SPE-200415-MS

A Methodological Workflow for Assessment and Design of a Huff-N-Puff

Hydrocarbon Gas Injection Pilot Test as an EOR Technique for Eagle Ford
Shale Oil Reservoirs

Amanda Baldwin, Leo Lasecki, David Mohrbacher, Lee Porter, Triffon Tatarin, Brian Nicoud, Grant Taylor, and Jose
Zaghloul, Chesapeake Energy; Basar Basbug and Tuba Firincioglu, NITEC; Reza Barati Ghahfarokhi, University of
Kansas

Copyright 2020, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference originally scheduled to be held in Tulsa, OK, USA, 18 – 22 April 2020. Due
to COVID-19 the physical event was postponed until 31 August – 4 September 2020 and was changed to a virtual event. The official proceedings were published
online on 30 August 2020.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Implementation of miscible gas huff and puff (HnP) for Improved Oil Recovery (IOR) requires timely
identification of prospective projects, a demonstration of economic feasibility through pilot testing, and
efficient scale-up of HnP operations. HnP pilot design and execution of the pilot project requires a minimum
of 9 to 12 months to procure, and another 8 to 12 months to construct and operate. A substantial capital
investment, approximately $1 to $5 million per pilot well, is also required (Texas Railroad Commission &
Industry Operators). The lead time for procuring specialized compression can require 9 to 15 months. These
early purchases comprise a large proportion of project capital investment.
Collaboration by a variety of technical disciplines is required to efficiently design, construct, and
operate a pilot with the goal of expanding IOR operations. An effective, collaborative approach allows for
development of a HnP design that integrates both subsurface and surface design criteria.
A workflow for design of HnP pilot testing was developed to coordinate concurrent project efforts
including completion of reservoir characterization, engineering, permitting, stakeholder review and
approvals, gas contracting, construction, testing and full-scale execution. Effective coordination of these
efforts will result in efficient project implementation with minimal impacts on project scope, schedule and
cost. Use of the workflow also allows for timely identification and mitigation of multiple project risks
associated with design, construction and operation of IOR.
Well executed pilot tests will accelerate the learning curve for application of HnP IOR in Eagle Ford
wells; resulting in lower capital costs, lower operating costs, and increased operational reliability. Pilot test
results will also be used to up-scale IOR operations in a cost-effective manner.

Introduction
Oil production from the Eagle Ford peaked in 2015 at approximately 1.2 million barrels of oil per day
(BOPD), and in 2019 averaged approximately 0.9 million BOPD (Texas Railroad Commission, 2019).
2 SPE-200415-MS

Approximately 16,000 oil wells are currently producing in the black oil or volatile oil windows in the Eagle
Ford, and roughly 75 percent of those have been producing for 3 years or more (IHS Markit ® Enerdeq™,
2019).
The map presented in Figure 1 provides an overview of the Eagle Ford play extending over 400 miles
from East Texas to the Mexican border. The Eagle Ford thickness averages 250 feet and the top of the
formation varies between 4,000 and 10,000 feet below land surface (Texas Railroad Commission, 2019).
The black oil window in the green shaded area, and the volatile oil in the light green shaded area are defined
primarily based on initial gas/oil ratio (GOR) and the API gravity of the oil. HnP projects illustrated with
grey dots have been implemented in both the oil and volatile oil windows. Blue dots illustrate locations
where future HnP projects are being planned.

Figure 1—A map of Eagle Ford overlaid by a colored map of the maturity windows as well as
the location of some of the already existing industry IOR project. Industry locations (Malo,
McNamara, Volkmer, & Amirian, 2019; Texas Railroad Commission & Industry Operators)

Unconventional primary oil production in the Eagle Ford black oil window (Figure 1) reflects low
primary recovery efficiencies, generally 5 to 10 percent of Original-Oil-in-Place (OOIP), and steep initial
decline rates (Hoffman, 2018). Cyclic gas injection, or Huff n Puff (HnP) injection, is demonstrated to
increase oil recoveries in the Eagle Ford by another 10 to 40 percent of Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR)
(Hoffman, 2018; Malo, McNamara, Volkmer, & Amirian, 2019).
The HnP process involves injection of gas into the subsurface at an elevated pressure, shutting in the well
for a soak period to allow gas to penetrate into the reservoir rock matrix, and producing the fluids back to
the surface. Increased oil recovery is driven primarily by gas diffusion into oil remaining in the reservoir
matrix. The diffused gas results in swelling, reduction in the oil viscosity and interfacial tension reduction
(Fu, et al., 2019; Cudjoe, et al., 2019). Increased oil mobility and reservoir pressure, in addition to reaching
miscibility, in the near fracture zone allows the oil to move through the rock and gives the reservoir the
energy needed to be drained into the fracture network.
More than 300 Eagle Ford wells have been permitted and/or converted for HnP operations between 2014
and 2019, and natural gas has been injected into more than 200 of the permitted wells (Texas Railroad
Commission & Industry Operators).
SPE-200415-MS 3

IOR can result in extending the economic life of a well, recovery of additional oil, and acceleration of
primary production as shown in the figure below (Figure 2).

Figure 2—Plot of normalized ratio to primary EUR vs. time presents the oil produced due
to gas HnP injection. This incremental production extends the economic life of a well while
accelerating the production of the remaining, recoverable oil from primary production.

HnP Facilities
The surface facility needed to operate cyclic gas injection includes step-up gas compression, a gas injection
system, gas/liquid separation, and gas treatment with additional compression for recycle (Figure 3). Millions
of cubic feet of natural gas per day are injected into a single well at pressures varying from 2,000 to 10,000
psi (Texas Railroad Commission & Industry Operators). Gas injected into the well is eventually produced
back to the surface along with reservoir fluids. The production stream is then separated into liquids and
gas. Most of the gas is treated to remove water and possibly hydrogen sulfide, then is recompressed and
reinjected into the reservoir. Gas that is produced in excess of the project needs for fuel and injection is
sold. Make-up or working gas is acquired from outside of the HnP project area to maintain injection gas
volumes. Balancing gas injection and production from multiple wells, while minimizing purchase of make-
up gas requires appropriately designed production facilities and thoughtful operational planning.
4 SPE-200415-MS

Figure 3—A process flow diagram that shows the cycle that was used in the basis of design
for Conceptual and Detailed Engineering for fluid handling during production and injection.

Average production from a HnP project conducted by an operator in South Texas (Texas Railroad
Commission & Industry Operators) (Figure 4) illustrates that primary oil production varied between
approximately 1,000 and 5,000 BOPD after the first few months of gas injection. Primary production
declined to about 100 BOPD after six years, when gas injection was initiated. Oil production during HnP
operations varied between 400 and 1000 BOPD. The cumulative oil production curve illustrates a change
in trajectory resulting from HnP.

Figure 4—(a) Oil rate and (b) cumulative production. Comparison of primary production with
HnP incremental recovery based on Texas Railroad Commission forms filed by operators
showing positive response from HnP. (Texas Railroad Commission & Industry Operators)

Analog HnP Projects

Reviewing the available industry projects gives valuable insight into the operations for HnP in
unconventional formations. An analog evaluation should include a literature review and consider a baseline
production evaluation, an uplift assessment, regulatory filing review, completion design, geologic overview,
and a fluid summary. Since natural gas HnP has mostly been conducted in North American unconventional
reservoirs in the last 13 years, there are a limited number of field tests in the literature (Hoffman, 2018;
Hoffman & Evan, 2016). The quality of public data varies based on the state in which the well is located and
should be considered with the evaluation. Initial GOR, estimated OOIP, and oil API gravity are good starting
points in the absence of more comprehensive data. Uplift and increased recovery can be accomplished using
SPE-200415-MS 5

the methodology that was outlined in the unconventional HnP projects in the work published by Hoffman
(Hoffman, 2018).
When reviewing unconventional IOR projects, the number of wells in the project, well orientation, lateral
length, well spacing, initial GOR, hydrocarbon fluid type, and any regulatory filings are considered so the
IOR production uplift can be assessed, used, and scaled into a type curve. This type curve is used as an
initial scoping valuation. The industry HnP projects that showed similarities in these elements are grouped to
give ranges of productivity increases. Furthermore, these ranges can then be used to set bounds of expected
productivity of a project during numerical simulation of the pilot project. Data from two HnP projects are
shown in Figure 5 using information gathered from the Texas Railroad Commission Enhanced Oil Recovery
applications in the Eagle Ford (Texas Railroad Commission & Industry Operators).

Figure 5—Two representative projects presenting a range of productivity increase as a result of gas HnP IOR
process. They represent a 6-10 times increase in oil volumes from the low monthly volume before HnP to the
peak oil production from HnP. (a) Shows an 8-well project with 10 months of injection having variations for both
production and injection volumes. (b) Shows a 14-well project with consistent injection volumes that also has
consistent accompanying oil production. Both have flat GORs once injection begins but Project B has a shift
that lowers the reported GOR after 10 months of injection. (Texas Railroad Commission & Industry Operators)
6 SPE-200415-MS

These two examples give a basis for uplift evaluations and injection volumes that can be tied to a project
size based on the evaluation criteria. Then the project(s) that is most representative of the selected pilot area
can be used to develop an analog evaluation and ranges for productivity increases.
Early work supports expansion of HnP applications, but technical and economic success are not assured
for all Eagle Ford wells (Hoffman, 2018; Malo, McNamara, Volkmer, & Amirian, 2019). Factors that may
affect economic success include commodity price, containment of injected gas in the targeted reservoir, the
ability to mobilize remaining oil, availability of gas required to re-pressurize the reservoir, and availability
of infrastructure necessary to support HnP operations. Well construction including well landing depth
and completion designs impact both primary recovery and IOR potential. Economics supporting IOR are
primarily impacted by gas and oil commodity prices, interactions between wells during injection, the cost
of processing and injecting gas, and incremental oil uplift related to HnP.

Workflow
A work flow (Table 1) allows for concurrent evaluation of prospects, design and implementation of projects.
It provides a useful basis for project managers to develop a project approach and include the disciplines
described in Figure 6. The work flow is a convenient approach for incorporating both short- and long-term
planning for budgeting and staffing. The designated project manager should work with team members to
develop the IOR project plan. An effective project plan includes a clear definition of project scope, a work
breakdown structure (e.g., tasks), a project schedule and deliverables that will be produced as part of each
project task. Individual roles and responsibilities for all project participants are typically defined. A multi-
disciplinary team of land, legal, technical, accounting and regulatory staff is required to design, construct,
startup and operate HnP facilities. Disciplines incorporated into a typical project are summarized in Figure 6.

Table 1—Different phases involved with the workflow of HnP development from pilot to field scale

EstimatedTime to Reservoir Characterization & Reservoir Facility Engineering, Procurement,

Work Phases
Complete Engineering Construction & Operation

4 to 12 weeks Identify and screen IOR • Compile reservoir & geologic data • Understand existing infrastructure
prospects
• Define stratigraphy • Identify source(s) of injection gas

• Evaluate primary recovery efficiency • Identify possible IOR facility sites in

proposed pilot area
• Identify and evaluate analog projects

• Identify geologic risks

• Identify and fill data gaps

• Identify IOR prospects

3 months Complete feasibility study • Complete laboratory work • Develop engineering design bases

• Complete analytical modeling • Design wellfield for HnP

• Develop initial estimate of IOR uplift • Complete conceptual engineering

and economics design
• Evaluate containment of gas • Generate preliminary cost estimates

• Develop equation of state (EOS)

model
• Define pilot test objectives

6 months Complete pilot design and • Develop geologic model • Complete detailed engineering
implementation plan
• Complete reservoir simulation • Develop detailed cost estimate

• Update estimate of IOR uplift • Update surface plan

• Update economics • Procure long-lead equipment &

materials
• Develop pilot testing plan including a
surveillance plan

6 months Complete pilot testing • Evaluate gas containment • Procure balance of plant

• Collect additional data • Construct pilot facilities

SPE-200415-MS 7

EstimatedTime to Reservoir Characterization & Reservoir Facility Engineering, Procurement,

Work Phases
Complete Engineering Construction & Operation

• Update geologic model • Operate pilot

• Update reservoir simulation • Evaluate pilot results

Years Implement a full-scale IOR • Design phased approach for • Improve design based on pilot test
program expansion results
• Incorporate lessons learned • Expand facilities in a phased manner

• Update economics • Sustain a value engineering effort

• Streamline implementation • Reduce capital and operating costs

Figure 6—Hierarchy of multi-disciplinary teams involved in a HnP gas injection project.

Periodic communication between subsurface and facility engineering staff, legal and land staff, gas
marketing, and permitting expert is important for achieving project objectives; especially if the team is
attempting to accelerate or fast-track early work (e.g., pilot testing). Senior managers support project
activities by assuring staff and other resources are available to achieve project milestones. An effective
schedule must include definition of the interdependencies between tasks.
Numerous stakeholders from outside the operating company may affect project implementation. Those
stakeholders include land and royalty owners, joint-venture partners, local and state regulators, and gas
suppliers/gathers. This paper does not address how those stakeholders should be incorporated into the
workflow. Plans for gaining their support and appropriate approvals need to be developed on a project by
project basis.

Identify and Screen IOR Prospects

IOR prospects are initially identified based on existing reservoir characterization and production data.
Screening protocols are based on lessons learned from successful analog projects. Other screening criteria
may be evaluated; including the size of leases/number of developed wells, maturity of hydrocarbons,
reservoir pressure, well construction, forecasted primary reserves, facility infrastructure within the field,
proximity to sources of injection gas may also considered and presence of faults or other geohazards. Pilot
8 SPE-200415-MS

areas should be identified as a downscaled project that can act as an analog for a largescale development
area. This is so operations, injection strategies, and economic factors can be upscaled to a development area.
A typical industry data set will include evaluation of rock and fluid properties and primary oil recovery
performance. Data gaps may be identified during this process and plans should be made for resolving the
needed information. There are multiple pieces of information that are needed to build an accurate picture
for reservoir characterization. Geo-models frequently use geophysical and geomechanical logs as well as
core descriptions for generating a usable model for the team. Standard pressure, volume, and temperature
(PVT) reports from a collected reservoir fluid do not frequently include swelling and minimum miscibility
pressure (MMP) tests. This information is necessary to build an accurate equation of state (EOS) model for
the pilot area. Any data gaps that the team identifies as critical to screen the project area should be resolved
in a timely manner.
With the required data, geology and fluid properties need to be characterized and evaluated. In this
assessment, geology is mainly concerned with the original volumes in place and the ability of the formation
to contain the gas. The fluid needs to be able to become energized by the injected gas and swell. This is
believed to happen at the interface of the matrix and the fracture. This process will not be successful if the
gas does not stay in the local area of the fractures that are supplying production to the wellbore.
Completion of primary development in the vicinity of the pilot area is a consideration that should
be investigated. It is a possibility that that high-pressure gas migration could happen with concurrent
development activity or the HnP project incurring a frac-hit. The HnP process is very dependent on the
subsurface stimulated rock volume (SRV), so initial implementation should occur where the size of the SRV
can be reasonably estimated and performance of the project can be tied to that volume without additional
operational events impacting the analysis of the results.
Field facilities within prospective project areas are evaluated. The configuration, pressure rating and
metallurgy of the production system may affect the cost of upgrading facilities for HnP operations.
The quantity of natural gas that may be effectively injected during HnP operations can be estimated from
gas injectivity testing and analog data from similar projects. The quantity of gas required for injection may
exceed the gas available in the project area. Availability and location of additional sources of gas may be
identified during screening.

Feasibility Study
IOR prospects generated during screening will be further described during base evaluation and conceptual
design. Additional laboratory data will be compiled as it is received. PVT data are used to calibrate equations
of state models that will define how hydrocarbons in the reservoir will behave during both primary and
secondary recovery operations.
Engineering will be initiated with development of design bases for upgrading wellheads and downhole
equipment, and surface facilities for higher pressure service. Preliminary economics for IOR can be
generated based on estimates of incremental oil recovery, capital cost estimates generated from conceptual
engineering design, and estimated operating costs.

Reservoir Characterization
Reservoir characterization data is used to complete material balance estimations, evaluate gas containment
risks, identify possible pathways of preferential flow of fluids between wells, and estimate fracture
distribution within the injection pattern. This process incorporates the best available information for the pilot
area and gives the best characterization of the reservoir properties (Teletzke, Wattenbarger, & Wilkinson,
2010). Once screening has been completed on multiple pilot areas, selection rankings can be performed to
ensure resources are allocated to the best prospects. Once the prospects have been selected, the project can
SPE-200415-MS 9

be given ranges of uplift that are consistent with the analog evaluation previously completed (Hoffman,
2018). This process involves both geological characterization and numerical modelling.
As part of the geological characterization, a detailed stratigraphy study is helpful if it can be correlated
to a core taken in the local area. Understanding wellbore targeting and SRV in relation to stratigraphy helps
identify wellbore interactions within overlapping flow units. Detailed petrophysical analysis and mapping
allows the team to ascertain original oil and gas in place so a material balance calculation can be performed to
determine how much has been recovered, how much is left, and what is a reasonable estimate of incremental
recoveries in the pilot area.
Fracture orientation and geological hazards are considered for gas containment in the operating area.
Gas needs to be reasonably contained within the lease for the technology to yield positive economics. The
orientation should also be checked so that gas will not migrate off lease yielding large gas losses to wells or
formations not in the HnP project. If orientation is a concern, containment wells can be used as a mitigation
strategy to keep injection gas on lease. A containment well(s) is a well that is directly adjacent to the injection
pattern and is kept on production during all cycles. This concept will be described more later in the paper.
A successful HnP operation requires efficient use and recovery of injected gas. Understanding potential
loss of injected gas via poor containment within the reservoir allows the team to further evaluate the wellfield
design and injection patterns in the basis of design.
Vertical gas migration can happen through open faults and fractures, which can negatively affect the
efficiency of the project. A detailed analysis of seismic cross-sections in the pilot may resolve larger faults.
If mud losses occur during drilling or anomalous fractures are observed along a fault, the likelihood of an
open vertical pathway during HnP operations increases. If the team observes changes in production profiles
of wells drilled in overlaying and underlaying formations during stimulation of Eagle Ford wells, this could
give indication that there is a migration pathway uphole or downhole along faults and fractures.
Horizontal gas migration typically occurs in high permeability carrier beds or interconnected fractures.
Pairing a detailed core analysis with a stratigraphic investigation using surrounding petrophysical logs is
a feasible method to identify possible carrier beds present in the area of interest. The most likely areas
for horizontal gas migration through subsurface fractures can be quantified through specialty analysis
in the form of microseismic and/or a lateral borehole image log. In their absence, 3D seismic attributes
such as minimum curvature can be used to find tensile fracture swarms. When minimum curvature is
paired with more qualitative data such as drilling losses, anomalies during fracturing operations, and well
communication events, open fracture networks can be determined more readily. It is important to note that
any analysis using 3D seismic attributes is at the resolution of the seismic survey and may not resolve small
scale anomalies that could cause a loss of containment.
Figure 7: Schematic of wells drilled (a) perpendicular to the direction of the natural fractures versus
(b) oblique to minimum horizontal stressdepicts an example of two different well orientations with natural
fractures and stress directions kept constant. Figure 7a shows wells within a pilot area that are drilled parallel
to minimum horizontal stress with tensile natural fractures (light blue) that are perpendicular to the wellbore.
Using producing containment wells located on the edges of the lease (red) should act as barriers in the pilot
area. Often, wells are drilled oblique to minimum horizontal stress direction due to shape of the lease or
to increase economic value via longer laterals. In that case (Figure 77b), natural fractures (light blue) are
no longer perpendicular to the wellbore and may provide a preferential flow path for injected gas. Possible
gas migration pathways should be identified by the subsurface team, incorporated into the risk plan, and
assessed during the pilot testing phase to determine if the plan is sufficient.
10 SPE-200415-MS

Figure 7—Schematic of wells drilled (a) perpendicular to the direction

of the natural fractures versus (b) oblique to minimum horizontal stress

Pilot Testing Objectives

Defining objectives will allow the operator to begin with the end in mind. Typical objectives for pilot testing
of HnP include:

• Quantify gas injectivity

• Improve operational understanding of HnP

• Demonstrate that secondary oil production and reserves result from use of the HnP process

• Determine optimal gas injection rates and pressures

• Evaluate gas containment

• Determine optimal soak time

• Demonstrate economic feasibility

• Evaluate hydraulic relationships between wells

Pilot testing objectives will be used to develop bases for design that will drive facility engineering and
development of the pilot testing plan.

Conceptual Engineering
Engineering for design of IOR facilities is initiated with development of a basis of design, which documents
discipline-specific technical and contractual considerations prior to the start of conceptual engineering. This
summary can also be used to create a scope of work for outside engineering firms, and to on-board new team
members. This basis of design is updated as the project progresses into detailed engineering and project
execution.
Conceptual engineering is performed to ensure a project is feasible, and that it merits a larger commitment
of resources. Refinement of project resource requirements, scope, schedule, and cost considerations are
required to make this determination. Conceptual engineering deliverables include:

• Confirmation that the concept is practical from a technical and commercial standpoint

• Evaluating existing infrastructure, utility contractual constraints, and retro-fit requirements

SPE-200415-MS 11

• A preliminary IOR infrastructure layout which corresponds to the injection and production
requirements of the well field design
• A major equipment list and a preliminary Process Flow Diagram (PFD)

• Process simulations for the proposed IOR infrastructure and the affected existing infrastructure

• Preliminary sizing of major equipment and piping/tubulars

• A review of injection compressor package options and specifications to ensure conformance with
the larger design
• A review of various gas treating, NGL handling, and/or compression options

• Development of a high-level capital estimate (+/- 25% accuracy) and, where applicable, a proposal
for phased implementation.
• Development of a high-level operating expense estimate (+/- 25% accuracy)

• Development of a high-level overall project schedule

The team will then go through a detailed evaluation and put together a pilot design for every selected
area. Once the best pilot prospect has been selected, that project will have the recommendation to move it
into venture planning stage. The venture plan involves both geological and reservoir characterization with
a numerical model for the HnP operation.

Complete Pilot Design and Implementation Plan

Pilot test design may proceed based upon the reservoir description and conceptual engineering design
developed during the feasibility study. The scope of a pilot may include a few wells or 10 to 20 wells
depending on the objectives defined for testing. The existing reservoir characterization is used to develop
a geologic model and a dynamic model that can simulate reservoir behavior. These tools are used to
improve the bases for engineering design. Using the compiled characterization from the feasibility study,
the integrated technical team can then develop a pilot testing and surveillance plan for the HnP process.

Geologic model
Geo-modeling of a HnP project allows for greater understanding of the area geologically and will define
parameters later used in simulations. The purpose of completing a geo-model is to give a base geological
characterization of the pilot area. This will become the foundation that the reservoir simulation will use.
The main objectives of completing a geo-model are the following:

• Determine landings of the wells in the pilot area relative to each other and structure

• Define the structure of the target formation with enough detail to capture the known reservoir
properties
• Identify pathways and any subsurface risks that the injected fluid could travel during HnP

• Identify wellbores where well communication events have occurred and if associated with any
geologic parameters
• Use relative well locations to select best injection wells and best boundary wells in the project area

• Review the model once gas injection commences and make updates from observed injection data,
and then update the reservoir simulation

Numerical Simulation
The purpose of completing a numerical simulation is to derive a reservoir model that yields a history match
of the pilot area, determine the flow unit size, and obtain ranges of expected ultimate recoveries (EUR)
12 SPE-200415-MS

during primary production. Flow unit is defined as the area around the well that contributes to the flow of
fluids into the wellbore from stimulated or natural fractures and is referred to as the well's SRV. During the
history matching process, it is important to consider any well-to-well communication events from drilling,
hydraulic fracturing, and operations during production then account for them in the model. This will help
to give an indication of possible communication pathways between wells and further decrease the number
of potential solutions. The obtained ranges of the flow unit size for each well can then be initially estimated
with other methods such as fracture modeling or Rate-Transient Analysis (RTA). Numerical modeling is
conducted iteratively with fracture modeling and RTA to merge into a solution that is representative of the
behavior of the reservoir as well as the geological complexities of the formation. Other information that
is incorporated into the model include well placement, spacing, and orientation in structure, completion
and pressure data from the hydraulic fracturing process, a geological and mechanical model, and a tuned
fluid model. The HnP process will be simulated using this model and by incorporating lab measurements
on physical properties of the rock and fluid.
To sufficiently characterize the pilot area and decrease the number of possible valid solutions, it is
recommended to include 7 to 9 wells that will be history matched in the simulation. HnP scenarios from
the numerical simulation investigate the incremental oil recovery potential from cyclic gas injection, well-
to-well communication, and amount of injection gas needed to obtain production uplift. These various
scenarios can be compared to the baseline EUR to determine if there is recovery acceleration, incremental
reserves, and variations in the pressure response from the injection/operating ranges tested in each scenario.
Numerical simulation is also used to assess ranges of outcomes from changes in cycle timing, adding in a
soak period, and various well injection patterns and fracture designs for HnP. The information can then be
used to decide on the basis of design for the surface facilities and define ranges of operating conditions that
will be engineered into the equipment for the pilot test. Figure 8 shows the workflow that was used in the
numerical simulation of the pilot project.

Figure 8—Workflow for an iterative reservoir simulation process conducted to optimize the HnP gas injection process.

The deliverable from this phase will have recommendations for possible scenarios to test during the
pilot to achieve optimum recovery. For an initial pilot project, various wellfield designs should be tested
SPE-200415-MS 13

during the numerical simulation to determine the preferred pilot design. The complexity of including 7 to 9
wellbores matched to completion and production data gives confidence in the model outputs and decreases
the number of valid solutions for the model. The pilot area can be comprised of HnP, containment, and
monitor wells to aid in understanding the results and up-scaling potential as shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9—Pilot wellfield design that allows for two injection sides of the pad with a pressure barrier in the middle. The
monitor well will help to isolate the injection side from the production side. The wells to the right of the monitor well will
have the injection from the compressor while the wells to the left will be on production. Then after injection is completed,
the pattern will switch. The containment wells are utilized to control gas within the pilot area and are always producing.

The numerical simulation provides a baseline to start with when the pilot project begins, and field data
can be incorporated into the model. From field data, updates can be made to the model to obtain a history
match that includes both primary and secondary recovery processes. This will give the team increased
understanding of the HnP process, refined ranges for production uplift and injection, and tuning of the
reservoir characterization that was completed.

Detailed Engineering
Detailed engineering is performed to facilitate the procurement, construction, commissioning, and operation
of IOR related infrastructure. An executable surface design will require Process Safety, Mechanical,
Electrical, Instrumentation, and Civil Engineering deliverables. These deliverables must be refined in
close collaboration with Production, Operations, HSE, Maintenance, and Construction personnel. Detailed
engineering deliverables may include:

• A high-level capital estimate (± 10% accuracy)

• A project schedule which considers both concurrent workover and construction activities

• A final IOR infrastructure layout which corresponds to the injection and production requirements
of the well field design
• Final process simulations & hydraulic modeling for the proposed IOR infrastructure and the
affected existing infrastructure
• Verification of compressor sizing, utility requirements, and control logic
14 SPE-200415-MS

• Piping specifications, welding procedures, & non-destructive testing requirements, if applicable

• Request for quotation (RFQ) specifications for major equipment

• A biddable construction package and scope of work

• Issued for construction (IFC) drawing packages for the various technical disciplines

• A Control Systems design and integration philosophy

• A Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) and Operability Review

• A Pre Start-up Safety Review (PSSR)

Procurement of long-lead equipment can be a critical path item for an IOR pilot project. It is advantageous
to solicit quotes during final engineering, as equipment availability and costs will likely influence the basis
of design. Generating specifications for these RFQs may require technical expertise from subject matter
experts. In addition, an operator's existing approved vendor or contractor base may be insufficient to support
the design's material, construction, or operational requirements.

Pilot Testing
Pilot testing will proceed after the project is sanctioned by senior management. The remainder of equipment
and materials will be procured; and then facilities are constructed, commissioned and "started up." It is
estimated that the pilot will operate between 6- and 12-months depending on objectives defined for the
testing.
The primary factors to be considered during testing include optimization of injection gas rates, soak time,
and uplifted oil production. The hydraulic relationship between offsetting wells during HnP operations will
be observed and evaluated. Observations will be analyzed, and operations adjusted to maximize the benefit
of IOR.
The geologic model and reservoir simulation can be improved by incorporating pilot test data into
sensitivity evaluations. The numerical simulation provides a baseline model for the pilot project, and field
data can be incorporated into the model. When injection data are incorporated and tuned in the model, further
understanding and field projections can then be simulated to give better estimated outcomes for the project.
A cross-functional team should be engaged during pilot testing to ensure a successful commissioning
and safe & reliable operations. While it may not be compulsory for IOR projects, Occupational Safety
and Health Administration's (OSHA) Process Safety Management (PSM) program elements provide a
framework for potential operational program deliverables (Occupational Safety & Health Administration,
1994). For instance, operating procedures, management of change (MOC), an emergency response plan,
and an operator training program may be appropriate given an IOR pilot's unique operating conditions.
Results of the pilot test are compiled including "lessons learned" to be incorporated into future IOR
development. Protocols used to design, procure, construct and operate HnP will be used again during full-
scale expansion.

Full-scale IOR Execution

Scale-up of pilot results may be achieved by expanding the HnP design to other parts of the reservoir
adjacent to the recently completed pilot test. If the pilot test included two to four pads or approximately 10
to 20 wells, the first phase of full-scale expansion will likely include another 6 to 8 pads, or approximately
40 to 60 wells.
Surveillance or continuous improvement plans may be utilized to integrate lessons learned into the full-
scale basis of design. A surveillance plan outlines items which must be monitored during operations, and
SPE-200415-MS 15

their sampling frequency. A pilot project's stated objectives, operating expense key performance indicators
(KPI), and maintenance best practices will populate a surveillance plan. This surveillance data can be used
to drive continuous improvement efforts by verifying basis of design assumptions and monitoring KPIs.
Post-commissioning after action reviews (AAR) can also be used to identify future project efficiencies.
A primary goal during full-scale execution is to reduce capital costs, streamline operations and reduce
operating costs.

Risk Management
Identification and mitigation of risks are an integral part of any successful project. Early identification and
effective mitigation of risks is a fundamental task for project managers who work on large, complex capital
projects including IOR. A summary of identified project risks, in addition to suggested actions necessary
to mitigate risks, are provided in Table 2.

Table 2—Example of some key risks involved in the operation of gas HnP projects.

Risk Description Mitigation Strategy

Safe and reliable Safe operations/practices are Implement protocols/procedures for

operation paramount in the oil and gas industry. both surface and subsurface to include
This culture reduces downtime, indications for upset conditions.
optimizes operations, improves Complete hazard safety analysis
production, and lowers cost. integrated with engineering. Train field
and office staff to operate systems
within guidelines.

Commodity prices Market conditions dictate oil and gas Develop a hedging strategy that
prices. Huff n Puff (HnP) is most is flexible to respond to market
economic when oil margins offset the conditions and provides respectable
op cost of using natural gas injection. returns for the project.

Source of Determine volumes needed that will Determine sources that meet design
injection gas meet both project and equipment specification and the costs associated
operating ranges. with each source. Use economics
and feasibility to determine the best
source(s) for each phase of the project.
Plan for time needed to have source
available for the project.

Gas containment Gas must be contained within the Vertical containment can be
targeted reservoir to affect successful determined through evaluation of
HnP operations. stratigraphy and use of geochemical
evaluation of reservoir fluids. Lateral
containment can be evaluated based on
geology and completion designs.

Schedule slip & Schedule slip results in delaying Minimizing changes is essential
cost management project implementation and increasing to effective schedule and cost
project costs almost always impacts management. Planning and strategies
economics in a negative manner. are key to minimizing the damage
caused by project delays in both lost
opportunities and economics.

Approval by Identification approvals required Sufficient planning, tactics, and

stakeholders from stakeholders, contracts, and effective project management will
contentious issues will keep the project help assure timely approval of project
on schedule and budget. Stakeholders agreements.
include management, regulators, JV
partners, and landowners.

Conclusions
A methodical approach was presented to assess cyclic hydrocarbon gas injection in the Eagle Ford Shale,
apply analog evaluation, determine a timeline for the project, incorporate a surveillance plan to optimize
16 SPE-200415-MS

learnings, and use a collaborative workflow with a multidisciplinary team to select the best prospect(s) for
a pilot test. The workflow presented a progression through the process to analyze the available data and
design for a pilot to yield useful information to meet objectives while being safe. There are both surface
and subsurface items that should be planned, modeled, and reviewed before gas injection is started. This
allows a team to identify risks, define what success looks like, budget the project, and choose the best
locations/controls to determine viability of expansion in the project area. This approach allows the team to
explore possible scenarios for complications and mitigation strategies in the project. Following a prescribed
workflow and identification process will aid in the team's ability to understand and plan for the design
elements that are needed to complete a successful pilot project. Reservoir characterization provided material
balance estimations, where gas containment risks were low with possible communication pathways of wells
and estimated fracture distribution within the injection pattern. The risk register was used to determine the
schedule, manage interdependences along with equipment purchases, and determine where each discipline
identified a risk that needs to be addressed. A properly planned project should define all these factors so
the objectives/schedule can be met.

References
Cudjoe, S., Barati, R., Goldstein, R., Tsau, J.-S., Nicoud, B., Bradford, K., … Mohrbacher, D. (2019). An Integrated
Pore-Scale Characterization Workflow for Hydrocarbon Gas Huff-and-Puff Injection into the Lower Eagle Ford Shale.
Unconventional Resources Technology Conference. Denver, CO, USA.
Fu, Q., Cudjoe, S., Barati, R., Tsau, J.-S., Li, X., Peltier, K., … Bradford, K. (2019). Experimental and Numerical
Investigation of the Diffusion-Based Huff-n-Puff Gas Injection into Lower Eagle Ford Shale Samples. Unconventional
Resources Technology Conference. Denver, CO, USA.
Hoffman, T. B. (2018). Huff-N-Puff Gas Injection Pilot Projects in the Eagle Ford. SPE Canada Unconventional Resources
Conference. Calgary: SPE. doi:10.2118/189816-MS
Hoffman, T. B., & Evans, J. G. (2016). Improved Oil Recovery IOR Pilot Projects in the Bakken Formation. SPE Low
Perm Symposium. Denver: SPE. doi:10.2118/180270-MS
IHS Markit ®, 2019, Enerdeq™. (2019, December 4). US Well History and Production. (IHS Markit Database) Retrieved
December 27, 2019, from www.ihsmarkit.com
Malo, S., McNamara, J., Volkmer, N., & Amirian, E. (2019). Eagle Ford - Introducing the Big Bad Wolf. Unconventional
Resources Technology Conference. Denver: Unconventional Resources Technology Conference. doi:10.15530/
urtec-2019-624
Occupational Safety & Health Administration. (1994). Process Safety Management Guidelines for Compliance (OSHA
Publication 3133). Retrieved December 20, 2019, from https://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3133.html
Teletzke, G., Wattenbarger, R., & Wilkinson, J. (2010, February). Enhanced Oil Recovery Pilot Testing Best Practices.
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 143–154.
Texas Railroad Commission & Industry Operators. (n.d.). New or Expanded EOR Project H-12/EOR Positive Response
Certification Application H-13; T-01510, T-01517, T-01522, T-01523, T-01527, T-01528, T-01529, T-01531, T-01532,
T-01533, T-01534, T-01535, T-01536, T-01538, T-01540, T-01542, T-01543, T-01544, T-0154.
Texas Railroad Commission. (2019, December 16). Eagle Ford Shale Information. Retrieved January 9, 2020, from https://
www.rrc.state.tx.us/oil-gas/major-oil-and-gas-formations/eagle-ford-shale-information/
Texas Railroad Commission. (2019, December 11). Texas RRC. Retrieved December 27, 2019, from https://
www.rrc.state.tx.us/media/55436/eagle-ford-oil.pdf