z
SPE 36746
Microbial EOR Technology Advancement: Case Studies of Successful Projects
F. L. Dietrich, SPE, F. G. Brown, SPE, Z. H. Zhou, SPE, Microbes,
C@@ght 1SS6, Sc4efy of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This papr was WePared for presentation al the 1996 SPE Annual Technid Conference and
Eahibtilon held in Omwer, Colorado, U, S.A., s-9 October 199S.
Thl$ paper was selacted for presentation by an SPE Prcgram Cunminea followlng review of
information wntainad in an abstraci submitted by the author(s). Contents of the papw, as
preaentad, have not tgan reviewmj by the %+iafy of Petrolaum Enginaers and are subject to
cfnrndicm by fha author(s). The matnrial, as prasanted, dc+s not necmsanly reflect any
position of the Sacii of Polroleum Enginaers, Its offwm, or nmmbam. Papers presented al
SPE meetings am subjecl to pubkaticm rwiew by Ed!lorial Commilleas of the Society d
Petroleum Engineers, Permission lo copy is reslnciad to an abstract of no! more than 3W
words. Illustralicma may not be ccpied. The abstract should contain ccmspicuous admowd.
edgmant M Ware and by Mom the paper was presented Write Librarian, SPE, P O Box
83383S, Rbhardsdn. TX 750S3.3WW. U. S.A.. fax 01.214-952.9435.
Abstract
Field results from five commercial Microbial EOR projects
with diverse reservoir conditions prove Microbial EOR in-
creases production and reserves while decreasing water cut,
The projects are located in different geographical areas of the
petroleum industry with two in the USA, one in Argentina and
two in China. Included is a dolomite and four sandstone reser-
voirs with average permeability ranging from 1.7 to 300 md.
Microbial reduced oil viscosity and residual oil result in im-
proved oil recovery. Production rate increases range from ten
[o five hundred percent, averaging thirty-nine percent. Oil re-
covery increases thus far average thirty-two percent. Numeri-
cal simulator results considering the two main microbial ef-
fects are consistent with field performance.
On all five projects facultative anaerobic bacteria capable
of deriving nourishment from the native reservoir environment
are injected into the producing wells. The microbes are diluted
with water and placed in the formation using annular batch
treatments. Treatment size has ranged from ten to 450 barrels
and frequency from every seven to twenty-eight days. Injection
wells are treated as recycled produced water is injected. Mi-
crobe selection and effectiveness are determined and moni-
tored by measuring changes in Newtonian behavior and vis-
cosity of produced oil.
Introduction
Production data and laboratory results indicate microbes im-
proved production and increased reserves on each of the five
projects. Oil production rates are compared to baselines estab-
lished by the operator before the start of Microbial EOR. Care
was taken to continue field operations in the same manner un-
633
Society01PetmteumEnglneera
Inc.; and M. A. Maure, SPE, Green Consultores
der Microbial EOR as during the period the baseline was es-
tablished. Laboratory testing for microbe induced oil viscosity
decreases confirmed the effectiveness of the selected microbes
both before and during the projects.
Microbes can improve oil recovery by
1. Generation of gases that increase reservoir
pressure and reduce oil viscosity,
2. Generation of acids that dissolve rock improv-
ing absolute permeability,
3. Reducing permeability in channels thereby im-
proving displacement conformance,
4. Altering wetability,
5. Producing bio-surfactants that decrease surface
and interracial tensions,’ and
6. Reducing oil viscosity by degrading long-chain
sat urated hydrocarbons.z’ ~
For the reservoirs and microbes in these five projects, 4, 5 and
6 are considered the significant mechanisms for the reduction
of residual oil and increased production. A typical reservoir
was numerically simulated using three phase, black oil calcu-
lations. Considered in the simulator model are reduced oil vis-
cosity, reduced residual oil and changes in relative permeabil-
ity which occur as the microbes migrate or are transported
through the reservoir. Model results are consistent with the
field results.
Projects
The five projects listed in Table 1 represent a diverse geo-
graphic and geologic mixture. Two of the projects are in the
USA, one is in Argentina and two are in the P, R. China.
Lithology includes sandstone, fractured dolomite, silt-
stone/sandstone and fractured sandstone. Reservoir depths
vary from 4450 to 6900 feet, net thickness from 18 to 60 feet,
porosity from 0.079 to 0,232 and effective permeability from
1.7 [o 300 md (Table 2), Reservoir temperatures range from
110 to 180”F and water salinities vary from 8,000 to 180,000
ppm chlorides, as shown on Table 3. All the projects are under
waterflood. The five projects represent a wide range of reser-
voir and fluid properties as well as vastly different operating
conditions and philosophies.
These five commercial projects have increased oil produc-
tion by thirty-nine percent or six hundred barrels per day:
2 F. L. DIETRICH,F, G. BROWN,Z. H. ZHOUANDM.A. MAURE
● the San Andres Project by 10% or 40 barrels
per day after 19 months of microbe treating,
● the Queen Sand Project by 43% or 300 barrels
per day after 24 months of treating,
● the Tupungato-Reftigio project by zg~o or 60
BOPD after 14 months of treating,
● the Huabei Project by 552$?0or 127 BOPD
twelve months after the first treatment, and
● the Xinjiang Project by 36% or 80 barrels per
day six months after the first treatment.
Increased production on all five projects has paid all the ex-
penses of the microbe treatments and resulted in ongoing
profit. On each project expansion is underway or planned.
Microbes. The Microbial EOR technology used in the five
projects is based upon colonizing reservoirs with microbes
capable of deriving nourishment from the native reservoir en-
vironment. The process does not require large volumes of nu-
trients be pumped into the reservoir.
The microbial cultures used in these projects are naturally
occuming, non-pathogenic and not genetically engineered.
They are mixtures of live facultative anaerobes containing
several principal strains which produce desirable changes in
crude properties, Dimensions are 1 to 4 micro-meters in length
and 0.1 to 0.3 in width. The strains are motile and capable of
migrating into the pore space of oil reservoirs. The metabolic
process of the microbes produces organic acid, alcohol and
surfactant and degrades long-chain, saturated hydrocarbons.2
The five Microbial EOR reservoirs are inoculated with mi-
crobes mixed in formation or treated fresh water. Microbe
distribution and colonization in the reservoirs occur by natural
microbe migration and by transport in injected water. The Mi-
crobial EOR process converts reservoirs into subsurface biore-
actor and microbe growing facilities. The immobile, irre-
ducible water phase present in the majority of oil producing
reservoirs provides a habitat for microbe colonization and mi-
gration.
Irreducible water saturation can be as high as fifty percent
in preferentially water wet reservoirs. The irreducible water
saturation of the five subject reservoirs ranges from 30 to 40~o
allowing ample colonization and migration medium. As mi-
crobe colonies develop and extend into the reservoirs, the
growing process reduces oil viscosity and produces metabo-
lizes which improve oil flow and recovery.
Microbe Treatment Design. Design criteria are basically to
place the microbes in the production wells in the near well
bore area of the reservoir and allow them to migrate outward.
As the colony is established some of the microbes will be pro-
duced and if the produced water is injected a colony will also
be established in injection wells. Producers are treated by an-
nular squeeze and batch treatments. The goal of the design is
to place the microbes in the formation under balanced condi-
tions and then allow them time to grow and become estab-
lished before the well is returned to production.
Viscosity Testing. Viscosity is used as an indicator of mi-
crobe-induced compositional change in the crude oil. Before
634
SPE 36746
Microbial EOR is begun a baseline sample is taken and tested.
The oil and water are inoculated in tbe laboratory at ambient
conditions, After an inoculation period the oil is centrifuged
and viscosity is determined using a variable speed viscometer
as a function of temperature and shear rate. From comparison
to a control the shift caused by the microbes is determined and
indices are calculated from the areas under the shear rate
curves. Shifts in threshold and cloud point viscosity are evi-
dent from the temperature curves. After microbes have begun
to alter the crude in the reservoir, a new oil and water sample
is taken and the viscosity testing is repeated, The new control
is compared to the baseline control to determine if the mi-
crobes are performing in the reservoir similarly to the baseline
test. The inoculated portions of the new sample are useful to
determine additional potential of alternate microbe blends.2
Compared to microbiology, chromatography and chemical
testing this method is inexpensive, so it can be repeated fre-
quently, Viscosity testing has proved to be a reliable indicator
of microbe activity.
Project Evaluation Method, First the history of each proj-
ect before the start of Microbial EOR and the suitability of the
reservoir and operations to Microbial EOR are evaluated. Next
the treatment design and frequency are reviewed. The project
results are then evaluated in terms of
● production rate increase compared to baseline,
● decrease in water cut,
● increase in cumulative recovery,
● microbe effectiveness as measured by oil composi-
tional changes indicated by viscosity testing, and
● projected change in residual oil saturation.
San Andres Project
Background. The reservoir, discovered in 1945, was pro-
duced by solution gas drive until the waterflood was started in
1967. Original oil in place was 355 barrels per acre foot, at a
70% oil saturation. At the start of Microbial EOR in October
1994 oil in place was 239 bbls/ac-ft with an oil saturation of
4 I %. The waterflood was developed on a line drive pattern
with a spacing of 25 acres. Current formation pressure is esti-
mated at 1,000 psi. Produced gas contains ten percent carbon
dioxide and two percent hydrogen sulfide. The produced
gas:oil ratio is 500 SCF/bbl.
Rock properties are relatively inhospitable to microbes.
The low 1.7 md average horizontal permeability would nor-
mally be indicative of pore throat sizes well below what mi-
crobes could enter. However most of the oil is produced from
natural fractures the microbes can penetrate. Reservoir tem-
perature at 115°F is ideal for microbe growth.
Average production per well is 14 barrels of oil per day at
a 9 I YO water cut. Three of the wells are pumped by electric
submersible pumps, the rest are rod pumped, Dynamic bottom
hole pressure is less than 100 psi except for six wells with
channeling from adjacent injectors. Operations are automated
with pump-off controllers.
SPE 36746 MICROBIAL EOR TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT:
Treatments. All treatments consisted of ten barrels of mi-
crobe-laden water down the annuhrs. On the initial treatment
the wells were shut-in three days. Subsequently they have been
shut-in overnight. For the first three months the wells were
treated every 14 days, thereafter approximate] y every 28 days.
Evacuation. The reservoir was stabilized on a consistent 6.5
$?o/yeardecline for three years before Microbial EOR was be-
gun (Figure 1). The decline has flattened to 0.6 %/year. Water
production on this property is blended with fresh water and
injected. Produced water is measured only by well tests and is
not accurate enough to draw a conclusion regarding reduction
in water cut. Over the past 19 months 17,000 barrels of incre-
mental oil have been produced which is seven percent over the
baseline (Figure 2). Current oil production of 440 barrels per
day is ten percent over baseline. The cumulative incremental
increase is expected to reach 15% by the end of the project
life.
Viscosity for an example well is shown versus shear rate in
Figure 3 and versus temperature in Figure 4. The baseline
sample indicated microbes could significantly alter the crude.
The area under the shear rate curve is reduced by 73% and the
oil is more Newtonian. The temperature curve is shifted to the
left approximately 10°F. Five samples taken after the start of
Microbial EOR indicate that the microbes are indeed effec-
tively altering tbe crude in the reservoir.
At the end of its life the waterflood would have left in
place 205 bbis/ac-ft versus 199 with Microbial EOR. Residual
oil satiation is projected to decrease from 35.0% under water-
flood to 34. I ‘%. with Microbial EOR, a 2.5% improvement.
Queen Sand Project
lhzckgrouruf. Discovered in 1984, this reservoir was quickly
waterflooded due its very low solution gas content. Injection
was begun in 1990 and oil production increased quickly from
200 to 2,500 barrels per day. This rate continued until late
1991 when a rapid decline began. At the start of Microbial
EOR in August 1992, oil in place was 758 bbls/ac-ft with an
oil saturation of 56Y0. The waterflood was developed on a five
spot pattern with a spacing of 30 acres.
Rock properties are generally favorable for microbe colo-
nization. Average permeability is 13 md with an upper limit of
300 md and provides adequate pore throat size for microbes to
colonize. Additional permeability developed by fracture treat-
ments with 60,000 gallons and 135,000 pounds of sand on
initial completion provide excellent porous media for microbe
colonization. Since the producing formation contains salt and
anhydrite, formation water is a saturated brine which required
special consideration in designing the microbe treatments.
Reservoir temperature at 11O“F is ideal for microbe growth.
Average production per well is 42 BOPD at 75% water cut.
The wells are rod pumped with low producing fluid levels.
Treatments. Microbe treatments use larger fluid volumes
and are more frequent than would be necessary in lower salin-
ity formation water. Over the first nine months of treating, 1I
635
CASE STUDIES OF SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS 3
of the 18 wells were treated with 400 to 450 barrels of mi-
crobe-laden water squeezed down the annulus followed by a
three day shut-in. In January 1995 three more similar squeezes
were performed. Routine batch treating was begun in Septem-
ber 1992. Wells were treated weekly with 32 barrels of mi-
crobe-laden water followed by a 6 to 12 hour shut-in. In late
1994 the frequency was reduced to every 14 days, then in early
1995 increased only on selected wells back to every 7 days,
Evaluation. The reservoir was on 39%/year decline for 10
months before Microbial EOR was begun (Figure 5). The de-
cline flattened for several months then resumed at 3 1%/year.
In late 1994 the injection pattern was altered by the conversion
of two wells from producers to injectors, and the injection rate
was increased. Although the benefits of Microbial EOR con-
tinue, comparison to the original baseline is inaccurate. There-
fore the rest of this analysis is based upon data from before the
injection pattern was altered. Water production continued to
increase after the start of Microbial EOR, but as shown by
Figure 6 the rate-of-increase in water cut decreased from 24%
per million barrels of injection to 12%. Over the first 24
months 240,000 barrels of incremental oil were produced
which is 34% over the baseline (Figure 7), Oil production at
the time the injection pattern was changed was 1,000 bamels
per day, 43% percent over baseIine. The cumulative incre-
mental increase was projected to be 47~0 by the end of the
project life,
Viscosity for an example Queen Sand well is shown versus
shear rate in Figure 8 and versus temperature in Figure 9. The
baseline sample indicated microbes could significantly alter
the crude, The area under the shear rate curve is reduced by
41 ‘Yo and the oil is more Newtonian. The temperature curve is
shifted to the left approximately 10“F. The first sample taken
after the start of Microbial EOR indicates ineffective microbe
treating, problems with sampling or normal variation in pro-
duction. One of the benefits of viscosity testing is that suffi-
cient samples can be analyzed to even out routine fluctuations.
Two later samples indicate the microbes are effectively alter-
ing the crude down hole.
At the end of its life, the waterflood before the pattern
changes would have left in place 691 bbls/ac-ft versus 660
with Microbial EOR, Residual oil saturation was projected to
decrease from 51.49. under waterflood to 49.19. with Micro-
bial EOR, a 4.5% improvement.
Tupungato-Refugio Project
Background. The field was discovered in 1930. The three
wells in this project were completed in 1940, 1979 and 1986 in
the Victor Oscuro formation. The reservoir has been produced
by a combination of solution gas drive, water drive and water-
flood. Microbial EOR was started on one well in June 1994
and on the other two wells in March 1995. Production has
been time normalized relative to the start of Microbial EOR.
At the start of the project oil in place was 625 bbls/ac-ft with
an oil saturation of 4790 and a gas saturation of 1070, The
4 F. L. DIETRICH, F. G. BROWN, Z. H. ZHOU AND M. A. MAURE
wells are on approximately 42 acre spacing. Rock and fluid
properties are all favorable for microbe colonization.
The wells are completed by open hole or slotted liner.
They are rod pumped with less than 50 psi of producing bot-
tom-hole pressure. Average production per well is 90 BOPD at
a 63% water cut.
Treatments. Initial microbe treatments were 150 barrels of
microbe-laden water followed by a 48 hour shut-in on 2 wells
and 24 hours on the other. Subsequent treatments have been 50
barrels every 15 days on two of the wells and every 30 days on
the other well.
Evaluation. The project was on 7,1%/year decline for 29
months before Microbial EOR was begun (Figure 10). For the
past 14 months, since the start of Microbial EOR the oil pro-
duction rate has inclined at the rate of 7.3%/year. Water pro-
duction has also increased after the start of Microbial EOR,
but as shown by Figure 11 the water cut decreased from 63.5%
to 62%. More data is needed to reach a conclusion regarding
the rate of increase versus cumulative production. Over the
past 14 months 19,000 barrels of incremental oil have been
produced which is 19% over the baseline (Figure 12). Oil pro-
duction is 270 barrels per day, 29% percent over baseline. The
cumulative incremental increase is projected to be 57% by the
end of the project life.
Viscosity for an example project well is shown versus
shear rate in Figure 13 and versus temperature in Figure 14.
The baseline sample indicated microbes could significantly
alter the crude. The area under the shear rate curve is reduced
by 54% and the oil is more Newtonian. The temperature curve
is shifted to the left approximate y 10“F. The sample taken
after the start of Microbial EOR indicates the microbes are
effectively altering the crude down hole.
Oil in place at the end of the project life would have been
509 bbls/ac-ft versus 442 with Microbial EOR. Residual oil
saturation is projected to decrease from 38.3% under water-
flood to 33.3% with Microbial EOR, a 13% improvement.
Huabei Project
Background, This project contains seven wells located in
the Huabei Petroleum Administration Bureau. The wells, in the
later stage of being waterflooded, are scattered and not in the
same reservoir. Therefore, while production data can be ana-
lyzed, reservoir performance cannot be determined for this
grouping. Microbial EOR started September 1994.
The wells are rod pumped, with pumps set an average of
2,500 feet above the perforations. Reservoir and fluid parame-
ters are all favorable for microbe growth.
Treatments, Each well was treated three times (Figure 15).
The first 2 treatments consisted of 150 barrels of microbe-
Iaden fluid, followed by 40 to 150 barrels of displacing water.
The displacement was calculated according to the distance the
pump was set over the perforations and the pumping fluid
level. The third treatment was 50 barrels with displacements
ranging from 40 to 125 barrels.
636
SPE 36746
Evaluation. The wells in the project were on a rapid decline
before Microbial EOR was begun (Figure 15). The baseline
was determined from a well-by-well review of daily produc-
tion for the five months before the start of Microbial EOR. For
the 12 months after the start of Microbial EOR the oil produc-
tion rate has inclined then flattened at 150 barrels per day,
Water production decreased after the start of Microbial EOR,
and as shown by Figure 16 the water cut decreased from over
70% to under 60%. And the trend in water cut versus cumula-
tive oil production which was rapidly increasing is now de-
creasing, Over the 12 months 41,000 barrels of incremental oil
have been produced which is 216% over the baseline (Figure
17). Oil production is 150 barrels per day, 55290 percent over
baseline.
Viscosity for an example project well is shown versus
shear rate in Figure 18 and versus temperature in Figure 19.
The baseline sample indicated microbes could significantly
alter the crude, The area under the shear rate curve is reduced
by71 % and the oil is more Newtonian. The temperature curve
is shifted to the left approximately 10“F. Due to the short du-
ration of the microbe treating and the location of the project no
samples are available for the field treated oil. Logistics have
since been improved by the establishment of testing facilities
in China,
Xifiiang Project
Background This project contains ten wells located in the
Xinjiang Petroleum Administration Bureau, The wells, most in
the later stage of being waterflooded, are scattered and not in
the same reservoir. Therefore, while production data can be
analyzed, reservoir performance cannot be determined for thk
grouping. Microbial EOR started January 1995.
The wells are rod pumped, with pumps set from 200 to as
high as 6,000 feet above the perforations on one well. Reser-
voir and fluid parameters are all favorable for microbe growth,
Treatments. Each well was treated three times (Figure 20).
The first treatment consisted of 150 barrels of microbe-laden
fluid on 7 wells and 80 barrels on 3 wells, followed by O to
150 barrels of displacing water. The displacement was calcu-
lated according to the distance the pump was set over the per-
forations and the pumping fluid level. The second and third
treatments were 50 barrels on 6 wells and 75 barrels on 4 wells
with displacement ranging from O to 70 barrels.
Evaluation. The wells in the project were on a rapid decline
for the 24 months before Microbial EOR was begun (Figure
20). For the 6 months after the start of Microbial EOR the oil
production rate increased then maintained a rate of 300 barrels
per day. Water production decreased after the start of Micro-
bial EOR, and as shown by Figure 21 the water cut decreased
from 6490 to 54%. And the trend in water cut versus cumula-
tive oil production which was rapidly increasing is now flat.
Over the 6 months 14,000 barrels of incremental oil have been
produced which is 43% over the baseline (Figure 22). Oil pro-
duction is 300 barrels per day, 367. percent over baseline.
SPE 36746 MICROBIAL EOR TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT:
Viscosity for an example project well is shown versus
shear rate in Figure 23 and versus temperature in Figure 24.
The baseline sample indicated microbes could significantly
alter the crude. The area under the shear rate curve is reduced
by49%. Thetemperature curve isshifted to the left approxi-
mately IO”F. Due to the short duration of the microbe treating
and the location of the project, viscosity curves are not avail-
able for the field treated oil. However, on five of the wells the
operator measured an average decrease in viscosity at 68°F
from 273 to 184 cp. (49%) and an increase in gravity from
28.7 to 29.6”API (3. 1%). Microbes favorably altered the oil in
is this reservoir.
Numerical Simulator Model
The model was designed to represent a typical Microbial
EOR well. Expected recovery and production rate increases
are determined using an available, proven simulator and two
basic considerations which determine Microbial EOR effec-
tiveness. The first is the volume of the reservoir colonized by
the microbes or influenced by their metabolizes such as gases,
acids, solvents and surfactants. The second is the effect the
microbes and their metabolizes have in increasing oil rate and
recovery which is basically dependent upon how much oil vis-
cosity and residual oil are lowered. The model has been devel-
oped using a commercial three phase simulator and data for
these two considerations are determined from published litera-
ture, experience and testing during these and other projects.
Other factors not included in the model such as re-
pressurization of the reservoir by microbial gas production or
an increase in rock porosity and absolute permeability by or-
ganic acids are believed to be of minor consequence for these
five projects. Modification of the absolute permeability by
microbial plugging of high permeability channels is also con-
sidered of minor importance with these combinations of reser-
voirs and microbes. None of the wells had any significant re-
duction in fluid production or injection rates that would be
indicative of microbe plugging, although flow streams could
have been altered without significant changes in injection or
production rates or pressures.
Microbe Migratiorr/Transport. The volume of the reservoir
influenced by the microbes is dependent on the ability of the
microbes to move or be moved through the rock pores. Con-
siderable laboratory work and complicated mathematical
models have been developed to verify that microbes can mi-
grate through reservoir rock. Microbes have been proven to
migrate through sand packed columns,4 and through Berea
sandstone cores.s
Computer models taking into account pore size, microbe
growth and decay rates, diffusion, adsorption, nutrient avail-
ability, chemotaxis, growth limiting substrates and tumbling
have been developed.b 7 ‘ 9 However these models are based
upon microbes that must be supplied sucrose while those used
for these projects do not need an externally supplied nutrient.
Also the assumptions which are needed regarding microbe
637
CASE STUDIES OF SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS 5
behavior in the reservoir seem excessive and involve parame-
ters difficult to determine at surface ambient conditions. Even
if the parameters could be determined at the surface, microbes
behave much differently under down-hole reservoir condi-
tions.’” While previous field studies have indicated that mi-
crobes can propagate through a reservoir, ” the rate will be
dependent upon the microbes used and the reservoir environ-
ment.
For this model, microbes were assumed to migrate at the
rate of two inches per day though the pores outward from a
production or injection well. Also at the start of Microbial
EOR a passive tracer was added to the injection water and
when the tracer concenbation reached twenty percent of its
maximum value, the cell was assumed to be colonized.
Microbe Viscosity and Residual Oil Reduction. To improve
production and recovery, microbes must favorably alter vis-
cosity and residual oil.
Since viscosity is the indicator of microbial effectiveness
used on these projects, as welI as many others, a considerable
data base has been gathered of the effect the microbes have on
many different crude oils from around the world. If the crude
contains alkanes a substantial viscosity reduction is possible as
shown in each of the five projects. Microbes were assumed to
lower reservoir viscosity 30% in the model.
Many core studies have been performed to evaluate the re-
duction of residual oil, In Berea sandstone cores Microbes
reduce residual oil below that possible by waterflooding by
32~o for light crudes and 19% for heavy crudes.’ Reductions
of 30 to 4070 of heavy oil from a sandpack column have been
reported.4 The presence of microbe cells, not just the metabo-
lizes is important to decrease residual oil by 10 to 37~0 depend-
ing on treatment strategy.5 Surfactant production by the mi-
crobes seems essential to obtain this level of decrease.9’ ‘2
Changes in residual oil are accompanied by an improvement in
the relative permeability to oil.9 Once present in the rock mi-
crobes improve oil recovery.
For this model a reduction in residual oil of 25% was used
to construct revised relative permeability curves patterned af-
ter experimental results presented by Bryant.9 The resulting
improved oil relative permeability resulted in higher oil recov-
ery.
Description of Model and Simulation Method
The physical model selected was one eighth of a five spot
using a radial grid of 475 cells. The layout of the grid and rock
properties are shown by Figure 25. Average permeability is
102 md. Initial conditions are reservoir pressure of 3,170 psi,
water saturation of 22% and oil saturation of 78Y0. Results are
scaled by a factor of eight to represent an entire well. Pore
volume is 2,316,000 barrels with 1,398,000 stock tank barrels
originally in place.
Pressure and saturation dependent input is shown in Figure
26, Figure 27 and Figure 28, Viscosity is reduced across all
pressures by 30% for Microbial EOR. Other pressure depend-
6 F. L. DIETRICH, F. G. BROWN, Z. H. ZHOU AND M. A. MAURE
ent input, including gas and water viscosity and formation vol-
ume factors, remains the same. The relative permeability rela-
tionships to gas and water saturation include the effects of the
reduced residual oil saturation discussed previously
A solution gas drive case and a waterflood case were
simulated. For the solution gas drive case the producing well is
active to an economic limit of two barrels of oil per day for
both the base and Microbial EOR cases. Microbial EOR starts
at the beginning of year 4. For the waterflood case, the well is
produced under solution gas drive for five years, then water
injection begins. After five years of waterflooding, at the start
of year 10, Microbial EOR starts. In both waterflood cases,
production continues to a 98% water cut economic limit.
Microbial EOR was simulated by creating two tables of
pressure and saturation dependent data. The simulator was
initialized and run until the beginning of Microbial EOR using
the first tables, then a restart was performed. Selected cells
were assigned properties from the second tables representing
the microbe induced changes. Subsequent restarts extended the
area of microbe colonization into more and more cells until
eventually the entire grid was assigned properties from the
second tables. This colonization by migration and transport is
at the rate of two inches per day or whenever the injection
water tracer concentration reached 20?10of maximum value.
The solution gas drive case takes 18 restarts spanning ten years
for the microbes to fully colonize the reservoir. The waterflood
case takes 14 restarts spanning five years for the microbes to
fully colonize the reservoir. The simulator used was Eclipse
100, although any commercial simulator which allows modifi-
cation of saturation and fluid dependent data cell-by-cell as a
function of time could be utilized.
Simulation Results
Simulator and actual results compare favorably. Total ad-
ditional Microbial EOR at abandonment is
% of Original Pore
M@! Oil in Place Volume, ?to
San Andres 2.5 0.9
Queen Sand 4.5 2.3
Tupungato-Reftigio 13.1 5.0
Model, Solution Gas 2.6 1.5
Model, Waterflood 14.0 5.8
Simulated rates and recoveries compare favorable to the field
results, Figures 29 to 35 present simulator results similarly to
the figures presented on the five field projects, and the same
trends and magnitude of microbial improvement are evident.
Under solution gas drive the Microbial EOR oil production
rate is 30 to 40% higher (Figure 29) and project life is ex-
tended three years. The GOR is decreased with the maximum
reduced from 8,600 to 4,900 SCF per barrel (Figure 30). Res-
ervoir pressure is more effectively utilized under Microbial
EOR to recover 22% of the original oil in place versus 20%
for the base. Remaining recovery from the start of Microbial
EOR increases 41 % (Figure 31).
638
SPE 36746
Under waterflood the Microbial EOR oil production rate is
30% higher initially then 80% higher in mid-life before de-
creasing to 40~o higher near the end of the project life (Figure
32). Project life is extended two years. The water production
rate in slightly higher, but the water cut is lower although the
water injection rate is slightly higher (Figure 33). The in-
creased water injection rate results from injecting at a constant
pressure while microbe-enhanced oil is less viscous and easier
to displace. In addition the water relative permeability is
higher near the injection well as microbes reduce residual oil
below the previous waterflood residual, resulting in an in-
crease in water saturation. The water cut is lower versus oil
recovery, indicating improved displacement efficiency (Figure
34). Recovery increases from 40% to 489. of the original oil in
place. Remaining recovery from the start of Microbial EOR
increases 76% (Figure 35).
Simulator results would be easier to obtain if viscosity and
relative permeability data could be modified with time in the
schedule section of a simulation, eliminating the need for nu-
merous restarts. Also, a more detailed viscosity model consid-
ering viscosity as a function of shear rate as well as pressure
would improve the accuracy of the results.
Conclusions
Microbial EOR has significantly increased oil production
and reserves on five projects. The only costs were for the mi-
crobes and for performing the treatments. No investments were
required. On each project increased production has paid all the
expenses and resulted in ongoing profit. The average cost of
each incremental Microbial EOR barrel produced on these
projects is $3.10. Expansion is underway or planned for all
five projects.
Commercial simulators can be used to match and project
Microbial EOR recovery using the experience in these reser-
voirs with these types of microbes,
SPE 36746 MICROBIAL EOR TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT: CASE STUDIES OF SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS 7

S1 Metric Conversion Factors References

acre-foot x 1.233489 E+03=m3 1. Bryant, Rebecca S. and Douglas, Jonell: “Evaluation of Micro-
barrelx 1.589873 E-01 = m~ bial Systems in Porous Media for EOR’ SPERE (May 1988)
foot X 3.048* E-01 = m 489-494.
2. Brown, F. G.: “Microbes: The Practical and Environmental Safe
md x9.869233 E-04 = &m*
Solution to Production Problems, Enhanced Production, and
psi x 6.894757 E+OO= kPa Enhanced Oil Recovery” paper SPE 23955 presented at the
U.S. Gal x 3.785412 E+OO = L 1992 SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference,
‘F (°F-32)/l.8 = ‘c Midland, Texas, March 18-20, 1992.
3. Streeb, L. P., and Brown, F. G..: “MEOR - Altamont/BhrebeH
* Conversion factor is exact. Field Project” paper SPE 24334 presented at the SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper, Wyoming, May 18-21,
1992.
4. Jang, Long-Kuan e( al,: ‘The Transport of Bacteria in Porous
Media and Its Significance in Microbial Enhanced Oil Recov-
ery” paper SpE 12770 presented at the 1984 California Re-
gional Meeting, Long Beach, California, April 11-13, 1984.
S. Bryant, R, S, ef al,: “Optimization of Microbial Formulations
for Oil Recovery: Mechanism of Oil Mobilization, Transport of
Microbes and Metabolizes, and Effects of Additives” paper SPE
19686 presented at the 64th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, October 8-11, 1989.
6. Islam, M. R.: “Mathematical Modeling of Microbial Enhanced
Oil Recovery” paper SPE 24080 presented at the 65th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana,
September 23-26, 1990.
7. Chang, M-M, e( al: “Modeling and Laboratory Investigation of
Microbial Transport Phenomena in Porous Media” paper SPE
22845 presented at the 66th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 6-9, 1991.
8. Zhang, Xu et al: “A Mathematical Model for Microbial En-
hanced Oil Recovery Process” paper SPE 24202 presented at
the Eigth Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Okla-
homa, April 22-24, 1992.
9. Bryant, R. S. et af: “Laboratory Studies of Parameters Involved
in Modeling Microbial Oil Mobilization” paper SPE 24205 pre-
sented at the Eigth Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 22-24, 1992.
10. Jenneman, G, E. and Clark, J. B.: ‘The Effect of In-Situ Pore
Pressure on MEOR Processes” paper SPE 24203 presented at
the Eigth Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Okla-
homa, April 22-24, 1992.
11. Bryant, Rebecca S. e( al: “Microbial-Enhanced Waterflooding:
Mink Unit Project” SPERE (February 1990)9-13.
12, Marsh, T. L, et al.: “Mechanisms of Microbial Oil Recovery by
Clostridium acetoburylicum and Bacillus Strain JF-2”, paper
presented at The Fifth International Conference on Microbial
Enhanced Oil Recovery and Related Biotechnology for Solving
Environmental Problems in Piano, Texas, September 1I- 14,
1995, National Technical Information Services, U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce. CONF-95091 73,

639
8 F. L. DIETRICH, F. G. BROWN, Z. H, ZHOU AND M, A. MAURE SPE 36746

Table 1- Project Locations LKt of Figures

I Numbar I Figure I - San Andres Project Oil Frodtrction Response.
Pmjeet Loestlon Linsology of Wells Figure 2- San Andres Project Cumulative Incremental 011 Recovery.
Son Andras Hockley County. Frmctured dolomite 30 Prod. Figure 3- San Andrw Project Vkcosity vs. Shear Rate at 50”F
Texas, 15 Injactors
Figure 4- San Andms Project Viscosity vs. Tempersrture
USA
EcIorCounty,
Texas, Porous gay sandstone 18 Prod
Figure 5- Quezn Sand Project Production Response
Queen Sand
USA and siltstcme interbedded 18 Injectors Figure 6- Queen Sand project Water Cut Improvement
Figure 7- Quosn Sand Projeet Cumulative [ncrementsd Oil Recovery
Rof@io- Tupur@o County, Frmrturad sendslone 3 Prod.
Medoza.
Figure 8- Queen Sattd project Viscosityvs. SImr Rate at 50”F
Tupartgato
Argentina Figure 9- Queen Sand Project Viscosity vs. Temperature
Huabei No,3 Plant, .%ndstme 7 Prod. Figure 10- Tupungato-Regtigio Project 011 Production Response
Hebsi Pmvlnce,
Flgrtre 1I - Tupungalo-Refttgio Project Water Cut Improvement
. .....,.-..- Figure 12- Tupungato-Reftigio Project Cumulative Incrwnentrd Oil Recovery
Xhrpang Uygur Figure 13- Tupungalo-Reftigio Project Viscosity vs. Shear Rate at i 00”F
Autonomous Raaum. I Figure 14- Tupungato-Reftigio Project Vkcosity vs. Temperature
Figure 15- Huabei project Oil Fmduction Response
Figure 16- Huabei FYoject Water Cut Improvement
Ftgure 17- Huabei Froject Cumulative Incremental Oil Recovery
Figure 18- Huabei Project Viscosity vs. Shear Rate at 120”F
Figure 19- Hrmbei Project Viscosity vs. Temperature
Figure 20- Xinjiartg Project Production Response
Table 2- Basic Reservoir Parameters
Figure 2 t - Xinjiang Project Water Cut Improvement
Pmj*ct Depth Thlcknass Poroatty Pwrsrmblllty Figure 22- Xinjiang Project Cumulative Incremental Oil Recovery
Net (Gross) Effeetlvo(Range) Figure 23- Xinjiarsg Project Viscosity vs. Shear Rate at 80°F
feat leer Iraerlon md Figure 24- Xinjiang Project - Viscosity vs. Temperature
San Andre$ 4745 48 (loo) 0.079 1,7 (0.10-10.0) Figure 25- Numerical Simulator Grid
QueenSand 4450 1s (40) 0.182 13,0 (0.60-300.0] Figure 26- Numerical Simulator Viscosities
Raf@i& 5700 60 (800) 0.180 300.0 (150-1500) Figure 27- Numerical Simulator Relative Permeability, Oil and Gas Phases
Tuwn@o Figure 28- Numerical Simulator Relative Pernreabllity, Oil cmd Water Phases
Huabei 8930 40 0.232 240.0 (20-640)
4s00 70.0 (0.2-440.0) Flgufe 29- NumericalSimulatorResults,Solution Gas Drive, Otl Production
Xlnjlang
Figure 30- Numerical Simulator Results, Solution Gas Drive, Presstue and
GOR vs. Oil Recovery
Figure 31- Numerical Simulator Results, Solution Gas Drive, Cumulative
Incremental Microbial EOR Oil Recovery
Figure 32- NuttMcal Simulator Results, Waterflood, Oil aod Water prodttc-
tion
Table 3- Additional Reservoir Parameters
Figure 33- Numerical Simulatnr Results, Waterflood, Water Cut and Water
Pmjeet Ras. oil Dead 011 Watar S0at Injection
Tamp. Density Viseosly Sstlnity MEOR Start Figure 34- Numerical Simulator Results, Waterflood, Pore Volumes of Water
“F “API Cp mg/1 Cr % Injected and Water Cut vs. Oil Recovery
San Andrea 115 29 4.5 40,0al 41 Figure 35- Numerical Simulator Results, Waterflood, Cumulative Incre-
QueenSand 110 w 11 180,000 58 mental Microbiat EOR Otl Production
Rafdglo. 160 2s 9 42,000 47
Tupatrgato
Httabel 180 28 14 14,000 w
Xhsjlurg 110 29 50 8,01XI

‘at reservoirterrwersture

640
SPE 36746 MICROBIAL EOR TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT CASE STUDIES OF SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS 9

600 ; :Ii ::[/ ~; ~~~ :~~

..ik ------ -.. ........... ... ................. -.-t .-+. -.-,. .-..t-’.*.-.+..- ... .... .... ...
350 I I I
.:i: : i:{

!, :.. -.. ~..

—Ccfltrol 9/27/94
::
kNart Microbial EORi” ““““!”””
,, $ ....1...
!““-”””
{.......... 34M - . . Inoculated W27194
;:. : b 1 ...1

— MEORlW31/94
250 —. _ MEOR 11/30/S4
—MEOR2W95

\ —* MEOR S/29/95
—~ MEOR 11/20/95

100 :!.

50
-.. -- -- +-- –—–— ——--
t& ,.>.. —..: __=_ -. . . . .—: -:
,+-k - L ‘- -— ==% -
0
...+....... ....,-+...;....+... ...............+...+..+.............. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
:; ~:~
...+.... ..... ......... ... ...+’..+.+ Shear Raw, l\Soc
j; !!! :!!
Figure 3- San Andree Project Viscosity ve. Sheer Rete et 50”F
J A J OJ A J OJ A J O J A J OJ A J OJ A J O J
1992 I 1093 I 1994 I 1995 I 1096 ] 1997
1 I

Figure 1- Sen Andres Project Oil Production Response.

30,000- 30 2,0@3

8 1,S02

1#&m
20
1,400

Percent 1.2C0

1 ,Ox!
10
......+...+
............-..L....
+.. +....+...........!....~.....~......
...+.... m

,!* pementlncmese m

4ca
0
zm

,)
o
O1O2U3O4O5O6O7OSO 901 W11O12O
: !j~ I -10
-10,000 JAJOJAJOJ A. IO JA.JOJ Tcmperslum,Oog. F
I 1994 I lees I Ieee I lee7 1 Figure 4- Sen Andree Project Viscosity vs. Temperature

Figure 2- Sen Andres Project Cumulative Incremental 011 Recov-

ery.

641
10 F. L. DIETRICH, F. G, BROWN, Z. H. ZHOU AND M. A. MAURE SPE 36746

BPD
5,000
50
4,000
3,000
40

z“m
2,000 .i..~..i....i..t.i.. .i..i..{.. ..{.!..i ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ : :
Barrels .!..l.4...&J,&i,...i..;-i...:.;..i
Percent

1000
800++
w ,,i
30

600- - 20
5oo - +#’+
4oo- -
300- ++ 10

200 :;.}. +-i- ,,tti

,~~ ..rr.l.. .f’.~~..
o JAJOJAJ OJAJOJAJOJAJ OJAJOJAJOJAJOJ
0
[1SS0 11SS1 llW211W3119WllW511~l1997j

I ,; 1;::;;;; ~-;;~:;{ I {~:;; ;;;;

I
100
JAJOJAJ OJAJOJAJOJAJ OJAJOJAJOJAJOJAJOJ
Figure 7- Quaen Sand Project Cumulative Incremental 011 Recov-
1199011991 !1992 11993119941199511996 1199711998 I
ery

Figure 5- Queen Sand Project Production Responsa

100
200

180

80 - - ‘Inoculated
160

+— MEOR Afier 4 MOS

Percent 140
_ MEOR Ater 10 Moe..
60
+ MEOR ARer 13 Moe.
‘if 100

j
.- ,0

40
60

40 ~ .. _____ .:

20 20
I I

o ! I 1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

0 Shear Raw, lISOC

(lE+() ‘2E+6 4E+6 6E+6 8E+6 Figure 8- Oueen Sand Project Viscosity vs. Shaar Rate at 50”F
Cumulative Barrels of Water Injected

Figure 6- Queen Sand Prolect Water Cut Improvement

642
SPE 36746 MICROBIAL EOR TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT: CASE STUDIES OF SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS 11

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 lW 110 120130 140
o 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000
Tomperatur., kg. F
Cumulative Barrels of Oil Produced
Figure 9- t3ueen Sand Project Viscosity vs. Temperature
Figure 11- Tupungato-Refugio Project Water Cut Improvement

-36 -24 -12 36

Months After Mi&obia;%OR &tart
Figure 12- Tupungato-Refuglo Project Cumulative Incremental
Figure 10- Tupungato-Reguglo Project 011 Production Response Oii Recovery

643
12 F. L. DIETRICH, F, G. BROWN, Z. H. ZHOU AND M. A, MAURE SPE 36746

B
500
400
120
---
_ Control
= _ = kwulatad
100 –e MEOR Aller 30 Days

80

60 —
\
●
●
60
40 A .._+
-- -.
__J
,.- --- --- - -
%
50
40

20 — 30

20
0

Figure 13- Tupungato-Refugio Project Viscosity vs. Shear Rste st

.----
1UU-F
1994 I 1995 1

....~
.~
Figure 15- Huabei Project Oii Production Response

‘:m
1,600 ..L
........ ....~
....+
...... water cut ~......

1,400
....../
......
f ....+
........... - .{- { .-
....~
.....-.i
......j ......l...i.......
...... ......f
1,200
80
1,000
Percent
800 70

600
60
400

200
so
0
BO 85 90 95 100 105 t10 115 120 125 130 135 140
Tempamtum, O.g. F
o 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000
Cumulative Barreis of Oii Produced
Figure 14- Tupungato-Ref figio Project Viscosity vs. Temperature
Figure 16- Huabei Project Water Cut improvement

644
SPE 36746 MICROBIAL EOR TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT: CASE STUDIES OF SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS 13

250
1,600 – --—--- 1 1 T’--- ,
-- c~~~
c
200 1,400- ,
- - uInoculated
I
1,200 -- 1
#
150 1,

Percent
I
100 -- —– –--—~- ---- -- -

I
600- #
t~
50 .T ----
1’
–—. -—___
400

200 - -:tk b-- - –

0 ●
- . “*t”
. ‘.?k~ .1
-- JWu q-mluq ;?lJJ,IJ ,pl-1~,
o+

-10,000 ‘
;::!- {::. ;~i? ,~: r -50 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180

14 JJASONDJFWA MJJASONOJ Tmmpemtum, Oag. F

1994 I 1995 I
Figure 19- Huabel Project Viscosity vs. Temperature
Figure 17- Huebel Project Cumulative Incremental Oil Recovery

3 D t-+-j

.........
%+,li- .

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Shear Rate, l/See 100
I 1993 I 1994 I 1995 I
Figure 18- Huebei Project Viecoslty vs. Shear Rate at 120”F
Figure 20- Xlnjiang Project ProductIon Response

645
14 F. L. DIETRICH, F. G. BROWN, Z. H. ZHOU AND M. A. MAURE SPE 36746

250
~
~ Cmkd

–—– — — — — . ● . l-~w

a. 150
u
●

100 +- : ——
-* . . ., .*- . . .- . . .,

50

01
0123456 78910
--l Shear Ram. I/Sac
o 50;000 40Q,000 150,000200,000250,000 300,000
Cumulative Barrels of Oil Produced Figure 23- Xlnjlang Project Viscosity ve. Sheer Rate at 80”F
Figure 21- Xlnjlang Project Water Cut Improvement

*O, OQQ,

,::. .

;---1%{=;---
-----
_ _____ ..- .——r
100 1,600

1,400

1-/’1
1,200
15,000 75
r& l,oao
B:[r&s \’
1, Percent
I f 800
,,
I0,000 ..il_—---- —.-——----.-— 50 ,-
i●. . ; > 600

5,000 .:.E!25!ET 25
400

200

0
., 50 60 70 80 90 100110120130140150160 170180190200

Tamfmmtum,Osg. F
0 , , 0
lair-95 Feb-85 Mar-96 Apr-95 M9v-85 Jun-95 JuI-95 Au9-95
Figure 24- Xin]ieng Project - Vlscosky vs. Temperstura
Figure 22- XinJlang Project Cumuiatlve Incremental OH Rscovsry

646
SPE 36746 MICROBIAL EOR TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEME~ CASE STUDIES OF SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS 15

1 r
~ o #“
~jcctor 0.9 E_d
—UrO, ml ; ,’
0.8. Erhmmd ,
\ ‘+-KIu Mlomb, : :
0.7 Er4w10d .
+ KJO,MkrOt.t : ;
04- ,)
Enhucti ,“
.
\k-1 ,
05. ,,
,.
0.4- .
,
4 .
03. .,
%.\\ .
.
02

01.
. ●8 .. .
T~
o*
o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0,6
0 100 200 100 400 500 eoo 700
On thturation, Sg
Radius, Feet

./.
Plguro 37. Numorkal Simulator Math Porwwablllty, 011 ●nd
i3a8 Phasoz

1.0

m
60 ., ..- q O,fm
R [ I I O.e
4,3 0.019
0.8
4.0 0.010
0.7

8
0.012 0.6

0,010
O.oa
a
1
●
0.5

0,4
I I I T--
0002
i 0,2

KLEEEk
9W0 t,Sm !qm WM 2<6C0
Pm3Wm psi
0.2

0.1

0.0
1.0
00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.s 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.0

W4br WmSon, Sw
Flguro SS. Numdcd simulatorVlmOoltl-
Flgur@ 28- Numerical Slmuhtor RdatlnPwnnblllty, 011 ●d
WaterPhas.4

$+v?”t-r’1+ Bas*oll PmdWtlOn M

~ Mlcmbial EOR 011Prod.
, ,,
30,000 +/+

BP !,’, :! !,, ,, !,, ,’

20,000 +H-
I !, :,, ,,, ., ,,, ,, I ++twkww 40

10,000 -#

i, !!!! i!!i!!!:i; i!30

o 06101 s2026 30
5 10 20 26 30
Ye~m Yeara
Flgum31. NumorlodSlmubtorRozultq SolutlonW. Orlvo,Cu-
Plguro2D .Num.rlcai Slmul@tor lWaAto,Solutlon@s OrlvE, Oll
mulatlvoIncrwrwmalMlorobblEOROnRecovuy
Production

647
16 F. L. DIE7RICH, F. G. BROWN,Z. H. ZHOUANDM.A. MAURE SPE3674S

WI..
M

‘“’’’’””’’-’”’’””’””’~
2,600 “’4
::..”’::’:,
.l, .Jl.lj ‘
10
:j,:.:,$
.,j,j:j,,
SterlMlwd

8
MCFI
berrel
44 =...+-1. +-+.-..+ .1..,.

lW

‘*”+E%& 60
60:

0.00 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Fmotlon of Ort@nnl 011 In Phcw PrOdJcsd
0.30
40 .,;

20
., &
.,,,
;,,,;,,,
so ,,,,,;,;,,,;”
,W,-,”,,,,*,

s~r& Ml~@ld
.,-~,,
,,

Fl@Im S0 - Nwnorkxl SlmulMor Roouh tiluiion Qas Orlw, Flgum 32. Numuiwl Simulator RwuI@, Wmmrflood, 011 ●nd Wa.
Pruouro ●nd GOR vs. 011Fkwory lor Producllon

1.0

250,000 so
0.9

200,000 70
0.s

0.7 150,000 so
2,000k
Peroent
1,600’
100,000 60
BWPD
1,OQo
50,0D0 40

0
o 30
06101 s202s20 Q 6 10 16 h 26 ~0--
Yowl Yo8rs
PISUN 3a - Numulad Slmuhtor Ramlts, Walwlloed, WatU Cul FISUIU26- NumorlodSlrnuMor~~ Waterflood,Cumulatlvo
●nd Water hr@tlon Irrcromontal
MicrobialEOR011Produotlrm

1.0

0.0

0.6

0.7

Rwe
Volumos

0.+0 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.s0 0.s0

Fmotlon et Orlghul 011 In Plmo Produood

PIWN 24. Nurndo,l Sbmlti kdb, Watuflod, Peruvol-

urrwsof WawrInjactod●ndWalerCutvmW Rceovwy

648