Summary Amoco Production Co. began in the early 1970's to work toward a reservoir test of the CO2 miscible displacement process in the Slaughter Estate Unit (SEU). Because of difficulties in obtaining a reliable pure CO2 source, a feed gas stream to the Slaughter gasoline plant sulfur recovery unit was chosen as the solvent injection source. This solvent gas stream consisted of approximately 72% CO2 and 28% hydrogen sulfide. Laboratory tests demonstrated that the displacement process using this acid gas as a solvent was the same as when pure CO2 was used. Six pilot injection wells and two pilot producers were drilled in 1972 in a portion of the SEU (Slaughter field) that had not been waterflooded. Waterflooding was begun in 1972 and a peak secondary oil rate of 407 BOPD (64.7 m/d oil) was observed in June 1973. By mid-1976 most of the secondary oil had been produced, a secondary decline rate was well established, and the WOR had increased significantly. Alternate solvent Gas and water injection, for favorable areal sweep, was initiated in Aug. 1976, and the first tertiary oil production was observed in Oct. 1977 when oil production from the two pilot producers increased from 22 to 29 BOPD (3.5 to 4.6 m/d oil). Peak tertiary production was 152 BOPD (24.2 m/d oil) in Feb. 1979. Through July 1981 the pilot was still producing about 70 BOPD (11.1 m /d oil) and cumulative incremental tertiary oil production was 95,680 STB (15 212 stock-tank m ), which represents 14.9% original oil in place (OOIP). A total of 26% hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV) Solvent gas was injected into the pilot area through Oct. 1979. In Nov. 1979 nitrogen chase gas injection was initiated; an interruption in the pilot's nitrogen supply in April 1980 forced a temporary change to residue chase gas injection until Dec. 1980 when nitrogen injection was resumed. Current plans call for the injection of 29.6% HCPV chase gas into the pilot area. The SEU tertiary pilot was conducted so that both secondary and tertiary recovery factors could be delineated clearly by actually measuring oil in the tank. Performance data from this pilot conclusively show that alternate CO2 -water will move tertiary oil in significant quantities in this and similar west Texas reservoirs. Introduction The SEU CO2 pilot is one of several miscible gas improved oil-recovery projects operated by Amoco Production Co. in the Permian basin of west Texas. It is located in Hockley County. approximately 30 miles (48 km) west of Lubbock, as shown in Fig. 1. The SEU boundary and relative location of the pilot are shown in Fig. 2. In the late 1960's, waterflooding operations in the SEU had been under way for approximately 6 years and oil production in the unit was continuing to increase. However, because the SEU represented a significant resource base, planning for potential tertiary recovery operations was initiated at an early date. This planning resulted in the 1972 drilling of a 12-acre (48 600-m ) double five-spot pilot in a non water flooded area of the unit, designed to test the CO2 miscible displacement process by obtaining oil-in-the-tank performance data. Because unit waterflooding operations were in their early stages, it was felt that secondary and tertiary operations for the pilot should be conducted in separate phases. Waterflood performance data would provide an indication of ultimate secondary recovery and also establish high water saturation conditions that would be a severe test of the recovery efficiency of CO2 flooding. Performance data under these conditions would indicate clearly the additional tertiary oil that could be recovered and also would provide data to determine the volume of CO2 required to recover this incremental oil. JPT P. 613^

This paper presents the material selection, construction procedures, safety devices, corrosion control and monitoring, and operational procedures necessary for successful compression, transportation, and injection of a gas stream containing 28070 hydrogen sulfide. It also discusses various operational problems encountered during the 3-year project life.

Management Oil spill response technology progressed significantly as a result of innovations and experience gained during the Deepwater Horizon response in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, particularly in areas related to surveillance, controlled in-situ burning, booming, skimming, mechanical oil/water separation, and sand cleaning. During the response, the Alternative Response Technology (ART) team, under the direction of the Unified Area Command, screened approximately 43,000 spill response technology ideas submitted by the public. The ART team’s work was done alongside, and consistent with, the US federally directed Interagency Alternative Technology Assessment Program. The ART team field tested or evaluated in detail about 100 of the 43,000 ideas, resulting in at least 45 ideas being recommended for use in response operations. The successful ideas are listed in Table 1. Of significance was the number of ideas that came from other industries and were adapted to spill response needs. For instance, the team field-tested at least 10 sand cleaners for beach cleanup, and the most notable was the Sand Shark (Fig. 1), a technology that was adapted from the road maintenance industry (material loader). The Sand Shark could clean a mile of beach per day, using its sifting process, down to a depth of approximately 12 in. Another successful sand-cleaning technology was the Gravely Rapid E Sand Cleaner. The Chicago-area Gravely Co., which makes industrial lawn mowers, had adapted its technology into a one-person sand-cleaning machine that could get in and out of hard-to-access beach areas for cleanup. Its use was proposed by a distributor in Illinois, who saw the larger sand-cleaning machines on a newscast and reasoned that the smaller machine would be useful to responders. The Boom Blaster (Fig. 2) was a technology adapted from the car wash industry and was able to clean 600 ft of boom per hour, which far exceeded what could be cleaned manually. During the response, more than 13 million ft of boom was deployed, thus saving considerable time and manpower in cleaning boom for storage. These and other technologies adapted from other industries—including the Parachute Surf Skimmer (a pool and pond cleaner proposed for tar ball capture), Yates Boom Cleaner (another automated process with dishwasherlike water jetting), and the M-I Swaco sand cleaning plant (adapted from tar sands production operations)—have been added to the industry’s toolbox. One key lesson learned to aid in future spill clean-ups is to open the search for technology outside of industry and to be willing to think creatively.