KGS Home Geology Home

Kansas Geological Survey, SDP 6, originally published in 1964


Summary of Secondary Recovery Operations in Kansas During 1962

by the Kansas Secondary Recovery Committee

E. D. Goebel and Mack C. Colt, co-chairmen

Cover of the book; beige paper; black text.

Originally published in 1964 as Kansas Geological Survey Special Distribution Publication 6. This is, in general, the original text as published. The information has not been updated. An Acrobat PDF version of this report is available (1.5 MB). Sheets for Table 1 available separately.

Introduction

Data contained in this survey have been assembled through the efforts of the Conservation Division of the Kansas Corporation Commission in cooperation with the Kansas Geological Survey. A state Secondary Recovery Committee appointed to assist in the accumulation and interpretation of information relative to secondary recovery projects in Kansas has the following membership:

E. D. Goebel, Co-Chairman, Kansas Geological Survey
Mack C. Colt, Co-Chairman, Mack C. Colt, Inc.
E. E. Funk, Cities Service Oil Co.
Carl L. Pate, Oilfield Research Lab
Carrol F. Mahoney, Core Laboratories, Inc.
John Roberts, Oil and Gas Consv. Div., Kansas Corp. Commission
V. W. McKnab
Gene Rowe, Vance Rowe, Inc.
Lester Wilkonson
R. F. Ramsey, Barbara Oil Company
C. R. Wallen, Continental Oil Company
Robert L. Dilts, Kansas Geological Survey
Tom L. Schwinn, Kansas Independent Oil and Gas Association
J. M. Penrod, James A. Lewis Engineering, Inc.

In recent years, secondary recovery projects in Kansas have contributed an increasingly larger proportion of the total crude oil produced in Kansas. This trend has been observed also in other oil-producing states. Because of the increasing importance of oil production from secondary recovery projects in each state's oil economy and in the interest of conservation, the Interstate Oil Compact Commission, through its Secondary Recovery and Pressure Maintenance Committee, has encouraged the collection and distribution of information pertaining thereto. The amount of oil attributable to secondary recovery or pressure maintenance methods can be determined only by the judgment of the individual operator. For this reason, it was necessary to survey all active projects and all operators holding secondary recovery permits in Kansas.

The committee wishes to thank the operators for the good response to the survey which is probably the most complete secondary recovery survey ever made for Kansas. Nevertheless, it is hoped that the response to questionnaires for 1963 will be even better, as the value of the survey to the petroleum industry improves with the completeness of the data available.

The organizational meeting of the Kansas Secondary Recovery Committee was held on May 28, 1963, at the Kansas Corporation Commission's Conservation Division offices in Wichita, Kansas. At that time Mack C. Colt and E. D. Goebel were elected Co-Chairmen. The questionnaire on secondary recovery operations in Kansas was prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Kansas Corporation Commission by a pilot committee consisting of John Roberts, Lester Wilkonson, and E. D. Goebel, with help from a representative of the Interstate Oil Compact Commission, and was submitted to the committee for approval. The committee recommended that the data collected by way of the questionnaires from the operators should be placed on key-punch cards so that manipulation by modern computer methods could be possible. The Kansas Geological Survey acted for the committee as the agency for assembling the data into publication form after the questionnaires were completed by the individual operators and returned to the Kansas Corporation Commission's Conservation Division. In this way only one agency requested information from the petroleum industry on secondary recovery statistics in Kansas during 1962.

The data was key-punched onto cards and a program was written under the direction of Dr. Floyd Preston to be processed on an IBM 1620 Computer at The University of Kansas. Assisting the committee in gathering data, tabulation, key-punching, programming, and manuscript preparation were: Douglas Beene, S. S. Greider, Dean Lebetsky, and Robert L. Walters.

Secondary Recovery

In Kansas, many oil reservoirs are inefficiently produced by the primary sources of energy inherent to the reservoir, usually gas expansion, and a secondary means of furnishing energy to move the oil to the wellbore must be provided. In most oil reservoirs it is possible, when the natural energy for production has declined, to bring about increased oil production by injection of either gas or water into the reservoir. If such injection takes place while the reservoir pressure is high and the producing wells are in the flowing stage, the operation is classified as pressure maintenance. If it is started after the pressure has been substantially depleted and the field is in the pumping stage, it is classified as secondary recovery, repressuring, or water-flooding. Only the operators of an oil field can make the judgment as to when a field is in the secondary recovery stage.

The general rules and regulations for the conservation of crude oil and natural gas in Kansas issued by the State Corporation Commission have specific sections dealing with the application, approval, operation, and discontinuance of fluid repressuring and water-flooding of oil and gas properties in Kansas. Applications for permanent disposal of brines produced from Kansas oil and gas fields also comes under the jurisdiction of the Conservation Division. The permanent disposal of brines differs from water-flooding or secondary recovery operations in that disposal is in other than the producing zones (oil and gas reservoirs).

The 1962 Secondary Recovery Survey

The data resulting from the 1962 survey of secondary recovery projects in Kansas are presented in Table 1 (in pocket). This is a direct "print-out" of information on the punch cards. A key to the various abbreviations and coding which appear in Table 1 is footnoted.

An index map showing the general location and extent of the Kansas oil and gas fields is presented as Figure 1. Detailed total production statistics for all Kansas oil and gas fields are given in Oil and Gas Developments in Kansas During 1962 (Bulletin 166, Kansas Geological Survey), as well as a map of Kansas (1"=500,000') on which the oil and gas fields are named and located. The locations of pipelines and allied petroleum industries in Kansas also are available in map form at the same scale (M-2, Kansas Geological Survey).

Figure 1--Index map of Kansas oil and gas fields.

Index map of Kansas oil and gas fields.

Of the 940 projects listed in Table 1, 146 reported no production attributable to secondary recovery during 1962 and no entry was made in that space of the questionnaire in 143 projects. Therefore, a total of 289 projects reported no oil production attributable to secondary production during 1962. It should, however, not be interpreted that all of these had no secondary recovery. In addition, 130 of the 940 entries represented Multiple Order Numbers (Conservation Division permits for project extensions). Therefore, from a total of 940 entries in Table 1, 521 projects had secondary recovery production specifically reported during the year. A total of 15,891,000 barrels of oil from 10,297 producing wells was reported from these 521 projects.

During 1962, the Conservation Division of the State Corporation Commission issued 144 permits for secondary recovery operations, two less than in 1961. Of these 144 permits issued, some were to new projects but some were to extension of former projects, and represent a portion of 146 projects for which no information on secondary recovery production was attributable during the year. The approximately 15.9 million barrels of oil reported as secondary recovery production for the year 1962 in Kansas represents only that which was reported on the questionnaires and is not necessarily an accurate figure. Assuming that 90 percent of the secondary recovery project operators in Kansas returned questionnaires, and also assuming that the 10 percent that did not return questionnaires actually produced oil that should have been added to the total of secondary recovery during 1962, and taking into consideration the factors discussed above, it is reasonable to assume that about 3 million more barrels of oil could be designated as secondary recovery oil.

As an example of the incompleteness of the survey, about 511,000 barrels of oil is reported as attributable to secondary recovery projects from Allen County in 1962, yet the total amount of oil produced in the county during the year was approximately 900,000 barrels. A review of all operations in the county during 1962 would indicate that actually 85-90 percent of the county is under secondary recovery operations.

These factors should not negate the results from the survey but the results should be examined carefully and interpretations made with caution. The data presented on an individual project basis in Table 1 could be evaluated on a project basis as valid but a total of all projects would not represent the total secondary recovery oil in the state. It is anticipated that surveys similar to the one made in 1962 will be conducted annually by the Kansas Secondary Recovery Committee, aided by the Kansas Corporation Commission's Conservation Division and the Kansas Geological Survey. Attempts will be made to fill in those voids in information to the extent that future surveys will be more and more complete.

Table 2 presents a county summary of secondary recovery projects in Kansas during 1962. Included are county totals of secondary oil produced, number of producing wells, and number of acres. Data on the amount of water injected, number of injection wells and the oil production to water injection ratio are presented. Water production and oil per acre are also listed. The oil production to water injection ratios are calculated on a project weighted basis.

Example:

Crawford County
M Bbls. Water Injected M Bbls. Oil Produced Calculations
2 ** (<500 bbl; >1 bbl) ** ÷ 2 = .000
206 13 13 ÷ 206 = .063
-1 -1 (no data) none
-1 -1 (no data) none
6 2 2 ÷ 6 = .333
.000 + .063 + .333 = .396 ÷ 3 (projects) = .132 oil produced/water injected ratio

The oil per acre figures are simple divisions of the two factors involved. Caution should be used here also to evaluate the completeness of the basic project data presented in Table 1.

Butler County had the most oil attributed to secondary recovery projects in 1962 with approximately 3,408,000 barrels from 1,198 wells. Greenwood County was second and Cowley and Russell were third and fourth. The total oil production reported in the survey amounted to 15,891,000 barrels from 10,297 wells. There were 6,428 active injection wells which accounted for 250,022,000 barrels of water. This represents approximately twice the volume of oil produced by all methods in Kansas during 1963, or about two barrels of water (mostly brine) for each barrel of oil produced by all methods in Kansas in 1962.

Table 3 presents information on a formation or "pay zone" basis. The "Bartlesville sand" yielded the most oil by secondary recovery methods, 5,058,000 barrels. The second most important zone was the Lansing with 2,531,000 barrels of oil. Of the pay zones accredited with more than 100,000 barrels of secondary recovery oil during 1962, the "Squirrel" had the highest ratio (.677) of average injection pressure (in p.s.i.) to average depth to top of pay zone.

Table 2--Summary of 1962 Secondary Recovery Projects in Kansas, by County.

Counties Oil
Production,
(Mbbl)
No. Producing
Wells
Acreage Water
Inject.,
(Mbbl)
No.
Injection
Wells
Oil-Water
Ratio*
Water
Production,
(Mbbl)
Oil Per
Acre,
(Bbls)
Active Inact. Current Add. Active Inact.
Allen 511 1,085 141 4,971 1,156 8,931 732 159 .142 2,281 102
Anderson 350 1,062 38 3,203 518 5,656 830 39 .088 3,277 109
Barber 57 61 14 2,620 480 3,522 12 1 .126 45 21
Barton 143 169 26 4,819 770 4,435 70 13 .044 10,351 29
Bourbon 84 65 1 700 480 292 65 0 .309 119 120
Butler 3,408 1,198 108 18,804 2,489 59,521 930 36 .078 41,729 181
Chase 0 7 1 240 0 127 1 1 -- 99 --
Chautauqua 24 176 19 1,801 350 633 103 10 .196 117 13
Clark 57 21 1 2,960 0 657 7 0 .105 20 19
Cowley 1,766 425 84 13,357 1,210 22,536 286 46 .103 11,725 132
Crawford 15 70 0 368 100 214 72 0 .132 69 40
Decatur 78 40 0 1,294 560 835 11 0 .138 593 60
Dickinson 0 3 1 160 160 0 3 1 -- 0 0
Douglas 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0
Edwards 11 5 0 140 0 191 2 0 .059 191 78
Elk 21 47 18 240 180 522 21 4 .117 390 87
Ellis 60 60 2 2,150 30 1,030 23 0 .081 813 27
Ellsworth 30 14 0 640 120 212 6 0 .066 25 46
Finney 0 5 0 240 480 144 2 1 .000 144 --
Franklin 214 355 27 1,575 590 3,976 389 37 .092 3,146 135
Graham 138 234 13 9,121 660 3,236 67 3 .278 1,288 15
Greenwood 2,057 1,003 221 17,755 1,745 42,222 654 203 .078 31,744 115
Harper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 --
Harvey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 --
Hodgeman 95 15 0 960 0 364 4 0 .260 107 98
Kingman 41 18 1 775 80 716 10 2 .032 432 52
Labette 49 109 66 755 570 512 47 20 .245 153 64
Linn 20 116 0 260 50 613 103 9 .038 422 76
Lyon 11 19 2 714 160 216 11 2 .087 63 15
Marion 35 43 1 1,460 400 975 19 0 .022 903 23
McPherson 412 193 82 5,910 420 13,347 79 21 .089 13,524 69
Meade 341 21 4 1,839 0 1,233 10 0 .276 271 185
Miami 254 495 21 1,486 810 3,438 472 52 .107 1,607 170
Montgomery 22 176 27 610 910 437 35 53 .052 50 36
Neosho 189 452 33 2,798 1,996 2,110 290 43 .216 148 67
Ness 34 17 0 500 80 387 5 0 .087 387 68
Pawnee 54 28 3 859 640 788 21 1 .024 371 62
Phillips 353 125 2 7,765 580 2,473 47 0 .127 942 45
Pratt 390 126 23 3,600 1,250 4,006 33 6 .121 1,908 108
Reno 127 37 11 2,630 320 3,976 14 1 .034 1,576 48
Rice 366 185 4 5,506 250 3,909 48 2 .068 1,939 66
Rooks 120 89 5 3,210 1,040 1,645 29 1 .312 1,327 37
Rush 33 29 1 550 80 1,526 8 3 .008 307 60
Russell 1,297 519 25 17,520 1,900 15,990 269 3 .091 8,667 74
Saline 66 54 5 2,294 0 650 18 3 .140 638 28
Sedgwick 595 181 4 2,391 0 9,059 56 0 .076 2,628 248
Sheridan 57 51 2 1,466 0 1,271 12 3 .087 396 38
Stafford 269 98 18 4,178 13 1,782 42 6 .194 690 64
Sumner 741 149 27 4,413 0 8,123 78 10 .075 3,014. 167
Trego 49 21 3 1,060 0 772 8 0 .145 148 46
Wilson 217 256 97 1,219 2,560 1,716 134 47 .124 174 178
Woodson 258 356 91 4,438 592 2,979 153 28 .094 1,090 58
Allen & Neosho 70 39 2 175 80 180 18 1 .388 100 400
Barton & Rice 10 18 0 370 0 195 7 0 .051 147 27
Ellis & Rooks 55 31 2 337 327 800 10 2 .067 487 163
Ellis & Russell 56 14 0 450 0 347 3 1 .161 291 124
Kingman & Pratt 56 29 8 1,100 0 1,613 22 2 .034 501 50
Kingman & Sedgwick 72 34 11 445 530 1,738 19 0 .041 827 161
McPherson & Harvey 46 11 3 350 0 522 2 1 .088 522 131
Rice & McPherson 0 9 0 100 0 49 1 1 -- 43 --
Trego & Graham 7 13 1 320 340 483 2 0 .014 0 21
Woodson & Coffey 0 11 0 140 180 190 3 0 -- 156 --
*Oil-water injected ratio calculated on project weighted averages.

Table 3--Secondary Recovery Oil Production and Ratios of Injection Pressures to Depths of the Producing Zones During 1962 in Kansas

Producing
Zone
Oil
Production
(Mbbl)
Average Injection
Pressure (p.s.i.)/
Average Depth
"Bartlesville" 5,058 .274
Lansing 2,531 .063
Mississippian 1,666 .047
Simpson 1,327 .034
"Shallow El Dorado" 1,307 .208
"Squirrel" 865 .677
Kansas City 635 .084
Marmaton 466 .061
"Hunton" 392 .040
Tarkio 293 .166
Viola 211 .013
"Cattleman" 156 .101
"Peru" 142 .446
Douglas 108 .132
"Tucker" 82 ----
"Layton" 67 .086
Morrowan 57 .179
Maquoketa 56 .002
Reagan 40 .007
"Redd" 23 .343
"Wayside" 20 .833
Admire 20 .941
Pennsylvanian 19 .030
Kinderhookian 17 .305
Topeka 16 .035
Hoover 14 .144
Indian Cave 14 .742
"Gorham" 13 .042
Arbuckle 12 .013
"Dodge" 10 .102
Toronto 10 ----
"Conglomerate" 10 .108

Table 1--Data on Secondary Recovery Projects in Kansas, 1962

Sheet 1--Allen to Cowley counties
available as an Acrobat PDF file, 20 MB
Sheet 2--Cowley to Kingman counties
available as an Acrobat PDF file, 17 MB
Sheet 3--Lyon to Russell counties
available as an Acrobat PDF file, 19 MB
Sheet 4--Russell to Woodson counties
available as an Acrobat PDF file, 17 MB

Kansas Geological Survey
Placed on web March 10, 2017; originally published 1964.
Comments to webadmin@kgs.ku.edu
The URL for this page is http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/SDP6/index.html