Improving Domestic Energy Security 

and Lowering CO2 Emissions with 

“Next Generation” CO2-Enhanced Oil 

Recovery (CO2-EOR)

June 20, 2011

DOE/NETL-2011/1504

Activity 04001.420.02.03
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

Disclaimer

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States 

Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their 

employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or 

responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, 

product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. 

Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views 

and opinions of authors expressed therein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United 

States Government or any agency thereof.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

“Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2

Emissions with “Next Generation” CO2-Enhanced Oil 

Recovery (CO2-EOR)”

Activity 04001.420.02.03

Prepared by:

Energy Sector Planning and Analysis (ESPA)

Vello A. Kuuskraa

Advanced Resources International, Inc.

Tyler Van Leeuwen

Advanced Resources International, Inc.

Matt Wallace

Advanced Resources International, Inc.

NETL Contact:

Phil DiPietro

joseph.dipietro@netl.doe.gov

Contract No. DE-FE0004001
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

This page intentionally left blank.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 1

1. CO2-EOR Promotes Enhanced Energy Security and Lower CO2 Emissions ...................................1

2. CO2-EOR Can Provide Large New Revenues to Federal/State Treasuries and Other Participants 

in the Value Chain............................................................................................................................ 2

3. The Volumes of Oil Recovery and CO2 Storage Offered by “Next Generation” CO2-EOR are Large 

and Impressive................................................................................................................................. 3

4. Next Generation CO2-EOR Provides Benefits Far Beyond Those Available from State of Art CO2-

EOR.................................................................................................................................................. 4

5. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technologies Are Realistic and Achievable with Focused 

Investments in R&D. ........................................................................................................................ 5

II. THE CURRENT AND FUTURE PROMISE OF CO2-ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY...........................7

A. The Current Status of CO2-EOR ....................................................................................................... 7

B. The Future Promise of CO2-EOR....................................................................................................10

1. Oil Recovery and CO2 Storage: Traditional (“Main”) Pay Zone of Oil Fields............................................................... 10

2. Oil Recovery and CO2 Storage: Residual Oil Zone (“ROZ”) ....................................................................................... 11

C. CO2 Market Demand and CO2 Storage from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technology: Base Case 

Oil Price and CO2 Costs.................................................................................................................12

D. Impacts of Alternative Oil Prices and CO2 Market Prices on CO2-EOR Volumes and CO2

Demand/Storage ............................................................................................................................13

III. THE PERMIAN BASIN CO2-EOR CASE STUDY...............................................................................15

A. Outlook for CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery in the Permian Basin .....................................................15

B. A Successful CO2-EOR Project in the Permian Basin ....................................................................17

C. Applying Industry Benchmarks........................................................................................................19

1. OxyPermian’s Expectations for Oil Recovery Efficiency ............................................................................................. 19

2. CO2 “Slug Size” and the Net CO2/Oil Ratio................................................................................................................. 20

3. Costs and Economic Viability...................................................................................................................................... 21

IV. “NEXT GENERATION” CO2-EOR TECHNOLOGIES.........................................................................23

A. Improvements in Currently Practiced CO2-EOR Technology. ........................................................23

1. Applying State of Art (SOA) CO2-EOR........................................................................................................................ 24

2. Assessing Impacts of “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technology ................................................................................ 25

B. Advanced Near Miscible CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery Technology...............................................31

1. Background ................................................................................................................................................................. 31

2. Resource Target ......................................................................................................................................................... 32

3. Mechanisms of Near Miscible CO2-EOR..................................................................................................................... 32

4. Oil Recovery with Near Miscible CO2-EOR................................................................................................................. 34

5. Application of Near Miscible CO2-EOR Technology by This Study............................................................................. 35

C. Application of CO2-EOR to Residual Oil Zones (ROZs).................................................................35

V. USING CO2 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY (CO2-EOR) TO INCREASE DOMESTIC OIL 

PRODUCTION AND TO ACCELERATE DEPLOYMENT OF CCS ...................................................38

A. Overview of Benefits .......................................................................................................................38

1. Improving Energy Security by Using CO2-EOR to Increase Domestic Oil Production. ............................................... 39

2. Providing Revenue Streams from Sale of CO2 and Production of Oil......................................................................... 41

3. Accelerating the Application of CO2 Storage............................................................................................................... 43

B. Proposed Use of Oil Fields for Storing CO2 ....................................................................................43

VI. A REGIONAL (“BASIN-ORIENTED STRATEGY”) LOOK AT THE CO2-EOR/STORAGE 

POTENTIAL ........................................................................................................................................46

1. Appalachia.......................................................................................................................................47

2. Onshore California ..........................................................................................................................51

3. East and Central Texas...................................................................................................................55

4. Michigan/Illinois Basin.....................................................................................................................59

5. Mid-Continent..................................................................................................................................63
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

ii

6. Permian Basin.................................................................................................................................67

7. Rockies............................................................................................................................................72

8. Southeast Gulf Coast ......................................................................................................................76

9. Williston Basin.................................................................................................................................80

10. Alaska..............................................................................................................................................83

11. Offshore Gulf of Mexico ..................................................................................................................86

VII. OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................88

APPENDIX A Discussion of Study Methodology

APPENDIX B A Summary of the Meetings with Industry Practitioners
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure II-1. Growth CO2-EOR Production in the U.S............................................................................. 8

Figure II-2. Current U.S. CO2-EOR Activity........................................................................................... 8

Figure II-3. Existing CO2 Pipelines (Permian Basin) ............................................................................. 9

Figure II-4. Domestic Oil Supplies and CO2 Demand (Storage) Volumes from “Next Generation” CO2-

EOR Technology**............................................................................................................11

Figure II-5. Volumes of Anthropogenic CO2 Storage Capacity Available from “Next Generation” CO2-

EOR Technology...............................................................................................................12

Figure III-1. CO2-EOR Results at the Denver Unit of the Wasson Oil Field.........................................17

Figure III-2. Oil Recovery Performance From Permian Basin San Andres Formation.........................18

Figure III-3. Occidental Petroleum’s Permian Basin EOR Opportunities .............................................19

Figure III-4. Evolution of “Industry Standard” for Volume of CO2 Injection (“Slug Size”) .....................20

Figure III-5. Typical Permian Basin CO2-EOR Project Cost Structure (Occidental Petroleum)...........22

Figure III-6. Updated Typical Permian Basin CO2-EOR Project Cost Structure (Occidental 

Petroleum).........................................................................................................................22

Figure IV-1. Areal Sweep Efficiency in Miscible CO2 Flooding as a Function of HCPV CO2 ...............26

Figure IV-2. Using Modified Pattern and Well Placement Design to Capture Mobil Oil .......................27

Figure IV-3. Example of Viscous Fingering of CO2 Due to Unfavorable Mobility Ratio* ......................29

Figure IV-4. Areal Sweep Efficiency in Miscible CO2 Flooding as a Function of Mobility Ratio ...........29

Figure IV-5. Effect of CO2 Dissolution in Crude Oil on Viscosity. .........................................................33

Figure IV-6. Saturation Pressure/Swelling Factor for Near Miscible CO2-EOR....................................33

Figure IV-7. Mechanisms of Near Miscible CO2-EOR ..........................................................................34

Figure IV-8. Relative Miscible Pressure, Pres/MMP.............................................................................35

Figure IV-9. Oil Saturation Profile in the TZ/ROZ: Adapted from a Wasson Denver Unit Well. ...........36

Figure IV-10. Map of ROZ Fairways. ......................................................................................................37

Figure V-1 "Poster Child" for Integrating CO2-EOR and CO2 Storage ...............................................39

Figure V-2. The Domestic Oil Resource Base.....................................................................................40

Figure V-3. Comparison of NRDC/ARI and EIA’s Outlook for CO2-EOR ............................................41

LIST OF TABLES

Table EX-1. Distribution of Revenues from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR ..............................................2

Table EX-2. Oil Recovery and CO2 Storage From "Next Generation" CO2-EOR Technology ...............3

Table EX-3. Comparison of Technically and Economically Recoverable Domestic Oil and CO2

Storage Capacity from State of Art (SOA) and “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technology*4

Table II-1. Significant Volumes of Anthropogenic CO2 Are Already Being Injected for EOR ..............9

Table II-2. Oil and CO2 Prices Used in Sensitivity Analysis ...............................................................13

Table II-3. Sensitivity Analysis of Oil Recovery (Billion Barrels): National Totals*.............................13

Table II-4. Sensitivity Analysis of CO2 Demand (Billion Metric Tons): National Totals* ....................13
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

iv

Table III-1. Oil Production from Major Permian Basin Fields Under CO2-EOR (2010).......................15

Table III-2. Oil Recovery Efficiency at the Denver Unit of the Wasson Oil Field ................................18

Table III-3. Permian Reserves and CO2 Requirements – “The Next Billion Barrels”..........................20

Table III-4. Relationship of Oil Recovery to CO2 Injection Volumes ...................................................21

Table IV-1. Example Permian Basin San Andres Formation Oil Reservoir ........................................23

Table IV-2. Oil Recovery and Economic Impact of Increasing the Volume of CO2 Injected ...............27

Table IV-3. Oil Recovery and Economic Impact of Modified Pattern and Well Placement .................28

Table IV-4. Oil Recovery and Economic Impact of Improving the Mobility Ratio ................................30

Table IV-5. Impact of Integrated Application of “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technology .................31

Table V-1. Distribution of Economic Value of Incremental Oil Production from CO2-EOR ................42

Table VI-1.1. Crude Oil Production from the Appalachian Basin (MM Bbls/Yr) .....................................47

Table VI-1.2. Appalachian Basin Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Miscible “Next Generation” CO2-

EOR ..................................................................................................................................48

Table VI-1.3. Appalachian Basin Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Near Miscible “Next Generation” 

CO2-EOR...........................................................................................................................49

Table VI-1.4. Appalachian Basin Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR ..49

Table VI-1.5. Summary Table of Comparison of State of Art and “Next Generation” CO2-EOR 

Technology: Appalachian Basin (Regional Totals)...........................................................50

Table VI-2.1. Oil Production from Onshore California (MM Bbls/Yr)......................................................51

Table VI-2.2. Onshore California Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Miscible “Next Generation” CO2-

EOR ..................................................................................................................................52

Table VI-2.3. Onshore California Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Near Miscible “Next Generation” 

CO2-EOR...........................................................................................................................53

Table VI-2.4. Onshore California Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR..53

Table VI-2.5. Summary Table of Comparison of State of Art and “Next Generation” CO2-EOR 

Technology: Onshore California (Regional Totals)...........................................................54

Table VI-3.1. Oil Production from East and Central Texas (MM Bbls/Yr) ..............................................55

Table VI-3.2. East and Central Texas Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Miscible “Next Generation” 

CO2-EOR...........................................................................................................................56

Table VI-3.3. East and Central Texas Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Near Miscible “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR ......................................................................................................57

Table VI-3.4. East and Central Texas Oil Recovery and CO2 Storage from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR

..........................................................................................................................................57

Table VI-3.5. Summary Table of Comparison of State of Art and “Next Generation” CO2-EOR 

Technology: East and Central Texas...............................................................................58

Table VI-4.1. Oil Production from Michigan and Illinois Basins (MM Bbls/Yr)........................................59

Table VI-4.2. Michigan/Illinois Basin Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Miscible “Next Generation” 

CO2-EOR...........................................................................................................................60

Table VI-4.3. Michigan/Illinois Basin Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Near Miscible “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR ......................................................................................................61
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

v

Table VI-4.4. Michigan/Illinois Basin Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR

..........................................................................................................................................61

Table VI-4.5. Summary Table of Comparison of State of Art and “Next Generation” CO2-EOR 

Technology: Michigan/Illinois Basin..................................................................................62

Table VI-5.1. Oil Production from the Mid-Continent (MM Bbls/Yr)........................................................63

Table VI-5.2. Mid-Continent Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Miscible “Next Generation” CO2-

EOR ..................................................................................................................................64

Table VI-5.3. Mid-Content Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Near Miscible “Next Generation” CO2-

EOR ..................................................................................................................................65

Table VI-5.4. Mid-Continent Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR..........65

Table VI-5.5. Summary Table of Comparison of State of Art and “Next Generation” CO2-EOR 

Technology: Mid-Continent (Regional Totals)*................................................................66

Table VI-6.1. Oil Production from the Permian Basin (MM Bbls/Yr).......................................................67

Table VI-6.2. Permian Basin Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Miscible “Next Generation” CO2-

EOR ..................................................................................................................................68

Table VI-6.3. Permian Basin Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Near Miscible “Next Generation” 

CO2-EOR...........................................................................................................................69

Table VI-6.4. Permian Basin Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR.........70

Table VI-6.5. Summary Table of Comparison of State of Art and “Next Generation” CO2-EOR 

Technology: Permian Basin Regional Totals**.................................................................70

Table VI-7.1. Oil Production from the Rockies (MM Bbls/Yr) .................................................................72

Table VI-7.2. Rockies Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Miscible “Next Generation” CO2-EOR .....73

Table VI-7.3. Rockies Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Near Miscible “Next Generation” CO2-EOR

..........................................................................................................................................74

Table VI-7.4. Rockies Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR ...................74

Table VI-7.5. Summary Table of Comparison of State of Art and “Next Generation” CO2-EOR 

Technology: Rockies (Regional Totals) ............................................................................75

Table VI-8.1. Oil Production from the Southeast Gulf Coast (MM Bbls/Yr)............................................76

Table VI-8.2. Southeast Gulf Coast Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Miscible “Next Generation” 

CO2-EOR...........................................................................................................................77

Table VI-8.3. Southeast Gulf Coast Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Near Miscible “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR ......................................................................................................78

Table VI-8.4. Southeast Gulf Coast Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR

..........................................................................................................................................78

Table VI-8.5. Summary Table of Comparison of State of Art and Next Generation CO2-EOR 

Technology: Southeast Gulf Coast (Regional Totals)......................................................79

Table VI-9.1. Oil Production from the Williston Basin (MM Bbls/Yr).......................................................80

Table VI-9.2. Williston Basin Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR.........81

Table VI-9.3. Summary Table of Comparison of State of Art and “Next Generation” CO2-EOR 

Technology: Williston Basin (Regional Totals) ...............................................................82

Table VI-10.1. Oil Production from Alaska (MM Bbls/Yr) .........................................................................83

Table VI-10.2. Alaska Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR .....................84
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

vi

Table VI-10.3. Summary Table of Comparison of State of Art and “Next Generation” CO2-EOR 

Technology: Alaska (Regional Totals) ............................................................................85

Table VI-11.1. Oil Production from the Offshore Gulf of Mexico (MM Bbls/Yr) ........................................86

Table VI-11.2. Offshore Gulf of Mexico Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from “Next Generation” CO2-

EOR ..................................................................................................................................87
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

1 June 2011

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This analysis, sponsored by U.S. DOE/NETL and prepared by Advanced Resources 

International (ARI), builds a national CO2 EOR resource assessment from reservoir-to-reservoir 

simulations of CO2 floods. ARI used a proprietary database that contains oil properties and 

geologic characteristics of 1,800 onshore reservoirs and over 4,000 off shore sands. The

simulations were conducted using the PROPHET model. PROPHET, originally developed by

Texaco for DOE in the 1980s, models stream tubes of fluid flow between injection wells and 

producing wells. PROPHET is a screening tool and estimates the magnitude and timing of oil 

production based on a user-defined CO2 injection protocol and the porosity of the host rock, the 

thickness of the oil, the degree of fracturing and discontinuity within the target formation and 

other inputs. NETL published a similar resource assessment in February 2010; this report 

supersedes the earlier assessment. For this analysis, the simulation methodology was peer 

reviewed by industry practitioners and important refinements were made based on their input. 

Aggregated results indicate that CO2-EOR can provide high value benefits to the domestic 

economy and the environment, as discussed below.

1. CO2-EOR Promotes Enhanced Energy Security and Lower CO2 Emissions 

Increasing U.S. oil production and lowering domestic CO2 emissions are two of the nation’s 

highest priority goals. CO2 enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR), both as practiced today (“State of 

Art” (SOA)) and what is possible (“Next Generation”), directly addresses these two goals.

• “Next Generation” CO2-EOR can provide 137 billion barrels of additional technically 

recoverable domestic oil, with about half (67 billion barrels) economically recoverable at 

an oil price of $85 per barrel.1

• This volume of economically recoverable oil is sufficient to support nearly 4 million 

barrels per day of domestic oil production (1.35 billion barrels per year for 50 years), 

reducing oil imports by one-third. Production of oil from the ROZ (residual oil zone) 

would add to these totals.

 Technical CO2 storage capacity offered by CO2-EOR 

would equal 45 billion metric tons.

• Nearly 20 billion metric tons of CO2 will need to be purchased by CO2-EOR operators to 

recover the 67 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil. Of this, about 2 billion 

metric tons would be from natural sources and currently operating natural gas 

processing plants. The remainder of the CO2 demand (18 billion metric tons) would 

need to be provided by anthropogenic CO2 captured from coal-fired power plants and 

other industrial sources. 

• The market for captured CO2 emissions from power plants created by economically 

feasible CO2-EOR projects (projects that provide at least 20% ROR at an oil price of $85 

per barrel and a CO2 cost of $40 per metric ton) would be sufficient to permanently store 

the CO2 emissions from 93 large one GW size coal-fired power plants operated for 30 

years.

 1 In addition to an oil price of $85 per barrel (WTI), the economic analysis assumes a CO2 market price of $40 per metric ton and 

a 20% return on investment, before tax.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

2 June 2011

2. CO2-EOR Can Provide Large New Revenues to Federal/State Treasuries and 

Other Participants in the Value Chain.

The value created by applying “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology would be shared by 

numerous stakeholders. Assuming an oil price of $85 per barrel (WTI) and a CO2 market price 

of $40 per metric ton, the following new revenue streams would result from recovering 67.2

billion barrels of domestic oil with “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology:

 Federal/state treasuries would be a large beneficiary, receiving $21.20 of the $85 

per barrel oil price in the form of royalties on Federal /state lands plus severance, 

ad valorem and corporate income taxes. Total revenues to Federal/state 

treasuries would equal $1,420 billion.

 Electric power and other industrial companies would receive $10.80 of the $85 

per barrel oil price from the sale of CO2. Total revenues from sale of CO2 at $40 

per metric ton would equal $730 billion.

 The U.S. oil industry would receive $19.50 of the $85 per barrel oil price for 

return of and return on capital investment. Private mineral owners would receive 

$7.70 per barrel.

 The general U.S. economy would be the largest beneficiary, receiving $25.80 of 

the $85 per barrel of oil price, in the form of wages and material purchases. 

Total revenues would equal $1,730 billion.

With potential oil recovery of 67.2 billion barrels, $5.7 trillion of new domestic revenues and 

economic activity would accrue to the participants in the CO2-EOR value chain.

Per Barrel TOTAL

($) ($ billion)

1. Federal/State Treasuries Severance/Income Taxes $21.20 $1,420 

2. Power/Industrial Companies Sale of Captured CO2 Emissions $10.80 $730 

3. Oil Industry Return of/on Capital $19.50 $1,300 

4. Other Private Mineral Rights $7.70 $520 

5. U.S. Economy Services, Materials and Sale of CO2 $25.80 $1,730 

Total $85.00 $5,700 

JAF2011_030.XLS

Revenue Recipient Value Chain Function

Revenues

Table EX-1. Distribution of Revenues from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

3 June 2011

3. The Volumes of Oil Recovery and CO2 Storage Offered by “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR are Large and Impressive.

With active use of “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology, large volumes of domestic 

oil could be produced while similarly large volumes of CO2 could be reliably stored in 

domestic oil fields, Table EX-2:

 The volumes of domestic oil technically recoverable with “Next Generation” CO2-

EOR technology are large: 120.3 billion barrels from the main pay zone of oil 

fields plus another 16.3 billion barrels from the Residual Oil Zone (ROZ). 

 With an oil price of $85 per barrel and a CO2 cost of $40 per metric ton, over 67

billion barrels will be recoverable (with ROR of 20%). An economic evaluation of 

oil recovery from ROZs would add to this total. As a point of reference, proved 

domestic oil reserves at the end of 2009 were 21 billion barrels.

 The volumes of CO2 that could be technically stored with EOR are equally large--

over 45 billion metric tons. These volumes would significantly increase as the 

storage potential offered by the ROZ “fairways” becomes better defined. As a 

point of reference, annual CO2 emissions from domestic coal and natural gasfired electricity production in 2009 were 2.2 billion metric tons.

 Assuming about 2 billion metric tons of CO2 are provided to the CO2-EOR

industry from natural sources and gas processing plants, almost 18 billion metric 

tons of anthropogenic CO2 could be sold to the CO2-EOR market.

Reservoir Setting

Technical Economic* Technical Economic*

1. Miscible CO2-EOR

Lower-48 Onshore 104.4 60.3 32,250 17,230

Alaska 8.8 5.7 4,110 2,330

Offshore 6.0 0.9 1,770 260

Sub-Total 119.1 67.0 38,130 19,820

2. Near Miscible CO2-EOR 1.2 0.2 800 110

3. Residual Oil Zone*** 16.3 n/a 6,500 n/a

TOTAL 136.6 67.2 45,430 19,930

*At $85 per barrel oil price and $40 per metric ton of CO2 market price w ith ROR of 20% (before tax ). JAF2011_030.XLS

***ROZ resources below ex isting oil fields in three basins; economics of ROZ resources w ere bey ond study scope.

Oil Recovery** CO2 Demand/Storage**

(Billion Barrels) (Million Metric Tons)

**Includes 2.6 billion barrels already produced or being dev eloped w ith miscible CO2-EOR and 2,300 million metric tons of 

CO2 from natural sources and gas processing plants.

Table EX-2. Oil Recovery and CO2 Storage From "Next Generation" CO2-EOR 

Technology 
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

4 June 2011

4. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Provides Benefits Far Beyond Those Available 

from State of Art CO2-EOR.

The introduction of “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology would provide significant oil 

recovery and CO2 storage benefits beyond those available from today’s state of art 

(SOA) CO2-EOR technology, Table EX-3:

 The volumes of technically recoverable domestic oil would more than double, 

from 62 billion barrels with SOA technology to 137 billion barrels with “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR technology.

 Economically recoverable domestic oil would increase even more substantially,

to 67 billion barrels with “Next Generation” technology compared to 27 billion 

barrels with SOA technology.

 The volumes of economically driven CO2 demand by the CO2-EOR industry 

would climb to nearly 20 billion metric tons from “Next Generation” technology. 

With about 2 billion metric tons of CO2 provided by natural sources and gas 

processing plants, the net economic demand for CO2 captured from power and 

industrial plants would be 18 billion metric tons (equal to 30 years of captured 

CO2 emissions from 93 GWs of coal-fired power). SOA technology would create 

"Next

Generation"

1. Miscible CO2-EOR

Lower-48 Onshore 55.7 104.4 24.3 60.3 8,940 17,230

Alaska 5.8 8.8 2.6 5.7 1,490 2,330

Offshore GOM - 6.0 - 0.9 - 260

Sub-Total 61.5 119.1 26.9 67.0 10,430 19,820

2. New Miscible CO2-EOR n/a 1.2 n/a 0.2 - 110

3. Residual Oil Zones n/a 16.3 n/a *** - ***

Total 61.5 136.6 26.9 67.2 10,430 19,930 JAF2011_030.XLS

***The economics of recovering oil from the residual oil zone were beyond study scope.

**At an oil price of $85 per barrel and a CO2 cost of $40 per metric ton with ROR at 20% before tax.

Economic

CO2 Demand/Storage**

 (Million Metric Tons )

SOA “Next 

Generation” SOA** “Next** Generation”

Basin/Area

*Includes 2.6 billion barrels already produced or placed into reserves with miscible CO2-EOR and 2,300 million metric tons of CO2 from natural 

sources and gas processing plants.

SOA**

Technically 

Recoverable Oil

(Billion Barrels)

Economically 

Recoverable Oil**

(Billion Barrels)

Table EX-3. Comparison of Technically and Economically Recoverable Domestic Oil and CO2

Storage Capacity from State of Art (SOA) and “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technology*
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

5 June 2011

a market demand for captured CO2 of only about 8 billion metric tons (equal to 30 

years of captured CO2 emissions from 43 GWs of coal-fired power).2

5. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technologies Are Realistic and Achievable 

with Focused Investments in R&D.

Before proceeding, it is useful to address the question - - just what constitutes “Next 

Generation” CO2 enhanced oil recovery and how would it benefit the U.S. economy and energy 

security? Briefly stated, “Next Generation” CO2-EOR incorporates four significant and, with

investments in R&D plus field pilots, realistically achievable advances in technology:

 Improvements in currently practiced miscible CO2-EOR technology,

 Advanced near miscible CO2-EOR technology,

 Application of CO2-EOR to residual oil zones (ROZs),

3,4,5

 Deployment of CO2-EOR in offshore oil fields.

and

Chapter IV of the report provides a more in-depth look at these four “Next Generation” 

CO2-EOR technologies. Chapter V of the report provides a more detailed explanation 

of the benefits of “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology. 

The remainder of the report provides context, relevant information and details to help 

the reader better understand CO2-EOR and its contribution toward improved domestic 

energy security and lower emissions of CO2.

 Chapter II of the report discusses today’s CO2-EOR activities as well as its future 

promise under “Next Generation” technology. 

 Chapter III of the report provides a case study of the evolution in CO2-EOR 

practices and performance in the Permian Basin.

 Chapter VI provides a “basin-oriented” look at the applicability of CO2-EOR in 

eleven U.S. basins and regions.

 Chapter VII provides an overview of the study methodology, which is more fully 

discussed in Appendix A.

 2 Assuming 85% capacity factor and 34% efficiency, a1GW power plant would generate 223 billion kWh of electricity in thirty 

years (1GW x 85% x 8.76 (conversion between GW and billion kWh/year) * 30 years). With a CO2 intensity of 0.94 million metric 

tons CO2/kWh (thermodynamic equivalency based on efficiency of power plant and emissions profile of average coal) and 90% 

capture, this power plant would supply 189 million metric tons of CO2 in 30 years, at 6.3 million metric tons per year.

3“Technical Oil Recovery Potential from Residual Oil Zones: Permian Basin”, prepared by Advanced Resources International, 

Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, October 2005.

4 “Technical Oil Recovery Potential from Residual Oil Zones: Big Horn Basin”, prepared by Advanced Resources International, 

Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, February 2006.

5 “Technical Oil Recovery Potential from Residual Oil Zones: Williston Basin”, prepared by Advanced Resources International, 

Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, February 2006.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

6 June 2011

* * * * *

This report represents a significant update of the “Next Generation” CO2-EOR 

technology first introduced in DOE/NETL Report -2009/135 “Storing CO2 and Producing 

Domestic Crude Oil with “Next Generation” CO2-EOR”. The following major changes 

have been made since the previous version:

 The economic and reservoir models employed in the analysis have been 

thoroughly vetted by industry experts and practitioners. Based on input from 

these stakeholders, Advanced Resources made adjustments to how CO2-floods 

are evaluated by the PROPHET2 model and how field and pattern economics 

are calculated in our cashflow models. 

 The current version of the report employs a significantly updated reservoir data

base, incorporating current data on many important reservoir datapoints, such as 

cumulative production, reserves and well counts, among others.

 The economic model in the current study incorporates an economic truncation 

function that limits the volumes of CO2 injection (and project life) using a marginal 

annual economic calculation.

 To better capture current economic conditions, we have employed new oil and 

CO2 prices. The “base case” economic scenario now uses an $85/Bbl oil price 

and a $40/metric ton CO2 market price. Additionally, CO2 market prices are now 

calculated as a percentage of oil price. To reflect historical practices, we model 

CO2 market prices at 2% to 3% of oil price (in terms of $/Mcf of CO2) in our 

sensitivity analysis section of the report.

 Finally, to recognize the higher risks of introducing an emerging technology, such 

as “Next Generation” CO2-EOR and its need to compete for capital with other 

domestic energy investments, the economics have been evaluated using a 20% 

return on investment, compared to a 15% return on investment in the previous 

study.

Advanced Resources is truly grateful for industry’s participation and input and has 

summarized the major recommendations we received and incorporated into this 

updated study in Appendix B.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

7 June 2011

II. THE CURRENT AND FUTURE PROMISE OF CO2-ENHANCED OIL 

RECOVERY 

A. The Current Status of CO2-EOR

CO2-based enhanced oil recovery, using State of Art (SOA) technology, is already being 

implemented, particularly in the oil fields of the Permian Basin of West Texas, the Gulf Coast 

and the Rockies. 

 CO2-EOR currently provides about 281,000 barrels of oil per day in the U.S.,6

 Today, the great bulk of the CO2 used for EOR comes from natural sources, such 

as McElmo Dome in New Mexico and Jackson Dome in Mississippi. These 

natural sources are supplemented by modest, but growing sources of 

anthropogenic CO2 (Table II-1). 

equal to 6% of U.S. crude oil production (Figure II-1). CO2-EOR has been 

underway for several decades, starting initially in the Permian Basin and 

expanding today to 114 CO2-EOR projects currently installed in numerous 

regions of the country (Figure II-2). 

 A robust network of pipelines transport CO2 from natural CO2 deposits and gas 

processing plants to the Denver City Hub (Figure II-3). Still, the number one 

barrier to reaching higher levels of CO2-EOR production is lack of access to 

adequate supplies of affordable CO2.

 As shown in Table II-1, the largest single source of anthropogenic CO2 used for 

EOR is the capture of 340 MMcfd (6.6 MMmt/yr) of CO2 from the gas processing 

plant at La Barge in Western Wyoming. This is followed by the “poster child” for 

integrating large-scale CO2-EOR with CCS - - the capture of 150 MMcfd 

(~3MMmt/yr) of CO2 from the Northern Great Plains Gasification plant in Beulah, 

North Dakota and its transport, via a 200 mile cross-border CO2 pipeline, to the 

two EOR projects at the Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan, Canada. 

New CO2 pipelines and refurbished gas treating plants have recently been placed online (Figure II-2).

7

 These include Denbury’s 320 mile Green Pipeline along the Gulf 

Coast, and Occidental Petroleum’s new $850 million Century natural gas/CO2

processing plant and pipeline facilities in West Texas. The proposed Denbury (Encore) 

pipeline (linked to the Lost Cabin gas plant in Wyoming) is proposed to come on line as 

of late 2012. These new facilities will significantly expand the availability and use of 

CO2 in domestic oil fields, leading to increased oil production from CO2-EOR. For 

example, Occidental Petroleum expects the installation of the Century CO2 plant to 

expand its Permian Basin oil production by 50,000 barrels per day within 5 years.8

 6 Oil and Gas Journal EOR Survey, April 2010.

7 Various industry presentations and publications.

8 Occidental Petroleum Investor Presentation, October, 2010.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

8 June 2011

Figure II-1. Growth CO2-EOR Production in the U.S.

Figure II-2. Current U.S. CO2-EOR Activity

Source: Advanced Resources Int’l., based on Oil and Gas Journal, 2010.

JAF028215.PPT Incremental Oil Recovery (barrels/day)

LaBarge

Gas Plant

Val Verde

Gas Plants

Enid Fertilizer Plant

Jackson

Dome

McElmo Dome

Sheep Mountain

Bravo Dome

11

8

16

68

6

Dakota Coal

Gasification

Plant

Antrim Gas

Plant

2

1

1

 Currently, 114 CO2-EOR 

projects provide 281,000 B/D. 

 New CO2 pipelines - - the 320 

mile Green Pipeline, the 226 

mile Encore Pipeline and the 

Century CO2 Plant - - are 

expanding the use of CO2-

EOR.

1

Source: Advanced Resources International, Inc., based on Oil and Gas Journal, 2010 and other sources.

Number of CO2-EOR 

Projects

Natural CO2 Source

Industrial CO2 Source

Existing CO2 Pipeline

CO2 Pipeline Under 

Development

114

Encore Pipeline

Denbury/Green Pipeline

JAF028247.PPT

Lost Cabin Gas Plant

Century CO2 Plant
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

9 June 2011

Figure II-3. Existing CO2 Pipelines (Permian Basin)

* Additional CO2 supplies are anticipated in 2012 from the Lost Cabin gas processing plant in Wyoming (50 to 60 MMcfd) and 

from Train II of the Century gas processing plant in West Texas (180 MMcfd).

**MMcfd of CO2 can be converted to million metric tons per year by first multiplying by 365 (days per year) and then dividing 

by 18.9 Mcf per metric ton.

Source: Advanced Resources Int’l (2011).

JAF028283.PPT

JAF028238.PPT

Location of

EOR / CO2 Storage Natural Anthropogenic

Texas-Utah-New MexicoOklahoma Natural CO2 (Colorado-New Mexico)

New Mexico-Oklahoma Gas Processing Plants (W. Texas)

Colorado-Wyoming Gas Processing Plants (Wyoming) - 340

Mississippi/Louisiana Natural CO2 (Mississippi) 1,100 -

Michigan Ammonia Plant (Michigan) - 15

Oklahoma Fertilizer Plant (Oklahoma) - 30

Saskatchewan Coal Gasification Plant (North Dakota) - 150

TOTAL (MMcfd) 2,830 870

TOTAL (million mt/yr)** 55 17JAF2011_030.XLS

CO2 Sources by Type and Location

CO2 Supply (MMcfd)*

1,730 335

Table II-1. Significant Volumes of Anthropogenic CO2 Are Already Being Injected for EOR
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

10 June 2011

B. The Future Promise of CO2-EOR

1. Oil Recovery and CO2 Storage: Traditional (“Main”) Pay Zone of Oil Fields.

The assessments of oil recovery and CO2 storage capacity set forth in this report have been 

based on a database of over 6,300 domestic oil reservoirs, accounting for three-quarters of U.S. 

oil resources. The study identified 1,858 large oil reservoirs with 366 billion barrels of original oil 

in-place (487 billion barrels of original oil in-place when extrapolated to national totals) as 

favorable for CO2-EOR. 

These large oil reservoirs were modeled for CO2–based enhanced oil recovery using ARI’s 

adaptation of the streamline reservoir simulator PROPHET2. The amount of CO2 storage 

capacity offered by oil fields favorable for CO2-EOR was then evaluated using “Next Generation” 

CO2-EOR technology and economics. 

The study established two oil recovery and CO2 storage categories -- “Technical Potential” 

(without consideration of prices and costs) and “Economic Potential” (the volume of oil the 

industry could produce and the volume of CO2 industry could buy (and store) at a specified oil 

price and CO2 market price).

As shown in Figure II-4, the volume of technically recoverable oil using “Next Generation” CO2-

EOR is 136.6 billion barrels. The CO2 volume associated with this technically recoverable oil is 

45.4 billion metric tons. 

The volume of economically recoverable oil (at an oil price of $85/B, CO2 costs of $40/Mt and a 

20% before tax financial return) is 67.2 billion barrels. 

The CO2 demand associated with this economically recoverable oil is 19.9 billion metric tons. 

Approximately 2.3 billion metric tons of CO2 demand for CO2-EOR is expected to be provided 

from natural gas processing plants and natural sources of CO2, providing a demand of 17.6 

billion metric tons from CO2 emissions captured by electric power and other industrial plants.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

11 June 2011

Figure II-4. Domestic Oil Supplies and CO2 Demand (Storage) Volumes from “Next Generation” 

CO2-EOR Technology**

2. Oil Recovery and CO2 Storage: Residual Oil Zone (“ROZ”)

No discussion of “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology would be complete without at least a 

preliminary treatment of the major volumes of additional oil that exist in the residual oil zone 

(ROZ).

Our estimated oil recovery potential from using CO2-EOR in the ROZ, below 56 large, existing 

Permian Basin oil fields, is 11.9 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. This provides CO2

storage capacity of 4.8 billion metric tons.3

 Additional technically recoverable ROZ oil 

resources, equal to 4.4 billion barrels and providing 1.7 billion metric tons of CO2 storage 

capacity, exist underneath 13 oil fields in the Big Horn4 and underneath 20 oil fields in the 

Williston5 basins.

The scope of work for this study did not include providing an economically recoverable 

assessment of conducting CO2-EOR in residual oil zones (ROZs). Billion Barrels of Recoverable Oil

0

50

75

100

125

CO2

Demand**

Oil

Recovery

25

150

137

45

CO2

Demand**

Oil

Recovery

67

20

Technically Recoverable Economically Recoverable*

JAF028247.PPT

Source: Advanced Resources Int’l (2011).

*At an oil price of $85/B, a CO2 market price of $40/mt and a 20% ROR, before tax.

**Includes 2,300 million metric tons of CO2 provided from natural sources and 2.6 billion barrels already produced or being 

developed with miscible CO2-EOR.

Billion Tons of CO2 Storage

0

20

30

40

50

10

60
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

12 June 2011

C. CO2 Market Demand and CO2 Storage from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR 

Technology: Base Case Oil Price and CO2 Costs

The technical CO2 demand associated with “Next Generation” CO2-EOR is 45.4 billion metric 

tons. The economic demand (and subsequent storage) for CO2 with “Next Generation” CO2-

EOR is 19.9 billion metric tons, with about 2.3 billion metric tons of CO2 provided by natural 

sources and existing natural gas processing plants. 

However, large numbers such as billions of tons of CO2 demand and storage capacity are 

different to grasp and thus often of limited value.

An alternative way to illustrate the CO2 demand and storage capacity offered by “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR is to use the metric of the number of one-GW size power plants that 

could rely on CO2-EOR for purchasing and storing their captured CO2, Figure II-5: 

 After subtracting out the 2.3 billion metric tons of CO2 supply currently available, 

CO2-EOR still offers sufficient technical storage capacity for all of the

anthropogenic CO2 captured from 228 one-GW size coal-fired power plants for 

30 years of operation. 

 Similarly, the volume of economic demand (and storage capacity) for

anthropogenic CO2 offered by CO2-EOR, is substantial, equal to 93 one-GW size 

coal-fired power plants, after subtracting out the CO2 supplies available from 

natural sources and natural gas processing plants.

Figure II-5. Volumes of Anthropogenic CO2 Storage Capacity Available from “Next Generation” 

CO2-EOR Technology

Number of 1 GW Size Coal-Fired Power Plants*

0

200

300

100

240

105

Technical Demand/Storage Capacity Economic Demand/Storage Capacity**

*Assuming 7 MMmt/yr of CO2 emissions, 90% capture and 30 years of operations per 1 GW of generating capacity.

**At an oil price of $85/B, a CO2 market price of $40/mt and a 20% ROR, before.

JAF028247.PPT

Source: Advanced Resources Int’l (2011).

Total CO2 Anthropogenic CO2 Total CO2 Anthropogenic CO2

228

93
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

13 June 2011

D. Impacts of Alternative Oil Prices and CO2 Market Prices on CO2-EOR

Volumes and CO2 Demand/Storage

The study undertook a series of sensitivity studies to gain insights on how alternative (higher 

and lower) oil prices and alternative (higher and lower) CO2 market prices would impact results. 

Using historical +30% bounds for future oil prices and historical ratios that relate CO2 market 

prices to oil prices, the following nine cell price sensitivity matrix was constructed, Table II-2:

Oil Price CO2 Market Price (% of oil price, in $/Mcf)

($/B) Low: 2% Base: 2.5% High: 3%

($/Mcf) ($/Mt) ($/Mcf) ($/Mt) ($/Mcf) ($/Mt)

Low: $60 1.20 23 1.50 28 1.80 34

Base: $85 1.70 32 2.12 40 2.55 48

High: $110 2.20 42 2.75 52 3.30 62

The sensitivity study shows that the volumes of economic oil production and CO2 demand (and 

storage) from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR are highly sensitive to oil and CO2 market prices, as 

shown on Tables II-3 and II-4 below:

Oil Price CO2 Market Price (% oil price, $/Mcf)

($/B) Low: 2% Base: 2.5% High: 3%

Low: $60 60.4 59.1 56.6

Base: $85 69.1 67.2 65.8

High: $110 73.5 72.1 70.7

*Includes 2.6 billion barrels of oil already produced or placed in reserves with miscible CO2-EOR.

Oil Price CO2 Market Price (% oil price, $/Mcf)

($/B) Low: 2% Base: 2.5% High: 3%

Low: $60 17.7 17.1 16.0

Base: $85 20.7 19.9 19.3

High: $110 22.3 21.7 21.0

*Includes 2,300 million metric tons of CO2 from natural sources and natural gas processing plants.

Table II-2. Oil and CO2 Prices Used in Sensitivity Analysis 

Table II-3. Sensitivity Analysis of Oil Recovery (Billion Barrels): National Totals*

Table II-4. Sensitivity Analysis of CO2 Demand (Billion Metric Tons): National Totals*
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

14 June 2011

 The high oil price ($110/B) and low CO2 market price (2%) case adds about 6.3

billion barrels of oil recovery and 2.4 billion metric tons of CO2 demand (and 

storage) compared to the Base Case (national totals).

High Oil/Low CO2 Base Case

Oil Recovery (B bbls) 73.5 67.2

CO2 Demand/Storage (B mt)* 22.3 19.9

*Includes 2,300 million metric tons of CO2 from natural sources and natural gas processing plants and 2.6 

billion barrels of oil already produced or being developed with miscible CO2-EOR.

 At a low oil price ($60/B) and high a CO2 market price (3%), the “Next 

Generation” CO2–EOR oil recovery is 10.5 billion barrels less and the CO2

storage potential is 3.9 billion metric tons lower compared to the Base Case 

(national totals):

Low Oil/High CO2 Base Case

Oil Recovery (B bbls) 56.6 67.2

CO2 Demand/Storage (B mt)* 16.0 19.9

*Includes 2,300 million metric tons of CO2 from natural sources and natural gas processing plants and 2.6 

billion barrels of oil already produced or being developed with miscible CO2-EOR.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

15 June 2011

III. THE PERMIAN BASIN CO2-EOR CASE STUDY

The purpose of the Permian Basin CO2-EOR Case Study is to provide the reader basic 

information, historical context and benchmarks by which to independently assess the realism of 

the projections for current “State of Art” and tomorrow’s “Next Generation” CO2 enhanced oil 

recovery as set forth in this study and report. As such, this Chapter addresses the following 

three questions:

1. What is the outlook for CO2-EOR in the Permian Basin?

2. What does a successful CO2-EOR project look like?

3. How closely do the results of this “Next Generation” CO2-EOR study, match the 

key industry-used “benchmarks” for CO2-EOR performance of: (a) oil recovery 

efficiency; (b) the net CO2/oil ratio; and (c) costs and economic viability?

A. Outlook for CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery in the Permian Basin

CO2 enhanced oil recovery is underway in 56 Permian Basin oil fields, ranging from the fieldwide CO2 flood in the giant Wasson (San Andres) oil field to the small, 160 acre pilot CO2 flood 

at Dollarhide (Clearfork). These 56 EOR projects produced about 200,000 barrels per day of 

incremental oil production during 2010, with five large CO2-EOR projects accounting for the bulk 

of this production (Table III-1):

Incremental

Primary Total Field CO2-EOR

Operator Production Production **

(B/D) (B/D)

Wasson* Occidental 51,100 44,600

Kelly Snider KinderMorgan 29,600 26,500

Seminole Hess 16,500 16,500

Slaughter** Occidental 18,800 11,200

Means ExxonMobil 10,000 8,700

Total 126,000 107,500

Source: Oil and Gas Journal, April 2010. JAF2011_030.XLS

*Combined production from six Wasson units.

**Combined production from nine Slaughter units.

It is notable that for these five giant oil fields, CO2-EOR accounts for 85% of the total oil 

currently produced from the portions of the field under a CO2-EOR flood. For example, without 

CO2-EOR, the giant Wasson oil field, currently providing 51,100 barrels of oil per day, would

only produce 6,500 barrels of oil per day.

Table III-1. Oil Production from Major Permian Basin Fields Under CO2-EOR (2010)
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

16 June 2011

Permian Basin oil production from CO2-EOR has grown steadily for the past ten years. 

Recently, the rate of growth has been constrained by lack of CO2 supplies. However, steps are 

underway that could, at least in part, help overcome the CO2 supply constraint. For example:

 Kinder Morgan has recently expanded the CO2 transportation capacity of its 

Cortez pipeline by 200 MMcfd and increased the production capacity of its SW 

Colorado natural CO2 fields (Doe Canyon and McElmo Dome) by 300 MMcfd. It 

has plans to further increase its CO2 production and Cortez pipeline capacity by 

an additional 200 MMcfd in 2011.

 OxyPermian is investing $850 million in the Century natural gas/CO2 processing 

plant and associated pipeline facilities. Train I, with CO2 capacity of 260 MMcfd, 

is due on line at the end of 2010. Train II, with CO2 capacity of 180 MMcfd, is 

come on line in early 2012. The CO2 will be used by Oxy to accelerate and 

enhance the development of its Permian Basin CO2-EOR projects. This 

investment will capture 3.5 Tcf (180 million metric tons) of CO2 for EOR and will 

enable Oxy to expand its Permian oil production by at least 50,000 barrels per 

day by 20159

 Numerous planned advanced coal-based power plants equipped with CO2

capture, such as Summit’s Texas Clean Energy IGCC Project, are being located 

in West Texas, looking to sell their captured CO2 to the CO2-EOR industry.

.

While still constrained by lack of sufficient volumes of CO2, a number of new CO2-EOR projects 

are being started or expanded:

 Kinder Morgan is planning a CO2-EOR flood for the Katz (Strawn) oil field, 

looking to recover 24 million incremental barrels from the 150 million barrels of 

OOIP in-place in this field. By extending their SACROC CO2 pipeline, Kinder 

Morgan is expecting to access an additional 100 million barrels of oil recovery 

from initiating CO2 floods in the numerous other oil fields along the pipeline route 

to the Katz field area.

 OxyPermian has announced plans to initiate new CO2-EOR floods at North 

Dollarhide (Clearfork) and SW Levelland Unit (San Andres) in 2010 and 2011.

 The most exciting news in the Permian Basin is the steady expansion of CO2

floods in the residual oil zone (ROZ) below and beyond existing oil fields. Of 

particular interest are the commercial-scale (2,380 acre, 29 pattern Stage 1) ROZ 

flood underway by Hess at Seminole and the joint DOE/NETL and Legado ROZ 

field research pilot at Goldsmith.

 9 Investor presentation, October, 2010
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

17 June 2011

B. A Successful CO2-EOR Project in the Permian Basin

CO2 injection into the Denver Unit of the giant Wasson (San Andres) oil field began in 1985, 

helping arrest the steep drop in oil production. Before the start of CO2-EOR, oil production had 

declined from about 90,000 B/D to 40,000 B/D in 10 years. After the initiation of the CO2 flood, 

oil production increased to about 50,000 B/D. Today, twenty four years after the start of the 

flood, the Denver Unit still produces at 30,000 B/D (Figure III-1).

At the completion of the CO2 flood, Oxy expects the Denver Unit to recover nearly 67% of the 

approximately 2 billion barrels of original oil in-place, with CO2-EOR providing 19.4% on top of 

an already high 47.3% recovery efficiency achieved in the Denver Unit from primary recovery

and the waterflood (Table III-2).

To a significant degree, it appears that OxyPermian has been applying many of the initial 

features of “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology at the Denver Unit, including increasing the 

volumes of CO2 injected, working to improve reservoir sweep efficiency, and conducting 

rigorous reservoir surveillance.

Figure III-1. CO2-EOR Results at the Denver Unit of the Wasson Oil Field
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

18 June 2011

Recovery Method Oil Recovery Efficiency (%OOIP)

• Primary 17.2%

• Waterflood 30.1%

• CO2 Flood 19.5%

Total Oil Recovery 66.8%

Figure III-2 compares the oil recovery performance of typical Permian San Andres Formation 

CO2 floods with the CO2 flood performance at the Denver Unit of the Wasson oil field, based on 

information from OxyPermian. As shown in Figure IV-2, the Wasson Denver Unit CO2 flood has 

an expected oil recovery efficiency of 19.5% from the CO2 flood, compared to an expected 15% 

recovery efficiency from a typical Permian Basin CO2 flood. The extra 4.5% of recovery 

efficiency at the Wasson Denver Unit is equal to 90 million barrels of oil and an additional $7.6 

billion dollars of revenue (at an oil price of $85 per barrel), demonstrating the value of pursuing 

advances in CO2-EOR technology.

Figure III-2. Oil Recovery Performance From Permian Basin San Andres Formation

Table III-2. Oil Recovery Efficiency at the Denver Unit of the Wasson Oil Field
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

19 June 2011

C. Applying Industry Benchmarks

1. OxyPermian’s Expectations for Oil Recovery Efficiency

A most useful outlook on expected CO2-EOR recovery efficiency is provided in the 

recent analyst presentations by Occidental Petroleum for its Permian Basin EOR 

opportunities.10

 Oxy’s Permian oil properties have 11.9 billion barrels (net) of original oil in-place. Of 

this, 4.1 billion barrels (net) have been produced, with an estimated 0.6 billion 

barrels of this from past application of CO2-EOR at Oxy’s large oil fields such as 

Wasson (Denver Unit) (Figure III-3).

 For perspective, Occidental is the largest onshore/Lower 48 oil 

producer and also the largest operator of CO2-EOR projects in the Permian Basin.

Figure III-3. Occidental Petroleum’s Permian Basin EOR Opportunities

 Of the 7.8 billion barrels (net) remaining, Oxy expects to recover 2.4 billion barrels 

from applying CO2 enhanced oil recovery, with 1.4 billion barrels as likely and 1.0 

billion barrels as potential (Figure III-3).

 Overall, Oxy has expectations for recovering 3 billion of the 11.9 billion barrels of 

original oil in-place (net) from applying CO2-EOR in the Permian Basin. This is equal 

to an ultimate recovery efficiency for CO2-EOR of over 25% of OOIP. Oxy’s 

expectations for CO2-EOR performance in the Permian Basin are consistent with the 

oil recovery efficiencies from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology determined by 

this study.

 10 Investor presentation, October, 2010.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

20 June 2011

2. CO2 “Slug Size” and the Net CO2/Oil Ratio

In the past, operators used small-volume injections of CO2 (0.4 to 0.5 hydrocarbon pore 

volume (HCPV)) to maximize profitability. With higher oil prices, CO2-EOR economics 

favor using considerably higher volumes of CO2. The evolution toward using higher 

volumes of CO2 is illustrated by Oxy’s experience at the Eastern Denver Unit of the 

Wasson oil field (Figure III-4).

Figure III-4. Evolution of “Industry Standard” for Volume of CO2 Injection (“Slug Size”)

These increased CO2 volumes need to be managed and controlled to assure that the

injected CO2 contacts additional residual oil rather than merely re-circulates through 

already contacted portions of the reservoir. One of the purposes of “Next Generation” 

reservoir feedback, diagnostics and control (“surveillance”) is to better manage the 

productive use of injected CO2.

Based on using larger volumes of CO2 injection and reservoir surveillance, OxyPermian 

anticipates a net CO2 requirement of 5 Tcf for producing its next billion barrels of oil with 

CO2-EOR from the Permian Basin (Table III-3).

Net 3P Reserves

(MMBOE)

Net CO2 Required

(Tcf)

• Developed 570 2.8

• Undeveloped 430 2.2

Total 1,000 5.0

Source: OxyPermian

Source: OXY Permian 2006

EDU 80% to 100% HCPV CO 2001 2 slug size increase approved

EDU 60% to 80% HCPV CO 1996 2 slug size increase approved

EDU 40% to 60% HCPV CO 1994 2 slug size increase approved

Non performing FIA patterns stopped (~20% HCPV CO 1992 2 slug size)

EDU WAG & start off CO 1989 2 injection in WAC, FIA, B8 FIA

Start of CO 1984 2 injection in EDU with 40% HCPV CO2 slug size

Eastern Denver Unit (Wasson Oil Field) CO Started 2-EOR Project

Source: OXY Permian 2006

EDU 80% to 100% HCPV CO 2001 2 slug size increase approved

EDU 60% to 80% HCPV CO 1996 2 slug size increase approved

EDU 40% to 60% HCPV CO 1994 2 slug size increase approved

Non performing FIA patterns stopped (~20% HCPV CO 1992 2 slug size)

EDU WAG & start off CO 1989 2 injection in WAC, FIA, B8 FIA

Start of CO 1984 2 injection in EDU with 40% HCPV CO2 slug size

Eastern Denver Unit (Wasson Oil Field) CO Started 2-EOR Project

JAF028238.PPT

Table III-3. Permian Reserves and CO2 Requirements – “The Next Billion Barrels”
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

21 June 2011

OxyPermian’s expectations of a net 5 Mcf/BO as their future CO2/oil ratio for their 

Permian Basin oil properties is consistent with our projected CO2/oil ratio performance 

for “Next Generation” CO2-EOR in the Permian Basin.

Of additional interest is a supporting set of analyses on the relationship of volumes of 

CO2 injection and enhanced oil recovery as provided by Marchant (2010) in the SPE 

paper “Life Beyond 80 – A Look at Conventional WAG Recovery Beyond 80% HCPV 

Injection in CO2 Tertiary Floods.”11

Size of CO2 Slug

His statement -- “Tertiary oil recovery under CO2

injection is a function of the total amount of CO2 injected” -- is supported by the 

following analysis in his paper, summarized on Table III-4.

Oil Recovery from CO2-EOR

(HCPV) (% OOIP)

50% 15%

100% 21%

190% 26%

3. Costs and Economic Viability

With recent higher oil prices, currently ranging from $75 to over $100 per barrel, and the 

rigorous pursuit of cost-efficiencies, the economics of CO2-EOR have improved 

markedly. 

Based on publicly presented information and using an oil price of $75 per barrel, 

Occidental Petroleum expects its Permian Basin CO2-EOR projects to provide a net 

cash margin of over $38 per barrel, after subtraction of royalties, operating costs, CO2

purchase and amortized capital (Figure III-5). At $100 per barrel and including more 

current information on costs, Occidental Petroleum expects a net cash margin of about 

$56 per barrel (Figure III-6).

Even with the costs of conducting pilot floods and the delay between investment of 

capital and the production of oil typical of a CO2-EOR project, this cost analysis 

indicates that the CO2-EOR projects in the Permian Basin can provide very favorable 

economics.

 11 Merchant, D.H., “Life Beyond 80 – A Look at Conventional WAG Recovery Beyond 80% HCPV Injection in CO2 Tertiary 

Floods”, SPE 139516, for presentation at the SPE International Conference on CO2 Capture, Storage and Utilization, New 

Orleans, LA, 10-12 November 2010.

Table III-4. Relationship of Oil Recovery to CO2 Injection Volumes
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

22 June 2011

Figure III-5. Typical Permian Basin CO2-EOR Project Cost Structure (Occidental Petroleum)

Figure III-6. Updated Typical Permian Basin CO2-EOR Project Cost Structure 

(Occidental Petroleum)

*$100/Bbl Marker Price

Source: Occidental Petroleum Corporation, May 2011

JAF028238.PPT
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

23 June 2011

IV. “NEXT GENERATION” CO2-EOR TECHNOLOGIES

As set forth in the Executive Summary, “Next Generation” CO2-EOR consists of four 

realistically achievable advanced technologies:

1. Improvements in currently practiced CO2-EOR technology,

2. Advanced near miscible CO2-EOR technology,

3. Application of CO2-EOR to residual oil zones (ROZs), and

4. Deployment of CO2-EOR in offshore oil fields.

Each of these “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technologies is further discussed in the 

sections below.

A. Improvements in Currently Practiced CO2-EOR Technology.

The improved version of CO2-EOR technology envisioned under “Next Generation” 

would address five of the opportunities for improving the performance of currently 

practiced State of Art (SOA) CO2-EOR technology, namely:

 Increasing the volume of CO2 injected,

 Capturing more of the remaining mobile and immobile oil,

 Improving sweep efficiency and mobility control (reservoir conformance),

 Improving the technology of reservoir surveillance, and

 Lowering the threshold minimum miscibility pressure (MMP).

To examine the impact on oil recovery and CO2 storage of these improvements to currently 

practiced CO2-EOR technology, we selected an “example” San Andres oil reservoir in the 

Permian Basin, with reservoir properties and past oil recovery performance shown in Table IV-1.

Reservoir Properties Oil Resource and Recovery Data

Depth 4,200 ft Original Oil In-Place 930 MMBbls

Net Pay 220 ft Ultimate P/S Rec. 325 MMBls

Porosity 9.40% Recovery Efficiency 35%

Initial Oil Saturation 0.77 Swept Zone Sor 0.32

Initial FVF 1.17 Current FVF 1.07

Initial Pressure 1,800 psi P/S Sweep Efficiency 64%

Temperature 99o F “Unswept” Zone Sor 0.59

Oil Gravity 35o API Min. Miscibility Pressure 1,300 psi

Oil Viscosity 3.5 cp Dykstra-Parsons 0.78

Table IV-1. Example Permian Basin San Andres Formation Oil Reservoir
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

24 June 2011

The “example” oil reservoir is large, with 930 million barrels of original oil in-place (OOIP). The 

reservoir is near-depleted, with over 90% of its 325 million barrels of ultimate primary/secondary 

recovery already produced. The oil recovery efficiency for this “example” San Andres Formation 

light oil (35o API) reservoir is 35% of OOIP. However, this still leaves a most attractive 

“stranded” oil target of over 600 million barrels still in-place. 

Even with an oil viscosity of 3.5 cp and a Dykstra-Parsons heterogeneity co-efficient of 0.78, the 

waterflood sweep efficiency of this “example” oil reservoir is good at 64%. While the oil 

saturation in the swept zone of the reservoir has been reduced to 32%, additional mobile oil 

remains in its poorly swept zones.

With significant “stranded” (residual) oil and a minimum miscibility pressure of 1,300 psi, 

compared to an initial reservoir pressure of 1,800 psi, this “example” San Andres oil reservoir is 

an attractive candidate for miscible CO2 enhanced oil recovery.

1. Applying State of Art (SOA) CO2-EOR

As the starting point for the analysis, we modeled the “example” San Andres oil 

reservoir using PROPHET2 under “State of Art” (SOA) CO2-EOR technology.

In the “State of Art” case, using 1 HCPV of CO2 injection and a tapered WAG, the anticipated 

technical oil recovery for this “example” oil reservoir is 148 million barrels, produced from 174, 

forty acre inverted 5-spot patterns.

 Overall technical oil recovery efficiency in the SOA case is 15.9% of OOIP, 

representative of a geologically favorable San Andres oil reservoir developed with 

current CO2-EOR practices.

 The net (purchased) CO2 to oil ratio is 7.6 Mcf of CO2 per barrel of technically 

recovered oil (Mcf/BO), with a gross CO2 to oil ratio of 15.7 Mcf/BO. This is 

reasonably representative of a somewhat higher viscosity (3.5 cp) and moderately 

heterogeneous (DP = 0.78) San Andres oil reservoir under a CO2 flood.

 It is useful to note that in the SOA case, this “example” San Andres oil reservoir just 

barely achieves its minimum rate of return (ROR) hurdle rate of 20%, before tax, at 

an oil price of $85 per barrel and a CO2 market price of $40 per metric ton ($2.11 per 

Mcf of CO2). The reason is that the investment payback period is long, at 7 years.

 In addition, because ARI’s economic model features an economic truncation feature 

that stops a project once annual costs exceed annual revenues, approximately 6

million barrels of the technically recoverable oil remains unproduced. This economic 

truncation reduces economic (actual) oil recovery efficiency to 15.3% and increasing 

the net CO2/oil ratio to 7.9 Mcf/BO.

In the sections below, we will examine the impact on technical and economic oil 

recovery and CO2 demand (storage) of applying the various “Next Generation” CO2-

EOR technologies, to this “example” oil reservoir first individually and then in 

combination. 
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

25 June 2011

2. Assessing Impacts of “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technology

Each of the “Next Generation” technologies has been formulated to address one or 

more of the major problems impeding the more efficient performance of today’s “State 

of Art” (SOA) CO2-EOR technology.

 The first problem is less than optimum reservoir contact by CO2 due to inadequate 

volumes of injected CO2. “Next Generation” technology involves injecting greater 

quantities of CO2, up to 1.5 HCPV.

 The second problem is poor reservoir sweep efficiency due to a high fluid mobility 

ratio, particularly in cases when the viscosity of the CO2 and water is considerably 

less than the viscosity of the reservoir oil. “Next Generation” technology involves 

improving the mobility ratio by increasing the viscosity of the displacing water in the 

WAG process to 2 cp.

 The third problem is inefficient reservoir contact and low sweep efficiency (poor 

reservoir conformance) due to high geologic complexity and reservoir heterogeneity. 

“Next Generation” technology involves improving reservoir contact by drilling an 

additional CO2 injection well to target the mobile oil “stranded” in the reservoir.

Supporting the application of each of the three specific “Next Generation” technologies 

is the use of rigorous reservoir surveillance (reservoir feedback, diagnostics and 

control). Without rigorous reservoir surveillance, the benefits of applying these three 

“Next Generation” CO2-EOR technologies would be much less. 

(a). Increasing the Volume of CO2 Injected. The first “Next Generation” 

technology option involves the increasing CO2 injection volumes to 1.5 HCPV. Higher 

HCPVs of injected CO2 enable more of the reservoir’s residual oil to be contacted by the 

injected CO2. However, higher volumes of CO2 injection can also lead to longer overall 

project length and higher gross CO2 to oil ratios. Because oil reservoirs with already 

high sweep efficiency may not gain sufficient benefits in relation to costs, the economic 

truncation algorithm within ARI’s CO2-EOR economic model limits the volume of CO2

that is injected. This truncation algorithm works as a function of oil price and CO2 costs. 

Reservoir engineering theory and analyses argue that increasing the volume of CO2

injected (VpD), from 1.0 HCPV to 1.5 HCPV, should improve the areal sweep efficiency 

(EA) from about 73% to about 82% for a 4.4 mobility ratio (M) situation, as shown by the 

type curves prepared by Claridge (1972) (Figure IV-1). This is equal to an increase in 

areal sweep efficiency of about 12%.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

26 June 2011

Figure IV-1. Areal Sweep Efficiency in Miscible CO2 Flooding as a Function of HCPV CO2

By increasing the volume of CO2 injected from 1.0 HCPV to 1.5 HCPV, the PROPHET2

model shows an increase in oil recovery efficiency of 20 million barrels for the “example” 

oil reservoir. This provides an increase of about 14% (168 MMB/148 MMB) in oil 

recovery over the SOA (1.0 HCPV) case. Technical oil recovery efficiency increases 

from 15.9% of OOIP with 1 HCPV of CO2 injection to 18.1% of OOIP with 1.5 HCPV of 

CO2 injection, Table IV-2. Advanced reservoir surveillance is essential to ensure that 

the increased volumes of injected CO2 contact more of the reservoir and does not 

merely circulate through already swept reservoir intervals.

Interestingly, the economic benefits of injecting a higher HCPV of CO2 are realized only 

with an ability to increase the CO2 injection rate, enabling the 1.5 HCPV of CO2 injection 

to be performed over the same time period as injecting the 1.0 HCPV of CO2. With 1.5 

HCPV of CO2 and a 50% higher CO2 injection rate, the project achieves a 29.2% ROR 

compared to 21.5% ROR in the SOA (1.0 HCPV, regular rate) case. 

Source: Claridge, E.L., “Prediction of Recovery in Unstable Miscible Displacement”, 

(J)SPE 12(2) 143-155 (April 1972).

Note: VpD is hydrocarbon pore volumes of injected CO2. 

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 5001000

5.0

2.0

3.0

1.0

V pD

0.1

0.2

1.5

0.6

Sweep

Efficien

cy,EA

Mobility Ratio, M

JAF028238.PPT
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

27 June 2011

Table IV-2. Oil Recovery and Economic Impact of Increasing the Volume of CO2 Injected

CO2 Injection Volumes Technical Oil Recovery Project ROR

(HCPV/Injection Rate) (MMBbls) (% OOIP) (Before Tax)

1.00/Regular Rate 148 15.9 21.5%

1.5/Regular Rate 168 18.1 20.6%

1.5/Higher Rate 168 18.1 29.2%

(b). Capturing More of the Remaining Mobile and Immobile Oil. It may be 

possible with optimized well design and placement to contact more of the remaining 

mobile oil (as well as more efficiently contact the swept zone residual oil) in a reservoir 

than continuing to use the existing waterflood pattern and well placement design. 

The options for installing a modified CO2 flood and well placement design include: (1) 

isolating the previously poorly-swept reservoir intervals (with higher residual oil) for 

targeted CO2 injection; (2) drilling horizontal injection wells to target lower permeability 

reservoir intervals; (3) modifying the well pattern alignment; (4) using physical (or 

chemical) means for diverting CO2 into previously poorly-contacted portions of the 

reservoir; and (5) drilling the reservoir at closer well spacing.

For the “example” oil reservoir in the “Next Generation” case, we added one new 

vertical CO2 injection well to each pattern to target the previously poorly contacted 

portions of the reservoir, as shown in Figure IV-2.

Figure IV-2. Using Modified Pattern and Well Placement Design to Capture Mobil Oil

Source: Adapted by Advanced Resources Int’l from “Enhanced Oil Recovery”, 

D.W. Green and G. P. Willhite, SPE, 1998.

The low permeability, higher oil saturation portion of the 

reservoir is often inefficiently swept by the original waterflood.

Drilling a second CO2 injection well to flood low 

permeability Layer #1 (1/2 of 5 spot pattern).

478 Days

(Breakthrough 

in Layer #2)

0 100 200 300

Distance, ft

Layer #1

Layer #2

Layer #1 (k = 2 md; Sor = 0.60*)

Layer #2 (k = 10 md; Sor = 0.32*)

1839 Days

(CO2 channeling 

in Layer #2)

Layer #1

Layer #2

Well

P1

Well

P2

Original

Well

I1

New

Well

I2

JAF028238.PPT
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

28 June 2011

To properly model the addition of a second injection well in each pattern, the reservoir is 

split into “fully swept” and “partially swept” zones. Adding a CO2 injection well and 

modifying the flow pattern of the reservoir to contact the mobile oil left after the 

waterflood improves oil recovery by 5.1 % for the “example” oil reservoir. This improves 

technical oil recovery efficiency to 21% in the “modified pattern and well placement” 

case versus 15.9% in the SOA case. Adding a second CO2 injection well also enables 

the project to increase CO2 injectivity in a pattern area by 50%. Advanced reservoir

surveillance is a key enabling technology for implementing changes in patterns and well 

placement designs for targeting left behind mobile oil.

While the drilling of the new CO2 injection well adds $1.2 million of CAPEX per pattern 

for the “example” oil reservoir and increase O&M costs, the overall economics are 

significantly improved. The recovery of the additional 47 million barrels of oil and its 

earlier production (in the “modified pattern and well placement” case), increases the 

ROR to 77%, Table IV-3.

Table IV-3. Oil Recovery and Economic Impact of Modified Pattern and Well Placement

Pattern/Well Design Technical Oil Recovery Project ROR

(MMBbls) (% OOIP) (Before Tax)

Existing Design

(SOA) 148 15.9 21.5%

Modified Design

(“Next Generation”) 195 21.0 77.2%

(c). Improving Sweep Efficiency and Mobility Control (Reservoir 

Conformance). Often the viscosities of the injected fluids (CO2 and water) are 

considerably lower than the viscosity of the reservoir oil, leading to viscous fingering of 

the CO2 through the reservoir’s oil and thus inefficient macroscopic displacement 

(sweep efficiency) in the reservoir, Figure IV-3. The extent of viscous fingering (and 

sweep efficiency) is governed by the mobility ratio -- the viscosity of the reservoir oil

divided by the viscosity of the displacing fluids.

The “example” oil reservoir has a mobility ratio of 4.4, based on an oil viscosity of 3.5 cp 

and a water viscosity (in the reservoir) of 0.8 cp. (The mobility ratio between the 

reservoir’s oil and the injected CO2 is considerably higher.) Reservoir engineering 

theory and analysis argue that improving the oil/water mobility ratio from 4.4 to 1.7 (by 

increasing the viscosity of the water to 2 cp) should improve the areal sweep efficiency 

(EA) from about 73% to about 81%, as shown by the type curves prepared by Claridge 

(1972), Figure III-4. This is equal to an increase in the areal sweep efficiency of about 

11%.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

29 June 2011

Figure IV-3. Example of Viscous Fingering of CO2 Due to Unfavorable Mobility Ratio*

Figure IV-4. Areal Sweep Efficiency in Miscible CO2 Flooding as a Function of Mobility Ratio

(Five-Spot Well Pattern)

Example A Example B

Source: Adapted by Advanced Resources Int’l from “Enhanced Oil Recovery”, D.W. Green and G. P. Willhite, SPE, 1998.

Oil and Water

Water

Oil and Water

Water

Polymer

In Water

Waterflood Viscosity Enhanced Flood

High Mobility Ratio Improved Mobility Ratio

*The mobility ratio is the viscosity of the reservoir oil divided by the viscosity of the displacing fluid.

JAF028238.PPT

Source: Claridge, E.L., “Prediction of Recovery in Unstable Miscible Displacement”, 

(J)SPE 12(2) 143-155 (April 1972).

Note: VpD is displaceable fluid pore volumes of CO2 injected. 

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 5001000

5.0

2.0

3.0

1.0

V pD

0.1

0.2

1.5

0.6

Sweep

Efficien

cy,EA

Mobility Ratio, M

JAF028247.PPT
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

30 June 2011

After adding a polymer or other viscosity increasing agents to the drive water in the 

WAG CO2 flood to change the mobility ratio from 4.4 to 1.7, the PROPHET2 model 

shows an increase in the oil recovery of 10 million barrels for the “example” oil reservoir. 

Technical oil recovery efficiency increases to 17.0% with a 2 cp water WAG compared 

to 15.9% recovery efficiency with an 0.8 cp water in the WAG, Table IV-4. Again, 

rigorous reservoir surveillance is important for capturing the full benefits of improving 

sweep efficiency (reservoir conformance) with improved mobility control.

Table IV-4. Oil Recovery and Economic Impact of Improving the Mobility Ratio

Water 

Viscosity

Mobility

Ratio Technical Oil Recovery Project ROR

(cp) (M) (MMBbls) (% OOIP) (Before Tax)

0.8 4.4 148 15.9 21.5%

2 1.7 158 17.0 27.0%

Importantly, improving the mobility ratio helps improve early time oil production, 

reducing the investment payback period to 5 years in the “Next Generation” case from 7 

years in the SOA case and achieve a higher rate of return. (at a $85 per barrel of oil 

price and a $40 per metric ton of CO2 cost), Table IV-4. 

(d). Assessing Impact of the Combined Application of “Next Generation” 

Technologies. Not surprisingly, the integrated application of all three of the “Next 

Generation” technologies, combined with a rigorous program of reservoir feedback, 

diagnostics and control (“reservoir surveillance”), provides the largest impact:

 Economically feasible oil recovery increases to 244 million barrels (26.2% of OOIP) 

in the “Next Generation” case from 142 million barrels (15.3% of OOIP) in the SOA 

case.

 Even though the volume of purchased CO2 is 50% larger, the net CO2/oil ratio (due 

to higher oil recovery and improved control of the injected CO2) is lower at 5.7 Mcf 

per barrel of oil in the “Next Generation” case versus 7.9 Mcf per barrel of oil in the 

SOA case.

 While overall CAPEX for the “Next Generation” CO2 flood is higher (due to drilling 

more wells and increasing the size of the CO2 recycle equipment) and the overall 

OPEX is higher (due to the costs of adding polymers to the injected water and 

conducting reservoir surveillance), the economics are significantly better. As shown 

in Table IV-5, the “Next Generation” CO2-EOR project achieves a rate of return 

(ROR) of nearly 94% compared to 21.5% in the SOA case.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

31 June 2011

Table IV-5. Impact of Integrated Application of “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technology

Technology

Case

Economic Oil 

Recovery

Net CO2/Oil

Ratio

Project

ROR

(MMBBbls) (% OOIP) (Mcf/BO) (Before Tax)

State of Art 142 15.3 7.9 21.5%

“Next Generation” 244 26.2 5.7 93.8%

A particularly important finding emerges from the assessment of individual versus 

integrated application of “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology in the “example” oil 

reservoir:

 The sum of the individual (technology by technology) applications of “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR technology is 77 million barrels of increased oil recovery.

 The integrated application of the three “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technologies 

provide 102 million barrels of increased oil recovery, about a third more than the 

sum from applying these technologies individually. Integrated application of 

“Next Generation” CO2-EOR captures the beneficial synergistic interactions of 

these three improved technologies and provides a “sum that is greater than the 

parts.”

(e). Lowering the Threshold Minimum Miscibility Pressure (MMP). A 

significant number of oil reservoirs, particularly in Appalachia, the Mid-Continent and the 

Illinois Basin, have reservoir pressures somewhat below MMP, relegating these oil 

reservoirs to use of less efficient near miscible or even immiscible CO2-EOR

technology. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology, through use of miscibility 

enhancing additives, has a goal of reducing the MMP of oil reservoirs by 250 psi, 

enabling a larger number of oil reservoirs to be processed with miscible and near

miscible CO2-EOR. (The “example” oil reservoir was already favorable for miscible 

CO2-EOR and thus would not benefit from this specific “Next Generation” technology.)

B. Advanced Near Miscible CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery Technology

1. Background

As discussed previously, a large number of oil reservoirs, particularly in Appalachia, the 

Illinois Basin and the Mid-Continent, have depths and oil properties unsuitable for 

achieving miscible CO2 and its efficient oil displacement. However, recent laboratory 

and analytical work indicate that if the achievable reservoir pressure is close to 

minimum miscibility pressure (MMP), the oil reservoir can achieve reasonable oil 

recovery using near miscible CO2-EOR technology.

While the exact parameters of the pressure range for near miscible CO2-EOR have yet 

to be defined, we have established for this study a near miscibility reservoir pressure 
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

32 June 2011

range of 75% to 99% of MMP. Reservoirs with achievable pressures of less than 75% 

of MMP would be assigned to immiscible CO2 flooding, the analysis of which is beyond 

the scope of work of this study.

2. Resource Target

Various investigators have identified attractive targets for applying near miscible CO2-

EOR technologies to domestic oil fields. For example:

 The Illinois Geological Survey identified a large number of oil fields holding 3.8 

billion barrels of OOIP in the Illinois Basin that would be attractive for near 

miscible CO2-EOR technology. These reservoirs could provide 0.3 billion barrels 

of oil recovery and about 100 million metric tons of CO2 storage capacity.

12

 Work by the Chemical and Petroleum Engineering Department of the University 

of Kansas identified the Arbuckle Formation in Kansas as a large target for near 

miscible CO2-EOR. To date, the Arbuckle Formation in Kansas has produced 

2.2 billion barrels from about 8 billion barrels of OOIP. Most of the Arbuckle oil 

fields are close to abandonment, with 90% of the wells producing less than 5 

barrels of oil per day. The Kansas study noted that near miscible CO2-EOR 

offered the potential for recovery of up to 1 billion barrels from these Arbuckle 

Formation reservoirs.

13

3. Mechanisms of Near Miscible CO2-EOR

Three oil displacement mechanisms are important for near miscible CO2-EOR:

 First, the injection of CO2 and its dissolution into the oil phase, reduces the 

viscosity of the oil/CO2 mixture providing a more favorable mobility ratio and thus 

improved sweep efficiency. Figure IV-5 shows the sharp reduction in oil 

viscosity, achieved by injecting CO2 at 1,100 psig, from an initial 4.5 cp to about 

1 cp, based on work by Kansas, for a 33o API oil at 110oF.

 Second, the dissolution of CO2 into the oil phase causes the oil to swell, with the 

volume above residual oil saturation becoming mobile and displaceable with CO2

and water. Figure IV-6 shows the increase (swelling) of the oil volume by about 

30% due to dissolution of 0.7 mole fraction of CO2 into the oil phase, in the near 

miscible region of 1,150 psig, as reported by the Kansas study,13 for a 33o API oil 

at 110oF.

 12 Frailey, S.M., “CO2 Flood Pilots in the Illinois Basin”, PTTC IOR/EOR Illinois Basin Workshop, CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery, 

Illinois Basin Pilot Projects, Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium, March 2, 2011, Evansville, IN.

13 Bui, L.H., Tsau, J.S., and G.P. Willhite, “Laboratory Investigations of CO2 Near-Miscible Application in Arbuckle Reservoir”, 

SPE 129710, paper prepared and presented at the 2010 SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK 24-28 April, 2010.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

33 June 2011

Figure IV-5. Effect of CO2 Dissolution in Crude Oil on Viscosity.

Figure IV-6. Saturation Pressure/Swelling Factor for Near Miscible CO2-EOR

Source: Bui, L.H., Tsau, J.S., and G.P. Willhite, “Laboratory Investigations of CO2 Near-Miscible Application in Arbuckle Reservoir”, SPE 

129710, paper prepared and presented at the 2010 SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK 24-28 April, 2010.

JAF028308.PPT

Source: Bui, L.H., Tsau, J.S., and G.P. Willhite, “Laboratory Investigations of CO2 Near-Miscible Application in Arbuckle Reservoir”, SPE 

129710, paper prepared and presented at the 2010 SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK 24-28 April, 2010.

JAF028308.PPT
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

34 June 2011

 Third, as reservoir pressure enters the near miscible pressure response range, 

the extraction and vaporization of light hydrocarbon components from the crude 

oil into the CO2 vapor phase begins, the mixing of the CO2 and oil phases 

progresses, and the interfacial tension (IFT) of the system is lowered, promoting 

improved oil recovery. Figure IV-7 shows that the onset of this mixing and lower 

IFT begins at about 60% of minimum miscibility pressure for the oil composition 

examined by IFP.14

Figure IV-7. Mechanisms of Near Miscible CO2-EOR

4. Oil Recovery with Near Miscible CO2-EOR

Figure IV-8 provides the classical oil recovery versus pressure for a slim tube 

experiment of CO2 injection. It shows that the efficiency of oil recovery begins to 

increase sharply in the near miscible pressure region, defined in the figure as 80% of 

minimum miscibility pressure (MMP).

A somewhat more representative experiment is to conduct a core flow test of oil 

recovery with pressure in the near miscible region. The Kansas study and laboratory 

tests determined that oil recovery in the near miscibility pressure region (80% to 99% 

MMP) recovered 65% to 80% of the water flood residual oil in dolomite cores and 45% 

to 60% of the water flood residual oil in sandstone cores.13

 14 Bossie-Codreanu, IFP – March 2009.

Source: Bossie-Codreanu, IFP – March 2009

JAF028308.PPT
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

35 June 2011

Figure IV-8. Relative Miscible Pressure, Pres/MMP

5. Application of Near Miscible CO2-EOR Technology by This Study

To capture the performance of near miscible CO2-EOR, the ARI study identified 67 oil 

reservoirs holding 12 billion barrels of OOIP that had pressures of 75% to 99% of MMP. 

It then performed PROPHET2 streamtube reservoir simulations to calculate oil recovery 

and CO2 requirements for each of these oil reservoirs. In general, the results were 

consistent with the above laboratory findings that the closer the reservoir pressure is to 

MMP, the higher and more efficient is the oil recovery. 

The near miscible reservoirs in the “Next Generation” CO2-EOR case were flooded with 

1 HCPV of CO2. The residual oil to CO2 was set at 80% of the residual oil in the 

reservoir after water flooding to incorporate the extraction/vaporization and lower IFT oil 

recovery mechanisms inherent within near miscible CO2-EOR. 

C. Application of CO2-EOR to Residual Oil Zones (ROZs).

The third “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology is the application of miscible CO2-

EOR to the oil resource in residual oil zones. Residual oil zones exist below and 

beyond the main oil reservoir pay zone, below the traditional oil-water contact, Figure 

IV-9.

Our own detailed log work and extensive work by others, notably, Mr. L. Stephen Melzer 

of Melzer Consulting and Dr. Robert Trentham of UT Permian Basin, have confirmed 

that ROZs hold a massive, previously overlooked oil resource in the Permian and 

numerous other domestic oil basins.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

36 June 2011

Figure IV-9. Oil Saturation Profile in the TZ/ROZ: Adapted from a Wasson Denver Unit Well.

Briefly, residual oil zones exist in the portions of oil reservoirs that have been hydrodynamically swept by the movement of water from outcrop to deeper horizons over a 

time period of millions of years. One may wish to label this movement of water and its 

displacement of oil as “nature’s waterflood”. Because residual oil saturation is low in the 

naturally water flooded ROZ, CO2-EOR is required to re-mobilize and recover this oil.

Information from previous reports prepared by Advanced Resources and Melzer 

Consulting for U.S. DOE/NETL and more recent work by Melzer Consulting for RPSEA 

show that the ROZ resource occurs well beyond the outlines of existing oil fields and 

actually exists as a series of areally extensive “ROZ fairways”, as illustrated in Figure 

IV-10. However, because of limitations of scope, the current study only addresses the 

ROZ resource below the main pay zone within the structural confinement of existing oil 

fields and does not capture the much larger oil resource within the “ROZ fairways”.

While the viability of recovering oil from ROZs is being demonstrated by a series of ROZ 

field projects (at Seminole by Hess, at Wasson Denver Unit by Occidental, at Goldsmith 

by Legado, among others), a number of important technical issues remain to be 

addressed and solved before one can expect optimally efficient oil recovery from ROZs 

using miscible CO2-EOR. Some of the technical challenges are discussed in the three 

ROZ basin studies cited previously.

3,4,5

Main Pay Zone (MPZ)

Transition Zone (TZ)

Residual Oil Zone (ROZ)

Base of Ultimate OWC

Base of Producing OWC

4900

4950

4800

4850

5000

5050

5400

5350

5300

5250

5200

5150

5100

5450

OWC

100 0

Oil Saturation %
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

37 June 2011

Figure IV-10. Map of ROZ Fairways.

D. Deployment of CO2-EOR in Offshore Oil Fields

The deep, light oils common to Gulf of Mexico (GOM) offshore oil fields are particularly 

amenable to miscible CO2-EOR technology. And, with the continued discovery and 

development of oil fields in the deep waters of the Outer Continental Shelf, the size of 

this resource target continued to grow.

However, the deployment of CO2-EOR technology in offshore oil fields faces many 

barriers and challenges, including inadequate platform space for CO2 recycling 

equipment, the expense of drilling new CO2 injection wells, and the need to transport of 

CO2 from onshore sources to offshore platforms. While these barriers and challenges 

can be addressed, they add substantial costs to the oil recovery process.

While CO2-EOR projects have been undertaken, in a small handful of offshore oil fields 

near to shore and in shallow GOM waters, none are currently operating. As such, the 

fourth “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology involves undertaking the challenge of 

deploying innovative designs and advanced CO2-EOR technology for offshore oil fields.

Permian Basin 

Outline

NM TX Palo Duro Basin

Theorized U. Permian 

Hydrodynamic Fairways

Northwest 

Shelf 

Area

Central Basin Platform

Midland 

Boundary of Northwest Basin

Shelf San Andres 

Platform Carbonate 

Play

JAF028247.PPT

Source: Modified from Melzer Consulting (2010)
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

38 June 2011

V. USING CO2 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY (CO2-EOR) TO 

INCREASE DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCTION AND TO 

ACCELERATE DEPLOYMENT OF CCS

A. Overview of Benefits

Numerous benefits stem from using captured CO2 emissions from power and industrial plants 

for enhanced oil recovery. The most compelling of the numerous benefits include:

 Improved Domestic Energy Security. The implementation of “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR technology, including productively using captured CO2

emissions from power plants, would enable an additional 67 billion barrels of 

domestic oil to be economically recovered. This would support 4 million barrels 

per day of additional oil production by year 2030, greatly improving domestic 

energy security. 

 Increased Revenue Streams. The sale and use of captured CO2 would provide 

revenue streams to the capturer of CO2 emissions and to other entities involved 

in the CO2 value chain.

 Accelerated Deployment of CCS. Selection of EOR as the CO2 storage option 

would enable major CCS projects to be implemented in the near-term (next ten 

years) while the “thorny issues” surrounding using saline formations for storing 

CO2 (e.g., pore space rights, regulatory approval, public acceptance) are 

resolved.

These three benefits of integrating CO2-EOR with CO2 capture and storage are further 

discussed below.

The “poster child” for integrating CO2-EOR and CO2 storage, the Weyburn oil field, provides a 

real world demonstration of the oil recovery and CO2 storage benefits offered by integrated CO2-

EOR and CO2 sequestration, Figure V-1. For example:

 The volume of oil recovery is estimated at 200 million barrels, adding to 

Canadian energy security.

 The purchase of CO2 by EnCana (now Cenovus) is providing valuable revenues 

to the Coal Gasification Plant at Beulah, North Dakota. The production of oil is 

providing royalties and economic activity for the Province of Saskatchewan. 

 The storage of CO2 while recovering the 200 million barrels of oil is estimated at 

55 million metric with integrated EOR and CO2 sequestration.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

39 June 2011

Figure V-1 "Poster Child" for Integrating CO2-EOR and CO2 Storage

1. Improving Energy Security by Using CO2-EOR to Increase Domestic Oil 

Production.

The U.S. uses 19 million barrels of oil per day (about 7 billion barrels per year) primarily to 

power its massive transportation fleet. Nearly two-thirds of this oil is imported, from countries 

such as Canada, Mexico, the Middle East and other sources. These large and growing imports 

impact our energy security, the size of our trade deficit, and the health of our economy.

While still a significant oil producer -- the U.S. produced about 7 million barrels of oil per day 

(including crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids) last year -- domestic oil production has 

been steadily declining. (The recent development of the Bakken Shale has helped stem the oil 

production decline.)

Yet, the nation has a vast resource of nearly 400 billion barrels of oil still left in the ground 

(“stranded”) that is unrecoverable with existing primary and secondary oil recovery technologies,

Figure V-2. Recovering a portion of this “stranded” oil is the goal of the CO2-EOR technologies 

clustered under the “Next Generation” technology umbrella.

Regina

Weyburn

CO2

Beulah

North Dakota

Saskatchewan

Montana

Canada Manitoba

USA

Canada

USA

Source: EnCana, 2005

• Largest CO2 EOR project in Canada:

– OOIP 1.4 Bbbls 

– 200 MMB of incremental oil 

• World’s largest geological CO2 storage 

project

– 2.4 MMt/year (current)

– 13 MMt to date

– 30 MMt with EOR

– 55 MMt with EOR/sequestration

JAF028238.PPT
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

40 June 2011

Figure V-2. The Domestic Oil Resource Base

A recent report, prepared for the Natural Resources Defense Council by Advanced Resources 

International, entitled “U.S. Oil Production Potential from Accelerated Deployment of Carbon 

Capture and Storage15

Achieving the total of 4 million barrels per day of oil production from CO2-EOR, with 3.4 million 

barrels per day directly linked to use of CO2 from CCS, would significantly reduce oil imports. It 

would also reduce annual CO2 emissions by nearly 400 million metric tons in year 2030. 

, states that combining CCS with enhanced oil recovery could boost U.S. 

oil production by 3.4 million barrels per day by year 2030, Figure V-3. This would be in addition 

to CO2-EOR production of about 0.6 million barrels per day from use of currently available CO2

supplies from natural sources and gas processing plants. 

 15 Advanced Resources International, Inc., “U.S. Oil Production Potential from Accelerated Deployment of Carbon Capture and 

Storage”, prepared for the Natural Resources Defense Council, March 2010. This report draws heavily from the U.S. DOE/NETLsponsored report, also prepared by Advanced Resources “Storing CO2 and Producing Domestic Crude Oil with Next Generation 

CO2-EOR Technology: An Update” Publication Number: DOE/NETL-2010/1417, April 2010.

Original Oil In-Place: 597 B Barrels

“Stranded” Oil In-Place: 393 B Barrels

Proved Reserves

22 Billion Barrels

Future Challenge

393 Billion Barrels

Cumulative Production

182 Billion Barrels

Source: Advanced Resources Int’l. (2009)

Only about one-third of the domestic oil resource is 

recoverable with traditional technologies.

JAF028247.PPT
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

41 June 2011

Figure V-3. Comparison of NRDC/ARI and EIA’s Outlook for CO2-EOR

2. Providing Revenue Streams from Sale of CO2 and Production of Oil.

A most important benefit from integrating CO2-EOR and CO2 storage is that use of CO2 for oil 

recovery would provide new revenue streams to a series of notable stakeholders, Table V-1:

 An important revenue stream accrues to the capturers of CO2 emissions, helping 

lower the overall cost of conducting CCS. In this report, we assume a price for 

CO2 of $40/metric ton, delivered to the oil field at pressure. At 0.3 metric tons of 

purchased (net) CO2 per barrel of recovered oil, this results in a transfer of $12 of 

the $85 per barrel oil to entities selling the CO2 to the oil industry. Power and 

other industries involved with CO2 capture would need to provide nearly 90% of 

the future CO2 demand, gaining $730 billion dollars of revenues.

 A second revenue stream accrues to local and state governments and the 

Federal Treasury from royalties, severance and ad valorem taxes and income 

taxes. Our analysis shows that, at an oil price of $85 per barrel, $21.20 of this oil 

price is transferred directly to state and local governments and the Federal 

Treasury. With 67.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil from applying 

“Next Generation” CO2-EOR, this equals $1,420 billion of revenues transferred to 

domestic public treasuries rather than to foreign treasuries. These revenues, in 

states such as Texas, Wyoming and others, are a primary source of funds for 

school systems and other valuable public services.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

202020252030

Million Barrels Per Day

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

202020252030

Million Barrels Per Day

*Discussions are underway among the U.S. EIA, U.S. DOE/NETL and the NRDC staff on how to represent the integration of CO2–EOR and CCS in energy 

market forecasts.

Source: Advanced Resources International, Inc. (2011).

EIA’s Current Outlook for CO2-EOR*

(AEO 2010 Reference Case) NRDC / ARI Outlook for CO2-EOR

Base from 

Natural and 

Industrial 

Sources

Total, Including EOR 

from CCS Deployment 

JAF2010_083.XLS

JAF028238.PPT
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

42 June 2011

1 Assumes $85 per barrel of oil.

2 Royalties are 17.5%; 1 of 6 barrels produced are from federal and state lands. 

3 Production and ad valorem taxes of 5%, from FRS data. 

4

CO2 market price of $40/tonne, including transport; 0.3 tonne of purchased CO2 per barrel of oil; CCS 

would provide about 90% of CO2 demand. 

5 CO2 recycle cost of $16/tonne; 0.6 tonnes of recycled CO2 per barrel of oil.

6 O&M/G&A costs from ARI CO2-EOR cost models.

7 CAPEX from ARI CO2-EOR cost models.

8 Combined Federal and state income taxes of 35%, from FRS data. 

 A third revenue stream accrues to the general domestic economy from 

successful application of CO2-EOR technology. With $25.80 of the $85 barrel oil 

price being spent on domestic wages and purchases, this provides $1.7 trillion 

dollars of gross revenues to the domestic economy. 

 A fourth revenue stream accrues to a variety of entities holding private mineral 

rights from royalty payments ($7.70 per barrel) and to the U.S. oil industry 

($19.50 per barrel) for return of and return on capital investment. The Texas 

economic model shows that every dollar of direct investment in oil development 

has a multiplier of 4 in terms of supporting economic activity.

 Finally, the domestic trade balance (foreign debt) from producing 67.2 billion 

barrels of domestic oil rather than importing this oil would be reduced by $5.7 

trillion.

Notes Oil Industry

Private 

Minerals 

Federal/ 

State

Power 

Plant/Other U.S. Economy

1 Domestic Oil Price ($/B) $85.00

2 Less: Royalties ($14.90) $12.40 $2.50

3 Production Taxes ($3.50) ($0.60) $4.10

4 CO2 Purchase Costs ($12.00) $10.80 $1.20

5 CO2 Recycle Costs ($9.60) $9.60

6 O&M/G&A Costs ($9.00) $9.00

7 CAPEX ($6.00) $6.00

Total Costs ($55.00) -

Net Cash Margin $30.00 $11.80 $6.60 $10.80 $25.80

8 Income Taxes ($10.50) ($4.10) $14.60 ? ?

Net Income ($/B) $19.50 $7.70 $21.20 - JAF2011_030.XLS

Table V-1. Distribution of Economic Value of Incremental Oil Production from CO2-EOR 
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

43 June 2011

3. Accelerating the Application of CO2 Storage.

The integration of CO2-EOR and CCS would greatly help accelerate the regulatory acceptance 

and implementation of CO2 storage: 

 Oil fields provide CO2 storage options that can be permitted under existing (or 

slightly modified) regulatory guidelines, thereby avoiding the large delays 

inherent when waiting on new regulations and permitting for large-scale storage 

of CO2 in saline formations.

 The pore space, mineral rights and long-term liability issues of oil fields are 

already well established and thus would not be impediments to an integrated 

CO2 storage and CO2-EOR project.

 Oil fields generally have existing subsurface data and often possess usable 

infrastructure such as injection wells and gathering systems, enabling more 

accurate assessment of CO2 storage capacity and substantial cost savings.

Beyond these three benefits, a number of other conditions favor the use of oil fields for injecting 

and storing CO2. First, oil fields are located in areas with an accepted history of subsurface field 

activities contributing to public acceptance for storing CO2. Second, oil fields provide an existing 

“brown field” storage site versus having to establish a new “green field” site when preparing a 

saline formation for CO2 storage. Third, the footprint of the CO2 plume within an oil field would 

be several times smaller than within a saline formation. Finally, the early reliance on EOR for 

storing CO2 would help build the regional pipeline infrastructure for future CO2 storage projects 

in saline formations.

B. Proposed Use of Oil Fields for Storing CO2

To a large extent, industrial operators of proposed coal-to-liquids (CTL) plants, integrated 

gasification combined cycle (IGCC) facilities, and other carbon conversion projects have already 

“voted with their feet” for first turning to oil fields for storing CO2. Three such projects are 

discussed below16

 Hydrogen Energy’s (BP/Rio Tinto) pet-coke gasification plant in Kern County, 

California plans to deliver 2 MMt/yr of CO2 to the giant Elk Hills oil field for CO2-

EOR, Figure V-4.

: 

 Southern Company’s Kemper County IGCC plant plans to provide 1.1 to 1.5 

MMt/yr to Denbury Resources for CO2-EOR in oil fields in Louisiana and 

Mississippi, Figure V-5. 

 Summit Energy’s Texas Clean Energy IGCC project plans to sell 3 MMt/yr for 

CO2-EOR in West Texas, Figure V-6.

 16 Various industry presentations and publications.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

44 June 2011

Figure V-4. Advanced Power Plants and Use of EOR for CO2 Storage

Figure V-5. Advanced Power Plants Using EOR for Storage

• 250MW gasification of pet-coke

• Capture 90% of CO2; over 2 million 

tons of CO2 per year

• Oxy will take CO2 for EOR at Elk Hills 

oil field

• Operational by 2015

Source: Hydrogen Energy

Elk Hills Oil Field near Bakersfield, CA

JAF028247.PPT

Hydrogen Energy’s (Rio Tinto/BP) 

Pet-coke Gasification Plant

• 582 MW IGCC fueled by 

Mississippi lignite

• Capture 65% of CO2

• Negotiating to sell 1.1 to 

1.5 million tons of CO2 per 

year for EOR 

• Cost $2.4 B; operational 

by 2014

*Source: Mississippi Power, Denbury Resources

Southern Company’s 

Kemper County IGCC Plant

JAF028247.PPT
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

45 June 2011

Figure V-6. Advanced Power Plants Using EOR for Storage

* * * * *

Clearly, many of the proposed new IGCC and coal to gas/liquids plants are looking to CO2-EOR 

as their primary CO2 storage option. Because of this, some power companies have expressed 

concerns that these initial plants will “use up” all of the available EOR market and CO2 storage 

capacity, leaving little for subsequent use. 

As such, the key questions are: (1) How much CO2 could be sold to and stored with “Next 

Generation” CO2 enhanced oil recovery, and (2) Where are the potential CO2 demand (and 

storage) centers? These key questions are addressed in the following chapter.

• 400 MW IGCC with 90% 

capture 

• Located near Odessa in 

Permian Basin

• Sell 3 million tons of CO2

per year to EOR market 

• Expected cost $1.75 B; 

$350 MM award under CCPI 

Round 3.

Summit’s Texas Clean Energy 

IGCC Project

Source: Siemens Energy

JAF028247.PPT
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

46 June 2011

VI. A REGIONAL (“BASIN-ORIENTED STRATEGY”) LOOK AT THE 

CO2-EOR/STORAGE POTENTIAL

The CO2-EOR potential, for both storing CO2 and producing oil, varies significantly across the 

regions and basins of the U.S. For example, the great Permian Basin of West Texas and New 

Mexico, while the “birth place” of CO2-EOR, still offers major opportunities for applying “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR technology.

Other regions of the country offer similar promise but still face constraints. California, currently 

locked out of natural CO2 sources, has a host of deep, light oil reservoirs, such as the giant Elk 

Hills, ready for development with CO2-EOR. The giant oil fields in East and South Texas, now 

with access to supplies of CO2, are being evaluated for CO2-EOR as the Green Pipeline beings 

to deliver CO2 to the region.

The oil fields in the offshore Gulf of Mexico, while technically attractive for CO2-EOR miscible 

flooding, face serious infrastructure and cost constraints. Alaska, with large declining oil fields 

that could be revitalized with CO2-EOR, would need to see the launch of the Alaska Natural Gas 

Pipeline or the installation of a “world scale” energy processing and petrochemicals facility to 

create sufficient supplies of CO2.

Chapter VII of the report provides a more detailed look at the oil production and CO2 storage 

potential offered by the following eleven regions:

1. Appalachia 7. Rockies

2. California 8. Southeast Gulf Coast

3. East and Central Texas 9. Williston Basin

4. Michigan/Illinois 10. Alaska

5. Mid-Continent 11. Offshore Gulf of Mexico

6. Permian Basin
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

47 June 2011

1. Appalachia

a. Background. The Appalachia Basin, the origin of the U.S. oil industry, provided 

much of the petroleum used by the U.S. during World War II. Currently, oil production is 

12 million barrels per year (about 33,000 barrels per day) from a series of very mature 

fields (Table V1-1.1).

Year New York Ohio Pennsylvania West Virginia TOTAL

2000 * 7 2 1 10

2001 * 6 2 1 9

2002 * 6 2 1 9

2003 * 6 2 1 9

2004 * 6 3 1 10

2005 * 6 4 2 12

2006 * 5 4 2 11

2007 * 5 4 2 11

2008 * 6 4 2 12

2009 * 6 4 2 12

*less than 0.5 million barrels. Source: EIA Crude Oil Production by State (March 2011).

b. Reservoirs Favorable for CO2-EOR. Advanced Resources’ Big Oil Fields 

Database for the Appalachian Basin contains 84 oil reservoirs that screen favorably for 

miscible CO2-EOR plus 19 oil reservoirs that screen favorably for near miscible CO2-

EOR. These 103 reservoirs contain 9.4 billion barrels of OOIP out of a data base of 171 

reservoirs with 10.2 billion of OOIP.

c. Miscible CO2-EOR. 

(1). Database. The data for the 84 Appalachian Basin oil reservoirs favorable for 

miscible CO2-EOR are as follows:

Original Oil In-Place 8.6 billion barrels

Expected Ultimate Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery 1.5 billion barrels

Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery Efficiency 17%

Remaining Oil In-Place 7.1 billion barrels

Table VI-1.1. Crude Oil Production from the Appalachian Basin (MM Bbls/Yr)
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

48 June 2011

(2). Technically Recoverable. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR applied to these 84 oil 

reservoirs offers the potential for technically recovering 2.4 billion barrels of the 

remaining oil in-place, equal to 28% of OOIP.

(3). Economically Recoverable. Using an oil price of $85 per barrel (WTI) and 

$40 per metric ton of CO2 (delivered at pressure to the basin), 48 of the 84 oil reservoirs 

provide at least a 20% rate of return (before tax) and thus are economically feasible. 

These 48 reservoirs have an economically feasible oil recovery of 1.3 billion barrels. 

(4). Purchase and Storage of CO2. The volume of purchased CO2 for the 84 

Appalachian Basin oil fields technically favorable for miscible CO2-EOR is 790 million 

metric tons (15 Tcf). The volume of purchased CO2 for the 48 Appalachian Basin oil 

reservoirs economically favorable for miscible CO2-EOR is 290 million metric tons 

(5 Tcf). 

(5) Summary Table. Table VI-1.2 provides a summary of the oil recovery and 

CO2 demand (and storage) potential from the application of miscible “Next Generation”

CO2-EOR in the Appalachian Basin for the data base and extrapolated regional totals.

Oil Recovery CO2 Demand

(Billion Barrels) (Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 2.4 1.3 790 290

2. Regional Totals 3.3 1.3 1,080 290

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.73.

d. Near Miscible CO2-EOR. 

(1). Database. The data for the 19 Appalachian Basin oil reservoirs technically 

favorable for near miscible CO2-EOR are as follows:

Original Oil In-Place 0.78 billion barrels

Expected Ultimate Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery 0.16 billion barrels

Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery Efficiency 20%

Remaining Oil In-Place 0.62 billion barrels

(2). Technically Recoverable. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR applied to these 19 oil 

reservoirs offers the potential for technically recovering 0.1 billion barrels of the 

remaining oil in-place, equal to 8% of OOIP.

Table VI-1.2. Appalachian Basin Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Miscible “Next Generation” 

CO2-EOR
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

49 June 2011

(3). Economically Recoverable. Using an oil price of $85 per barrel (WTI) and 

$40 per metric ton of CO2 (delivered at pressure to the basin), none of the 19 oil 

reservoirs provide a 20% rate of return (before tax) and thus none are economically 

feasible. 

(4). Purchase and Storage of CO2. The volume of purchased CO2 for the 19 

Appalachian Basin oil fields technically favorable for near miscible CO2-EOR is 60 

million metric tons (1 Tcf). 

(5) Summary Table. Table VI-1.3 provides a summary of the oil recovery and 

CO2 demand (and storage) potential from the application of near miscible “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR in the Appalachian Basin for the database and extrapolated 

regional totals.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 0.1 - 60 -

2. Regional Totals 0.1 - 80 -

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.73.

e. Miscible and Near Miscible CO2-EOR. Table VI-1.4 provides a summary of the oil 

recovery and CO2 demand and storage potential from the application of “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR in the Appalachian Basin.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 2.5 1.3 850 290

2. Regional Totals 3.4 1.3 1,160 290

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.73.

Table VI-1.3. Appalachian Basin Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Near Miscible “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR

Table VI-1.4. Appalachian Basin Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

50 June 2011

f. Comparison of State of Art and “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technology. Using 

“Next Generation” CO2-EOR in the Appalachian Basin would provide significantly more 

oil recovery and CO2 storage potential than would be realized from applying State of Art 

CO2-EOR technology, Table VI-1.5.

 Economic oil recovery would be 1.3 billion barrels with “Next Generation”

technology compared to essentially zero with State of Art technology.

 Economic CO2 demand (and storage capacity) would be 290 million metric tons 

with “Next Generation” technology compared to about 10 million metric tons with 

State of Art technology.

State of Art “Next Generation”

Oil Recovery (Billion Barrels)

▪ Technical 1.1 3.4

▪ Economic 0.0 1.3

CO2 Demand (Million Metric Tons)

▪ Technical 520 1,160

▪ Economic 10 290

Table VI-1.5. Summary Table of Comparison of State of Art and “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR Technology: Appalachian Basin (Regional Totals)
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

51 June 2011

2. Onshore California

a. Background. While much of the oil production from California is due to steam 

injection for heavy oil recovery, California (particularly the San Joaquin Basin) does 

have large, deep light oil reservoirs (such as Elk Hills) that account for an important part 

of California’s oil production. In 2009, California produced 194 million barrels (530,000 

barrels per day) of heavy and light oil (Table VI-2.1).

Year Coastal Los Angeles San Joaquin TOTAL

2000 18 16 215 249

2001 18 16 220 238

2002 18 17 205 240

2003 17 16 197 230

2004 17 16 191 224

2005 15 16 184 215

2006 15 16 176 207

2007 15 17 173 205

2008 16 16 175 207

2009 18 15 161 194

Sources: EIA Proved Reserves and Production (December, 2010) and EIA Crude Oil Production by State (March 2011).

b. Reservoirs Favorable for CO2-EOR. Advanced Resources’ Big Oil Fields 

Database for California contains 76 oil reservoirs that screen favorably for miscible CO2-

EOR plus 13 oil reservoirs that screen favorably for near miscible CO2-EOR. These 89 

reservoirs contain 31.9 billion barrels of OOIP out of a data base of 187 reservoirs with 

74.6 billion of OOIP.

c. Miscible CO2-EOR.

(1). Database. The data for the 76 California oil reservoirs favorable for miscible 

CO2-EOR are as follows:

Original Oil In-Place 28.2 billion barrels

Expected Ultimate Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery 8.8 billion barrels

Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery Efficiency 31%

Remaining Oil In-Place 19.4 billion barrels

Table VI-2.1. Oil Production from Onshore California (MM Bbls/Yr)
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

52 June 2011

(2). Technically Recoverable. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology applied to 

these 76 oil reservoirs offers the potential for technically recovering 6.9 billion barrels of 

the remaining oil in-place, equal to 25% of OOIP.

(3). Economically Recoverable. Using an oil price of $85 per barrel (WTI) and 

$40 per metric ton of CO2 (delivered at pressure to the basin), 69 of the 76 oil reservoirs 

provide at least a 20% rate of return (before tax) and thus are economically feasible. 

The economically feasible oil recovery is 6.5 billion barrels. 

(4). Purchase and Storage of CO2. The volume of purchased CO2 for the 76 

California oil fields technically favorable for miscible CO2-EOR is 1,940 million metric 

tons (37 Tcf). The volume of purchased CO2 for the 69 California oil reservoirs 

economically favorable for miscible CO2-EOR is 1,690 million metric tons (32 Tcf). 

(5) Summary Table. Table VI-2.2 provides a summary of the oil recovery and 

CO2 demand and storage potential from the application of miscible “Next Generation”

CO2-EOR in California and extrapolated to regional totals.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 6.9 6.5 1,940 1,690

2. Regional Totals 7.7 6.5 2,160 1,690

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.90.

d. Near Miscible CO2-EOR. 

(1). Database. The data for the 13 California oil reservoirs favorable for near 

miscible CO2-EOR are as follows:

Original Oil In-Place 3.7 billion barrels

Expected Ultimate Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery 1.1 billion barrels

Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery Efficiency 31%

Remaining Oil In-Place 2.6 billion barrels

(2). Technically Recoverable. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology applied to 

these 13 oil reservoirs offers the potential for technically recovering 0.2 billion barrels of 

the remaining oil in-place, equal to 5% of OOIP.

Table VI-2.2. Onshore California Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Miscible “Next Generation” 

CO2-EOR
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

53 June 2011

(3). Economically Recoverable. Using an oil price of $85 per barrel (WTI) and 

$40 per metric ton of CO2 (delivered at pressure to the basin), 2 of the 13 oil reservoirs 

provide at least a 20% rate of return (before tax) and thus are economically feasible. 

The economically feasible oil recovery is 0.2 billion barrels.

(4). Purchase and Storage of CO2. The volume of purchased CO2 for the 13 

California oil fields technically favorable for near miscible CO2-EOR is 140 million metric 

tons (3 Tcf). The volume of purchased CO2 for the 2 California oil reservoirs 

economically favorable for near miscible CO2-EOR is 70 million metric tons (1Tcf).

(5) Summary Table. Table VI-2.3 provides a summary of the oil recovery and 

CO2 demand and storage potential from the application of near miscible “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR in California.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 0.2 0.2 140 70

2. Regional Totals 0.2 0.2 160 70

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.90.

e. Miscible and Near Miscible CO2-EOR. Table VI-2.4 provides a summary of the oil 

recovery and CO2 demand and storage potential from the application of “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR in California.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 7.1 6.7 2,080 1,760

2. Regional Totals 7.9 6.7 2,320 1,760

*database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.90.

Table VI-2.3. Onshore California Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Near Miscible “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR

Table VI-2.4. Onshore California Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

54 June 2011

f. Comparison of State of Art and “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technology.

Applying “Next Generation” CO2-EOR in California would provide valuable additional oil 

recovery and CO2 storage, Table VI-2.5.

 Economic oil recovery would be 6.7 billion barrels with “Next Generation”

technology compared to 1.2 billion barrels with State of Art technology.

 Economic CO2 demand (and storage capacity) would be 1,760 million metric tons 

with “Next Generation” technology compared to 480 million metric tons with State 

of Art technology.

State of Art “Next Generation”

Oil Recovery (Billion Barrels)

▪ Technical 3.1 7.9

▪ Economic 1.2 6.7

CO2 Demand (Million Metric Tons)

▪ Technical 1,340 2,320

▪ Economic 480 1,760

Table VI-2.5. Summary Table of Comparison of State of Art and “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR Technology: Onshore California (Regional Totals)
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

55 June 2011

3. East and Central Texas

a. Background. East Texas ushered in the “oil boom” at historic oil fields such as

Spindletop and Conroe. Today, this area provides 114 million barrels of oil per year 

(about 310,000 barrels per day) (Table VI-3.1).

Year East Texas

(RR #1-6)

Central Texas

(RR 7B/7C and 9-10) TOTAL

2000 93 56 149

2001 78 53 131

2002 71 48 119

2003 67 48 115

2004 66 46 112

2005 64 45 109

2006 66 49 115

2007 64 49 113

2008 61 55 116

2009 55 59 114

Source: EIA Proved Reserves and Production (December, 2010).

b. Summary of Results. Advanced Resources’ Big Oil Fields Database for East and 

Central Texas contains 186 oil reservoirs that screen favorably for miscible CO2-EOR 

plus 7 oil reservoirs that screen favorably for near miscible CO2-EOR. These 193 

reservoirs contain 61.1 billion barrels of OOIP out of a data base of 213 reservoirs with 

66.4 billion barrels of OOIP.

c. Miscible CO2-EOR. 

(1). Database. The data for the 186 East and Central Texas oil reservoirs 

favorable for miscible CO2-EOR are as follows:

Original Oil In-Place 59.4 billion barrels

Expected Ultimate Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery 21.2 billion barrels

Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery Efficiency 36%

Remaining Oil In-Place 38.2 billion barrels

Table VI-3.1. Oil Production from East and Central Texas (MM Bbls/Yr)
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

56 June 2011

(2). Technically Recoverable. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology applied to 

these 186 oil reservoirs offers the potential for technically recovering 15.3 billion barrels 

of the remaining oil in-place, equal to 26% of OOIP.

(3). Economically Recoverable. Using an oil price of $85 per barrel (WTI) and 

$40 per metric ton of CO2 (delivered at pressure to the basin), 162 of the 186 oil 

reservoirs provide at least a 20% rate of return (before tax) and thus are economically 

feasible. The economically feasible oil recovery is 13.5 billion barrels. 

(4). Purchase and Storage of CO2. The volume of purchased CO2 demand for the 

186 East and Central Texas oil fields technically favorable for miscible CO2-EOR is 

4,390 million metric tons (83 Tcf). The volume of purchased CO2 demand for the 162 

East and Central Texas oil reservoirs economically favorable for miscible CO2-EOR is 

3,620 million metric tons (68 Tcf).

Subtracting out the 400 million metric tons (8 Tcf) of CO2 expected to be 

delivered to East Texas from natural sources still leaves a near- to mid-term economic 

market for purchase (and storage) of anthropogenic CO2 of 3,220 million metric tons (60 

Tcf). 

(5) Summary Table. Table VI-3.2 provides a summary of the oil recovery and 

CO2 demand and storage potential from the application of miscible “Next Generation”

CO2-EOR in East and Central Texas.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand

(Million Metric Tons)**

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 15.3 13.5 4,390 3,620

2. Regional Totals 20.7 13.5 5,930 3,620

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.74.

**Includes 580 million metric tons of CO2 demand expected to be provided by natural sources and gas processing plants.

d. Near Miscible CO2-EOR. 

(1). Database. The data for the 7 East and Central Texas oil reservoirs favorable 

for near miscible CO2-EOR are as follows:

Original Oil In-Place 1.8 billion barrels

Expected Ultimate Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery 0.5 billion barrels

Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery Efficiency 26%

Remaining Oil In-Place 1.3 billion barrels

Table VI-3.2. East and Central Texas Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Miscible “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

57 June 2011

(2). Technically Recoverable. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology applied to 

these 7 oil reservoirs offers the potential for technically recovering 0.12 billion barrels of 

the remaining oil in-place, equal to 7% of OOIP.

(3). Economically Recoverable. Using an oil price of $85 per barrel (WTI) and 

$40 per metric ton of CO2 (delivered at pressure to the basin), none of the oil reservoirs

provide at least a 20% rate of return (before tax) and thus none are economically 

feasible. 

(4). Purchase and Storage of CO2. The volume of purchased CO2 for the 7 East 

and Central Texas oil fields technically favorable for near miscible CO2-EOR is 80 

million metric tons (2 Tcf). 

(5) Summary Table. Table VI-3.3 provides a summary of the oil recovery and 

CO2 demand and storage potential from the application of near miscible “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR in East and Central Texas.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 0.1 - 80 -

2. Regional Totals 0.2 - 110 -

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.74.

e. Miscible and Near Miscible CO2-EOR. Table VI-3.4 provides a summary of the oil 

recovery and CO2 demand and storage potential from the application of “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR in East and Central Texas. 

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand

(Million Metric Tons)**

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 15.4 13.5 4,470 3,620

2. Regional Totals 20.9 13.5 6,040 3,620

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.74.

**Includes 400 million metric tons of CO2 demand provided from natural sources.

Table VI-3.3. East and Central Texas Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Near Miscible “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR

Table VI-3.4. East and Central Texas Oil Recovery and CO2 Storage from “Next Generation” CO2-

EOR
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

58 June 2011

f. Comparison of State of Art and “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technology.

Applying “Next Generation” CO2-EOR in East and Central Texas would provide valuable 

additional oil recovery and CO2 storage (Table VI-3.5).

 Economic oil recovery would be 13.5 billion barrels with “Next Generation”

technology compared to 5.9 billion barrels with State of Art technology.

 Economic CO2 demand (and storage capacity) would be 3,620 million metric tons 

with “Next Generation” technology compared to 2,120 million metric tons (gross) 

with State of Art technology.

State of Art “Next Generation”

Oil Recovery (Billion Barrels)

▪ Technical 11.1 20.9

▪ Economic 5.9 13.5

CO2 Demand (Million Metric Tons)

▪ Technical 4,210 6,040

▪ Economic

– Gross* 2,120 3,620

– Net 1,720 3,220

* Includes 400 million metric tons of CO2 demand expected to be provided by natural sources and gas 

processing plants.

Table VI-3.5. Summary Table of Comparison of State of Art and “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR Technology: East and Central Texas
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

59 June 2011

4. Michigan/Illinois Basin

a. Background. The mature Michigan and Illinois oil basins have seen a steady decline 

in production in recent years, reaching 20 million barrels per year (about 55,000 barrels 

per day) in 2009 (Table VI-4.1).

Year Michigan Illinois/Indiana Kentucky TOTAL

2000 8 14 3 25

2001 7 12 3 22

2002 7 14 3 24

2003 7 14 3 24

2004 6 12 3 21

2005 6 12 2 20

2006 5 12 3 20

2007 5 11 3 19

2008 6 11 3 20

2009 6 11 3 20

Source: EIA Crude Oil Production by State (March 2011).

b. Summary of Results. Advanced Resources’ Big Oil Fields Database for 

Michigan/Illinois Basin contains 140 oil reservoirs that screen favorably for miscible 

CO2-EOR plus 8 oil reservoirs that screen favorably for near miscible CO2-EOR. These 

148 reservoirs contain 9.8 billion barrels of OOIP out of a data base of 190 reservoirs 

with 10.2 billion barrels of OOIP.

c. Miscible CO2-EOR.

(1). Database. The data for the 140 Michigan/Illinois Basin oil reservoirs 

favorable for miscible CO2-EOR are as follows:

Original Oil In-Place 8.4 billion barrels

Expected Ultimate Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery 3.2 billion barrels

Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery Efficiency 38%

Remaining Oil In-Place 5.2 billion barrels

(2). Technically Recoverable. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology applied to 

these 140 oil reservoirs offers the potential for technically recovering 2.1 billion barrels 

of the remaining oil in-place, equal to 25% of OOIP.

Table VI-4.1. Oil Production from Michigan and Illinois Basins (MM Bbls/Yr)
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

60 June 2011

(3). Economically Recoverable. Using an oil price of $85 per barrel (WTI) and 

$40 per metric ton of CO2 (delivered at pressure to the basin), 122 of the 140 oil 

reservoirs provide at least a 20% rate of return (before tax) and thus are economically 

feasible. The economically feasible oil recovery is 1.8 billion barrels. 

(4). Purchase and Storage of CO2. The volume of purchased CO2 for the 140 

Michigan/Illinois Basin oil fields technically favorable for miscible CO2-EOR is 710 

million metric tons (13 Tcf). The volume of purchased CO2 for the 122 Michigan/Illinois 

Basin oil reservoirs economically favorable for miscible CO2-EOR is 570 million metric 

tons (11 Tcf).

(5) Summary Table. Table VI-4.2 provides a summary of the oil recovery and CO2

demand and storage potential from the application of miscible “Next Generation” CO2-

EOR in Michigan/Illinois Basin.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 2.1 1.8 710 570

2. Regional Totals 2.8 1.8 960 570

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.74.

d. Near Miscible CO2-EOR. 

(1). Database. The data for the 8 Michigan/Illinois Basin oil reservoirs favorable 

for near miscible CO2-EOR are as follows:

Original Oil In-Place 1.3 billion barrels

Expected Ultimate Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery 0.4 billion barrels

Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery Efficiency 32%

Remaining Oil In-Place 0.9 billion barrels

(2). Technically Recoverable. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology applied to 

these 8 oil reservoirs offers the potential for technically recovering 0.1 billion barrels of 

the remaining oil in-place, equal to 10% of OOIP.

(3). Economically Recoverable. Using an oil price of $85 per barrel (WTI) and 

$40 per metric ton of CO2 (delivered at pressure to the basin), none of the oil reservoirs 

provide at least a 20% rate of return (before tax) and thus none are economically 

feasible. 

Table VI-4.2. Michigan/Illinois Basin Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Miscible “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

61 June 2011

(4). Purchase and Storage of CO2. The volume of purchased CO2 for the 8 

Michigan/Illinois Basin oil fields technically favorable for near miscible CO2-EOR is 70 

million metric tons (1 Tcf). 

(5) Summary Table. Table VI-4.3 provides a summary of the oil recovery and 

CO2 demand and storage potential from the application of near miscible “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR in the Michigan/Illinois Basin.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 0.1 - 70 0

2. Regional Totals 0.2 - 90 0

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.74.

e. Miscible and Near Miscible CO2-EOR. Table VII-4.4 provides a summary of the oil 

recovery and CO2 demand and storage potential from the application of “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR in the Michigan/Illinois Basin.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 2.2 1.8 780 570

2. Regional Totals 3.0 1.8 1,050 570

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.74.

f. Comparison of State of Art and “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technology.

Applying Next Generation CO2-EOR in the Michigan/Illinois Basin would provide 

valuable additional oil recovery and CO2 storage (Table VI-4.5).

 Economic oil recovery would be 1.8 billion barrels with “Next Generation”

technology compared to 1.1 billion barrels with State of Art technology.

 Economic CO2 demand (and storage capacity) would be 570 million metric tons 

with “Next Generation” technology compared to 390 million metric tons with State 

of Art technology.

Table VI-4.3. Michigan/Illinois Basin Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Near Miscible “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR

Table VI-4.4. Michigan/Illinois Basin Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from “Next Generation” 

CO2-EOR
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

62 June 2011

State of Art “Next Generation”

Oil Recovery (Billion Barrels)

▪ Technical 1.8 3.0

▪ Economic 1.1 1.8

CO2 Demand (Million Metric Tons)

▪ Technical 660 1,050

▪ Economic 390 570

Table VI-4.5. Summary Table of Comparison of State of Art and “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR Technology: Michigan/Illinois Basin
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

63 June 2011

5. Mid-Continent

a. Background. After years of steady decline, oil production in the Mid-Content area, 

particularly in Oklahoma, has begun to rebound reaching 115 million barrels per year 

(315,000 barrels per day) in 2009 (Table VI-5.1).

Year Oklahoma Kansas/Nebraska Arkansas TOTAL

2000 70 37 7 114

2001 69 37 8 114

2002 67 36 7 110

2003 65 37 7 109

2004 62 36 7 105

2005 62 36 6 104

2006 63 38 6 107

2007 61 39 6 106

2008 64 42 6 112

2009 67 42 6 115

Source: EIA Crude Oil Production by State (March 2011).

b. Summary of Results. Advanced Resources’ Big Oil Fields Database for the MidContinent contains 174 oil reservoirs that screen favorably for miscible CO2-EOR plus 9 

oil reservoirs that screen favorably for near miscible CO2-EOR. These 183 reservoirs 

contain 46.0 billion barrels of OOIP out of a database of 246 reservoirs with 53.1 billion 

of OOIP.

c. Miscible CO2-EOR. 

(1). Database. The data for the 174 the Mid-Continent oil reservoirs favorable for 

miscible CO2-EOR are as follows:

Original Oil In-Place 43.7 billion barrels

Expected Ultimate Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery 12.0 billion barrels

Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery Efficiency 27%

Remaining Oil In-Place 31.7 billion barrels

(2). Technically Recoverable. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology applied to 

these 174 oil reservoirs offers the potential for technically recovering 13.1 billion barrels 

of the remaining oil in-place, equal to 30% of OOIP.

Table VI-5.1. Oil Production from the Mid-Continent (MM Bbls/Yr)
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

64 June 2011

(3). Economically Recoverable. Using an oil price of $85 per barrel (WTI) and 

$40 per metric ton of CO2 (delivered at pressure to the basin), 154 of the 174 oil 

reservoirs provide at least a 20% rate of return (before tax) and thus are economically 

feasible. The economically feasible oil recovery from these reservoirs is 11.9 billion 

barrels. 

(4). Purchase and Storage of CO2. The volume of purchased CO2 for the 174 

Mid-Continent oil fields technically favorable for miscible CO2-EOR is 3,740 million 

metric tons (71 Tcf). The volume of purchased CO2 for the 154 Mid-Continent oil 

reservoirs economically favorable for miscible CO2-EOR is 3,240 million metric tons 

(61 Tcf). 

(5) Summary Table. Table VI-5.2 provides a summary of the oil recovery and 

CO2 demand and storage potential from the application of miscible “Next Generation”

CO2-EOR in Mid-Continent.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 13.1 11.9 3,740 3,240

2. Regional Totals 22.2 11.9 6,340 3,240

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.59.

d. Near Miscible CO2-EOR. 

(1). Database. The data for the 9 Mid-Content oil reservoirs favorable for near 

miscible CO2-EOR are as follows:

Original Oil In-Place 2.3 billion barrels

Expected Ultimate Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery 0.6 billion barrels

Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery Efficiency 28%

Remaining Oil In-Place 1.7 billion barrels

(2). Technically Recoverable. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology applied to 

these 9 oil reservoirs offers the potential for technically recovering 0.17 billion barrels of 

the remaining oil in-place, equal to 7% of OOIP.

(3). Economically Recoverable. Using an oil price of $85 per barrel (WTI) and 

$40 per metric ton of CO2 (delivered at pressure to the basin), 2 of the 9 oil reservoirs 

provide at least a 20% rate of return (before tax) and thus are economically feasible. 

The economically feasible oil recovery is 0.1 billion barrels. 

Table VI-5.2. Mid-Continent Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Miscible “Next Generation” 

CO2-EOR
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

65 June 2011

(4). Purchase and Storage of CO2. The volume of purchased CO2 for the 9 MidContinent oil fields technically favorable for near miscible CO2-EOR is 110 million metric 

tons (2 Tcf). The volume of purchased CO2 for the 2 Mid-Continent oil reservoirs 

economically favorable for near miscible CO2-EOR is 30 million metric tons (1 Tcf). 

(5) Summary Table. Table VI-5.3 provides a summary of the oil recovery and 

CO2 demand and storage potential from the application of near miscible “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR in the Mid-Content.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 0.2 0.1 110 30

2. Regional Totals 0.3 0.1 190 30

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.59.

e. Miscible and Near Miscible CO2-EOR. Table VI-5.4 provides a summary of the oil 

recovery and CO2 demand and storage potential from the application of “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR in the Mid-Continent.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 13.3 12.0 3,850 3,270

2. Regional Totals 22.5 12.0 6,530 3,270

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.59.

f. Comparison of State of Art and “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technology.

Applying “Next Generation” CO2-EOR in the Mid-Continent would provide valuable 

additional oil recovery and CO2 storage (Table VI-5.5).

 Economic oil recovery would be 12.0 billion barrels with “Next Generation”

technology compared to 6.6 billion barrels with State of Art technology.

 Economic CO2 demand (and storage capacity) would be 3,270 million metric tons 

with “Next Generation” technology compared to 2,120 million metric tons with 

State of Art technology.

Table VI-5.3. Mid-Content Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Near Miscible “Next Generation” 

CO2-EOR

Table VI-5.4. Mid-Continent Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

66 June 2011

State of Art “Next Generation”

Oil Recovery (Billion Barrels)*

▪ Technical 12.9 22.5

▪ Economic 6.6 12.0

CO2 Demand (Million Metric Tons)

▪ Technical 4,220 6,530

▪ Economic 2,120 3,270

*Includes 0.1 billion barrels already produced or proven with miscible CO2-EOR technology.

Table VI-5.5. Summary Table of Comparison of State of Art and “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR Technology: Mid-Continent (Regional Totals)*
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

67 June 2011

6. Permian Basin

a. Background. The Permian Basin, located in West Texas (Texas Railroad Districts 8 and 

8A) and East New Mexico, is still one of the largest oil producing regions of the world. In 2009, 

this area with 289 million barrels of oil production (790 thousand barrels per day) ranked first for 

U.S. oil production. To date, the Permian Basin has produced 32 billion barrels of oil with 4.8 

billion barrels of remaining proved reserves. (These values include production and proved 

reserves from applying CO2-EOR). Table VI-6.1 provides a tabulation of recent oil production 

rates for the Permian Basin as well as separately for West Texas and East New Mexico.

Year West Texas (1) East New Mexico (2) TOTAL

2000 259 66 325

2001 258 67 325

2002 248 66 314

2003 248 65 313

2004 245 63 308

2005 245 60 305

2006 240 59 299

2007 237 58 295

2008 232 58 290

2009 229 60 289

Sources: (1) EIA Proved Reserves and Production (December, 2010); (2) EIA Crude Oil Production by State (March, 2011)

The Permian Basin contains numerous large, deep, light oil fields and reservoirs 

attractive for CO2 enhanced oil recovery. The oil fields are mature and, except for those 

under CO2 enhanced oil recovery, are in steep decline.

b. Summary of Results. Advanced Resources’ Big Oil Fields Database for the 

Permian Basin contains 215 oil reservoirs that screen favorably for miscible CO2-EOR 

plus 2 oil reservoirs that screen favorably for near miscible CO2-EOR. These 217 

reservoirs contain 72.2 billion barrels of OOIP out of a database of 228 reservoirs with 

72.5 billion OOIP.

c. Miscible CO2-EOR. 

(1). Database. The data for the 215 Permian Basin oil reservoirs favorable for 

miscible CO2-EOR are as follows:

Table VI-6.1. Oil Production from the Permian Basin (MM Bbls/Yr)
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

68 June 2011

Original Oil In-Place 71.0 billion barrels

Expected Ultimate Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery 23.3 billion barrels

Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery Efficiency 33%

Remaining Oil In-Place 47.7 billion barrels

(2). Technically Recoverable. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology applied to 

these 215 oil reservoirs offers the potential for technically recovering 18.2 billion barrels 

of the remaining oil in-place, equal to 26% of OOIP.

(3). Economically Recoverable. Using an oil price of $85 per barrel (WTI) and 

$40 per metric ton of CO2 (delivered at pressure to the basin), 151 of the 215 oil 

reservoirs provide at least a 20% rate of return (before tax) and thus are economically 

feasible. Because most of the giant oil fields in this basin, such as Wasson, Slaughter 

and Seminole, meet the 20% rate of return hurdle, the great bulk of the original oil inplace resource in this basin is in oil fields economic for CO2-EOR. The economically 

feasible oil recovery is 14.6 billion barrels. 

(4). Purchase and Storage of CO2. The volume of purchased CO2 for the 215 

Permian Basin oil fields technically favorable for miscible CO2-EOR is 6,490 million 

metric tons (123 Tcf). The volume of purchased CO2 for the 151 Permian Basin oil 

reservoirs economically favorable for miscible CO2-EOR is 4,750 million metric tons 

(90 Tcf). 

(5) Summary Table. Table VI-6.2 provides a summary of the oil recovery and 

CO2 demand from the application of miscible “Next Generation” CO2-EOR in Permian 

Basin for the 215 oil reservoirs in the data base and for regional totals.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand**

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 18.2 14.6 6,490 4,750

2. Regional Totals 23.9 14.6 8,540 4,750

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.76.

** Includes 1,730 million metric tons of CO2 demand expected to be provided by natural sources and gas processing plants.

d. Near Miscible CO2-EOR. 

(1). Database. The data for the 2 Permian Basin oil reservoirs favorable for near 

miscible CO2-EOR are as follows:

Table VI-6.2. Permian Basin Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Miscible “Next Generation” 

CO2-EOR
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

69 June 2011

Original Oil In-Place 1.1 billion barrels

Expected Ultimate Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery 0.4 billion barrels

Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery Efficiency 31%

Remaining Oil In-Place 0.8 billion barrels

(2). Technically Recoverable. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology applied to 

these 2 oil reservoirs offers the potential for technically recovering 0.1 billion barrels of 

the remaining oil in-place, equal to 9% of OOIP.

(3). Economically Recoverable. Using an oil price of $85 per barrel (WTI) and 

$40 per metric ton of CO2 (delivered at pressure to the basin), none of the oil reservoirs 

provide at least a 20% rate of return (before tax) and thus none are economically 

feasible. 

(4). Purchase and Storage of CO2. The volume of purchased CO2 for the 2 

Permian Basin oil fields technically favorable for near miscible CO2-EOR is 60 million 

metric tons (1 Tcf). 

(5) Summary Table. Table VI-6.3 provides a summary of the oil recovery and 

CO2 demand and storage potential from the application of near miscible “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR in the Permian Basin.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 0.1 - 60 -

2. Regional Totals 0.1 - 80 -

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.76.

e. Miscible and Near Miscible CO2-EOR. Table VI-6.4 provides a summary of the oil 

recovery and CO2 demand and storage potential from the application of “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR in the Permian Basin.

Table VI-6.3. Permian Basin Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Near Miscible “Next Generation” 

CO2-EOR
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

70 June 2011

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand**

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 18.3 14.6 6,550 4,750

2. Regional Totals 24.0 14.6 8,620 4,750

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.76

**Includes 1,540 million metric tons of CO2 demand expected to be provided from natural sources and gas processing plants.

Of the 4,750 million metric tons (90 Tcf) of economic CO2 demand in the Permian Basin, 

1,540 million metric tons (29 Tcf) is expected to be provided from natural sources and 

existing gas processing plants, leaving a net demand of 3,210 million metric tons (61 

Tcf) as the market of anthropogenic CO2, primarily from power plants.

f. Comparison of State of Art and “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technology 

(Regional Totals). Applying “Next Generation” CO2-EOR in the Permian Basin would 

provide significant additional oil recovery and CO2 storage capacity, Table VI-6.5:

 Economic oil recovery would be 14.6 billion barrels with “Next Generation” CO2-

EOR technology compared to 6.4 billion barrels with State of Art technology.

 Economic CO2 demand (and storage capacity) would be 4,750 million metric tons 

gross and 3,210 million metric tons net, with “Next Generation” technology 

compared to 2,690 million metric tons gross and 1,150 million metric tons net 

with State of Art technology.

State of Art “Next Generation”

Oil Recovery (Billion Barrels)

▪ Technical 13.6 24.0

▪ Economic 6.4 14.6

CO2 Demand (Million Metric Tons)

▪ Technical 6,070 8,620

▪ Economic

– Gross* 2,690 4,750

– Net 1,150 3,210

* Includes 1,540 million metric tons of CO2 demand expected to be provided by natural sources and gas 

processing plants.

**Includes 2.2 billion barrels already produced or proven with miscible CO2-EOR technology.

Table VI-6.4. Permian Basin Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR

Table VI-6.5. Summary Table of Comparison of State of Art and “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR Technology: Permian Basin Regional Totals**
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

71 June 2011

In addition, with “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology, the massive oil resource in the 

ROZs of the Permian Basin below 56 existing oil fields became feasible to be pursued, 

providing 11.9 billion barrels of technically recoverable resource and 4.8 million metric 

tons of CO2 demand and storage capacity. 

Expanding the understanding of ROZs beneath existing oil fields (reflected in the above 

resource number) to regionally extensive ROZ “fairways” would significantly increase 

the oil resource available from residual oil zones. This represents a major opportunity 

for “Next Generation” CO2-EOR R&D.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

72 June 2011

7. Rockies

a. Background. The pursuit of new oil plays as well as the liquids-rich shale plays such 

as the Niobrara and Mancos shales have increased the rate of oil production in this 

region to 103 million barrels per year (280,000 barrels per day) in 2009 (Table VI-7.1).

Year Colorado* Utah Wyoming TOTAL

2000 19 16 61 96

2001 18 15 57 90

2002 19 14 55 88

2003 22 13 52 87

2004 23 15 52 90

2005 24 17 52 93

2006 24 18 53 95

2007 24 20 54 98

2008 25 22 53 100

2009 29 23 51 103

*Includes New Mexico West. Source: EIA Crude Oil Production by State (March 2011).

b. Summary of Results. Advanced Resources’ Big Oil Fields Database for the Rockies 

contains 142 oil reservoirs that screen favorably for miscible CO2-EOR plus 4 oil 

reservoirs that screen favorably for near miscible CO2-EOR. These 146 reservoirs 

contain 22.5 billion barrels of OOIP out of a database of 172 reservoirs with 24.7 billion 

of OOIP.

c. Miscible CO2-EOR. 

(1). Database. The data for the 142 the Rockies oil reservoirs favorable for 

miscible CO2-EOR are as follows:

Original Oil In-Place 21.9 billion barrels

Expected Ultimate Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery 7.1 billion barrels

Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery Efficiency 33%

Remaining Oil In-Place 14.7 billion barrels

(2). Technically Recoverable. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology applied to 

these 142 oil reservoirs offers the potential for technically recovering 5.8 billion barrels 

of the remaining oil in-place, equal to 26% of OOIP.

Table VI-7.1. Oil Production from the Rockies (MM Bbls/Yr)
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

73 June 2011

(3). Economically Recoverable. Using an oil price of $85 per barrel (WTI) and 

$40 per metric ton of CO2 (delivered at pressure to the basin), 120 of the 142 oil 

reservoirs provide at least a 20% rate of return (before tax) and thus are deemed to be 

economically feasible. The economically feasible oil recovery is 4.7 billion barrels. 

(4). Purchase and Storage of CO2. The volume of purchased CO2 for the 142 

Rockies oil fields technically favorable for miscible CO2-EOR is 1,650 million metric tons 

(31 Tcf). The volume of purchased CO2 for the 120 Rockies oil reservoirs economically 

favorable for miscible CO2-EOR is 1,270 million metric tons (24 Tcf). 

(5) Summary Table. Table VI-7.2 provides a summary of the oil recovery and 

CO2 demand and storage potential from the application of miscible “Next Generation”

CO2-EOR in Rockies.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand**

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 5.8 4.7 1,650 1,270

2. Regional Totals 9.6 4.7 2,750 1,270

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.6.

** Includes 330 million metric tons of CO2 demand expected to be provided by natural sources and gas processing plants.

d. Near Miscible CO2-EOR. 

(1). Database. The data for the Rockies oil reservoirs favorable for near miscible 

CO2-EOR are as follows:

Original Oil In-Place 0.6 billion barrels

Expected Ultimate Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery 0.2 billion barrels

Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery Efficiency 24%

Remaining Oil In-Place 0.5 billion barrels

(2). Technically Recoverable. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology applied to 

these 4 oil reservoirs offers the potential for technically recovering less than a tenth of 

one billion barrels of the remaining oil in-place, equal to 4% of OOIP.

(3). Economically Recoverable. Using an oil price of $85 per barrel (WTI) and 

$40 per metric ton of CO2, none of the oil reservoirs provide at least a 20% rate of 

return (before tax) and thus none are economically feasible. 

Table VI-7.2. Rockies Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Miscible “Next Generation” CO2-EOR
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

74 June 2011

(4). Purchase and Storage of CO2. The volume of purchased CO2 for the 4 

Rockies oil fields technically favorable for near miscible CO2-EOR is 30 million metric 

tons (<1 Tcf). 

(5) Summary Table. Table VI-7.3 provides a summary of the oil recovery and 

CO2 demand and storage potential from the application of near miscible “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR in the Rockies.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals <1 - 30 -

2. Regional Totals <1 - 40 -

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.6.

e. Miscible and Near Miscible CO2-EOR. Table VI-7.4 provides a summary of the oil 

recovery and CO2 demand and storage potential from the application of “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR in Rockies.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand**

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 5.8 4.7 1,670 1,270

2. Regional Totals 9.7 4.7 2,790 1,270

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.6.

** Includes 230 million metric tons of CO2 demand expected to be provided by natural sources and gas processing plants.

f. Comparison of State of Art and “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technology.

Applying “Next Generation” CO2-EOR in the Rockies would provide valuable additional 

oil recovery and CO2 storage (Table VI-7.5).

 Economic oil recovery would be 4.7 billion barrels with “Next Generation”

technology compared to 1.9 billion barrels with State of Art technology.

 Economic CO2 demand (and storage capacity) would be 1,270 million metric tons 

with “Next Generation” technology compared to 710 million metric tons (gross) 

with State of Art technology.

Table VI-7.3. Rockies Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Near Miscible “Next Generation” 

CO2-EOR

Table VI-7.4. Rockies Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

75 June 2011

State of Art “Next Generation”

Oil Recovery (Billion Barrels)**

▪ Technical 4.5 9.7

▪ Economic 1.9 4.7

CO2 Demand (Million Metric Tons)

▪ Technical 1,930 2,790

▪ Economic

– Gross* 710 1,270

– Net 480 1,040

* Includes 230 million metric tons of CO2 demand expected to be provided by natural sources and gas 

processing plants.

**Includes 0.3 billion barrels already produced or proven with miscible CO2-EOR technology.

In addition, with “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology, the residual oil zone (ROZ) 

resources in the Big Horn would provide 1.1 billion barrels of technically recoverable 

resources below 13 existing oil fields and would provide 0.4 million metric tons of CO2

demand and storage capacity.

Table VI-7.5. Summary Table of Comparison of State of Art and “Next

Generation” CO2-EOR Technology: Rockies (Regional Totals)
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

76 June 2011

8. Southeast Gulf Coast

a. Background. The recent introduction of CO2-EOR in Mississippi and Louisiana has 

helped stem the decline in oil production in this area. Oil production from the Southeast 

Gulf Coast was 100 million barrels (270,000 barrels per day) in 2009 (Table VI-8.1).

Year Louisiana Mississippi Alabama/Florida TOTAL

2000 105 20 15 140

2001 105 20 14 139

2002 93 18 12 123

2003 90 17 11 118

2004 83 17 10 110

2005 75 18 10 103

2006 74 17 10 101

2007 77 20 9 106

2008 73 22 10 105

2009 69 23 8 100

Source: EIA Crude Oil Production by State (March 2011).

b. Summary of Results. Advanced Resources’ Big Oil Fields Database for the 

Southeast Gulf Coast contains 204 oil reservoirs that screen favorably for miscible CO2-

EOR plus 5 oil reservoirs that screen favorably for near miscible CO2-EOR. These 209 

reservoirs contain 23.8 billion barrels of OOIP out of a database of 298 reservoirs with 

26.4 billion of OOIP.

c. Miscible CO2-EOR.

(1). Database. The data for the 204 Southeast Gulf Coast oil reservoirs favorable for 

miscible CO2-EOR are as follows:

Original Oil In-Place 23.3 billion barrels

Expected Ultimate Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery 9.1 billion barrels

Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery Efficiency 39%

Remaining Oil In-Place 14.2 billion barrels

(2). Technically Recoverable. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology applied to 

these 204 oil reservoirs offers the potential for technically recovering 6.0 billion barrels 

of the remaining oil in-place, equal to 26 % of OOIP.

Table VI-8.1. Oil Production from the Southeast Gulf Coast (MM Bbls/Yr)
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

77 June 2011

(3). Economically Recoverable. Using an oil price of $85 per barrel (WTI) and 

$40 per metric ton of CO2 (delivered at pressure to the basin), 146 of the 204 oil 

reservoirs provide at least a 20% rate of return (before tax) and thus are economically 

feasible. The economically feasible oil recovery is 4.8 billion barrels. 

(4). Purchase and Storage of CO2. The volume of purchased CO2 for the 204 

Southeast Gulf Coast oil fields technically favorable for miscible CO2-EOR is 2,010 

million metric tons (38 Tcf). The volume of purchased CO2 for the 146 Southeast Gulf 

Coast oil reservoirs economically favorable for miscible CO2-EOR is 1,440 million metric 

tons (27 Tcf).

Subtracting out the 130 million metric tons (3 Tcf) of CO2 expected to be 

delivered to the Gulf Coast from natural sources ( at 0.3 Bcfd for 30 years), still leaves a 

near- to mid-term market for purchase (and storage) of anthropogenic CO2 of 1,310

million metric tons (24 Tcf). 

(5) Summary Table. Table VI-8.2 provides a summary of the oil recovery and 

CO2 demand and storage potential from the application of miscible Next Generation 

CO2-EOR in Southeast Gulf Coast for the database and extrapolated to regional totals.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand**

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 6.0 4.8 2,010 1,440

2. Regional Totals 10.1 4.8 3,350 1,440

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.60.

** Includes 130 million metric tons of CO2 demand expected to be provided by natural sources and gas processing plants.

d. Near Miscible CO2-EOR.

(1). Database. The data for the 5 Southeast Gulf Coast oil reservoirs favorable 

for near miscible CO2-EOR are as follows:

Original Oil In-Place 0.54 billion barrels

Expected Ultimate Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery 0.16 billion barrels

Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery Efficiency 30%

Remaining Oil In-Place 0.38 billion barrels

Table VI-8.2. Southeast Gulf Coast Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Miscible “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

78 June 2011

(2). Technically Recoverable. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology applied to 

these 5 oil reservoirs offers the potential for technically recovering less than a tenth of 

one billion barrels of the remaining oil in-place, equal to 7% of OOIP.

(3). Economically Recoverable. Using an oil price of $85 per barrel (WTI) and 

$40 per metric ton of CO2 (delivered at pressure to the basin), none of the oil reservoirs 

provide at least a 20% rate of return (before tax) and thus none are economically 

feasible. 

(4). Purchase and Storage of CO2. The volume of purchased CO2 for the 5 

Southeast Gulf Coast oil fields technically favorable for near miscible CO2-EOR is 30 

million metric tons (1 Tcf). 

(5) Summary Table. Table VI-8.3 provides a summary of the oil recovery and 

CO2 demand and storage potential from the application of near miscible “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR in Southeast Gulf Coast.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals <0.1 - 30 -

2. Regional Totals 0.1 - 40 -

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.6.

e. Miscible and Near Miscible CO2-EOR. Table VI-8.4 provides a summary of the oil 

recovery and CO2 demand storage potential available from the application of “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR in Southeast Gulf Coast.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand**

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 6.1 4.8 2,040 1,440

2. Regional Totals 10.1 4.8 3,390 1,440

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.60.

**Includes 130 million metric tons of CO2 demand provided by natural sources and gas processing plants.

Table VI-8.3. Southeast Gulf Coast Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from Near Miscible “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR

Table VI-8.4. Southeast Gulf Coast Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from “Next Generation” 

CO2-EOR
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

79 June 2011

f. Comparison of State of Art and “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technology.

Applying “Next Generation” CO2-EOR in the Southeast Gulf Coast would provide 

valuable additional oil recovery and CO2 storage (Table VI-8.5).

 Economic oil recovery would be 4.8 billion barrels with “Next Generation”

technology compared to 0.9 billion barrels with State of Art technology.

 Economic CO2 demand (and storage capacity) would be 1,440 million metric tons 

(gross) with “Next Generation” technology compared to 290 million metric tons 

(gross) with State of Art technology.

State of Art Next Generation

Oil Recovery (Billion Barrels)

▪ Technical 5.4 10.1

▪ Economic 0.9 4.8

CO2 Demand (Million Metric Tons)

▪ Technical 2,590 3,390

▪ Economic

– Gross* 290 1,440

– Net 160 1,310

* Includes 130 million metric tons of CO2 demand expected to be provided by natural sources and gas 

processing plants.

Table VI-8.5. Summary Table of Comparison of State of Art and “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR Technology: Southeast Gulf Coast (Regional Totals)
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

80 June 2011

9. Williston Basin

a. Background. With the discovery and aggressive development of the Bakken Shale, 

oil production from the Williston Basin has more than doubled during this decade, 

reaching 109 million barrels per year (300,000 barrels per day), Table VI-9.1.

Year N/S Dakota Montana TOTAL

2000 34 15 49

2001 33 16 49

2002 32 17 49

2003 31 19 50

2004 33 25 58

2005 37 33 70

2006 41 36 77

2007 47 35 82

2008 64 32 96

2009 81 28 109

Source: EIA Crude Oil Production by State (March 2011).

b. Summary of Results. Advanced Resources’ Big Oil Fields Database for the Williston 

Basin contains 86 oil reservoirs that screen favorably for miscible CO2-EOR. These 86 

reservoirs contain 9.3 billion barrels of OOIP out of a database of 95 reservoirs with 9.4 

billion of OOIP.

c. Miscible CO2-EOR. 

(1). Database. The data for the 86 Williston Basin oil reservoirs favorable for 

miscible CO2-EOR are as follows:

Original Oil In-Place 9.3 billion barrels

Expected Ultimate Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery 2.6 billion barrels

Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery Efficiency 28 %

Remaining Oil In-Place 6.7 billion barrels

(2). Technically Recoverable. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology applied to 

these 86 oil reservoirs offers the potential for technically recovering 2.8 billion barrels of 

the remaining oil in-place, equal to 30% of OOIP.

Table VI-9.1. Oil Production from the Williston Basin (MM Bbls/Yr)
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

81 June 2011

(3). Economically Recoverable. Using an oil price of $85 per barrel (WTI) and 

$40 per metric ton of CO2 (delivered at pressure to the basin), 40 of the 86 oil reservoirs 

provide at least a 20% rate of return (before tax) and thus are economically feasible. 

The economically feasible oil recovery is 1.3 billion barrels. 

(4). Purchase and Storage of CO2. The volume of purchased CO2 demand for the 

86 Williston Basin oil fields technically favorable for miscible CO2-EOR is 820 million 

metric tons (15 Tcf). The volume of purchased CO2 demand for the 40 Williston Basin

oil reservoirs economically favorable for miscible CO2-EOR is 360 million metric tons 

(7 Tcf). 

(5). Summary. Table VI-9.2 provides a summary of the oil recovery and CO2

demand storage potential from the application of “Next Generation” CO2-EOR in 

Williston Basin.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 2.8 1.3 820 360

2. Regional Totals 4.0 1.3 1,150 360

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.71.

d. Near Miscible CO2-EOR. At this time, no oil reservoirs in the Williston Basin screen 

favorably for near miscible CO2-EOR.

e. Comparison of State of Art and “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technology.

Applying “Next Generation” CO2-EOR in the Williston Basin would provide valuable 

additional oil recovery and CO2 storage (Table VI-9.3).

 Economic oil recovery would be 1.3 billion barrels with “Next Generation”

technology compared to 0.3 billion barrels with State of Art technology.

 Economic CO2 demand (and storage capacity) would be 360 million metric tons 

with “Next Generation” technology compared to 130 million metric tons with State 

of Art technology.

Table VI-9.2. Williston Basin Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

82 June 2011

State of Art “Next Generation”

Oil Recovery (Billion Barrels)

▪ Technical 2.1 4.0

▪ Economic 0.3 1.3

CO2 Demand (Million Metric Tons)

▪ Technical 820 1,150

▪ Economic 130 360

In addition, with “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology, the residual oil zone (ROZ) 

resources below 20 existing oil fields in the Williston Basin would provide 3.3 billion 

barrels of technically recoverable resources and would provide 1.3 million metric tons of 

CO2 demand and storage capacity.

Table VI-9.3. Summary Table of Comparison of State of Art and “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR Technology: Williston Basin (Regional Totals)
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

83 June 2011

10. Alaska

a. Background. From a peak of 738 million barrels (2 million barrels per day) in 1988, 

oil production from Alaska’s North Slope and Cook Inlets declined steadily -- 355 million 

barrels (1 million barrels per day) in 2000 and has 219 million barrels (600,000 barrels 

per day) in 2010 (Table VI-10.1).

Year TOTAL

2000 355

2001 351

2002 359

2003 356

2004 332

2005 315

2006 270

2007 266

2008 250

2009 236

2010 219

Source: EIA Crude Oil Production by State (March 2011).

b. Reservoirs Favorable for CO2-EOR. Advanced Resources’ Big Oil Fields Database

for Alaska contains 36 oil reservoirs that screen favorably for miscible CO2-EOR. 

These 36 reservoirs contain 50.1 billion barrels of OOIP out of a data base of 43 

reservoirs with 50.7 billion of OOIP.

c. Miscible CO2-EOR. 

(1). Database. The data for the 36 Alaska oil reservoirs favorable for miscible 

CO2-EOR are as follows:

Original Oil In-Place 50.1 billion barrels

Expected Ultimate Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery 21.7 billion barrels

Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery Efficiency* 43%

Remaining Oil In-Place 28.4 billion barrels

*Includes oil recovery from hydrocarbon miscible EOR.

Table VI-10.1. Oil Production from Alaska (MM Bbls/Yr)
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

84 June 2011

(2). Technically Recoverable. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology applied to 

these 36 oil reservoirs offers the potential for technically recovering 8.7 billion barrels of 

the remaining oil in-place, equal to 17% of OOIP.

(3). Economically Recoverable. Using an oil price of $85 per barrel (WTI) and 

$40 per metric ton of CO2 (delivered at pressure to the basin), 19 of the 36 oil reservoirs 

provide at least a 20% rate of return (before tax) and thus are economically feasible. 

The economically feasible oil recovery is 5.7 billion barrels 

(4). Purchase and Storage of CO2. The volume of purchased CO2 for the 36 

Alaska oil fields technically favorable for miscible CO2-EOR is 4,070 million metric tons 

(77 Tcf). The volume of purchased CO2 for the 19 Alaska oil reservoirs economically 

favorable for miscible CO2-EOR is 2,330 million metric tons (44 Tcf). 

(5). Summary Table . Table VI-10.2 provides a summary of the oil recovery and 

CO2 demand and storage potential from the application of miscible “Next Generation”

CO2-EOR in Alaska.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 8.7 5.7 4,070 2,330

2. Regional Totals 8.8 5.7 4,110 2,330

*Database totals extrapolated to regional totals using a dividing factor of 0.99.

d. Near Miscible CO2-EOR. At this time, no oil reservoirs in Alaska screened favorably 

for near miscible CO2-EOR.

e. Comparison of State of Art and “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technology.

Applying “Next Generation” CO2-EOR in Alaska would provide valuable additional oil 

recovery and CO2 storage (Table VI-10.3).

 Economic oil recovery would be 5.7 billion barrels with “Next Generation”

technology compared to 2.6 billion barrels with State of Art technology.

 Economic CO2 demand (and storage capacity) would be 2,330 million metric tons 

with “Next Generation” technology compared to 1,490 million metric tons with 

State of Art technology.

Table VI-10.2. Alaska Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from “Next Generation” CO2-EOR
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

85 June 2011

State of Art “Next Generation”

Oil Recovery (Billion Barrels)

▪ Technical 5.8 8.8

▪ Economic 2.6 5.7

CO2 Demand (Million Metric Tons)

▪ Technical 3,320 4,110

▪ Economic 1,490 2,330

Table VI-10.3. Summary Table of Comparison of State of Art and “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR Technology: Alaska (Regional Totals)
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

86 June 2011

11. Offshore Gulf of Mexico

a. Background. With the onset of new oil fields from deep waters, oil production from 

the Federal Offshore Gulf of Mexico and the state waters rebounded to 576 million 

barrels in 2009 (1,580,000 barrels per day) (Table VI-11.1).

Year Federal 

Offshore

Louisiana 

State Offshore

Texas 

State Offshore TOTAL

2000 523 13 1 537

2001 560 13 1 574

2002 568 11 1 580

2003 569 11 1 581

2004 532 10 1 543

2005 468 8 1 477

2006 474 8 * 482

2007 466 8 1 475

2008 422 6 1 429

2009 569 6 1 576

*Less than 0.5 million barrels. Source: EIA Crude Oil Production by State (March 2011).

b. Summary of Results. Advanced Resources’ Big Oil Fields Database for the 

Offshore Gulf of Mexico contains 646 oil reservoirs (in 146 fields) that screen favorably 

for miscible CO2-EOR. These 646 reservoirs contain 29.5 billion barrels of OOIP.

c. Miscible CO2-EOR.

(1). Database. The data for the 646 Offshore Gulf of Mexico oil reservoirs 

favorable for miscible CO2-EOR are as follows:

Original Oil In-Place 29.5 billion barrels

Expected Ultimate Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery 12.1 billion barrels

Primary/Secondary Oil Recovery Efficiency 41 %

Remaining Oil In-Place 17.4 billion barrels

(2). Technically Recoverable. “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology applied to 

these 646 oil reservoirs offers the potential for technically recovering 6.0 billion barrels 

of the remaining oil in-place, equal to 20% of OOIP.

Table VI-11.1. Oil Production from the Offshore Gulf of Mexico (MM Bbls/Yr)
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

87 June 2011

(3). Economically Recoverable. Using an oil price of $85 per barrel (WTI) and 

$40 per metric ton of CO2 (delivered at pressure to the basin), 123 oil reservoirs provide 

at least a 20% rate of return (before tax) and thus are economically feasible. The 

economically feasible oil recovery is 0.9 billion barrels. 

(4). Purchase and Storage of CO2. The volume of purchased CO2 for the 146

Offshore Gulf of Mexico oil fields (646 reservoirs) technically favorable for miscible CO2-

EOR is 1,770 million metric tons (33 Tcf). The volume of purchased CO2 for the 123

Offshore Gulf of Mexico oil reservoirs economically favorable for miscible CO2-EOR is 

260 million metric tons (4 Tcf).

(5). Summary Table. Table VI-11.2 provides a summary of the oil recovery and 

CO2 demand and storage potential from the application of “Next Generation” CO2-EOR 

in Offshore Gulf of Mexico.

Oil Recovery

(Billion Barrels)

CO2 Demand

(Million Metric Tons)

Technical* Economic Technical* Economic

1. Database Totals 6.0 0.9 1,770 260

2. Regional Totals 6.0 0.9 1,770 260

*Regional totals equal data base totals.

d. Near Miscible CO2-EOR. At this time, no oil reservoirs in the Offshore Gulf of 

Mexico screened favorably for near miscible CO2-EOR.

e. Comparison of State of Art and “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Technology.

Given the barriers, complexities and economic challenges of initiating CO2-EOR in the 

Offshore Gulf of Mexico oil fields, this region, only feasible with “Next Generation”

technology.

Table VI-11.2. Offshore Gulf of Mexico Oil Recovery and CO2 Demand from “Next Generation” 

CO2-EOR
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

88 June 2011

VII. OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY

A. Six Step Methodology

A six part methodology was used to assess the CO2 storage potential of applying “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR technology to domestic oil reservoirs. The six steps were: (1) 

assembling and updating the Major Oil Reservoirs Database containing over 6,300 

large domestic oil reservoirs; (2) calculating the minimum miscibility pressure for 

applying CO2 -EOR; (3) using minimum miscibility pressure and other criteria to screen 

reservoirs favorable for miscible and near miscible CO2-EOR; (4) calculating oil 

recovery from applying “Next Generation” CO2-EOR technology; and (5) applying the 

updated cost and economic model. Step 6 was to incorporate the prior work conducted 

by Advanced Resources and Melzer Consulting on residual oil zones (ROZs) into this 

study and report.

B. Cost Model

The cost model includes costs for: (1) drilling new wells or reworking existing wells; (2) 

providing surface equipment for new wells; (3) installing the CO2 recycle plant; (4) 

constructing a CO2 spur-line from the main CO2 trunkline to the oil field; and (5) other 

capital investment costs. The cost model also accounts for normal well operation and 

maintenance (O&M), for lifting costs of the produced fluids, and for costs of capturing, 

separating and reinjecting the produced CO2. 

C. Economic Model

The economic model used by the study is an industry standard cash flow model run on 

either a pattern or a field-wide basis. The key inputs and assumptions of the economic 

model include the following: (1) Oil Price - - $85 per barrel (WTI reference price); (2) 

CO2 Purchase Costs - - $40 per metric ton (delivered at pressure to the oil field); (3) 

Financial Hurdle Rate - - 20% ROR (before tax); (4) Royalties - - 17.5%; (5) State 

Severance/Ad Valorem Taxes - - State specific; (6) CO2 Reinjection Cost ($/Mcf) - - 1% 

of oil price ($/barrel) (for compression and treatment); and (7) CAPEX and OPEX - -

state and depth specific.

D. Regional Scaling Factors

A series of scaling factors are used to extrapolate the technical oil recovery from the 

sample of oil fields in the Big Oil Fields Database to regional totals, as shown in Chapter 

6 for each region. For two of the regions, Alaska and the Offshore Gulf of Mexico, the 

Big Oil Fields Database contains essentially all of the past oil production and proved 

reserves for these two regions. For other regions, the scaling factors range from 59% to 

99%.

The scaling factor for technically recoverable oil for each region is based on the volume 

of oil production and proved reserves represented by the oil fields in the data base to 

total oil production and proved reserves reported for the region.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

89 June 2011

No scaling factors are used for extrapolating economically recoverable oil from the oil 

fields in the data base to regional totals. The economic results from the large oil fields 

in the data base, which tend to have more favorable economics due to resource size 

and scale, may not be representative of the economics of the thousands of smaller oil 

fields in a given region.

E. Additional “Next Generation” Model Features

The study incorporated the following additional features into this version of the “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR Model:

 The analysis assumes that the thinner, edge areas of the oil field, accounting for 

20% of and reservoir area and 10% of the OOIP, will not be feasible for application 

of CO2-EOR.

 The oil recovery model assumes that the residual oil left in the pore space after CO2

injection (Sorm) is 8%. This compares to the previous analysis that used a more 

complex algorithm that related the Sorm to volumes of CO2 injected. 

 The model currently uses tapered WAG ratios starting with an initial large slug of 

CO2 before introducing water for mobility control. The previous analysis used a 

consistent (“simple”) WAG ratio. An economic truncation algorithm (comparing 

annual revenues with annual costs) halts project operation and CO2 injection once 

annual cash flow becomes negative.

 The analysis assumes that 25% of the injected CO2 is dissolved in the reservoirs 

water or is lost outside the pattern area and thus is not available as recycled CO2 for 

meeting total CO2 injection needs.

Additional detail on the “Next Generation” CO2-EOR study methodology is provided in 

Appendix A.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

A-1

APPENDIX A

Discussion of Study Methodology
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

Appendix A A-1 June 1, 2011

Study Methodology

STUDY METHODOLOGY

A five part methodology was used to assess the CO2 storage and EOR potential of 

domestic oil reservoirs. The six steps were: (1) assembling and updating the Major Oil 

Reservoirs Database; (2) calculating the minimum miscibility pressure for applying CO2

-EOR; (3) using minimum miscibility pressure and other criteria to screen reservoirs 

favorable for CO2-EOR; (4) calculating oil recovery from applying “Next Generation” 

CO2-EOR technology; and (5) applying the updated cost and economic model.

A. Assembling The Major Oil Reservoirs Database

Overall, the Major Oil Reservoirs Database contains over 6,300 reservoirs, accounting 

for 75% of the oil expected to be ultimately produced in the U.S. by primary and 

secondary oil recovery processes. Figure A-1 illustrates a portion of the reservoir data 

included in the Major Oil Reservoirs Database.

Considerable effort has been invested to construct an up-to-date, volumetrically 

consistent database that contained all of the essential data, formats and interfaces to 

enable the study to: (1) develop an accurate estimate of the size of the original and 

remaining oil in-place; (2) reliably screen the reservoirs as to their amenability for 

miscible and immiscible CO2-EOR; and, (3) provide the CO2-PROPHET Model the 

essential input data for calculating CO2 injection requirements and oil recovery.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

Appendix A A-2 June 1, 2011

Study Methodology

Figure A-1. Reservoir Data Format: Major Oil Reservoirs Database

B. Calculating Minimum Miscibility Pressure 

The miscibility of a reservoir’s oil with injected CO2 is a function of pressure, 

temperature and the composition of the reservoir’s oil. The study’s approach to 

estimating whether a reservoir’s oil will be miscible with CO2, given fixed temperature 

and oil composition, is to determine whether the reservoir would hold sufficient pressure 

to attain miscibility. To determine the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) for any 

given reservoir, the study used the Cronquist correlation. This formulation determines 

MMP based on reservoir temperature and the molecular weight (MW) of the pentanes 

and heavier fractions of the reservoir oil, as set forth below:

MMP = 15.988*T (0.744206+0.0011038*MW C5+)

Where: T is Temperature in °F, and MW C5+ is the molecular weight of pentanes and heavier fractions in 

the reservoir’s oil.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

Appendix A A-3 June 1, 2011

Study Methodology

A similar approach to estimating minimum miscibility pressure, prepared by Mungan 

(1981), is shown on Figure A-2.

Figure A-2. Estimating CO2 Minimum Miscibility Pressure

The temperature of the reservoir was taken from the database or estimated from the 

thermal gradient in the basin. The molecular weight of the pentanes and heavier 

fraction of the oil was obtained from the database or was estimated from a correlative 

plot of MW C5+ and oil gravity, shown in Figure A-3.

Mole Weight C5+

70 110 150 190 230 270

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Miscibility Pressure, psi

Temperature, oF

 

340 300 280 260 240 220 200

180

Correlation for CO2 Minimum Pressure as a Function of Temperature

(Mungan, N., Carbon Dioxide Flooding Fundamentals, 1981)

Mole Weight C5+

70 110 150 190 230 270

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Miscibility Pressure, psi

Temperature, oF

 

340 300 280 260 240 220 200

180

Correlation for CO2 Minimum Pressure as a Function of Temperature

(Mungan, N., Carbon Dioxide Flooding Fundamentals, 1981)
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

Appendix A A-4 June 1, 2011

Study Methodology

Figure A-3. Correlation of MW C5+ to Tank Oil Gravity

C. Screening Reservoirs for CO2-EOR

The preliminary screening steps involved selecting the deeper oil reservoirs that had 

sufficiently high oil gravity. A minimum reservoir depth of 2,500 to 3,000 feet, at the 

mid-point of the reservoir, was used to ensure the reservoir could accommodate high 

pressure CO2 injection. A minimum oil gravity of 17.5 oAPI was used to ensure the 

reservoir’s oil had sufficient mobility, without requiring thermal injection.

The next step was comparing the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) to the maximum

allowable pressure. The maximum pressure was determined using a pressure gradient 

of 0.6 to 0.7 psi/foot, depending on the region. If the minimum miscibility pressure was 

below the maximum injection pressure, the reservoir was classified as a miscible flood 

candidate. Oil reservoirs that did not screen positively for miscible CO2-EOR were 

selected for consideration by near miscible CO2-EOR.

y = 4247.98641x-0.87022

R2 = 0.99763

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 20 40 60 80 100

Tank Oil Gravity, oAPI

Molecular WT C5+

 

 

y = 4247.98641x-0.87022

R2 = 0.99763

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 20 40 60 80 100

Tank Oil Gravity, oAPI

Molecular WT C5+

 

 
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

Appendix A A-5 June 1, 2011

Study Methodology

D. Calculating Oil Recovery 

The study utilized CO2-PROPHET to calculate incremental oil produced using “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR technology.

 CO2-PROPHET generates streamlines for fluid flow between injection and 

production wells, and

 The model performs oil displacement and recovery calculations along the 

established streamlines. (A finite difference routine is used for oil displacement 

calculations.)

Even with these features, it is important to note the CO2-PROPHET is still primarily a 

“screening-type” model, and lacks some of the key features, such as gravity override 

and compositional changes to fluid phases, available in more sophisticated reservoir 

simulators. More detailed assessments of CO2-EOR would need to use a 

compositional, 3D reservoir simulator.

E. Assembling The Cost and Economics Models

A detailed, up-to-date CO2-EOR Cost Model was developed for the study. The model 

includes costs for: (1) drilling new wells or reworking existing wells; (2) providing surface 

equipment for new wells; (3) installing the CO2 recycle plant; (4) constructing a CO2

spur-line from the main CO2 trunkline to the oil field; and (5) other costs.

The cost model also accounts for normal well operation and maintenance (O&M), for 

lifting costs of the produced fluids, and for costs of capturing, separating and reinjecting 

the produced CO2. 

The economic model used by the study is an industry standard cash flow model that 

can be run on either a pattern or a field-wide basis. The economic model accounts for 

royalties, severance and ad valorem taxes, as well as any oil gravity and market 

location discounts (or premiums) from the “marker” oil price.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

Appendix A A-6 June 1, 2011

Study Methodology

The key inputs and assumptions of the economic model include the following:

 Oil Price - - $85 per barrel (WTI reference price). The oil price selected for the 

analysis is consistent with EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook oil price for years 2012 and 

2013.

 CO2 Purchase Price - - $40 per metric ton (delivered at pressure to the oil field). The 

CO2 purchase price selected is consistent with historical ratios relating to CO2

purchase to oil price using a value of 2.5% (with a range of 2% to 3%) of the oil price 

to calculate the CO2 purchase price in $/Mcf. For example at an $85 per barrel oil 

price, the CO2 purchase price would be $2.12/Mcf equal to about $40 per metric ton.

 Financial Hurdle Rate - - 20% ROR (before tax)

 Royalties - - 17.5%

 State Severance/Ad Valorem Taxes - - State specific

 CO2 Reinjection Cost - - 1% of oil price (for compression and treatment)

 CAPEX and OPEX - - State and depth specific.

G. Other Considerations

Based on discussions with operators, the study incorporated the following additional 

features into this version of the “Next Generation” CO2-EOR Model:

 The analysis assumes that the thinner, edge areas of the oil field, accounting for 

20% of the field and reservoir area and 10% of the OOIP, will not be feasible for 

application of CO2-EOR.

 The oil recovery model assumes that the residual oil left in the pore space after CO2

injection is 8%.

 The quantity of CO2 injected is up to 1.5 HCPV. The tapered WAG ratios includes 

an initial large slug of CO2 plus water for mobility control.

 An economic truncation algorithm (comparing annual revenues with annual costs) 

halts project operation and CO2 injection once annual cash flow becomes negative.

 The analysis assumes that 25% of the injected CO2 is dissolved in water or is lost 

outside the pattern area.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

Appendix B B-1 June 1, 2011

Major Observations and Recommendations

APPENDIX B

A Summary of the Meetings with Industry Practitioners
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

Appendix B B-2 June 1, 2011

Major Observations and Recommendations

Background

A series of “field” visits and meetings were held with industry experts active in applying CO2-

EOR technology. The purpose of the visits and meetings were to: (1) obtain industry feedback 

on the methodology and results of the NETL/ARI studies of CO2-EOR; and (2) to discuss 

observations and recommendations for conducting an updated assessment of “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR and CO2 storage.

Three specific industry review meetings were held in September 2010 involving Don Remson of 

NETL, Vello Kuuskraa, Robert Ferguson and Tyler Van Leeuwen of Advanced Resources 

International and Bob Blaylock of BAH.

• The first meeting was on September 9, 2010 in Houston, Texas with Kinder 

Morgan. This meeting involved two Kinder Morgan staff - - Lanny Schoeling, 

Vice President, Engineering & Technical Development and Steve Pontious, Staff 

Engineer.

• The second meeting was during the afternoon of September 9, 2010 in Houston, 

Texas with Hess Corporation. This meeting involved four staff - - Manuel De 

Jesus Valle, Geological Advisor, Americas Onshore Subsurface; Ed De Zabala, 

Senior Reservoir Engineering Advisor, EOR Exploration and Production 

Technology; Alvaro Grijalba, Subsurface Team Lead, Americas Technical –

Permian; and Paul Carmody, Facilities Engineering Advisor, Americas 

Production Excellence.

• The third meeting was on September 16, 2010 in Midland, Texas with a number 

of industry experts from eight companies. The meeting involved:

– Steve Melzer, President of Melzer Consulting

– Barry Schneider of Denbury Resources

– Scott Wehner, Manager – Engineering; Andrew Parker, Geoscientists –

Permian Basin; and Tom Beebe, Sr. Reservoir Engineer of Whiting 

Petroleum Corporation

– Mike Moore, Vice President, External Affairs & Business Development CCS 

of Blue Source

– Dr. Robert Trentham, Director, Center for Energy and Economic 

Diversification, University of Texas of the Permian Basin

– Brian Hargrove and Barry Petty, Trinity CO2

– Michael Rushing, CO2/EOR Manager, Apache Corporation, and

– Tom Thurmond, Engineering Manager, Legado Resources
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

Appendix B B-3 June 1, 2011

Major Observations and Recommendations

Overall Industry Observations

The industry experts found that the methodology and results of the CO2-EOR studies of 

NETL/ARI were reasonable. While a number of excellent suggestions were made as to how 

specific areas of the methodology could be improved (e.g., current higher costs of CO2

pipelines), the overall response, as stated by one respondent was “if we were asked to do this, 

we probably would have done it the same way.”

The industry reviewers found the oil recovery efficiencies of 15% to 20% of OOIP for oil 

reservoirs geologically favorable for CO2 to be reasonable. (Overall, the NETL/ARI results for 

“state of art” CO2-EOR provides 17.5% recovery of OOIP, after eliminating oil reservoirs not 

favorable for miscible CO2-EOR.) The industry experts cited examples of CO2-EOR projects 

that were recovering 17% to 18% of OOIP and, with additional reservoir surveillance and 

technology, were looking to push this over 20% of OOIP.

Two specific observations were made with respect to observed oil recovery efficiencies in actual 

CO2-EOR floods:

• Whiting noted that their Postle CO2-EOR project is currently expected to recover 

17% to 18% of OOIP and, with application of cross-well seismic and increased 

use of CO2 in selected patterns, the company looks to push up the recovery 

efficiency to the mid-twenties.

• Denbury noted that their oil recovery expectations are for 17% to 18% of OOIP 

for straight CO2 flooding. With incorporation of a WAG process at the end of the 

straight CO2-flood, Denbury looks to boost oil recoveries to 20% OOIP. Denbury 

specifically cited the West Heidelberg oil field which already has an expected 

18% recovery of OOIP from CO2-EOR (60% OOIP overall recovery). They are 

considering converting this field to a WAG process to further increase oil 

recovery.

The exclusion of NGL production from the liquids production reported for CO2-EOR projects is 

one reason reported oil recovery efficiencies are lower than actual total liquids recoveries. (A 

barrel of NGLs has about two-thirds of the Btu content and sales value of crude oil.) For 

example:

• The SACROC CO2-EOR project operated by Kinder Morgan reports (for 2010) 

about 29,000 barrels per day of oil production and about 16,000 barrels per day 

of NGL production from the SACROC gas plant. (A small portion of the input 

stream to the gas plant is from other nearby oil fields.) Adding the NGL 

production (after adjusting for Btu content) would increase the reported liquids 

production value by 37 %, see Table B-1.

• Whiting reports that their long-term observation is that CO2-EOR strips the light 

ends from the crude oil (the propane, butane, etc.) leading to significantly higher 

incremental NGL production volumes after the initiation of a CO2 flood.

Future assessments of the performance of CO2-EOR would benefit from the incorporation of 

NGL production into overall oil recovery estimates and economics.

Table B-1. Oil and Gas Segment: Production and DCF
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

Appendix B B-4 June 1, 2011

Major Observations and Recommendations

Source: KinderMorgan, 2011

Major Recommendations

The industry experts made ten significant recommendations for improving the modeling of “Next 

Generation” CO2-EOR.

Recommendation #1. Consider modifying the injected CO2 to water ratio, including using a 

larger initial slug of CO2 or even straight CO2 in low permeability oil reservoirs, to increase the 

processing rate and reduce the need to “drill down” the pattern.

Currently, the model uses the same WAG ratio, independent of the permeability (and thus 

injectivity) of the reservoir, often causing the model to use closer well spacing than currently 

exists to achieve a 15 to 30 year flood (per pattern).

Modifying the WAG ratio or eliminating the use of water would enable the model to use larger 

well spacing, reducing the need to drill additional wells and thus improving economics. 

The PROPHET2 model has been revised to set the minimum pattern size to 40 acres, to 

increase minimum CO2 injectivity, and to incorporate a larger initial CO2 slug, as part of a 

tapered WAG.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

Appendix B B-5 June 1, 2011

Major Observations and Recommendations

Recommendation #2. Consider applying the CO2 flood to only 80% of the reservoir area to 

eliminate the low quality edge of the reservoir from being flooded. The exact factor could be 

related to field size, with large fields having a higher factor of developable acreage.

Currently, the model selects one type pattern and applies the results from this type pattern to 

the entire reservoir. A key input is the average reservoir net thickness which includes both the 

thicker central area and the thinner edge area. Reducing the CO2 flood to the higher quality, 

thicker pay central area of the oil reservoir would provide somewhat higher recovery per pattern 

and enable fewer patterns to flood the bulk of the OOIP. 

The PROPHET model has been revised to flood only 80% of the field area containing 90% of 

the OOIP.

Recommendation #3. Consider allowing higher gravity oils to become miscible or near 

miscible CO2 candidates due to achieving multi-contact miscibility with time. Currently, lower 

gravity oil reservoir, say 18o to 20o API, are generally categorized as immiscible floods, 

relegated to low recovery of the OOIP.

Certain lower gravity floods in relatively shallow oilfields, such as the Eucutta oil field, are

achieving higher oil recovery efficiency than would be realized from an immiscible model. A 

similar lower oil gravity CO2 flood with higher expected performance is in planning stages for the 

shallower Wall reservoir in the Salt Creek field in Wyoming. Applying near miscible CO2

flooding to these lower oil gravity oil reservoirs would provide higher oil recovery efficiencies. 

This recommendation has been incorporated, in a preliminary way, into the model, but requires 

further analytical work.

Recommendation #4. Incorporate the oil resources and production from the Residual Oil 

Zones (ROZs) into “Next Generation” ROZ. Currently the model only floods the MPZ (main pay 

zone of the oil reservoir). However, evidence is mounting that the San Andres ROZ in the 

Permian Basin is of high quality, with a thick pay and favorable oil saturation. 

Adding the ROZ of the San Andres formation in the Permian Basin would increase the size of 

the target oil producible with CO2-EOR. It would also significantly increase the storage volume 

for CO2. 

The already performed study of the Permian, Big Horn and Williston basins’ ROZ resources 

(beneath existing fields) will be incorporated into this “Next Generation” study. Further study of 

ROZ resources, with a particular emphasis on the oil resources held in ROZ “fairways” and on 

the economic feasibility of producing oil from ROZs would significantly improve the 

understanding of this important domestic oil resource.
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

Appendix B B-6 June 1, 2011

Major Observations and Recommendations

Recommendation #5. Use marginal oil productivity and costs to set the maximum HCPV of 

CO2 to be injected. 

Currently, the PROPHET2 model uses 1.0 HCPV for the “State of Art” CO2-EOR case and uses 

1.5 HCPV for the “Next Generation” CO2-EOR case. Making the volume of CO2 injected in the 

“Next Generation” CO2-EOR case a function of marginal costs would provide a more realistic 

representation of current EOR operations. 

This feature has been incorporated into this “Next Generation” study.

Recommendation #6. Consider including a “combination technology case”, involving injection 

of CO2 and surfactant, for improving oil recovery from immiscible CO2-EOR projects, such as 

Yates. 

Currently, oil reservoirs categorized as immiscible are not included in this study. Adding a lowconcentration of surfactant slug followed by CO2 could substantially increase oil recovery 

efficiency in shallower, immiscible flooded CO2-EOR projects. 

This feature is being investigated for use in subsequent model updates.

Recommendation #7. Increase the size of the initial CO2 slug to 0.4 HCPV before starting a 

CO2 WAG. 

Currently, the CO2 flooding design is to conduct a 1 to 3 WAG for the first 0.4 HCPV of injected 

CO2, followed by a 1 to 2.5 WAG for the remaining 0.6 HCPV of injected CO2. Increasing the 

volume of the CO2 slug at the start of the project will provide a quicker oil response and 

potentially help promote miscibility, helping improve the economics of the CO2 flood. 

The tapered WAG feature has been incorporated into this “Next Generation” study. 

Recommendation #8. Modify the CO2 injection and production algorithm in PROPHET2 to 

reflect a higher net CO2 to oil ratio, to account for dead-end pores and loss of CO2 outside the 

pattern. 

Currently, the model does not include dead-end pore space or loss of CO2 outside the pattern, 

thus providing a relatively favorable CO2 material balance. Reducing the production of CO2 to 

about 75% of what would otherwise occur, to account for dead-end pore space and CO2 losses,

would raise the required purchase volumes of CO2. 

This feature has been incorporated into this “Next Generation” CO2-EOR study.

Recommendation #9. Consider incorporating the higher NGL production achieved from CO2-

EOR floods in the overall economics. 

Currently, only the oil production from a CO2 flood is included in the recovery efficiency and 

economic calculation. Past experience shows that implementation of CO2-EOR significantly 

improves the stripping of light ends from the crude oil. 

This feature is being investigated for use in subsequent model updates.

Recommendation #10. Consider using basin-by-basin criteria for establishing the maximum 

pressure gradient for MMP (minimum miscibility pressure). 
Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with

Next Generation CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)

Appendix B B-7 June 1, 2011

Major Observations and Recommendations

Currently, the screening criteria for miscibility use a maximum pressure gradient of 0.6 psi/ft. for 

all basins. Increasing the pressure gradient to a higher, say 0.7 psi/ft. for the Illinois Basin 

would enable a shallower, 2,700 reservoir with a MMP of 1,800 psi to be a miscible CO2 flood 

(maximum pressure of 1,890 psi) instead of being processed as an immiscible CO2 flood 

(maximum pressure of 1,620 psi). 

This feature has been incorporated into the “Next Generation” analysis of the Illinois Basin.