SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 17741

The Use of Inert Base Gas in Underground Natural Gas Storage

by B.R. Misra, * and S.E. Foh, * Inst. of Gas Technology; Y.A. Shikari, Gas Research Inst.;
R.M. Berry, Texas Gas Transmission Corp.; and F. Labaune, Sofregaz
*SPE Members

Copyright 1988 Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, held in Dallas, TX, June 13-15, 1988.

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, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of
where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT In new storage fields where cushion (base) gas must

be supplied at present prices, substantial reduction
The use of less expensive inert gas to substitute in cost can be achieved by using less expensive
all or part of the base gas requirements in inert gas instead of natural gas as base gas. The
underground natural gas storage fields is a use of inert gas to replace all or a part of
promising technology that has been successfully existing storage field base gas requirements may
field tested in France. This paper discusses also be feasible when viewed with the following
geological, reservoir, and operational factors that perspective:
need to be considered in selecting an underground
storage field for inert gas use. A storage field in 1) The replaced natural gas will be available for
the U.S. has been selected to illustrate detailed use by consumer.
data collection and analysis that will lead to
formulation of a plan to inject inert gas and 2) There may be a possibility of sharing the
predict long term field performance using reservoir differential cost (cost difference between the
models. current selling price of the replaced gas and
initial acquisition price) between consumer and
High base gas fraction, the presence of closed storage company.
structure or an isolated area away from the
injection/withdrawal wells, absence of large scale 3) Replacement of natural gas by inert gas will
heterogeneity, and availability of adequate data for result in saving of valuable natural gas which
reservoir modeling are favorable features that would would have been lost at abandonment.
make a field an attractive candidate for inert gas
use. The degree to which natural and inert gases A number of investigators 1 ,2,3 have examined the
will mix during the storage field operations can be feasibility of an inert gas cushion in gas
predicted with the help of reservoir simulators now storage. The key technical issue identified by
available. these studies is mixing between inert base and
working gases. One study1 expressed concern that
INTRODUCTION mixing between inert and pipeline quality gases may
reach such proportion that separation would be
In an underground storage field, a large part (40 - required to yield pipeline quality working gas.
70%) of total gas stored is used as cushion to This would erode some advantages gained by less
provide a desired deliverability, particularly at expensive inert base gas. Application of inert gas
the end of the withdrawal season. When a storage in fields with natural fractures, large scale
field is abandoned, a significant portion of the heterogeneity and irregularly placed
base gas is not economically recoverable. Base gas injection/withdrawal wells (scattered all across the
costs are a major cost item for new storage reservoir) would undoubtedly lead to quick
fields. This is particularly true for aquifer production of inert gas. In view of this, the
storage fields, which tend to have a higher fraction concerns expressed by earlier investigators may be
of base gas (about 60% in 1983) and at the same time genuine to some extent. However, careful planning
lose more gas at abandonment than depleted fields. to avoid quick breakthrough of inert gas and utilize
those criteria that can keep the heavier inert gas
away from the location of active storage wells would
reduce the chances of. mixing inert gas with natural
References and illustrat10ns at end of paper. gas. It is interesting to note that in France, by

353
2 THE USE OF INERT BASE GAS IN UNDERGROUND NATURAL GAS STORAGE 5PE 17741
using a systematic approach, inert gas has been inert gas is introduced in a gas storage, because of
successfully placed at structurally lower levels of phase similarities it will mix with the natural
the field, away from the injection/withdrawal wells gas. Mixing 1 between inert and natural gases
to minimize mixing. In fact, the lack of field depends on fluid, rock, and operational factors.
experience with inert gas technology in the U.S. and However, it is largely controlled by the rock and
the lack of an ability to develop criteria to screen operational factors. In other words, certain fields
specific sites that can realize potential benefits, with unfavorable geological, reservoir, and
has kept this technology from being implemented. operational features may promote mixing, while
others with favorable geological, reservoir, and
Gaz de France (GdF) has successfully stored operational conditions may restrict mixing of inert
different types of gases (non-fuel to low-BTU) in and natural gases. The criteria to select potential
five aquifers, including two inert base gas storage fields are based on these considerations.
proj ects. Table 1 shows a summary of storage data These criteria are also applicable for new fields.
for the GdF's St. Clair-Sur Epte storage field. In For the new fields, however, well and data needs for
St. Clair field, 20% of the base gas requirements simulation will not be critical because they can be
(total base gas 11 X 10 9 cu ft [310 X 10 6 m3 ]) is specifically tailored according to needs during
made up of inert gas. Inert gas inj ection starte~ field development. Based on the process of
in 1979 and by October, 1981, a total of 2.120 X 10 exclusion and selection, the screening criteria were
cu ft [60 X 10 6 m3 ) inert gas was inj ected through di vided into two categories. First, Pre-screening
well No. 7 (Figure 1). Simulation4 runs performed Criteria were used to exclude those fields which
indicated that inj ection of 2.120 X 109 cu ft [60 X were not considered for inert gas use. Second, Site
10 6 m3 ) inert gas through well No. 7 would permit Selection Criteria were applied to screen those
operation of 21 X 10 9 cu ft [595 X 10 6 m3 ) (total fields that had favorable geological, reservoir, and
inventory) storage without undue dilution of operational characteristics to identify the most
produced gas. As shown in Figure 2, the inert gas promising candidates.
is confined to the structurally lower levels, away
from the injection/withdrawal wells located in the Pre-screening Criteria
center of the structure. The storage field was
operated since with injection/withdra~al cycles. Of the four pre-screening criteria, the first three
During the winter season 1986-87, 9 X 10 cu ft [250 are based on technical considerations. The fourth
X 10 0m3 ) or 90% of the working gas was withdrawn one is based on the participating companies'
without detecting any inert gas at the producing decision to exclude specific fields which they deem
wells. In GdF's experience, if inert gas is to be of high strategic value. These four pre-
injected selectively in a storage field that is screening criteria were used to determine whether a
operated and monitored carefully, mixing of inert given storage field should be excluded from further
and natural gases can be minimized such that it does consideration -
not affect normal gas storage operations.

The Gas Research Institute (GRI) has sponsored a • A total capacity of

[85 X 10 6m3 )
less than 3 X 10 9 cu ft
research program consisting of four tasks to develop
a field test plan for illustrating the use of inert
base gas in United States storage fields. The first • Less than 10
observation wells
injection/withdrawal, and
task of this program is to select a suitable storage
field that can be used for data collection (Task 2),
• Presence of natural fractures
engineering analysis (Task 3) and formulating a
field test plan (Task 4) for inert gas use.
• Strategic importance to the company's system.
Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, Northern
Illinois Gas Company, and Texas Gas Transmission Assuming that 20% of base gas (or about 10% of total
Corporation are participating in the GRI research inventory) is replaced by inert gas and that inert
program.
gas (generation and compression) cost is one-half of
natural gas cost of $2 per 10 3 cu ft [28m 3 ) then the
This paper presents screening criteria, used to maximum economic benefit from utilizing inert gas in
select potential candidates for inert gas use, from a 3 X 10 9 cu ft [85 X 10 6 m3 ) storage field would be
a list of 61 gas storage fields (51 depleted and 10
$300,000. This amount may not be sufficient to
aquifers) operated by Columbia Gas Transmission support costs of data collection, engineering
Corporation, Northern Illinois Gas Company, and analysis, and reservoir simulation, which are
Texas Gas Transmission Corporation. These fields essential design tools for inert gas application.
represent 15% of the active fields in the U.S. and In view of this, a small field of less than 3 BCF is
have approximately the same fractions of depleted
not expected to realize the benefits of replacing a
fields and aquifers as the national average. In
part of the base gas by less expensive inert gas.
addition to a discussion on screening criteria for
si te selection, detailed data collection that will
In addition to conducting injection/withdrawal
eventually lead to engineering analyses and
operations, conveniently located wells are required
formulation of a plan for inert gas application is
for both initial injection and subsequent monitoring
also presented in this paper, via a case history of of inert gas. Therefore, the fields with fewer than
an existing gas storage field.
10 wells are not suitable for inert gas use. Fields
with naturally fractured reservoirs should be
FIELD SELECTION CRITERIA
avoided for the following reasons. First, due to
the relatively higher fluid mobility in fractures as
A conventional gas storage field has two immiscible opposed to the matrix, the risk of inert gas
phases, natural gas and water. Therefore, the breakthrough in withdrawal wells is much greater.
question of gas-phase mixing does not arise. When
Second, complex models with dual porosity and gas

354
SPE 17741 BRI3. R. MISRA, STEPHEN E. FOH, YUSUF A. SHIKARI, R. MARK BERRY, FRANCOIS LABAUNE 3
phase mixing are needed to adequately describe gradual reduction in permeability due to sand
fractured reservoirs. Proven models with this pinchout or less dolomitization of a limestone
combination of capabili ties do not exist. reservoir, thus providing opportunity for storing
Therefore, naturally fractured reservoirs were inert gas in an isolated area away from the active
excluded from further consideration. Those fields injection/withdrawal wells. Figure 2 is an example
that were considered by the operator to be of of how a location isolated from injection/withdrawal
strategic importance to their system were also wells was selected for inert gas injection.
excluded from this study.
A storage field having a large structure with a thin
Site Selection Criteria reservoir is a better candidate than a small field
wi th thick reservoir. For the same total volume, a
Site selection criteria were designed to evaluate thinner reservoir will involve a larger surface area
those storage fields that were not excluded during to accommodate large quantity of inert gas and, at
pre-screening. All available fields were screened the same time, will have greater lateral distance
to determine if a field contains suitable reservoir providing better isolation from active
characteristics for placement of a reasonable amount injection/withdrawal area.
of inert.' gas in a portion of storage field in such a
way that during the course of many cycles of The distribution of porosity and permeability will
injection/withdrawal operations, chances of mixing determine the volume of inert gas that can be held
inert and natural gases are minimal. In developing in any part of the reservoir and its mobility to
site selection criteria, due consideration was also inj ection/ wi thdrawal wells. Reasonably high
given to obtain maximum benefits of inert gas porosity and low to moderate permeability in the
application at lowest cost. In order to make this inert gas inj ection area is desirable because this
determination, it is necessary to consider the will facilitate storage of high inert gas volume
following criteria. Each, site selection criteria is and, at the same time, it may restrict the mobility
discussed below in terms of its applicability to of the inert gas. Heterogeneities are expected in
determine the relative attractiveness of available different areas of a reservoir. However, reservoirs
field test sites. with layers of high permeability that extend across
large segments (especially where inert gas is to be
• High base gas fraction injected) are to be avoided as they may cause quick
breakthrough of inert gas into withdrawal wells.
• Presence of closed structure
Once a suitable area for inert gas injection has
• Availability of isolated area for inert gas been identified, the next step is to look for a well
placement or wells that could be used for inert gas
injection. Existing injection/withdrawal or
• Thin reservoir observation wells can be used for this purpose.
Portable inert gas generators are available. The
• Favorable porosity and permeability natural gas gathering system need not be used for
inert gas inj ection. However, the existing wells
• Absence of large scale heterogeneity should be capable of injecting the desired amount of
inert gas. Simple f low calculations based on well
• Existence of suitable wells for inert gas deliverability and total amount of inert gas to be
injection injected can be used to estimate injection time.
Injection times less than or equal to one normal
• Existence of adequate number of wells for injection season is desirable. In the absence of
monitoring inert gas any existing well, drilling a new well should also
be considered. However, the project economics
• Existence of suitable wells for tracer testing should be a guiding factor in using this site
selection criteria. Availability of adequate wells
• Availability of adequate reservoir data for for monitoring the inert and natural gas front is
modeling. another important criteria. Following inert gas
injection, observation wells are needed to monitor
Fields with high fraction of base gas are most inert gas concentration to assure that the inert gas
attractive because they have the potential of using behaves as predicted. Here also, a field with
larger quantities of inert gas. Statistically, existing wells for monitoring is preferable to avoid
aquifer storage fields require a higher fraction of the expense of drilling new observation wells for
base gas than depleted gas fields. However, factors this purpose.
such as structure, petrophysical properties and
pressure are equally important in determining how As indicated earlier, mixing of inert and natural
much inert gas can be placed at a given site. An gases depend on rock, fluid, and operational
anticlinal structure with reasonable amount of dip factors. Consequently, for each storage field, the
and closure is preferable because gravity will act rate of mixing (or dispersion) expected is unique.
to keep the heavier inert gas at structurally lower As such, the best value of dispersion coefficient
levels, away from the location of high concentration for mixing is that obtained from a tracer test
of injection/withdrawal wells at the top of the conducted in the field. This test consists of
structure. A structural trap is also likely to injecting traced gas and observing the traced gas
involve a flank where a significant portion of concentration in an adjacent well(s) or in the same
reservoir volume is isolated by distance from (injection) well by turning the injection well to a
injection/withdrawal wells, thus providing minimum production well. The tracer test is inexpensive and
chances of mixing during withdrawal of working simple to run. The test procedure is described
gas. A structural or stratigraphic trap may contain later in this paper. Availability of suitable

355
4 THE USE OF INERT BASE GAS IN UNDERGROUND NATURAL GAS STORAGE
weIHs) for conducting a tracer test is an equally
important site selection criteria.
In a conventional storage operation where two
immiscible phases (gas and water) are present,
reservoir models are frequently not used because the
performance of stored gas can be estimated by simple
tank models utilizing volumetric and material reservoir simulation.
balance methods. However, when inert gas is
injected in the reservoir, the problem of mixing of
two miscible gases is introduced. Then, aside from key parameters. For additional data requirements to
handling simultaneous flow of natural gas and water,
mixing of inert and natural gases is also to be
accounted for. This situation cannot be handled
without the help of sophisticated reservoir for "extensive," data needs.
simulators. Reservoir models are the most important
tools for analyzing data and evaluating various
options for inert gas injection in underground gas
storage. Therefore, the availability of adequate
data needed for performing reservoir simulation
studies is considered a very important site GRI industry advisory body, the Gas Storage Steering
selection criteria.
APPLICATION OF CRITERIA
Pre-Selection Criteria
The four pre-screening criteria were applied to
determine whether a given storage field should be
excluded from further consideration for inert gas
use in this study. Fields not excluded during the
application of pre-screening criteria were listed as
available fields for further evaluation.
Of the total 61 fields evaluated, application of
pre-screening criteria excluded half (31) of the
fields. Nine fields were excluded due to a small
inventory, 3 fields due to small number of wells, 6
fields due to the presence of natural fractures and
a total of 13 fields were excluded due to their
strategic nature for the company's system.
Site Selection Criteria
The remaining 30 storage fields were evaluated based
on the application of site selection criteria. The
site selection criteria were applied to identify the
most attractive potential field test sites. In
applying site selection criteria, no one factor
determined overall attractiveness of a field, rather
a combination of more than one criteria were
utilized to determine overall attractiveness.
Table 2 shows the site selection criteria and the
number of fields that are qualified under each
criteria. High base gas fraction , presence of a
closed structure, availability of suitable area and
wells for inert gas placement, and absence of large
scale heterogeneity are favorable features that
would make a storage field an attractive candidate
for inert gas use. The site selection criteria were
applied to identify the most attractive sites from
each cooperating company. A final list of the nine
candidates deemed most attractive was prepared.
Availability of data, lack of large-scale
heterogeneity and availability of a large isolated
area for inert gas injection were the criteria that
made the most difference in the final selection.
Relative Ranking of Potential Test Sites
Any of the potential sites listed in Table 3 would
make an excellent candidate for a field test of
SPE 17741
inert base gas use. However, to choose a single
site or to list the sites in order of priority,
relative ranking of the fields was made. These
potential sites were reviewed based on the relative
attributes of key parameters such as reservoir
definition, reservoir homogeneity, suitability for
inert gas injection, and data availability for
As shown in Table 3, the
qualitative numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 were assigned to
the poor, good, fair and excellent attributes of the
conduct a simulation study, numbers were assigned
based on the amount of data needs, a 2 number was
assigned for "some," 1 for "more," and a negative 2
A negative 4 was
assigned to those sites which have less understood
rock, fluid and operational features that need
special studies involving longer time. The last
column of Table 3 contains the total score that was
used to rank the potential field test sites. The
Committee, was supplied with a list of potential
test sites (Table 3) and requested to select one
site that best represented the storage fields in
their system. One of the highest ranking fields,
Hanson storage field (Figure 3), belonging to Texas
Gas Transmission Corporation, was selected by the
gas industry representati ves for detailed data
collection, analysis, and formulation of a field
test plan. The shaded area in Figure 3 shows the
probable area for inert gas use. Table 4 shows a
summary of storage data for the Hanson field.
DATA COLLECTION FOR THE SELECTED SITE
Following the site selection, the next step was to
collect detailed data from Hanson field. Data
collection was performed to facilitate engineering
analyses of Hanson field so that a test plan to
illustrate inert gas utilization could be
formulated. Data collection was divided into two
parts: 1) detailed data collection from the
operator's files, and 2) collection of additional
data that was not available from the operator's
files, and probably has to be generated in the
field. Table 5 shows a list of detailed data that
has been divided into six main categories consisting
of well records, reservoir data, fluid analyses,
pressure data, gas injection/withdrawal data, and
operational data. Detailed data that would normally
be collected from a field is described under each
main category. Except for the items where N/A (not
available) is marked, most of the data given in
Table 5 was made available from the Hanson field
files. Additional data are needed to supplement the
available data on reservoir definition, fluid
analysis, petrophysical, and pressure data. The
dispersion coefficient data to determine the degree
of mixing between inert and natural gases was not
available from the operator's files. A tracer test
in the field is required to obtain this data. For
Hanson field, additional data requirement was
minimal, consisting of obtaining capillary pressure
and gas-water relative permeability data from the
cores and running a tracer test in the field to
determine the dispersion coefficient of mixing.
Tracer Test
In conventional gas storage, both base and working
gases are composed of natural gas of practically
identical composition; therefore, data on mixing is
356
SPE 17741 BRlJ R. MISRA, STEPHEN E. FOH, YUSUF A. SHIKARI, R. MARK BERRY, FRANCOIS LABAUNE
not available. Because the dispersion coefficient
is unique to a particular storage reservoir, it is
essential that it should be obtained from a field
test conducted particularly in the general area
where the front between inert and natural gases is
expected to traverse. This is accomplished by
conducting a single or multiwell tracer test in the
field.
A tracer test consists of injecting pipeline quality
gas in a well for a period of 4 to 10 days (depend-
ing on the location of adjacent well(s) and injec-
tion rates) at a constant rate (typically used
during injection/withdrawal operations). Following
the injection of one-fourth of the pipeline gas, the
next half of the injected gas includes a tracer
(about 200 ppm hydrogen for instance), the traced
gas is chased by the last one-fourth of the injected
gas. The concentration profile of the traced gas
can be monitored in one of two ways: 1) by sampling
the produced gas at a constant rate at nearby
well(s), or 2) by withdrawing gas at a constant rate
from the same well (used for injection) and sampling
its tracer concentration. The withdrawal period at
sampling well is normally two times the injection
period. Depending on the type of sampling method (1
or 2) selected, the tracer test is referred as
multiwell or single well tracer test respectively.
Ideally, such a test should be conducted soon after
recording shut-in pressures at the beginning of
spring or end of fall. A tracer test for Hanson
field is planned in the second quarter, 1988.
ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND FORMULATION OF FIELD TEST
PLAN
The final step in determining how best inert gas can
be utilized in a gas storage field depends on the
engineering analyses of the field. The primary tools
to be used are reservoir models. Reservoir models
are used to match storage field performance (injec-
tion/withdrawal) history for reservoir characteri-
zation. Following reservoir characterization, the
models can analyze various options for developing
the best strategy for fulfilling the operator's
storage requirements while maximizing the use of
inert base gas and minimizing mixing. Some of the
options to be considered are:
• The volume of inert gas to be used as base gas
• Location of inert gas area
• Inert gas injection strategy (which wells, at
what rates)
• Natural gas injection/withdrawal
(which wells, at what rates)
strategy
• Prediction of mixing between inert and natural
gases over a prolonged period of storage
operations.
Engineering analyses are utilized in preparing a
plan for inert gas applications in the field.
Engineering analyses of Hanson field that will be
used for formulation of a field test plan are
currently in progress. The plan is due to be
released in late summer of 1988.
357
5
CONCLUSIONS
To successfully apply inert base gas in underground
storage fields, a systematic approach is required.
This approach involves the selection of a suitable
field, data collection to support reservoir
modeling, and development of a plan for inert base
. gas injection and monitoring. The degree to which
inert and natural gases mix in a given storage field
is an important model input parameter. Therefore,
this parameter should be obtained by conducting a
tracer test in the general area of the field where
the inert/natural gas front is expected to traverse
during the storage operations. Characteristics that
make a field an attractive site for inert base gas
use include - high base gas fraction, presence of
closed structure or an isolated area away from the
injection/withdrawal wells, absence of large scale
heterogeneity, and availability of adequate
reservoir data for modeling.
Site selection criteria applied to fields operated
by three gas companies resulted in the selection of
a depleted gas field (with an inactive associated
aquifer) for further analysis. Data has been
collected for that field, and engineering studies
are in progress. A tracer test to measure mixing is
scheduled for 1988. A field test plan will be
prepared to illustrate a systematic approach to
inert base gas use in general. The plan will
address both depleted gas and aquifer storage
fields. Hanson storage field will be used as an
illustrative example throughout.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was performed as part of a coordinated Gas
Research Institute (GRI) and the Institute of Gas
Technology (IGT) Sustaining Membership Program
research effort. The support of those organizations
is gratefully acknowledged. We also acknowledge the
participation of Sofregaz (a subsidiary of Gaz de
France) as a subcontractor to IGT.
REFERENCES
1. Huff, R. V. and Walker, C. J., "Feasibility of
Inert-Gas Cushions in Gas Storages," Bureau of
Mines Report of Investigations RI 6534, United
States Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Mines, 1964.
2. Kumar, A. and Kimbler, O. K., "The Effect of
Mixing and Gravitational Segregation Between
Natural Gas and Inert Cushion Gas on the
Recovery of Gas From Horizontal Storage
Aquifers," SPE Paper No. 3866 prepared for the
Northern Plains Section Regional Meeting of the
SPE AIME, Omaha, Neb., May 18-19, 1972.
3. Lewin and Associates, "Economic Feasibility of
Inert Cushions in Underground Gas Storage,"
Final Report prepared for the Department of
Energy/Division of Resource Applications under
Contract No. DE-AC01-79-RA-33068, September,
1980.
4. Carriere, J. F., Fasanino, G., and Tek, M. R.,
"Mixing in Underground Storage ReserVOirs," SPE
paper No. 14202 presented at the 60th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE,
Las Vegas, NV, September 22-25.
6 THE USE OF INERT BASE GAS IN UNDERGROUND NATURAL GAS STORAGE SPE 17741

5. Laille, J. P., Molinard, J. E., Wents, A.,

"Inert Gas Inj ection as Part of the Cushion of
the Underground Storage of Saint-Clair-Sur-Epte
(France), SPE paper No. 17740, Gas Technology
Symposium, Dallas, June 1988.

Table 1
SUMMARY OF STORAGE DATA
ST.-CLAIR-SUR-EPTE STORAGE FIELD, GAZ DE FRANCE

Beginning of Operation 1979

Storage Type Aquifer
Storage Formation Bioclastic and Oolithic Limestone
Depth, Feet 2435
No. of Inj./Withd. Wells 11
No. of Observation Wells 17
Thickness of Storage Zone, Feet 105
Total Porosity, % 21
Permeability, md 700
BRP of Untapped Aquifer, psi 1200
Total Storage Capacit g
(as of 10/1986), 10 cu ft 21
Working Gas, 10 9 cu ft 10
Cushion Gas, 10 9 cu ft
Natural Gas, 10 9 cu ft 8.9
Inert Gas, 10 9 cu ft 2.120
Maximum Withdrawal, 10 6 cu ft/D 140

Table 2
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL FIELD TEST SITES

Site Selection Criteria No. of Fields Qualified

High Base Gas Fraction 8

Presence of a Closed Structure 9
Presence of Suitable Area for Inert Gas Placement 9
Thin Reservoir 6
Favorable Porosity and Permeability 7
Absence of Large Scale Heterogeneity 9
Availability of Suitable Well(s) for Inert Gas
Injection 8
Availability of Adequate Wells for Monitoring
Inert Gas 4
Availability of Suitable Wells for Tracer Test 6
Availability of Adequate Data for Reservoir
Modeling 4

358
 Table)
RZLATIVE RANKING OF POTENTIAL TEST SrTES
Avall.bUlty
Su1C:ablllty of Welh for Table 5
tleservolr Reaer-voir for Inert Inert Call toj. Duta Additional Unfavoriible Total DETAILED DATA COLLECTION
No. Ple1d ltank Definition Ho.ogendty C.. Inj. i Tracer Teat Availability D,UoI Needed Feature. Score RANSON FIELD

1. Well Records
Crade· --) p , C Soe Hore Extendu
Score --) 1 2 ) 2 1 -2 -4 Well location lIap and description of well locations
Well inclination data
Brinker -2 Well status
I. active l/w wella
Cleveland -2 2. observation wella
3. plugged and abandoned wella
Cuw{ord -2 Well logs
Core data
Dixie
"
14
Casing and perforllation recorda
Yell coapletlon and teating records
Warko_ver history
Hanaon
1. well atillNlation and cleaning
Lk. Bloo.1ngton 2. fracture jobs
3. fluid leak repair jobs
LeesvUle -4 4. ceaent squeeze jobs

Pe..::aton1ca -4 1l 11. Reservoir Data

Wilfred -4 Reservoir definition data

1. typical geological column
Note.: For the field. with identical total .core. rank a . . iln_nt h based on the alphabetical Ihtin, of the fields. 2. geological description
3. gas-water contact and transition zone thickness
*Grad~s: Poor. 1. fair _ 2. Good .. 3. EXCl.:llcnt .. 4, Some. 2, Morc .. I, Extensive" -2, and Unfavorable Fedture,,; .. -4 4. structure contour map
5. isopach map

...
**Uual porosIty in Leesville and Wilfred. in addit-lon Wilfred has oil.

Low I/W activity and higher than average reservoir permcabllit.y.

Water zone data
1. size and extent of aquifer
2. evidence of bottom water coning
Petrophysical data
1. log/core derived porosity, permeability and water saturation data
2. relative permeability data (N/A)
3. capillary pr@8sure data (N/A)
Gas inventory data
1. gas inventory determined by volumetric and material balance methods
2. gas lOSS/inventory verification data
Table 4
SUMMARY OF STORAGE DATA III. Fluid Data
HANSON STORAGE FIELD
Gases
1. gas composition at various tImes
2. g8S gravity, density. viscosity, Z factor and BnI data
3. variation of gas properties with pressure
Beginning of Operation 1965 Liquids (brine and/or oil)
1. salinity and total dissolved solids
Storage Type Depleted Gas Field 2. density/specific gravity
Storage Formation Tar Springs Sandstone 3. viscosity
Depth. Feet 2250 4. ,,::oUlpressibil1ty
No. of Injeetion/Withdrawal Wells 31 IV. Pressure Data
No. of Observation Wells 3
Net Pay, Feet 24 Spring/fall ahut-in pressure data
Pressures measured in observation veIls
Total Porosity, % 17 Injection and flowing pressure data (coordinated with the injection/withdrawal data)
Permeabili ty, md 95 Pressure transient tests (N/A)
BHP of Untapped Aquifer, psia 1061 Interference test data (N/A)
Total Storage C~pacity, 10 9 cu ft 12
V. Gas injection/Withdrawal Data
Working Gas, 10 cu ft 4
Cushion Gas, 10 9 cu ft 8 Total field injection/withdrawal volumes on monthly basts
Design Deliverability, 10 6 eu ft/D 71 Allocated injection/withdrawal rates on individual well basis. Daily rates averaged from.
7-10 days total field injection/withdrawal data. (For Hanson field, daily rate was
averaged from 10 days data. Averaged rate data ..::ollected for 1974-76.)
Back pressure tests on individual wells
Water production data (N/A)

VI. Operational Data

Well operation instructions

 SPE 17741
_77;O~
~--
------=::: - 76'<>-------

~
~~~:~:"
~

OJ~~:
Fig. 1-Structure contou
0 7 19° ~,'lO

Sur-Epte field, G~~~pe °Franee.

n , In -Clalr-
the top storag e reservoir Sa' t .

OCTOBER 1986
INERT GAS'
NATURAL GA2:1 BCFBCF
S. 19.2

16261 --------""--.-
•
.~\'\0
16271 16272 -

16269 163?3 16178 1r.2~8

•• 18, •• 162
1

"----~~~-<.::.--~\
162.0 0 16256.

.~y\'_0--
F"
Ig. 3-Structure contour RESERVOIR LIMIT A88040147
map, Hanson storage field.

360