EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery 3535 W. 16 th . St. Odessa, Texas 79763 - PDF document

EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery 3535 W. 16 th . St. Odessa, Texas 79763 Tel. (432) 381-6540 Fax (432) 381-2205

Assets in the Ground Two thirds of the United States oil reserves are still in the ground and becoming increasingly difficult to pump out. The use of existing technology to extract this oil is limited and costly. EMC and its Cava-Chem tool will dramatically change the oil industry as it is known today. EMC’s success is in its ability to free oil and gas from sand, • shale and rock in the drilling zone. • EMC eliminates the interfacial surface tension between all matter, thus they repel each other like magnets. The Process The magic of EMC is transferred to other elements or compounds through a process. The EMC process is proprietary. When it is at work, in laymen’s terms, the EMC “touches” the oil, salt, sediment, bedrock, paraffin and other matter in the well and changes their chemistry.

Lighter Crude – Cleaner Well EMC alters the quality of the crude oil and prevents olefins, paraffin and asphaltines from bonding – keeping them suspended in an emulsification state. This results in minimizing heavy hydrocarbons (olefins, paraffin and asphaltines) from plugging the production zone. Three Treatment Methods Cold Injection Hot Injection All methods clean the well . EMC Characteristics for All Treatments ( diluted form) Non-toxic Non-caustic Non-corrosive Non-hazardous Non-flammable Stable up to 3000°F 24 to 48 Hour application times Easy to store and transport Environmentally friendly

EMC The Best of All Worlds Traditional Enhanced Oil Recovery Treatments • Water Flooding • Carbon Dioxide • Chemical Treatment • Steam Injection Water Flooding Treatment versus EMC Advantage : Inexpensive and results are predictable. Disadvantage : It cannot displace all of the oil from the formation – even under the best of circumstances. EMC is able to displace nearly all the oil from the formation. If EMC touches it, you will pump it.

Carbon Dioxide Treatment versus EMC Advantage : Vaporization begins at pressures between 1,000 and • 2,000 PSI at temperatures below 200 ° F and with crude oils having an API gravity above 30. • Disadvantage : It leaves large areas of the reservoir untreated and it IS expensive. • EMC can be injected at high pressures, improve the recovery without the limitations and specific requirements needed with carbon dioxide and, most important, without creating hazardous by-products and equipment corrosion. Chemical Treatment versus EMC • Advantage : It helps free oil in the production zone. • Disadvantage : Sodium Carbonate, Sodium Orthosilicate, Sodium Metasilicate, Ammonia, and Sodium Hydroxide tend to be highly corrosive and damaging to skin, eyes and mucous membranes. Ammonia, besides being a health hazard, can become combustible. • EMC is an alkaline product with a high pH of 13.7± EMC is not corrosive, explosive, flammable, hazardous or toxic. Steam Treatment versus EMC Advantage : Steam is a proven method for improved recovery from heavy-oil reservoirs. Disadvantage : Steam drive cannot be used in deep reservoirs, thin formations, or formations with low permeability. Cava-Chem delivers EMC to the reservoir using cavitational waves to achieve optimal penetration throughout the production zone.

Cold Water Treatment 1% to 1.5% solution of EMC A positive displacement pump is used at ambient • temperature. • Base Measurement: a cold treatment will require 120 barrels of solution for 3000 feet of well depth and total number and length of perforations. The volume of water is dependent upon the depth of – the well and the length of the well perforations. • T he well history will provide an approximate period for determining the time and volume needed to reduce BS&W from the well. • A dditional time may be required to further penetrate the productive oil zone.

Hot Water Treatment Average rule of thumb – 3500 gallons of hot water (140 ° F • to 160 ° F) solution at 1% to 1 ½ % solution. • This treatment is effective in reducing paraffins, olefins and asphaltines. This results in lighter oil and increasing oil yields. • This treatment alters heavy hydrocarbon creating an emulsification which minimizes problems such as paraffin build ups inside the production tubing, sucker rods and down hole pumps. • Calcium, sodium, chloride, magnesium, sulfides and other elements are minimized too. • Procedure minimizes particulates and solid matter from coming up with oil. • The equipment used for this treatment includes a triplex pump, fluid pump, to introduce the hot water. Warmer temperatures ( > 160 ° F) are more effective, • especially in a vapor phase (steam). • Solution enters the production zone realizing a final pressure drop which liberates dissolved gasses in the treating chemical increasing the displacement of the EMC solution further into the well production zone. • Vapor travels through the production zone before condensing and returning into a condensate. • At elevated temperatures – EMC reduces foaming and frothing which enhances oil and gas production.

Hot Water Treatment Continued • The equipment used for this treatment includes a triplex pump, fluid pump, to introduce the hot water. Warmer temperatures ( > 160 ° F) are more effective, • especially in a vapor phase (steam). • Solution enters the production zone realizing a final pressure drop which liberates dissolved gasses in the treating chemical increasing the displacement of the EMC solution further into the well production zone. • Vapor travels through the production zone before condensing and returning into a condensate. • At elevated temperatures – EMC reduces foaming and frothing which enhances oil and gas production.

Texas Well History Greyburg Formation • The well had oil production of 3 barrels per day. The well was treated and then closed for twenty four hours. Production the next day was 9 barrels. For the next two months production fluctuated as high as 10.5 barrels to the lowest of 7.5 barrels. Production stabilized at 9.0 barrels per day. • San Andres Formation – Well#1 The well had oil production of 1.5 barrels per day. The well was treated and then closed for twenty four hours. Production the next day was 12 barrels. For the next two months production fluctuated as high as 16 barrels to the lowest of 11 barrels. Production stabilized at 14.5 to 15 barrels per day. • San Andres Formation – Well #2 The well had oil production of 3 barrels per day. The well was treated and then closed for twenty four hours. Production the next day was 10 barrels. For the next two months production fluctuated as high as 9 barrels to the lowest of 6 barrels. Production stabilized at 8.0 barrels per day.

Continued • Yates Formation The well had oil production of 0.5 barrels per day. The well was treated and then closed for twenty four hours. Upon opening the well it was found that the pump saddle bearing had broken. It was 13 days before repairs were completed. Production began at 5 barrels. For the next month production fluctuated as high as 6.5 barrels to the lowest of 4.5 barrels. Production stabilized at 5.0 barrels per day. • Queen Formation The well had oil production of 1.5 barrels per day. The well was treated and then closed for twenty four hours. Production the next day was 21 barrels. Production stabilized at 9.0 barrels per day.