Grieve CO2-EOR

For what it is worth in these telling times, based onfigures from the WOGCC data base for January, Grieve appears to be performingas it should for a CO2-EOR project, albeit a little slower than we would likebut that can be attributed to Denbury’s management of the project rather than anissue with the Grieve reservoir.  Theproduction figures for the up-dip production wells show encouraging increasesin oil rates and decreases in water cuts as shown in the following plots.

Denbury still is not providing any produced gas figureswhich makes it difficult to determine from which wells CO2 is appearing withproduction, how much per well and therefore how much is being recycled. We have no idea, of theCO2 being injected, how much is purchased gas and how much is recycled gas andhow much of the CO2 contracted for Grieve is being diverted to Denbury’s Bell Creekfield in Montana.

Denbury/WOGCC reported Grieve #5 as producing 1,757 barrelsper day of 100% water in December and 28 barrels per day of 100% oil forJanuary. That is difficult to explain other than to put it down to a clericalerror or wishful thinking or false reporting.  Maybe Elk or Denbury can provide an explanation.  If so, can they also please explain:

·         * why large quantities of CO2 continues to beinjected in down-dip wells?

·         * why water and CO2 are being alternated as theinjection fluid in Grieve #18?

·         * why so little water is being disposed in theCloverly in Grieve #1 and why additional disposal well are not employed?

·         * where are all the fluids (CO2 and water)injected into the Muddy reservoir going? Presumably they are going out aspill point but does      that include oil mobilized by the CO2 injected in the down-dip wells?

Have to wonder if Denbury has any interest in operatingGrieve as an efficient CO2-EOR project or more interested in driving Elk’s spdown.   
 

Shame Elk cannot provide Grieve production/injection figures forFebruary rather than have shareholders wait on WOGCC figures released late inthe following month(s). They become public information when Denbury releasesthe information to WOGCC, so why cannot Elk at least release that information atthat time. I am sure Elk is electronically tied into Denbury’s production data for Grieve (asis Debury’s headquarters in Plano, Texas) so I am at a loss to understand why Elkmanagement cannot be more upfront with this information which I believe isshowing a positive CO2-EOR trend.

Makes you wonder.