SPE 18769

A Review of Gas Injection Projects in California

by E,C. Babson, Babson &Sheppard

SPE Member

~p~ighl 1989, SOcietyof Pelr@eum Engineere, fnc.

llspaper waepreparW forpresantalion atthe SPECafifornla RegionaI Meeting held lnBakerafield, California, April 57,

19S9.

va papar waa saleoted for presentationby an SPE Program Committee followingreview of Informationcontained In an abstract aubmlftedby the author(a).Ccmtanteof the paper,
I presented, have not been reviawed by the Society Of Petrolaum Enginwra and are eubjeotto Correctionby the author(s).The materfal, se preeentW, does nOtnecessarily refleof
IYPositionof the SocietyOfpetrofaumEnginaara, iteofflceraior members. papara preaenlad at SpE meetingsare subjectto publlcetlonreview by EdfforlalCommitfws of the Soofefy
PetroleumEngineers.Permissionto copyia reetricfedto an ebstra;t of notmorathan31Xrworda.llh.wfra!fona
may notbe scplsd.The abstractshouldsontalncmnaplcuoua
acknowledgment
where and bywhomtha paper lsprasented. Write PublicationsManager, SPE, P.O. f30x8S3S3S, Richerdeon,TX7508S-3S36. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

sumw

or under the control of a single company so

that an adequate reservoir management progrem
could be carried out without the interference
of competitive operations.

This paper summarizes reservoir and recovery

data for 12 of the more important gas injection pressure maintenance projects in
California. These projects were initiated
during the period from 1940 to 1960 and the
reservoirs are now approaching depletion.
A brief description of each project is ineluded.

2. The total volume of gas injected was considered to be sufficient relative to reservoiz
size to have a substantial effect on performance.

Data considered to be adequate for the purpose

of this study were obtained on 12 projects
which are listed in the attached J!able
1. The
In the period between 1940 and 1960 a number data were obtained from the operators of the
projects, published technical papers, unof gas injection projects were initiated in
published engineering reports in our files,
California oil pools for the purpose of
and statistics compiled by the Conservation
maintaining reservoir pressure. Since most
Committee of California Oil Producers. In
of these reservoirs are nearing the end of
only two cases were the published aata adtheir productive life under the current
equate for the purposes of this study, so a
methods of operations, it seems an approrepresentative review would have been impriate time to review the performance of
possible without the cooperation of the comthese projects. The remaining producible
panics operating the other projects. I
oil reserves are so small relatiVe to past
would like to express my.appreciation for the
production that substantial uncertainties
data and assistance given me by the following
in estimates of future production will
have little effect on the estimated ultimate companies:
recovery.
ARCO Oil and Gas Co.
Chevron USA Inc.
!Ehestudy has been confined to immiscible
Sun Exploration and
gas displacement projects. There have been
Production Co.
a few attempted miscible gas displacement
Texaco USA Inc.
and gas cap cycling projects, but there have
Unocal Corp.
not been enough to furnish a body of credible comparative data.
I would also like to acknowledge the assisThe criteria which have been considered in
tance of Adell Gibson, without whom this preselecting the projects to be reviewed can
ject would never have been completed.
be sumr;arizedas follows:
GENERAL DISCUSSION
1. The entire reservoir was either uniti?ed
All of the reservoirs included in this review
produce relatively light oil (29 to 40 /iPI
References and illustrations at end of paper [0.882 to 0.825 g/cm ]) at depths ranging
INTRODUCTION

213

A REVIEW OF GAS XNJECTI! PROJECTS IN CALIFORNIA

from 3,500 to 11,600 ft [1067 to 3536m], except the Salt Creek Carneros which produces
19 API [0.94 g/cm3] oil from an average
depth of 2,400 ft [732 m]. The oil in most
reservoirs was either saturated or approaching
saturation with solution gas. In no case was
the bubble point more than 40% below the initial reservoir pressure. Primary gas caps
existed in five of the reservoirs, but for
the most part they were small relative to the
oil accumulation. The maximum oil column
ranged from 200 to 1,800 ft [61 to 549 ml.
Pertinent reservoir data are summarized in
Tables 3, 4, and 5.
Oil production, gas injection, and water injection data are summarized in Table 2. It
is of interest that these reservoirs have
produced more than 1.25 billion bbl [198.734
x 106 m3] of oi $ and that almost 2.5 Tcf
[70.792 x 109 m 1 of gas have been injected.
h,~terhas been injected into all but two of
the reservoirs for various reasons. In some
cases, such as Buena Vista 27B and Coalinga
Nose, the volumes of water injected are insignificant relative to the size of the reservoir. At the other extreme, full-scale
vaterfloods have been operated in the Canal,
Yorth Coles Levee, West Coyote, and NewhallL?otreroreservoirs during the later stages of
the gas injection program or after its termination.
In Table 6, the estimated ultimate oil recovery factors are shown as a percent of the
tank oil originally in place, together with
the reservoir parameters which are considered to be most likely to.affect oil recovery. For the reservoirs in which natural
water encroachment did not appear to be sicjnificant, estimates were made of the oil recovery which would have been obtained by gas
injection if secondary waterflooding had not
been initiated. Such estimates could not
be made reliably for the reservoirs having
significant water encroachment with the data
available for this study. In some cases,
by gas and
estimates of relat$ve recovery
water displacement have been made in the past
and these estimates will be discussed in the
review of individual projects below.

SPE 18769

ofgas fingering or coning.

Probably the most important factor in oil
recovery and the most difficult to characterize adequatelyis the permeability of the
reservoir rock. Of course, we are really interested in the permeability to oil in the
reservoir under the temperature, pressure,
stress, and saturation conditions existing
there. Such data are not available for the
reservoirs in question. For most of the
reservoirs, the only
data available was an
arithmetic average air permeability on unof necessity,
stressed core samples, so this,
becomes the basis for comparison in this
study. Probably the median or the geometric
mean would be better for comparative purposesj
but these data were not available for most
of the reservoirs. It is my opinion that
the permeability figures shown in Tables 5
and 6 are useful as approximations only.
Theoretically, the ratio of permeability to
viscosity should be a more significant factor
than permeability alone, so this ratio is
shown in Table 6. The average reservoir oil
viscosity under initial conditions was used
in the calculation.
The data indicate that, with one exception,
the estimated total recovery factors range
from 33 to 58%, and the recovery factors by
pressure maintenance in reservoirs not having
from 27 to 34%
significant waterdrives range
of the oil originally in place. The higher
recovery factors are generally obtained in
reservoirs having higher permeability and
longer oil columns, in which gravity forces
become important in controlling displacement
~f the reservoir oil.
CONCLUSIONS

In most reservoirs in which the in situ permeability is too low for gravity segregation
to
become
an
effective recovery mechanism,
fingering or coning of the injected gas into
producing wells becomes the limiting factor
in oil recovery. The data in this study indicate that recoverY factors in the range of
30 to 35% of the tank oil originally in place
can be attained in light oil reservoirs of
Some discussion of the reservoir parameters
this type by properly managed pressure mainconsidered likely to affect oil recovery
tenance projects using gas injection. In
significantly seems appropriate. The average most of these reservoirs additional oil recovery can be obtained by subsequent waternet oil sand thickness can be a factor in
any displacement process because fingering
flooding.
of the disrdacinq fluid mav have a less severe
effect on ;ecove;y efficiency in relatively - Higher recovery efficiency can be obtained
thin sand bodies. In this study, the average from reservoirs in which gravity segregation
thickness was calculated by dividinq the bulk can be used effectively to control or at leas
volume of the net oil sand-by the productive
minimize the fingering or coning of injected
area.
gas into the producing wells. Under themost
favorable co~d$tions, recovery factors can
The maximum oil column figure shown in Tables exceed 60%. t
3 and 6 is the vertical distance from the top
of the reservoir or the gas/oil interface, if lBrief description of each of the projects
any to the lowest point on the oillwater in- follow:
terface. If an attemDt is made to utilize
gravity segregation i; the displacement proBuena Vista Field, 27B Pool,
cess, a long oil column facilitates the control
Chevron U.S.A. - Unit Operator
214

SP1318769

E. C. Babson, SPE,

abson and Sheppard

The 27B oil accumulation in the Buena Vista

field occurs in four relatively thin sands
near the base of the Etchegoin formation of
Pliocene Age ~t an average depth of 3,900 ft
[1189 m]. These sands are of somewhat limitec
areal extent and are present principally on
the crest and the southwest flank of the Buene
Vista anticline.3 Two small primary gas caps
aggregating about six percent of the total
reservoir volume were present. The reservoir is limited by sand pinchouts around a
major portion of its perimeter. An oil/water
inkerface is present along the southwest flank
and portions of the northwest flank.

3
age depth of 5,300 ft [1615 m] at the westerl
end of the Buena Vista anticline. The aggregate thickness of this sand body exceeds
700 ft [213 m] and it contains numerous thin
shale striagerst which appear to have limite(
continuity. The oil reservoir limits are
provided by an unconformity on the southeast
side and an oil/water igterface in the remaining portions of the perimeter. A primar~
gas cap occupied approximately 11% of the
total hydrocarbon reservoir. Crestal gas
injection was initiated by Richfield Oil
Corp., subsequently the Unit Operator, in
November 1959, somewhat over a year after
-liscovery. In the year prior to gas injection the average reservoir pressure
declined 125 psi [862 kPa]. The pressure
decline rate during the succeeding 16 years
averaged 39 psi [269 kPa] per year.

The reservoir characteristics and the early

history of the gas injection project have been
described in some detail by Brubaker and
Stutsman.4 Crestal gas injection was initiated in 1949 by Standard Oil Co. of CalifMaterial balance calculations made in 19755
ornia, the Unit Operator, some five years
indicate that encroaching water had displace<
after discovery. Initiallyt all produced gas
oil from 35% of the reservoir volume, based
was returned to the reservoir, and by 1950
on residual oil saturations and critical
these volumes were being supplemented by algas saturations calculated from relative
most equal volumes of nonindigenous gas. The
permeability data,assuming 100% sweep efdecline in average reservoir pressure was
ficiency. If cor,siderationis given to the
arrested in 1949 and the pressure increased
probability of somewhat lower sweep efficienslightly in 1950.
cy, the volume of the reservoir watered out
may have been somewhat larger.
Prior to the start ofgas injection there was
strong evidence of gravity segregation in the
Gravity segregation has undoubtedly been a
reservoir. Water encroachment occurred, to
major factor in the recovery of oil from the
some degree, during the early portion of the
productive life, but the aquifer was apparent- seccmdary gas cap created by gas injection.
Since available data indicates that oil rely limited,and somewhat less than 10% of the
coveries from massive Stevens sands by water
reservoir volume was swept by water. Reserdisplacement seldom exceed 40%, and the over.
voir performance indicates that the gravity
is
all recovery factor for this reservoir
segregation mechanism was principally respon44.3%, it is likely that the oil recovery
sible for the relatively high recovery factor
factor from the secondary gas cap volume is
of 47.2% of the ofl originally in place.
of the order of 50%.
Tank oil originally in place was estimated by
There is some uncertainty regarding the tank
volumetric methods using core analysis data
oil originally in place. A volumetric eson unstressed core samples. The average
timate gives 113.8 million bbl [18.093 x 106
Ipermeability shown in Table 5 is the average
data
from unstressed co~e samPl@s
m3] using
air permeability of core samples. Brubaker
and 96.1 million bbl [15.279 x .10 m3] using
and Stutsman consider the permeability de:;:; ~rom cores stressed to 2,200 psig [15
rived in this manner not to be representative
The 16% reduction in reservoir
.
of the actual permeability of the reservoir
volume seems somewhat large and the analysis
rock because of low core recovery (58%) and
of reservoir perfo~mance made in 1975 inwell performance indicating average perdicates to me that the lower estimate of oil
meability of approximately one darcy in the
sand containing most of the oil. It is likely originally in place would have provided insufficient unswept reservoir volume to acthat an average permeability of the order of
600 millidaricies would be more representative count for the oil which has subsequently
been produced. An effort was made to esThe recovery factor, 47.2% of the tank oil
timate the tank oil originally in place by
originally in place, also indicates in situ
material balance methods, but the calculated
permeability high enough to make effective
gravity drainage possible. It is not possible apparent oil in place volumes were so erto estimate the contribution of water displace, ratic over the 11 year period studied that
no trend could be established
In my opiniol
nent to the overall recovery factor, but in
105 million bbl [16.7 x 106 ms] is a reasonlight of the rather limited volume of water
able estimate of tank.oil originally in plac(
encroachment, the effect was probably small.

ARCO Oil and Gas Co. - Unit Operator

Canal Field, Upper Stevens-Poolc

Grayson Service Inc. - Unit Operator

The 555 Stevens-Massive accumulation in the

Buena Vista field occurs in a massive body of
Stevens sand of upper Miocene Age at an aver-

The Upper Stevens accumulation in the Canal

field occurs at an average depth of 8,200 ft
[2500 m] in the upper portion of a massive

?Uena Vista Field, 555 Stevens-Massive Pool,

215

A REVIEW OF GAS INJECTION PROJECTS IN CALIFORNIA

Stevens sand body on a small low relief anticlineal feature. There was no primary gas
cap and the oil reservoir was completely
underlain by an oil/water interface. A
pilot crestal gas injection project was initiated in 1941 by Shell Oil Co., at that time
the Unit Operator, about 3+ years after discovery.
Full-scale crestal injection started
in August 1942 and additional gas was later
injected into two down structure wells to
maintain pressure balance.
Reservoir data on this project was obtained
;E:a::::z?
;:z:;:;n;;z:::::n:z:tained at approximately 2,200 psig ~15 MPa]
for about three years but subsequently declined at a rate of approximately 100 psi
[689 kPal per year. Efforts to control gas
fingering into the producing wells were
limited by the short oil column (200 ft [61 m]
and water injection was initiated in December
1958, less than a year before gas injection
operations were terminated. The flood was
initially a peripheral one, supplemented
eventually by a few injectors in the interior
portion of the productive area. The reservoir is now essentially depleted under present
methods of operation.

SPE

lR7fiQ

oil saturation after gravity drainage is much

lower than after water displacement, so high
volume pumping equipment has been installed
in edge wells in order to minimize encroachment into the reservoir. Water production
from these wells has been as high as 25
MB/D [3.975 x 103 m3/d].
A water injection prograinwas initiated in
1957 in a portion of the reservoir having
lower permeability, but was abandoned in
1962 because of low injectivity and difficultyin controlling water movement through the
reservoir.
Reservoir pressure had declined from an initial 3,490 to 2,000 psig [24 to 13.8 MPa] at
the time full-scale gas injection was initiated in 1951. By 1968 the pressure had
declined further to 1,600 psig [11 MPa], but
then gradually increased to a peak of 1,970
psig [13.6 MPa] in November 1978 as a result
of the injection of nonindigenous gas. The
injection of outside gas was discontinued in
1978 and reservoir pressure has been gradually declining since that time.

Tank oil in place was originally estimated

to be 995 million bbl [158.2 x 106 m3] based
on the average porosity measured on unThe tank oil originally in place was estimated stressed core sanples. Recent studies in
which the porosity has been adjusted for the
to be 87 million bbl [13.8 x 106 m3] by
volumetric methods and 74 million bbl [11.7 x
effects of overburden stress result in an
106 m3] by material balance calculations.7
estimate of 739 million kbl [117.5 x 106 m31,
The material balance estimate has been used
compared to 796.7 million bbl [126.7 x 106
balance model Calculations.
m3] by material
in this study and, even at this lower estimate, the recovery factors are substantiall~ The estimate by material balance methods has
been used in this study.
lower than those for most of the reservoirs
studied. The short oil column is probably
Coles Levee, North, Field, Main Western Pool,
a major factor in the low oil recovery obtained by pressure maintenance, and it is
ARCO oil and Gas Co. - Operator
possible that oil recovery by waterflooding
would have been higher if a regular pattern
l?heMain Western accumulation in the North
flood had been used.
Joles Levee field occurs principally in a
nassive Stevens sand body of upper Miocene
Coalinga Nose Field, Gatchell Pool,
4ge at an average depth of 8,800 ft [2682 m]
m an anticlinal structure plunging to the
Unacal Corp. - Unit Operator
east.9 The aggregate thickness of this sand
body exceeds 700 ft [213 m] and it contains
The oil accumulation in the Coalinga Nose
numbrous thin shale stringers which seem to
field occurs in the Gatchell sand of Eocene
have Iii,.it.ed
continuity. A slightly tilted
Age on the Coalinga anticline, a major
~il/water interface underlies the entire oil
structural feature in the area. The sand
body is thick (up to 600 ft [183 m] in the
accumulation in this massive sand body, and
the reservoir limit to the west is provided
field area) and is essentially solid with
by decreasing permeability of the sands.
few noticeable shale breaks. The sand is
Some thin, lenticular sand bodies above the
continuous for long distances to the north,
nassive sands are included in the Main Westeast, and south but shales out quite absrn pool, insofar as statistical data are
ruptly to the west, thus forming the trap on
:oncerned. A primary gas cap occupied apthe Coalinga Nose. There was no primary gas
proximately 12% of the total hydrocarbon
cap. Crestal gas injection was initiateZ by
reservoir volume.
Union Oil Co., the Unit Operator in 1950,
almost 11 years after discovery.~ By June
:restal gas injection was initiated by the
1951 all produced gas was being returned to
?ichfield Oil Corp. in November 1942, and
the reservoir, and subsequently substantial
Keservoir pressure was maintained in the range
volumes of nonindigenous gas have been injected. Gravity drainage performance of the
from 3,000 to 3,300 psig [20.6 to 22.7 MPa]
Eor approximately 20 years. There appears
reservoir has been excellent, but there has
been a tendency for water from the aquifer
to have been little water encroachment into
the reservoir. A pilot waterflood was into encroach into the productive area. Laboratory tests have indicated that the residual itiated in 1967 and expanded to a full-scale
?attern flood in 1970.
216

SPE 18769

E. C. Babson, SPE, Babson and Sheppard

5
I
The tank oil originally in place.waS estimated ~ote,
West, Field, west Emery Pool,
to be 347 million bbl [55.2 x 10~ m~] by
Chevron
U.S.A. - Unit Operator
volumetric methods using core analysis data
on unstressed core samples. The recovery
The West Coyote field is a multizone oil acfactor by pressure maintenance, 31.8% of the
cumulation on a faulted anticlinal structure
tank oil originally in place, indicates that
in the Los Angeles Basin.10 The section
gravity segregation was not a very effective
consists of alternating sands and shales in
reccvezy mechanism in this reservoir, even
the Repetto formation of Pliocene Age. The
though thz ratio of air permeability to resEmery zone, the deepest productive zone in
ervoir oil viscosity is comparable to that
the field, consists of a series of sands and
of other reservoirs in which gravity drainshales with a gross thickness of approximatel~
age has been reasonably effective. probably
900 ft [274 m] and an average depth of 5,300
the actual permeability to oil in this resft [1615 m]. A northeast-southwest trending
ervoir is low relative to the permeability
fault separates the zone into two reservoirs
to air of clean dry cores as a result of the
relatively high interstitial water saturation. known as the East and West Emery. In the
West Emery reservoir there was no primary
gas cap. The reservoir limits were provided
Coles Levee, North, Field, 21-1 and Western

by faulting on the north, east, and south

35 Po~
sides and by an oil/water interface on the
west plunge.
liRCOOil and Gas CO. - Operator
The project has been described in some detail
by Sheldon Craddock.11 Crestal gas injection
was initiated by Standard
Oil CO.
of California, the Unit Operator, in July 1944, approximately 14 years after discovery. The
init~al injection rate was 10 MMCF/D [283.2
X 10 m3/d]
which was increased to 20 MMCF/D
[566.3 x 103 m3/d] in 1949 to provide virtually full pressure maintenance. A line drive
waterflood was started in November 1959, approximately 14 years prior to termination of
gas injection. There is little indication of
any substantial water encroachment into the
reservoir.

J!hesereservoirs occur in flank sands above

the Main Western sand but within the Stevens
formation on the north flank and east plunge
>f the North Coles Levee structure. Although
nest of the reservoir parameters seem comparable to those of the Main Western sand,
these sands are more heterogeneousand have
?oorer lateral continuity. There was no
primary gas cap in the Western 35 reservoir,
Jut one occupied approximately eight percent
]f the hydrocarbon reservoir volume in the
21-1 reservoir, Gas injection was initiated
b these reservoirs by the Richfield Oil
:orp. in February 1943, about 3% years after
Iiscovery, but the volumes injected were in~dequate to maintain reservoir pressure,
rhich declined continuously to a level of
!,400 psig [16.5 MPa] at the time water~looding was initiated. It can be seen from
Table 6 that the total cumulative gas inlection/bblof oil originally in place was
.ess than half that for the Main Western
>roject.

Tank oil originally in place was estimated

volumetrically using core analysis data from
unstressed core samples. The recovery factor
resulting from pressure maintenance, 34.3% of
the tank oil originally in place, is comparabl
to recoveries from other light oil reservoirs
in which gravity drainage has been relatively
ineffective. The additional recovery by
waterflooding, however, is substantially
greater than that obtained from massive Steven
sand reservoirs. The greater thickness and
better continuity of the shale bodies in the
Emery zone have probably contributed to better
control over the movsment of injected water
through the reservoir.

!he productive areas of the two reservoirs

werlap and a number of wells have been
:ompleted in both zones, so it has not been
;easible to segregate production for statistical purposes. Water injection operations
fere initiated in January 1967.
ank oil originally in place was estimated by
olumetricmethods using core analysis data
from unstressed core samples. The very low
becovery factor after waterflooding, 21.3%
~f the tank oil originally in place, is
mobably the result of a number of factors.
he development of the 21-1 and Western 35
:eservoirs was much less complete and system~tic than the development of the Main Western
ceservoir, and a substantial portion of the
21-1 reservoir was not waterflooded. These
factors and the greater heterogeneity and
poor lateral continuity noted above would all
Lend to reduce recovery efficiency both in the
Jas injection and waterflood stages. Re:overy efficiency probably was also adversely
~ffected by the relatively low volume of gas
injection/bbl of oil originally in place.

cuYama, South, Field, Homan Pool,

operator
ARCO oil and Gas CO. - unit
The Homan reservoir in the South Cuyama field
occurs in a sand body of Miocene Age known
as the Dibblee sand at an tiveragedepth of
4 ,500 ft [1372 m] on a highly faulted ~~tiClinal structure in the Cuyama Valley.
The reservoir limits are provided by oil/
water interfaces, except in a few limited
areas where the acc~ulation is controlled
pY faulting. Approximately 22% of the total
hydrocarbon volume in the reservoir was
occupied by a primary gas cap.
Gas was injected into the reservoir on an experimental basis by Richfield Oil Corp. during
the period from March to September 1950, less
than a year after discovery. Full-scale

217

A REV?EW OF GAS INJECTION PROJECTS IN CALIFORNIA

SPE -lR71iQ
--- . -.

crestal injection began in July 1953, follow- evaluation of reservoir volume, it is estiing unitization of the reservoir. All promated that the recovery factor by water
duced gas and approximately 10 Bcf [28.317
displacement was approximately one half the
x 106 m3] of outside gas were injected into
recovery factor obtained by gas cap expansion
the reservoir during the succeeding 10 years. This difference in recovery factors is the
The decline in average reservoir pressure
result of effective gravity segregation,
decreased from approximately 70 psi [483 kPa] which has minimized fingering or coning of
gas from the secondary gas cap into the proper year prior to 1953, to 18,psi [124 kPal
per year subsequently. Some gas sales were
ducing wells. Thus, one of the principal
made during the period from 1964 to 1977,
objectives of the gas injection program has
but since 1977 all produced gas has been
been to maintain reservoir pressure in order
injected into the primary gas cap area in
to minimize water encroachment.
order to minimize migration of oil into this
portion of the reservoir. Material balance
The estimated overall recovery factor, 46%
calculations during the early life of the
of the tank oil originally in place, is
.smcroachent
field indicated substantial water
reasonably consistent with the recovery
into the reservoir. From 1955 to 1968 water
factors estimated from reservoir performance
produced from the Homan pool was injected
as outlined above.
into edge wells in the pool. Since 1968
approximately one-third of the produced water Tank oil originally in place w s estimated to
has been injected into the Bittercreek zone.
be 57 million bbl [9.1 x 106 m 3] by volumetric methods.
Tank oil originally in place was estimated
to be 500 million bbl [79.5 x 106 m3] by
Newhall-Potrero Field, 1, 2, and 3 Pool,
volumetric and 450 million bbl [71.5 x 106
Sun Exploration and Production Co.m3] by material balance calculations, of
which the latter is considered to be the most Operator
reliable estimate. The recovery factor,
47.6% of the tank oil originally in place,
,The Newhall-Potrero field is a multizone
reflects the effectiveness of both gravity
accumulation on a sharply folded and faulted
drainage and water displacement. It is not
anticline near the city of Newhall.16 The
possible with available data to estimate
1, 2, and 3 zones consist of a series of sand
the effectiveness of each separately,
and shales of Miocene Age having an aggregate thickness of 1,000 to 1,500 ft
Cymric Fieldt Salt Creek Main Area [305 to 457 m] at an average depth of 7,300 f
[2225 m]. There were no primary gas caps.
Carneros Pool,
Texaco U.S.A. - Unit Operator
Gas injection was initiated by the Barnsdall
Oil Co., at that time the operator of the
The Salt Creek Carneros gas injection project leases, in December 1944, nearly eight years
is of considerable interest because it is the after discovery. The decline in average
only project in a heavy oil reservoir studied reservoir pressure was arrested in 1947 at
in this review. The average gravity of the
approximately 1,700 psig [11.7 MPa] and
produced oil is 18.9 API [0.941 g/cm3] and
was maintained at or above the level until
the viscosity of the reservoir oil was initia1- 1955, with a subsequent slow decline to 900
ly 6.2 centipoises [6.2 mPa.s]. The project
psig [6.2 MPa] in 1974. Essentially all
has been described in some detail by Holmes
the produced gas was injected from 1946
Mil.ler.13 More recent studies have been made
through 1954 and from 1971 through 1985.
by James A. Lewis Engineering, Inc.14 and
During the intervening period, the injection
Nary Jane Wilson.15
rate was lower than the gas production rate.
The accumulation occurs in the Carneros sand
Df Miocene Age, dipping essentially to the
northeast and bounded by faults on all sides,
except the north where the reservoir limit
is an oil[water interface. There was no
primary gas cap. Crestal gas injection was
initiated in December 1948 by Intex Oil Co.,
at that time the Unit Operator, less than
three years after discovery. Average reservoir pressure had declined from an initial
1,200 to 560 psig [8.2 to 3.8 MPa] by the end
~f 1948. After the start of injection, the
reservoir pressure gradually increased and by
1961 was 670 psig [4.6 MPa].
&n analysis of reservoir performance made in
1962 by James A. Lewis Engineering, Inc. inilicatedt:hat22% of the reservoir had been
watered out by naturally encroaching water
and 33% had been gassed out by the expanding
econdary gas cap. Based on the most recent

There has been little indication of substantial water encroachment into the reservoir.
Produced water has been injected into the
reservoir since 1952, principally into edge
wells, and since 1956 substantial volumes of
nonindigenous water have been injected, also
into edge wells. The peripheral waterflooding operation was expanded between 1974
and 1976 by increasing water injection rates,
returning idle wells to production, and
drilling of new wells. Oil production peakec
in 1976 at double the 1974 rate.
Tank oil originally in place was estimated
volumetrically using core analysis data from
unstressed core samples. The recovery factox
34.2% of the tank oil originally in place, iz
comparable to recoveries from other light oil
reservoirs in which gravity drainage has beer
relatively ineffective. It is possible that
the overall recovery including waterflooding,
210

WZu

Aufuz

-.

-...,.?.,-.,

-.

.-,

--.,..

36.7% of the oil originally in place, could

be increased by pattern waterflooding.
Rio Bravo Field, Rio i3ravo-Vedder-Osborn
~,
Mobil Oil Corp. - Unit Operator
The Rio Bravo field is located on a northwest-southeast trending anticlinal feature.
Oil production is obtained from three sands
of lower Miocene Age at an average depth of
11,400 ft [3475 ml. These are called the
Rio Bravo, Vedder, and Osborn sands. Oil
accumulation in the Ric Bravo sand, the shallowest, is continuous through a structural
saddle into the Greeley field to the southeast. The Osborn sand, the deepest, is
productive only in the crestal area of the
field and contains only three percent of the
total hydrocarbon reservoir volume. Reservoir limits are provided by an oil/water
interface, except for a portion of the
northeast flank in which the accumulation
is controlled by faulting. There was no
primary gas cap.

..

.,..

w~=&-

nisms with the data avialable.

Greeley Field, Rio Bravo-Vedder Pool,
ChevronU.S.A. - Unit Operator
The Rio Bravo-Vedder accumulation in the
Greeley field is quite similar to that in
the Rio Bravo field.18 The two fields are
separated by a low re$ief saddle and, as
noted above, the oil accumulation in the
Rio Bravo zone is continuous with that in
the Rio Brava field. The anticlinal
structure is of lower relief, however, and
the Rio Brave zone contains only 15% of the
total hydrocarbon reservoir volume, compared to 33% in the Rio Bravo field. There
was no primary gas cap in this reservoir.
Gas injection was initiated by Standard Oil
Co. of California, the Unit Operator, in
January 1948, approximately 10 years after
discovery. Bstween 1952 and 1982 produced
water was injected into edge wells as a
means of disposal.

Tank oil originally in place was esti ated

to be 224,3 million bbl [35.7 x 106 mY ] by
volumetric
methods using core analysis
The information used in this study was obtained almost entirel
data on unstressed cor% s~ples and 230
Hiatt and Gallagher.lY ~~s~a~a~~~ ?;
million bbl [36.6 x 10 m ] by material
balance methods. The volumetric estimate
jection was initiated in August 1946 by
has been used in this study. The recovery
The Superior Oil Co., at that time Unit
factor for this reservoir is estimated to
Operator, approximately seven years after
be 46.5% of the tank oil originally in place,
discovery. By the middle of 1946 average
as compared with 44.3% for a similar,rereservoir pressure had declined from inservoir in the Rio Bravo field. Conitial 5,000 psig [34.4 MPal to about 3,50fJ
sidering the uncertainties involved in these
psig [24.1 MPa]. After the start of gas
estimates th.i:,
difference is not considered
injection, pressure was maintained at levels
to be very si ~ificant and, in any case,
above 3,000 psig [20.6 MPal for a period
could pOSS~& be the result of migration of
of 20 years and was 2,700 psig [18.6 MPal
oil from the :.ioBravo field. Pressure
at the end of 1972. Almost all water production from the reservoir has been injecte$l data to support this possibility are not
available.
into the Vedder sand in edge wells as a
means of disposal.
REFERENCES
During the early productive life of the
reservoir, it was found that there was
1. Anders, E.L. Jr.: Mile Six Pool - An
substantial water encroachment into the
Evaluation of Recovery Efficiency,
Vedder sand but very little into the overTrans., AIME (1953) 198,279.
lying Rio Bravo sand, in which gravity
segregation became evident prior to the start 2. Stewart, F.M., Garthwaite, D.F., and
of gas injection. Since most of the proKrebill, F.K.: I@pressureMaintenance
ducing wells were completed in both sands,
by Inert Gas Injection in the High
and since the separation between the sands
Relief Elk Basin Field, Trans., AIME
was provided by a shale approximately 10 ft
(1955) 204, 49.
[3 m] thick, one of the principal objectives
of t?iegas injection operation was to main3. Borkovich, Georqe J.: Buena Vista Oil
tain pressure balance between the two sands.
Field, Summary of Operations, CalifIn effect, the principal recovery mechanisms
ornia Oil Fields, Division of ~
have been gravity segregation in the Rio
Gas 1955) 4, No. 2, 5.
Bravo sand and water displacement in the
Vedder sand.
4. Brubaker, E.W. and Stutsman, H. J.:
IIproduction
performance and prelimTank oil originally in place has been esinary Results of Gas Injection, 27B
timated by volumetric methods using core
Pool,Buena Vista Hills Field, Drilling
analysis data on unstressed core samples.
and Production Practice, API (1951)
The overall recovery factor, 44.3% of the
133.
tank oil originally in place, is the resuit of both gravity drainage and water
5. Whittaker, Roger M. and Gaunttt James C.:
displacement, as suggested above. It is
55!5Stevens Zone Unit Reservoir Study,
impossible to evaluate the relative conUnpublished report (July 1975).
tributior.sof these two recovery mecha-

. KQV
Anw

..

7,-,...

vr

-.,-.

wia

-------

.-

J.NLIIZLX.LUN kKUJl$CIS IN

CALIFORNIA

SPE 18769

I
Marigold,R.P.: Canal Field Gas Injection ft x 3.048*
E-01
Project, _
API (1946) Reprint only.
ft3 ~ 2,831 685
E-02
7. Pings, C. J. Jr. and Li.etz,W. Tempelaar: F
(F-32)/l.8
Canal Field Gas Injection Project,
psi
x
6.894
757
E+OO
~
(Aug. 1955) 25.
E-ol
scf/bbl X 1.801 175
8. van Wingen, N., Barton, W. C. Jr., and
Case, C. H.: IIcoalingaNose Pressure
*Conversion factor is exact.
Maintenance Project, JPT (Oct. 1973)
.,.
6.

=
=
=
=
=

m
m3

Oc
kPa
std in3/m3

9. Hardoin, John N.: North Coles Levee Oil

Field, Summary of Operations, California Oil Fields, Divlsian of Oil and
Gas (1962) 48, No. 2, 53.

.0.

Mefford, John N.: North Coles Levee

Oil Field, Summary of Operationsc
California Oil Fields, Division of Oil
and Gas (1962) 45, No. 1, 37.

1.

Craddock, Sheldon F.: An Evaluation of

Gas Injection in Emery West Pool, West
Coyote Field.,California, JPT (April
1956) 25.

2.

Zulberti. John N.: South Cuvama Oil

Field, Summary of Operation:, California Oi~ields,
Division of Oil and Gas

(19541 40, No. 1, 41.

3. Nil?.er,Holmes: Hi~tory and Performance

of Salt Creek Oil Field, Carneros Pool
Unit, Kern Countyt California, API
~roceedings (1956) 34 IV, 59.

4.

Lewis Engineering, Inc., James A.:

Reservoir Analysis, Carneros Pool Unit,
Salt Creek Field, Kern County, California, Unpublished report (Feb. 19, 1962]

5.

Wilson, Ma.:yJane: Reservoir Engineer&~O~tudy, Salt Creek Unit (Oct. 1979)

6.

Mefford, M.G.: Newhall-Potrero Oil

Field, Summary of Operations, California Oil Fields, Division of Oil and
Gas (1965) 51, No. 2, 41.

7.

Hiatt, W. ??.and Gallagher, J. L.:

History of Rio Bravo Oil Field, JPT
(Feb. 1975) 145.

8.

Updike, Furman H.: Greeley Oil Field,

Summary of Operations, California
Oil Fields, Division of C~iland Gas
(1941) 27, 5.

S1 METRIC CONVERSION FACTO.~

acre x 4.046 873
E-t03= m2
acre x 4.046 873
E-01 = ha
acre-ft x 1.233 489
E+03 = m3
API 141.5/(131.5 + API)
=g/cm3
~3
E-ol
=
bbl X 1.589 873
E-03 = Pa*s
Cp x 1.0*

..

8=

TABLE 1

18?49

GAS INJECTION PROJECTS STUDIED

DISCOVERY
DATE

PoOL

FIELD
Buena Vista

DATE
UNITIZED

GAS INJECTION
PERZOD
START
END

27B

3-44

5-49

555 StevensMassive

7-5g

1-62

11-59

4-82

ii-37

4-41

6-41

12-59

6-39

3-50

4-50

(b)

11-38

(a)

11-42

9-69

8-39

(a)

2-43

8-71

Canal

Upper Stevens

Coalinga Nose

Gatchell

Coles Levee,
North

Main

Western
21-1&
Western35

8-49

8-58

Coyote, West

West Emary

1-30

45

7-44

7-61

Cuyama, South

Homan

5-49

7-53

3-50

(b)

Cymric

Salt
CxeekCarneros

3-46

10-48

12-48

11-86

Newhall-Potrero

1,2,

3-37

(a)

12-44

7-87

Rio Bravo

Rio BravoVedderOnborne

11-37

7-46

8-46

1-76

Rio BravoVedder

6-38

8-47

1-48

5-67

Greeley

s3

(a) Not unitized.

(b) Still active.

TABLE 2
PRODUCTION AND INJECTION

FIELD
Pool
BUENA VISTA
27B
555 Stevens-Massive

OIL PRODUCTION
PEAK
CUMULATIVE
ANNUAL RATE
IO12-31-86
(bbl/D)
(Mbbl )

DATA

GAS INJECTION
CUMULATIVE
PEAK RATE
1012-31-86
(Mft3/D)
(NNfts)

WATER INJECTION
CUMULATIVE
1
PEAK RATE
IV12-31-86
(bbl/D)
(Mbbl)

35,300
11,300

99,425
45,233

36,900
11,900

84,441
53,743

3 400
0

3,276
0

3,600

24,453

11,600

55,630

26 400

34,889

COALINGA NOSE
Gatchell

56,700

460,475

67,700

486,983

18 300

23,287

COLES LEVEE, NORTH

Main Western
21-1 & Western 35

14,100
2,200

129,755
28,236

170 200
30 400

676,085
108,155

124,900
21,600

322,380
51,238

3,900

22,471

21 300

100,955

14,800

60,636

37,900

210,583

119 700

405,953

38,600

247,382

CYMRIC
Salt Creek-Carneros

5,800

25.506

3,300

30,643

NEWHALL-POTRBRO
1,2, &3

5,500

31,025

32,300

199,242

30,600

23,004

RIO BFU+VO
c Rio Bravo-VedderOaborne

16,200

109,025

31,000

171,867

13,500

71,289

GREELEY
MO Bravo-Vedder

13,500

96,530

16,200

75,276

13,400

55,900

CANAL
Upper Stevens

COYOTE, WEST
West Emery
CUYANA, SOUTH
Homan

TOTAL

1,282,717

2,448,973

893,281

TABLE 3

143?(59

STRUCTURAL FEATURES

FIELD
Pool

Average
Depth
x@_

Maximum
oil
Column
-@!_

Product ive
Area
(acre)

Average
OilSand
Thicknese
(ft)

Bulk Volume
Gas Sand
Oil sand
(acre-ft )
(acre-f t)

.UENA VISTA
27B
555 Stevens-Massive

3,900
5,300

1,200
800

4,190
646

43
193

10,085
15,448

178,247
124,507

CANAL
Upper Stevens

8,200

200

1,100

110

121,000

COALINGA NOSE
Gatchell

7,500

1,800

3,202

386

1,235,435

COLES LEVEE, NORTH

Main Western
21-1 and Western 35

8,800
9,100

700
900-600

2,079
2,460(a)

309
94

84,600
21,300

642,000
232,000

COYOTE, WEST
West Smery

5,300

1,250

206

303

62,513

CUYANA, SOUTH
Homan

4,500

700

2,970

141

121,608

418,829

CYMRIC
Salt Creek-Carneros

2,400

700

263

112

29,388

NEWHALL- POTRERO
1, 2, and 3

7,000

1,500

625

192

.120,100

RIO BRiVO
Ric Bravo, VedtX?r,
Osborn

11,400

450

2,300

134

308,885

GREELEY
Rio Bravo, Vedder

11,500

300

2,135

131

280,400

(a) Sum of two areas (areas overlap).

TAELE 4,
FLUID PROPERTIES

Oi 1
Gravity
(API)

Initial
Pressure
(Psig)

Bubble
Point
Pressure
(psig)

Formation
Volume
Factor

Solution
Gas/Oil
Ratio
(ft31bbl)

Reservoir
Viscosity
of oil
(Cp)

Reservoir
Temperature
(F)

BUENA VISTA
27B
555 Stevens-Massive

2?.7
29

1563
2274

1563
2274

1.24
1.208

420
365

1.02
1.2

145
184

CANAL
Upper Stevens

37

3550

2800

1.47

750

0.37

210

COALINGA NOSE
Gatchell

31.9

3490

3192

1.334

600

0.65

212

COLES LEVEE, NORTH

Main Western
21-1 and Western 35

34
34

3960
4000

3260
3260

1.51
1.51

700
700

0.45
0.45

235
235

COYOTE, WEST
Weat Emery

33

2600

2600

1.26

480

1.05

185

CUYAMA, SOUTH
Homan

32

1647

1647

1.198

363

1.6

146

CYMRIC
Salt Creek-Carneros

18.9

1196

1054

1.076

128

6.2

135

NEWHALL-POTRERO
1, 2, and 3

35

3115

2723-3115

1.358

769

0.72

170

RIO BRAVO
Rio Bravo, Vedder,
Osborn

39.9

5000

3200-5000

1.605

1082

0.2

250

GREELEY
Rio Bravo, Vedder

37

5015

3203

1.54

900

0.23

252

FIELD
Pool

222

TABLE 5
PROPERTIES

OF RESERVOIR
DATA

ROCK

AND RECOVERY

Average
Porosity
(%BV)

FIELD
Pool

Average
Permeabilityl
(red)

Interstitial
Water
Saturation
(%Pv)

Tank Oil
o;~$in:y
(Mbbl)

Recovery by
Pressure
Maintenance
ToDIP)
(Mbbl )

Total
Ultimat~
Recovery
(6 TOOIPf
(Mbbl)

BUENA VISTA
27B
555 Steven f3Massive

23

1,063

CANAL
Upper Stevens

22

200

38

COALINGA NOSE
Gatchell

15

421

28.7

796,700

N.A.

COLES LEVEE,
NORTH
Main Western
21-1 and
Western 35

19.5

115

47

347,000

110,325

20.5

108

45

134,000

N.A.

COYOTE, WEST
Weat Emery

21.4

83

37

51,890

cUYAMA, SOUTH
Eoman

26.5

600

30

450,000

CY14RIC
Salt CreekCarneros

33.6

1,300

20

57,000

26

2503

30

210,720

N.A.

99,450

47.2

38.3

105,000

N.A.

46,483

44.3

24,500

33.1

466,400

58.5

131,936

38.0

28,592

21.3

23,177

44.7

N.A.

214,000

47.6

N.A.

26,150

46.0

74,000

20,000

17,S08

27

31.8

34.3

TABLE 5

Average
Porosity
JM!u-

F] 5i.D
Pl?o1

Average
Permeabili.tyl

ord)

Interstitial
Water
Satura tion

(%PV)

Tank Oil
Originally
In Place
(Mbbl )

NEWSALL-POTRSRO
1, 2, and 3

18

RIO BIWVO
Rio Bravo,
Vedder,
Osborne

22,4

500

26.1

246,700

GREELEY
Rio BraVO,
Vedder

20

712

22.4

224,300

~Ari.thmetic
~ Including
Probably

75

30

86,450

average
permeability
to air
(unatreased)
recovery
by water
displacement.
too low because
of lost
recovery.

223

Recovery by
Preastire
Maintenance
~-1~

29,600

Total
Ultimate.
Recovery
(S TOOIP)
(Mbbl )

31,700

36.7

N.A.

109,300

44.3

N.A.

104,300

46.5

34.2

------

Intmw

SUMWARY OF RECOVERY DATA

AND PERTINENT PARAMETERS

Average
Oil Sand
Thickness
(ft)

FIELD
Pool

Maximum
oil
Column
~

Averaga
Permeability
To Air
-@Q_

Average
Initial
Oil
Viscosity
(Cp)

Permeability
+
Viecosity
(md/cp)

Cumulative
Gas Injection
(ft3/bbl 00IP/

Recovery Factor
% TODIP
By Preesure
Maintenance
Totall

BUENA VISTA

43

1,200

250

193

800

1,063

110

200

COALINGA NOSE
Gatchell

386

COLES LEVEE,
NORTH
Main Western
21-1 and
Western S5

309

COYOTE , WEST
West Emery

27B
.555 St.svensMasaive

1.02

245

401

N.A.

47.2

1.2

886

512

N.A.

44.3

200

0..37

541

752

27

33.1

1,800

421

0.65

64S

634

W.A.

58.5

700

115

0.45

256

1,948

31.8

38.o

900-600

108

0.45

240

807

N.A.

21.3

303

1,250

83

1.05

79

1,945

34.3

44.7

141

700

600

1.6

375

902

W.A.

47.6

112

700

1,300

6.2

210

449

N.A.

46.0

CANAL

Uppar Stevens

CUYAWi,

94

SOUTH

Homan.
CYMRIC
Salt CreekCarneros

TABLE 6

Average

FIELD
Pool

Oil Sand
Thickness
(ft)

Maximum

Average
Pe rme -

Oi 1
Column
(ft)

ability
TO Air
@d)

NEWHALL-POLRERO
1, 2 and 3

192

1,500

75

RIO BRAVO
Rio Bravo,
Vedder,
Osborne

134

450

500

GREELEY
Rio Bravo,
Vedder

131

300

712

Includes recovery by water displacement.

Average

Initial
oil
Viscosity
(Cp)
0.72

- Perme-

ability
+
Viscosity
(md/cp)

Cumulative
Gas Injection
(ft3/bbl ~IP)

Recovery Factor
% TOOIP
hy Preaaure
Maintenance
TOtall

104

2,304

34.2

36.?

0.2

2,500

697

N.A.

44.3

0.23

3,100

336

N.A.

46.5