any of the thin sections.
Celestite, SrSO4, is very rare in Trembley thin sections, but was identified as a precipitate in two
different sets of adjacent oomoldic pores (Figure 3.19). Celestite has low solubility, and as a very
rare mineral in the Trembley reservoir, should not lead to significant reduction in pH by forming
strontium carbonate.
322

Figure 3.18. Oomolds filled with Fedolomite, which is stained blue with potassium ferricyanide.
Image is made with crossed polarizers to show the undulose extinction characteristic of Fedolomite.
Calcite cement is stained with alizarin redS. Long axis of figure is 2.2 mm. Sample 3507 depth in
well 1515520566.

Figure 3.19. Celestite crystals in oomolds. Sample from 3492.4 depth in well 1515520495. Plane
polarized light, image is 2.2 mm long. Pores filled with bluedyed epoxy; calcite stained with alizarin
redS.

Physical Crushing
Crushing takes two forms in the Sniabar reservoir of the Trembley field: stylolites and crushing of
ooids to form breccia. Crushing (Figure 20, 21) ranges from almost single grains to substantial
areas of shards where all of the grains are crushed. It has occurred after the drusy grain coating
cements formed and the ooids dissolved and during the formation of porefilling mosaic spar. In
places, along crushing planes, sparry, primaryporefilling calcite cement that has been crushed has
finer grain size than crystals that have grown in adjacent secondary pores formed where ooids have
dissolved but not been crushed. In the Trembley field, such crushing was noticeable, but not
common, and high degrees of crushing were noticed in only a few patches in the samples. This may
323
reflect the fact that the thin sections studied here came from relatively welllithified portions of the
cores and therefore of the reservoir rocks.
Stylolites are surfaces of where crushing and dissolution have taken place after formation of the
various cements (Figure 3.22). Formation of stylolites may liberate material that can precipitate
nearby and occlude pores. Not only does the cementation reduce porosity, but unlike crushing,
which enhances the degree of permeability, stylolites and nearby areas may actually reduce
permeability along roughly planar surfaces. Numerous stylolites can actually act as barriers to
flow, especially flow perpendicular to their course. Normally, stylolites in littledeformed rocks lie
parallel to the bedding, so they would occlude vertical permeability.

Figure 3.20. Crushed ooids bounding a breccia fragment. This form of crushing reduces porosity
but may improve interconnections between the remaining pores. Image is 4.7 mm long. Part of
sample was stained with alizarin redS. Sample from 3506 depth in well 1515520566 has been
impregnated with bluedyed epoxy to mark pores.

Figure 3.21. Crushed oomorphs with little cement in secondary pores. Crushing postdated
formation of intergranular cement. This form of crushing greatly improves connections between
pores and probably improves permeability. Length of view is 4.7 mm; sample is from 3492 depth in
well 1515520495. Plane polarized light; sample is impregnated with blue epoxy to mark pores.

324

Figure 3.22. Stylolites, brown patches and black crenulated lines, cut through a sample from 3493
depth in well 1515520495. Such dissolution features form late in the diagenetic history of the rock
and lead to loss of porosity both through compaction and through additional cementation along the
stylolite. Field of view is 3.7 mm wide, image made in planepolarized light. Lower left portion of
field of view shows rock stained with alizarin red S.

Porosity measurements
All of the wells within the field boundaries were logged (Table 3.1). All wells have a RAG log, i.e. a
triple combo of a gammaray log, a neutroncounts log (with a porosity scale) and a deep resistivity
log. This combination allows calculation of porosity and an estimate of water saturation as well as
correlation. One well had a density log, with a density porosity conversion run separately. Sonic
logs were also run on 5 wells, and cores and core analyses were available for 2 wells. A few point
counts of porosity on thin sections supplement the other data.
Comparison of the porosity readings from the neutron and sonic logs shows great differences. In
Figure 3.23 neutron logs on two wells show porosity as high as 30% in the perforated interval, the
sonic logs are several percent to more than 10% lower at the same depth. As the reservoir rocks
are clean limestone, the neutron logs do not require any Vshale correction and read porosity
values with close accuracy.
Data from the Trembley Unit allow comparison of porosity determined by cores as well as sonic
and neutron logs (Figure 3.24). For limestone beds of low porosity, the sonic, neutron, and core
methods overlap. For highly porous rocks, the neutron and core porosity values are more in
alignment, but with great variation while the sonic values run a little over half of the neutron
values. This tendency is especially obvious in the plot of sonic vs. neutron values of porosity from
reservoir and nonreservoir rocks (Figure 3.25). Some of the point counts gave porosity values
equal to those of the core and neutron readings, but those of lower porosity scatter without
showing any particular pattern. This situation seems to bear out the observation that oomoldic
porosity is not well measured by sonic logs [Doveton, 2001].

325
30
25 Neutron Porosity
Sonic Porosity
Porosity, percent
20
15
10
0
3505 3510 3515 3520
Depth, Feet

0.350
Neutron Porosity
0.300
Sonic Porosity
0.250
Porosity, Fractional
0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
3475 3480 3485 3490 3495 3500 3505
Depth, Feet

Figure 3.23. Top: Sonic and Neutron porosity for Trembley 7X, API 1515520566. In the reservoir
interval, 3508 to 3514, the sonic log is distinctly lower than neutron porosity, reflecting the isolated
oomolds that the sonic log does not recognize as porosity. Bottom: A similar relationship obtains in
the Trembley 4X well, API 1515520495; note the difference in the sonic and neutron measurements
at 3484 to 3494 depth, where the well was perforated. Pink lines indicate the perforated interval.

326
0.35
0.30
y = 0.5361x + 0.1021
Core Porosity, fractonal
0.25 R = 0.24777
0.20
Trembley Unit 4X
0.15 Trembley Unit 7X
Linear (Trembley Unit

4X)
0.10
y = 0.9188x + 0.0058
0.05 R = 0.65526
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Neutron Porosity, fractional
0.35
y = 1.7768x 0.0178
0.30 R = 0.5325
Trembley 4X
0.25
Trembley 7X
Core Porosity
Linear (Trembley 4X)

0.20
Linear (Trembley 7X)
0.15
y = 1.0872x + 0.0175
0.10 R = 0.2338
0.05
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Sonic Porosity

Figure 3.24. Comparison of neutron porosity to core and sonic porosity in the Trembley 4X and 7X
wells (API 1515520495 and 1515520566, respectively) Top: plot of core porosity against neutron
porosity for reservoir rocks. Core and neutron porosity are not generally related, except most highly
porous rocks may have similar values with the two different methods. Bottom: Comparison of sonic
and core porosity. Sonic porosity is generally lower than core porosity, except at low values. Note that
the correlation is higher for Trembley X4 for sonic vs. core and for Trembley X7 for neutron vs. core,
although neither correlation is significant.
327
0.25
y = 1.1526x + 0.0076 y = 0.4512x + 0.0344
R = 0.8437 R = 0.677
0.2
Sonic Porosity
0.15
0.1 Non Reservoir: limestone &

shale
Reservoir Limestone
0.05 Linear (Non Reservoir:
limestone & shale)
Linear (Reservoir Limestone)
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Neutron Porosity

Figure 3.25. Comparison of neutron and sonic porosity in reservoir rocks and nonreservoir rocks in
Trembley 4X and 7X. In nonreservoir rocks, where oomoldic and fracture porosity are not important,
neutron and sonic porosity are about the same, whereas in reservoir rocks they differ by an amount
that increases with porosity.

Discussion
The report prepared by NCRA workers [NCRA 1989] pointed to a problem with petrophysical
analysis of LKC oomoldic or oolicastic rocks:
Water saturations within the pay zone calculate less than 10% assuming an Rw of 0.04 and a
cementation factor of 2.0. This oolicastic reservoir has some porosity that is not effective resulting in
resistivity values that are slightly too high and water saturation values that calculate low. An
assumed value of 25% water saturation was used for the Hertha/LKC reservoir.
The configuration of the pore network, as determined by a combination of depositional and

diagenetic effects, affects the exponents that should be used in calculating water saturation with the
Archie equation. Permeability is a function of porethroat size in oomoldic limestone reservoirs of
the Lansing and Kansas City groups [Byrnes et al., 2003]. Understanding controls on porosity is
fundamental to careful characterization of reservoirs. While rules of thumb, such as 25% water
saturation for LKC oomoldic reservoirs, might provide a satisfactory approximation, one can always
try to do better or, at worst, simply confirm validity of the assumed approximation.
Hypothesis
Incomplete and tentative results from the petrographic description of the composition and grain
size distribution indicated by study of thin sections from cores of Trembley rocks lead to a
hypothesis that might help predict distribution of porosity and other petrophysical properties in
328
oolitic grainstone reservoirs of the LansingKansas City Group. This hypothesis may be worth
examining in future studies that might develop strong statistics:
The average grain size in oomoldic grainstone reservoirs is a significant control of porosity;
coarser rocks are less porous. The grain size increases with the fraction of fossil fragments
and decreases with the fraction of ooids present among the primary grains. Grain size is more
variable in coarser rocks.
It is appropriate to examine why the relationship might develop between porosity with grain size
on one hand and fossil content on the other.
One possible explanation is the sorting of the rock, or standard deviation of the grain size, is a major
controller of porosity. It has long been known that poorly sorted siliciclastic sand has lower
porosity, compared to other samples with the same average grain size: the volume occupied by
relatively large grains has no pores, so intergranular porosity must be limited to a fraction of the
sediment volume where only small grains are present [Beard and Weyl 1973; Nagtegaal, 1978].
However, with limestone the shape of grains is not nearly as spherical as those in sand, and very
high porosity might be possible even with poor size sorting but tabular, elongate, or crenulate
grains.
In all thin sections from the Sniabar reservoir cores, the ooid fraction averages about 0.5 mm
diameter and resembles quartz sand grains in rounding and packing. Small fossil fragments are
commonly either bladed or equant, also similar to quartz grains in sand and sandstone. However,
larger fossils are bladed to elongate. In this explanation of the hypothesis, the lower degree of
sorting of the coarser beds (i.e. higher standard deviation of the apparent long axis) means that the
porosity is lower. Figure 3.26 shows that the most permeable rocks are also the most porous.
A second possibility is that the diagenetic process is different in coarser, more fossilrich rocks
because many of the fossils that were concentrated in coarser rocks were originally highMg calcite
while the ooids were originally aragonite. Petrographic studies allow investigation of diagenesis as
a possible factor in this relationship. Echinoderm fossils, which might be more common in coarser
rocks, commonly have syntaxial overgrowths that extend well into adjacent intergranular space,
and even into nearby oomolds. However, no trend of increase of overgrowth cement on
echinoderm plates with increase of abundance of fossils in the rock was identified.
The fraction of unfilled molds of ooids and fossils decreases with increasing grain size, but the
fraction of cement does not increase in any significant manner in coarser rocks. Finergrained
rocks originally contain a higher proportion of ooids, most of which were made of aragonite. Such
ooids have dissolved to leave molds. It may be that in finegrained rocks porosity is higher because
the volume of unfilled oomolds is greater than in coarser rocks, which simply contained a smaller
volume of ooids originally. It seems that the relatively poorer sorting (high standard deviation of
grain size) or the difference in initial composition (ooids vs. fossils) accounts for the lowered
porosity in coarser, more fossiliferous rocks.
329
35
30 Trembley 7X Max K vs Phi

Trembley 7X Min K vs. Phi
25 Trembley 4X max K vs. Phi
Porosity (Phi), %
Trembley 4X Min K vs. Phi

20
15
10
0
0.1 1 10 100
Permeability (K), md

Figure 3.26. Core porosity (phi) plotted against maximum and minimum horizontal permeability
(K) for Trembley 7X (1515520566) and Trembley 4X (1515520495). Data are from the Sniabar
Limestone Member only.

Permeability
Byrnes et al. [2003] concluded that porosity and oomold connectivity are the major controls of
permeability in oomoldic reservoirs of the Lansing and Kansas City groups. However, they stated
that rocks with larger oomolds. i.e. probably coarser overall, would be more permeable than rocks
with smaller oomolds, perhaps because they had larger pore throats. Conversely, lower porosity of
coarser rocks in the Sniabar reservoir in Trembley field would suggest that such coarse rocks
would be less permeable with the coarse fraction of fossils accounting for the difference between
Trembley rocks and those Byrnes et al. [2003] examined. Unfortunately, plots of porosity vs.
permeability of the few Trembley samples available display a meaningless scatter, except that the
rocks with the highest permeability generally have high porosity (Figure 3.26).
Log Petrophysics
Fluid saturation and porosity are necessary for choosing completion intervals and calculating
reserves. The Archie equation calculates fluid saturation from porosity and resistivity using values
determined by openhole logs. However, neutron, density, and sonic traveltime logs measure
different properties of the reservoir. Porosity is calculated from an assumed relation with the
measured value. Where different logs give different values, the operator must choose which to use.
The Archie equation also includes three aspects of the rock: the cementation and saturation
exponents, designated m and n, respectively, and the constant a, in addition to the rock and fluid
resistivity and porosity. The default values are 2 for m and n, and 1 for a, which are taken to
330
assume all intergranular or intercrystalline pores. However, m and a are generally known to vary
depending upon the pore structure [Doveton, 2001].
A wildcard in porosity measurements, not obviously related to the grain size or sorting of the
samples, is the extent of formation of ferroan dolomite cement. This material composes up to 16%
of the rocks in the Sniabar Limestone Member and formed after the earlier cementing events. It has
filled many of the remaining pores, both primary and secondary, occluding the porosity and
decreasing the permeability. Large concentrations of Fedolomite would affect densitylog
measurements of porosity, because the Fedolomite is substantially more dense than even
stoichiometric dolomite. Few of the Trembley wells have density logs, so the presence of Fe
dolomite was not judged to be a problem. High concentrations of chert in the reservoir would have
the opposite effect to a lesser degree. No such concentrations were observed.
In the Trembley reservoir, sonic porosity values are commonly 1/3 to 40% lower, relatively, than
neutron porosity values (Figure 3.23) in reservoir rocks, because the pore structure includes vugs,
and perhaps fractures, in addition to intergranular and intercrystalline pores. Sonic travel time is
taken to measure only the intercrystalline and intergranular pores; neutron and density logs are
taken to include the vugular porosity as well [Doveton, 2001]. Oolitic grainstones in Kansas
demonstrably contain vugs and blind pores that density and neutron logs sense and that may or
may not be saturated with hydrocarbons. Poorly connected pores may also increase total
resistivity. So which measure of porosity is to be used? Fortunately others have looked into the
problem.
Cementation Exponent, m. As mentioned above, NCRA [1989] used conventional values of the
tortuosity factor (a) and m in their calculations of water saturation (Sw) for the Trembley field.
Minimal values of about 10% as a minimum were judged to be too low. They then assumed an Sw
of 25% for their calculations of original oil in place, apparently following a rule of thumb based
upon other Lansing or Kansas City oomoldic reservoirs. The Kansas CO2 Team [1999] in a proposal
for a CO2 flood of Trembley field accepted the NCRA values.
Byrnes et al (2002) calculated water saturations well below 20% in Pennsylvanian oomoldic
reservoirs in Kansas, but used neutrondensity logs calibrated to limestone and assumed a
cementation exponent of 2 in their calculations. Under those terms pay zones had bulk volume
water (BVW) values of less than 5%.
Doveton [2001] used core measurements on the Murfin CarterColliver #CO2 I1 well in the Hall
Gurney field in Russell County, Kansas to determine two possible sets of values for the tortuosity
factor, a, and the cementation exponent, m. His results led to values first of a = 9.47 and m = 1.36,
which matched the measured values of the formation factor (F) and porosity. However,
extrapolation of this relationship leads to values of F for rocks of nearly 100% porosity [Doveton,
2001]. For this reason, he developed another relationship in which formation factor, and therefore
cementation exponent, is a function of porosity (:
F = 1/(1.9+4.35).
331
This equation assumes a tortuosity factor of 1. As these two methods lead to the same result over
the range of porosity expected, they are interchangeable.
Doveton [2001] recommends these values can be used as a first approximation for all oomoldic
grainstones of the LKC interval. Byrnes et al. [2003] applied this approach, with modified values of
the exponent terms, to show that cementation exponents of up to 3.6 characterized the Kansas City
Group oomoldic grainstone reservoir in the CarterColliver #CO2 I1 well in the HallGurney field.
Dovetons [2001] plot of F vs. from core measurements shows appreciable scatter about the
correlation curve. He attributes that to variability in the proportion of molds and interparticle
pores. Doveton tested the WatfaNurmi equation to try to incorporate information about vug
porosity into the calculation of Sw:
m = (nc)2,
where nc is notconnected porosity in vugs. Doveton rearranged the equation to make m the
dependent variable:
m = (2log (nc))/log(().

Plotting curves defined by this equation on the plot of vs. F led to an estimation that about of
the pores of his samples were not connected with the overall porosity framework.
The CarterColliver well has a sonic porosity log as well. Doveton [2001] used the difference
between the average of the neutron and density porosity measurements and the sonic porosity
measurement to determine the secondary porositythat in vugs, in this case, and fracturesand
the remaining primary porosity. As fracture porosity can be assumed to be small, the difference of
the two porosity values is a measure of the vugular porosity. His plot shows that the connected
porosity implied by the WatfaNurmi equation was less than the measured sonic porosity, although
similar at low values of total porosity.
Doveton [2001] then rewrote the Nugent equation to the form
mt = 2s,

Where the two terms are for total and sonic porosity, respectively. This equation is for a situation
in which oomolds are water saturated but not connected, but provides a value for m that is either
reasonable or is biassed [sic] as an estimate [Doveton, 2001]:
m 2log(s)/log(t).

Doveton proposes a transform equation to relate nonconnected porosity to total (neutrondensity)
and sonic porosity:
nc = (ts)/(1t).
By converting this equation to calculate the connected porosity, Doveton [2001] can calculate a
value of the cementation exponent by a modified Nugent equation:
m = 2log(c)/log(t).
332
Doveton [2001] thus makes three suggestions: determining either new values of a and m from core,
establishing a value of m that varies with porosity, and using a modified Nugent equation. All of
these approaches give values of m calculated from logs that are consistent with core estimates,
except the unmodified Nugent equation, which underestimates the true value at high porosity
(Doveton, 2001).
Application to Trembley Field. Data from the Trembley field, with the obvious differences of
porosity as measured by different means and the low apparent Sw as reported by NCRA (1989),
provides an opportunity to try out the different approaches (Figure 3.27). Indeed the calculation
using the default Archie constants, a = 1 and m = 2, produces very low values of Sw, as low as 10%.
Dovetons two suggestions that are based on core petrophysics from the Hall Gurney field, using
adjusted values of a and m and having m as a function of porosity, produce exactly the same Sw, as
Doveton implies, but about twice the default results. Result of Dovetons [2001] modified Nugent
equation is more variable. The curve is heavily influenced by the sonic log and, in places, differs
greatly from the results of the other methods.
Figure 3.27 shows that the revised values of m (and possibly a) suggested by Doveton [2001] lead
to higher estimates of Sw that are in rough agreement with the values calculated using sonic
porosity. Average values of Sw might be 0.2 and 0.25 to 0.3 in Trembley 3X and Trembley 7X,
respectively. These estimates differ slightly from the 0.25 value assumed by NCRA [1989] for the
entire field, but average about the same.
These calculations do not correct for the high measured resistivity, which would lower the
apparent Sw, which would suggest that the oil saturation so determined (1Sw) is too high. On the
other hand, they do not consider the true porosity of the rock and any oil that is present in pores
that were essentially ignored by the sonic log and the suggested methods of adjusting the a and m
values of the Archie equation for calculations using neutron logs. It is not clear to what extent those
two effects cancel.
Permeability
Byrnes and several coworkers from the Kansas Geological Survey have combined log and core
measurements with microscopic observations to determine controls on permeability. Byrnes et al.
[2002] concluded that porosity and oomold connectivity are the major controls on permeability in
oomoldic reservoirs of the LansingKansas City interval, but that individual wells have peculiar
relationships among the variables. Connectivity of oomolds is a strong control of irreducible water
saturation and residual oil saturation after waterflooding, as is permeability. Analyses of other
variablesa packing index of oomolds, oomold diameter, Archies matrix porosity index, and
fracture index, with similar techniquesshowed some relationship to permeability, but these
variables are colinear with porosity and connectivity.

333

Figure 3.27. Comparison of five different water saturation calculations for two Trembley field wells.
Top: Trembley 3X, 1515520477, bottom, Trembley 7X, 1515520566. Solid, horizontal pink lines
show perforated intervals. In both examples, use of a = 1 and m = 2 lead to estimates of Sw as low as
10%. Sonic porosity, using the same constants, indicates higher water saturation for both. Use of m
as a function of porosity produces values similar to or above the sonic porosity, but identical to use of
a = 9.59 and m = 1.36 for reservoir rocks, and others. Use of the modified Nugent equation mimics
the sonic log with amplification, but leads to anomalous results in places. Equations and exponents
based upon Doveton [2001] and Byrnes et al. [2003]; CND porosity is the average of the limestone
scaled neutron and density logs.

Byrnes et al. [2002] defined connectivity on a scale of 1 (least) to 4, based on observations with a
binocular microscope similar to those used by mud loggers and wellsite geologists: 1) No apparent
connection between oomolds, 2) Connections between molds observed, but <10% of oomolds are
connected, 3) Connections observed between many oomolds, and 4) A majority of oomolds are
334
connected or extensive dissolution and connection have occurred. This scale does not address
crushing of oomolds.
Petrographic study of thin sections of samples from 2 wells from the Trembley field show that
many oomolds, or the neomorphosed rims upon them, are in contact, but few have clear openings
from one to another. This observation would place Byrnes et al. connectivity index at 1 or 2. As
such, the Byrnes et al. results would estimate low permeability, 10 millidarcys or less. In fact, core
permeability readings provided by Berexco, Inc. show readings as high as 74 md, but many readings
are <1 millidarcy, especially in Trembley 7X [Table 3.5]. Permeability may be enhanced by crushing
of oomolds, as is visible in several samples from Trembley field. Of course, the thin sections for this
study were from intervals where the rock was sufficiently lithified to form a solid blank for
sectioning and zones with extensive crushing might have been omitted from the sampling.
Byrnes et al. [2003] reported that depositional facies is the dominant control of reservoir
properties in Paleozoic moldic reservoirs in Kansas, including oomoldic and biomoldic reservoirs of
the LansingKansas City interval. Grainstones have the best properties despite various allochemical
compositions and even diagenetic overprinting to the extent of reversing the porosity from
intergranular to moldic. Secondary features such as stratigraphy, diagenetic changes,
paleotopographic position, and effects of fracturing of rocks and crushing of molds are secondary.
Permeability, in the view of Byrnes et al. [2003], is a function of porethroat size, especially of the
intergranular material in oomoldic rocks. Grainstones have significantly higher permeability than
muddier limestone, even those grainstones with moldic as well as intergranular or intercrystalline
porosity. Extensive crushing of oomold walls, dissolution and fracturing form favorable pathways
for migration of fluids parallel to the intergranular pathway of porosity.
The reservoir in the Trembley field is an oomoldic grainstone and part of a shallowingupward
limestone bed. Byrnes et al. [2003] cite such depositional, lithologic, and stratigraphic aspects as
being especially favorable for reservoir development. The field is located on the flank of a larger
structure where the Trembley North, Morton SE and Morton fields are located, so it meets the
Byrnes et al. paleotopographic and structural criteria. Even though the porosity is almost
completely reversed, the field has been a successful waterflood.

335

Table 3.5: Comparison of porosity measurements by different independent means. The comparison
cannot be exact, because the different methods have different scales of observation.
Well: Trembley A 1, 4X, 1515520495
CoreData LogData Point
Ooid Bioclast Thin
Count
Depth, Max Min Log Neutron Sonic Fraction Fraction Section
Porosity
Feet Perm Perm Depth Porosity Porosity % % Number
%
3481 8.9 9.2

348182 6.5 2.0 1.3
3481.5 9.1 7.7
3482 10.0 7.4
348283 15.2 28.0 23.0
3482.5 9.3 7.1
3483 7.8 6.8
348384 14.4 25.0 19.0
3483.5 6.9 6.5
3484 7.1 6.2
348485 3.7 1.0 0.8
3484.5 13.6 5.9
3485 15.5 7.3
348586 8.4 6.5 4.3
3485.5 24.3 10.9
3486 27.7 13.2
348687 27.9 17.0 14.0
3486.5 28.7 14.7
3487 28.7 14.9
348788 31.0 2.0 1.8
3487.5 28.8 15.1
3488 28.9 15.3
348889 28.4 4.4 3.4
3488.5 28.9 15.6
3489 29.0 16.3
348990 28.7 7.1 5.4
3489.5 29.8 17.1
3490 30.2 17.1
349091 26.3 25.0 24.0
3490.5 29.9 16.7
3491 29.3 16.3 29.0 32.6 14.2 4F3491
349192 29.4 33.0 32.0
3491.5 28.5 16
3492 27.7 16.2
349293 29.5 50.0 36.0
3492.5 26.7 17
3493 25.8 17.6
349394 29.3 74.0 67.0
3493.5 24.8 17.6
3494 23.3 17 24.2 35.0 12.3 4C3494
349495 29.6 11.0 10.0
3494.5 21.4 16
3495 16.2 13.9 29.4 47.4 1.5 4E3495
349596 20.0 4.1 2.9
3495.5 12.0 11.4
3496 9.8 10.2
349697 9.1 <0.1 <0.1
3496.5 8.0 9.3
336
Table 3.5 (cont.): Comparison of porosity measurements by different independent means. The
comparison cannot be exact, because the different methods have different scales of observation.
Well:TrembleyB2,7X,1515520566
CoreData LogData Point
Ooid Bioclast Thin
Count
Depth, Max Min Log Neutron Sonic Fraction Fraction Section
Porosity
Feet Perm Perm Depth Porosity Porosity % % Number
%
3500.0 16.0 14.5
350001 3 0.4 0.4
3500.5 12.3 14.1
3501.0 9.4 13.9
350102 4.3 0.3 0.3
3501.5 9.3 13.0
3502.0 9.2 14.0
350203 7.3 18 0.1
3502.5 9.3 15.9
3503.0 10.2 17.5
350304 16.5 N.A. 0.1
3503.5 11.6 18.5 16.5 37.8 12.3 3504.0
7A
3504.0 13.6 18.4
350405 22.8 N.A. 36
3504.5 13.4 15.6
28.3 51 2.8 3505.0
3505.0 12.6 11.3
350506 23.8 N.A. 3.9 7i
3505.5 11.6 8.0
27.6 26.6 21.8
3506.0
3506.0 10.4 7.6
350607 15.7 N.A. 0.3 7J
3506.5 9.2 8.8
3507.0
3507.0 8.9 10.6
350708 12 8.9 0.3 7B
3507.5 10.2 11.7
3508.0 13.0 13.8
350809 12.1 0.2 0.1 16.6 30.6 16.4
3508.5
3508.5 16.7 15.4
7H
3509.0 21.4 14.9
350910 7 0.1 0.1
3509.5 24.0 13.6
3510.0 23.8 12.1
351011 14.4 <0.1 <0.1
3510.5 22.0 9.5
3511.0 20.0 9.7
351112 13.5 0.1 <0.1
3511.5 17.8 9.9 35127C
3512.0 15.5 9.3 10.9 19.4 21.3 35127D
351213 1.9 <0.1 <0.1
3512.5 12.9 7.9 35137E
3513.0 10.2 7.7 10.5 18.2 22.7 35137F
351314 2.4 0.2 0.1
3513.5 8.5 7.2
3514.0 8.3 7.3
337
Conclusion
Trembley resembles many other oolitic or oomoldic (or oolicastic) reservoirs in the Lansing and
Kansas City groups of Kansas. As a small but successful waterflood, it is an ideal trial for chemical
flooding to demonstrate effectiveness of this procedure for those similar reservoirs. The reservoir
bed, Sniabar Limestone Member of the Hertha Limestone, or the LKC L zone, is a common
productive interval in LKC fields. Like many such fields, its porosity is locally developed; here the
pod of porous rock lies on the flank of a nose of a larger structure.
The reservoir rock has undergone extensive diagenesis, including formation of graincoating and
interparticle cement with a later phase of Fedolomite cement. Chert, pyrite, and celestite are
minor products of diagenesis. The rock does not contain soluble sulfates such as gypsum and
anhydrite. Crushing and stylolites are noticeable, but not common in thin section. The reservoir
rock is not greatly compacted; instead porosity reduction was by cementation. Remaining pores
are oomolds with some biomolds and remaining primary interparticle pores.
Petrographic analysis suggests that coarser rocks are richer in fossil fragments and display poorer
sorting. Coarsegrained rocks also have lower porosity than finegrained rocks. Finer rocks have a
higher initial fraction of aragonite (as ooids). The rock has largely undergone an inversion of pores,
where aragonite ooids and fossil fragments dissolved and cement formed in primary pores. Some
oomolds are filled with calcite, others with Fedolomite. Relatively finegrained rocks may have
more porosity because of their higher fraction of initial aragonite or because their allochemical
grains are better sorted by size.
As is common in oomoldic and other rocks where vugs, even small ones, are abundant, log
measurements of porosity are contradictory: in the reservoir itself, soniclog values for porosity are
50 to 60% of the neutronlog values. Core values for porosity are closer to the neutronlog values.
In such reservoirs, it is necessary to modify the procedure for calculation of water saturation. Use
of either values of the tortuosity coefficient and the cementation exponent based upon actual
measurements in other LKC reservoirs, use of a cementation exponent that is an appropriate
function of porosity, and using the sonic porosity and default values for the constants in the Archie
equation leads to water saturation values that average about 25% or 0.25. These adjustments do
not allow for the higher resistivity that results from significant numbers of isolated oomoldic pores
nor do they account for the volume of oil that is in those pores.
Permeability (or the log of permeability) in the Trembley Unit is not simply related to porosity.
However, the most permeable rocks generally have high porosity. Elsewhere in the LKC reservoirs
permeability is a function of porosity and the degree of interconnection between oomolds or
biomolds. Thin sections of Trembley Unit reservoir rocks do not show a large degree of such
connectivity, but are still fairly permeable, with values of 70 md or more.
Study of the reservoir does not reveal any major threats to the success of a chemical flood to
increase the fraction of the original oil in place that can be recovered.
338
C. Historic Reservoir Performance
The discovery well for the Trembley field was the NCRA 1 Trembley, currently named Well 3X,
completed in December of 1977. The progression of successful wells drilled to complete the
development of the field is shown in Table 3.6. Dry holes surrounding the reservoir are not shown
here. The property was originally five leases, four of which held the Trembley name and a fifth that
held the Barnes name. The five original leases, current well names and dry holes are shown in
Figure 3.28.
Table 3.6. Well completions in the Trembley Oilfield.
Initial
Current Original Completion
Name Name API number Date
3X N.C.R.A. 1 Trembley 15-155-20477 Dec, 1977

4X N.C.R.A. 1 Trembley "A" 15-155-20495 Mar, 1978
1X Hinkle & N.C.R.A. 1 Trembley 15-155-20507 Jul, 1978
6X N.C.R.A. 1 Trembley "B" 15-155-20537 Aug, 1978
5X N.C.R.A. 2 Barnes 15-155-20557 Nov, 1978
7X N.C.R.A. 2 Trembley "B" 15-155-20566 Feb, 1979
2X N.C.R.A. 2 Trembley 15-155-20879 Jun, 1982
9X N.C.R.A. 3 Barnes 15-155-20582 Oct, 1999
8X 8X 15-155-21440 Oct, 1999
Oil production for the full field exists for the entire history. Until unitization in 1995, individual oil
production exists for Wells 1X, 4X, and 5X. Wells 2X and 3X produced to a common tank battery
and Wells 6X and 7X produced to another tank battery giving combined oil production data. After
unitization, all wells produced to the same tank battery but individual well tests for oil and water
production are available in about half of the months of operation.
Kansas independent oil operator Berexco acquired the leases in 1994 and unitized the property in
preparation for a waterflood, renaming the wells in the process. Wells 2X, 6X, and 7X were
converted to injectors with first water injected in February of 1995. Wells 4X and 5X were
converted to injectors in May 1996 and July 2000, respectively. Wells 8X and 9X were drilled,
completed and started producing in November 1999.
3-39
Figure 3.28. Original leases in the Trembley Oilfield.
Injection pressures rose at the Wells 6X and 7X significantly faster than at Well 2X early in the
waterflood. Surface operations froze in February of 1996 suspending the water injection. Pressure
at the 2X wellhead fell as expected but pressure remained relatively unchanged at the 6X and 7X
wellheads. It was concluded that that Wells 6X and 7X were in a disconnected, separate reservoir
and 6X was converted to production. Subsequent 6X production was disappointing and the
wellhead pressure at 7X never significantly decreased. Injection in Well 7X was terminated in early
May of 1998 and production at Well 6X was terminated in October of 1999.
The reservoir of interest was the larger northern portion and the smaller southern portion
containing Wells 6X and 7X was not considered. Both injection and production data for Wells 6X
and 7X are not included in the field totals. Figure 3.29 indicates the separation of Wells 6X and 7X
from the northern portion of the Trembley reservoir and the present configuration of the wells.
3-40
Figure 3.29. Approximate location of barrier between the main and southern portions of the
reservoir.
Primary oil production rates and oil and water production rates and water injection rates during
the waterflood are shown in Figure 3.30 for the field. Fluid rates for individual wells are given in an
Appendix B. Insignificant water was produced during primary production that continued through
February 1995 at the start of water injection. Water production started a year later (February
1996) in Well 5X and the oil response to the waterflood started in January 1997 in Well 3X. The
waterflood proceeded up to the start of the chemical flood without significant interruption.
Cumulative oil production during primary and secondary recoveries are shown in Figure 3.31 for
the field and individual wells. A total of 325,400 barrels of oil were produced by primary
production through February 1995, representing 27.4% of the estimated 1,186,000 stock tank
barrels of original oil in place (OOIP). An additional 310,700 barrels of oil were recovered during
waterflooding for a total of 636,100 barrels. The secondary recovery was about 95 % of primary
recovery and 26.2% of the OOIP. These percentages for secondary recovery are the highest we have
encountered in Kansas [McCoola].
3-41
10,000 Trembley full field
(without Wells 6X & 7X)
1,000
BBL/Month
100
Oil Production
Water Injection
Est. Produced Water
10
1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018
Year
Figure 3.30. Rates for water injection, oil production and water production for the Trembley
Oilfield.
Cumulative Oil
700,000
Total Oil
600,000 1X Total Field
2X 636,730 bbl
3X
500,000
4X
5X
Barrels of Oil Production
400,000 8X
3X
9X 49.6%
300,000
Primary
200,000 prod.
3X 40%
1X
14.7%
100,000 4X 22%
8X
5.4%
0
01/78 01/82 01/86 01/90 01/94 01/98 01/02 01/06 01/10 01/14 01/18
Year
Figure 3.31. Cumlative oil production during primary and secondary production; Individual wells
and field total.
3-42
Wells 3X and 4X were the most productive wells during primary production producing 40% and
22% of the oil, respectively. During waterflooding, Well 4X was converted to an injector and Well
3X produced 60% of the secondary oil production. The reservoir between and around Wells 3X and
4X was the most productive. The inter-well tracer study presented in a following section showed
that flow from injector Well 4X is preferentially towards Well 3X. Also, tracer injected in Well 2X
has not been detected in Well 3X. Well 4X was selected for the injector of the chemical flood and it
was anticipated the major oil production response would be observed in Well 3X. The floodable
pore volume in and around the Wells 4X and 3X was estimated to be around 240,000 bbl.
Make-up water for the waterflood was supplied by a fresh water well drilled into river alluvium at a
depth of 50 feet at a location near the tank battery. As water broke through at a producing well it
was included in the injection stream. Thus, the injected stream was initially fresh water and became
more saline as more brine was produced. Due to the differences in water breakthrough, differences
in injection rates, and differences in pore volumes serviced by each producer and injector, the
salinity of the produced fluid at each producer is different and changes with time. Water analysis
for production Well 3X is shown in Figure 3.32. The initial reservoir salinity, or total dissolved
solids (TDS) was approximately 180,000. The TDS dropped sharply early in the waterflood and
then increased as the salinity of the injected water increased. The changing brine concentrations
created a potential issue for the surfactant flood in that the salinity of the produced water changes
over time. The performance of a surfactant process is quite sensitive to salinity and the salinity of
the chemical flood must be carefully controlled.
Total make-up water supplied was estimated at 741,800 bbl. The total oil produced at reservoir
conditions was 700,370 bbls. These values are comparable and indicate the reservoir is well
contained, that is, fluids are not entering or leaving the reservoir except through the wells.
D. Simulations of reservoir performance

Computer simulations for primary production, waterflooding and chemical flooding were
conducted with Computer Modelling Groups (CMG) software suite using STARS as the simulation
engine and CMOST for regression analysis. STARS contains the physics and chemistry to simulate
EOR processes as well as primary and secondary recovery methods. History matching of the
primary production and waterflooding data allowed for regression of input parameters that were
not available from separate sources. Chemical flooding performance was forecasted.
Simulations of reservoir performance require a large set of data that must be processed and
entered in the model. These data include a 3D reservoir model that contains spatial values of
porosity, fluid permeabilities and fluid saturations. All of the wells had gamma ray, neutron, and
resistivity logs. Log digitizing and analysis was performed in IHSs Petra software to estimate the
local thickness, porosity, and fluid saturations. Material balance calculations and reservoir pressure
measurements show the reservoir is contained without any aquifer support. Solution gas drive was
the production mechanism for primary production. A live fluid analysis was available for the
3-43
160,000
TDS
140,000
Concentration (parts per million)
Cl
120,000 Na
Ca
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
10/1995 07/1998 04/2001 01/2004 10/2006 07/2009 04/2012 12/2014
Time
Figure 3.32. Water analysis of brine produced from Well 3X during the waterflood.
reservoir oil and those data were incorporated into the model to simulate solution gas drive. Initial
reservoir pressure was available from drill-stem tests conducted on all of the wells. Only three
additional reservoir pressures were measured during the production phase.
The fluid production data streams for both primary and secondary recovery from each well were
entered into a spreadsheet and conditioned to be smoothed and to have a reasonable value for each
month. Notes from the production office and the pumper were incorporated to account for periods
of downtime due to equipment failure, well treatments, or weather-related downtime. Barrel tests
to estimate individual well production were available for approximately half of the months the
waterflood has been in operation. The processed data were supplied to the simulator.
Permeability of the reservoir rock was available from analysis of drill-stem tests and a core analysis
that was conducted on reservoir rock from Well 4X. Permeabilities reported in the core analysis
were too low to account for the actual oil production rates and water injection rates. Permeability
for the model was estimated from the drill-stem tests and is uniform at 100 mD across the field
model.
Relative permeability curves are important for simulations and for determining viscosity values of
chemical formulations during chemical flooding. Relative permeability curves for oil, gas and water
were not previously measured for Trembley rock and the available reservoir rock was not usable
for measurement. Curves from a Kansas reservoir (Hall-Gurney) with similar rock characteristics
3-44
were initially used with adjustments for initial water and oil saturations. Relative permeability
curves were also regressed through simulations using CMGs CMOST software. Three sets of
relative permeability curves are shown in Figure 3.33; the measured values for the Hall-Gurney
field, the adjusted curves for the Hall-Gurney field used to match that fields performance, and the
regressed curves for the Trembley field. Original endpoint saturations for each set of curves are
shown in the figure. The regressed curves for the Trembley field appear reasonable in that they lie
between the measured and adjusted curves for a similar type of reservoir. The regressed curves
were used in the simulations reported below.
1
Trembley regressed - water
Trembley regressed - oil
H-G measured - water

0.8
H-G measured - oil
H-G adjusted - water
H-G adjusted - oil

Relative permeability
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Water saturation (fraction)
Figure 3.33. Relative permeability curves; Regressed curves for Trembley reservoir, measured
curves for Hall-Gurney reservoir and adjusted curves for simulation of Hall-Gurney reservoir.
The reservoir model was represented with 50 ft by 50 ft grid blocks in the horizontal plane of the
reservoir. No evidence of layering was detected in the geological study so only a single layer is
modeled. The layer does vary in thickness to match the geologic description. Typical well spacing is
on the order of 950 ft so there are approximately 19 grid blocks between wells.
The reservoir model was developed using all well data, including Wells 6X and 7X that were not
considered to be connected to the main, northern portion of the reservoir. Reservoir thickness is
shown in Figure 3.34 and porosity in Figure 3.35. Porosity of the southern portion was reduced to
zero to account for the permeability barrier between Wells 6X and 7X and the reservoir of interest.
3-45
Figure 3.34. Graphic showing thickness of reservoir model used in simulations.
Figure 3.35. Graphic showing porosity of reservoir model used in simulations.
3-46
Oil recovery rates and cumulative production for primary and secondary recovery from the
simulation is shown in Figure 3.36. The match is good since the production data are supplied to the
model. Reservoir pressure during production is a better evaluation of the simulation and is shown
in Figure 3.37. The reservoir pressure response during the simulation was in the general trend of
the data but the match is less than acceptable. Adjustments to parameters did not appreciably
improve the pressure response. The physical reservoir model and/or water production data were
suspected as probable sources of error.
Figure 3.36. Actual and simulated oil recovery from Trembley oilfield during primary and
secondary production.
3-47
Figure 3.37. Actual and simulated average field pressure during primary and secondary
production.
Chemical flooding was simulated to predict oil recovery performance. Representative interfacial
tension data and adsorption data for the surfactant and viscosity data for the polymer were entered
in the model. The chemical flood was injected at 200 bbl/day in Well 4X starting in 2015. The
chemical slug was injected for 180 days (36,000 bbls), followed by a polymer drive for 400 days
(80,000 bbls), followed by a produced water drive. Water was injected in Wells 2X and 5X at typical
rates.
Oil recovery rates and cumulative production during the three production periods are shown for
the Well 3X in Figure 3.38. Oil production rate increased in response to the chemical flood after 18
months. The projected recovery during the chemical flood in Well 3X was 33,400 bbls before
production settles back to the pre-chemical flood rate.
Simulations of primary, secondary and chemical flooding recovery processes in the Trembley
reservoir are not thought to be accurate representations of the actual processes. Considerable effort
was applied to interpret log data to determine initial water saturation and porosity as described in
the previous on geological evaluation. Also, inter-well tracer data that is described in a following
3-48
section has shown directional flow paths between well pairs in the reservoir. In the end, there was
not enough information to properly characterize the reservoir properties in order to model
successfully the processes.
The data available for the Trembley reservoir is typical of the better operated waterfloods in
Kansas. We suspect that simulation studies will not be a standard procedure in the design of
chemical floods for independent oil operators due to the types and quality of data available, the
significant effort involve to conduct the study and the fact that simulation software is not normally
used by these firms.
Figure 3.38. Simulated oil production in Well 3X during primary production, waterflooding, and
simulated chemical flooding.
3-49
E. Field Testing
Inter-well tracer test. A tracer test was conducted to assess reservoir flow characteristics and, in
particular, to determine the pore volume of reservoir swept by each injection well (tracer) and to
expose any short-circuit thief zones that connect injectors with production wells. Tracer injection
and analyses of tracer concentration in production well samples was conducted by Tracer
Technologies International, Inc. Three different water-soluble tracers (fluorobenzoic acids; FBAs)
were injected in the three injection wells. 2-fluoro benzoic acid was injected in Well 2X (labeled
Tracer 2), 4-fluoro benzoic acid was injected in Well 4X (Tracer 4) and 2-(trifluoromethyl) benzoic
acid was injected in Well 5X (Tracer 5) on 12/11/2012. Water samples were collected from the
three productions Wells 1X, 3X and 8X. Sampling proceeded on a schedule provided by the tracer
contractor: every day for the first two weeks starting the day after tracer injection, every other day
for the next 1.5 weeks, twice per week for next 5 weeks, once per week for next 78 weeks, and then
every 4 weeks through 8/10/2016. Sampling and analyses will continue after this report is
submitted. Analyses for tracer were conducted at larger intervals until tracer breakthrough.
Analyses were then conducted backwards to a zero analysis and in every sample thereafter for a
particular well.
Several major interruptions in the injection schedule occurred after the tracers were injected.
There was an approximately two month period between 11/13/13 and 1/22/14 when Well 2X was
shut in during which time Well 4X took most of the water. Another period between 4/9/14
7/15/2014 Well 2X was shut in and Wells 4X and 5X took all of the produced water. On 7/27/2015
injection was commenced from the Injection Unit of this project into Well 4X at which time all
produced water from the property was sent to Well 2X for injection and injection Well 5X was shut-
in.
Effluent profiles are shown in Figures 3.40 for Tracer 4 (from Well 4X). Breakthrough of Tracer 4
was observed in the production Well 3X in the 12/11/2013 sample which was one year after
injection and 44,500 bbl water had been injected into Well 4X and 36,900 bbl total fluid had been
produced at Well 3X. The tracer concentration continued to rise without evidence of a peak through
the end of the project timeline. As of 8/10/2016 (last reported sample analysis), we have recovered
about 6.0% of Tracer 4 at Well 3X.
Breakthrough of Tracer 2 (from Well 2X) was observed in the production Well 8X in the 1/15/14
sample as shown in Figure 3.41. This occurred after 38,100 bbl water had been injected into Well
2X and 65,300 bbl total fluid had been produced at Well 8X. Concentration of Tracer 2 in Well 8X
was quite erratic unlike that of Tracer 4 in Well 3X. The cause on the irregular Tracer 2
concentrations is unknown although we do not suspect the chemical analyses were in error. 7.4%
of Tracer 2 was recovered at Well 8X as of 8/10/2016. No other tracers have been detected in the
production wells through 8/10/2016.
Rigorous mathematical analysis of tracer data requires elution data that shows a breakthrough, a
rise to a peak value(s) and then significantly declines to near zero values. The tracer data here were
not sufficient for that type of analysis and pore volume estimates could not be estimated. However,
qualitative characteristics of the reservoir flow characteristics can be assessed. Arrows in Figure
3.42 show the flow directions of the Tracers 2 and 4 to their respective production wells. The flow
3-50
indicates directional permeability in the roughly northwest-southeast direction or a permeability
barrier between the well pairs. The tracer study confirms the connection between Injection Well 4X
and production Well 3X which is indeed the heart of the field and the target of the chemical flood.
Breakthrough of tracers occurred after injections on the order of 40,000 bbl of water shows there
are no significant short-circuit channels indicating an efficient sweep of the reservoir between
injection Well 4X and production Well 3X.
The data also indicate the initial estimates of contacted pore volume between Wells 4X and 3X of
between 200,000 and 240,000 bbls are not unreasonable. However, the low recovery of tracer
might indicate a much larger pore volume.
12.0
3X tracer prod
10.0 vs bbl Produced
Tracer concentration (mg/bbl)
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Thousands
bbl total fluid PRODUCED
Figure 3.40. Tracer response in Well 3X; Tracer injected in Well 4X.
3-51
20.0
Tracer 2 from Well 2X in Production Well 8X
Tracer concentration (mg/bbl) 18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250
bbl total fluid PRODUCED Thousands
Figure 3.41. Tracer response in Well 8X; Tracer injected in Well 2X.
Figure 3.42. Field map showing direction of tracers between wells.
3-52
Polymer injectivity test. Polyacrylamides come in a wide range of average molecular weights
(MW) and are used in a chemical flood to increase the viscosity of the chemical slug. Normally the
highest MW polymer that can be injected into the reservoir without plugging or other issues is used
since it provides the required viscosity at lower concentration and cost.
Permeability of the Trembley reservoir was uncertainty but was thought to be about 100md
although core analysis provided an average value of about 10 md. SNF recommends using Flopaam
3230 in reservoirs with permeabilities greater than 100 md and Flopaam 3330 in reservoirs with
permeabilites greater than 150 md. A polymer injectivity test was conducted to determine if there
were any issues injecting these two polymers in the Trembley reservoir.
SNF also recommended that the injection well contain 8 perforations per foot in the reservoir
interval to minimize shear degradation during injection of polymer solution. Berexco conducted a
well workover in September 2013 to increase the injection capacity in injection Well 4X prior to the
polymer injection test. The tubing and packer were pulled out of the well, six additional
perforations per foot were added in the reservoir interval, and the injection tubing and packer were
run back in the well. Paraffin and asphaltene solvents were injected followed by 80 bbl of
condensate and 15 bbl of lease water to displace the condensate from the injection tubing into the
reservoir. The well was shut-in for 2 full days then flowed back into swab tanks at the well site. A
total of 4,378 bbl was flowed back from the injector. Reservoir temperature was measured during
flow back and the results are described below. Flowrate at the normal injection pressure of Well 4X
increased from about 180 bbl/day to about 240 bbl/day, a moderate increase in the injection
capacity of the well.
EOGA was contracted to conduct the polymer injectivity test which commenced on 7/11/2014. Two
polymers with different molecular weights (MW) were tested: Flopaam 3230 with a lower MW and
Flopaam 3330 with a higher MW. Flopaam 3230 was injected first followed by injection of Flopaam
3330. Each polymer was injected at two concentrations to target viscosities of 10 and 20 cp to
determine if injection pressure was affected. The lower concentration was injected first. The
polymer solutions were prepared in 3.2% NaCl brine. The polymer solutions were injected at a
constant rate of 200 bbl/day.
Measured values during the test are presented in Figure 3.43 as a function of barrels of fluid
injected. Polymer concentrations were adjusted to zero-in on the selected viscosity value. The
principal result is the wellhead (tubing) pressure that showed no significant increase indicating no
damage occurred during the injection of any of the polymer solutions. The injection pressure did
slowly increased during the test and this was thought to be the result of the well approaching a
steady-state pressure since water injection in Well 4X was unintentionally shut off for 6 days prior
to the test.
3-53
Trembley 4X Injection Well - Pressure vs Polymer Concentration
4000 32
& Viscosity
30
Polymer Concentration (ppm) & Pressure (psig)
3500 28
26
3000 24
22
Polymer Viscostiy (cp)

2500 20
18
2000 16
14
1500 12
10
1000 8
6
500 4
2
0 0
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
50
0
Cumulative Injection Barrels

Polymer Concentration (ppm) Tubing Pressure (psig) Begin FP 3330 Polymer
Polymer Viscosity (cp) Begin FP 3230 Polymer
Figure 3.43. Results of polymer injectivity test in Well 4X.
Reservoir temperature measurements. Berexco conducted a workover in the injection Well 4X

to improve injectivity for the chemical flood. Temperature at bottomhole was measured during a
long flowback period. The temperature leveled out at 102F (39C) indicating the reservoir
temperature around the well decreased significantly due to the injection of cooler water.
Additionally, a temperature of 121F (49C) was measured at reservoir depth in Well 9X that had
been shut-in for 15 months.
In the reservoir, the temperature of the injected fluid increases as the fluid flows away from the
injection well due to heat transfer from the overburden and underburden, eventually reaching the
estimated reservoir temperature of 121 F. The temperature profile was estimated using a model
developed by Lawerier [1955]. The estimated temperature profile is based on injection of water at
a rate of 200 B/D at a bottomhole temperature of 102F for a period of 20 years. Reservoir
thickness was assumed to be 10 ft with a porosity of 0.2. Figure 3.44 shows the temperature profile
for this simulation.
3-54
140
Injection 200 B/D
20 Years(7300 Days)
BHT =102F
130 RT =121 F
120
Temperature, F
110
100
90
80
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance from Wellbore, feet
Figure 3.44 Estimated temperature profile for radial flow in the Trembley reservoir.
The estimated temperature profile indicates that the surfactant solution will approach the reservoir
temperature of 121F at a distance of about 300 feet from the well. The pore volume of this region
is about 100,700 bbls. This volume represents a little less than half of the reservoir that will be
serviced by the chemical flood.
The initial reservoir temperature obtained from well files was 115F (46C) and most of the
laboratory work described in Chapter 2 was conducted at 46C. Although the temperature
measurement in Well 9X was a little higher, it was decided to continue the laboratory work at 46C.
The target area of the chemical flood is the reservoir between and around Wells 3X and 4X is at
lower temperatures still as estimated in the analysis above.
3-55
F. Field Design
The chemical flood was directed at the area between and around Wells 3X and 4X, the principal
productive zone of the Trembley reservoir. This zone is primarily serviced by the injection Well 4X
where the chemical flood will be injected. It is anticipated that the major production response will
occur at Well 3X. The chemical slug and polymer drive will be injected at the highest injection rate
within the constraints of the equipment and regulatory-allowable pressure maximum (1700 psi) at
Well 4X.
The chemical flood injection design is described in Table 3.7. Chemical concentrations except
Flopaam 3330 were determined by the laboratory study described in Chapter 2. Two preflushes,
one containing NaCl only and one containing NaCl and Flojet, were to be injected to condition the
reservoir ahead of the chemical slug. NaCl was at the optimal salinity of the slug to provide a buffer
between the chemical slug and the variable high-salinity brine in the reservoir. Flojet was added to
the preflush so that it could occupy adsorption sites on the rock ahead of the chemical slug. The
concentration of Flopaam 3330S will be adjusted to achieve a minimum viscosity of 10 cp during
chemical slug injection and 12 cp during the polymer drive. A slug volume of 36,300 barrels was be
injected. Flojet, the sacrificial adsorption agent, was in roughly the first half of the slug. The
chemical slug will be displaced by a polymer drive, followed by water injection.
Table 3.7. Planned injection sequence for the chemical flood.
Preflush A Preflush B Chemical Chemical Polymer

Slug 1 Slug 2 Drive
Slug Size (bbl) 18,000 6,000 19,100 17,200 100,000

Chemical System:
XOF 100S (%) 0.75 0.75
XOF 600S (%) 0.030 0.030
Surfonic L4-2 (%) 1.50 1.50
NaCl (%) 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 1.55
Flopaam 3330S (%) 0.30 0.30 0.31
Flojet SC TS 32 (%) 0.20 0.20
Totals
XOF 100S (lb) 50,210 45,216 95,426
XOF 600S (lb) 2,008 1,809 3,817
Surfonic L4-2 (lb) 100,421 90,431 190,852
NaCl (lb) 157,730 52,576 207,536 186,891 543,288 1,148,000
Flopaam 3330S (lb) 20,084 18,086 108,658 146,828
Flojet SC TS 32 (lb) 4,206 13,389 17,596
3-56
Produced brine was not used due to the processing requirements for cleanup and the complexity
involved given the wide variability of the salinity and solids concentrations in the produced brine
stream. Fresh water from a nearby well was available and was utilized. Salt content is provided
through the metering of saturated NaCl brine that will be trucked from a salt dome well
approximate 20 miles east of the Trembley Oilfield.
Mobility control is an important component of a chemical flood. The viscosity of the surfactant slug
must be high enough so that the slug mobility is less than the mobility of the oil bank that forms
ahead of the slug. A mobility curve for oil and water flow as a function of water saturation was
determined from the relative permeability curves that were regressed in the reservoir simulation
study of the Trembley reservoir. The minimum mobility was 0.132 cp-1 which corresponds to a
viscosity of 7.59 cp. The formed oil bank should have an apparent viscosity value of 7.59 cp or
lower. Similar analysis were conducted with the measured and adjusted relative permeability
curves of a similar reservoir rock given in Figure 3.33. The values for the maximum apparent
viscosity of the oil bank were 5.6 cp and 6.8 cp for the measured and adjust curves, respectively.
Therefore, the viscosity of the chemical slug was set at 10 cp to provide a buffer above the 7.59 cp
value and to achieve mobility control as defined by this analysis.
The chemical slug volume of 36,300 barrels was the largest volume available within the project
budget. The slug volume is 15% of the estimated floodable pore volume. Although we suspect this is
not large enough to mobilize and produce most of the residual oil, the smaller volume slug has
merit. Components of the chemical slug will more likely be retained in the reservoir reducing the
chance or duration of production issues. Also, if the surfactant in the chemical slug becomes
ineffective during the flood, the process reverts to a polymer flood and the oil that was displaced
before the surfactant was ineffective will be produced as well as the incremental oil production of
the polymer flood over that of a waterflood in the downstream portion of the reservoir. Based on
the metric of incremental oil produced per chemical cost, slug volumes smaller than that required
to mobilize most of the oil would be more economical.
3-57
Chapter 4
Chemical Flood Implementation and Results
A. Field Injection Unit: Description and Operation
A field injection unit (FIU) was designed to meet the specific chemical delivery situation for the
Trembley chemical flood. The operating range was 50 to 350 bbl/day at a maximum injection
pressure of 2,000 psi. The unit was fabricated by Northland Industrial Specialties in Gillette, WY.
A schematic of the unit with storage tanks is shown in Figure 4.1. The injection facility is a modular
skid-style unit that houses the equipment in the shaded area of the figure. A dry room contains the
polymer hopper and some storage area for sacks of dry polymer. Fiberglass storage tanks (200
barrels) were placed next to the facility for fresh water, saturated brine and the surfactant blend.
Polymer stocks are housed in a storage container next to the injection unit.
Figure 4.1. Schematic of the field injection unit for chemical flood injection.
The operation is based on a dilution line that feeds a high pressure Hydra-Cell D-15 diaphragm
pump that injects the mixture into Well 4X. The dilution line starts with fresh water pumped with a
centrifugal pump. Brine, polymer solution and surfactant mixture are metered into the dilution line
to achieve targeted concentrations. The solution goes through an inline mixer and a bag filter and
then feeds the high pressure pump. The centrifugal pump operates at about 40 psi and provides the
4-1
pressure necessary to move fluid through the lines and filter and provides make-up fluid flow and
positive pressure to the high pressure pump.
Chemical mixing and injection of the final flow stream is controlled by a PCL (programmable logic
control)-based control and automation system. Metering pumps for the brine, polymer solution,
surfactant mix and final injection streams are controlled through PID loop using the measured flow
rates of each stream. The high pressure injection pump is set by flow rate and the metering pumps
for brine, polymer solution and surfactant mix are set by injected concentration based on the
concentration of the stock solutions and total flow rate. A photograph of the pump room indicating
the various pumps is shown in Figure 4.2.
polymer
water pump for transfer pump
polymer wetting polymer
metering pump
Dilution water
pumps
Surfactant mix
metering pump
high pressure
injection pump
Brine metering pump
Figure 4.2. Photograph of pump room indicating various pumps.
A Norvac system was used to handle and hydrate the polymers in fresh water. This system was also
controlled by the PCL-based control and automation system. A hopper is located in the isolated dry
room where dry polymer is loaded in the hopper as required. High and low levels in the polymer
mix and feed tanks in the pump room are measured by pressure transducers. At low level, the mix
tank is filled through an eductor with fresh water by the centrifugal pump until the tank hits high
level. During a portion of this time, the screw feeder on the bottom of the hopper operates and
4-2
dispenses polymer into the vacuum pot. Tubing connects the vacuum pot to the eductor through
the wall separating the rooms. See Figures 4.3 and 4.4. Water flowing through the eductor produces
a vacuum that sucks the dry polymer into the water stream and wets the polymer particles as they
enter the mix tank. The polymer solution is mixed by a dual prop blade stirrer. Polymer
concentration is set to allow the solution to mature in the mix tank for a minimum of 60 minutes.
Contents of the mix tank are transferred to the polymer feed tank when the feed tank hits low level.
After transfer, the process for the mix tank is repeated during automatic operation.
Plant operations, system status, alarms and injection data are monitored at the Human Machine
Interface (HMI) touch screen display located on the side of the injection building as shown in Figure
4.5. The main screen of the HMI display is shown in Figure 4.6. The suction and discharge pressure
of the high pressure injection pump and the measured flow rates for the brine, surfactant mix,
polymer solution and the combined injected streams are given along the top. Just below the flow
rates are the accumulated total barrels of each stream. Tank levels in the storage tanks for fresh
water, brine, surfactant mix, polymer mix and polymer feed are determined with pressure
transducers and are displayed in feet on the tank images. Run or Off status of the pumps are
displayed. Additional screens are displayed by touching the different images which allows for
entering parameters for injection as well as for meter calibrations. For example, settings for the
brine stream are displayed by touching the brine pump. At that screen, the stock brine specific
gravity, stock concentration and dosage concentration are entered. Graphic display of measured
values can be seen by touching the trending button. Alarms are programmed in the control and
automation system to alert the operator to out-of-range conditions and to shut down all or parts of
the operation depending on the particular alarm. Examples of the alarms are shown in Figure 4.7.
Operation of the unit is straight forward after learning the HMI screens. However, input
concentrations and inputs for the polymer makeup system are a bit complicated so a spreadsheet
was created to make the operation easier. Included in the spreadsheet were material balances to
track stock materials and scheduling of additional stock orders.
The spreadsheet has several tabs for different parts of the operation. The Main tab shows the
metering pump rates and input chemical consumption for a given chemical formulation and
injection rate (see Figure 4.8.). The Polymer Batch Recipe tab allows the operator to select
polymer batch parameters and see the resulting stock concentration and mix time available (see
Figure 4.9.). Other tabs conveniently calculate the biocide dosage and consumption and track the
surfactant shipments and deliveries.
Brine deliveries to the stock tank were filtered through bag filters shown in Figure 4.10. Similar
type of filters were used for fresh water and the final chemical mixture prior to the high-pressure
injection pump. Bag filters rated at 1 micron were used for the fresh water. Stock brine and the
chemical mixture containing polymer were filtered through a 25 micron rated bag.
Significant airborne dust occurred during loading Flojet from bags into the dry hopper. The dust
was a health concern and a safety concern since the material was hygroscopic and made surfaces
slick. Holes were drilled in the top of the hopper and a shop vacuum cleaner connected to provide a
4-3
Figure 4.3. Polymer hopper, screw feeder and vacuum pot in the dry room.
Figure 4.4. Photograph of polymer mix tank setup. polymer eductor and mixer. The eductor (grey)
draws the dry polymer into the mix tank by vacuum.
4-4
Figure 4.5. HMI (Human-Machine Interface) control panel on side of Field Injection Unit.
Figure 4.6. Main screen for HMI to control operations.
4-5
Figure 4.7. HMI screen indicating alarms.
Figure 4.8. Main tab of spreadsheet to monitor consumption of stock material.
4-6
Figure 4.9. Spreadsheet tab for determining polymer batch recipe.
negative pressure in the hopper during loading. This essentially eliminated the dust issue. A
dehumidifier was also installed in the dry room to keep any minor spills of Flojet or Flopaam from
absorbing water and presenting a slip hazard.
Microbial growth occurred in the flow lines after a few weeks into operation of the FIU.
Glutaraldehyde biocide is compatible with Flopaam, Flojet and the other chemicals and was used to
batch treat the fresh water tank and the brine stock tank. This corrected the issue for a couple of
weeks after which a continuous treatment for the fresh water was installed. No bacterial issues
arose through the remainder of the operation.
Major pump maintenance and ordering chemical stocks were conducted by KU personnel. Daily
operations were conducted by the field pumper and took about an hour. The pumper moved sacks
of Flojet and Flopaam from storage to the dry room using as wheeled garden cart and filled the
4-7
hopper by cutting and dumping the sacks. Five to seven 55 lb sacks per day were required to keep
the operation running. Pressure, rate and volume data are recorded daily by the pumper. Tank
levels are monitored to facilitate reordering chemical supplies. Maintenance such as changing of
filters, changing pump hoses, cleaning clogged dry polymer devices, etc. were conducted by the
pumper.
Figure 4.10. Concentrated brine is filtered as it is delivered to the storage tank.
4-8
B. Chemical Flood Injection
Timeline. The field injection unit (FIU) was fabricated and delivered to the field in May of 2015.
Chemicals were ordered to start injection thereafter. Concentrated brine was delivered in July 2015
and the FIU was used to inject brine into Well 4X at a concentration of 2.9% NaCl, the optimal
salinity of the chemical formulation. Learning the operation and testing of the FIU was conducted
during this brine injection.
Flojet product (sacrificial agent) was manufactured and delivered to the field in August 2015 for
use in the preflush. Flopaam 3330S polymer was manufactured and delivered in September 2015.
Viscosity of polymer solutions were measured to ensure proper performance of the Flopaam. The
three components of the surfactant mix were manufactured during May through August 2015. As
each was produced, a sample was sent to KU to test performance by phase behavior tests. One
component did not pass all the criteria of the phase behavior test. A delay ensued to unsuccessfully
re-formulate the chemical slug, to determine the cause and solution of the manufacturing issue and
then to remanufacture the component that meet testing criteria. Details of these activities are given
in Chapter 2.
The entered/set injection rate to the HMI are shown in Figure 4.11 from May 2015 to the end of the
project. The pressure measured after the high-pressure injection pump are also shown in Figure
4.11. Occurrences when the pressure goes to zero are when the plant was shut down manually or
automatically by alarm features in the control scheme of the FIU. The injection rate was not
maintained continuously. Brine was injected from July 2015 to 28 February 2016. A timeline of
chemical dosages is shown in Figure 4.12. The plant was shut down for six weeks during
January/February 2016 when fresh water froze breaking a fitting. Injection of a preflush containing
Flojet started on 28 February 2016 and continued until the chemical slug was injected. The brine
preflush totaled 26,700 bbls and the Flojet preflush totaled 10,000 bbls.
The surfactant mix was prepared by Huntsman and delivered to the field on May 4, 2016 and
injection of the chemical slug was started that afternoon. The slug was injected at 230 bbls/day, the
highest rate achievable due to capacity of the dry chemical hopper. Both Flopaam and Flojet were
mixed and loaded in the hopper daily. About the first half of the chemical slug (18,600 bbls)
contained Flojet. Flojet injection was completed on 30 July 2016 which allowed for additional
Flopaam to be loaded daily in the hopper. The injection rate was then increased in steps to expedite
the injection. The injection rate was reduced to 200 bbls/day on 30 August 2016 until rebuild parts
could be obtained and installed in the high pressure pump. Injection of the chemical slug should be
completed by the end of September, 2016.
The participation of RPSEA and NETL/DOE in the project ended 30 September 2016 as mandated
by law. This Final Report has to be completed by that date also. The chemical flood will continue
and be completed by the other partners (KUCR, Berexco LLC, SNF Holding Co. and Huntsman
Petrochemicals). Progress and results will be conveyed to the public through seminars, technical
papers, and an addendum to this report.
4-9
Main Injection
300 1,800
Main Inj Rate 1,600

250
Discharge Pressure 1,400
200 1,200
Rate (barrel/day
Pressure (psi)
1,000
150
800
100 600
400
50
200
0 0
05/2015 07/2015 09/2015 10/2015 12/2015 01/2016 03/2016 05/2016 06/2016 08/2016 10/2016
Time
Figure 4.11. The set injection rate and injection pressure at the Field Injection Unit.
35,000
Chemical Dosage
30,000
25,000
Concentration (PPM)
20,000
15,000
Brine dose
10,000
Flojet dose
Polymer dose
5,000
Surfactant dose
0
05/15 07/15 09/15 10/15 12/15 01/16 03/16 05/16 06/16 08/16 10/16 11/16
Time (month/year)
Figure 4.12. Dosage of chemicals during preflushs and chemical flood.
4-10
Performance. The injection equipment performed well. Separate tests using tank level differences
were conducted to verify that the metering pumps for brine and surfactant mix were operating
properly. Material balance on amounts of Flopaam loaded in the dry hopper roughly correlated
with viscosity measurements on the injected solution.
Two principal conditions were monitored to ensure proper injection of the chemical slug: (1) the
chemical slug salinity was at or just below optimal salinity and (2) the viscosity of the chemical slug
was close to but above 10 cp. Measurements were conducted on samples collected after the high
pressure injection pump to test these conditions. Viscosities were measured and adjustments to
settings in the polymer batch recipe to increase/decrease the actual concentration were made to
target a viscosity between 10 and 15 cp. Targeting these values was more difficult during the first
half of the chemical slug when Flojet was mixed with Flopaam in the hopper. Viscosity values of the
samples did vary but were generally in the target zone. Viscosity data for the chemical slug are
given in Figure 4.13. The low value on 28 July indicated an operational problem with the polymer
makeup process.
Testing the salinity of the chemical slug to be at or just below optimal salinity was a more involved
procedure. This phase behavior test consisted of mixing the chemical slug with Trembley crude oil
at selected ratios in glass pipettes and then placing the tubes in an oven at reservoir temperature
for about three days to allow them to approach equilibrium conditions. Initially, the FIU was
operated at several salinity values above and below the optimal value and samples were taken for
phase behavior tests. Periodic tests were compared to this set to determine the change in salt
concentration that would be required to target the optimal value. An example of one the tests is
shown in Figure 4.14. Middle phase microemulsions are seen at each water-oil ratio with equal
amounts of oil and water solubilized demonstrating the injected slug was at optimal salinity. The
FIU operated well and only 0.1% changes in salt dosage were occasionally required as shown in
Figure 4.12. Conductivity measurements of the stock brine changed slightly over time and
correlated with dosage changes.
4-11
25
20
Viscosity (cp)
15 [Grab your readers attention with a great quote from the
Target values
10
0
3/21/16 5/10/16 6/29/16 8/18/16 10/7/16
Date
Figure 4.13. Viscosity of sample of injected chemical slug. Measured at 46 C and a shear rate of
22.5 s-1.
water-oil ratio
1 2 4
Figure 4.14. Phase behavior of the injected slug with Trembley crude oil indicating the slug was at
optimal salinity.
4-12
C. Field performance
Oil recovery response of the reservoir is the key parameter for judging the performance of a
chemical flood. We anticipate the major oil response to occur in Well 3X. The total daily production
and oil cut for Well 3X for a year prior to and through chemical slug injection are shown in Figure
4.14. A small declined in the total production has occurred and no discernable change in the oil cut
was observed. No changes were observed in production Wells 1X and 8X where the oil cuts were 2
to 3 % and 1%, respectively.
It is much too early in the chemical flooding process to see response in the production wells. It is
estimated from the tracer study that 60,000 to 80,000 bbls will need to be injected before oil
response in observed Well 3X.
140 10
Total -------> 9
120 production chemical slug inj
8
Total production (bbls/day)
100 7
6
80
Oil cut (%)

5
60
4
40 3
2
20
1
0 0
3/1/2015 6/9/2015 9/17/201512/26/2015 4/4/2016 7/13/2016
Date
Figure 4.14. Total production and oil cut for Well 3X.
Procedures have been developed to measure concentrations of polymer and surfactant in water
samples taken from the production wells. Samples are taken from the production wells monthly for
these analyses and for analysis of tracer concentration. There was no evidence of polymer or
surfactant in samples collected from June to September 2016.
4-13
Chapter 5
Conclusions
The conclusions are based on the design and implementation of the chemical flood in the Trembley
reservoir. They provide an example of the complexity and uncertainty that an independent oil
operator might encounter in that endeavor. Design and implementation for other reservoirs will
certainly have unique characteristics but are likely to share some of these elements as well.
1. A chemical slug containing surfactants and polymer was formulated that has high oil recovery
performance for Trembley crude oil. The chemical formulation produced greater than 90% of
waterflooded residual oil in laboratory coreflood experiments. The formulation process is essential
but required significant resources. Improvements are needed to streamline the formulation process
and reduce the effort required for chemical selection.
2. Surfactant adsorption was at an acceptable level in laboratory floods in reservoir rock material.
The adsorption level was lowered using the sacrificial agent sodium polyacrylate (Flojet).
3. Logs for Trembley wells did not correlate satisfactory with core analyses. There was difficulty in
determining initial water saturation values and correlations between porosity-permeability and
porosity-neutron density were not attained.
4. Reservoir simulation did not contribute to the field design. Simulations did not match well the
primary recovery and waterflooding data resulting in the lack of confidence in predictive
simulations of the chemical flood. Processing historical data and conducting simulations required a
significant effort with little benefit to the design. The production and injection data did provide
interpretations of general reservoir performance.
5. The three field tests conducted provided pertinent information for the design. The inter-well
tracer study showed the lack of short-circuit flow paths and the preferential flow directions from
injections wells that allowed for the selection of the injection well for the chemical flood. Selection
of the polymer version (molecular weight level) was based on the polymer injectivity test.
Measurement of reservoir temperatures provided the temperature range to conduct the laboratory
work.
6. The performance of the Field Injection Unit was good. Some variation in polymer viscosity
(concentration) was measured but the phase behavior of the injected formulation samples matched
the specified behavior. Daily operations for the Unit were accomplished in about an hours time
which is appropriate for independent oil operators.
7. It is essential to test and approve chemicals produced in large quantities for the field. Typical
specifications for chemical processes may not address the performance of the chemical in phase
behavior tests used for oil recovery applications. Improved specifications are needed for the
production of field-size quantities. A significant time delay occurred due to one chemical that did
not perform as the sample used in laboratory work to design the chemical formulation.
8. The reservoir responded favorably to the injection of the chemical slug. Injection pressures
remained under mandated limits at injection rates that were increased to expedite the timeline.
Oil recovery response to the chemical flood is the crucial result of this project and the information
that interests independent oil operators. Unfortunately, participation of RSPEA and NETL in this
5-1
project was mandated by law to end 30 September 2016 and this report was due at that time. The
project will continue by the remaining partners and results will be disseminated through technical
papers, seminars and an addendum to this report.
5-2
References
Ahmed, Muhammad Shahab [2012] Methodology for Designing and Evaluating Chemical
Systems for Improved Oil Recovery, MS thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
Beard, D.C. and Weyl, P.K., [1973], Influence of texture on porosity and permeability of
unconsolidated sand: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 57, p.
349-364
Byrnes, Alan P., W.L. Watney, W. J. Guy, G. Buijs, and P. Gerlach, [2002], Oomoldic reservoirs
of central Kansas, controls on porosity, permeability, capillary pressure, and
architecture, Kansas Geological Survey Open File Report 2002-48.
Byrnes, Alan P., E.K. Franseen, W. L. Watney, and M.K. Dubois, [2003], The role of moldic
porosity in Paleozoic Kansas reservoirs and the association of original depositional
facies and early diagenesis with reservoir properties, Kansas Geological Survey Open
File Report 2003-32, 56 p.
Doveton, J.C., [2001], Development of an Archie equation model for log analysis of
Pennsylvanian oomoldic zones in Kansas: Kansas Geological Survey Open File Report
2001-67, 14 p.
Kansas CO 2 Team, [1999] CO2 EOR Demonstration Project, Berexco Incorporated, Trembley
Unit: Unpublished proposal originating with the Kansas Geological Survey and Tertiary
Oil Recovery Project.
Lawerier, H.A. [1955] The Transport of Heat in an Oil Layer Caused by the injection of Hot
Fluid, Appl. Sci. Res., Vol. 5, Sec. A, 145
Ma K., Cui, L., Dong, Y., Wang, T., Da, C., Hirasaki, G.J., Biswa, S.L. [2013] Adsorption of
cationic and anionic surfactants on natural and synthetic carbonate materials, J. Colloid.
Interface. Sci.,Vol. 408, pg 164-172.
Flaaten, A., Nguyen, Q.P., Pope, G.A., and Zhang, J. [2008]. A Systematic Laboratory
Approach to Low-Cost, High-Performance Chemical Flooding, SPE Res. Eval. &
Engg..October, pg 713.
McCool, S, Willhite, P, Walton, A., Ballard, M, Rondon, M., Song, K., Zhang, W, Ahmed, S.,
Liu, Z., and Senior, P. [2012a] Bridging the Gap between Chemical Flooding and
Independent Oil Producers, Final Report, U.S. Department of Energy, Contract
DE-NT0005679.
McCool, S., [2012B] Field Demonstration of Chemical Flooding of the Trembley Oilfield,
Reno County, Kansas: Proposal submitted to Research Partnership to Secure Energy for
America.
Morgan, J.V., [1951] Correlation of radioactive logs of the Lansing and Kansas City groups in
central Kansas: Journal of Petroleum Technology, v. 4, p. 111-118.
6-1
Nagtegaal, P.J.C., [1978] Sandstone-framework instability as a function of burial diagenesis:
Journal of the Geological Society of London, v. 135, p. 101-105.
NCRA, [1989] Waterflood Feasibility Study Proposed Trembley Waterflood Unit, Hertha
(Lansing-Kansas City) Limestone, Reno County, Kansas: Unpublished report by the
National Cooperative Refinery Association.
Parkhurst, R.W., [1959] Surface to surface correlation of the Lansing-Kansas City rocks
(Pennsylvanian) in Kansas: Kansas Geological Society, South Central Kansas: Guidebook,
24th Field Conference, p. 94-100.
Pryor, W.A. [1973] Permeability and porosity variations in some Holocene sand bodies:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 57, p. 162-189.
Rasmus, John, et al., [1985] An improved petrophysical evaluation of oomoldic Lansing-
Kansas City formations utilizing conductivity and dielectric log measurements:
Transactions of the SPWLA 26th Annual Logging Symposium, Dallas, June 17-20, 1985,
Paper V.
Scholle, P.A. and Ulmer-Scholle, D.S. [2003] A Color Guide to the Petrography of Carbonate
Rocks: Grains, Textuires, Porosity, Diagenesis: AAPG Memoir 77, 474 p.
Senior, P.J. and Walton, A.W. [2012] Trembley Oilfield, Reno County, Kansas: in: McCool, S.
Walton, T., Willhite, P., Ballard, M., Rondon, M., Song, K., Liu, Z., Ahmed, S., Senior, P.,
Bridging the Gap between Chemical Flooding and Independent Oil Producers: Final
Report, DOE Award No. DE-FG26-08NT05679: Appendix, pp A-96-A120.
ShamsiJazeyi, H., Hirasaki, G.J. and Verduzco, R. [2013] Scarificial Agent for Reducing
Adsorption of Anionic Surfactants, SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry,
Woodlands, TX, April 8-10.
Wright, T.G. [1979] Geological Well Report, NCRA #3 Trembley A, Kansas Geological
Society, Walters Digital Geological Library, Recovered August 20, 2016.
Zeller, D.E. [1968] The Stratigraphic Succession in Kansas: Kansas Geological Survey
Bulletin 189, 81 p.
6-2
Appendix A
Example of a Coreflood Report
Core#72 Core Flooding

Report 107 v2
Kaixu Song
May 27th2016
The purpose of Core#72 chemical flooding is to determine oil recovery using chemical samples
from the field (formulation 75R25AB2L4FPA30). The chemicals used during core flooding are listed
below.
Chemicals
Trembley crude oil (3/17/2016)
XOF 329 surfactant and alcohol mixture #1 from field on May 04, 2016
Flopaam 3330S(F) (Aug. 19, 2015 produced for the field injection)
Flojet (F) (Aug. 19, 2015 produced for the field injection)
Saturated brine from UCS, LLC (8/20/2015)
Water from the fresh water well at the oilfield ( 11/17/2015)
Summary
1. For core#72, the pore volume is 118.15 ml. The averaged permeability is 218.1 md.
2. The Residual Water after oil flooding is S wr =0.38. The Residual oil after water flooding is S or
=0.38.
3. 92% of the waterflooded residual oil in the core was recovered by chemical flooding.
7-1
Part 1: Injection plan for Core#72
120ml surfactant slug was prepared based on formulation 75R25AB2L4FPA30. The phase behavior
of the surfactant slug at 46C is shown in Figure 1. After 6 days, the slug did not separate either at
room temperature or reservoir temperature. After 12 days, the slug separated at reservoir
temperature. No viscous phase can be found in any pipettes. The injection plan is shown in Table 1.
Table 2 is the formulation of synthetic brine. The core was filled with synthetic brine before oil
flooding.
Composition of WOR=1 WOR=2 WOR=4 WOR=8

formulation
75R25AB2L4FPA30:
2.28% XOF329
0.2% FLOJET SC TS 32(F)
0.3% SNF 3330S(F)
3.0% UCS NaCl
After 6 days, the aqueous

phase is clear. After 12
days, the aqueous phase
separated.
Figure 1-Phase separation results @ 46C of formulation 75R252L4FPA30 after 3 days.
7-2
Table 1-Injection design based on formulation 75R25AB2L4FPA30 @46C.
Brine for water flooding Synthetic brine
Pre flooding 0.1PV
3.0% UCS NaCl
Surfactant slug 0.5PV
2.28wt% XOF329
0.3% SNF 3330S(F)
3.0wt% UCS NaCl
Polymer drive 1.4 PV
0.32% SNF 3330S
1.5% UCS NaCl
Table 2- Formulation of synthetic brineSynthetic Brine

Salt Concentration (mg/L)
NaCl 117688.83
KCl 628.90
MgCl2.6H2O 22214.86
CaCL2.2H2O 39537.32
SrCl2.6H2O 5720.13
Calculated TDS (mg/L) 161977.05
7-3
Part 2: Core Properties
Berea sandstone Core #72 has passed the leaking test. Total pore volume of Core#72 is 118.15 ml
by weight method. The details of the core can be found in Table 3.
Table 3 Properties of Berea Core #72 that was prepared for SP flooding.
Length L(cm) 30.4
Diameter D(cm) 5.0
Dimensions
Porosity (%) 19.8
Pore Volume PV(mL) 118.2
2.1 Tracer Test

Figure 2 is the tracer test results of Core#72 before oil flooding. During the tracer test A and C, leaks
were found from one end of the transfer cylinder. The results of tracer test B and D are compared
with core#54 tracer curves in Figure 3. The tracer curve of two cores have similar shape. That
means both cores have similar pore geometry. The pore volume calculated from the tracer test
results A and D is 118.26ml. This number is very close to the pore volume calculated by weight
method.
1.2
1
Normalized Refractive Index
0.8
Core #72 Tracer test A Before
oil flooding (1ml/min)
0.6
Core #72 Tracer test B Before
0.4
Core #72 Tracer test C before
0.2 Core #72 Tracer test D before
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Volume injected (ml)
Figure 2-Core#72 tracer test results before oil flooding.
7-4
1.2
1
Normalized Refractive Index
0.8
Sandstone Core#54 before oil

0.6 flooding (1ml/min)
0.4 Core #72 Tracer test B Before

0.2
Core #72 Tracer test D before
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Volume injected (ml)
Figure 3-Core#72 tracer test results before oil flooding.
2.2 Permeability Test
Four permeability tests A, B, C and D were conducted. Test result D are listed in Table 4. The
comparison of the four test are shown in Figure 4
Table 4 Permeability test D with synthetic brine @ 46 C before oil flooding.

Flow
rate Overall Sect01 Sect02 Sect03 Sect04 Sect05 Sect06
(ml/min) (mD) (mD) (mD) (mD) (mD) (mD) (mD)
1 217.1 184.6 233.0 238.6 235.9 247.6 184.4
2 219.3 188.0 231.2 247.5 236.3 248.4 183.3
5 218.0 184.4 230.7 246.3 237.0 246.7 181.2
Average 218.1 185.6 231.6 244.2 236.4 247.5 182.9
7-5
300
Results of test A Results of test B
Results of test C Results of test D
250
200
Permeability (mD)
150
100
50
0
Overall Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6
Figure 4-Core#72 permeability test results compared.
7-6
Part 3: Oil flooding
The flow rate of the oil flooding experiment is 2ml/min. After the oil flooding experiment, a total of
73.08 ml water were collected. The pressure drop during the oil flooding period is shown in Figure
5. Table 5 is the oil flooding result. The pressure drop of last 5 sections was used to calculate Ko and
Kro.
45
40
35
Section Pressure(psi)
30
Section 1
25 Section 2
Section 3
20
Flow rate 2.0mL/min Section 4
15 Section 5
Section 6
10 Overall
5
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
Figure 5-Pressure drop during oil flooding for core#72@ 46C.
Table 5 Oil flooding results

Flow rate Brine
deltaP at
Total PVI displaced Swi Ko@Swi Kro@Swi
Swi (psi)
ml/min ml
2.0 2.4 73.1 0.38 39.0 144 0.63
7-7
Part 4: Water flooding
The volume of the oil collected after water flooding is 27.9ml. Table 6 is the water flooding results.
The pressure change over the water flooding period is shown in Figure 6. The pressure drop of last
5 sections is used to calculate Kw and Krw.
Table 6 Water flooding results
Oil WF EndPoint
displaced Residual deltaP at mobility
recovery Sor Kw@Sor Krw@Sor
Oil (ml) Sor (psi)
(%OOIP)
(ml) (md/cp)
27.9 45.2 38.1 0.38 11.89 10.52 0.046 13.0
14
12
Section 6
10
Section 5
8 Section 4
Section 3
6 Section 2
Section 1
4
Flow rate 0.3mL/min Overall
2
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Figure 6-Pressure drop during water flooding for core#72@ 46C.
7-8
Part 5: Surfactant flooding
Before surfactant flooding, 0.1 Pore volumes of 0.2wt% FLOJET SC TS and 3.0% NaCl were used as
pre-flooding to reduce the absorption of the surfactant.
In Figure 7, the oil cut was compared with the percentage of the recovered oil. After surfactant
flooding, a total of 92% of residual oil in the core was recovered. Figure 8 shows the effluent vial
from chemical flooding of core#72. Figure 9 shows the pressure drop during chemical flooding.
100
90
80
70 Core#71 Oil Cut after 4
Fraction (%)
days
60
Core#71 %OOIPrec after
50 4 days
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Figure 7-The oil recovery percentage calculated from effluent vials gotten from core flooding of
core #72.
7-9
Vial# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PV -0.047 0.006 0.053 0.106 0.159 0.212 0.265 0.318 0.372 0.425
Vial# 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
PV 0.478 0.531 0.584 0.637 0.690 0.743 0.796 0.849 0.902 0.955
Vial# 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
PV 1.008 1.062 1.115 1.168 1.221 1.274 1.327 1.380 1.433 1.486
Vial# 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
PV 1.539 1.592 1.645 1.699 1.752 1.805 1.858 1.911 1.964 2.017
Figure 8- The effluent vials from chemical flooding of core#72 after 4 days.
7-10
18
16
Flow rate 0.15mL/min
14
Overall
12 Section 1
10 Section 2
Section 3
8
Section 4
6 Section 5
4 Section 6
2
0
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Figure 9- Pressure drop during surfactant flooding.
7-11
Appendix B
Oil and Water Production Rates and Water Injection Rates
Oil and water production rates and water injection rates for the Trembley Oilfield (Wells 1X, 2X, 3X, 4X, 5X, 8X and
9X) during primary and secondary recovery process are presented in Figure 1. Rates for individual wells are
presented in the Figures 2 through 8.
Oil production data during primary production for Wells 2X and 3X was combined after Well 2X was completed. A
curve-fitting process was performed to split the two streams giving smooth data between 50 and 200 months.
10,000
Trembley full field
(without Wells 6X & 7X)
1,000
BBL/Month
100
Oil Production
Water Injection
Est. Produced Water
10
1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018
Year
Figure 1. Oil and water production rates and water injection rates for the Trembley Oilfield during primary and
secondary recovery.
8-1
10000
Well 1X
Oil prod
1000
Water prod
BBL/Month
100
10
1
1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018
Year
Figure 2. Oil production rates during primary recovery and oil and water production rates during waterflooding
for Well 1X.
Well 2X
100,000
oil prod
10,000
water inj
BBL/month
1,000
100
10
1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018
Year
Figure 3. Oil production during primary recovery and water injection rate during waterflooding for Well 2X.
8-2
Well 3X
10,000
oil prod
water prod
1,000
BBL/month
100
10
1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018
Year
Figure 4. Oil production rate during primary recovery and oil and water production rates during waterflooding
for Well 3X.
100,000
Well 4X
10,000
BBL/month
1,000
Oil prod
100
Water Inj
10
1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018
Year
Figure 5. Oil production rate during primary recovery and water injection rates during waterflooding for Well 4X.
8-3
10,000
Well 5X
Oil prod
Water Inj
1,000
BBL/month
100
10
1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018
Year
Figure 6. Oil production rate during primary recovery and water injection rates during waterflooding for Well 5X.
10,000
Well 8X
1,000
BBL/month
Oil prod
Water prod
100
10
1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018
Year
Figure 7. Oil and water production rates during waterflooding for Well 8X.
8-4
10,000
Well 9X
1,000
BBL/month
Oil prod
Water prod
100
10
1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018
Year
Figure 8. Oil and water production rates during waterflooding for Well 9X.
8-5

DOE 11123-28 Final Report PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOE 11123-28 Final Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Report

Field Demonstration of Chemical Flooding of the

The University of Kansas Center for Research

a. MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WITH

Executive Summary iii

Chapter 1. Introduction 1-1

Chapter 2. Selection of the Chemical Formulation----------------------------------------------------------- 2-1

Chapter 3. Field Investigation and Design -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-1

Chapter 4. Chemical Flood Implementation and Results -------------------------------------------------- 4-1

Chapter 5. Conclusions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-1

References ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6-1

Appendix A. Example of a Coreflood Report ---------------------------------------------------------------- 7-1

APSL Aqueous phase stability limit

Table 2.1. Injection design based on Formulation 34 for Core 51.

0.75% XOF100S Synthetic field brine in core.

After 5 days, the

Temperature 39 C. WOR=8 WOR=4 WOR=2 WOR=1

After 7 days, the

Table 2.5-Composition of chemical slug and polymer drive.

-1 15-155-20879-0001 15-155-20927 15-155-71019 15-155-20216

PETRA 8/21/2016 5:40:33 PM

Sample depth (feet) in core Maximum apparent length

10% y = 0.6456x + 0.3078

0.15 Trembley Unit 7X

Linear (Trembley Unit

Linear (Trembley 4X)

0.1 Non Reservoir: limestone &

The configuration of the pore network, as determined by a combination of depositional and

30 Trembley 7X Max K vs Phi

Trembley 4X Min K vs. Phi

3481 8.9 9.2

Table 3.6. Well completions in the Trembley Oilfield.

3X N.C.R.A. 1 Trembley 15-155-20477 Dec, 1977

D. Simulations of reservoir performance

Trembley regressed - oil

H-G measured - water

H-G adjusted - water

H-G adjusted - oil

Figure 3.35. Graphic showing porosity of reservoir model used in simulations.

bbl total fluid PRODUCED

Figure 3.42. Field map showing direction of tracers between wells.

Polymer Viscostiy (cp)

Cumulative Injection Barrels

Figure 3.43. Results of polymer injectivity test in Well 4X.

Reservoir temperature measurements. Berexco conducted a workover in the injection Well 4X

Table 3.7. Planned injection sequence for the chemical flood.

Preflush A Preflush B Chemical Chemical Polymer

Slug Size (bbl) 18,000 6,000 19,100 17,200 100,000

Figure 4.2. Photograph of pump room indicating various pumps.

Figure 4.6. Main screen for HMI to control operations.

Figure 4.8. Main tab of spreadsheet to monitor consumption of stock material.

Figure 4.10. Concentrated brine is filtered as it is delivered to the storage tank.

Main Inj Rate 1,600

Figure 4.12. Dosage of chemicals during preflushs and chemical flood.

15 [Grab your readers attention with a great quote from the

Oil cut (%)

Core#72 Core Flooding

Composition of WOR=1 WOR=2 WOR=4 WOR=8

After 6 days, the aqueous

Figure 1-Phase separation results @ 46C of formulation 75R252L4FPA30 after 3 days.

Table 2- Formulation of synthetic brineSynthetic Brine

2.1 Tracer Test

Sandstone Core#54 before oil