Journal of Hazardous Materials 324 (2017) 94–99

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hazardous Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhazmat

Nitrate-Mediated Microbially Enhanced Oil Recovery (N-MEOR) from

model upflow bioreactors
Fatma Gassara, Navreet Suri, Gerrit Voordouw ∗
Petroleum Microbiology Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada

h i g h l i g h t s

• High oil production: high concentrations of electrons donor and electron acceptor.
• Best final oil production (36%): use of glucose and 80 mM nitrate.
• The production of oil from these bioreactors: N2 -CO2 gas and biosurfactant production.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Microbially Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR) can enhance oil production with less energy input and less
Received 29 July 2015 costs than other technologies. The present study used different aqueous electron donors (acetate, glu-
Received in revised form 2 December 2015 cose, molasses) and an aqueous electron acceptor (nitrate) to stimulate growth of heterotrophic nitrate
Accepted 20 December 2015
reducing bacteria (hNRB) to improve production of oil. Initial flooding of columns containing heavy oil
Available online 8 March 2016
(viscosity of 3400 cP at 20 ◦ C) with CSBK (Coleville synthetic brine medium) produced 0.5 pore volume
(PV) of oil. Bioreactors were then inoculated with hNRB with 5.8 g/L of molasses and 0, 10, 20, 40, 60 or
Keywords:
80 mM nitrate, as well as with 17 mM glucose or 57 mM acetate and 80 mM nitrate. During incubations
Microbially Enhanced Oil Recovery
Heterotrophic nitrate reducing bacteria
no oil was produced in the bioreactors that received 5.8 g/L of molasses and 0, 10, 20, 40 or 60 mM nitrate.
Molasses However, the bioreactors injected with 5.8 g/L of molasses, 17 mM glucose or 57 mM acetate and 80 mM
Glucose nitrate produced 13.9, 11.3 ± 3.1 and 17.8 ± 6.6% of residual oil, respectively. The significant production
acetate of oil from these bioreactors may be caused by N2 -CO2 gas production. Following continued injection
with CSBK without nitrate, subsequent elution of significant residual oil (5–30%) was observed. These
results also indicate possible involvement of fermentation products (organic acids, alcohols) to enhance
heavy oil recovery.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and secondary phases of production. Production of both heavy and

Primary oil recovery uses the resident pressure of the reservoir
to produce oil. As this pressure dissipates, secondary oil flow to
producing wells is achieved by injecting water to repressurize the
reservoir. This eventually leads to breakthrough of injection water
and to an increasing ratio of produced water to produced oil. Once
this ratio becomes too high tertiary production methods must be
used. These can include Chemically Enhanced Oil Recovery (CEOR),
in which surfactants, polymers, acids, gases or solvents are injected.
The target of these methods is to produce the 45–55% of residual oil
in place (ROIP) that remains in the reservoir following the primary
∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +1 403 289 9311.
E-mail addresses: fgassara@ucalgary.ca (F. Gassara), nksuri@ucalgary.ca
(N. Suri), voordouw@ucalgary.ca (G. Voordouw).
light oils can also be limited by high interfacial tension between oil
and water, which results in high capillary forces that retain the oil
in small pores in the reservoir rock. These forces can be decreased
by injection of chemical surfactants or by injecting alkali, which
activates organic acids in the oil to act as surfactants. Extracting
the maximum amount of oil from reservoirs through tertiary pro-
duction methods constitutes a major challenge to the oil industry
[1–4].
Microbially Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR) is an alternative ter-
tiary oil recovery technology in which microbial products (biomass,
biopolymers, gases, acids, solvents, enzymes and surface-active
compounds) and activities (hydrocarbon degradation, plugging)
are used to improve the recovery of ROIP from depleted reser-
voirs [1,5,6]. This technology typically uses either indigenous or
injected microorganisms to produce useful products by ferment-
ing inexpensive raw materials such as molasses. It has the potential

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.12.039
0304-3894/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 F. Gassara et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 324 (2017) 94–99 95

to enhance oil production with the input of less energy as in ther-

mal processes and less expensive materials as in CEOR processes
[2–4,7]. Molasses is a cheap by-product of the refining of sugar-
cane into sugar that represents an excellent material used in MEOR
technology to promote microbial growth. MEOR can also involve
injection of nitrate, which serves as a high-potential electron accep-
tor stimulating the metabolic activity of the oil field microbial
community. This can lead to increased oil recovery through micro-
bial production of N2 and CO2 gas, production of biosurfactants or
the blockage of non-productive subsurface channels by biomass
formation [2–4,8].
Heavy oil remains in part due to its high viscosity, which lim-
its its mobility and prevents its production by the less viscous
injected water. Viscosity matching, in which water is amended
with polyacrylamide or other polymers is the major tertiary pro-
duction method used in Canada as in the Medicine Hat Glauconitic
C (MHGC) field near Medicine Hat, Alberta to increase production
of heavy oil. However, polyacrylamide is expensive and contains
the toxic monomer (acrylamide). In our study, we analyze a ter-
tiary production method based on the stimulation of the indigenous
microbial community with an aqueous electron acceptor (nitrate,
used also to control souring) and cheap and safe electron donors
like molasses, acetate and glucose. The potential of this strategy
was analyzed by using model sand-packed columns at low pressure
and ambient temperature.

2. Materials and methods

Fig. 1. Set of 6 up-flow sand-packed bioreactors subjected to CSBK medium flooding
(A) and schematic of setup for a single bioreactor (B).
2.1. Oil samples

Experiments were conducted with heavy oil from the Medicine
Hat Glauconitic C (MHGC) field near Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada.
The MHGC field is a shallow (850 m), low-temperature (30 ◦ C) field
from which heavy oil with an American Petroleum Institute (API)
gravity of 12–18◦ and a viscosity of 3400 cP at 20 ◦ C is produced by
water injection.
2.2. Media and enrichment cultures
Enrichment cultures were grown in 120-mL serum bottles,
containing 47.5 mL of sterile anaerobic CSBK medium containing
g/L: 1.5 NaCl, 0.05 KH2 PO4 , 0.32 NH4 Cl, 0.21CaCl2 ·2H2 O, 0.54 g
MgCl2 ·5H2 O, 0.1 KCl and 1 mL of trace elements [9] with either
0, 10, 20, 40 or 80 mM NaNO3 , 1 mL of MHGC oil, a headspace of
90% (v/v) N2 and 10% CO2 (N2 -CO2 ) and additional electron donors
(either molasses, acetate or glucose), as described in Table 1. The
bottles were closed with butyl rubber stoppers and were inocu-
lated with 2.5 mL of produced water (5PW) from the MHGC field
and incubated at 30 ◦ C. Inocula of 5% were sufficient for good nitrate
reduction and good growth of hNRB. Samples from enrichment
cultures were taken periodically using N2 -CO2 flushed syringes
and used to measure nitrate and nitrite concentrations with high-
pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC). These enrichment cultures
were used for inoculating bioreactors as described in the next sec-
tions.
2.3. Bioreactor setup
Syringes (30 mL) without the piston were provided with a layer
of glass wool and a layer of polymeric mesh and were then packed
tightly with sand (Sigma–Aldrich, 50–70 mesh), followed by a top
layer of glass wool as described previously by Callbeck et al. and
Gudi˜na et al. [10,11]. A rubber stopper perforated with a 1 mL
syringe was used to seal the columns. Zip ties were used on the
outside to enhance the seal. Two Luer-Lock three-way valves were
connected to the bottom syringe inlet and the needle outlet so
that samples of the influent and effluent stream could be taken
for chemical analysis. The three-way valves were connected to
0.76 mm ID PVC tubing (Mandel Scientific) with the aid of steel fit-
ting units (OCHS Laborbedarf). The influent tubing was connected
to calibrated 0.5 mm ID PVC pump tubing with 1 mm OD steel con-
nectors (Mandel Scientific) and placed in the head of an 8-channel
peristaltic pump (Gilson Inc., Minipuls-3). Medium was pumped
from a sealed bottle containing anaerobic CSBK medium with a
N2 -CO2 headspace, replenished with a N2 -CO2 filled syringe. The
effluent tubing was led into a perforated Falcon tube used to collect
the effluent (Fig. 1). Experiments were performed at room temper-
ature (22 ◦ C) and low pressure (1 atm)
2.4. Effect of addition of water-soluble electron donors
For experiments on enhanced oil recovery, 30 mL plastic syringe
sand-pack bioreactors were injected with CSBK medium under
upward flow conditions and weighed before and after water sat-
uration to measure PV which ranged from 14 to 16 mL. The CSBK
medium in the sand-pack bioreactorswas then replaced with heavy
oil. The Oil containing bioreactors were then eluted at a rate of
15 mL/day with anoxic CSBK using a peristaltic pump. The oil con-
tent of the produced oil-water mixture was determined daily by
adding dichloromethane and measuring the optical density of the
solvent layer with a spectrophotometer at 600 nm. Following injec-
tion of 15 PV of CSBK a total of 0.5 PV of oil was produced with
approximately 0.45 PV of oil remaining in the bioreactors. We refer
to this as stage 1. In stage 2 columns were injected with nitrate
and with microbial cultures grown as indicated in Table 1. These
were transferred into 50 mL Falcon tubes, which were centrifuged
for 20 min at 13,000 rpm. The biomass pellet was then suspended
in 0.5 PV of anoxic CSBK medium with 5.8 g/L of molasses (17 mM of
glucose equivalents) and 0–80 mM sodium nitrate (experiment I),
as well as with 17 mM glucose or 57 mM acetate and 80 mM sodium
nitrate (experiment II) injected into the columns using the peri-
staltic pump. The columns were then sealed at the top end, while
96 F. Gassara et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 324 (2017) 94–99

Table 1
Summary of oil and water production in bioreactors following one cycle of incubation (stage 2), as well as following completion of the experiment (after stage 3). Density of
MHGC oil = 0.959 g/mL.a

Experiment I Bioreactor Molasses (g/L)b Nitrate (mM) Oil stage 2 (% ROIP) Oil final production (% ROIP)

Bio I1 5.8 0 0 15.1

Bio I2 5.8 10 0 5.8
Bio I3 5.8 20 0 5.2
Bio I4 5.8 40 0.17 6.8
Bio I5 5.8 60 0 11.5
Bio I6 5.8 80 14.4 16.9

Experiment II Bioreactor Electron donor (mM) Nitrate (mM) Oil stage 2 (% ROIP) Oil final production (% ROIP)

Bio II1 Acetate (57) 80 14.4 21.6

Bio II2 Acetate (57) 80 8.2 14.3
Bio II3 Glucose (17) 80 24.4 41.1
Bio II4 Glucose (17) 80 11.2 31.0
a
This table was modified from Table S2 of Ref. [17].
b
Molasses at 5.8 g/L corresponds to 17 mM of glucose equivalent.

the bottom ends were attached to 60 mL vials through 18 G effluent molasses: 17 mM of glucose equivalents
57 mM acetate
port needles. Vials were changed regularly to measure produced 105 17 mM glucose

Reduction (%)
water and oil over 14 days (stage 2) when no further fluid produc- 100
tion was observed. Following incubation, flow of CSBK medium at 95
1 PV/day was resumed in stage 3. Oil and water production were 90
measured throughout the procedure. Concentrations of nitrate and
85
nitrite in the aqueous phase were measured by HPLC.
80
0 10 20 40 60 80
Nitrate concentration (mM)

2.5. Chemical analysis
1 mL of the bioreactor effluent was transferred to a microfuge
tube and centrifuged at 13,000 rpm for 5 min to remove oil and
biomass and clear fluid was transferred to a clean tube and then
used for nitrate and nitrite assay. Nitrite and nitrate were detected
using high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) using a UV
detector (Gilson, USA) as sescribed by Callbeck et al. [10].
Fig. 2. Concentrations of nitrate (mM) in the 47.5 mL aqueous phase and in
enrichment cultures used for experiments I and II, as indicated. The percentage
(%) reduction of nitrate achieved at the end of the incubation is indicated. This
was calculated as % of reduction = (nitrite concentration/initial nitrate concentra-
tion) × 40% + ((initial nitrate concentration − residual nitrate concentration − nitrite
concentration)/initial nitrate concentration) × 100%.
3. Results and discussion

3.1. Effect of molasses on heavy oil recovery using

2.6. Oil emulsification
Effluents from low-pressure bioreactors used in experiment II
were centrifuged at 13,000 rpm for 5 min. 2 mL of clear fluid was
added to 2 mL of toluene. After mixing toluene and the supernatant
by vortexing for 2 min, and leaving to stand for 24 h, the emulsifi-
cation index E24 (%) was calculated, as indicated below. A higher
E24 indicates the potential presence of a higher concentration of
biosurfactant.
E24 (%) = ((height of emulsified layer, mm)/total height of the
liquid column, mm) × 100
2.7. Surface tension measurement
Surface tension is the elastic tendency of liquids, which makes
them acquire the smallest possible surface area. Separation of
oil and water is caused by interfacial tension between immisci-
ble liquids. The presence of a surfactant decreases surface tension
(interfacial tension), which permits stability of minute droplets of
oil in the bulk of water (or vice versa), especially when the polar
head groups of the surfactant are charged. The surface tension of
the same supernatants obtained in 2.6 was determined according to
the ring method (as described by Gudi˜na et al. [11]) using a fully
automatic surface tension analyser (Fisher Autotensiomat model
215, Fisher Scientific Company, USA).
microorganisms at low pressure conditions: experiment I
In order to enhance oil recovery using an aqueous electron
donor, we tested the effect of 5.8 g/L of molasses (17 mM of glucose
equivalent) with 0, 10, 20, 40, 60, 80 mM of nitrate. Note that in the
absence of nitrate we expect fermentation of sucrose to organic
acids and/or alcohols, whereas in the presence of nitrate hNRB
activity will increase production of N2 and CO2 . In stage 2 incu-
bations, no oil was produced in bioreactors Bio I1 to Bio I5 (Fig. 3).
However, Bio I6 injected with 80 mM nitrate produced 0.96 mL of
oil (14.4% of ROIP). Following continued injection with CSBK with-
out nitrate, significant elution of oil was observed in all bioreactors
following stage 3: 15.1, 5.8, 5.2, 6.8, 11.5 and 16.9% of ROIP in
Bio I1 to Bio I6, respectively (Table 1). These results indicate possi-
ble involvement of fermentation products (organic acids, alcohols
and biosurfactant) but not gases in oil production in Bio I1, whereas
the significant production of oil from Bio I6 in stage 2 may be caused
by N2 -CO2 gas production. Microbial gases produced can swell oil
by decreasing its density and increasing its volume and thus facil-
itate oil displacement [13]. However, the lower oil production in
Bio I2 to Bio I4 could be due to the lower gas and biosurfactant
production. Hence, different mechanisms may have contributed to
additional oil production from molasses at different nitrate con-
centrations of 0–80 mM. Li et al. [4] showed that the injection of
nutrients (7 g/L of nitrate and 14 g/L of molasses) in an oil field
increased the abundance of microorganisms, particularly biosur-
factant producers such as Pseudomonas, Alcaligenes, Rhodococcus,
and Rhizobium. Furthermore, the density of these microorganisms
 F. Gassara et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 324 (2017) 94–99 97

was closely related to the incremental oil production [4]. Oil emul-
sification and changes in the fluid-production profile were also
observed [4]. Hence, the additional oil produced from bioreactors
amended with high nitrate concentration (80 mM) and 17 mM of
molasses is probably due to an increase in microorganisms able to
grow and produce metabolites, especially gases and biosurfactants.

3.2. Effect of acetate and glucose on heavy oil recovery using

microorganisms at low pressure conditions: experiment II

In experiment II, we compared the effect of addition of 57 mM

acetate or 17 mM glucose, together with 80 mM nitrate in the
presence of hNRB cultures grown on these same electron donors
(Fig. 2). Duplicate stage 2 incubations led to production of 11.3 ± 3.1
and 17.8 ± 6.6 of ROIP, respectively. Almost complete reduction of
nitrate and of the intermediate nitrite was observed during all stage
2 incubations (Fig. 4). Hence, these results indicated similar effec-
tiveness of aqueous electron donors (molasses, acetate, glucose)
under conditions where all nitrate was reduced with formation of
similar amounts of N2 -CO2 driving oil from the bioreactors. Follow-
ing stage 3, continued injection with CSBK without nitrate, the final
oil production in the two duplicate sets of bioreactors containing
either acetate or glucose was: 17.9 ± 3.7 and 36.1 ± 5.0% of ROIP,
respectively.
Hence, additional oil can be produced from bioreactors injected
with high concentrations of nitrate, and a water-soluble electron
donor, which is readily used by hNRB (e.g., acetate, molasses or
glucose). Oil production in low-pressure bioreactors was observed Fig. 3. Oil production in low pressure bioreactors in experiments I (top) and II (bot-
during stage 2 incubation, when the bottom of the bioreactor was tom). The production of oil in PV is plotted against volume of produced fluids (PV)
flooded through the column. Stage 2 incubation was for 14 days. The numbers in
connected to the anaerobic atmosphere of a serum bottle through
brackets are concentrations in mM. For molasses, this is mM of glucose equivalents.
a syringe needle and during subsequent injection of more CSBK in
stage 3. This oil production was higher and faster than observed
by Kryachko and Voordouw [12]. In their experimental set up concentration of molasses (17 mM of glucose equivalents) stage 2
vials were connected to syringe needles at the top of the biore- production of oil was only observed with 80 mM nitrate, not with
actors, causing oil, water and produced gas to all move in the 10, 20 or 40 mM nitrate (Fig. 3). The mechanism of oil production
same direction (upwards). Maximum oil production in this system during stage 2 incubations of low-pressure bioreactors was likely
was 2.06 mL after 341 days of incubation in bioreactors injected the result of N2 -CO2 production (Fig. 6).
with nitrate. However, in our current setup in which produced oil
and water moved downwards being displaced by gas that moved 3.3. Surface tension and emulsification index measurement
upwards, up to 1.8 mL of additional oil was obtained after 1 cycle (14
days) of incubation. Significant oil production in stage 2 appeared In order to further define the mechanism involved in enhanced
to require high concentrations of both electron donor and acceptor. oil recovery at low pressure and low temperature conditions
Lower concentrations of electron acceptor gave less oil production. (Fig. 6), we measured the E24 and the surface tension for the efflu-
The decrease appeared to be non-linear in the case of a constant ents collected from the bioreactors at the start of stage 3. As shown

90 Nitrate, Acetate (80, 57.2) 20 Nitrate, Acetate (80, 57.2)

80 Nitrate, Acetate (80, 57.2) 18 Nitrate, Acetate (80, 57.2)

Nitrate, Glucose (80, 17) 16 Nitrate, Glucose (80, 17)

70
Nitrate, Glucose (80, 17) Nitrate, Glucose (80, 17)
14
60 Stage1 Stage 3
Stage3
Nitrate (mM)

Nitrite (mM)

12
50
10
40 Stage3 Stage2
8
30
6
Stage2
20
4
10 2

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Days Days

Fig. 4. Nitrate and nitrite concentrations in the effluents from low pressure bioreactors in experiment II. The nitrate and nitrite concentrations are plotted against time in
days.
98 F. Gassara et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 324 (2017) 94–99
70 Emulsificaon index (%)
60
50
E24 (%)
40
30
20
10
0 0
Nitrate, Acetate Nitrate, Acetate
(80, 57.2) (80, 57.2)
Fig. 5. Emulsification index (E24 , left scale) and surface tension (right scale) of effluents from low pressure bioreactors Bio II1 to Bio II4. The effluents were collected
immediately following stage 2 incubations.
Fig. 6. A schematic suggesting the overall mechanism of MEOR by nitrate reduction.
in Fig. 5, the effluents from the glucose-amended bioreactors gave
a significantly higher emulsification index (average E24 = 38%) than
that given with the effluent from the acetate-amended bioreac-
tors (average E24 = 1.5%). The values of the surface tension obtained
for effluents from glucose- and acetate-amended bioreactors were
more similar with averages of 55 and 64.5 mN/m, respectively. The
higher emulsification index and lower surface tension is correlated
with more potential biosurfactant production and more oil recov-
ery. In this study, the final oil production in the two duplicate sets
of bioreactors containing either acetate or glucose was: 17.9 ± 3.7
and 36.1 ± 5.0% of ROIP, respectively. Hence, the injection of glu-
cose in the sand-packed columns decreased the surface tension of
the effluent and increased the emulsification index and oil recov-
ery as compared to acetate. It is known that microorganisms can aid
MEOR by increasing the emulsification, altering wettability, chang-
ing preferential flow pattern, producing gas, biomass plugging
and/or reducing oil viscosity [12,14]. However, recent studies have
demonstrated that among these mechanisms, emulsification and
wettability alteration are the main contributors to the MEOR pro-
cess [14,15]. Significant oil recovery in these cases was attributed
to biosurfactant’s capacity to alter wettability which aids mobiliza-
tion of the entrapped residual oil [12,14]. Hence, the significant oil
recovery observed with the injection of glucose could be attributed
to a significant production of biosurfactant.
The injection of molasses, acetate or glucose and nitrate
enhanced the abundance of hNRB such as Pseudomonas and Thauera
that contributed to oil production during stage 2 incubation by N2
Surface tension (mN/m) 70
60
Surface tension
50
(mN/m)
40
30
20
10
Nitrate, Glucose Nitrate, Glucose
(80, 17) (80, 17)
and CO2 production that displaced the oil from the columns [10].
Oxidation of 16.6 mM of glucose to CO2 and H2 O requires 80 mM
of nitrate in the aqueous phase (Eq. (1)) and oxidation of 50 mM of
acetate to CO2 and H2 O requires 80 mM of nitrate (Eq. (2)):
4C6 H12 O6 + NO3 − + 4.8 H+ → 6CO2 + 2.4 N2 + 8.4 H2 O (1)
− − +
CH3 COO + 8NO3 + 13 H → 10CO2 + 4 N2 + 14 H2 O (2)
Pseudomonas is one of the most widely studied oil degraders
and rhamnolipid producers [16]. Rizobium and Rhodococcus are
also capable of utilizing saturated hydrocarbons and producing
biosurfactants [4]. These microorganisms and their metabolites
are always found in the oil field environment, and play impor-
tant roles in the MEOR process and their abundance increases
with the injection of nutrients [4]. The injection of molasses or
acetate or glucose and nitrate could enhance the abundance of
biosurfactant producers that could explain the oil emulsification
during oil production from our sand-packed columns. The for-
mation of oil-in-water microemulsions, which could improve the
mobilization of entrapped oil, is one of the main mechanisms
of MEOR [4] and is likely the main mechanism involved in this
study. The community composition of the effluents coming from
these bioreactors amended with acetate or molasses or glucose
should be investigated in order to better understand the mecha-
nism involved to obtain this significant oil recovery. Community
analysis of enrichments with acetate glucose and molasses has
indicated the presence of Thauera (3.5, 3.5 and 10.8%, respectively)
and of Pseudomonas (2.5, 80.7 and 8.1%, respectively) as indicated
elsewhere [17].
4. Conclusion
The potential of different aqueous electron donors (acetate,
glucose molasses) and an aqueous electron acceptor (nitrate) to
stimulate growth of heterotrophic nitrate reducing bacteria (hNRB)
under low pressure and low temperature conditions to improve
tertiary production of oil was tested in this study. The results of
this study showed that significant oil production during incuba-
tion with hNRB (stage 2) appeared to require high concentrations
of both electron donor (17 mM glucose or 57 mM acetate or 17 mM
of glucose equivalents as molasses) and acceptor (80 mM nitrate).
Lower concentrations of nitrate gave less oil production. The
decrease appeared to be non-linear in the case of a constant concen-
tration of molasses (“17 mM”). Stage 2 production of oil was only
observed with 80 mM nitrate, not with 10, 20 or 40 mM nitrate.
The mechanism of oil production during stage 2 incubations of
low-pressure bioreactors is likely a result of N2 -CO2 production.
 F. Gassara et al. / Journal of Hazardous Materials 324 (2017) 94–99
Following continued injection with CSBK without nitrate, signif-
icant elution of oil was observed: 15.1, 5.8, 5.2, 6.8, 11.5, 16.9,
17.9 ± 3.7 and 36.1 ± 5.0% of ROIP in bioreactors injected with
5.8 g/L of molasses (17 mM of glucose equivalents) and 0, 10, 20, 40,
60 or 80 mM nitrate, as well as of 17 mM glucose or 57 mM acetate
and 80 mM nitrate, respectively. These results indicate possible
involvement of fermentation products (organic acids, alcohols) to
enhance heavy oil recovery. The bioreactor studies indicate that
N-MEOR technology can be cost-effective even in the current low
oil price environment. Further studies will focus on defining the
mechanism of additional oil production and optimizing nutrients in
CSBK medium (ammonium and trace elements) to further enhance
production of additional oil
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by an NSERC Industrial Research Chair
Award to GV, which was also supported by BP America Produc-
tion Co., Baker Hughes Canada, Computer Modeling Group Limited,
ConocoPhillips Company, Dow Microbial Control, Enbridge, Ener-
plus Corporation, Intertek, Oil Search (PNG) Limited, Shell Global
Solutions International, Suncor Energy Inc., and Yara Norge AS, as
well as by Alberta Innovates-Energy and Environment Solutions.
We are grateful for the administrative support provided by Rhonda
Clark.
References
[1] R. Sen, Biotechnology in petroleum recovery: the microbial EOR, Prog. Energy
Combust. Sci. 34 (2008) 714–724.
[2] N. Youssef, M.S. Elshahed, M.J. McInerney, Microbial processes in oil fields:
culprits, problems, and opportunities, Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 66 (2009)
141–251.
[3] M. Siegert, J. Sitte, A. Galushko, M. Krüger, Starting up microbial enhanced oil
recovery, Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotechnol. 142 (2014) 1–94.
99
[4] G. Li, P. Gao, Y. Wu, H. Tian, X. Dai, Y. Wang, Q. Cui, H. Zhang, X. Pan, H. Dong,
T. Ma, Microbial abundance and community composition influence
production performance in a low-temperature petroleum reservoir, Environ.
Sci. Technol. 48 (2014) 5336–5344.
[5] L.R. Brown, Microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR), Curr. Opin. Biotechnol.
13 (2010) 316–320.
[6] G. Voordouw, Production-related petroleum microbiology: progress and
prospects, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 22 (2011) 401–405.
[7] I. Lazar, I.G. Petrisor, T.F. Yen, Microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR), Pet.
Sci. Technol. 25 (2007) 1353–1366.
[8] V.K. Bhupathiraju, M.J. McInerney, R.M. Knapp, Pretest studies for a
microbiologically enhanced oil recovery field pilot in a hypersaline oil
reservoir, Geomicrobiol. J. 11 (1993) 19–34.
[9] F. Widdel, F. Bak, Gram-negative mesophilic sulfate-reducing bacteria, in:
A.T.R. Balows, H.G. Uper, M. Dworkin, W. Harder, K.H. Schleifer (Eds.), The
Prokaryotes, vol. 4, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 1992, pp.
3352–3378.
[10] C.M. Callbeck, X. Dong, I. Chatterjee, A. Agrawal, S.M. Caffrey, C.W. Sensen, G.
Voordouw, Microbial community succession in a bioreactor modeling a
souring low-temperature oil reservoir subjected to nitrate injection, Appl.
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 91 (2011) 799–810.
[11] E.J. Gudi˜na, J.F.B. Pereira, L.R. Rodrigues, J.A.P. Coutinho, J.A. Teixeira, Isolation
and study of microorganisms from oil samples for application in microbial
enhanced oil recovery, Int. Biodeterior. Biodegradation. 68 (2012) 56–64.
[12] Y. Kryachko, G. Voordouw, Microbially enhanced oil recovery from miniature
model columns through stimulation of indigenous microflora with nitrate,
Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 96 (2014) 135–143.
[13] M.R. Gray, A. Yeung, J.M. Foght, H.W. Yarranton, Potential microbial enhanced
oil recovery processes: a critical analysis, in: SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, SPE Publications, Denver, 2008.
[14] M.L. B. da Silva, H.M. Soares, A. Furigo Jr., W. Schmidell, H.X. Corseuil, Effects
of nitrate injection on microbial enhanced oil recovery and oilfield reservoir
souring, Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 174 (2014) 1810–1821.
[15] E. Kowalewski, I. Rueslåtten, K.H. Steen, G. Bødtker, O. Torsæter, Microbial
improved oil recovery—bacterial induced wettability and interfacial tension
effects on oil production, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 52 (2006) 275–286.
[16] A.M. Abdel-Mawgoud, F. Lepine, E. Deziel, Rhamnolipids: diversity of
structures, microbial origins and roles, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 86 (2010)
1323–1336.
[17] F. Gassara, N. Suri, P. Stanislav, G. Voordouw, Microbially enhanced oil
recovery by sequential injection of light hydrocarbon and nitrate in low- and
high-pressure bioreactors, Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (2015) 12594–12601.