It’s Time For A Fresh Look At Berea and Clinton Secondary Recovery

Abstract

It is well known that recovery of original oil in place in the Berea and Clinton in Ohio is abysmally low, in the vicinity of 10%. It is also well known that there have been very few successful secondary recovery projects in the state, specifically over the past 50 years. In addition, there are numerous hurdles to implementing secondary recovery, some specific to our area. So, is this a lost cause? Secondary recovery, usually in the form of gas injection, was a common, successful process in Ohio in the first half of the 20th century. But when hydraulic fracturing arrived in the early 1950’s, any momentum which might have existed was lost to the highly successful and simpler process of drilling wells and producing them after hydraulic fracturing. Fast forward to today; there is plenty of oil to go after, product prices are respectable, processes are better understood, and technology has advanced. Is it time to re-visit potential projects? My experience spans over three decades of work with Marathon Oil Company, including re-development of waterfloods in the Illinois Basin. This presentation will include some history on Ohio secondary recovery, hurdles to overcome, ideas and recommendations on best places to look for potential projects, and best practices on how to implement a successful project. Also, information and data on a modern, successful Ohio waterflood project will be reviewed. The Utica/Point Pleasant play has clearly taken center stage in Ohio’s oil and gas business. However, certain old Berea and Clinton areas or fields, so important to the history of the industry in our state and an important benefactor to thousands of Ohio residents, are a pool of wealth just waiting to be exploited.

AAPG Datapages/Search and Discovery Article #90373 © 2019 AAPG Eastern Section Meeting, Energy from the Heartland, Columbus, Ohio, October 12-16, 2019