CO -EOR Set for Growth As New CO Supplies Emerge

Home , Aera Energy, Enhanced oil recovery

TECHNOLOGY

CO2-EOR set for growth DRILLING & PRODUCTION as new CO2 supplies emerge

Vello Kuuskraa the Gulf Coast and the Rocky Mountains. Matt Wallace Based on these first two phases of growth, the industry Advanced Resources International now injects 3.5 bcfd (68 million tonnes/year [tpy]) of natural

Arlington, Va. and industrial CO2 to produce 300,000 b/d of oil via EOR. Fig. 1 provides the state-by-state locations for the 136

Development of large natural sources of CO2 in Colorado currently active CO2-EOR projects. Much of the activity is (McElmo Dome/Doe Canyon) and New Mexico (Bravo in West Texas with 77 projects, followed by Mississippi (19

Dome) plus construction of high-volume CO2 pipelines en- projects), and Wyoming (14 projects).

abled CO2 enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) to Fig. 1 also shows the location of existing CO2 sup-

achieve its first burst of growth in the Permian ba- ply sources. While much of the CO2 is from natural

sin starting in the 1980s. CO2 fields, industrial sources in growing numbers

Subsequent development of natural CO2 sup- also provide CO2 to the EOR industry. A robust in-

plies at Jackson Dome, Mississippi, and the cap- frastructure of CO2 pipelines, totaling more than

ture of vented CO2 at the massive LaBarge nat- 3,000 miles, links CO2 supply areas with oil fields.

ural gas processing plant in western Wyoming While oil production from CO2-EOR has steadi- provided the foundations for the second round SPECIAL ly increased, its growth has slowed in the past few REPORT of CO2-EOR growth at the turn of the century in years (Fig. 2). This is due primarily to limits on ac-

CO2-EOR OPERATIONS, CO2 SOURCES: 2014 FIG. 1

2 Oil production, 2014

Dakota Coal CO2 –EOR projects 136 gasi cation plant Oil production, 1,000 b/d 300 1 9 CO2 supplies, 2014 Greencore Riley Ridge pipeline Number of sources 17 LaBarge gas plant 14 • Natural 5 2 Conestoga Bonanza • Industrial 12 Sheep Mountain 1 Conestoga ethanol plant

McElmo Dome Coffeeville fertilizer plant CO2 supply, MMcfd 3.5 Doe Canyon Enid fertilizer plant 9 • Natural 2.8 Bravo Dome 2 Jackson Dome Agrium Mississippi • Industrial 0.7 nitrogen IGCC plant plant 2 PCS nitrogen 77 plant 136 Number of CO2-EOR projects Century gas plant 19 Natural CO source Air products 2 Val Verde gas plants hydrogen plant Industrial CO2 source

Denbury/Green CO2 pipeline pipeline CO2 proposed pipeline Source: Advanced Resources International Inc. based on OGJ EOR/Heavy Oil Survey 2014 and other sources z140407OGJsku01

Table 1 RECENTLY ANNOUNCED INDUSTRIAL SOURCES OF CO2 Region Project name Company State Status Year online Gulf Coast Port Arthur Air Products La. Online 2013 Kemper County IGCC Southern Co. Miss. Expected 2014 Nitrogen plant PCS Nitrogen La. Online 2013 Ammonia plant Not available La. Expected 2016 W.A. Parish NRG Energy Tex. Expected 2016 Sasol GTL Sasol La. Expected 2018 Lake Charles Leucadia Energy La. Expected 2018 Chemical plant Not available La. Expected 2020 Rockies Lost Cabin ConocoPhillips Wyo. Online 2013 Medicine Bow DRKW Wyo. Expected 2016 Riley Ridge Denbury Wyo. Expected 2017 Wyoming UCG Linc Energy Wyo. Expected 2017 Quintana South Heart Great Northern Power ND Expected 2017 Midcontinent Bonanza Conestoga Kan. Online 2013 Coffeyville CVR Energy Kan. Online 2013 Permian basin Century plant expansion Sand Ridge/Occidental Tex. Expected 2015 Texas Clean Energy Summit Energy Tex. Expected 2016

HISTORICAL CO2-EOR PRODUCTION FIG. 2 cessible, affordable supplies of CO . 2 350,000 As such, large-scale capture and uti- Gulf Coast/other lization of CO from industrial facili- 2 Midcontinent ties, chemical complexes, and electric 300,000 Rocky Mountain power plants will be essential if the Permian basin CO -EOR industry is to achieve its full 2 250,000 economic potential. We now envision a third round of

growth for CO2-EOR supported by (1) 200,000 development of large additional industrial sources of CO plus modest B/d 2 150,000 expansions of natural CO2 supplies, (2) the recent completion of a series

of large-volume CO2 pipelines in the 100,000 Rockies, Gulf Coast, and Midconti- nent, and (3) a favorable outlook for oil prices. 50,000 Table 1 provides a partial listing of recently announced industrial plants 0 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 planning to capture CO2 emissions for z140407OGJsku02 sale to the EOR market. Fig. 3 shows Source: Advanced Resources International Inc. adjustment to OGJ EOR/Heavy Oil Survey 2014 the recent expansion in available nat-

ural CO2 supplies from the McElmo

Dome and Doe Canyon CO2 fields. and future sources of CO2 as well as data on existing and an-

nounced CO2-EOR projects. Augmenting OGJ survey As such, our projections of future oil production from

Oil & Gas Journal’s bienneal EOR/Heavy Oil Survey is the CO2-EOR are based on industry data as well as project-by-

“gold standard” for information on EOR operations in the project matching of available CO2 supplies in concert with

US. The information in the survey is collected at an EOR CO2 utilization. Where the announced volumes of available

project level, providing detailed, highly valuable data on the CO2 supplies exceed demand for CO2 by existing or an-

nature, location, reservoir settings, and oil production from nounced CO2-EOR projects, we estimate the additional oil

EOR for each of the major EOR technologies: CO2-EOR, production that could result from expansion of existing CO2

chemical EOR, and thermal EOR. The survey contains data floods or the initiation of yet-to-be announced CO2 floods. for 1986-2014. The 2014 EOR/Heavy Oil Survey appears

nearby. CO2-EOR outlook The objective of this article is to augment this valuable Oil production from CO2-EOR in onshore, Lower 48 oil res-

snapshot of the status of CO2-EOR with a look forward. For ervoirs provided 300,000 b/d of incremental oil supply at this, our article captures industry information on existing the start of year 2014. This rate of oil production has grown TECHNOLOGY

RECENT EXPANSION OF NATURAL CO2 SUPPLIES FOR EOR FIG. 3

McElmo Dome CO2 eld FIG. 3a Doe Canyon CO2 eld FIG. 3b 1.6 250

1.4 Cow Canyon Current 200 1.2 Initial

1.0 150 Base 0.8 decline

0.6 100 Gas rate, bcfd Gas rate, MMcfd 0.4 50 Without Compression expansion 0.2

0 0 1982 1992 2002 2012 2022 2032 2042 2005 2015 2025 2035 z140407OGJsku03 Source: Kinder Morgan 2014 steadily for the past 30 years. operators. Without a CO -EOR market PROJECTED CO EOR 2 Given the new volumes of CO sup- 2 for captured CO emissions, however, 2 OIL PRODUCTION Table 2 2 plies and the numerous announced these plants may vent their CO2 emis- CO2-EOR oil CO -EOR projects, we envision strong production, 1,000 b/d sions rather than be able to sell their 2 Region 2014 2020 growth in near-term oil production captured CO2 for productive use by Permian Basin 199 323 and CO2 utilization from CO2-EOR. Gulf Coast 47 152 EOR. Our analysis shows that incremental Rocky Mountains 39 103 Our outlook for growth in industri- Midcontinent 14 59 oil production from CO2-EOR opera- Other 1 1 al sources of CO2 includes the follow- tions is likely to double to 638,000 b/d Total 300 638 ing announced projects: by 2020 (Fig. 4; Table 2). • Large expansions in CO2 cap-

Our outlook for CO2-EOR incorpo- tured from gas processing plants, such rates growth (or decline) in oil produc- as at Lost Cabin, LaBarge, and Riley tion from previously initiated CO2-EOR projects as well as Ridge in the Rockies and the Century Phase 2 plant in West expected oil production from recently announced new CO2- Texas.

EOR projects expected to come online by 2020. • Capture of CO2 from a host of nitrogen, hydrogen, fer- For example: tilizer, and other industrial plants in the Midcontinent and

• The recently initiated CO2-EOR projects at Bell Creek, along the Gulf Coast.

Burbank, Goldsmith, Hastings, Katz, and Oyster Bayou • Potential for captured CO2 emissions from Summit En- (among others) have yet to reach peak production. ergy’s TCEP integrated gasification/combined cycle (IGCC)

• A series of large-scale CO2-EOR projects, such as at plant in West Texas, Sasol’s gas-to-liquids (GTL) plant in Conroe, Thompson, and Webster, together holding nearly Louisiana, Leucadia’s coal gasification plant in Mississippi,

250 million bbl of CO2-EOR oil potential, are scheduled to and DKRW’s Phase 1 coal-to-liquids plant in the Rockies, achieve first production by 2020. among others. No doubt some of these industrial projects expecting to

CO2 supply outlook capture CO2 may be delayed or even canceled. As such, we Currently, the majority of CO2 used by EOR is from natural have used probabilities on the likelihood of each plant be- sources, notably from the McElmo Dome, Bravo Dome, and coming operational by 2020.

Doe Canyon natural CO2 fields, which supply the Permian Here is a region-by-region assessment of future CO2 sup- basin and portions of the Midcontinent, and from Jackson plies.

Dome, which supplies CO2 for EOR in East Texas and along • Permian basin. The current sources of CO2 supply for the Gulf Coast. the Permian basin include McElmo Dome, Doe Canyon, and

Natural CO2 resources are limited, however. As such, Sheep Mountain/La Veta in Colorado, Bravo Dome in New future development of CO2-EOR will need to rely on new Mexico, and the Century and Val Verde gas plants in Texas. sources of industrial CO2. Importantly, the capture and sale With recently completed expansions, these sources are pro- of industrial CO2 emissions would provide revenues to in- jected to provide 1.9 bcfd of CO2 in 2014 for use by CO2-EOR. dustrial plants, gas processing plants, and power generation A new source of natural CO2 (300 MMcfd of capacity) TECHNOLOGY

PROJECTED CO2, EOR OPERATIONS, AND CO2 SOURCES: 2020 FIG. 4

2 Oil production, 2020

Dakota coal CO2 –EOR projects 147 gasi cation plant Oil production, 1,000 b/d 638 6 Lost Cabin gas plant Greencore pipeline CO2 supplies, 2020 Quintana South Heart Riley Ridge Linc Energy UCG Number of sources 30 LaBarge gas plant 19 DKRW • Natural 6 2 Indiana 1 Conestoga Bonanza gasi cation • Industrial 24 Sheep Mountain Conestoga ethanol plant Coffeyville fertilizer plant McElmo Dome 5 CO2 supply, MMcfd 6.5 Doe Canyon Enid fertilizer plant 8 • Natural 3.4 St. Johns Dome Jackson Dome Agrium Mississippi • Industrial 3.1 Bravo Dome nitrogen IGCC plant 77 plant Mississippi 6 gasi cation NRG IGCC plant 147 Number of CO2-EOR projects Century gas plant 16 PCS nitrogen plant Natural CO2 source TEP IGCC plant Air products 19 Ammonia plant Val Verde gas plants Hydrogen plant Chemical plant Industrial CO2 source Lake Charles plant Denbury/Green CO2 pipeline Sasol GTL plant pipeline CO2 proposed pipeline Source: Advanced Resources International Inc. based on OGJ EOR/Heavy Oil Survey 2014 and other sources z140407OGJsku04

(TCEP) also will become available for PROJECTED CO2-EOR PRODUCTION BY REGION FIG. 5 the Permian basin by 2016. With suc- 700 cessful completion of these projects, Other overall CO2 supply for Permian basin Midcontinent EOR will reach to 2.8 bcfd by 2017 and 600 Rocky Mountain stay at this level through 2020. Gulf Coast • Gulf Coast-East Texas. The cur- Permian basin 500 rent 1.1 bcfd of CO2 available for EOR in the Gulf Coast-East Texas is primarily natural CO from Jackson Dome in Mis- 400 2 sissippi. This CO2 supply also includes

two new industrial sources of CO2: the

1,000 b/d 300 Air Products hydrogen and PCS nitrogen plants in Louisiana that came online in 2013. 200 Aside from a modest increase in supply from Jackson Dome, most of the in-

100 cremental CO2 supply for EOR in the Gulf Coast will likely be from industrial sources. Many chemical plants in 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Louisiana are scheduled to capture and

z140407OGJsku05 supply CO2 to the region, including the Source: Advanced Resources International Inc. adjustment to OGJ EOR/Heavy Oil Survey 2014 Lake Charles gasification plant, Leuca- dia’s Mississippi gasification plant, a from St. John’s Dome in New Mexico is expected online planned Sasol gas-to-liquids operation in Louisiana, plus

by 2016. Captured CO2 from expansion of the Century gas other plants in Louisiana yet to be announced. processing plant and from the Texas Clean Energy Project Two new power plants, one by Mississippi Power and the TECHNOLOGY

other by NRG, will capture and supply production to increase to 638,000 b/d operating CO2-EOR projects. We pro-

CO2 for EOR in 2014 and 2016, respec- in 2020 from 300,000 b/d in 2014 (Fig. jected future CO2-EOR oil production tively. Total CO2 supply for EOR in the 5). This estimate of future CO2-EOR oil for each of these existing CO2 floods Gulf Coast-East Texas region will in- production derives from several sources: taking into account available informa- crease to 2.6 bcfd by 2020. • Existing CO2 floods. The start- tion. Operator projections for future • Rocky Mountains. The majority ing point for estimating future oil oil production were available for most of CO2 supply in the Rockies comes production is the set of 136 currently of the CO2-EOR projects in the Gulf from the Shute Creek/LaBarge gas processing plant. A small volume of natu- UTILIZATION OF NATURAL, INDUSTRIAL CO2 FOR EOR BY REGION FIG. 6 ral CO2 supply from McElmo Dome is 7 supplied to the CO2 flood at Greater Aneth oil field. Total supply of CO for Midcontinent 2 Rocky Mountain EOR in the Rockies is projected at 370 6 Gulf Coast MMcfd for 2014. Permian basin

In addition to expansion of CO2 capture at the Shute Creek/LaBarge 5 and Lost Cabin gas processing plants, four sources of industrial CO are to 2 4 come online, including the Riley Ridge gas processing plant, the DKRW Medi- cine Bow fuel plant, the Linc Energy 3 supply, MMcfd supply, gasification plant, and the Quintana 2 South Heart IGCC plant. CO 2 Under a probability-based estimate, these expansions and new projects would add nearly 400 MMcfd of CO2 1 supply for Rockies EOR by 2020. • Midcontinent. The great bulk of 0 the CO2 supply in the Midcontinent 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

comes from industrial sources, in- z140407OGJsku06 cluding the Koch nitrogen plant, the Source: Advanced Resources International Inc. adjustment to OGJ EOR/Heavy Oil Survey 2014 Agrium fertilizer plant, the CVR Cof- feyville chemical plant, and the Con- UTILIZATION OF NATURAL, INDUSTRIAL CO2 FOR EOR, SOURCES FIG. 7 estoga Arkalon and Bonanza nitrogen 7 plants. Industrial sources A modest amount of natural CO , 35 Natural sources 2 6 MMcfd, is currently supplied to the Postle oil field in Oklahoma from Bravo Dome. 5 Projected total CO2 supply for Midconti- nent EOR is 150 MMcfd in 2014. Several new sources of CO are like- 2 4 ly for the Midcontinent. The Lilly Lat- eral pipeline will extend Bravo Dome CO supply to the N.E. Hardesty EOR 3 2 MMcfd supply, project, and increased supplies of CO 2

2 CO from other industrial plants will sup- 2 port expansion of CO2-EOR at Bur- bank and surrounding oil fields. Pro- jected total CO2 supply for EOR in the 1 Midcontinent will reach reach 300 MMcfd by 2020. 0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

CO -EOR production z140407OGJsku07 2 Source: Advanced Resources International Inc. adjustment to OGJ EOR/Heavy Oil Survey 2014 Our outlook is for CO2-EOR-based oil TECHNOLOGY

Coast, Midcontinent, and the Rockies. POTENTIAL FOR STORAGE OF INDUSTRIAL CO2 USING CO2-EOR FIG. 8 For the Permian basin, the study used a combination of operator projections and 200 Baseline industrial CO2 storage case project-by-project historical trend data 180 Upside industrial CO2 storage case to estimate future oil production for each

existing CO2 flood. 160

• Planned CO2-EOR floods. Opera- tors often provide data on start date, 140 peak production year, and expected 120 ultimate recovery for new CO2-EOR. We used this information to estimate 100 oil production for the 11 new CO2-EOR projects included in the study. 80

• Potential CO2-EOR floods. Where stored, million tonnes

2 60 the available CO2 supply exceeded CO2

demand from existing and planned CO2- CO EOR floods, we estimated future oil pro- 40 duction using regional CO utilization 2 20 factors (Mcf of CO2/bbl of oil production)

for potential (yet-to-be announced) CO2 0 floods. 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 z140407OGJsku08 It is likely that additional yet-un- Source: Advanced Resources International Inc. adjustment to OGJ EOR/Heavy Oil Survey 2014 known natural gas processing and chemical plants will be installed in the

US during the next 6 years and sell their captured CO2 to the The Kinder Morgan Phase I ROZ project would involve

EOR industry. This would lead our projections of CO2-EOR- nine 20-acre, inverted five-spot patterns expected to provide based oil production to be conservative. 4.7 million bbl of recoverable reserves, with oil production from the Phase I ROZ project peaking at about 2,400 b/d. Additional

CO2-EOR; ROZs phases of ROZ development are likely. Under an expected oil The pursuit of residual-oil-zone (ROZ) resources offers the recovery rate of 18% of original oil in place, the Phase I ROZ

promise of greatly increasing CO2 demand and oil produc- project would provide a 30% internal rate of return.

tion in the Permian basin. Early ROZ projects were under- Longer-term, Kinder Morgan sees a potential CO2 mar- taken by Shell in the Denver Unit of giant Wasson oil field. ket of 750 MMcfd for ROZ in the Permian basin, including Occidental acquired these projects from Shell and has con- 450 MMcfd in currently leased ROZ areas plus 300 MMcfd tinued to operate these ROZ assets as well as expand ROZ for additional ROZ development, according to a presentation development to other units in Wasson field. for investment analysts in January. Kinder Morgan’s Phase I Since then, several additional ROZ projects are reported ROZ project and its future ROZ expectations are not includ- to be under way in the oil fields of the Permian basin. Recent ed in the OGJ’s 2014 survey. information on development of ROZ resources has come

from Hess and Kinder Morgan. International CO2-EOR • Hess. A series of ROZ projects has been undertaken by With some exceptions, use of CO2 injection for oil recovery Hess in Seminole (San Andres) oil field. The company start- has been slow to catch on outside of the US. One notable ed in 1996 with the 500-acre (Phase 1) ROZ pilot project exception is Weyburn oil field, where EnCana and Apache

and followed in 2004 with a 480-acre ROZ pilot (Phase 2). have field-wide CO2-EOR projects. Additional exceptions in-

Subsequently, Hess launched the 2,320-acre Stage 1 ROZ clude the injection of CO2 into Bati Raman heavy oil field in

project in 2007 which has recently been expanded. Turkey and the use of CO2 in a series of heavy oil fields in The above ROZ projects reported oil production of 3,500 Trinidad. b/d in OGJ’s 2012 EOR/Heavy Oil survey, with 7,800 b/d Recently, interest has emerged for productively using oth-

reported in the 2014 survey. erwise vented CO2 for EOR in oil fields in Abu Dhabi, Brazil, • Kinder Morgan. Following successful drilling of ROZ China, Malaysia, the North Sea, and other areas. appraisal wells, Kinder Morgan announced in early 2014 For additional information, see the International Energy

plans for drilling 29 new wells, constructing production fa- Agency’s Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme report “CO2 cilities, and investing $78 million in a major ROZ project in Storage in Depleted Oilfields: Global Application Criteria for the Permian basin. Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery” (Technical Report TECHNOLOGY

Number: 2009-12, December, by Michael Godec, Advanced • Along with increased US oil production, the CO2-EOR Resources International Inc.). industry is on pace to store 1-2 billion tonnes of industri-

al CO2 that would otherwise be vented during the next 20

The future years. We estimate that 14 million tonnes of industrial CO2

Based on the analysis presented here, we offer these obser- was stored in underground formations in 2014 through CO2- vations: EOR. This will increase to nearly 60 million tonnes in 2020.

• We anticipate significant growth in CO2 supplies available Assuming a constant industrial CO2 storage rate of 60 to the EOR industry. Overall CO2 utilization by CO2-EOR (in- million tpy after 2020, more than 1 billion tonnes of indus- cluding both industrial and natural CO2) will nearly double by trial CO2 will be stored with CO2-EOR in the next 20 years

2020—to 6.5 bcfd by 2020 from 3.5 bcfd in 2014 (Fig. 6). (Fig. 8, baseline industrial CO2 case). If the growth in in-

• Much of the growth in CO2 supplies for EOR will be dustrial CO2 utilization and storage rate were to continue from capture and utilization of CO2 from industrial sources, increasing by about 10 million tpy, nearly 2 billion tonnes of chemical facilities, and power plants. industrial CO2 would be stored with CO2-EOR in the next 20

Current (2014) utilization of industrial CO2 by EOR is 0.7 years (Fig. 8, upside industrial CO2 storage Case 8). bcfd (14 million tpy). This rate will reach 3.1 bcfd (60 million tpy) by 2020 (Fig. 7). Much of the increased capture of indus- Acknowledgment trial CO2, between today and 2020, will be from the numerous This article has been extracted and updated from the US announced industrial plants along the Gulf Coast that would DOE/National Energy Technology Laboratory draft analytical otherwise vent their high-purity CO2 emissions. paper entitled “Near-Term Projections of CO2 Utilization by

• We anticipate that CO2-EOR production will grow sig- Enhanced Oil Recovery Production” prepared for US/NETL in nificantly, reaching 638,000 b/d by 2020. While CO2-EOR 2014 by Advanced Resources International Inc. The authors oil production grows in all four regions examined by this received valuable assistance with research for this article from study, the Permian basin and the Gulf Coast will lead the Steve Melzer, Melzer Consulting, Midland, Tex. way, each with more than 100,000 b/d of increased CO2- EOR oil production. The outlook by region: The authors Permian basin. Continued oil production from current Vello A. Kuuskraa ([email protected]) is

CO2-EOR projects and their expansion to field-wide would president of Advanced Resources International increase oil production to 323,000 b/d in 2020 from 199,000 Inc. with more than 40 years’ experience with b/d in 2014. enhanced oil recovery and unconventional Gulf Coast. Increased oil production from the 20 cur- gas. He was the 2007-08 SPE Distinguished rent Gulf Coast CO2 floods combined with start-up of new Lecturer on integrating enhanced oil recovery

CO2 floods in East Texas (Webster, Conroe, and Thompson and carbon dioxide sequestration following his counties) will increase oil production to 152,000 b/d in 2020 original lecturer season of 1986-87, and he has worked with from 47,000 b/d in 2014. numerous firms and countries examining how to coordinate the

Rocky Mountains. The addition of the Bell Creek and productive use and storage of CO2 with EOR. He holds an MBA

Grieve CO2 floods (plus other, yet-to-be announced projects) (highest distinction) from the Wharton School of the University will increase CO2-EOR production in the Rockies to 103,000 of Pennsylvania and a BS in applied mathematics-economics b/d in 2020 from 39,000 b/d in 2014. from North Carolina State University. Midcontinent. The addition of the Northeast Hardesty

CO2 flood and significant expansion of the Burbank project Matthew Wallace ([email protected]), a will increase CO2-EOR in the Midcontinent to 59,000 b/d by consultant with Advanced Resources Interna-

2020 from 14,000 b/d in 2014. tional, specializes in analysis of CO2 capture

• Based on already announced and likely CO2–EOR proj- and utilization for CO2-enhanced oil recovery, as ects, we project oil production from CO2-EOR to continue to well as reservoir modeling and analysis of CO2- grow after 2020. In addition to the numerous CO2-EOR proj- enhanced oil recovery operations. Most recently, ects coming online between now and 2020, numerous other he has contributed studies for the US Depart-

CO2 floods, such as at Cedar Creek anticline and in the San ment of Energy on the development and implementation of

Joaquin basin, are to start after 2020. next-generation CO2-enhanced oil recovery technology. Wallace These major projects provide the basis for our anticipation holds a degree in environmental studies from Washington & Lee of continued growth of CO2-EOR oil production after 2020. University, Lexington, Va. TECHNOLOGY

US EOR PRODUCTION Table 1 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Thermal Steam 454,009 415,801 419,349 439,010 417,675 365,717 340,253 286,668 275,192 273,448 300,762 284,725 Cumbustion in situ 4,702 2,520 4,485 4,760 2,781 2,384 1,901 13,260 17,025 16,868 20,590 20,590 Hot water 1,980 250 250 2,200 306 3,360 3,360 4,370 1,776 1,676 1,703 1,703 Total thermal 460,691 418,571 424,084 445,970 417,675 371,461 345,514 304,298 293,993 291,992 323,055 307,018 Chemical Micellar–polymer 254 64 70 Polymer 1,940 1,828 139 139 1,598 Caustic/alkaline Surfactant 60 60 60 Total chemical 2,194 1,892 139 139 1,658 60 60 — — 70 — — Gas Hydrocarbon miscible/ immiscible 113,072 99,693 96,263 102,053 124,500 95,300 97,300 95,800 81,000 81,100 81,100 127,500

CO2 miscible 144,973 161,486 170,715 179,024 189,493 187,410 205,775 235,344 240,313 272,109 308,564 292,735 CO2 immiscible 95 66 66 102 2,698 9,350 9,160 43,657 42,795 Nitrogen 22,580 23,050 28,017 28,117 14,700 14,700 14,700 14,700 19,700 9,000 8,000 8,000 Flue gas (miscible and immiscible) 11,000 Other 6,300 4,400 4,350 4,350 Total gas 298,020 288,629 299,345 313,544 328,759 297,476 317,877 348,542 350,363 371,369 441,321 471,030 Other Microbial 2 2 Total other 2 2 –––––––– –––––––– –––––––– –––––––– –––––––– –––––––– –––––––– –––––––– –––––––– –––––––– –––––––– –––––––– Grand total 760,907 709,094 723,568 759,653 748,092 668,997 663,451 652,840 644,356 663,431 764,376 778,048

Survey: Miscible CO2 continues to eclipse steam in US EOR production

Miscible CO2 continues to eclipse steam injection in Oil & the previous OGJ survey, published in 2012 (OGJ, Apr. 2, Gas Journal’s 2014 EOR/Heavy Oil Survey. 2012, p. 56). Production from this technique, accounts for

Production from US miscible CO2 floods totals 292,735 b/d 38% of US output from EOR. vs. 284,725 b/d for steam, according to the survey (Table 1). Production from steam injection has decreased by 6%

The miscible CO2 production rate is 5% below its level of from 2012.

ACTIVE US EOR PROJECTS Table 2 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Thermal Steam 119 109 105 92 86 55 46 40 43 45 48 48 Cumbustion in situ 8 5 8 7 5 6 7 12 12 12 11 12 Hot water 6 2 2 1 1 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 Total thermal 133 116 115 100 92 65 56 55 58 60 61 62 Chemical Micellar—polymer 3 2 Polymer 44 27 11 10 10 4 4 1 1 Caustic/alkaline 2 1 1 1 Surfactant 1 2 3 3 Total chemical 49 30 12 11 10 4 4 — 2 3 3 3 Gas Hydrocarbon miscible/ immiscible 25 15 14 11 6 7 8 13 13 12 13 14

CO2 miscible 52 54 60 66 63 66 70 79 101 103 112 109 CO2 immiscible 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 5 8 8 Nitrogen 7 8 9 10 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 Flue gas (miscible and immiscible) 2 Other 1 1 Total gas 89 79 84 87 74 78 83 97 123 123 136 134 Other Microbial 2 1 1 1 Total other 2 1 1 1 — — — — — — — — ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ———— ——— Grand total 273 226 212 199 176 147 143 152 183 186 200 199 TECHNOLOGY

Miscible CO2 dominates US EOR in project totals at 109 Oil & Gas Journal prepared the EOR/Heavy Oil Survey in 2014 (Table 2). The 2012 total in this category was 112. this year with the help of Advanced Resources International The number of steam projects remains at 48 in 2014. Inc., Arlington, Va., which supplemented survey results with Total oil production by EOR in the US is now 778,048, information about specific projects and contributed the ac- according to OGJ’s survey, up 2% from 2012. companying article on the outlook for CO2-EOR. Steve Mel- Tables A-E show survey results for projects in the US and zer of Melzer Consulting, Midland, provided valuable assis- around the world. tance.

2014 worldwide EOR survey Leena Koottungal SPECIAL Survey Editor/News Writer REPORT

GUIDE TO EOR TABLES ABBREVIATIONS A. Planned EOR projects Formation type Previous production Project maturity Project evaluation Project scope B. Producing thermal EOR in US S: Sandstone Prim.: Primary JS: Just started TETT: Too early to tell P: Pilot project LS: Limestone WF: Waterflood HF: Half finished Prom.: Promising FW: Field–wide C. Producing CO2, other gas, and Dolo.: Dolomite GI: Gas injection NC: Nearing completion Succ.: Successful LW: Lease–wide chemical EOR Congl.: Conglomerate C: Cyclic steam C: Completed Disc.: Discouraging RW: Reservoir–wide in US Tripol.: Tripolite HW: Hot water PP: Postponed None: Not evaluated Exp. L: Expansion likely D. Producing Canadian US: Unconsolidated sand SS: Steam soak Term.: Terminated Exp. UL: Expansion unlikely EOR projects S: Steam Del.: Deleted E. Producing EOR SD: Steam drive TS: Temporarily suspended outside of US SF: Steam flood and Canada HC: Hydrocarbon

PLANNED PROJECTS TABLE A

Size, Depth, Gravity, Start Type and operator Field Location Pay zone acres ft °API date

CO2 immiscible Anadarko Sussex Wyoming, Natrona County Tensleep 1,598 9,000 29.5 6/14 Denbury Resources Webster Texas, Harris County Frio 4,446 6,000 29 2015

Steam Imperial Oil Nabiye Alta., Canada 2014 Wintershall Emlichheim Germany, Lower Saxony Hauterivian 30 2,700–2,850 25 2014

Polymer Belayim Petroleum Company Belayim Land Egypt, Sinai, Gulf of Suez Belayim Formation, Fieran Member, Zone II–A5,560 7,200 20.5 4/14

Combustion BP Clair UK, West of Shetland Clair Group 14,000 5,577 25.2 2016 TECHNOLOGY

PRODUCING THERMAL EOR IN US TABLE B No. No. Poros– Type and Start Area, wells wells Forma– ity, operator Field State County date acres prod. inj. Pay zone tion % Steam Aera Energy South Belridge Calif. Kern 1995 155 350 245 Diatomite Opal A Tripol. 60 1–5 1,000–1,800 28–30 2–50 110 WF 45 20 JS 15,000 3,000 Prom. Yes P Aera Energy Coalinga Calif. Fresno 1965 540 468 93 Temblor S 32 200–2,500 825–1650 12–13 2,000–10,000 84–98 Prim. 60 10 HF 4,917 4,917 Succ. Yes FW Aera Energy Coalinga Calif. Fresno 1987 290 104 21 Etchegoin S 34 800–1,000 650–1000 9–10 11,500–28,000 84 Prim. 55 10 HF 1,277 1,277 Succ. Yes FW Aera Energy Cymric Calif. Kern 1986 600 130 70 Tulare S 36 1,000–3,000 1,000 11–14 1,000–2,000 95–105 Prim. 65 20 NC 1,900 1,900 Succ. Yes FW Aera Energy Lost Hills Calif. Kern 1975 170 450 135 Tulare US 40 1,000–3,000 200 13 1,500–4,000 82 Prim. 60 20 HF 6,300 6,300 Succ. Yes FW Aera Energy McKittrick Calif. Kern 3/88 160 100 45 Tulare S 36 1,000–2,000 600 10–12 13,000–51,000 83 Prim. 60 20 HF 1,300 1,300 Succ. Yes FW Aera Energy Midway–Sunset Calif. Kern 11/67 1,600 1,351 77 Potter S 30 1,000–4,000 500–1,500 12 91–110 Prim. 60–75 15 NC 7,892 7,892 Succ. Yes FW Aera Energy Midway–Sunset Calif. Kern 10/70 1,230 1,189 230 Monarch S 25–32 700–4,000 800–1,500 13 1,500–5,000 85–100 Prim. 50–75 15 NC 10,519 10,519 Succ. Yes FW Aera Energy Midway–Sunset Calif. Kern 1984 15 3 Sub Lakeview S 30 4,500 1,300 13 4,000 90 Prim. 60 15 NC 24 24 Succ. Yes LW Aera Energy Midway–Sunset Calif. Kern 1969 50 82 17 Metson S 30 3,000 1,100 11 10,000 130 Prim. 75 15 NC 1,091 1,091 Succ. Yes LW Aera Energy Midway–Sunset Calif. Kern 1988 73 76 52 Marvic S 30 300 1,100 13 3,500 104 SS 65 15 HF 767 767 Succ. Yes LW Aera Energy Midway–Sunset Diatomite Calif. Kern 1997 48 5 Diatomite 65 5 0–1,100 12.5 1,000 90 Prim. 75 HF 62 62 Succ. Yes LW Aera Energy Midway–Sunset Calif. Kern 1980 510 510 35 Tulare S 31 300–6,000 1,000 11–14 6,000 90 Prim. 60 16 HF 4,376 4,376 Succ. Yes FW Aera Energy San Ardo Calif. Monterey 6/68 125 16 Aurignac S 34.5 2,000 2,300 12 1,000 130 SS 55 27 NC 200 200 Succ. Yes FW Aera Energy San Ardo Calif. Monterey 3/80 560 218 57 Lombardi S 32.5 2,260 2,100 11 3,000 125 SS 55 27 HF 9,113 9,113 Succ. Yes FW

Berry Midway–Sunset Calif. Kern 11/02 15 35 20 Tulare S 30 3,500 800 10 10,000 90 CS 60 23 JS 1,000 750 Succ. Yes RW Berry North Midway–Sunset Calif. Kern 1965 160 125 Potter S 30 3,000 1,300 14 4,000 85 Prim. 70 15 NC 550 400 Succ. Yes FW Berry South Midway–Sunset Calif. Kern 1964 600 1,200 Monarch S 30 2,000 1,000 13 8,000 80 Prim. 70 15 HF 10,000 7,000 Succ. Yes FW Berry Placerita Calif. Los Angeles 1987 120 50 58 Lower Kraft S 27 1,500 1,800 13 10,000 90 Prim./Cyclic 60 HF 3,000 2,700 Succ. Yes FW, RW, Exp. L Berry Midway–Sunset South Calif. Kern 2005 40 50 4 Main 10–10 S 30 1,500 1,700 13 8,000 80 Prim./Cyclic 60 JS 400 300 TETT RW Berry Poso Creek Calif. Kern 2005 200 77 3 Etchegoin/Chanac S 33 4,000 1,200 13 2,800 110 Cyclic 50 JS 700 650 Prom. FW Berry North Midway–Sunset Calif. Kern 2006 100 87 Diatomite Tripol. 65 1 800 14 SD 65 JS 1,530 1,530 Prom. TETT Exp. L, LW Berry Midway–Sunset South Calif. Kern 2007 10 4 Diatomite Tripol. 65 1 1,100 14 4,000 90 60 JS 25 TETT TETT Exp. L, LW Berry Midway–Sunset South Calif. Kern 2007 60 10 1 Monarch S 30 800 1,400 14 4,000 90 C 65 JS 200 TETT TETT Exp. L, LW

Carrizo Camp Hill Tex. Anderson 12/09 125 80 25 Carrizo S 37 3,500 450–500 19 1,200 75 Prim. 65 29 JS 60 100 TETT TETT LW

Chevron Cymric 1Y Calif. Kern 1/80 380 510 Antelope 58 5 1,500 13 110 Prim. 20–60 NC 21,200 21,200 Succ. Yes LW Chevron Cymric Calif. Kern 5/75 552 360 80 Tulare S 34.8 2,700 1,200 12 5,200 100 SS 53 18 HF 10,200 10,200 Succ. Yes LW Chevron Midway Calif. Kern 1964 1,214 2,039 225 Potter US 30 3,000 1,500 12 4,000 100 C 60 15 HF 21,000 21,000 Succ. Yes FW Chevron Midway Calif. Kern 1982 80 123 3 Tulare US 31 1,300 1,500 11 5,000 100 Prim. 50 43 HF 500 500 Succ. Yes Exp. L Chevron Midway Calif. Kern 1970 1,200 711 69 Spellacy US 30 2,250 1,500 12 5,000 100 Prim. 60 20 HF 9,400 9,400 Succ. Yes Exp. L Chevron West Coalinga Calif. Fresno 6/90 1,291 541 132 Temblor S 34 1,510 1,640 14 3,720 100 SS 44 14 HF 6,558 6,558 Succ. Yes RW Chevron Kern River Calif. Kern 9/68 9,660 8,692 1,219 Kern River S 32 2,000 1,000 13 4,000 90 Prim. 50 15 HF 86,000 86,000 Succ. Yes FW Chevron San Ardo Calif. Monterey 7/87 125 92 13 Lombardi S 34 6,700 1,900 12 1,200 135 C 46 15 HF 2,750 2,750 Succ. Yes P (Exp. L)

Derek Oil & Gas Corp. LAK Ranch Wyo. Newcastle 4/04 20 1 3 Newcastle S 22 100 1,000 16 20 54 NA 85 60 JS 40 40 TETT TETT P Derek Oil & Gas Corp. Newcastle Wyo. Weston 3/07 30 8 4 Newcastle Sandstone S 22 100 800 20 20 54 SD 85 60 C 30 30 Prom. P

ExxonMobil South Belridge Calif. Kern 12/87 90 48 24 Tulare S 38 2,000 1,250 13 450 95 HF 1,000 800 Succ. Yes FW

MegaWest Energy Corp. Deerfield Mo. Vernon 3/08 40 110 38 Warner S 22 500 250 17.6 2,900 55 60 20 JS 180 180 TETT break Exp. L. even

Naftex Edison 27–RT Calif. Kern 7/77 30 65 29 Chanac S 30 2,800 1,000 14 2,000 90 Prim. 50 15 NC 550 550 Succ. Yes FW

Occidental Kern Front Calif. Kern 1981 3,380 697 122 Etchegoin & Chanac S 30 2,000 1,800 14.8 1,525 95 Prim. 45 15 HF 10,500 8,500 Succ. Yes FW Occidental North Antelope Hills Calif. Kern 1980 300 82 27 Packwood & Point S 32 1,500 1,200 14 1,400 80 Prim. 50 10 HF 629 500 Succ. Yes FW of Rocks Occidental Lost Hills Calif. Kern 2008 324 231 67 Tulare US 40.3 3,048 175 12.7 2,200 75 C 55 15 JS 3,270 3,000 Prom Yes Exp. L Occidental Lost Hills Calif. Kern 2011 30 42 10 Etchegoin US 39.2 955 300 13.9 1,000 80 C 48 15 JS 330 330 Prom Yes Exp. L

Seneca Resources Midway–Sunset South Calif. Kern 9/01 90 45 40 Antelope S 34 200–1,500 900–1,400 15–16 345 100 Prim. 80 60 NC 360 345 Succ. Yes FW Seneca Resources Midway–Sunset South Calif. Kern 6/02 94 17 17 Antelope S 34 500–2,000 450 11 20,000 80 NA 85 60 JS 200 200 TETT TETT P (Exp. L) Seneca Resources Midway–Sunset Calif. Kern 1968 320 800 Potter Sand US 37 1,000–10,000 1,100–1,700 12 3,000 100 Prim. 65 20 HF 6,000 4,500 Succ. RW

Stockdale Kern Front Calif. Kern 2/93 160 54 6 Etchegoin S 30 1,000 2,000 13 80 SS 70 JS 700 550 Succ. Yes Exp. L

Tidelands Wilmington (Parcel A) Calif. Los Angeles 6/96 44 3 2 S Tar US 31 1,000 2,300 13 300 125 WF 58 28 JS 350 350 Succ. P

Hot water Chevron San Ardo Calif. Monterey 7/87 700 7 3 Aurignac S 32 2,000 2,100 12 900 135 SF 15 10 NC 253 226 Succ. Yes LW Chevron West Coalinga Calif. Fresno 5/73 780 194 180 Temblor S 34 1,500 1,350 14 3,350 100 SS 48 15 1,450 1,450 Succ. Yes RW

Combustion Bayou State Bellevue La. Bossier 1970 200 115 15 Nacatoch S 32 650 400 19 660 Prim. 94 49 HF 240 240 Succ. Yes FW

Continental Resources Medicine Pole Hills ND Bowman 1985 8,960 13 9 Red River B & C Dolo. 17 15 9,500 38 2 230 Prim. 52 30 C 394 394 Succ. Yes FW Continental Resources West Medicine Pole Unit ND Bowman 2001 14,335 22 6 Red River B & C Dolo. 17 10 9,500 33 2 215 Prim. 50 33 C 981 981 Succ. Yes FW Continental Resources South Medicine Pole Unit ND Bowman 2003 11,500 11 7 Red River B Dolo. 17 10 9,200 33 2 220 Prim. 50 30 C 405 405 Succ. Yes FW Continental Resources Cedar Hills North Unit ND Bowman 2002 51,200 117 121 Red River Dolo. 18 10 9,000 33 2 215 Prim. 55 26 C 12,733 12,733 Succ. Yes FW Continental Resources West Cedar Hills Unit MT Fallon 2003 7,800 10 5 Red River B Dolo. 17 10 9,000 33 2 215 Prim. 55 26 C 581 581 Succ. Yes FW Continental Resources Buffalo SD Harding 1979 7,680 13 7 Red River B Dolo. 20 10 8,450 31 2 215 Prim. 55 20 C 465 465 Succ. Yes FW Continental Resources West Buffalo SD Harding 1987 4,640 11 6 Red River B Dolo. 20 10 8,450 32 2 215 Prim. 55 20 C 357 357 Succ. Yes FW Continental Resources South Buffalo SD Harding 1983 20,800 35 13 Red River B Dolo. 20 10 8,450 31 2 215 Prim. 55 20 C 805 805 Succ. Yes FW

Encore Acquisition Pennel Phase 1 Mont. Fallon 2002 2,924 22 8 Red River A Dolo. 17 10 8,800 33 1.44 200 WF 75 39 JS 429 160 Succ. Yes Exp. L Encore Acquisition Pennel Phase 2 Mont. Fallon 2002 10,010 56 24 Red River A Dolo. 17 10 8,800 33 1.44 200 WF 85 46 JS 1,550 100 Prom. Yes Exp. L Encore Acquisition Little Beaver Mont. Fallon 2002 10,400 57 29 Red River A & B Dolo. 17 10 8,300 33 1.44 200 WF 83 60 JS 1,650 750 Prom. Yes Exp. L TECHNOLOGY

PRODUCING THERMAL EOR IN US TABLE B Tot. Enh. Perme– Depth, Gravity, Oil, Prev. Satur. Satur. Proj. prod., prod., Proj. Project ability, md ft °API Oil, cp °F. prod. % start % end matur. b/d b/d eval. Profit scope Steam Aera Energy South Belridge Calif. Kern 1995 155 350 245 Diatomite Opal A Tripol. 60 1–5 1,000–1,800 28–30 2–50 110 WF 45 20 JS 15,000 3,000 Prom. Yes P Aera Energy Coalinga Calif. Fresno 1965 540 468 93 Temblor S 32 200–2,500 825–1650 12–13 2,000–10,000 84–98 Prim. 60 10 HF 4,917 4,917 Succ. Yes FW Aera Energy Coalinga Calif. Fresno 1987 290 104 21 Etchegoin S 34 800–1,000 650–1000 9–10 11,500–28,000 84 Prim. 55 10 HF 1,277 1,277 Succ. Yes FW Aera Energy Cymric Calif. Kern 1986 600 130 70 Tulare S 36 1,000–3,000 1,000 11–14 1,000–2,000 95–105 Prim. 65 20 NC 1,900 1,900 Succ. Yes FW Aera Energy Lost Hills Calif. Kern 1975 170 450 135 Tulare US 40 1,000–3,000 200 13 1,500–4,000 82 Prim. 60 20 HF 6,300 6,300 Succ. Yes FW Aera Energy McKittrick Calif. Kern 3/88 160 100 45 Tulare S 36 1,000–2,000 600 10–12 13,000–51,000 83 Prim. 60 20 HF 1,300 1,300 Succ. Yes FW Aera Energy Midway–Sunset Calif. Kern 11/67 1,600 1,351 77 Potter S 30 1,000–4,000 500–1,500 12 91–110 Prim. 60–75 15 NC 7,892 7,892 Succ. Yes FW Aera Energy Midway–Sunset Calif. Kern 10/70 1,230 1,189 230 Monarch S 25–32 700–4,000 800–1,500 13 1,500–5,000 85–100 Prim. 50–75 15 NC 10,519 10,519 Succ. Yes FW Aera Energy Midway–Sunset Calif. Kern 1984 15 3 Sub Lakeview S 30 4,500 1,300 13 4,000 90 Prim. 60 15 NC 24 24 Succ. Yes LW Aera Energy Midway–Sunset Calif. Kern 1969 50 82 17 Metson S 30 3,000 1,100 11 10,000 130 Prim. 75 15 NC 1,091 1,091 Succ. Yes LW Aera Energy Midway–Sunset Calif. Kern 1988 73 76 52 Marvic S 30 300 1,100 13 3,500 104 SS 65 15 HF 767 767 Succ. Yes LW Aera Energy Midway–Sunset Diatomite Calif. Kern 1997 48 5 Diatomite 65 5 0–1,100 12.5 1,000 90 Prim. 75 HF 62 62 Succ. Yes LW Aera Energy Midway–Sunset Calif. Kern 1980 510 510 35 Tulare S 31 300–6,000 1,000 11–14 6,000 90 Prim. 60 16 HF 4,376 4,376 Succ. Yes FW Aera Energy San Ardo Calif. Monterey 6/68 125 16 Aurignac S 34.5 2,000 2,300 12 1,000 130 SS 55 27 NC 200 200 Succ. Yes FW Aera Energy San Ardo Calif. Monterey 3/80 560 218 57 Lombardi S 32.5 2,260 2,100 11 3,000 125 SS 55 27 HF 9,113 9,113 Succ. Yes FW

Carrizo Camp Hill Tex. Anderson 12/09 125 80 25 Carrizo S 37 3,500 450–500 19 1,200 75 Prim. 65 29 JS 60 100 TETT TETT LW

ExxonMobil South Belridge Calif. Kern 12/87 90 48 24 Tulare S 38 2,000 1,250 13 450 95 HF 1,000 800 Succ. Yes FW

MegaWest Energy Corp. Deerfield Mo. Vernon 3/08 40 110 38 Warner S 22 500 250 17.6 2,900 55 60 20 JS 180 180 TETT break Exp. L. even

Naftex Edison 27–RT Calif. Kern 7/77 30 65 29 Chanac S 30 2,800 1,000 14 2,000 90 Prim. 50 15 NC 550 550 Succ. Yes FW

Stockdale Kern Front Calif. Kern 2/93 160 54 6 Etchegoin S 30 1,000 2,000 13 80 SS 70 JS 700 550 Succ. Yes Exp. L

Tidelands Wilmington (Parcel A) Calif. Los Angeles 6/96 44 3 2 S Tar US 31 1,000 2,300 13 300 125 WF 58 28 JS 350 350 Succ. P

Combustion Bayou State Bellevue La. Bossier 1970 200 115 15 Nacatoch S 32 650 400 19 660 Prim. 94 49 HF 240 240 Succ. Yes FW

PRODUCING CO2, OTHER GAS, AND CHEMICAL EOR IN US TABLE C No. No. Poros– Type and Start Area, wells wells Forma– ity, operator Field State County date acres prod. inj. Pay zone tion % Anadarko Patrick Draw Monell Wyo. 9/1/03 5,800 S Prim./WF C Succ. Yes RW, Exp. L Anadarko Salt Creek Southern Unit Wyo. Natrona 2012 570 42 26 Frontier, Wall First Oil Creek 1 Member SS 17 25 1,750 39 0.6 105 Prim. 32 24 C 100 10/12 Succ. Yes RW, Exp L Anadarko Salt Creek Southern Unit Wyo. Natrona 2012 1,325 48 32 Frontier, Wall First Oil Creek 2 Member SS 18 30 2,200 39 0.6 112 Prim. 32 24 C 150 10/12 Succ. Yes RW, Exp L Anadarko Salt Creek Ph 1–8 Wyo. Natrona 1/04 6,000 321 279 Wall Creek 2 (Frontier) S 18 75 1,900 37 0.6 105 WF 39 24 H 9,500 9,500 Succ. Yes RW, Exp L Anadarko Salt Creek Ph 7 Wyo. Natrona 1/10 600 40 27 Wall Creek 1 (Frontier) SS 17 30 1,600 35 0.6 99 Prim./WF 32 24 C 1,200 1,200 Succ. Yes RW, Exp L Anadarko Sussex Wyo. Johnson 12/04 25 4 1 Tensleep S 10 16 9,000 30 2.0 200 WF C Prom. P

Apache Adair Tex. Gaines 1997 5,338 90 61 San Andres Dolo. 14.1 4 4,789 34 104 WF HF 2,350 Succ. Apache Adair Tex. Gaines 2004 2,550 11 11 Wolfcamp Dolo. 12.4 28 8,500 42 126 WF JS 420 Prom. Exp. L Apache Roberts Tex. 2012 13,600 222 186 San Andres Dolo. 8.5 2,300 Apache Slaughter Tex. Hockley, Terry 5/85 569 43 21 San Andres Dolo. 12.5 6 4,900 32 1 110 WF HF 600 580 Succ. Yes TETT Apache Slaughter Tex. Hockley, Cochran 6/89 8,559 259 164 San Andres Dolo. 10 3 5,000 32 2 107 WF 45 8 JS 5,800 4,000 Succ. Yes LW

Breitburn Energy Postle–PUMU Okla. 11/1/95 4,032 43 36 Morrow SS 16 10–40 6,200 40 1.3 145 WF 75 25 912 912 Succ. Breitburn Energy Postle–HMAU Okla. 11/1/95 3,396 38 29 Morrow SS 16 10–40 6,200 40 1.3 145 WF 75 25 619 619 Succ. Breitburn Energy Poslte–WHMU Okla. 1/1/98 7,724 96 74 Morrow SS 16 10–40 6,200 40 1.3 145 WF 75 25 2,429 2,429 Succ. Breitburn Energy Postle–HMU Okla. 8/1/07 5,415 61 43 Morrow SS 16 10–40 6,200 40 1.3 145 WF 75 25 3,110 3,110 Succ. Breitburn Energy Northeast Hardesty Okla.

Chaparral Energy NW Velma Hoxbar Okla. 9/1/10 410 26 9 Hoxbar S 26 280 2,228 27 2 84 WF 77 JS Succ. Yes FW Chaparral Energy Camrick Okla. Beaver 4/01 2,320 38 32 Morrow S 15 63 7,260 38.5 2 152 WF 52 JS 1,510 1,410 Succ. Yes Chaparral Energy North Perryton Tex. Ochiltree 12/07 2,500 12 6 Upper Morrow S 15.2 63 7,300 38 2 152 WF 52 JS 380 350 TETT TETT FW Chaparral Energy Albert Spicer Unit Tex. Ochiltree 10/9 577 5 2 Upper Morrow S 21 50 8,060 39 2 177 WF 51 JS 6 TETT TETT Phase 1, 2, 3 Chaparral Energy Booker Trosper Unit Tex. Ochiltree 10/9 1,325 3 3 Upper Morrow S 20 50 8,060 39 2 177 WF 56 JS 6 TETT TETT Phase 1 Chaparral Energy Gramstorff Unit Tex. Ochiltree 10/9 829 5 3 Upper Morrow S 21 109 8,060 39 2 177 WF 57 JS 19 TETT TETT Chaparral Energy Farnsworth Tex. 12/15/10 10,300 80 11 Upper Morrow S 14 48 7,940 38 0.99 170 WF 60 25 JS Succ. Yes 50% of field Chaparral Energy Burbank Okla. 6/6/13 50,000 650 500 Burbank 17 50 3,000 37 3 122 WF 70 30 JS TETT Phase 1 of 16

Chevron Rangely Weber Sand Colo. Rio Blanco 10/86 18,000 378 262 Weber SS S 12 10 6,000 35 2 160 WF 38 29 JS 15,300 11,600 Succ. Yes Chevron Mabee Tex. Andrews–Martin 1/92 3,600 220 85 San Andres Dolo. 9 4 4,700 32 2 104 WF 36 10 NC 3,100 2,000 Succ. Yes Chevron Slaughter Sundown Tex. Hockley Co 1/94 5,500 155 144 San Andres Dolo. 11 6 4,950 33 1 105 WF 41 25 HF 5,950 4,747 Succ. Yes Chevron Vacuum NM Lea Co. 7/97 1,084 48 24 San Andres Dolo. 12 22 4,550 38 1 101 WF 36 15 HF 4,500 2,950 Succ. Yes FW Chevron Dollarhide (Devonian) Unit Tex. Andrews 5/85 6,183 83 66 Devonian Dolo./Tri- politic chert 13.5 9 8,000 40 0 122 Prim./WF 35 22 HF 2,420 1,970 Succ. Yes Exp. L Chevron Dollarhide (Clearfork “AB”) Unit Tex. Andrews 11/95 160 21 4 Clearfork Dolo. 11.5 4 6,500 40 1 113 Prim./WF 30 10 JS 230 124 Prom. Yes LW Chevron Reinecke Tex. Borden 1/98 700 32 8 Cisco Canyon Reef LS/Dolo. 10.4 170 6,700 43.5 0.4 139 WF 35 10 JS 977 830 Succ. Yes LW

ConocoPhillips South Cowden Tex. Lea 2/81 4,900 43 22 San Andres Dolo. 11.7 11 4,500 38 1 101 Prim. 70 50 JS 450 250 Succ. Yes FW ConocoPhillips Vacuum NM Lea 2/81 4,900 192 103 San Andres Dolo. 11.7 11 4,500 38 1 101 Prim. 70 50 HF 6,200 5,200 Succ. Yes Exp. L

Core Energy Charlton 6 Mich. Otsego 2006 60 1 1 Silurian–A1/Niagaran LS/Dolo. 8 0.1–100 5,450 43 0.8 103 Prim. 54 44 NC 10 10 Succ. Exp. L Core Energy Charlton 30–31 Mich. Otsego 2005 285 2 1 Silurian–A1/Niagaran LS/Dolo. 8 0.1–100 5,450 42 0.8 103 Prim. 47 40 HF 75 75 Succ. FW Core Energy Dover 33 Mich. Otsego 1996 85 2 1 Silurian–A1/Niagaran LS/Dolo. 5 0.1–100 5,500 43 0.8 100 Prim 51 40 C Succ. FW Core Energy Dover 35 Mich. Otsego 2004 70 3 2 Silurian–A1/Niagaran LS/Dolo. 7 0.1–100 5,500 41 0.8 101 Prim. 51 35 HF 210 210 Succ. FW Core Energy Dover 36 Mich. Otsego 1997 190 1 2 Silurian–A1/Niagaran LS/Dolo. 7 0.1–100 5,600 42 0.8 102 Prim. 52 42 HF 70 70 Succ. FW Core Energy Chester 5 Mich. Otsego 2010 120 2 1 Silurian–A1/Niagaran LS/Dolo. 11 0.1–100 5,500 42 0.8 101 Prim. 50 40 JS Succ. Exp. L Core Energy Charlton 19 Mich. 2014 75 2 1 Silurian–A1/Niagaran LS/Dolo. 9 0.1–100 5,200 43 0.8 102 Prim. 38 32 JS TETT FW Core Energy Chester 16 Mich. 2014 185 2 1 Silurian–A1/Niagaran LS/Dolo. 8 0.1–100 5,800 42 0.8 102 WF 49 42 JS TETT FW Core Energy Chester 2 Mich. 2009 75 1 1 Silurian–A1/Niagaran LS/Dolo. 5 0.1–100 5,600 42 0.8 102 Prim. 52 37 JS TETT FW

Denbury Resources Bell Creek Mont. Pike 5/13 2,740 26 26 Muddy S 0.23 1035 4,500 36 3 108 Prim./WF JS TETT FW Denbury Resources Little Creek Miss. Powder River 1985 6,200 38 36 Lower Tuscaloosa S 23 90 10,750 40 250 WF 44 NC 1,100 1,100 Succ. FW Denbury Resources Lazy Creek Miss. Lincoln, Pike 12/01 840 8 10 Lower Tuscaloosa S 23.4 65 10,400 39 242 Prim. 27.4 NC 300 300 Succ. Exp. L Denbury Resources Grieve Wyo. Natrona 3/13 2,280 12 10 Muddy S 0.20 247 6,500–6,650 36 1 180 Prim. JS TETT FW Denbury Resources Hastings Tex. Brazoria, Galveston 5/10 4,420 44 32 Frio S 0.3 1,000–2,000 0 36 165 Prim./WF JS TETT Denbury Resources West Mallalieu Miss. Lincoln 11/01 8,240 42 45 Lower Tuscaloosa S 26 75 10,550 40 248 Prim. 44 NC 2,700 2,700 Succ. Denbury Resources East Mallalieu Miss. Pike 12/03 880 13 12 Lower Tuscaloosa S 26 75 10,550 40 248 Prim./WF 52 NC 500 500 Succ. Denbury Resources McComb Miss. Amite 11/03 12,600 25 10 Lower Tuscaloosa S 26 90 10,900 40 250 Prim. 52 HF 1,700 1,700 Prom FW Denbury Resources Smithdale Miss. Lincoln 3/05 4,100 12 5 Lower Tuscaloosa S 23 90 11,000 41 250 Prim. 50 HF 500 500 Succ. Denbury Resources Brookhaven Miss. Lincoln 1/05 10,800 40 37 Lower Tuscaloosa S 25.5 60 10,300 40 250 Prim./GI/WF 47 HF 3,700 3,700 Succ. FW Denbury Resources Martinville Miss. Simpson 3/06 280 3 2 Mooringsport S 18 40 11,550 38 244 WF 55 NC 250 250 Succ. Denbury Resources Martinville Miss. Simpson 3/06 200 4 3 Rodessa S 12 200 11,600 42 250 WF 64 NC 200 200 Succ. FW Denbury Resources Soso Miss. Jones 9/06 1,800 12 9 Rodessa 11,180 S 17 171 11,500 45 228 WF 55 HF 2,500 2,500 Succ. Exp. L. Denbury Resources Soso Miss. Jones 4/06 2,600 28 16 Bailey 11,701 S 17 273 11,950 43 234 WF 50 HF 200 200 Succ. Exp. L. Denbury Resources Cranfield Miss. Adams 07/08 7,754 26 27 Tuscaloosa S 23 100 10,300 39 260 Prim./GI 32 HF 1,500 1,500 Succ. Exp. L. Denbury Resources Lockhart Crossing La. Livingston 12/07 3,500 19 12 Wilcox S 20 30 10,100 40 212 Prim./WF 32 HF 1,500 1,500 Succ. FW Denbury Resources Delhi La. Madison, Richland 11/09 6,189 101 39 Tuscaloosa, Paluxy S 0.3 1,000 3,500 42 0.77 135 Prim./WF JS TETT FW Denbury Resources Oyster Bayou Tex. Chambers 12/10 3,912 29 12 Frio S 25–28 210–2,300 0 39.5 0.49 190 Prim./WF JS TETT FW

Devon Beaver Creek Wyo. Fremont 7/08 980 17 17 Madison Dolo. 10 10 11,100 39.5 0.64 232 Prim./WF 60 50 JS 2,700 2,425 Prom. Prom. Exp. L.

Energen Resources East Penwell (SA) Unit Tex. Ector 5/96 1,020 49 30 San Andres Dolo. 10 4 4,000 34 2 86 WF 55 40 HF 1,626 827 Succ. Yes Exp. L.

ExxonMobil Means (San Andres) Tex. Andrews 11/83 8,500 484 284 San Andres Dolo. 9 20 4,300 29 6 97 WF HF 10,000 8,700 Succ. Yes Exp. L.

Fasken Abell (Devonian) Tex. Crane 4/09 809 18 14 Devonian Tripol. 21.9 3 5,300 42 1 105 WF 45 JS 240 200 Prom. Prom. Exp. L Fasken Hanford Tex. Gaines 7/86 1,120 23 26 San Andres Dolo. 10.5 4 5,500 32 1 104 Prim. 60.7 18.7 NC 400 400 Succ. Fasken Hanford East Tex. Gaines 3/97 340 7 4 San Andres Dolo. 10 4 5,500 32 1 105 WF 45 19 C 45 45 Succ. Exp. L Fasken Hanford (San Andres) Tex. Gaines 7/09 150 7 4 San Andres Residual Oil Zone Dolo. 10 5 5,700 32 1 105 Prim. 50 JS 280 TETT Exp. L Fasken River Bend (Devonian) Tex. Crane 4/09 400 9 7 Devonian Tripol. 23.7 4.5 5,500 42 0.51 105 WF 55 46 JS 290 180 Prom. Prom. Exp. L

Great Western Drilling Twofreds Tex. Loving,Ward,Reeves 1/74 4,392 32 9 Delawar, Ramsey S 19.5 32 4,900 36 2 105 WF 50 NC 170 170 Succ. Yes

George R. Brown Garza Tex. 11/09 1,778 San Andres 3,000 LW

Hess Seminole Unit–Main Pay Zone Tex. Gaines 7/83 15,699 370 110 San Andres Dolo. 12 1.3–123 5,300 35 1 104 WF 84 HF 14,500 14,000 Succ. Yes FW Hess Seminole Unit–ROZ Phase 1 Tex. Gaines 7/96 500 15 10 San Andres Dolo. 12 1.3–123 5,500 35 1 104 none 30 HF 1,200 1,200 Prom. Yes Hess Seminole Unit–ROZ Phase 2 Tex. Gaines 4/04 480 16 9 San Andres Dolo. 12 1.3–123 5,500 35 1 104 none 30 HF 1,800 1,800 Prom. Yes P Hess Seminole Unit–ROZ Stage 1 Tex. Gaines 10/07 2,320 44 29 San Andres Dolo. 12 1.3–123 5,500 35 1 104 none 30 HF 3,500 3,500 Prom. Yes Exp. L TECHNOLOGY

PRODUCING CO2, OTHER GAS, AND CHEMICAL EOR IN US TABLE C Tot. Enh. Perme– Depth, Gravity, Oil, Prev. Satur. Satur. Proj. prod., prod., Proj. Project ability, md ft °API Oil, cp °F. prod. % start % end matur. b/d b/d eval. Profit scope Anadarko Patrick Draw Monell Wyo. 9/1/03 5,800 S Prim./WF C Succ. Yes RW, Exp. L Anadarko Salt Creek Southern Unit Wyo. Natrona 2012 570 42 26 Frontier, Wall First Oil Creek 1 Member SS 17 25 1,750 39 0.6 105 Prim. 32 24 C 100 10/12 Succ. Yes RW, Exp L Anadarko Salt Creek Southern Unit Wyo. Natrona 2012 1,325 48 32 Frontier, Wall First Oil Creek 2 Member SS 18 30 2,200 39 0.6 112 Prim. 32 24 C 150 10/12 Succ. Yes RW, Exp L Anadarko Salt Creek Ph 1–8 Wyo. Natrona 1/04 6,000 321 279 Wall Creek 2 (Frontier) S 18 75 1,900 37 0.6 105 WF 39 24 H 9,500 9,500 Succ. Yes RW, Exp L Anadarko Salt Creek Ph 7 Wyo. Natrona 1/10 600 40 27 Wall Creek 1 (Frontier) SS 17 30 1,600 35 0.6 99 Prim./WF 32 24 C 1,200 1,200 Succ. Yes RW, Exp L Anadarko Sussex Wyo. Johnson 12/04 25 4 1 Tensleep S 10 16 9,000 30 2.0 200 WF C Prom. P

Devon Beaver Creek Wyo. Fremont 7/08 980 17 17 Madison Dolo. 10 10 11,100 39.5 0.64 232 Prim./WF 60 50 JS 2,700 2,425 Prom. Prom. Exp. L.

Energen Resources East Penwell (SA) Unit Tex. Ector 5/96 1,020 49 30 San Andres Dolo. 10 4 4,000 34 2 86 WF 55 40 HF 1,626 827 Succ. Yes Exp. L.

ExxonMobil Means (San Andres) Tex. Andrews 11/83 8,500 484 284 San Andres Dolo. 9 20 4,300 29 6 97 WF HF 10,000 8,700 Succ. Yes Exp. L.

Great Western Drilling Twofreds Tex. Loving,Ward,Reeves 1/74 4,392 32 9 Delawar, Ramsey S 19.5 32 4,900 36 2 105 WF 50 NC 170 170 Succ. Yes

George R. Brown Garza Tex. 11/09 1,778 San Andres 3,000 LW

PRODUCING CO2, OTHER GAS, AND CHEMICAL EOR IN US (CONTINUED) TABLE C No. No. Poros– Type and Start Area, wells wells Forma– ity, operator Field State County date acres prod. inj. Pay zone tion %

Kinder Morgan SACROC Tex. Scurry 1/72 49,900 390 503 Canyon LS 4 19 6,700 39 1 135 Prim./WF 78 39 HF 29,580 26,530 Succ. Yes LW Kinder Morgan Katz Tex. 1/1/11 5,000 156 101 Strawn LS 17 75 4,950 38 2 117 Prim./WF 70 40 JS Succ. Yes FW Kinder Morgan Goldsmith–Landreth Tex. 21,205 637 389 San Andres Carbonate 12 32 4,100 35 1 95 Prim./WF 80 35 HF Succ. Yes FW

Merit Energy Lost Soldier Wyo. Sweetwater 5/89 1,345 33 39 Tensleep S 9.9 31 5,000 35 1 178 WF NC 4,672 4,545 Succ. Yes Exp. L Merit Energy Lost Soldier Wyo. Sweetwater 5/89 790 16 17 Darwin–Madison S/LS–Dolo. 10.3 4 5,400 35 1 181 WF NC 2,232 1,661 Succ. Yes Exp. L Merit Energy Lost Soldier Wyo. Sweetwater 6/96 120 11 7 Cambrian S 7 10 7,000 35 WF JS 1,740 1,015 Succ. Yes Merit Energy Wertz Wyo. Carbon, Sweetwtr. 10/86 1,400 12 22 Tensleep S 10 20 6,000 35 1 163 WF NC 3,912 2,986 Succ. Yes FW Merit Energy Wertz Wyo. Carbon, Sweetwtr. 9/00 810 12 18 Darwin–Madison S/LS–Dolo. 10 5 6,400 35 1 170 WF NC 1,685 1,033 Succ. Yes Merit Energy Northeast Purdy Okla. Garvin 9/82 3,400 85 49 Springer S 13 44 9,400 38 1 148 WF HF 1,800 1,800 Succ. Merit Energy Bradley Unit Okla. Garvin/Gardy 2/97 700 29 12 Springer S 14 50 9,400 38 1 150 WF JS 800 600 Prom.

Orla Petco East Ford Tex. Reeves 7/95 1,953 8 4 Delaware, Ramsey S 23 30 2,680 40 1 82 Prim. 49 36 HF 128 128 Disc. No FW

Occidental Anton Irish Tex. Hale 4/97 4,437 157 93 Clearfork Dolo. 7 4 5,800 30 3.0 109 Prim./WF 50 30 HF 5,000 4,000 Succ. Yes Exp. L Occidental Cedar Lake Tex. Gaines 8/94 2,870 230 96 San Andres Dolo. 14 5 4,800 32 2.3 102 WF 50 35 HF 3,900 3,000 Succ. Yes LW Occidental Cogdell Tex. Scurry/Kent 10/01 2,684 109 90 Canyon Reef LS 13 6 6,800 40 0.7 130 WF 46 15 HF 5,700 5,650 Succ. Yes Exp. L Occidental El Mar Tex. Loving 4/94 7,100 16 20 Delaware S 16 20 4,500 41 1.1 97 Prim./WF 40 NC 102 94 Disc. Yes Exp. UL Occidental GMK South Tex. Gaines 1982 1,143 29 26 San Andres Dolo. 10 3 5,400 30 3.0 101 Prim. 55 28 HF 480 215 Succ. Yes LW Occidental Levelland (Levelland) Tex. Hockley 9/04 1,179 137 110 San Andres Dolo. 12 2 4,900 34 1.4 108 WF 45 26 JS 3,071 2,198 Succ. Yes Exp. L Occidental Devonian Unit (Mid Cross) Tex. Crane, Upton, Crockett 7/97 1,326 11 6 Devonian Tripol. 18 2 5,400 42 0.4 104 Prim./GI 60 20 HF 297 294 Disc. Yes FW Occidental Devonian Unit (North Cross) Tex. Crane, Upton 4/72 1,155 26 16 Devonian Tripol. 22 5 5,300 44 0.4 104 Prim./GI 49 21 NC 1,283 1,283 Succ. Yes FW Occidental North Cowden Tex. Ector 2/95 465 30 15 Grayburg Dolo. 10 41,675 4,200 34 1.5 91 WF 40 25 Term. 5,090 64 Disc. No Exp. UL Occidental North Dollarhide Devonian Tex. Andrews 11/97 1,280 30 20 Devonian Tripol. 22 5 7,500 40 0.5 123 WF 38 23 HF 1,020 407 Succ. Yes FW Occidental North Hobbs NM Lea 3/03 3,300 134 83 San Andres Dolo. 15 15 4,200 35 0.9 102 WF 35 24 HF 6,615 5,315 Succ. Yes Exp. L Occidental Devonian Unit (South Cross) Tex. Crockett 6/88 2,090 74 43 Devonian Tripol. 21 4 5,200 43 0.6 104 Prim./GI 43 24 HF 4,572 4,440 Succ. Yes FW Occidental Salt Creek Tex. Kent 10/93 12,000 168 145 Canyon LS 20 12 6,300 39 1.0 125 WF 89 15 HF 7,344 6,950 Succ. Yes LW Occidental Sharon Ridge Tex. Scrurry 2/1 1,400 45 43 Canyon Reef LS 10 70 6,600 43 0.4 125 WF 39 26 HF 1,500 1,350 Succ. Yes Exp. L Occidental Slaughter (Alex Slaughter Estate) Tex. Hockley 8/00 246 18 18 San Andres Dolo./LS 10 5 4,950 31 1.8 105 WF 40 25 HF 200 183 Succ. Yes FW Occidental Slaughter (Central Mallet Unit) Tex. Hockley 1984 6,412 167 116 San Andres Dolo. 10 2 4,900 31 1.8 105 WF 48 25 HF 2,300 2,100 Succ. Yes FW Occidental Slaughter (Frazier Unit) Tex. Hockley 12/84 1,600 66 52 San Andres Dolo./LS 12 8 4,950 31 1.8 105 WF 38 23 NC 800 700 Succ. Yes FW Occidental Slaughter (H.T. Boyd) Tex. Cochran 8/01 1,240 39 22 San Andres Dolo. 10 4 5,000 31 1.6 108 WF 47 36 HF 950 850 Succ. Yes LW Occidental Slaughter (Igoe Smith) Tex. Cochran 9/05 1,235 46 34 San Andres Dolo. 11 4 5,040 34 1.5 105 WF 47 36 HF 850 650 Succ. Yes Exp. UL Occidental Slaughter (North West Mallet) Tex. Cochran, Hockley 2008 1,048 96 30 San Andres Dolo. 10 2 4,950 32 2.0 105 WF 47 31 JS 1,085 180 Prom. Yes Exp. L Occidental Slaughter (Slaughter Estate Unit) Tex. Hockley 12/1/84 5,700 182 143 San Andres Dolo./LS 12 5 4,950 31 1.8 105 WF 40 23 HF 3,300 2,900 Succ. Yes FW Occidental Slaughter (Smith Igoe) Tex. Cochran 8/5/14 177 6 3 San Andres Dolo. 10 4 5,000 31 1.6 108 WF 47 36 HF 180 100 Succ. Yes Exp. L Occidental Slaughter (West RKM Unit) Tex. Hockley 2006 1,561 71 48 San Andres Dolo. 9 4 4,900 32 2.0 105 WF 42 29 JS 1,740 450 Succ. Yes Exp. L Occidental South Wasson Clearfork Tex. Yoakum 10/84 4,720 86 68 Clearfork Dolo. 7 2 8,200 33 1.2 120 WF 70 Term. 1,007 0 Disc. No Exp. UL Occidental South Welch Tex. Dawson 9/93 1,160 120 72 San Andres Dolo. 11 4 4,900 34 2.3 98 WF 50 35 NC 800 600 Succ. Yes Exp. L Occidental T–Star (Slaughter Consolidated) Tex. Hockley 7/99 1,700 52 29 Abo Dolo. 7 2 7,850 28 1.9 134 Prim./WF 75 45 HF 1,950 1,000 Succ. Yes LW Occidental Wasson (BRU) Tex. Yoakum 6/95 2,154 207 168 San Andres Dolo. 11 8 5,250 34 1.2 105 WF 55 37 HF 4,900 4,300 Succ. Yes Exp. L Occidental Wasson (Denver Unit) Tex. Yoakum, Gaines 4/83 27,848 1,073 594 San Andres Dolo. 12 8 5,200 33 1.2 105 WF 51 31 HF 24,834 24,441 Succ. Yes FW Occidental Wasson (ODC Unit) Tex. Yoakum 11/84 7,800 329 321 San Andres Dolo./LS 10 5 5,100 34 1.3 110 WF 49 34 HF 8,023 7,617 Succ. Yes FW Occidental Wasson (Willard Unit) Tex. Yoakum 1/86 8,020 327 237 San Andres Dolo. 9 2 5,100 32 1.2 105 WF 56 41 HF 6,907 6,567 Succ. Yes Exp. L Occidental West Welch Tex. Gaines 10/97 240 San Andres Dolo. 10 3 4,900 34 2.3 98 WF 50 15 Term. Disc. No P Occidental Levelland (South East Levelland) Tex. Hockley 04/11/14 1,184 187 38 San Andres Dolo. 10 2 4,850 32 1.4 108 WF 30 15 JS 550 250 Succ. Yes Exp. L Occidental West Seminole San Andres Unit Tex. Gaines 7/1/13 360 16 9 San Andres Dolo 12 10 5,000 34 0.9 102 WF 65 30 JS 150 TETT No Exp L

Resolute Natural Resources Aneth Unit Utah San Juan 10/98 11,000 126 118 Desert Creek LS 12 5 5,700 42 0.6 129 WF 80 37 HF 1,200 400 Prom. Yes LW Resolute Natural Resources McElmo Unit Utah 1/1/1985 13,000 138 107 Desert Creek LS 14 5 5,600 41 0.6 125 WF 80 37 NC Succ. Yes LW

Stanberry Oil Hansford Marmaton Tex. Hansford 6/80 2,010 5 6 Marmaton S 18.1 48 6,500 44 2 142 Prim. 43 NC 102 102 Succ. Yes Exp. UL

Tabula Rasa East Seminole Tex. 10/1/13 160 12 4 Dolomite 10 6 5,400 33 2 108 Prim./WF 80 43.9 JS Prom. TETT Exp. L

Trinity Wellman Tex. 7/1/83 1,400 14 9 Wolfcamp LS 9.2 100 9,800 43.5 1 151 WF 35 10 HF 1,930 1,930 Succ. Yes FW

Whiting Petroleum North Ward Estes Tex. Ward/Winkler 5/07 16,300 816 816 Yates SS 16 37 2,600 36 1.6 83 Prim./WF 26.5 21 JS 7,800 4,700 Prom. Yes Exp. L

XTO Energy Inc. Goldsmith Tex. Ector 12/96 330 16 9 San Andres Dolo. 11.6 32 4,200 35 105 WF JS TETT Exp. UL XTO Energy Inc. Cordona Lake Tex. Crane 12/85 2,084 44 23 Devonian Tripol. 22 4 5,500 40 1 101 WF HF 1,050 350 Prom. Yes Exp. L XTO Energy Inc. Wasson (Cornell Unit) Tex. Yoakum 7/85 1,923 96 64 San Andres Dolo. 8.6 2 4,500 33 1 106 WF HF 1,700 875 Succ. Yes LW XTO Energy Inc. Wasson (Mahoney) Tex. Yoakum 10/85 640 49 27 San Andres Dolo. 13 6 5,100 33 1 110 WF 54.4 39.2 HF 1,600 1,350 Succ. Yes Exp. L

CO immiscible Anadarko2 Salt Creek Wyo. Natrona 10/05 5 4 1 Wall Creek 1 (Frontier) S 17 30 1,150 35 0.6 99 Prim./WF 32 24 C Prom. P

Denbury Resources Eucutta Miss. Wayne 3/06 2,100 55 49 Eutaw S 27 250 5,050 22 152 Prim./WF 42 NC 3,700 3,700 Succ. FW Denbury Resources Martinville Miss. Simpson 9/06 180 3 1 Wash–Fred 8500 S 27 107 8,500 11 198 Prim. 86 HF 300 300 Succ. Exp. L Denbury Resources Tinsley Miss. Yazoo 01/07 10,104 122 47 Woodruff S 23 500 5,000 34 164 Prim./WF 30 HF 9,000 9,000 Succ. Exp. L Denbury Resources Heidelberg, West Miss. Jasper 12/08 2,500 122 47 Eutaw S 28 300 4,800 22 152 WF 37 NC 3,500 3,500 Prom. FW Denbury Resources East Heidelberg Miss. Jasper 6/1/11 857 48 17 Eutaw S 0.28 10–700 5,050 22.8 17.4 152 Prim./WF JS Succ. Denbury Resources East Heidelberg Miss. Jasper 5/12 480 21 9 Christmas S 26–29 160–1,800 5,000 22.8 17.4 152 Prim, WF JS Succ Denbury Resources West Hastings Tex. Brazoria 12/10 4,420 12 11 Frio S 30 1,000 5700 31 1.24 165 Prim 30 JS Prom FW

Kinder Morgan Yates Tex. Pecos 3/04 26,000 606 123 San Andres Dolo. 17 175 1,400 30 6 82 GI 75 54 HF 26,295 4,000 Succ. Yes FW

Hydrocarbon miscible BP Alaska Prudhoe Bay Alas. 12/82–2/87 55,000 287 149 Sadlerochit S 22 400 8,800 27 0.9 210 WF 50 HF 58,000 14,000 Succ. FW BP Alaska Eileen West End Alas. 12/02 4,000 40 16 Sadlerochit S 19 130 8,800 26 1 235 WF 45 JS 12,000 5,000 Succ. FW BP Alaska Aurora Alas. 12/03 10,000 19 11 Kuparuk River S 20 50 6,700 24 2 150 WF 80 JS 7,000 1,000 Succ. FW BP Alaska Borealis Alas. 2004 9,000 30 19 Kuparuk River S 20 100 6,600 24–28 2 160 WF 80 JS 10,000 5,000 Succ. FW BP Alaska Orion Alas. 2006 11,000 12 35 Schrader Bluff S 25 150 4,500 15–23 7–140 85 WF 65 JS 7,800 1,000 TETT FW BP Alaska Polaris Alas. 2004 5,000 9 16 Schrader Bluff S 25 150 4,900 15–23 7–140 100 WF 65 NS 4,600 200 TETT FW BP Alaska Pt. McIntyre Alas. 2001 6,240 55 15 Kuparuk River S 23 200 8,800 27 0.9 182 WF 70 HF 20,000 10,000 Succ. FW

ExxonMobil South Pass Block 89 OCS 12/83 204 9 5 X and Y Series S 26 1,000–1,500 10,000 38 0.40–0.60 180 Prim. HF 2,100 2,100 Succ. Yes RW TECHNOLOGY