Screening, Evaluation, and Ranking of
Oil Reservoirs Suitable for CO2-Flood
EOR and Carbon Dioxide Sequestration
J. SHAW
Adams Pearson Associates
S. BACHU
Alberta Geological Survey
Abstract
Geological sequestration of CO2 in EOR operations has been
recognized as one of the more viable means of reducing emis-
sions of anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere in response to
global climate change. This option, which lowers the cost of
CO2 sequestration by recovering incremental oil, is particularly
attractive in mature sedimentary basins, such as the Western
Canada Sedimentary Basin where many oil pools are near deple-
tion, and where most of the needed infrastructure is already in
place. A method was developed for the rapid screening and
ranking of oil reservoirs suited for CO2-flood EOR, which is
particularly fit for a very large number of reservoirs as listed in
reserves databases, and which does not require detailed reservoir
engineering analysis. Oil reservoirs are screened on the basis of
oil gravity, reservoir temperature and pressure, minimum misci-
bility pressure and remaining oil saturation, to determine their
suitability for CO2 flooding, and an analytical method is used to
calculate the incremental oil recovery at breakthrough and for
any hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV) fraction of injected CO2.
In addition, the reservoir capacity for CO2 sequestration is calcu-
lated. Reservoirs are ranked according to a set of criteria with
corresponding assigned weights to identify and select the best-
suited reservoirs for CO2 flooding and sequestration.
The method was applied to 8,637 oil reservoirs listed in the
2000 Alberta reserves database. Of these, 4,470 passed the
screening criteria and were ranked based on technical and per-
formance characteristics. Preliminary calculations predict that
150 × 106, 422 × 106, or 558 × 106 m3, of additional oil could be
produced from Alberta’s reservoirs at breakthrough, and at 50%
and 100% HCPVof injected CO 2, respectively; meanwhile
sequestering 127, 591 and 1,118 Mt CO2, respectively. Thus,
geological sequestration of CO2 in Alberta oil reservoirs suitable
for CO2 flooding could provide a means for significantly reduc-
ing anthropogenic CO2 emissions from major point sources
while, at the same time, realizing an economic benefit.
Introduction
As a result of anthropogenic CO 2 emissions, atmospheric
concentrations of CO2 have risen significantly from pre-industrial
levels, primarily as a consequence of fossil-fuel combustion for
energy production. Circumstantial evidence suggests that the
increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere leads
to climate warming and weather changes(1). In response to the
need to avoid irreversible climate changes and the associated risks
resulting from greenhouse effects, most of the developed world,
including Canada, has committed to reduce by 2012 the release
PEER REVIEWED PAPER (“REVIEW AND PUBLICATION PROCESS” CAN BE FOUND ON OUR WEB SITE)
September 2002, Volume 41, No. 9
into the atmosphere of anthropogenic CO2 to levels below those of
1990. However, although the intensity of CO2 emissions has
markedly decreased, Canada’s emissions have increased steadily
since 1990 as a result of economic development.
Given the inherent advantages, such as large resources, avail-
ability, ease of transport and storage, and competitive cost, fossil
fuels, which currently provide about 75% of the world’s energy,
will likely remain as a major component of the world’s energy
supply for at least this century(1, 2). In light of this, producing
regions, such as Western Canada, need to find ways to both
increase oil production and reduce CO2 emissions. One approach
to reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions into the atmosphere is
carbon sequestration by capturing, separating and diverting the
greenhouse gas into secure geological storage(3). Among the vari-
ous mechanisms and means of CO2 geological sequestration, trap-
ping in enhanced oil recovery operations is the most attractive
because it provides a secure geological trap (the reservoir that
held oil in place for millions of years), while contributing to the
recovery of additional oil and realizing an economic benefit that
helps offsetting the cost of CO2 sequestration(4-6). An additional
advantage in using CO2-flood EOR for reducing CO2 emissions is
the use of an already-existing infrastructure(7) and knowledge
base. The technology for CO2 injection is commercially proven
and already applied in EOR operations at 76 sites around the
world, of which 67 are in the United States (50 of these in the
Permian basin of west Texas and New Mexico, where natural CO2
sources are being used) and the rest in Trinidad, Turkey, and
Canada(8, 9).
Most of the CO2-flood projects in the United States use inex-
pensive high-purity CO2 from natural reservoirs in Colorado, New
Mexico, and Wyoming(8, 10). Other projects use CO2 from gas-pro-
cessing, fertilizer and petrochemical plants (e.g., Joffre in
Alberta), or coal-gasification plants (e.g., Weyburn in
Saskatchewan). Many reservoirs in the Western Canada
Sedimentary Basin have been miscibly flooded with hydrocarbon
gases and not with CO2 because the former are abundant, recover-
able for resale, and less expensive than CO2 from anthropogenic
sources(10). Without natural CO2 sources and incentives to capture
CO2 emissions, the CO2-flooding process has not gained wide
acceptance in Canada. However, in a future carbon-constrained
environment and sustained high oil prices, CO2 flooding will
probably become the preferred EOR option. Therefore, the identi-
fication of reservoirs suitable for CO2 flooding becomes essential.
Not all oil reservoirs are suitable for CO2 EOR for various
technical and economic reasons. Although the EOR technology is
readily available, preliminary issues that need to be addressed
include: 1) screening for EOR suitability; 2) technical ranking of
suitable reservoirs; and, 3) oil recovery and CO2-sequestration
51
TABLE 1: Screening criteria for application of CO2- miscible flood(i).

Reservoir Geffen(16) Lewin et al.(17) NPC(18) McRee(19) Iyoho(20) OTA(21) Carcoana(22) Taber & Martin(23) Taber et al.(24)
Parameter (1973) (1976) (1976) (1977) (1978) (1978) (1982) (1983) (1997a)

Depth (ft.) > 3,000 > 2,300 > 2,000 > 2,500 i) > 7,200 < 9,800 > 2,000 i) > 4,000
ii) > 5,500 ii) > 3,300
iii) > 2,500 iii) > 2,800
iv) > 2,500
Temperature NC < 250 < 195 NC
(˚ F)
Original > 1,100 > 1,500 > 1200
pressure (psia)
Permeability NC >5 > 10 >1 NC
(mD)
Oil gravity > 30 > 30 > 27 > 35 30-45 i) < 27 > 40 > 26 i) 22 – 27.9
(˚ API) ii) 27 – 30 ii) 28 – 31.9
iii) > 30 iii) 32 – 39.9
iv) > 40
Viscosity (cP) <3 < 12 < 10 <5 < 10 < 12 <2 < 15 < 10
Fraction of > 0.25 > 0.25 > 0.25 > 0.25 > 0.30 > 0.30 > 0.20
oil remaining

capacity predictions. Other economic criteria can be considered
after this preliminary technical evaluation.
A previous basin and regional-scale suitability study of the
Western Canada Sedimentary Basin for CO2 geological sequestra-
tion, including EOR, examined primarily geological, geothermal
and hydrodynamic criteria(11). The analysis identified the basin as
generally suitable for CO2 geological sequestration, although the
eastern shallow edge was deemed unsuitable because of its shal-
low depth, low temperatures and pressures, and proximity to the
basin edge. However, the identification and inventory of oil reser-
voirs suitable for CO2-flood EOR in the basin, and determination
of their oil recovery and capacity for CO2 sequestration need to be
performed on a reservoir-by-reservoir basis.
Sophisticated and complex numerical models are used in indus-
try to evaluate the suitability of a reservoir for CO2 flooding, and
to estimate the amounts of recovered oil and required CO2. Even
analytical models, such as “CO2 Prophet™”(12), require a signifi-
cant amount of data preparation and input, and significant com-
puter resources for running each case. Thus, these methods and
models are not suitable for a regional-scale, quick, initial assess-
ment and screening of oil pools in a sedimentary basin with
respect to their suitability for CO2-flood EOR, incremental recov-
ered oil and sequestered CO2. To help industry and governments
in the evaluation of oil reservoirs with regard to incremental oil
recovery and CO2-sequestration capacity, we developed an analyt-
ical method and a ranking procedure to rapidly estimate oil recov-
ery and CO2 sequestration volumes for a large number of oil
reservoirs, and to rank them according to a set of criteria that can
be easily modified. The method and procedures have been specifi-
cally developed using information usually available in reserves
databases. The corresponding software can be applied to any geo-
graphic area to include as many oil pools as needed, and can
be further developed to include other engineering and economic
criteria.
Technical Screening of Oil Reservoirs for
EOR
Between 5 and 21% of the original oil in place (OOIP) is usual-
ly recovered by primary production(10, 13). An additional 10 to 20%
of OOIP is produced by secondary recovery, leaving some 60 –
70% of OOIP in the ground(10), which is the target for “tertiary” or
“enhanced” recovery. Various gases, including natural gas, flue
gas, nitrogen and CO2 in supercritical state, have been used for
EOR, with different degrees of success and economic benefit(14).
The pressure needed for achieving dynamic miscibility with CO2,
generally above 10 – 15 MPa (15) , is much lower than those
required for natural gas, flue gas, or nitrogen. As a result, the
number of potential target pools for CO2 flood applications is
much larger than for other gases.
In a carbon-restrained environment, more reservoirs may be
considered suitable for CO2- flood EOR. A “yes/no” screening
method can be used for the selection of potential pools for CO2
flooding that meet certain technical criteria for achieving miscibil-
ity. Table 1 presents a series of criteria recommended by various
authors for the application of CO2-flooding EOR.
Previous studies assumed that CO2 will reach supercritical state
(T > 31.1˚ C and P > 7.38 MPa), generally suitable for miscibility,
at depths of approximately 800 m(25, 26). Others have considered
various depths for which EOR is applicable (Table 1) that vary
between 600 m and 3,000 m (2,000 and 9,800 ft.). However,
depending on the geothermal and hydrodynamic regimes in a
basin, the conditions for supercritical CO2 are reached at various
depths, from very shallow (a few hundred metres) to very deep (>
1,200 m)(11, 27). Thus, rather than applying a blanket depth thresh-
old (i.e., 800 m, or the depths recommended in Table 1), the geo-
logical space can be transformed into the CO2 P-T space(27) for
screening oil reservoirs unsuitable for CO2 flooding because CO2
is subcritical at the respective reservoir conditions.
An upper limit of 121˚ C (250˚ F) is recommended by the
National Petroleum Council(18), although a temperature limit as
low as 93˚ C has also been used to ensure miscibility(7). Reservoir
pressure at the start of CO2 flooding is recommended to be greater
than 7.58 MPa(16) (1,100 psia) and even greater than 10.3 MPa
(1,500 psia), which exceeds the CO2 critical pressure of 7.38 MPa.
An additional screening criterion is that the reservoir pressure
at the start of a CO2 flood should be at least 1.38 MPa (200 psi)
above the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) to achieve misci-
bility between CO2 and reservoir oil(28). The MMP depends on the
oil composition and gravity, and reservoir temperature(29-33). For
example, the Weyburn reservoir oil has gravities that range from
25 to 33˚ API, and MMPs that vary accordingly from 14.5 to
11.5 MPa(34). The Joffre Viking oil has a gravity of 42˚ API, with
a correspondingly lower MMP of approximately 10.3 MPa(35). In
the absence of specific reservoir information, the MMP can be
estimated on the basis of oil gravity and reservoir temperature(18)

(i) The values and units in this Table and in Tables 2 and 3 are in imperial units as quoted in the orginal publications; conversion factors are provided at
the end of the paper.

52 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

TABLE 2: Estimates of CO2-crude oil minimum misci-
bility pressure(18).
Oil Gravity MMP Temperature Additional
(˚ API) (psia) (˚ F) Pressure (psia)
< 27 4,000 120 None
27 – 30 3,000 120 – 150 200
> 30 1,200 150 – 200 350
200 – 250 500
(Table 2). The minimum reservoir pressure requirement means
that the ratio between reservoir pressure and minimum miscible
pressure (P/MMP) should normally be greater than 1. In reality,
CO2-flood EOR is still possible for P/MMP = 0.95. Thus, P/MMP
> 0.95 is another screening criterion for reservoirs suitability for
CO2 flooding.
A very important screening criterion is oil gravity, generally
recommended to be greater than 27˚ API (light oils with density
< 900 kg/m3) but less than 48˚ API, because extremely light oil
such as condensate is not conducive to the development of multi-
contact miscibility for miscible flooding (Table 1). Oil viscosity is
not a necessary screening parameter, since it is dependent on the
oil gravity and reservoir temperature.
To ensure an economic outcome for CO2 EOR, the fraction of
remaining oil before CO2 flooding (So > 0.25) should be a limiting
factor (Table 1). Finally, reservoir permeability, recommended by
some to be greater than 5 × 10-15 m2 (5 mD; Table 1), is not a crit-
ical screening criterion because most oil reservoirs that have suffi-
cient production should also have adequate CO2 injectivity.
The various criteria recommended previously for the identifica-
tion of reservoirs suitable for CO2-flood EOR are based on opti-
mizing reservoir performance. However, the criteria of reservoir
depth and oil viscosity can be ignored because two other parame-
ters, oil gravity and reservoir temperature, either affect or are
affected by the former two (i.e., temperature is affected by reser-
voir depth, and oil viscosity is affected by oil gravity). Thus,
depth and oil viscosity do not necessarily need to be explicitly
considered in reservoir screening for CO2 flood EOR.
Application of these criteria allows for the rapid screening and
evaluation of oil reservoirs in a sedimentary basin suitable for
CO2 EOR, based on general reservoir and oil properties.
Quick Prediction of CO2 Flooding
Performance and Sequestration
The main purpose of conducting CO2-flooding performance
prediction in a carbon-constrained environment is to estimate
the oil-recovery efficiency and the volume of sequestered CO2 for
various operating scenarios. Most methods are geared toward
optimizing reservoir performance (incremental oil production),
without paying attention to CO2 sequestration, since this has not
been an objective to date. The recovery efficiency of the CO2-
flood EOR is controlled mainly by the mobility ratio (relative per-
meability to viscosity) of the CO2 and oil; by gravity segregation
(buoyancy or override) between the two; and by reservoir hetero-
geneity. The injected CO2 will not contact all of the remaining oil
in place in a reservoir for several reasons(10), causing premature
breakthrough of CO2 at production wells. The produced CO2 is
usually reinjected (recirculated) back into the reservoir, reducing
the amount of net CO2 sequestered in the reservoir. Generally,
only 25 – 50% of the total CO2 injected volume is acquired, and
the produced CO2 is recycled from one to three times(10).
The following approach describes the methodology we devel-
oped using MicrosoftTM Excel VBA program to quickly screen,
rank and predict CO2 flooding performance for a very large num-
ber of oil pools.
Reservoir Performance
Based on the United States experience, the incremental oil
recovery from CO2 flooding is estimated to increase the ultimate
September 2002, Volume 41, No. 9
oil recovery by 7 – 23% (average 13.2%) of the original oil in
place (OOIP)(36, 37). The recovery of 13% of OOIP obtained to
1993 for the Joffre Viking miscible CO2 flood in Alberta, predict-
ed to reach 18% by the end of the operation(38), falls within the
estimated range. For the Weyburn reservoir in Saskatchewan, an
additional 25% OOIP is estimated to be recoverable by CO 2
flooding, over and above the 31% additional recovery by primary
and water flooding(34). Other studies consider that the miscible
flood displacement achieves an incremental oil recovery of
22% OOIP(36, 39-41).
Current methods for analyzing reservoir performance use
extensive numerical modelling based on detailed knowledge of
the oil reservoir, streamtube models and scaled physical models.
The desktop engineering-prediction software “CO2 Prophet™”(12,
42), although based on sophisticated analytical equations derived
from theoretical calculations, numerical simulations and field
experience in the United States, also requires detailed reservoir
knowledge and is not suitable for the batch analysis of a large
number of oil pools. Such detailed methods are not suitable for the
massive processing involved in analyzing thousands of oil pools
based on limited and broad information.
An analytical method, presented here, was developed and
implemented based on the original work of Koval(43) as modified
by Claridge(44) for areal sweep, and further modified to include
Hawthorne’s(45) gravity-stabilization effect and trapped-oil satura-
tion(12). This method was found to be the most suitable for the
case of an extremely large number of oil reservoirs with minimal
information, as is the case with reserves databases, and can be
used to calculate oil recovery for a series of assumed slug sizes
(hydrocarbon pore volume, or HCPV) in a five-spot water-alter-
nating water (WAG) miscible flood.
The Koval method for predicting solvent-flood efficiency
assumes that solvent-enhanced oil recovery is applied immediate-
ly after primary recovery. Also, the method assumes that the
reservoir has no aquifer support. This assumption may lead to an
overestimate of oil production and CO2 storage; however, reser-
voir-by-reservoir analysis is needed to account for water influx,
which is beyond the scope of this study.
Claridge(44) modified the initial method of Koval(43) and pre-
sented the following equation for estimating the fraction of oil
produced (NP) from the miscible injection:
 1.28 
 NP − VpiBT   1.6  Fi − VpiBT  K 0.26 
 =   
 1.0 − NP   K 0.61  1.0 − VpiBT  ......................................(1)
where the subscript BT stands for breakthrough, Vpi is the actual
fraction of pore volume of injected solvent, Fi is the fraction of
hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV) of solvent injected in a reser-
voir of unit thickness in an ideal five-spot EOR operation, and K
is the Koval factor(44). In the above equation, Np represents HCPV
of additional produced oil, in units of volume/volume (fraction).
The volumetric value of NP is obtained by multiplying it by the
pore volume VP.
The actual fraction of pore volume of solvent injected at break-
through (VpiBT) is given by
V piBT = EABT • V pvdBT
.........................................................................2
where Vpdv is the invaded pore volume. The areal sweep efficien-
cy at breakthrough (EABT) and the invaded pore volume injected at
breakthrough (VpvdBT) are given by
0.4 M
E ABT = 1 +
1 + M .................................................................................(3)
and
1
VpvdBT =
K .............................................................................................(4)
53
 In Equations (3) and (4), M is the mobility ratio
µo
M=
µ s .................................................................................................(5)
and K is the Koval factor, defined(43) as
4
  µo  
1/4
K = H • F • 0.78 + 0.22  
  µs  
 ...................................................(6)
where µo and µs are the oil and solvent (CO2) viscosities, respec-
tively; H is the heterogeneity factor (1 for homogeneous reser-
voirs); and F is the gravity override factor (1 if no gravity override
is assumed). The Koval factor is 1 in the idealized case of a homo-
geneous reservoir with oil and solvent of the same density and
viscosity; for all other, real cases, K is greater than 1.
For heterogeneous reservoirs, the heterogeneity factor H is
given by the equation
 V  Joffre Viking miscible CO2 flood in Alberta(38). This also matches
log10 H =  DP  66% CO2 retention obtained in numerical simulations, or approxi-
 (1 − VDP ) 
0.2
......................................................................(7)
where VDP is the Dykstra-Parsons coefficient which indicates
reservoir heterogeneity. Willhite(45) summarized literature values
that show a range of 0.5 to 0.9 for VDP, with an average of 0.7 for
most reservoir rocks.
The gravity override factor (F) is given by the equation(42, 46)
 ed CO2 can be calculated using the following equations:
∆ρ 
F = 0.565 log10 Ck v A + 0.870
 Qµs  ..................................................(8)
where kv is vertical permeability (mD), A is pattern size (acre), ∆ρ
is the density difference between oil and CO2 (g/cm3), Q is the
injection rate (reservoir bbl/d), µs is solvent (CO2) viscosity (cP),
and C is the pattern constant (2.5271 for five-spot, and 2.1257 for
line drive). The injection rate and pattern size are operating para-
meters that are established for each reservoir on a case-by-case
basis after appropriate engineering studies. Thickness and vertical
permeability are reservoir specific and need to be established for
each reservoir; ∆ρ must also be established for each reservoir,
based on the oil and CO2 densities at reservoir pressure and tem-
perature. Lacking specific values for such a large number of reser-
voirs, the gravity override factor F was assumed to be 1 in this
study (i.e., no gravity override), which is reasonable considering
that the density difference between CO2 and oil is very small at
typical reservoir conditions.
For calculation of the mobility ratio (M), the viscosity of CO2
is estimated based on reservoir pressure and temperature (47)
and the oil viscosity (in cP) can be estimated using the following
equations(48):
1) for dead oils
µ od = 10 x − 1 .........................................................................................(9)
x = 102.1646−0.033580( API ) T −0.601 ..........................................................(10)
where API is the oil gravity (˚), and T is temperature (˚ C).
2) for live oils
µ o = Aµ od
B
...........................................................................................(11)
A = 12.589(Rs + 200)−0.482 and B = 1.276( Rs + 15)
−0.090
..........(12)
54
where RS is the solution gas/oil ratio (scf/STB), given in reserves
databases.
Figure 1 shows a nomogram(44) for estimating the fractional
volume of additional produced oil for a five-spot miscible flood of
a homogeneous reservoir of unit thickness for different values of
the mobility ratio (M) and of the fraction (Fi) of injected solvent
relative to the hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV).
This method allows the preliminary prediction of the amount of
incremental oil that will be produced and the amount of CO2 that
must be injected into an oil reservoir for different fractions of
hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV) of injected CO2, when using
limited information about a large number of reservoirs.
Application of the method permits the rapid evaluation, ranking
and further screening of reservoirs suitable for CO2 flooding, prior
to detailed reservoir studies.
CO2 Sequestration Capacity
The United States experience shows that approximately 40% of
the originally injected CO2 is being produced at the pump and
reinjected(49). This suggests a “gross” CO2-retention efficiency of
approximately 60%, similar to the value that was reported for the
mately 63% hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV)(13, 41).
The CO2-sequestration capacity in EOR operations at CO2
breakthrough is a direct byproduct of Koval’s method for predict-
ing reservoir performance [V piBT given by Equation (2)].
Considering that, on average, 40% of the injected CO2 is recov-
ered at the surface after breakthrough and assuming that it will be
reinjected back into the reservoir, the CO2-sequestration capacity
for any fraction Fi of hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV) of inject-
• At breakthrough (BT),
MCO2 = ρCO2res • RFBT • OOIP / Sh ................................................(13)
• At any HCPV injection,
[ ]
MCO2 = ρCO2res • RFBT + 0.6 • ( RF%HCPV − RFBT ) • OOIP / Sh
...(14)
where RFBT and RF%HCPV are, respectively, the recovery factor at
breakthrough and at the assumed percentage of hydrocarbon
pore volume (HCPV) of injected CO2; OOIP is the volume of the
original oil in place; Sh is the oil shrinkage factor; and ρCO2res
is CO2 density calculated at reservoir temperature and pressure
conditions(50).
Technical and Performance Ranking of Oil
Reservoirs Suitable for CO2-Flood EOR
Previous screening and ranking methods for CO2 flooding were
designed with the purpose of maximizing oil recovery and screen-
ing out of uneconomic reservoirs(7, 24, 39, 51). The method presented
here for the ranking of oil reservoirs for EOR and CO2 sequestra-
tion is entirely based on reservoir and fluid properties (technical
criteria) and on performance (incremental oil produced and CO2
sequestered), and provides an analysis tool prior to considering
engineering and economic factors in a final decision for CO2 flood
EOR implementation. This tool is useful in that these technical
and performance factors are independent of reservoir depletion
strategy and economic circumstances, the latter particularly vary-
ing in time and from one region to another.
Technical Ranking
Reservoirs have various degrees of suitability for EOR using
CO2 flooding just on the basis of intrinsic reservoir and oil charac-
teristics, and they can be accordingly ranked using a parametric
optimization method(28. 52). This technical ranking is based on
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 FIGURE 1: Monogram for estimating the fraction volume of additional produced oil, Np, for a five-spot miscible flood of a homogeneous
reservoir of unit thickness(45). Fi is the fraction of injected solvent and FiBT is the fraction at break-through.
determining, for each reservoir property, a corresponding normal-
ized parameter by comparison with fictitious best (optimum) and
worst (not suited) reservoirs for EOR operations. Using numerical
simulators, Rivas et al.(28) investigated the effect of a large number
of reservoir parameters on CO2-flood oil recovery. They conclud-
ed that an ideal (optimum) reservoir for CO2 injection should have
an oil gravity of 36˚ API, temperature of 65.6˚ C (150˚ F), perme-
ability of 300 × 10-15 m2 (300 mD), remaining oil saturation (So)
of 60%, reservoir pressure of 1.4 MPa (200 psi) greater than
MMP at the time of CO2 injection, porosity of 20%, net sand
thickness of 12.2 m (40 ft.) and a reservoir dip of 20˚. For any set
of reservoirs being analysed, the parameter value farthest from the
optimum is the worst value. It is possible to have two worst val-
ues, one lower and one higher than the optimum.
The effect of normalization is that it transforms reservoir and
fluid properties, which have various ranges and differing physical
meanings and units, into new dimensionless variables that vary
linearly between 0 and 1. These can subsequently be added to pro-
duce a score used in reservoir ranking. For each relevant property
(j) of the reservoir (i) being ranked (Pi,j), a corresponding normal-
ized parameter (Xi,j) is calculated according to
September 2002, Volume 41, No. 9
Pi, j − Pw, j
Xi, j =
Po, j − Pw, j
..............................................................................(15)
where Po,j is the magnitude of the property (j) in the fictitious opti-
mum reservoir that gives the best response to CO2 flooding, and
Pw,j is the value of the property (j) in the fictitious worst reservoir
that is not suitable for CO2 flooding. Because an exponential func-
tion is more adequate than a linear function for comparing differ-
ent elements within a set, the normalized linear parameter (Xi,j) is
transformed into an exponentially varying parameter (Ai,j), which
ranges from 1 to 100, using the following heuristic equation
−4.6 Xi,2 j
Ai, j = 100e ...............................................................................(16)
The relative importance, or weight, of each reservoir parameter
is taken into account using assigned weighting factors wj for each
property (j), such that a final score Si is obtained for each reser-
voir (i), according to
55
TABLE 3: Optimum reservoir parameters and weight-
ing factors for ranking oil reservoirs suitable for CO2
flood EOR(29, 52).
Reservoir Optimum
Parameter Value
API gravity (˚) 37
Oil saturation (%) 60
Pressure/MMP 1.3
Temperature (˚ F) 160
Net oil thickness (ft.) 50
Permeability (mD) 300
Reservoir dip (˚) 20
Porosity (%) 20
Si = Ai , j w j
.........................................................................................(17)
where ∑wj=1.
Table 3 summarizes the optimum reservoir parameters and
weighting factors from previous studies(28, 52). The scores obtained
using this parametric optimization method vary between 1 and
100, with 100 representing the best possible reservoir for CO2-
flood EOR for a given set of weighting factors.
Ranking reservoirs based on the score obtained using this para-
metric method would indicate the suitability of a reservoir for CO2
flooding on the basis of intrinsic reservoir characteristics only,
without considering either the incremental oil production or the
CO2 sequestration capacity of the reservoir. However, these are
important factors that need taking into consideration.
Performance Ranking
A normalization procedure was developed for three “perfor-
mance” parameters: original oil in place—OOIP, recovery factor
Rf with CO2 flooding, and CO2 sequestration capacity—MCO2,
similar with the normalization for technical reservoir parameters
[Equation (15)], according to:
Pi, j − Pmin, j
Ai, j =
Pmax, j − Pmin, j
..........................................................................(18)
for the recovery factor Rf, and
log Pi, j − log Pmin, j
Ai, j =
log Pmax, j − log Pmin, j
.............................................................(19)
where Pi,j is the magnitude of the performance parameter j (j = 1
for OOIP and j = 2 for MCO2) for the ith reservoir.
Logarithmic values rather than the real values were used in
Equation (19) for OOIP and MCO2 because of their extreme wide
range of variability, spanning several orders of magnitude, which
otherwise would have skewed the ranking toward the larger reser-
voirs. Also, unlike for the technical reservoir parameters, the best
and worst performance for these three parameters are obtained for
maximum and minimum values, respectively. In addition, the
resulting ratio is multiplied by 100, to bring the variability range
of the performance parameters to the same interval (up to 100) as
for the technical reservoir parameters [Equation (16)]. By re-
assigning the weights wj to cover these three performance parame-
ters in addition to the technical parameters (Table 3), relation 17
can be used to calculate new reservoir scores that take into
account both technical and performance reservoir parameters.
Application of the procedure described above would identify
the top oil reservoirs that are technically suited for CO2 flooding
with the best combination of oil recovery and CO 2 retention
capacity. A final selection of oil reservoirs for EOR and CO2 stor-
age would depend also on other extrinsic conditions, such as sur-
56
face facilities, source and cost of CO2 and other economic consid-
erations, which can be considered either separately or added to
this program for further reservoir screening and ranking.
Parametric
Weight Limiting Factors and Operational Issues
0.24 Although this procedure identifies oil reservoirs suitable for
0.20 CO2 flooding, some of them are not yet ready for CO2 flood EOR,
0.19 and they will become available for CO2 sequestration at some
0.14 time into the future. Their availability for CO2 flood and seques-
0.11 tration will be primarily determined by the economics of oil pro-
0.07 duction and CO2 capture. Many reservoirs are relatively small in
0.03 volume, and have a low capacity for CO2 sequestration. As a
0.02 result, they may be uneconomic, or the cost of bringing CO2 to
them from source may be prohibitively high. Also, CO2 flood and
sequestration in very deep reservoirs could also become highly
uneconomic, because of the prohibitive cost of compression and
the low “net” CO2 sequestration (CO2 sequestered minus CO2 pro-
duced during compression).
Carbon dioxide purity represents another important element in
developing the infrastructure for large-scale CO 2 EOR and
sequestration. The purity of the CO2 stream affects the efficiency
of EOR operations, CO2 sequestration capacity and efficiency,
and the transportation and injection of CO2. The CO2 properties
are strongly dependent on the purity and quality of the CO2 stream
(amount and type of other gases present). For example, the pres-
ence of 20% and 40% H2S in the acid gas used for EOR at Zama
raises the critical point from 31.1˚ C and 7.38 MPa to 42˚ C and
7.64 MPa, and to 47.7˚ C and 8.04 MPa, respectively(53). On the
other hand, the presence of H2S benefits this particular acid-gas
EOR operation because it reduces the MMP, resulting in lower
operating costs because of reduced pressures(53). The negative
effects of impurities must be weighed against the high cost of
purifying some CO2 streams (e.g., flue gases from power plants).
The presence of contaminants in the CO2 stream (e.g., SOx, NOx,
H2S) may require its classification as hazardous, imposing differ-
ent requirements for injection and disposal than if the stream were
pure(40).
Pure, dry CO2 is essentially non-corrosive. In the presence of
water, however, CO2 forms carbonic acid, whose corrosiveness
increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. The presence of
impurities, particularly H2S, affects negatively the CO2 corrosivi-
ty. The key to eliminating corrosion in the CO2 delivery system is
to ensure that no water is present(10, 52). Nevertheless, the experi-
ence of existing EOR and acid-gas disposal operations indicates
that these technological problems have been successfully over-
come, and the increased cost of corrosion-prevention measures
seems to be relatively insignificant(54).
Example of Application: Alberta’s Oil
Reservoirs
The method developed and described previously for screening
and ranking a large number of oil reservoirs for CO2 flooding suit-
ability and CO2 sequestration was applied to the Alberta oil pools
using the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board reserves database.
Screening for CO2 Flood EOR
Of the 8,637 oil pools in Alberta with primary recovery, 1,738
have temperatures below 31˚ C and none has a temperature
greater than 120˚ C. Of the remaining 6,899 oil pools, only 5,802
have oil gravity within the recommended range of 27 – 48˚ API.
Of these, 4,470 oil pools meet the criterion of P/MMP greater than
0.95. The last screening criterion is the remaining oil saturation
(So), recommended to be greater than 0.25 for profitable EOR
operations (Table 1); this criterion is currently met by all the oil
pools that meet the preceding screening criteria. This criterion
may be relaxed in the future, if the primary objective is CO2
sequestration rather than additional oil production. Thus, accord-
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 FIGURE 2: Frequency distribution for predicted CO2 EOR recovery factor at 0.5 and 1.0 HCPV CO2 injection in Alberta’s oil pools that
are suitable for CO2 flooding.

ing to these criteria, 4,470 oil pools in Alberta, with total original
oil in place (OOIP) of 2.686 × 109 m3, are technically suitable for
CO2-flood EOR.
Incremental Oil Recovery and CO2
Sequestration
The oil-recovery factor was calculated for each suitable oil
pool at CO2 breakthrough and for 50 and 100% hydrocarbon pore
volume (HCPV) solvent (CO2) injection. The frequency distribu-
tions of the oil-recovery factor for 50 and 100% HCPV injected
CO2 are shown in Figure 2. The estimated recovery factors at
breakthrough and at 50% and 100% HCPV, averaging 5.2, 15.0
and 19.8%, respectively, compare very well with the average of
13.2% incremental oil recovery obtained in actual cases(36, 37, 41).
The Dykstra-Parsons coefficient, needed in calculations and
determined on the basis of core analyses for each oil pool, is not
available for Alberta reservoirs, and only very few values are
available in the literature(45). This coefficient should be individual-
ly determined for each reservoir; however, only single, representa-
tive values could be assigned in this study of an extremely large
number of reservoirs. Considering the higher heterogeneity of
carbonate rocks (due to vugs and fractures), compared to sand-
stone, the default values used in this study are 0.7 for sandstone
and 0.9 for carbonate rocks(45), resulting in heterogeneity factors
of 8.5 and 26.3, respectively. Lack of specific knowledge about
actual reservoir heterogeneity indicates the need to determine,
in future studies, this very important factor in forecasting EOR
performance.
In terms of recovery efficiency, the sandstone reservoirs seem

FIGURE 3: Frequency distribution of predicted incremental oil from Alberta’s oil pools that are suitable for CO2 flooding.

September 2002, Volume 41, No. 9 57

 FIGURE 4: Frequency distribution of predicted CO2 storage capacity in EOR in Alberta’s oil pools that are suitable for CO2 flooding.
to be better suited for CO2-flood EOR than the carbonate reser-
voirs due to the higher heterogeneity ascribed to the latter (Table
4). Besides lower heterogeneity, the oil pools with the highest pre-
dicted recovery factor are generally characterized by oils with
high API gravity (light oils), high initial reservoir pressure and
low reservoir temperature. For these reservoirs, oil and CO2 densi-
ties and viscosities are closer, thus minimizing fingering and
gravity-override effects.
Using Koval’s modified method and Equation (14) for predict-
ing reservoir performance and CO2 sequestration, the amounts of
CO2 that can be sequestered in Alberta’s oil reservoirs deemed
suitable for CO2-flood EOR at breakthrough and for 50 and 100%
HCPV are estimated to be 127, 591 and 1,118 Mt CO2, respective-
ly. The corresponding predicted amounts of additional recovered
oil as a result of CO2 flooding are 150 × 106, 422 × 106 and
558 × 106 m3, respectively.
Conclusions
Geological sequestration of CO2 is an immediately available
means of reducing CO2 emissions into the atmosphere from major
point sources (such as thermal power plants, upstream energy and
petrochemical industries). One of the best means of CO2 geologi-
cal sequestration is in EOR operations, which lower the cost of
CO2 disposal by recovering incremental oil. This option is particu-
larly attractive in mature sedimentary basins, such as Alberta,
where many oil pools are nearing depletion, and where most of
the needed infrastructure is already in place. Reservoir selection
for CO2 sequestration, including EOR, should be based on an
analysis that includes basin and regional scales suitability assess-
ments, an inventory of oil reservoirs suitable for CO2 flooding,
and a ranking and selection procedure that is based on technical
and performance characteristics. This process could be unfeasible
and/or unmanageable when dealing with an extremely large num-
ber of oil pools.
A method was developed for the rapid screening and ranking of
oil reservoirs suited for CO2-flood EOR, which is particularly fit
for a very large number of reservoirs under consideration. The
method uses information usually found in reserves databases and
58
does not require detailed reservoir and fluid properties. The fol-
lowing are the main features of this method.
1. Oil reservoirs are screened on the basis of oil gravity, reser-
voir temperature and pressure, minimum miscibility pressure
and remaining oil saturation, to determine their suitability
for CO2 flooding.
2. An analytical method is used to calculate the incremental oil
recovery at breakthrough and for any HCPV fraction of
injected CO2, and the amount of CO2 sequestered in the
reservoir.
3. A parametric-ranking algorithm calculates and assigns a
final score to each oil reservoir suitable for CO2 flooding on
the basis of weighted technical and performance reservoir
parameters, such as: oil gravity, oil saturation, ratio of pres-
sure to MMP, temperature, thickness, OOIP, recovery factor
and capacity for CO2 sequestration.
4. Ranking of reservoirs by the final score identifies the best
reservoirs suited for EOR and CO2 sequestration.
5. By assigning different weights to the ranking parameters, the
results can be directed toward more oil recovery or toward
more CO2 sequestration, according to the primary objective
of the analysis.
6. The method was implemented in Excel VBA and optimized
for high performance, such that it analyses several thousand
oil pools in less than two minutes on a desktop computer.
7. Cut-off values for screening and other parameters, such as
reservoir heterogeneity and pore volume CO2 injection, are
user adjustable to adapt the method to various conditions
and produce the desired results.
8. The method can be further enhanced to account for other
screening and/or selection criteria, like, for example, dis-
tance from CO2 sources and various costs.
The results are sensitive to reservoir heterogeneity, as
described by the Dykstra-Parsons coefficient, which in most cases
is unavailable. Thus, determination of reservoir heterogeneity is
quite important. Also, due to the availability and uncertainties of
reservoir data, and to the limitations of the analytical method, it
should be used only for a preliminary analysis and ranking of a
large number of oil pools under consideration. Detailed, reservoir-
engineering studies should be performed for the selected top
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 TABLE 4: List of top ten oil reservoirs in Alberta and their charac-
teristics, ranked by: a) technical criteria only; and b) on the basis
of additional recoverable oil and CO2 storage capacity.

100% Technical Ranking

Field and
Pool Pool Name Location

OOIP (103 m3)

API Gravity
Temp (C)
Porosity (%)
Pay Thickness (m)
Initial Pressure (kPa)
Formation Type
P/MMP
Ranking
Oil/CO2 Viscosity
CO2 Density (g/cc)
Oil Recovery @ CO2 BT
(%)
Oil Recovery @ 0.50 PV
CO2 Injection (%)
Oil Recovery @ 1.00 PV
CO2 Injection (%)
CO2 Storage Mass (kt) @
0.50 PV CO2 Injection
CO2 Storage Mass (k t)
@ 1.00 PV CO2 Injection
Recoverable Oil @ 1.0
PV CO2 Injection (103
m3)

GLEN PARK D-3 B 049-27W4 167 37.7 74 11 20.8 15,406 C 1.44 96.23 18.11 0.46 2.23 10.10 12.87 27 52 22

VIRGO KEG RIVER ZZ 115-06W6 238 34.1 70 8 28.2 14,596 C 1.37 96.23 35.88 0.47 1.72 8.74 11.02 33 64 26

September 2002, Volume 41, No. 9

ZAMA KEG RIVER A2A 117-04W6 605 35.1 71 7 25.1 13,343 C 1.25 95.61 30.04 0.41 1.85 9.09 11.49 79 155 70

ZAMA KEG RIVER N5N 117-04W6 93.2 34.4 73 5 15.3 13,765 C 1.29 95.31 33.38 0.42 1.77 8.88 11.21 12 24 10

VIRGO KEG RIVER Z4Z 115-06W6 106 41.9 71 5 16.0 14,131 C 1.32 95.06 13.28 0.44 2.48 10.73 13.74 17 33 15

VIRGO KEG RIVER MMM 115-06W6 95.3 34.1 71 4 24.8 14,253 C 1.33 94.75 35.98 0.45 1.72 8.74 11.01 12 25 10

VIRGO KEG RIVER ZZZ 115-06W6 195 35.1 70 5 33.7 13,963 C 1.31 94.16 29.39 0.45 1.86 9.13 11.55 28 55 23

AMBER KEG RIVER CC 115-07W6 169 38.6 68 13 15.4 15,633 C 1.46 93.49 18.09 0.51 2.23 10.11 12.88 28 55 22
ZAMA KEG RIVER OO 117-04W6 148 39.1 76 4 46.3 15,193 C 1.42 93.49 12.30 0.45 2.54 10.89 13.95 28 55 21

VIRGO KEG RIVER I2I 115-06W6 297 33.1 70 7 34.7 14,190 C 1.33 93.41 40.24 0.45 1.64 8.52 10.72 40 79 32

50/50 Recoverable Oil and Storage Capacity * Primary Area

PEMBINA CARDIUM * 048-07W5 268,700 38.1 46 12 2.9 20,391 S 2.47 100.00 11.48 0.82 8.93 21.01 28.25 80,582 148,957 75,898

TWINING LOWER 031-24W4 144,800 30.1 61 6 12.6 11,275 S 1.17 89.91 62.90 0.38 4.67 14.93 19.57 17,911 34,291 28,342
MANNVILLE
A & RUNDLE A

BONNIE GLEN D-3 A 046-27W4 125,000 42.1 81 11 59.1 17,303 C 1.62 89.20 10.20 0.48 2.70 11.27 14.48 23,351 45,507 18,095

FENN-BIG D-2 A* 035-20W4 74,200 32.1 58 12 17.1 12,881 S 1.33 86.28 37.87 0.51 5.79 16.71 22.10 12,984 24,620 16,395
VALLEY

WILLESDEN BELLY RIVER, 042-07W5 37,520 41.1 60 11 1.9 22,233 S 2.30 84.69 6.98 0.76 10.37 22.79 30.82 13,015 23,794 11,563
GREEN CARD A & VKG
MU#1*

STURGEON D-3 069-22W5 49,000 38.1 88 5 25.0 27,250 C 2.55 83.20 8.34 0.67 2.87 11.68 15.04 13,427 26,125 7,371
LAKE SOUTH

FERRIER BELLY RIVER Q 040-08W5 27,100 44.1 70 13 2.9 21,757 S 2.04 81.87 5.87 0.68 10.87 23.40 31.70 8,865 16,147 8,591
CARD G & L*

GARRINGTON CARD, VIKING 034-04W5 27,470 39.1 64 10 4.7 23,313 S 2.42 81.24 9.74 0.74 9.40 21.60 29.10 8,071 14,865 7,993
MNV MU # 1*

SIMONETTE D3* 063-26W5 16,800 47.1 105 06 28.4 35,564 S 3.03 80.71 2.59 0.70 13.18 26.23 35.79 9,748 17,463 6,013

RED EARTH SLAVE PT A, 088-08W5 29,020 41.1 48 11 4.5 14,203 S 1.72 79.96 18.84 0.69 7.55 19.22 25.68 6,239 11,660 7,451
GRNTE WASH
A&W*

59
ranked oil reservoirs before field implementation of CO2 flooding.
The method was applied to the 8,637 oil reservoirs listed in the
2000 Alberta Reserves Database. Of these, 4,470 passed the
screening criteria and were ranked based on technical and perfor-
mance characteristics. Top ranked reservoirs are characterized by:
light oil, high initial reservoir pressure, low-range reservoir tem-
perature, and low heterogeneity. The calculations predict that
150 × 106, 422 × 106 or 558 × 106 m3, of additional oil would be
produced from Alberta’s reservoirs at breakthrough, and at 50%
and 100% hydrocarbon pore volume of injected CO2, respectively.
Assuming that approximately 40% of the injected CO2 is recov-
ered at the pump and reinjected into the reservoir, 127, 591 and
1,118 Mt CO 2 would be sequestered in these oil reservoirs
through CO2-flood EOR at breakthrough, 50% HCPV and 100%
HCPV, respectively. These amounts are comparable with the cur-
rent total emissions of 120 Mt/yr from all the major CO2 point
sources in Alberta with individual CO2 emissions greater than
100 kt/yr, such as power, oil-sands, petrochemical and cement
plants, refineries, and pipelines.
Conversion Factors
Foot = 0.3048 m
˚F = ( -32)/1.8˚ C
psi = 6895 Pa
mD = 10-12 m2
cP = 0.001 Pa•s
REFERENCES
1. JEPMA, C.J. and MUNASINGHE, M., Climate Change Policy;
Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, p. 331, 1998.
2. BAJURA, R.A., The Role of Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in the
Long Term Energy Future; Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, (GHGT 5)
(eds. D.J. Williams, R.A. Durie, P. McMullan, C.A.J. Paulson, and
A.Y. Smith), CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, VIC, AU, pp. 52-58,
2001.
3. BACHU, S., Sequestration of CO2 in Geological Media: Criteria and
Approach for Site Selection in Response to Climate Change; Energy
Conversion and Management, Vol. 41, pp. 953-970, 2000.
4. BACHU, S., Geological Sequestration of Anthropogenic Carbon
Dioxide: Applicability and Current Issues; Geological Perspectives
of Global Climate Change (eds. L. Gerhard, W. E. Harrison, and
B.M. Hanson), AAPG Studies in Geology 47, American Association
of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, pp. 285-304, 2001.
5. FREUND, P., Progress in Understanding the Potential Role of CO2
Storage; Proceedings of the 5 th International Conference on
Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT 5) (eds. D.J.
Williams, R.A. Durie, P. McMullan, C.A.J. Paulson, and A.Y. Smith),
CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, VIC, AU, pp. 272-277, 2001.
6. STEVENS, S.H., KUUSKRA, V.A., and GALE, J., Sequestration of
CO2 in Depleted Oil & Gas Fields: Global Capacity, Costs and
Barriers; Proceedings of the 5 th International Conference on
Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT 5) (eds. D.J.
Williams, R.A. Durie, P. McMullan, C.A.J. Paulson, and A.Y. Smith),
CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, VIC, AU, pp. 278-283, 2001.
7. EDWARDS, K., CO2 in Alberta—A Vision For the Future; Journal
of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 39, No. 9, pp. 48-53,
September 2000.
8. MORITIS, G., Worldwide EOR Survey; Oil & Gas Journal, Vol. 98,
No. 12, pp. 39-61, 2000.
9. MORITIS, G., Enhanced Oil Recovery; Oil & Gas Journal, Vol.
100, No. 15, pp. 43-47, 2002.
10. BONDOR, P.L., Applications of Carbon Dioxide in Enhanced Oil
Recovery; Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 33, pp. 579-
586, 1992.
11. BACHU, S. and STEWART, S., Geological Sequestration of
Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide in the Western Canada Sedimentary
Basin: Suitability Analysis; Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 32-40, February 2002.
12. PAUL, G.W., Development and Verification of Simplified
Prediction Models for Enhanced Oil Recovery Application: CO2
(Miscible Flood) Predictive Model; US DOE Report DE-AC19-
80BC10327, Intercomp, Denver, CO, p. 127, 1983.
13. HOLT, T., JENSEN, J.I., and LINDEBERG, E., Underground
60
Storage of CO2 in Aquifers and Oil Reservoirs; Energy Conversion
and Management, Vol. 36, pp. 535-538, 1995.
14. STALKUP, F.I., Jr., Miscible Displacement; Society of Petroleum
Engineers Monograph Series, Dallas, TX, p. 204, 1983.
15. MATHEWS, C.S., Carbon Dioxide Flooding; Chapter 6, Enhanced
Oil Recovery, II Processes and Operations, (eds. E.C. Donaldson,
G.V. Chilingaarian, and T.F. Yen), Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 129-
156, 1989.
16. GEFFEN, Improved Oil Recovery Could Ease Energy Shortage;
World Oil, Vol. 177, No. 5, pp. 84-88, 1977.
17. LEWIN and ASSOCIATES, Inc., The Potential and Economics of
Enhanced Oil Recovery; Report US FEA Contract No. CO-03-
50222-000, Washington, DC, p. 274, 1976.
18. NPC (National Petroleum Council), Enhanced Oil Recovery—An
Analysis of the Potential for Enhanced Oil Recovery from Known
Fields in the United States; Washington, DC, p. 231, 1976.
19. MCREE, B.C., CO2: How it Works, Where it Works; Petroleum
Engineering, pp. 52-63, November 1977.
20. IYOHO, A.W., Selecting Enhanced Recovery Processes; World Oil,
Vol. 187, No. 6, pp. 61-64, 1978.
21. OTA (Office of Technology Assessment), Enhanced Oil Recovery
Potential in the United States; Congress of the United States, US
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, p. 235, 1978.
22. CARCOANA, A., Enhanced Oil Recovery in Romania; Proceedings
Third Joint SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery,
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas, TX, pp. 367-379,
1982.
23. TABER, J.J. and MARTIN, F.D., Technical Screening Guides for
the Enhanced Recovery of Oil; paper SPE 12069, Society of
Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Francisco, CA, p. 20, October 5 – 8, 1983.
24. TABER, J.J., MARTIN, F.D., and SERIGHT, R.S., EOR Screening
Criteria Revisited—Part 1: Introduction, to Screening Criteria and
Enhanced Recovery Field Projects; SPE Reservoir Engineering, Vol.
12, No. 3, pp. 189-198, 1997.
25. HOLLOWAY, S. and SAVAGE, D., The Potential for Aquifer
Disposal of Carbon Dioxide in the UK; Energy Conversion and
Management, Vol. 34, pp. 925-932, 1993.
26. VAN DERMEER, L.G.H., The Conditions Limiting CO2 Storage in
Aquifers; Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 34, pp. 959-
966, 1993.
27. BACHU, S., Sequestration of CO2 in Geological Media in Response
to Climate Change: Roadmap for Site Selection Using the Transform
of the Geological Space into the CO 2 -Phase Space; Energy
Conversion and Management, Vol. 43, pp. 87-102, 2002.
28. RIVAS, O., EMBID, S., and BOLIVAR, F., Ranking Reservoirs for
Carbon Dioxide Flooding Processes; paper SPE 23641, SPE
Advanced Technology Series, Vol. 2, pp. 95-103, 1994.
29. CRONQUIST, C., Carbon Dioxide Dynamic Miscibility with Light
Oil Reservoir Oils; Proceedings 4th Annual U.S. DOD Symposium
on Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery and Improved Drilling Methods,
Tulsa, OK, August 28 – 30, 1978.
30. YELLIG, W.F. and METCALFE, R.S., Determination and
Prediction of CO 2 Minimum Miscibility Pressure; Journal of
Petroleum Technology, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 160-168, 1980.
31. JOHNSTON, J.P. and POLLIN, J.S., Measurement and Correlation
of CO 2 Miscibility Pressures; paper SPE 9790, Proceedings
SPE/DOE EOR Symposium, Tulsa, OK, p. 13, April 5 – 8, 1981.
32. HOLM, L.W. and JOSENDAL, V.A., Effect of Oil Composition on
Miscible-Type Displacement by Carbon Dioxide; SPE Journal, Vol.
22, No. 1, pp. 87-98, 1982.
33. ALSTON, R.B., KOKOLIS, G.P., and JAMES, C.F., CO2 Minimum
Miscibility Pressure: A Correlation for Impure CO2 Streams and
Live Oil Systems; paper SPE 11959, Proceedings 58 th Annual
Technical Conference, San Francisco, CA, p. 12, October 5 – 8,
1983.
34. SRIVASTAVA, R.K., HUANG, S.S., and DONG, M., Laboratory
Investigation of Weyburn CO 2 Miscible Flooding; Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 41-51,
February 2000.
35. KO, S.C.M., STANTON, P.M., and STEPHENSON, D.J., Tertiary
Recovery Potential of CO2 Flooding in Joffre Viking Pool, Alberta;
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 36-
43, 1985.
36. MARTIN, F.D. and TABER, J.J., Carbon Dioxide Flooding; Journal
of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 396-400, 1992.
37. HOLT, T., LINDEBERG, E.G.B., and TABER, J.J., Technologies
and Possibilities For Larger-Scale CO2 Separation and Underground
Storage; paper SPE 63103, p. 6, 2000.
38. STEPHENSON, D.J., GRAHAM, A.G., and LUHNING, R.W.,
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 Mobility Control Experience in the Joffre Viking Miscible CO2
Flood; SPE Reservoir Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 183-188, 1993. Authors’ Biographies
39. TABER, J.J., MARTIN, F.D., and SERIGHT, R.S., EOR Screening
Criteria Revisited—Part 2: Applications and Impact of Oil Prices;
Jerry Shaw is a well productivity special-
SPE Reservoir Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 199-205, 1997.
40. BERGMAN P.D., WINTER E.M., and CHEN, Z-Y., Disposal of ist with Adams Pearson Associates Inc. His
Power Plant CO2 in Depleted Oil and Gas Reservoirs in Texas; areas of expertise include EOR, formation
Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 38, Suppl., pp. S211- damage assessment, well stimulation
S216, 1997. design, and new technology development.
41. TODD M.R. and GRAND, G.W., Enhanced Oil Recovery Using He has been working on many projects that
Carbon Dioxide; Energy Conversion and Management, Vol. 34, pp. evaluate CO2 flooding and sequestration
1157-1164, 1993. potentials. Before joining APA, Jerry
42. PAUL, G.W., LAKE, L.W., and GOULD, T.L., A Simplified worked at the Petroleum Recovery Institute
Predictive Model for CO2 Miscible Flooding; paper SPE 13238, p.
for 12 years managing the Well
14, 1984.
43. KOVAL, E.J., A Method for Predicting the Performance of Unstable Productivity Improvement Research Division. He also worked at
Miscible Displacement in Heterogeneous Media; SPE Journal, Vol. Petro-Canada Production Research Department and Reservoir
3, No. 6, pp. 145-154, 1963. Engineering Department before PRI. He received his B.Sc. in
44. CLARIDGE, E.L., Prediction of Recovery in Unstable Miscible geology from the National Taiwan University and an M.Sc. in
Flooding; SPE Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 143-154, 1972. petroleum geology from the University of Calgary. Jerry is a
45. WILLHITE, G.P., Waterflooding; SPE Textbook Series, Society of member of the Petroleum Society, APEGGA, and SPE.
Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Richardson, TX, Vol. 3, p. 326, 1986.
46. HAWTHORNE, R.G., Two-Phase Flow in Two-Dimensional Flow Stefan Bachu is a section leader and geo-
Systems: Effect of Rate, Viscosity, Density on Fluid Distribution in
science advisor in the Alberta Geological
Porous Media; Trans. AIME, Vol. 219, pp. 81-87, 1960.
47. FENGHOUR, A., WAKEHAM, W.A., and VESOVIC, V., The Survey, Alberta Energy and Utilities
Viscosity of Carbon Dioxide; Journal of Physical and Chemical Board. He holds engineering, M.Sc., and
Reference Data, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 31-44, 1998. Ph.D. degrees in water resources, hydroge-
48. BEGGS, H.D. and ROBINSON, J.R., Estimating the Viscosities of ology, and transport processes, and is a
Crude Oil Systems; Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 27, pp. member of APEGGA, the American
1140-1141, 1975. Geophysical Union and the International
49. HADLOW, R.E., Update of Industry Experience With CO 2 Association of Hydrogeologists. Stefan has
Injection; paper SPE 24928, p. 10, 1992. published more than 80 papers in scientific
50. SPAN, P. and WAGNER, W., A New Equation of State for Carbon
journals and conference proceedings, and has made more than 100
Dioxide Covering the Fluid Region From the Triple-Point
Temperature to 1,100 K at Pressures up to 800 Mpa; Journal of presentations at conferences and symposia on various subjects
Chemical Reference Data, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp.1509-1596. ranging from hydrogeology and geothermics of sedimentary
51. THOMAS, B., Proposed Screening Criteria for Gas Injection basins to, recently, carbon dioxide sequestration in geological
Evaluation; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 37, media.
No. 11, pp. 14-20, November 1998.
52. DIAZ, D., BASSIUNI, Z., KIMBRELL W., and WOLCOTT, J.,
Screening Criteria for Application of Carbon Dioxide Miscible
Displacement in Water Flood Reservoirs Containing Light Oil;
paper SPE 35431, SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium,
Tulsa, OK, p. 7, April 21 – 24, 1996.
53. DAVISON, R.J., MAYDER, A., HLADIUK, D.W., and JARRELL,
J., Zama Acid Gas Disposal/Miscible Flood Implementation and
Results; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Vol. 38, No. 2,
pp. 45-54, February 1996.
54. MCINTYRE, K.J., Design Considerations for Carbon Dioxide
Injection Facilities; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology,
Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 90-95, 1986.

Provenance—Original unsolicited manuscript, Screening, Evaluation,

and Ranking of Oil Reservoirs Suitable for CO 2 Flood EOR and
Carbon Dioxide Sequestration (2002-10-15). Abstract submitted for
review August 7, 2002; editorial comments sent to the author(s) August
21, 2002; revised manuscript received August 22, 2002; paper approved
for pre-press August 22, 2002 , final approval September 5, 2002.

September 2002, Volume 41, No. 9 61