ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY

METHODS TO MAXIMIZE RECOVERY FROM MATURE FIELDS

Enhanced Oil Recovery

EOR normally known as tertiary recovery process Applied to mobilize trapped oil in pores held up by viscous and capillary forces Thermal, chemical, solvent/gases are the most common forms of various EOR processes EOR is normally applied after primary and secondary recovery. However these can be applied at any stage of a producing field depending upon the performance history

Recovery Factor
Defined as

Volumetric sweep X Displacement efficiency Areal sweep X Vertical sweep X Displacement efficiency
Areal sweep depends on the fluid mobility ,pattern type, aeal hetegeneity & total volume of fluid injected Vertical sweep is governed by vertical heterogeneity, gravity segregation, fluid mobilities & total fluid injected Displacement efficiency is a function of injection rate, viscosity, density and IFT of displacing fluid

Basic purpose of EOR processes is to improve sweep and displacement efficiency

Role of Mobility ratio and Capillary number on recovery

Mobility ratio

M = w / o = Krw / Kro X o / w e.g. 100 / 0.5 = 200, water is 200 times more mobile compared to oil To control the mobility ratio, increase the viscosity of water or reduce the viscosity of oil This can be achieved by thickening water by polymer or heat application

Capillary number Capillary number = v / = viscosity in cp v = darcy velocity of displacing fluid = IFT interfaced between displaced fluid and brine If can be reduced by the order of 1000 ROS can be reduced to 10-15 %

Need for EOR

To maximize recovery after primary and secondary recovery from mature fields which is currently 30-50 % Risk of applying EOR is considered reduced in view of better understanding, advances in R & D studies and successful pilot tests and field tests Declining production trends and lesser large sized discoveries are important for EOR to tap additional oil

Part I Chemical EOR

Chemical EOR processes

These are applied in tertiary mode to mobilize the oil in pores held by capillary forces and adhesive forces and thus to reduce the ROS This can be applied in secondary mode in combination with other displacement processed such as water or gas

Basic mechanism involved are

Reduction in interfacial tension between oil and brine Solubilization of released oil Change in the wettability towards more water wet reducing mobility contrast between crude oil and displacing fluid

Contd

In surfactant assisted chemical EOR it is mainly IFT reduction, wettability change and solubilization In polymer assisted chemical EOR it is mobility control and improving sweep efficiency

Various chemical EOR processes

Micellar/surfactant polymer flooding Alkaline flooding Alkali-surfactant flooding Alkali-surfactant-polymer flooding Polymer flooding

Selection of chemical EOR processes Type of reservoir Rock mineralogy, clay, heterogeneity Reservoir pay thickness, K, Reservoir temperature Reservoir oil properties ROS Salinity of formation water and presence of bivalent cations

Technical screening criteria for chemical processes

ASP/Micellar Crude Oil Gravity,0API Viscosity, cp Composition > 20 < 35 Light Intermediate hydrocarbons are desirable for micellar and high acid number needed in alkaline flooding >15 <100 Not critical Polymer

Reservoir Oil saturation, %PV Formation water salinity Type of Formation Average permeability, > 35 >50

Chloride < 20000 ppm, Ca + Mg < 500 ppm Sandstone preferred >50 md

Depth and Temperature

< 9000 ft, Temperature < 2000F

Application of various chemical EOR processes

Micellar polymer flooding/surfactant polymer flooding Classic micellar polymer flooding consists of injecting a slug that contains surfactants, polymers, electrolyte, co-solvents and oil The size of slug may vary from 5-15 % PV (for high surfactant concentration system) 15-50% PV (low surfactant concentration system) Micellar process is highly effective, but it is costly Low adsorption surfactant developed can replace the micellar solution and can be directly used in combination with the polymer as a surfactant polymer flooding Recovery of the surfactant in SP flooding is comparable or even higher than ASP or micellar flooding

Polymer process
The process improve recovery by reducing the mobility contrast between oil and water and improving the overall sweep efficiency The polymer process can be applied in secondary mode to improve the efficiency of water flood It can also be applied in combination with other chemical EOR such as alkali, surfactant and ASP processes to improve the mobility of the respective processes This process does not reduce ROS

Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer Flooding
The process is normally applied in tertiary mode to reduce ROS Addition of alkali and low slug volume make the process cost effective Recovery in range of 15-25 % is observed

Alkaline-Surfactant Flooding
This process is applied in light oil reservoirs where polymer is not required This can be applied in both carbonate as well as sandstone formations However in the absence of mobility control displacement efficiency are low Large slug volume is required It can be combined with other EOR processes like gas injection to improve performance

Addition of alkali
Advantages of adding alkali with surfactants

improves the wetting characteristics of the rock reduces the adsorption of surfactants produces natural surfactant if crude is acidic

Alkaline / Alkaline Polymer Flooding

Applied in viscous crude with high acid number Formation of tough emulsions observed in many cases Reaction of alkali with clays and zeolites makes the process less effective Corrosion is also a problem associated with the alkali process

 Surfactants and alkali are integral part of chemical flooding

Selection of surfactant and alkali

Selection of surfactant is based on Ability to reduce IFT between crude and brine Thermal stability Tolerance to salinity and hardness of brine Solubility in brine Phase behaviour parameters Adsorption test under static and dynamic conditions Displacement studies under reservoir conditions Selection of alkali is guided by Type of formation, clay type & bivalent cations In carbonate reservoirs Na metaborate is used in place of other alkali If reservoir contains clays NaHCO3 is preferred Na2CO3 is the most commonly used alkali. It is cheap and transports better in porous media

Advances in the area of surfactants and polymers

High performance surfactants have been developed which tolerates salinity up to 100000 ppm and 2500 ppm bivalent cation SS surfactants show very low adsorption compared to conventional. Can be used alone or as SP flooding without alkali. Blends of surfactants mixtures improves WF efficiency significantly. Surfactants are available which are thermally stable up to 2600C Recent R & D studies indicate that sulphonated acrylamide copolymers can tolerate high bivalent cations and temperature up to 1200C

Types of surfactants used in EOR

Normally anionic surfactants are used for EOR applications. Some blends of different surfactants are also used to get low IFT conditions and favourable wettability changes Surfactants used in EOR are the following types; Petroleum sulphonate (PS), for reservoirs with temperature, low salinity and bivalent cations Better tolerance to salinity -olefin sulphonate and hardness, Internal olefin sulphonate high temperature stability Alkyl-Aryl sulphonate, for high temperature applications Ethoxylated alcohol

Thermal stability of the surfactants are in the following order AAS > IOS > AOS > PS > Ethoxylated alcohol

Advantages of chemical EOR processes

Right blend of chemical system can increase recovery factor by 15-20 % Chemical processes can be combined with other EOR processes to derive advantage of each other Processes can be tailor made to suit specific crude and reservoir conditions Can be applied in both sandstone and carbonate formations Can improve recovery of polymer flooding after it reaches its limit Low tension flooding improves the efficiency of water flooding/injectivity

Limitations of chemical EOR processes

Adsorption of chemicals on rock surfaces, particularly in carbonate formations and sandstone formations containing zeolites/clays Chromatographic separation of chemical where thickness vary Dilution of chemical in active water reservoir Incompatibility with formation fluids in which high bivalent-cations are present High temperature and high salinity limits application of chemical processes. Reaction of alkali with clays and swelling causes permeability reduction

Case history of chemical EOR (Indian scenario)

Sanand Polymer Flood

Because of mobility contrast and low primary recovery, it was decided to go for polymer flooding

Sanand Polymer Flood

Polymer pilot, 1985 Expanded pilot, 1993 Commercial scheme

Scheme, 1999

Polymer Injectors Chase Water Injectors New polymer injectors

Performance of polymer flood

Production increased from 100 M3/day to 400 M3/day Water cut reduced from 88% to 68% WC remains constant since last 6 years (63-68%) Current recovery 25 % Expected recovery 36 % by 2030
Performance Plot of KS-III sand of Sanand Field
600 Qo m3/d w/c % 400 Pilot Extended Pilot Commerc ialisation 100 90 80 70 60 300 50 40 200 30 20 10 0 Oct-74 Oct-79 Oct-84 Oct-89 Oct-94 Oct-99 Jun-76 Jun-81 Jun-86 Jun-91 Jun-96 Jun-01 Oct-04 Feb-78 Feb-83 Feb-88 Feb-93 Feb-98 Feb-03 Jun-06 May-69 May-71 Feb-08 Jan-73 0

500

Oil Rate

100

w/c

Viraj ASP Pilot

Based on the low primary recovery and mobility contrast and high acid number of the crude, ASP pilot was decided in the Field

Oil, m3/d
100 120 140 160 180 200 20 40 60 80 0 ASP Jul-02 Oct-02 Jan-03 Apr-03 Jul-03 PB-1 Oct-03 Jan-04 PB-2 Apr-04 Jul-04 Oct-04 PB-3 Jan-05 Apr-05 Jul-05 C/W Oct-05 stop Jan-06 Apr-06 C/W Jul-06 Oct-06 Jan-07

Performance plot of Viraj ASP Pilot

Base oilrate

Oil rate

Apr-07 Jul-07

W/C

Oct-07 Jan-08 Mar-08 Jun-08 Sep-08

10

20

30

40

W/C, %

50

60

70

80

90

100

Observations
Pilot was successful with increase in production Preferential movement of chemical Water cut increase at start of buffer and chase water injection Simulation studies indicate slug size and polymer concentration on low side Lesson learned from this pilot are being taken care in other upcoming pilots

Other envisaged pilots

ASP Jhalora ASP Kalol ASP Mangala

Chemical EOR - World Scenario (Active projects)

Country Number of active chemical projects Polymer USA China France India Indonesia Venezuela Total 4 18 1 1 24 1 1 Micellar/Polym er ASP 1 2 3

Part II GAS Flooding

Gas Flooding
This process is mostly applied in light and tight reservoir because of its high microscopic displacement efficiency This process can be combined with other recovery processes such as water or surfactant system. It can be applied in both miscible and immiscible ways The efficiency of miscible process is high compared to immiscible process

Various types of gas flooding

Hydrocarbon flooding (LPG, Enriched and Lean gas) CO2 flooding N2 and Flue gas injection

CO2 flooding (Miscible/Immiscible)

The process is the most widely used and involves the injection of CO2 (15-30 % of HCPV) into reservoir CO2 recovers oil by Swelling the crude oil (CO2 is highly soluble in low gravity oil) Lowering the viscosity of oil (much more than nitrogen and methane) Lowering the IFT between oil and CO2/oil phase in near miscible region Generation of miscibility The CO2 flooding is similar to vapourizing gas drive but only difference in CO2 process is that wider range of C2-C30 are extracted CO2 flood process is applicable to wider range of reservoirs because of its lower miscibility pressure than that for vapourizing gas drive

Screening criteria of CO2 Flood

Recommended Crude Oil Gravity,0API Viscosity, cp Composition Reservoir Oil saturation, %PV Type of Formation Average permeability, md > 20 15 to 70 Sandstone or carbonate and relatively thin unless dipping Not critical if sufficient injection rates can be maintained. Depth should be enough to allow injection pressures greater than the MMP, which increases with temperatures and for heavier oils. Recommended depths for CO2 floods are as follows: Oil Gravity, oAPI > 40 32 to 39.9 For CO2 miscible Flooding 28 to 31.9 22 to 27.9 < 22 For immiscible (lower CO2 Flooding oil recovery) 13 to 21.9 <13 Depth must be greater than,(ft) 2500 2800 3300 4000 Fails for miscible 1800 All reservoirs fail at any depth > 22 < 10 27 to 44 0.3 to 6 Range of current projects

High percentage Of Intermediate Hydrocarbons (Especially C5 to C12)

Depth and Temperature

At < 1800 ft, all reservoirs fail screening for either miscible or immiscible flooding with supercritical CO2

Hydrocarbon flooding process (miscible/immiscible)

Hydrocarbon miscible flooding recovers crude oil by Generating miscibility (in the condensing and vapourizing gas drive) Increasing oil volume by swelling Decreasing the oil viscosity Immiscible gas displacement, especially enhanced gravity drainage with reservoir conditions

Different HC Flooding Process are

LPG Process Consists LPG (5% of HCPV) followed by natural gas and water Enriched gas process Process consists of injecting natural gas (10-20% HCPV) enriched by C2-C6 followed by lean gas and water High pressure lean gas injection (vapourizing gas drive) Injection of lean gas at high pressure help to vapourize C2-C6 component of crude oil being displaced

Screening criteria for Hydrocarbon Miscible process

Recommended Crude Oil Gravity,0API Viscosity, cp Composition Reservoir Oil saturation, %PV Type of Formation Net thickness, ft Average permeability, md Depth, ft Temperature,0F > 4000 > 30 30 to 98 > 23 <3 24 to 54 (miscible) 0.04 to 2.3 Range of current projects

High percentage of light hydrocarbons

Sandstone or Carbonates with minimum of fractures and high permeability streaks Relatively thin unless formation is dipping Not critical if uniform 4040 to 15900

Temperatures can have significant effect on the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP); it normally raises the pressure required. However, this is accounted for in the deeper reservoirs that are needed to contain the high pressures for the lean gas drives.

N2/Flue gas flooding

This process recovers oil by vapourizing the lighter component in the crude generating miscibility if the pressure is high enough providing a gas drive where significant portion of the reservoir is filled with low cost gases Enhancing gravity drainage in the dipping reservoir It can be applied in both miscible as well as immiscible way depending on the temperature, pressure and oil composition Because of low cost large volumes can be injected N2/Flue gas can also be used as chase gas for HC and CO2 flood

Screening of N2 & Flue Gas Flood

Recommended Crude Oil Gravity,0API Viscosity, cp Composition Reservoir Oil saturation, %PV Type of Formation Net thickness, ft Average permeability, md Depth, ft Temperature,0F > 6000 > 40 59 to 80 Sandstone or carbonates with few fractures and high permeability streaks Relatively thin unless formation is dipping Not critical 10000 to 18500 Not critical for screening purposes, even though the deep reservoirs required to accommodate the high pressure will have high temperatures. > 35 < 0.4 38 o 54 (miscible) 0.07 to 0.3 Range of current projects

High percentage of light hydrocarbons

Advantages of different gas flooding processes

CO2 flooding CO2 flood process can be applied to wider range of reservoir because of its lower miscibility than that for vapourizing gas drive Oil recovery are high in miscible displacement, less in immiscible displacement It swells the oil and reduces its viscosity even before miscibility is achieved HC flooding Recovery factor in miscible HC flooding (LPG & Enriched) is quite high Suitable for tight as well as light oil reservoirs Can be applied both in carbonate and sandstone formations Can be applied in reservoir depths ranging from 1000-5000 meters N2 flooding It is a cheaper process and large volume can be applied Can be applied in deep, tight and light reservoirs

Limitations of Gas flooding processes

N2 /Flue gas Flooding Can be applied only in high gravity and deep reservoirs Miscibility pressure is quite high, can not be applied in depleted reservoirs with high temperature Separation from non hydrocarbon gases from hydrocarbon gases at the surface Recovery efficiency is low (<5%) compared to other gas processes HC Flooding Required pressure for LPG is 1280 psi 4000 to 5000 psi is required for high pressure gas drive Solvent trapped may not be recovered in LPG method Low viscosity results in poor vertical and horizontal sweep efficiency Large quantity of available hydrocarbons are required

Contd

CO2 Flooding Sources of CO2 act as limitations for process to be applied CO2 gets dissolved into formation water making it acidic, causing corrosion of tubulars

Common limitations in gas flooding processes

Mobility control is an area of concern Viscous fingering may result in poor vertical/horizontal sweep Steeply dipping formation is desired for gravity stabilization of the displacement front, both for miscible and immiscible displacement Early breakthrough of gas is another issue, particularly if the reservoir contains natural and induced fractures Large volume of gas requirement makes the process expensive Attaining miscibility in depleted reservoirs with high temperature is an area of concern Immiscible displacement yields lesser recovery compared to miscible displacement

Other gas flooding processes

To derive the benefit of microscopic displacement efficiency of gases and megascopic displacement efficiency of water different combined EOR processes have been developed such as Water Alternate Gas Simultaneous Water and Gas Injection Surfactant alternate Gas Flooding Foam flooding

Case history

Miscible HC Gas Injection: Gandhar GS-12

Reservoir parameters Depth 2900m Temperature 1260C Thickness 4 m API Gravity 45 Initial saturation 52.5% MMP 270 kg/cm2 Details of Pilot Started in 1999 Initial gas injection 200000 m3/day through 4 injectors Current gas injection 700000 m3/day

Contd Waterflood Recovery HC Miscible Gas Inj. Recovery Gas Injectors Avg Res Pressure Oil rate / water cut
1250

: 36 % : 58 % : 14 (700,000 m3/d) : 270 ksc : 800 m3/d / 1%

300

1000

240

Oil Rate (m3/d)

750

180

500

120

250

60

Gas Inj
1991 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Pressure(kg/cm2)

Gas Flooding - World Scenario

Country USA Canada Libya China Colombia India Mexico UAE Indonesia Trinidad Venezuela Turkey Total Number of active Gas Injection Projects Carbon Dioxide 71 2 5 1 79 HC 8 29 1 1 1 8 48 Others 4 1 1 1 7

Part III Thermal EOR

Thermal EOR
Thermal methods normally are used: To recover viscous and thick oil 41% EOR oil of all EOR process produced by thermal process. Physical and chemical changes occur because heat supplied. Changes occur in form of reduction in: Viscosity Specific gravity IFT The principle of all the thermal processes are same i.e. reduction of viscosity. Only pathways are different. Chemical changes involve different reaction such as cracking and dehydrogenation to produce low molecular wt compound

Contd..
The products of oxidation and combustion such as flue gases, hot water steam or vapourised lighter fraction in different thermal processes, also help in reducing the viscosity and act as artificial driving forces to mobilize oil towards producers Only in low temperature oxidation (HPAI) in light oil reservoir, viscosity reduction is less dominant compared to role of intermediate products which acts as artificial driving force increasing microscopic displacement efficiency

Thermal EOR Processes

Mainly there are two types thermal EOR processes
Steam Flood In-situ combustion process (HTO & LTO)

Steam Flood Process

Steam flooding, CSS and SAGD are various form of steam injection process Functions:Steam recovers the crude oil by heating the crude and reducing its viscosity Supplying pressure to drive oil to the producing wells Heat also distills lighter components which condenses in oil bank ahead of steam further reducing oil viscosity The hot water that condenses from steam acts as artificial drive to sweep oil toward producers Steam also lowers IFT also which detach paraffin and asphaltene from the rock surface

Criteria for Selection of Steam Flood

Recommended Crude Oil Gravity,0API Viscosity, cp Composition Reservoir Oil saturation, %PV Type of Formation Net thickness, ft Average permeability, md Depth, ft Temperature,0F > 200 md 300-500 Not critical > 40 35-90 8-25 < 100000 8-27 10-137000 Range of current projects

Light ends for steam distillation will help

Sandstone with high porosity and permeability >10 ft 63-10000 md 150-4500 60-2800C

Limitation of Steam Flood Process

Process is applicable: In shallow and thick, high permeability sand stone and unconsolidated sand to avoid heat loss in well and adjacent formation Steam flooding is not normally used in carbonate formation and also where water sensitive clays are present Also high mobility and challenging of steam may make the process unattractive In high depth reservoir maintaining steam quality is not possible Because of very high temperature special metallurgy tubing required in producers and injectors Cost per incremental bbls is high Normally 1/3 of incremental oil is used in generation of steam

In-situ Combustion Process

There are two type of in-situ combustion processes, High temperature oxidation (HTO) and low temperature oxidation (LTO) High temperature oxidation (500 600C) is for heavy oil Low temperature oxidation (150 - 300C) is used for light oil

High Temperature In-situ Combustion Process

Functions: In situ combustion recovers crude oil by application of heat which is transferred downstream by conduction and convection process thus lowering the viscosity of crude As fire moves produced mixture of hot gases, steam and hot water which reduces viscosity of oil and displaces toward producers Light oil and steam move ahead of burning front and condense in liquid add the advantage of miscible displacement and hot water flooding

Criteria for Selection of In-situ Processes

Recommended Crude Oil Gravity,0API Viscosity, cp Composition Reservoir Oil saturation, %PV Type of Formation Net thickness, ft Average permeability, md Depth, ft Temperature,0F > 1000C > 50 md <11500 > 50 60-94 10-27 < 5000 10-40 6-5000 Range of current projects

Some asphaltic component to aid coke formation

Sand or sandstone with high porosity >10 ft 85-4000 md 400-11300 100-2200C

Limitations
Process will not sustain if sufficient coke is not formed. Hence not suitable for paraffinic crude Excessive deposition of coke also leads to slow advance of combustion front Oil saturation and porosity should be high to minimise the heat loss The process trends to sweep upper part of reservoir, therefore sweep efficiency in thick reservoir is less

Problem associated with ISC process

Complex process which is capital intensive and difficult to control Unfavourable mobility ratio and early break through of combustion front Produced flue gases pose environmental problem Operational problem such as Severe corrosion by low pH, hot water, tough emulsion, increase sand production, deposition of carbon and pipe failure in producing wells because of high temperature

High Pressure Air Injection (HPAI)

The process can be applied in tight and light oil reservoirs The oil recovery mechanism by this process is flue gas sweeping and thermal effect generated by oxidation and combustion The process is similar to ISC, but oxidation reaction pathways are different for light and heavy oil In case of light oil , combustion takes place at low temperature in the range 150 300C Advantages Source is available everywhere. Can be applied in tight reservoirs where water injectivity is low. Limitations Controlling channeling of injected air is important because early breakthrough of air reduces oil production period significant Tight reservoirs having induced fracture are not suitable for HPAI process

Case history of ISC process Indian scenario

Mar 1990 Jan 1992 Apr 1997 Oct 1997 May 2000 Sep 2000 ISC Pilot Semi-commercial Phase-I (Commercial) Phase-I (Commercial) Main (Commercial) Main (Commercial) Balol Balol Santhal Balol Balol Santhal

Case History
In-situ Combustion, Balol
Depth Type Area Porosity Permeability Dip Oil saturation Pressure Drive Oil viscosity API Envisaged Res. Temp. 1000 m Unconsolidated sand stone 17 sq km 6m 25-30% 1-5 d 5 70 hydrostatic Active aquifer 150-1500 cp 15 12 70C

Balol pilot started : March, 1990 Pilot area: 5.5 acres Sustained combustion and productions from producers lead to conceptluation and commercial in entire Balol Considering similar characteristics, it was decided to implement in Santhal field Commercial scheme started : 1997, Balol & Santhal 64 well have been ignited in both fields A commercial scheme to be implemented to Lanwa field

Performance - Balol
No. of Flowing wells Air Injectors on stream Air Injection rate, MMNm3/d (MMSCFD) Oil rate, tpd (bopd) Water Cut, %
1000 Water Cut 800 Oil Rate, tpd Oil Rate 80

: : : : :

90 21 0.60 (20) 618 (4130) 58

100

Commercialisation 400 40

200

20

W/C, %

600

60

Thermal EOR - World Scenario (Active Projects)

Country

Number of active thermal projects

Hot water Steam 46 13 17 2 2 8 38 126 Combustion 7 3 1 3 14 3 3

USA Canada China Colombia India Indonesia Trinidad Venezuela Total

Emerging technologies in EOR Low tension water flooding Low salinity water flooding AS alternate gas flooding Microbial flooding

Tight and light oil reservoirs

Possible EOR processes

High pressure air injection Gas injection Surfactant assisted gas flooding Surfactant assisted water flooding N2/Flue gas in deep light reservoir

Medium viscosity oil reservoirs Polymer flooding ASP flooding/SP Flooding Carbonate reservoir Surfactant flooding Surfactant alternate alkali flooding WAG/SWAG Waxy crude reservoir Alkali surfactant followed by Polymer Alkali surfactant followed by Gas

Before considering any process detailed laboratory investigation&pilot is requi

Conclusions
Right selection of EOR process and accurate knowledge about the reservoir holds key to success of EOR process Chemical EOR, gas injection and their combination appears promising EOR process for Indian reservoir MDT approach including geologist, geophysicist, reservoir engineer, chemist, production and drilling engineers is needed for laboratory investigations, designing, implementation and monitoring of an EOR process Advances and better understanding in the area of various EOR techniques

Contd.. Challenges are more but with sustained efforts right solutions can be arrived Meticulous monitoring of pilots and remedial measures are needed before implementation on filed scale In-house manufacture should be encouraged to develop and manufacture high performance EOR chemicals such as polymers and surfactants Expertise of domain expert help while designing and evaluation of EOR process

Case history of chemical EOR (Indian scenario)

Sanand Polymer Flood
Characteristics of Field
Type of formation- Sandstone Thickness- 2-8 mts Porosity- 24-32 % Permeability- 1500 md Temperature- 850C Depth- 1325 mts Pressure- 100 kg/cm2 Primary recovery 14.7% Oil viscosity- 20 cp Drive Partial edge water Salinity of formation water 10000 ppm

Because of mobility contrast and low primary recovery, it was decided to go for polymer flooding

Contd..

Based upon laboratory investigations pilot started in 1985 inverted five spot Extended pilot in 1993 4 injectors and 9 producers After successful pilot test polymer flood on entire field was commercialized in 1996 Project performance was reviewed in 2005 Redistribution of polymer injectors and adding more under polymer flood

Observations
Frequent injectivity decline observed in polymer/chase water injectors Preferential movement is part of reservoir Bacterial activity Remedial measures are taken to minimize above problems

Viraj
Formation Sandstone Thickness 16 mts Porosity 25-30 % Permeability 4 to 9 Darcy Oil saturation Temperature 810C Pressure - 135 kg/cm2 Oil viscosity 35-50cp Salinity 10000 ppm Acid number 1.625 Drive mechanism active edge water drive Average water cut 85%

Contd..

Based on laboratory studies ASP pilot was designed Pilot started in 2002 (inverted five spot with 4 injectors and 9 producers) Polymer slug completed in March 2005 and chase water was started and is continuing

Successful case studies of chemical EOR processes

Oil Viscosity - cp 0.42 25 Pore Volume Chemicals In progress 60.40% 28.07% Oil Recovered % OOIP Chemicals US Cost/bbl $2.45 $2.42 Chemical system Na2CO3 Na2CO3 Alkali and Polymer Only NaOH Biosurfactan t NaOH Na2CO3 NaOH NaOH ASPFoam Flood following WAG

Field Adena Cambridge

Region Colorado Wyoming

Start 2001 1993

API 43 20

Type Tertiary Secondar y Secondar y

Cressford

Alberta

1987

$2.25

Daquing BS Daquing NW Daquing PO Daquing XV Daquing XF

China China China China China

1996 1995 1994

36 36 26 36

3 3 11.5 3 3

Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary

82.10% 65.00% 42.00% 48.00% 55.00%

23.00% 20.00% 22.00% 17.00% 25.00%

$7.88 $7.80 $5.51 $9.26 $7.14

1995

36

Daquing Foam Daquing Scale Up David Driscoll Creek Enigma Etzikorn

China China Alberta Wyoming Wyoming Alberta ??

1997

NA

NA

Tertiary

54.80%

22.32%

$8.01

Reported to be Shut In Due to QC Problems with Surfactant 1985 1998 2001 23 Tertiary $0.80

Acrylamid converted to acrylate - water cut lowered 24 43 Secondar y In progress $2.49 Na2CO3

Curren t

In progress - Information not released

Contd..
Oil Field Gudong Region China Start 1992 API 17.4 OilViscosity cp 41.3 Type Tertiary Pore Volume Chemical s 55.00% recove red % OOIP 26.51% Chemicals US Cost/ bbl $3.92 Alkali and Poly mer Only Chemical syste m

Isenhaur Karmay Lagomar Mellot Ranch Minas I Minas II

Wyoming China Venezuel a Wyoming Indonesia Indonesia

1980 1995 2000 2000 1999 Curren t

43.1 30.3 24.8 22

2.8 52.6 14.7 23

Seconda ry Tertiary Tertiary Tertiary

57.70% 60.00% 45.00% In progress

11.58% 24.00% 20.11%

$0.83 $4.35 $4.80 $2.51

Single Well Test NaOH

Micellar Polymer Failed when salinity of slug decreased Lignin II Surfactant - In progress - Information not released Low Acid Numb er Visco us

Sho Vel Tum Bevery Hills Tanner West Kiehl

Oklahom a California Wyoming Wyoming

26.4

41.3

Tertiary

60.00%

16.22%

$6.40

Surfactant Injectivity Test 2000 1987 21 24 11 17 Secondary Secondary In progress 26.50% 20.68% $2.82 $2.13 Alkali and Poly mer Only No Poly mer NaOH

West Moorcroft

Wyoming

1991

22.3

20

Secondary

20.00%

15.00%

$1.46

White Castle

Louisiana

1987

29

2.8

Tertiary

26.90%

10.10%

$8.18

Major challenges in Gas EOR

Availability of required quantity of gas Depleted reservoirs attaining miscibility is an area of concern Mobility control is another issue Dipping reservoirs are needed Immiscible process results in poor recovery Presence of lighter hydrocarbons Cost is high

WAG Process
Combines benefits of higher microscopic displacement efficiency of gas and high macroscopic displacement efficiency of water leading to lower ROS Contact of unswept zone by segregation of gas to top and water to bottom Good in reservoir with fining upward sand Lower ROS in three phase zone due to gas trapping mechanism Reduced mobility to both water and gas in three phase zone condition due to relative permeability hysteresis Vaporization of oil due to mass transfer Water reduces the mobility of gas and gas gets higher contact time with oil WAG ratio 1:1 which can be tapered later on Process does not allow uniform distribution of water and gas, particularly due to difference in viscosity of water and gas, gravity separation of the component can occur, thereby decreasing the efficiency of the process WAG is technoeconomially heavy

Immiscible WAG Pilot

Reservoir parameters GS-11, a clastic light oil reservoir in Gandhar Depth 2700m Temperature 1300C Thickness 5-6 m API Gravity Reasons for selecting Favourable mobility ratio for ideal water flooding High reservoir temperature rules out most of the chemical processes Availability of natural gas from deeper reservoir High miscibility process even with enriched gas MMP 270 kg/cm2 (methane 70%) MMP 285 kg/cm2 (methane content 83%) Non availability of enriched gas/CO2 WAG combined benefit of water and gas Laboratory findings Water flooding 66% WAG 75% ROS 12 % Details of Pilot WAG started in 2006 as a normal 5 spot pattern Gas injection is 100000 m3/day Water injection is 600 m3/day

Performance - Santhal
No. of Flowing wells Air Injectors on stream Air Injection rate, MMNm3/d (MMSCFD) Oil rate, tpd (bopd) Water Cut, %
2000 1600 Qo, tpd 1200 800 400 0

: : : : :

137 21 0.85 (30) 1086 (7200) 61

100 80 60 40 20 0 Water Cut, %

Summary of EOR processes world wide

2-3 % of world production As on 1.4.2004 : 311 active projects
Country USA Canada China Colombia France India Indonesia Libya Mexico Trinidad Turkey UAE Venezuela Total 56 16 18 2 3 2 8 38 143 Number of active EOR projects Thermal Gas 83 32 1 1 1 5 1 1 9 134 Chemical 4 18 1 2 1 2 28 Other 2 3 1 6

Criteria for Selection of Crude oil:

API Viscosity Composition : 8 to 20 : <1,00,000 : Light ends for steam distillation will help Oil saturation, %PV : >40 Type of formation : Sand stone with high K & O Av. Permeability : > 200 Depth, ft : 300 500 Temp. of Res. : N.C.

Part IV Microbial EOR

Microbial Enhanced Recovery Processes

MEOR is family of microbial processes which involves injection of microbes & nutrients to improve oil production from the well/ reservoir It involves -- Injection of microbes/ nutrients in reservoir -- Incubation -- Growth, proliferation & generation of metabolites -- Mobilization of oil Applied mostly -- Huff-puff mode. -- Few case history are available where it has applied in water injection mode

Microbial Products and Their Action

Improves: Acids porosity permeability Increase pore pressure. Oil swelling Viscosity reduction Solubilize oil Lowers interfacial tension Mobility control

Gases (CO2, CH4) Solvents Surfactants Polymers

Microbial Vs Conventional EOR Processes

Conventional EOR processes are specific for a particular reservoir and crude oil. Microbial process can be applied in varied conditions Microbial solution contains live micro organisms and can transport themselves in different directions where they are most needed Problem of adsorption of chemicals is inherent part of any conventional chemical process, which is least in microbial processes

Selection of Microbes
Type of reservoir and petro-physical properties Temperature and pressure Property of crude oil and formation water Purpose for which microbes are being used

Microbial Processes Developed

Microbial EOR IRSM1 & IRSM2 bacterial consortia active upto 65C S-2 bacterial consortium active upto 90C NJS7- 91 & NJS4- 96 bacterial consortia active at 91 and 96C Stimulation of In-Situ microbes R 2 & HS4-2 Biosystems producing biosurfactants

Bacterial Consortium S-2 (Upto 90 C)

Characteristics
High Temperature Microbes : S-2 The consortium is THBA pH Tolerance : 4 9 Cell Morphology : small cocci ,short rods & size- 0.1- 1.3 micron Useful Metabolites: Volatile Fatty acids, Carbon dioxide Energy Source : Molasses (3%) Incubation : 21 days Pathogenicity : Non-pathogenic Applied : 30 wells (39 jobs)

Micro- photograph

Well Selection Criteria for Application of MEOR

Parameter
Type of formation Temperature Pressure, Kg/cm2 Reservoir rock permeability API gravity of crude oil Viscosity of oil Water cut pH Residual oil saturation Salinity as NaCl

Recommended Range
Sand stone (preferably) < 90C < 300 Kg/cm2 >50 md > 20 < 20 cp (under reservoir conditions) 30-90 % 4-9 (preferably 6-8) > 25 % <5 %

Field Response
Applied in 43 wells of 4 different fields of ONGC & 8 wells of OIL, Duliajan. Total Oil gain around 43,000 m3. Gain around 1000 m3 per well per job. Average life cycle 6-8 months. Success ratio 70%.

Performance of MEOR job in SB # 36

Date of MEOR job: 22.01.2004

40 35

10 0 90

Pre job:
Ql: 14.3 W/C: 78% Q0: 3.1 Incremental oil gain, m3

Post job
Oil Rate (m3/d)

Ql: 19-31 W/C: 42-80% : Q0: 6.6-14.5 2300

25 20 15 10 5 0

Water Cut

60 50 40 30

MEOR job

Oil Rate

20 10 0

Date

Water Cut (%)

30

Well closed

80 70

Status of various EOR Processes

ISC process
Commercial Balol Phase-I Santhal Phase-I Balol Main Santhal Main

To be commenced Lanwa ISC project

Gas injection process

Commercial GS-12, miscible gas injection Ongoing pilots (WAG) GS-11, Gandhar Pilot to be intiated (WAG) GS-4 and GS-9 sand Ongoing SWAG pilot MHS, SH platform

Chemical EOR
Commercial Sanand polymer flood Ongoing ASP pilot Viraj ASP pilot Jhalora ASP pilot To be commenced Kalol ASP pilot

Microbial System For High Temperature Reservoirs Above 90c

NJS7-91 and NJS4-96 were isolated from formation fluids of Nandej and Sobhasan wells. Both the isolates are Anaerobic Hyper thermophilic: grow at 91 & 96 C Halophilic : grow in 7% and 4% salinity respectively. Non-pathogenic Optimum incubation period : 2-3 weeks

Selection Of Consortia

Based on surface tension reduction, yield stability and core flooding experiment, two consortia selected: HS4-2 & R-2 Results: Surface tension : 35 dynes Surfactant product : 1 gm/litre CMD : 80 Additional oil recovery over OIIP(%) : 19 for HS4-2 08 for R-2 IFT reduction : 0.064 dynes/m for HS4-2 0.535 dynes/m for R-2

Future Activities
Isolation of thermophilic bacteria for profile modification. Isolation and identification of bacteria for enhancing oil recovery in water flood mode. Development of suitable bacteria for heavy crude.