Enhanced Oil Recovery : Technology for the improvement of residual oil recovery

Oil & Gas [CET400C]

Ian Fraser - 209247967 BTECH: CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

5/25/2012

Lecturer: Mr. A. Rabiu

Declaration
I, Ian Fraser, hereby declare that this report has been my own unaided work. I understand both the definition of- and penalty for plagiarism and as such I have included references where necessary. It is also my undertaking not to pass this report on to any other student

for any reason whatsoever as this, too, constitutes plagiarism.

........................................................ Name In Print

........................................................ Student Number

........................................................ Signature

ii

Abstract
With energy being one of the most urgent concerns in the world and the world's reliance on fossil fuels, EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery) is crucial to more efficient extraction of petroleum. As petroleum is a limited resource the more effective exploitation of reservoirs in the world today and in future is paramount. This report serves as an informative overview of the different EOR techniques available today with regard to the mechanisms and current status. The methods investigated were thermal (which includes Steam flooding, hot water flooding, in situ combustion and cyclic steam stimulation), chemical (under which surfactant- and polymer flooding), miscible gas flooding, wettability alteration and MEOR (Microbial EOR). It was concluded that the best understood methods are thermal and chemical, and that no one method on its own is likely to fulfil the EOR target set by the world and would therefore have to be coupled with other EOR methods to achieve efficient and economical processes. MEOR is found to be unaccepted by the industry thus far but is believed to be possibly the most promising of the techniques available and is more than likely the EOR technique of the future with its main advantage being the marginal effect on the environment.

iii

Table of Contents
1. 2. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 Recovery of Residual Oil (EOR Techniques) ................................................................. 3 2.1 Thermal methods .................................................................................................... 3 CSS (Cyclic Steam Stimulation) ....................................................................... 3 Steam flooding / SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage)............................. 4 In Situ Combustion.......................................................................................... 5 Hot water flooding ............................................................................................ 5

2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.2

Miscible Gas Flooding ............................................................................................. 7 Miscible slug process ....................................................................................... 7 Enriched Gas drive .......................................................................................... 7 Vaporising gas drive ........................................................................................ 7 CO2 Miscible ................................................................................................... 8 N2 Miscible ...................................................................................................... 8

2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.3

Chemical flooding ................................................................................................... 9 Polymer flooding .............................................................................................. 9 Surfactant flooding ........................................................................................... 9 Alkaline flooding............................................................................................. 10 Micellar flooding ............................................................................................. 11 ASP Flooding ................................................................................................. 11

2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.4 2.5 3. 4.

Wettability alteration.............................................................................................. 12 MEOR (Microbial EOR) ........................................................................................ 13

Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 16 References .................................................................................................................. 18

1.

Introduction

As is fairly well known, petroleum reservoirs are found mainly in sedimentary basins. This is because the accumulation of crude oil requires not only porous, but permeable sedimentary rock. To avoid crude oil from further migrating and escaping from the reservoir rock a cap rock is necessary. This setup is referred to as an oil trap. Recovery of the crude from the reservoir depends not only on the physical characteristics of the trap, but also the characteristics of the crude. The deeper a trap is the higher the temperature and pressure in the reservoir and thus primary recovery will be fairly easy as long as the crude is sufficiently light. If the pressure is sufficiently high that the crude will flow on its own due to the difference in pressure, the well is said to be eruptive. This is common for a combination of light or medium crudes and high temperature and pressure in the reservoir. If a crude is heavy it is uncommon for the well to be eruptive and artificial lift needs to done. For this there are three options: pumping, gas-lift and water-lift. Pumping has two variants: Surface and down-hole. Surface pumps are preferred above down-hole pumps because they are easier to maintain. Down-hole pumps, on the other hand, have the advantage of not requiring excessively large NPSH (Net Positive Suction Head). Gas-lift as artificial lift mechanisms utilises the production well. The well is pressurised using natural gas and once the desired pressure is achieved production is resumed. Water-lift is similar to gas-lift but differs in the fluid used to pressurise the well. Both of these processes are thus batch processes that involve shut down of production to re-pressurise the well. The oil recovered is during production by means of the well's natural eruption or artificial lift, as described in the preceding paragraphs, is referred to as primary (1) recovery. This stage of production usually amounts to between 5% and 10% of the OIIP (Oil Initially In Place). From here production moves on to secondary (2) recovery. This involves an injection well where reservoir fluids are injected into the oil reservoir to maintain the reservoir pressure and migrate the oil from the reservoir rock to the well and then to the surface. These

reservoir fluids are either natural gas, aquifer water, produced water or a combination of the aforementioned. In the case of using natural gas, the process of injection is referred to as gas reinjection and depending on the nature of the crude will have different effects. If the crude is saturated (natural gas is dissolved in the crude up to the point of maximum solubility) a gas cap will be 1

present in the reservoir. Gas re-injection will therefore occur in the gas cap which will increase reservoir pressure to force the crude to the well. When the crude is unsaturated (only crude oil is present in the reservoir) gas that is injected into the reservoir will dissolve in the crude increasing its mobility by "producing a lighter crude" and also increases reservoir pressure forcing crude to the production well. Here, in the case of gas re-injection) the GOR (gas-oil-ratio) is monitored to ensure production via this method is still economically feasible. When using aquifer water or produced water as injection fluid, the process is referred to as water flooding. Water is injected into the reservoir and in addition to increasing reservoir pressure to force crude into the production well a large proportion of oil is swept with the water to the production well. The WOR (water-oil-ratio) is monitored. Once this is too high to make extraction via these methods economically feasible water flooding is no longer a viable extraction method. When water flooding and gas re-injection is no longer effective, this marks the end of 2 recovery and at this point normally up to 40% of the OIIP is recovered. Tertiary (3) recovery, also sometimes referred to as EOR (Enhanced Oil recovery), is a set of oil recovery methods that maximise the production from oil fields once 2 recovery techniques are no longer effective. In some cases a distinction is made between 3

recovery, Traditional Enhanced Oil Recovery and EOR, and in some cases EOR is simply referred to as recovery methods that can enhance production during 1-, 2- and 3 recovery. Although, for the purposes of this investigative report the 3 recovery and EOR will be used as synonyms. Thomas (2008) makes a clear distinction between IOR and EOR, which in many cases are used as synonymous terms. IOR (Improved Oil Recovery) is umbrella term implying

increasing oil recovery by any means e.g. operational strategies, infill drilling or horizontal wells. IOR can thus take place at any stage of production. EOR is a subset of IOR which implies the reduction in oil saturation below the residual oil saturation. Thus EOR is

necessary for the recovery of residual oil (light oil) in capillaries after water flooding or heavy oil (immobile due to viscosity). EOR targets vary from 45% for light crudes to 90% for heavy crudes and 100% for tar sands. In this report the different EOR techniques will be discussed and special mention- and investigation made into MEOR (Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery) and the advances made in this field.

2.

Recovery of Residual Oil (EOR Techniques)

Mobilisation of residual oil is influenced by the capillary number (ratio of Darcy velocity times displacing fluid viscosity and IFT) [IFT = Interfacial Tension] and mobility ratio (ratio of mobility of displacing fluid divided by mobility of displaced fluid). Increasing capillary number and reducing mobility ratio (mobility ratio increases as effective permeability increases and viscosity decreases) yields greater recovery of residual oil (Thomas, 2008). Increase in the capillary number is easily obtained by reducing the IFT (thermal methods or use surfactants) or using a displacing fluid with greater viscosity. Preferably a mobility ratio of less than unity is wanted for good performance. A mobility ratio > 1 is unfavourable as the displaced fluid is less mobile than displacing fluid. In such cases this can cause channelling and bypass some of the residual oil (Thomas, 2008). Largely EOR techniques can be broken up into two main groups: Thermal and Non-thermal. Non-thermal techniques are further split into Miscible gas flooding, Chemical Flooding and MEOR (Microbial EOR). Thermal methods are largely applicable to heavy crudes and tar sands, whereas the non-thermal methods are more applicable to light and medium crudes and focus on reducing IFT and mobility ratio (Thomas, 2008).

2.1

Thermal methods

According to Thomas (2008) this is the most advanced among EOR methods with regard to field experience and technology. The thermal method is best applied to heavy oils (API 10 20) and tar sands (API < 10). Major mechanisms of this method is a large reduction in viscosity (and mobility ratio), rock and fluid expansion, compaction, steam distillation and minor visbreaking. At relatively high temperatures (200C) most heavy oil viscosities reduce to around 1cP and that of bitumen reduces to around 10cP (Nabipour et al., 2007). 2.1.1 CSS (Cyclic Steam Stimulation)

Single well process consisting of three stages. Initial stage steam injection for 1 month, well shut for a few days for heat distribution (soak). Followed by production rapid production rate for a short while at max declining over several months. Initial SOR (Steam-oil-ratio) initially 1-2, increasing as number of cycles increase. Reservoir geology important for heat distribution. CSS has

quick payout attractive choice. Recovery factors low: 10 40% (Thomas, 2008).

2.1.2

Steam flooding / SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage) Performance depends highly on pattern size and

Similar to water flooding.

geology. Continuous injection of stem forms slowly advancing steam zone oil mobilised due to thermal viscosity reduction. Typical recovery factors are 50 60% OIIP (Thomas, 2008).

The method was initially developed for in situ recovery of Alberta Bitumen. It relies on gravity segregation of steam and utilises horizontal wells (5m apart for tar sand). The top well is the steam injector and the bottom is the production well. Steam rises and forms a steam chamber and a high degree of viscosity reduction mobilises the bitumen and drains down to the producer well. Continuous injection of steam causes a lateral expansion of the steam chamber in the reservoir.

In some cases steam flooding is also referred to as TA-GOGD (Thermally Assisted Gas Oil Gravity Drainage) and has been found very effective for heavy oil recovery in both water- and oil wet rock at secondary and tertiary stages (Nabipour et al., 2007).

From experiments by Nabipour et al. (2007), tertiary recovery results showed that water flooding followed by thermal stimulation is more effective than using thermal recovery during second stage. Increasing the gas injection pressure in the oil wet formation increases recovery efficiency and the main driving force behind this thermal recovery technique is the reduction in viscosity.

For successful SAGD high vertical permeability is crucial and is essential for steam chamber formation (and not steam channels). The process is very

effective for low mobility oils and bitumen. It is, however, highly energy intensive, requiring large volumes of water. Three variations of steam flooding are VAPEX, ES-SAGD and SAGP (Thomas, 2008). VAPEX Works on the same principle as SAGD but using solvent gas with carrier gas (e.g. CO2 or N2). It is low energy as solvent is at its dew point

temperature. The carrier gas raises the dew point and the solvent remains vapour. A vapour chamber is formed and propagates laterally. Viscosity reduction is achieved through dissolution of the solvent gas in heavy crude/bitumen via molecular diffusion. The process is fairly slow and less efficient than SAGD. ES-SAGD (Expanding Solvent SAGD) An addition of 10% steam to the solvent gas mixture is made for a 25% efficiency gain of VAPEX. SAGP (Steam and Gas Push) A non-condensable gas (such as natural gas/N2) is injected with steam to reduce the steam demand. The process is still in early development stages and not yet commercially proven.

2.1.3

In Situ Combustion

Also known as fire flooding. Air is injected to burn 10% of the OIIP for heat generation (450-600C). High reduction in oil viscosity is achieved near the

combustion zone and the process has a high degree of thermal efficiency. However, severe corrosion, toxic gas and gravity override are common problems encountered. Has been extensively tested but no projects have been found to be economically viable or advanced to commercial scale (Thomas, 2008).

2.1.4

Hot water flooding

This is more complex than normal non-thermal flooding methods. Recovery is assumed to be due to several mechanisms with the contribution of each to the total recovery influenced by rock type, temperature and changing conditions in the reservoir under heating. Major mechanisms are capillary imbibition, thermal expansion, gas generation, in situ steam generation, distillation, solution gas drive and pressure depletion (Babadagli, 2003).

Capillary imbibition is enhanced by a decrease in oil viscosity, reduced IFT and wettability alteration. Alteration of wettability is important for carbonate rocks where a transition from oil- to water wet occurs with increase in temperature (AlHadhrami and Blunt, 2000).

Babadagli (2003) experiments with hot water oil recovery for heavy oil in a water wet matrix. The ultimate recovery and recovery rate significantly increased. 5

Ultimate recovery increased by 30% and is believed to be due to improved capillary imbibition because of lowering in oil viscosity and IFT. This is more than the contribution of thermal expansion which is estimated at 8% to 10%. Compared to surfactant flooding, hot water flooding yielded better results for water wet matrix.

For heavy oil in an oil wet matrix Babadagli (2003) witnessed an accelerated recovery rate but no real difference in ultimate recovery. The ultimate recovery increased by 7% and this is believed to be due to thermal expansion.

The recommendation was thus for water wet rocks to use water flooding and follow up with steam injection after matrix is depleted. Experiments were done by Babadagli (1996) using Berea sandstone (water wet rock). An investigation on crude oil showed a marked decrease in viscosity with rise in temperature (as expected) and IFT dropping to two thirds of its initial value when the temperature increased from 25C to 80C. This improves imbibition by reducing the mobility ratio and increasing the capillary number. expansion for the temperature increase was measured as 5%. Experiment showed recovery of almost 60% OIIP at 50C vs 35% AT 25C which proves imbibition recovery is greatly improved by increased temperature. Mineral oils similar to light crudes were also tested and recoveries of 45% and 70% OIIP obtained at 25C and 75C respectively. It was found that thermal expansion had a minimal role in ultimate recovery. The main mechanism is reduction in viscosity. which increases the capillary number, improves the mobility and aids imbibition from matrix (Babadagli, 1996). From the Thermal

experiments it was also found that with temperature increase the residual oil saturation decreases.

2.2

Miscible Gas Flooding

The displacing fluid is miscible with reservoir oil either in the case of first contact (SCM) or multiple contacts (MCM). A transition zone develops between the

displacing fluid and oil and this induces a piston-like displacement. IFT reduces to zero in miscible flooding and yields an infinite capillary number. approaches 1 when the mobility ratio is less than 1 (Thomas, 2008). The efficiency

2.2.1

Miscible slug process

This is a SCM process where solvent is injected in slug form (pentane/propane @ 4-5% HCPV) using a driving gas such as methane/nitrogen. The method is applicable to sandstone (water wet), carbonates (oil wet) or reef type reservoirs. Gravity segregation is the main problem associated with the method. Viscous instabilities can cause poor efficiency. Reef-type reservoirs can afford vertical gravity stabilised floods and recoveries up to 90% OIIP can be achieved. Reservoir geology and solvent availability decide feasibility (Thomas, 2008). 2.2.2 Enriched Gas drive

MCM process built around the continuous injection of natural gas/flue gas /nitrogen enriched with C2-C4 fractions at high pressure (8-12MPa). limited to deep reservoirs (>6000ft) due to the pressure requirement. The

fractions condense into reservoir oil and form a transition zone. this process is An

increase in the oil phase volume and reduction in viscosity are the main mechanisms (Thomas, 2008). 2.2.3 Vaporising gas drive

This process is also MCM. Continuous injection of natural gas/flue gas/ nitrogen under high pressure (10-15MPa) is done. The C2-C6 fractions in the oil is

vaporised from oil to gas under these conditions and develops a transition zone where miscibility is achieved after multiple contacts. Limiting conditions are that the reservoir must have sufficient C2-C6 fractions and the injection pressure must be lower than the reservoir saturation pressure (Thomas, 2008).

2.2.4

CO2 Miscible

CO2 has relatively low minimum miscibility pressures with a wide range of crudes. The MCM process is able to extract heavier fractions (C5-C30) from tye crude. Its main applicability is to medium and light oils (>30 API) in shallow reservoirs at low temperatures. The CO2 requirement ranges from 500-1500 sm3/sm3 oil depending on the oil and reservoir characteristics (Thomas, 2008).

Under recovery with CO2, CO2 capture and storage (CCS) has been investigated as a possible way of reducing CO2 emissions and aiding in EOR simultaneously. The idea is to capture and store CO2 emissions from power generation operations, transport to- and inject into crude reservoirs to improve oil recovery during EOR operations with the empty reservoir being used for CO2 storage once the majority of the OIIP has been extracted (Godec et al., 2011). 2.2.5 N2 Miscible

Overall this is the same as the CO2 process. The method is also applicable to light and medium crude. Due to high minimum miscibility pressures it is used in deep reservoirs at moderate temperatures (Thomas, 2008).

2.3

Chemical flooding

Here a chemical formulation is utilised as displacing fluid. The area of focus is increasing the capillary number and/or decreasing the mobility ratio (Thomas, 2008).

2.3.1

Polymer flooding

Using water soluble polymers such as polyacrylamides and polysaccharides can be effective in improving the mobility ratio and permeability contrast. It is usually applied as a slug process (20-40% PPV) driven using dilute brine. Problems with this method include loss of polymer to porous media and polymer degradation. It is most effective when oil saturation is above the residual oil saturation (Thomas, 2008).

For heavy crude tested in a water wet matrix Babadagli (2003) found a significant increase in the recovery rate with the ultimate recovery remaining fairly constant. The increased rate is believed to be due to stronger capillary imbibition drive due to an increase in aqueous phase viscosity as well as, to a lesser degree, lowering in the IFT. Light crude in an oil wet matrix was found to perform worse with polymer- than water flooding alone with regard to ultimate recovery and recovery rate, whereas heavy crude in the same matrix shows no difference (Babadagli, 2003). Therefore polymer flooding is most viable for heavy crude in water wet matrices.

2.3.2

Surfactant flooding

Surfactant flooding finds its efficiency in lowering IFT between oil and water. The main issue with this method is loss of surfactant to porous media (Thomas, 2008). The main aim of this method is to increase production and effectiveness of imbibition recovery. Studies have shown imbibition recovery to be improved by lowering of the IFT (Babadagli, 2003).

A surfactant flooding study on oil & water wet samples with heavy and light crude was done by Babadagli (2003) and found: 1. Light crude in a water wet matrix achieves similar results to water flooding with regard to ultimate recovery. Recovery rate seems to be negatively

influenced by lowering the IFT. For light crude the injection of surfactant is not advised as production rates are slow for a small increase in overall production. Chemical injection is thus unfavourable. 2. Heavy crude in a water wet matrix showed an increase in ultimate recovery compared to water flooding. Lowering of the IFT improved performance. The recovery rate was much faster than water flooding alone. 3. Oil wet matrix saturated with light crude shows a notable increase in ultimate recovery and recovery rate with low IFT compared to water flooding. It is most likely that the surfactant alters wettability of the source rock thus improving the recovery. 4. A dramatic response was seen for heavy crude in the oil wet matrix. With surfactant addition yields slight increase in recovery rate and ultimate recovery. Recovery with water flood alone was 2% and with surfactant flood was 7%. Economically this is undesirable as the increase observed is not sufficient to account for cost. Babadagli (2003) recommends the use of surfactant flooding for light crude in an oil wet matrix if recovery rates support this. Heavy crude in a water wet matrix supports the use of surfactant flooding.

2.3.3

Alkaline flooding

An aqueous solution of an alkaline chemical (hydroxide, orthosilicate of sodium or carbonate) is used and injected in slug form. The alkaline chemical reacts with acid components in the crude for in situ surfactant production. So far the method is not promising with recovery factors ranging from 0-3% OIIP (Thomas, 2008).

10

2.3.4

Micellar flooding

According to Thomas (2008) this is the most successful of chemical methods in the field thus far. Two slugs (microemulsion and polymer) are driven using brine. The microemulsion can be miscible in oil- and water phases and has a small drop size distribution which is surfactant stabilised. The slugs are designed to promote ultra low IFT (10-2mN/m or lower) and favourable mobility ratio for the most part of the displacement procedure. In tested field applications residual oil has been recovered after water flooding with recovery factors of between 30% and 50% OIIP. Chemical cost is high for this process and the method is in many cases economically unattractive due to this.

2.3.5

ASP Flooding

ASP flooding (Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer) utilises three methods. Three slugs injected as either as a sequence or as a single slug. The IFT is reduced and mobility ratio improved. Encouraging field results have been obtained with

recovery of residual oil of 25-30% OIIP. The process is not fully understood with economics, at this point, being marginal. Further work on this process may yield an economically viable and effective solution to residual oil recovery (Thomas, 2008).

11

2.4

Wettability alteration

Steam injection is known to be fairly effective in carbonate rocks where high temperature alters wettabilty from oil- to water wet (Gupta and Mohanty, 2011). It has also been found that oil recovery is possible from chalk cores with cationic surfactants. In this case the recovery mechanism is spontaneous counter-current imbibition due to wettability alteration (Standnes and Austad, 2000a, Standnes and Austad, 2000b, Austad and Milter, 1997). Austad & Milter (1997) hypothesised that cationic surfactants use ion pairing to desorb polar organic components. Divalent ions (such as SO42-, Ca2+ and Mg2+) have been found to alter wettability of oil wet rock (Carbonates) at 100C (and higher) without the need for surfactants (Tweheyo et al., 2006). Recovery up to 60% OIIP is possible from carbonate rocks using dilute anionic and non-ionic surfactants. This process is gravity driven. The surfactant alters the

wettability and IFT. With reduced IFT, capillary pressure is reduced which allows water to invade the capillaries and push oil down (Gupta and Mohanty, 2011). Gupta and Mohanty (2011), through their experiments, found that the surfactant concentration required for wettability alteration depends highly on the salinity of the brine present in the reservoir. They also found that as the salinity increases the amount of surfactant needed for wettability alteration decreases. However, the

degree of wettability alteration decreases as well. Optimal values for IFT were found to occur at the salinity where the surfactant has equal affinity for both oil and the aqueous phase. With an increase in surfactant concentration the IFT reduces and this increases the amount of mid phase formed. Therefore if the right conditions exist such that wettability can be altered to promote imbibition recovery and be economically favourable, up to 90% of OIIP in a reservoir can be exploited. This would make profitable exploitation of not only stagnant fields a reality, but what was considered marginal fields as well.

12

2.5

MEOR (Microbial EOR)

This has been researched since the 1960s. Microbes react with a carbon source such as oil to produce surfactants, slimes, biomass, gasses (CH4, CO2, N2, H2), solvents and organic acids. Recovery methods are majorly the same as in classical CEOR (Chemical EOR). The main aims are lowering IFT, improving the mobility ratio, viscosity reduction, selective plugging, increasing reservoir pressure and oil swelling. Acids formed can increase permeability. Microbial growth can be

stimulated by supplying molasses or ammonium nitrate to the reservoir (Thomas, 2008). Injection of the microbes into the reservoir will only penetrate a short distance from the well unless there are cracks in the formation. MEOR should be used to treat multiple wells otherwise only a fraction is available for recovery (Brown, 2010). In many cases where MEOR has been field tested it was with the intention of repairing wellbore or formation damage. Where MEOR was field tested with the express purpose of recovery of oil a smaller percentage were deemed effective compared to water flooding tests. According to Brown (2010) in most cases authors point out that few of the tests explain the mechanics of MEOR and feel that this may be one of the reasons for the industrys reluctance to accept MEOR as a legitimate strategy. Also in many cases field tests were based on laboratory data which turned out to be unreliable. It is believed that the differences between conditions in the laboratory and the field are too great to accurately predict MEOR outcomes in the field. In most cases fields trials are not run long enough for the long term impact to be evaluated. A field trial funded by DOE in the North Blowhorn Creek in Alabama had 26 injector wells and 32 producer wells. The effect of the MEOR process was that in 2001 DOE estimated added reserves of 400,000-600,000 billion barrels as well as reporting a reduced decline rate (from 18.9%p.a. to 7-12%p.a.) which extended the economic life of the field by 5-11 years. Even with the cessation of nutrient injection in January 2002 the field was still producing in 2009 after it was initially scheduled for abandonment in 1998 (Brown, 2010). One of the more researched aspects of MEOR is bio-surfactants. In general there are 3 main strategies for use of bio-surfactants. First is the injection of micro-

organisms to produce and propagate bio-surfactants in situ through the reservoir rock. Second is injection of nutrients into the reservoir to stimulate the indigenous 13

micro-organisms to produce bio-surfactants. Third is the production of biosurfactant ex situ in bioreactors and subsequent injection of bio-surfactants into the reservoir (Banat, 1995). Much attention has been directed toward bio-surfactant production in recent years. Advantages include lower toxicity, higher biodegradability, better environmental capability, high selectivity and ability to be synthesised from renewable resources. Disadvantages are that only a small volume is produced on industrial level and many are quite expensive (Torres et al., 2011). Production can be made relatively inexpensive as research continues. New biosurfactants are being discovered, new fermentation and recovery processes developed and the use of cheap raw materials (agro-industry wastes can be use as carbon source). Through this more inexpensive bio-surfactants can be made

available for use in EOR (Torres et al., 2011). From experiments done by Torres et al. (2011) it was found: 1. Bio-surfactants truly have potential for EOR when injected for oil recovery with two main mechanisms: Lowering surface tension values and altering rock wettability. 2. In many cases the bio-surfactants performed as good or exceed the performance of conventional surfactants with regard to surface tension, foaming capability, behaviour at high salinity and resistance to high temperature (70C). 3. Specifically, rhamnolipid produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa, yielded a high degree of surface tension lowering (<30mN/m) using low concentrations (0.08%) in relatively concentrated brine. In experiments done on naturally fractured porous media in situ MEOR was evaluated using etched glass micromodels with differing fracture orientation. A biosurfactant producing bacteria and biopolymer producing bacteria was used for the series of experiments. Overall it was found that recovery with a bio-surfactant

producing bacteria exceeded that of the biopolymer producing bacteria(Soudmandasli et al., 2007). Other equally important observations by Soudmand-asli et al. (2007) were: 1. Performance of the in situ MEOR process in fractured porous media can be

improved by the proper selection of a bacterium with respect to its byproducts. 2. In situ MEOR in fractured media is mainly influenced by the fracture orientations. 14

3.

Bio-polymer producing bacteria used for MEOR in fractured media cannot

improve oil recovery as much as in non-fractured media because of matrix plugging effects. 4. MEOR efficiency of the bio-surfactant producing bacteria in fractured media was more effective than in non-fractured media. 5. In MEOR with bio-surfactant producing bacteria in fractured media a high oil recovery is mostly due to viscosity and IFT reduction.

15

3.

Conclusion

Thermal oil recovery techniques are at this point in time the most well understood of the EOR techniques available. Even though many require large inputs of energy they are in general field proven and in most cases are required for the recovery of residual heavy oils. The main mechanisms employed in the thermal technique is to lower IFT and reduce viscosity to improve recovery by imbibition. Thermal recovery is also considered one of the best ways to recover heavy oil from carbonate rock formations as high temperatures alter the wettability from oil- to water wet which increases the recovery of oil from the matrix significantly. Miscible gas flooding was also investigated. The technique has, in the majority of cases, been successful in the field when the proper technique is used as per crude and rock type. Mainly the process relies on creating a transition phase and lowering of the IFT to improve the mobility in the matrix as well as inducing piston-like displacement of the crude. Recovery of residual oil via the chemical method has been experimented with extensively. Some have been field tested and achieved encouraging results. As with the thermal

technique the aim is reduction in IFT to improve mobility. In general, however, it is found that employing the chemical technique on its own will not allow extraction of 90-100% OIIP as is the target for oil recovery in general. Also in most cases the chemicals are very expensive and the processes not economically feasible (and in a few cases the economics are marginal at best). Coupling chemical and thermal techniques could potentially improve economics and possible recovery. Wettability alteration is another important technique in EOR. In many cases this is a

byproduct of chemical- and/or thermal recovery techniques. Through experimentation the effects of wettability is fairly well understood and has been found the preferential case is a water wet matrix such that water will displace oil from the capillaries and adsorption of oil to the rock is minimal or nonexistent. However, the alteration of matrix wettability alone cannot recover the EOR target due to limited effects imposed by salinity and other reservoir conditions. MEOR has seen quite a bit of progress since the 1960's. It has, however, not been properly field tested as yet with the exception of the DOE funded field trial in Alabama. One of the main problems is that the application of MEOR in field tests have not been recovery itself and that most test were single well tests as well as test duration being too short to evaluate long term gain. To achieve the full benefit of MEOR the process should be applied to the entire field. However, plugging could be a problem if selecting the wrong microbes. Since 16

much of the process is still not fully understood and predictability of fields operations, at the moment, is unsure the industry still is still fairly weary of diverging from classical techniques. Among many scientists it is accepted that the potential for MEOR to enhance oil recovery is considerable. It will, however, remain an unproven concept rather than proven reality if the problems surrounding its use are not resolved (Brown, 2010).

17

4.

References

AL-HADHRAMI, H. S. & BLUNT, M. J. 2000. Thermally induced wettability alteration to improve oil recovery in fractured reservoirs. SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symp., Tulsa, OK. SPE Paper 59289. AUSTAD, T. & MILTER, J. 1997. Spontaneous imbibition of water into low permeable chalk at different wettabilities using surfactants. SPE 37236 presented at the SPE international symposium on oilfield chemistry. BABADAGLI, T. 1996. Temperature effect on heavy-oil recovery by imbibition in fractured reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 14, 197-208. BABADAGLI, T. 2003. Evaluation of EOR methods for heavy-oil recovery in naturally fractured reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 37, 25-37. BANAT, I. M. 1995. Biosurfactants production and possible uses in microbial enhanced oil recovery and oil pollution remediation: A review. Bioresource Technology, 51, 1-12. BROWN, L. R. 2010. Microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR). Current Opinion in Microbiology, 13, 316-320. GODEC, M., KUUSKRAA, V., VAN LEEUWEN, T., STEPHEN MELZER, L. & WILDGUST, N. 2011. CO2 storage in depleted oil fields: The worldwide potential for carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery. Energy Procedia, 4, 2162-2169. GUPTA, R. & MOHANTY, K. 2011. Wettability Alteration Mechanism for Oil Recovery from Fractured Carbonate Rocks. Transport in Porous Media, 87, 635-652. NABIPOUR, M., ESCROCHI, M., AYATOLLAHI, S., BOUKADI, F., WADHAHI, M., MAAMARI, R. & BEMANI, A. 2007. Laboratory investigation of thermally-assisted gasoil gravity drainage for secondary and tertiary oil recovery in fractured models. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 55, 74-82. SOUDMAND-ASLI, A., AYATOLLAHI, S. S., MOHABATKAR, H., ZAREIE, M. & SHARIATPANAHI, S. F. 2007. The in situ microbial enhanced oil recovery in fractured porous media. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 58, 161-172. STANDNES, D. C. & AUSTAD, T. 2000a. Wettability alteration in chalk: 1. Preparation of core material and oil properties. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 28, 111121.

18

STANDNES, D. C. & AUSTAD, T. 2000b. Wettability alteration in chalk: 2. Mechanism for wettability alteration from oil-wet to water-wet using surfactants. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 28, 123-143. THOMAS, S. 2008. Enhanced Oil Recovery - An Overview. Oil & Gas Science and Technology, 63, 9-19. TORRES, L., MOCTEZUMA, A., AVENDAO, J. R., MUOZ, A. & GRACIDA, J. 2011. Comparison of bio- and synthetic surfactants for EOR. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 76, 6-11. TWEHEYO, M. T., ZHANG, P. & AUSTAD, T. 2006. The effect of temperature and potential determining ions present in seawater on oil recovery from fractured carbonates. SPE 99438 presented at the Symposium on improved oil recovery.

19