SPE 123072

Improving MEOR Performance by a Selection Methodology in Mature

Oilfields
G.C. Segovia, SPE, V.A. Huerta, SPE, Repsol YPF; G.C. Gutierrez, Petrobras Energia

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Cartagena, Colombia, 31 May–3 June 2009.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR) is a technique that uses bacterias and by-products, either as an organic formation
damage removing mechanism to increase oil production, or as an agent to reduce residual oil saturation, and eventually
increase ultimate recovery factor, specially in mature oilfields.

Successful applications reported in Argentina, United States, China and Venezuela were the main driving force to Peruvian
local companies, which decided to implement some MEOR Projects in Talara oilfields, with positive and negative results.
Consequently, it has been prepared a rigorous analytical and pragmatic methodology by integrating: Well Performance
Evaluation, Reservoir Engineering Analysis, Physicochemical Characterization, Rheological Analysis and Sensitivity to
Biotreatability Tests.

A flowchart including general criteria, as well as, fluid and reservoir properties application ranges was prepared to optimize oil
wells and reservoirs selection to MEOR. This flow chart allowed us to recommend two wells of the MEOR pilot project
recently implemented in a marginal oilfield of Talara, Peru; preliminary results showed in both wells, improvements in fluid
properties (less oil viscosity and higher API°) and initial increase of more than 30% in oil production.

Introduction

Nowadays, about 70% of the oil produced comes from fields with more than 30 years of exploitation, therefore, the oil
industry faces increasingly big challenges, which need to allocate more resources to optimize operations and use new
technology aimed at a good management of mature fields.

One of the major problems facing the engineering teams is the loss of production caused by paraffins and asphaltenes
deposition. Generally, most of the resources have been focused on applying end of pipe technologies (continuous or "Batch"
injection of chemicals products), instead of analyzing the physical-chemistry of organic compounds in a prevention phase.
This situation becomes more critical with the significant increase on the lifting, well services and workovers cost in recent
years. Furthermore, improving the efficiency of recovery, especially in mature fields, has recently gained a greater importance
taking into consideration the risk of exploration activities and what difficult is to find new areas with plenty of oil reserves;
many technological applications aimed to the revitalization of mature areas are being studied and implemented in the industry.

One of the technologies that faces both challenges coincidentally is called Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR) or
Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery, which uses microorganisms and their metabolic products changing the physical and
chemical properties of oil, and stimulating interaction oil-water-rock; thereby, increasing the volume of oil capable of being
produced.
2 SPE 123072

The process involves the injection of suitably selected microorganisms within the reservoir through 2 ways: either into the
producer well, which is the base case to design our methodology (Fig N° 1), or through the injection well (Fig N° 2); then the
well is closed and the inoculated bacteria start their metabolic process developing bio-natural products of low toxicity, such as
alcohol, gas, acids, surfactants and polymers, which change the oil composition and properties such as interfacial tension and
residual oil saturation.

Fig N° 1. MEOR treatment (oil producer well) Fig N° 2. MEOR Treatment (water injection)

Furthermore, during the shut in period, the bacteria moves through the porous media looking for areas with high saturations of
oil, to feed and reproduce itself into the reservoir. Once production starts again, 3 main periods are considered to evaluate the
oil production behaviour after initial inoculation:

1. Initial Period: Time when the inoculated well restarts on production.

2. Evolution: 3 months after restarting production.

3. Residence Effect: Referred to the additional recovered oil. A good performance is considered if the MEOR effect extends
over 6 months.

The typical response of MEOR treatment is reflected in 2 consecutive phases:

A. Cleaning Effect: The first effect of MEOR is an increase in oil production as a result of a mitigation process of organic or
inorganic damage in the near wellbore, as well as, starting production in originally by-passed pseudoplastic oil zones and have
a pseudo-plastic behavior; typical response is a peak oil rate but only for a short time.

B. Radial colonization: The prolonged effect of MEOR is an improvement in oil declination rate, and eventually, an increase
in oil reserves. As part of their metabolic process, bacterias produce light solvents (biocraking oil n-alkanes), causing changes
in oil composition, enhanced oil properties (less residual oil saturation and interfacial tension) and permanent improvements in
rheological properties (less plastic viscosity and yield point), specially at zones located further colonization radius limits (when
oil flow is at lower rates) 1 .

MEOR Applications – Historical Review

This research has focused on evaluating 16 case studies, two of them in Peru, one carried out by PETRO-TECH PERUANA in
a Peruvian offshore field, and the other conducted by PETROBRAS ENERGIA, in a onshore oilfield (it is included a quick
review of a publication summarizing the evaluation of 322 MEOR projects) 2 . All these projects are a source of useful
information to define criteria towards optimizing reservoirs and wells selection to MEOR treatment. Below, major case studies
are briefly explained:

1
Maure A, Agurto A and Ramirez A (2005)
2
Portwood, J.T. (1995).
SPE 123072 3

San Andres – USA3: The reservoir was discovered in 1945, and primary production started with depletion drive mechanism;
then water injection began in 1967. MEOR Project started in 1994. The evaluation after 19 months of the project was:

• Oil production decline rate improved from 6.5%/ year to 0.6%/ year
• 17 000 barrels of incremental oil
• Average daily production raised in 10%
• Decreased oil viscosity

Queen Sand – USA3: The reservoir was discovered in 1984. Primary production was mainly due to solution gas mechanism
till 1990, when a water injection project was implemented. MEOR Project started in 1992. Results after 24 months of
assessment were:

• Oil production decline rate improved from 24%/ year to 12%/ year
• 240 000 barrels of incremental oil
• Daily production increased in 43%
• Decreased oil viscosity

Tupungato Refugio - Argentina3: The field was discovered in 1930 and the main reservoir has been produced by the
combination of solution gas, water drive and waterflooding. MEOR Project started in 1994 in 1 well, and the two left began in
1995. Results after 14 months of assessment were:

• Oil production decline rate enhanced from 7.1%/ year rising to 7.3%/ year
• 19 000 barrels of incremental oil
• Increase of 29% of daily production
• Decreased oil viscosity

Huabei3 - China: MEOR applications have been applied in more than one reservoir. The field is in the final stage of water
injection. MEOR project started in 1994 and after 12 months of evaluation, results were:

• Oil production decline rate enhanced to remain flat at 150 BOPD

• 41 000 barrels of incremental oil
• Daily production increased in 552%
• Significant reduction of oil viscosity

Xinjiang – China3: As in Huabei project, MEOR applications have not been implemented in same reservoir and the field is in
the final stage of water injection. MEOR project started in 1995 and after 24 months of evaluation, results are:

• Decline rate change significantly from a strong rate to a flat rate of 300 BOPD
• Decreased water cut
• 14 000 barrels of incremental oil
• Daily production increased in 36%
• Oil Viscosity increase in the API grade 3 .

Microbial Stimulation Maracaibo Lake - Venezuela 4 : Microbial injection was conceived as a stimulation treatment and was
carried out in more than 300 oil wells since 1996. The results of 50 wells after 6 months of microbial stimulation were:

• 500 000 barrels of additional oil

• Daily production increased at stable rate of 65 BOPD
• 78% of success after treatment
• Decreased oil viscosity

3
Dietrich F., F. Brown, Z. Zhou, and M. Maure. (1996)
4
Trebbau G., Nuñez G, Caira R., Molina N., Entzeroth D. and Schneider D.(1999)
4 SPE 123072

Offshore Talara – Peru1: The target formation was Basal Salinas in Providencia and Lobitos areas (Z-2B Block). Oilfields
are highly faulted and their natural drive mechanism is solution gas; almost all the wells are being produced by gas lift. The
MEOR project was focused on removing formation damage in seven paraffinic oil wells, and after two-year-treatment the
following results were accomplished:

• 19410 barrels of incremental oil for Providencia area

• 13907 barrels of incremental oil for Lobitos area
• Reduction of well services frequency (to remove paraffin deposits)
• Significant improvement in oil production decline rate

Talara Onshore – PERU: The target reservoir was Verdun in Carrizo area (Peruvian Block X). This block, as Z-2B Block, is
located in Talara basin, and has been mainly producing by solution gas solution mechanism assisted by sucker road pumping.
2 producer wells were considered to start a pilot MEOR project in 2004, in an area that is currently under waterflooding. After
two months of evaluation, project was stopped accounting for the following results:

• API gravity increased 1 degree

• Oil viscosity was reduced by 20%
• Oil decline rate did not show any improvement

Development of an Analytical Selection Methodology of Well and Reservoirs to MEOR Applications

The methodology for the selection of potential reservoirs and candidate wells to MEOR has been designed trying to reproduce
the bacteria mechanism in the porous media, when colonizing the reservoir; it is based on 4 key areas: Evaluation of
Production History, Analysis of Reservoir Characteristics, Physicochemical Characterization and Rheology Analysis.

Evaluation of Production History

Significant reduction in oil production is probably an indicator of formation damage. So, if our primary objective is to remove
organic and inorganic deposits, an eventually reestablish oil production, we can start our selection process identifying those
wells where the production drop is equal to or greater than figures showed in Table N° 1.

Production drop (CPmin) is defined by equation N° 1, as a stable percentage decline rate between two years, X and X-n (It is
recommended that "n" should be at least 2 years. In order to not overlook potential MEOR candidates, we have established a
dependency between CPmin and oil rate (see Table N° 1)

Production at X - n years Production Drop

50 BOPD < Px-n 5%

20 BOPD < Px-n < 50 BOPD 5%

10 BOPD < Px-n < 20 BOPD 10%

5 BOPD < Px-n < 10 BOPD 20%

3 BOPD < Px-n < 5 BOPD 40%

Table N° 1 Minimun Pressure Drop

1 ⎡ Px − n − Px ⎤
CPmin =
n ⎢⎣ Px − n ⎥⎦
x100 % …………………………………….(Eq.1)
SPE 123072 5

It should be noted that even though we had identified a prolonged oil rate drop, it is extremely important to discretize only
production events related to paraffins and asphaltenes deposition, from other ones such as mechanical problems.

Finally, wells filtered with this analysis will be evaluated with other criteria, taking into account the characteristics of their oil
sands.

Reservoir characteristics 5,6,7

Bacterias should have a suitable environment, known as Petro-bioreactor, in order to grow, develop and colonize part of the
reservoir. The characteristics of this environment are described as follows:

Distribution of Poral Size: The size of the bacteria ranges among 1-4 micrometers long and 0.1 to 0.3 in thickness, so it is
desirable to select oil reservoirs with big pores, as they are always interconnected into big pore throats, while small pores are
poorly connected and they can be restrictive to the bacteria movement. However, it is very important to take into account that
bigger pores have already been drained by primary recovery.

According to 1/3 -1/7 rule, we are looking for pore throats varying from 0.3 to 2.1 microns at least to ensure free pass for the
bacteria.

Permeability: Bacteria are very efficient to penetrate quickly into high-permeability oil reservoirs; even though high-
permeability reservoirs are quite suitable to the application of MEOR, only very low permeabilities would be a restriction (less
than 0.1 mad). The reason is that higher primary recovery factors are closely linked to good-quality reservoirs, and EOR
potential is founded in low-permeability reservoirs.

Permeabilities from 0.1md to 600mD

Reservoir pressure: Although high pressures change the morphology of the bacteria, some of them have successfully adapted
to these environments. Higher pressure gradients provide a suitable scenario to recover the light oil fractions released after
bacteria crack heavy oil components.

Reservoir pressure should not exceed 13500 psi and suitable pressure gradients should be at least 0.25psi/pie

Reservoir Temperature: Common bottom hole temperatures observed in most of the worldwide oil reservoirs are not a
mainly constraint to bacteria growing. However, reservoir temperatures exceeding 220° F are not desirable for the petro-
bioreactors.

Suitable temperatures range between 100 ° F and 220 ° F

Oil Saturation: Reservoirs that have by-passed or trapped oil are desirable for the bacteria growing and colonization. As water
is actually the wetting phase in most of the oil reservoirs, plays a crucial role in bacteria colonization by acting as a
transmission media for the petro-bioreactor. High residual oil saturation (> 50%) is probably linked to high oil viscosity, and
eventually, this oil should be a good candidate to be biotreated; on the other hand, lower residual oil saturations (less than
20%) correspond to an efficient primary mechanism, and MEOR application would be disregarded.

Oil saturations greater than 20% are looked for.

Physicochemical Characterization and Rheology of Production Fluids

Oil characterization is carried out to understand how is the oil flow behavior under static and dynamic conditions, and
eventually, to predict potential paraffin and/or asphaltenes deposition. The following features are the critical parameters that
should be monitored before and after MEOR applications, in order to evaluate if oil responds to biotreatability.

Physicochemical Characterization6,7

API: This is a special function of the relative density (specific gravity) 15.56°C/15.56°C (60°F/60°F), defined as the mass
relation of an equal volume of pure water at the same temperature. The API gravity is given according to the quantity of heavy

5
Bryant S. and Lockhart T. (2000)
6
Dejun Dang, Chenglong Li, Quanyi Ju, Pingcang Wu, Dietrich F. Zhou, Z. (1999)
7
Donalson, E., Chilingarian, G., Fu, T. (1989)
6 SPE 123072

and light oil components, for example, medium oil, mainly composed of highly weigh molecular chains, such as asphaltenes
and resins, ranges API among 20° and 30°, while light oil, mainly composed of paraffins, ranges API between 30° and 40°.
The suitable range of API to MEOR applications is wide and would vary between 20 and 40.

API Gravity is measured using ASTM D-287 / ASTM D-1298

Composition of Oil: Oil is a homogeneous mixture of different kinds of hydrocarbons, such as aliphatic hydrocarbons,
aromatics, asphalt resins and asphaltenes. Oil composition must be precisely defined to choose the type of MEOR treatment,
which depends on the content of certain substances in the oil, that are well desirable for bacterias; these substances are listed in
descending order of bacteria’s preference: n-alkanes, paraffins short chains, paraffin long chains, isoparaffins, cycloparaffins,
aromatic, aliphatic and aromatic polycyclic, heterocyclic, asphaltenes. This composition must be recorded before and after the
biotests to assess the changes in medium and heavy oil chains. It should be noted that some microorganisms, under anaerobic
conditions, destroy the light oil molecules to get the oxygen needed for their growth, this is known as biodegradation (which is
undesirable); that is why, it is crucial to evaluate biodegradation risk of oil caused by bacteria sample, so a complete
composition analysis is required before and after MEOR treatment.

Chromatography tests, based on ASTM D-2007, are run to determine paraffins and asphaltenes content.

IR spectra: The IR spectra characterization can reveal the existence of biosurfactants in the produced oil.

The analysis of functional groups to be identified is based on ASTM E-204.

Salinity: In general, bacteria can grow at low concentrations of salt; otherwise, a successful growth of bacterias would be
inhibited, and high electrical interaction between the rock surface and bacteria would increase adhesion and restrain
transportation ability, and eventually, it would be necessary to increase the bacteria concentration in the treatment. Another
phenomena observed in bacteria is osmosis, which can result in the death of the bacteria due to water migration contained in it.

The standard to measure salt content in oil is D-3230 and the upper limit is 120,000 (mg/l)

pH: The optimum pH range for the bacteria to survive is about 7-8.

C, N, P sources: Bacteria need these sources to survive. In case phosphate exceeds suitable ranges in the environment, it will
be necessary to include Na2-EDTA to prevent phosphates interaction with divalent cations.

Cloud Point or Opacity Temperature: Cloud point is the temperature at which oil begins to dim, or no longer be as
transparent as it is in normal state; this phenomena ocurrs when first crystals are formed at that temperature, in other words,
cloud point is the temperature where the first paraffin crystal appears.
(*) Other Chemical Treatments: Wells to be selected must not have other chemical treatments (such as biocides, corrosion
inhibitors, solvents, paraffin, etc..) during MEOR implementation to avoid interference. Wells to be selected should not have
biocide treatments, and if they had, residual biocide should be measured (Glutaraldehyde, THPS, or other) before carrying out
MEOR, to assess whether the environment is favorable or not.

Rheological assessment 8 :

Further to only analyze oil composition; this methodology incorporates an analysis of the oil behavior under dynamic
conditions. While the chromatographic analysis defines percentages of paraffins and asphaltenes in crude oil, only through an
evaluation of the rheological behavior of hydrocarbon flow, we can predict the actual potential of organic compounds
deposition into the wellbore, plugging perforations and reducing the productivity index.

Viscosity: Tests are performed with the Fann viscosimeter which allows a comparison between:

• Viscosity vs. temperature

• Viscosity vs. Shear stress
• RPM vs. Shear stress (Tau)

8
Lisigurski O., Asprilla J. and Hernadez de Paz M. (2002)
SPE 123072 7

As many viscous oil samples show a non-Newtonian behavoiur, with this curves we can identify if the oil behaves as a
pseudo-plastic, dilatant or Bingham plastic fluid; in this sense, we would be able to know if there is a trend to paraffins or
asphaltenes precipitates. As a rule of thumb, paraffins precipitate by changes with temperature, while asphaltenes do by
changes in pressure.

Those oil samples with potential paraffin problems will show a dilatant behavior, as it is shown in figures N° 3 and N° 4.

RPM vs TAU Viscosity vs Tem perature

30°C
700 30°C
40°C 25
40°C
600 50°C
50°C
Logarí t mica (30°C) 20
500 Pol i nómi ca (30°C)
Logarí t mica (40°C)
400 Lineal (50°C) 15 Pol i nómi ca (40°C)
RPM

Pol i nómi ca (50°C)

300
10

200
5
100

0
0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
TAU T e m pe r a t ur e

Fig N° 3. RPM vs. Shear Fig N° 4. Viscosity vs. Temperature

Those oil samples with potential asphaltene problems will show a Bingham plastic behavior, as it is shown in figures N° 5
and N° 6:

RPM vs TAU Viscosity vs Temperature

700 1400

600 1200

500 1000
Viscosity

800
RPM

400

300 600
30°C 30°C
40°C 40°C
200 400
50°C 50°C
100 Lineal (30°C) 200
Lineal (30°C)
Lineal (40°C) Lineal (40°C)
0 0
Lineal (50°C) Lineal
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 (50°C) 60
TAU Tem perature

Fig N° 5. RPM vs. Shear Stress Fig N° 6. Viscosity vs. Temperature

9
Figure N° 7. Viscosity vs. Paraffinic and Asphaltic Crude Oil Temperature
8 SPE 123072

Figure N° 7 is a comparative analysis of how viscosity varies with temperature, in a paraffinic crude oil and an asphaltic
crude4.

Biotreatability Tests Response 9

Once we have identified the potential problem, physical conditions to house the bacteria, crude oil composition and behavior
that subsequently we want to modify; biotreatability tests are performed and they will define the final design of the bacterial
treatment to be used in each case.

Biotreatability test consists of several bacteria groups to be inoculated and the evaluation of the effect produced by each one in
the crude oil. Biodegradation levels can be determined by the investigation of the components that will be degraded.
Establishing a scale of biodegradation of 1-10, where 1 represents light biodegradation and 10 a severe biodegradation. (Peters
& Moldowan Scale). Those crude oil that are not biodegradable will have zero level (0).

Once performed the treatment, we proceed to compare both, the physical, chemical and rheological characteristics. To
determine crude oil alteration, we use 3 indicators7:

NI: It measures the change in molecular composition, from a plastic behavior toward Newtonian behavior. And it is given by
equation 2:

μ − μwithout _ treatment , max shearrate …………………………….………Ec. (2)

NI =
without _ treatment , min shearrate

. μinoculated , min shearrate − μinoculated , max shearrate

What we looking for in this case is that NI is would be as big as possible, thus indicating that crude oil has reached a more
Newtonian behavior, which can be seen in a more horizontal curve in the graphic of viscosity vs. speed.

Qualifies as positive values greater than 1.10 NI

DV: The change in viscosity or viscosity Delta, measures viscosity changes at different shear rates compared to the untreated
crude oil viscosity and is given by equation 3:
max VC

∑ (μ without _ treatment − μinoculated )i

DV = i = min VC
max VC
..…………..…………………………....(Ec. 3)

∑μ
i =min VC
without _ treatment , i

As expected, biggest viscosity changes are sought (DV), and therefore it is expected that this is a high value.

It is considered a positive test when DV is greater than 0.1

EOR: EOR index is derived from EOR factor that considers only the contribution due to viscosity change effects and is
given by equation 4:
1
EOR = ………………………………………………………….(Ec. 4)
1 − DV
The higher the value of EOR, The greater the recovery due to MEOR.

A test is considered positive when EOR index is greater than 1.15 EOR

Finally, once defined these 4 criteria, a flow diagram of the process is shown in Figure N° 8:

9
Maure M., Dietrich F., Diaz C., Argañaz H. (1999)
SPE 123072 9

Fig N° 8. Methodology Flow chart

10 SPE 123072

Selection Methodology and its application in Peruvian Northwest

Peruvian Block X located in Talara basin was chosen to test MEOR. Oilfields from this block are highly faulted and have been
producing since at least 100 years ago, from more than 2000 wells. The following sequence was pursued to apply the proposed
selection methodology:

1. To start selecting candidate wells to apply MEOR technology, first, it was necessary to identify those wells showing a
prolonged production, according to Table 1, filtering oil wells with mechanical problems that are not related to organic
deposition.

South and Coast areas in Block X were chosen due to a recurring well services history; some of these interventions,
according to field reports, are due to deposition of paraffins and asphaltenes.

Figures N°9 and N° 10 shows the oil rate history of two wells from South and Cost areas respectively; it can be
appreciated in each well during the latest years, a sustained production drop, which according to reports, was due to
organic formation damage. Those wells look attractive to MEOR treatment at first view, but it is necessary to support
this hypothesis with more evidence.

AA5804 CARRIZO Bat. CA_23 Estado: BM EA6919 BALLENA Bat. OR_11 Estado: BM

1000 1000 1000 1000

Axis 1 AA5804 Axis 1 EA6919
1. 19760726_EC Petróleo, bbl/d
1. 19860709_EC Petróleo, bbl/d
Bruta, bbl/d Bruta, bbl/d
500 2. 19770602_HL Pronpz2005.PETDC 500
LX.petECdc
500 Pronpz2005.PETDC 500
3. 19770827_EC_HL LX.PetERdc
LX.petECdc
LX.PetERdc
LX.petHLdc LX.petHLdc
LX.PetOSdc LX.PetOSdc
PETDC_REV PETDC_REV
PRODUCCION DE OIL (STB/D)

100
PRODUCCION DE OIL (STB/D)

100 100 100

50 50 50 50

10 10 10 10

5 5 5 5

1 1 23 1 1 1 1
1976 81 86 91 96 01 06 11 16 21 1986 91 96 01 06 11 16 21
AÑOS AÑOS
PROD. (BOPDC) = 1.913 ACUM. PET. (MBLS.) = 157.028 RESERVAS (MBLS) = 18.704 EUR (MBLS) = 157.038 AA5804 PROD. (BOPDC) = 5.335 ACUM. PET. (MBLS.) = 51.627 RESERVAS (MBLS) = 22.125 EUR (MBLS) = 51.646 EA6919
FECHA FECHA

Fig N° 9. Well Production – South Area Fig N° 10. Well Production – Coast Area

2. We continue with the identification of producer reservoirs. It was determined that production drop was given in wells
which produce from one reservoir as those do from several formations. It was decided to work with those wells
producing from 1 or 2 reservoirs. This would allow us to better characterize both the target reservoir and the oil
reservoir.

Well Numbers vs Number of Reservoirs

3%

39%

58%

1 Reservoir 2 Reservoirs 3 Reservoirs

Fig N° 11. Well Number vs. Number of Reservoirs

SPE 123072 11

Wells vs Producer Reservoirs

MO Mogollón
50
45
38
OS Ostrea
40
35 Echinocyamus
EC
30
24
Wells

25 HL Helico
20 17
15
10 11 AT Areniscas Talara
10 7
3
5 VE Verdun
0
MO OS EC HL AT VE ER ER Echino Repetido
Producer Reservoirs

Fig N° 12. Well vs. Producer Reservoirs

3. According to reservoir characteristics and production in those areas, Ostrea, Echino and Lutitas Talara (Helico and
Areniscas Talara) were chosen as target reservoirs.

4. API gravity an salinity of the crude oil samples are in the suitable range proposed for this methodology, between 20°
and 40 °, and less than 33000ppm respectively.

5. After applying all the analytical filters, we arrive into a preliminary of candidate wells for this two areas as listed
below (see Figure N° 13):

ORG.
NORTE

PATRIA TUNAL

ORGANOS SUR

Coast Area EA6919 LAGUNA

SOMATITO

VERDE
EA7211
BALLENA
EA10227
EA2302
PEÑA

NEGRA CENTRAL ZAPOTAL

TAIMAN
EA8243 Bombeo Mecanico
MERINA
REVENTONES

LA TUNA

CARRIZO

AA6343 South Area

AA5804 AA9174
AA1585 COYONITAS

Fig N° 13. Candidate wells to MEOR in Block X

12 SPE 123072

6. According to production data provided by the operator, we show in Figure N° 14 preliminary results after 2
treatments in one of the wells located in the south area (including MEOR performance after treatments at 3 months
and 6 months).

OIL PRODUCTION VS TIME

OIL

1st MEOR Treatment

2nd MEOR treatment

Permanency Effect
  Cleaning Effect

Fig N° 14. Preliminary Results after MEOR treatments

SPE 123072 13

Conclusions and Recommendations

1. It has been found that a successful MEOR implementation is intimately linked to the paraffin content in oil and its
biotreatability, high pressure gradients, rock porosity and permeability, as well as, prolonged periods of shut in during
treatment.
2. The stratigraphic and structural complexity of the Peruvian northwest reservoirs, require an exhaustive work of
characterization of the porous media, where microorganisms do their colonization action.
3. Rheological characterization of crude oil and physicochemical evaluation are both crucial to determine the trend of paraffin
deposition in the reservoir, under static and dynamic conditions.
4. We must have a good control of all parameters of the produced fluids (water and oil), before and after biotreatments
implementation to assure suitable evaluation and follow up phases.
5. The assessment should consider the monitoring of MEOR program established; otherwise, results will be influenced by any
changes in the application, such as short shut in periods or low concentrations of nutrients for the bacteria, events that
could mask actual response from the reservoir and the biotreated oil.

Technical and Economic Contribution

1. It has been provided an integral analytical methodology to precise ranking of MEOR portfolio towards future applications
in Peruvian northwest.
2. Opportunity to assess the enhanced oil recovery potential and to extend the life of mature fields in Peruvian northwest.
3. Improvement in selection and design of Well Stimulation Treatments, based on further available information from oil
physical-chemical and rheological characterization.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Universidad Nacional de Ingenieria - Peru for their authorization to publish this paper and Petrobras
Energia S.A., for their support providing us necessary data to elaborate the paper.

Nomenclature
BOPD = Barrels of Oil per day
CPmin = Minimum production drop, dimensionless
DV = Delta Viscosity Index
EOR = EOR Index
k = Permeability (md)
n = Years before current year,
NI = Newtonian Index
OOIP = Original Oil in Place [Bbl]
Px-n = Production rate at “x-n” years [BOPD]
RPM = Revolution per minute
Tau = Shear Stress
u = Viscosity [cp]
x = Current year

References

1. Bryant S. and Lockhart T.: “Reservoir Engineering Analysis of Microbial Oil Recovery”, SPE 63229, SPE Ann. Tech. Conf. Exhib.
Dallas, 1-4 Oct. 2000
2. Dietrich F., F. Brown, Z. Zhou, and M. Maure: “Microbial EOR Technology Advacement: Case studies of Successful Projects”, SPE
36746, SPE Ann. Tech. Conf. Exhib. Denver, 6-9 Oct. 1996
3. Dejun Dang, Chenglong Li, Quanyi Ju, Pingcang Wu, Dietrich F. Zhou, Z. : “Systematic Extensive Laboratory Studies of Microbial
EOR Mechanism and Microbial EOR Application Results in Changqing Oilfield”, SPE 54380, Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference
and Exhibition Jakarta, 20-22 April 1999
4. Donalson, E., Chilingarian, G., Fu, T. Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery. Elsevier, 1989. Chapter III.
5. Lisigurski O., Asprilla J. and Hernadez de Paz M.: “Clasificación de los crudos para poder resolver los graves problemas de
producción y daño al medio ambiente generados por las depositaciones de parafinas y asfaltenos en la cuenca Golfo San Jorge”,
Ingepet 2002
6. Maure A, Agurto A and Ramirez A.: “Biotechnology Application to EOR in Talara Off-shore Oilfields, Northwest Peru”, SPE 94934,
SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Rio de Janeiro, 20-23 Jun. 2005
7. Maure M., Dietrich F., Diaz C., Argañaz H.: “Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery Pilot Test in Piedras Coloradas Field, Argentina”,
SPE 53715, SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Caracas, 21-23 April 1999
8. Portwood, J.T: “A Commercial Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery Technology: Evaluation of 322 Projects”, SPE, paper number
29518, 1995
9. Trebbau G., Nuñez G, Caira R., Molina N., Entzeroth D. and Schneider D.: “Microbial Stimulation of Lake Maracaibo Oil Wells”,
SPE 56503, SPE Ann. Tech. Conf. Exhib. Houston, 3-6 Oct. 1999