SPE

Society of Petrolelm Engineers of AIME

SPE 12114
Recovery Efficiency of Enhanced Oil Recovery Methods:
A Review of Significant Field Tests
by E.C. Hammershaimb and V.A. Kuuskraa, Lewin & Assocs. Inc. and George Stosur
U.S. DOE "
Members SPE-AIME
Copyrighl 1983 Sociely of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
This paper was presented at the 58thAnnuai Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Francisco, CA, October 5-8. 1983. The material is subject
10 correction by the author. Permission to copy IS restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Write SPE, 6200 North Central Expressway,
Drawer 64706, Dallas, Texas 75206 USA. Telex 730989 SPEDAL.
ABSTRACT
This paper analyzes past enhanced oil recovery
(EOR) projects to determine how well they have
performed as a function of reservoir and process
variables. In total, over 100 key tests covering the
following six major enhanced oil recovery techniques
are analyzed: Steam Drive, In-Situ Combustion,
Carbon Dioxide Flooding, Polymer Flooding,
Surfactant/Polymer Flooding, and Alkaline Flooding.
The analysis includes, by technique and
geographical area:
The range of oil recovery due to EOR in
barrels per acre-foot and as a percentage of
oil remaining in-place.
A comparison between predicted performance
and actual oil recovery.
An examination of the performance of
different EOR processes within each of the
six techniques.
An analysis of the relation of reservoir
parameters and process variables to oil
recovery.
INTRODUCTION
Currently, the costs of d i scoveri ng oi 1 are
increasing and at the same time finite limits to
conventional oil reserves are being recognized.
Together, these two trends provide added incentive
for more efficient recovery from already discovered
1982, steam drive accounted for 218,000 barrels per
day, or over Un, of the U. S. enhanced oi 1 recovery,
as shown in Table 1. Steam soak adds another 80,000
to 100,000 barrels per day to these U.S. totals.
The collection of improved recovery techniques
called EOR has a long history of research. However,
it is only recently that results from a sufficient
number of pilot and field tests have been reported so
the performance of EOR can be evaluated, e.g., how
efficient the various technologies are.
To provide a base for an appraisal of EOR
technology and its future potential, this study
examines the recovery efficiencies of 117 reported
EOR field tests covering six major techniques, as
foll ows:
EOR Techni que
Steam Drive
In-Situ Combustion
Carbon Dioxide Flooding
Surfactant Flooding
Polymer Flooding
Alkaline Flooding
Total
No. of Projects
26
34
14
20
15
8
m
The actual oil recovery efficiencies of these
tests are evaluated and compared with how well these
projects have performed against originally predicted
results. The relationship of key reservoir and
process variables to oil recovery is also discussed.
OVERVIEW OF THE ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
fields. The analytic methodology consisted of the
following steps: (1) assembling information on the
Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) provided nearly pilot and field tests including reservoir
400,000 barrels per day in 1982 in the Western characteristics, and data on primary and secondary
Hemisphere, up from 280,000 barrels four years oil recovery; (2) documenting the prior and latest
earlier. The major portion of EOR production is in predictions and actual oil recovery due to EOR; (3)
the United States, at over 300,000 barrels per day. checking the data for consistency, accuracy and
completeness, to the extent possible, using
The thermally-based recovery methods, supplemental data, background knowledge and contacts
particularly steam injection, dominate enhanced oil with operators; and (4) analyzing the performance of
recovery in the U.S. and the rest of the world. In tests with respect to key reservoir properties and
EOR process variables, such as volumes of injected
Tables at end of paper. material.
L-_______ . : . . . . - ~ __________________ ... _ .. _
STEAM DRIVE
The principal enhanced oil recovery method is
steam drive, the bulk of which has been in shallow
heavy oil sandstone reservoirs, particularly in '
California. However, several projects have been
started in deeper reservoirs, carbonates, light oils
(with API gravity 2()O+ and low viscosity) and tar
sands (viscosity over 10,000 cpl.
Reservoir data and performance were tabulated
for 26 steam drives. Of these, 18 are field scale
ranging from 20 acres to the l,827-acre Tia Juana'
(M-6) pr.oject. The remaining eight are classified as
pilots because they are less than 20 acres in size.
Steam drives are generally implemented in
reservoirs with low primary recovery, typically 5% to
20% of the original oil in-place (OOIP), although
extensive secondary recovery (steam soak) may have
increased oil recovery to 25% to 30%.
Several key projects are not yet complete; thus,
the analysis of recovery efficiencies may understate
final performance. Even so, several points stand
out, as shown on Table 2.
Well-engineered steam drives in the favorable
shallow, heavy oil fields of California are
highly efficient with expected recoveries of
70% or more of the remaining oil-in-place
( ROI P) Ac tua 1 recoveri es (a s of Spri ng
1983) for some of the projects approach 60%
of ROIP.
Steam drives in heavy oils outside of
California have been less efficient with a
median expected recovery of 30% of ROIP.
Recoveries to date range from 6% to 47% of
ROIP.
The application of steam drive to light oil
reservoirs is recent, thus only limited data
are available. Of the six light oil projects
analyzed, oil recovery efficiencies due to
steam drive range from essentially none in
the thin (17-foot) and low oil volume,
El Dorado, Kansas, test to 18% of ROIP in a
continuing test at Shiells Canyon, California.
Use of steam for recovery of tar sands is
also recent. The Street Ranch test in Texas
was a technically successful pilot that
recovered 54% of ROIP. The Cat Canyon,
California, test is expected to recover 35%
and the Peace River, Canada, project 40% to
70% of ROIP.
Actual oil recovery from steam drive has
generally been consistent with and at times has
exceeded original predictions, as shown on Table 3.
I "Z-{( '1
scavage heat (Chevron) and the injection of
chemicals with steam (Getty).
In the shallow, heavy oils outside of
California, the Slocum, Texas, steam drive
recovered 842 B/AF, or 82% of its high
expectation of 1,028 B/AF. Two other
projects, Smackover in Arkansas and Winkleman
Dome in Wyoming (both still underway), have
recovered 30% to 60% of their predicted
recoveries. Oil recovery from the Tia Juana
(M-6) project in Venezuela is expected to be
525 B/AF, of which 20% has been recovered, to
date.
Because steam drive in light oils and tar sands
is still of an experimental nature, no reliable
comparisons can yet be made between expected and
actual oil recovery.
Reservoir and analytic models show the
importance of oil saturation, oil viscosity, net pay,
porosity, and depth on oil recovery. However,
analysis of twelve mature California steam drives
provides no clear correlation of these reservoir
properties with oil recovery efficiency, Table 4.
This table shows that, for all practical purposes,
the eight projects with higher oil recovery
(recoveries of 44% to 74% ROIP) have reservoir
properties similar to the four projects with lower
oil recovery (recoveries of 20% to 44% ROIP). Thus,
process design may be as critical to recovery as
favorable reservoir properties.
The economic success of a steam drive project is
better measured by the oil-steam ratio than by the
recovery. Table 5 shows the recovery, oil-steam
ratio and steam injected for seven projects, grouped
by recovery efficiency. Two projects, both at Kern
River, which is a highly favorable reservoir, show
recoveries of 56% to 74% of ROIP. Both of these
projects have similar oil-steam ratios of about 0.17
and have injected between 1.2 (not including hot
water to scavenge heat) and 1.7 pore volumes of
steam. The five lower recovery projects all have
actual or expected recovery efficiencies ranging from
30% to 47% of ROIP. The table illustrates that, in
general, the oil recovery is a function of the amount
of steam injected. However, larger steam volumes
often mean lower oil-steam ratios, so even though
large amounts of oil may be technically recoverable
with a corresponding high recovery efficiency, it may
not be economic to do so.
IN-SITU COMBUSTION
In-situ combustion, or fireflooding, is one of
the earliest EOR methods, with field tests starting
in the late 1950's. These tests showed the
theoretical and operational complexity of this
process to be considerably higher than originally
expected.
In the shallow, heavy oils of California,
predictions of ultimate recovery range from Information and reservoir properties were
500 to 1,000 barrels per acre-foot (B/AF). collected on 34 in-situ combustion projects from
Actual recoveries in the two most mature nearly all of the important oil production areas in
(continuing) steam drives in Kern River the U.S. and the world. Twenty-four of the projects
(Chevron's Ten Pattern and Getty's Green and are field scale (more than 20 acres) and the
Whittier projects) are 808 and 760 B/AF, remaining ten are pilots. The majority (26 projects)
respectively. Predicted oil recoveries for involve low gravity (less than 25
0
API) oils at
these two projects have increased over their depths shallower than 3,500 feet. Only three
original estimates due to water injection to projects have a higher gravity of 29
0
to 40
0
API.
_____ ______ __ ______ ______ -L
t<y / t<l
The amount of oil recovered prior to in-situ
combustion reflects the different reservoir types
where this EOR technique is used. The first category
is heavy and very heavy oil reservoirs, where prior
recovery has been less than 15% of ROIP, oil
saturations are high at 55% to 75%, and the EOR
process is used in a secondary mode. Nineteen of the
projects belong to this largest category. The second
type of reservoirs are heavy oil reservoirs (gravity
usually greater than 20
0
API) where prior recovery
is higher, ranging from 15% to 35% of ROIP. For
these reservoirs, the oil saturation at the start of
the project ranges from 45% to 60%. The process has
also been tested in tar sands and very heavy oils
with no previous recovery and high oil saturations of
50% to 75%.
In-situ combustion has the potential for
recovering substantial additional oil, with
recoveries reaching 50% of ROIP, particularly when
water is injected to scavenge heat (wet combustion).
The in-situ combustion projects fall into three
distinct categories with respect to recovery
efficiency, Table 6:
SUccessful Projects. Nine of the projects
have recovered or expect to recover over 30%
of ROIP; five of these projects are wet
combustion projects and two are dry
combustion projects;
Moderately Successful Projects. Eleven of
the projects have recovered from 10 to 30% of
ROIP; Eight of these projects are known to be
dry and only one is known to be wet.
Unsuccessful Projects. Eight of the projects
have recovered less than 10% of ROIP. These
projects were either dry (3 projects) or in
tar sands (5 projects).
These results indicate that wet combustion may
be technically superior to dry combustion.
Predictions of ultimate recovery and actual
performance generally agree for the successful
projects, and in several cases the latest prediction
of recovery has increased over earlier forecasts,
Table 7. In-situ combustion has been most successful
and predictable in the three tests in the Bellevue
field of Louisiana. Predictions of ultimate recovery
are 680 to 737 B/AF, with recovery for these ongoing
projects ranging from 303 to 677 B/AF (Spring 1983).
Actual performance versus prediction has been
lowest when in-situ combustion has been used in very
vi scous oil s and tar sands. In two such projects, at
Little Tom and Paris Valley, essentially no oil was
recovered against anticipated recoveries ranging from
259 to 700 B/AF.
Evaluation of the in-situ projects (Table 8)
shows that, in general, the successful projects have
been in relatively shallow reservoirs with moderate
viscosity crudes and high oil saturations. The
unsuccessful projects were often in reservoirs with
viscous oils and low (0-5%) primary/secondary
recovery or 1 ight oil reservoirs with hi gh (25+%)
primary /secondary recovery.
Moderately successful projects have less air
injected per acre-foot of reservoir than the
successful projects, and a lower air-oil ratio, Table
8. This indicates that operating problems in
controlling the combustion front may be responsible
for the lower oil recovery and that the projects were
stopped when the process reached the economic limit.
However, within each category there appears to be no
correlation between the success of a project and the
amount of air injected.
Prior analysis has shown that variability in oil
recovery is also attributable to differences in
process variables, particularly with respect to the
rate and volumes of air injection, the success in
maintaining an integral combustion front, and the
capacity to successfully control the process.
CARBON DIOXIDE FLOODING
Carbon Dioxide (C02) flooding has been
underway for some time in West Texas and West
Virginia. In addition, there are several recent
C02 floods on the Gulf Coast of Louisiana, in high
permeability, dipping reservoirs, although there is
insufficient data to analyze their performance.
The use of carbon dioxide (C02) for enhanced
oil recovery received a major boost in the early
1970's with the initiation of the 29,OOO-acre Kelly
Snyder (SACROC) project in West Texas.
Information has been assembled on the
performance and reservoir properties of 14 carbon
dioxide projects, seven of which are field scale.
These projects are in both sandstone and limestone
lithology and generally in 1 ight oil reservoirs
ranging in depth from 2,000 to 12,800 feet with low
permeability (2 to 34 md) and low porosity (8% to
23%). These two latter properties help restrict the
gravity override and fingering that limit the
efficiency of this EOR process in reservoirs with low
dip.
Carbon dioxide floods are used for both
secondary and tertiary oil recovery. The analysis
includes five secondary C02 projects, with primary
recovery between 13% and 21% of OOIP, and nine
tertiary C02 projects with primary-secondary
recoveries of 30% to 48% of OOIP.
For purposes of analysis, the C02 field tests
have been divided into three groups based on expected
oil recovery, as a percent of ROIP, Table 9. This
leads to the following findings:
Hi gh Recovery Projects. More than a thi rd of
the C02 projects have (or expect) high oil
recovery, generally 40% to 50% of ROIP.
These projects represent a variety of
reservoir settings and adaptations of the
C02 EOR process:
-- At Little Creek, more than two pore
volumes of C02 were injected (with
recirculation) to evaluate the capacity of
C02 to recover oil from a low residual
oil setting; recovery was 138 B/AF or 46%
of ROIP.
-- At Slaughter Estate, sour gas (72% C02,
28% H2S) was injected in a WAG mode
(water alternating with gas), followed by
nitrogen as a chase gas; recovery to date
(Spring 1983) is 125 B/AF or 35% of ROIP
and is expected to reach 40% of ROIP.
-- At Weeks Island, a gravity stable flood is
being tested in a steeply dipping
reservoir; oil recovery is estimated to be
150 B/AF or 52% of ROIP.
-- The two tests at Levelland are a secondary
mode WAG pilot and a tertiary mode WAG
field test; oil recovery is estimated to
reach 85 to 100 B/AF.
Recovery Projects. Four tests show
moderate recovery, ranglng from 10 to 30% of
ROIP. The large field test at Kelly Snyder
(SACROC), is conducted in a secondary mode
and expects to recover an incremental 16 B/AF
over waterflooding, or 11% of ROIP. (A
subsequent pilot at SACROC, in a tertiary
mode, however, recovered only 6% of ROIP.)
The test of C02 in a heavy oil field at
Lick Creek expects to recover 277 B/AF or 21%
of ROIP, with 70 B/AF recovered to date. At
Twofreds, the East reservoir has responded
well to a secondary C02 flood and expects
to recover 27% of ROIP, whereas an earlier
waterflood met with little success.
Low Recovery Projects. Four of the C02
projects had recoveries of 10% of ROIP or
less. The two West Virginia projects,
Granny's Creek and Rock Creek, recovered 10%
and 9% ROIP, respectively, due to the very
heterogeneous nature of the reservoir. A
follow-up C02 test with mobility control
chemicals is planned for Rock Creek. The
Wasson (Willard) field test was terminated at
an early stage.
The predicted versus actual oil recovery from
C02 flooding is tabulated on Table 10. (The
projects initiated in a secondary mode require a
certain amount of judgment to separate out the
incremental EOR oil over hYpothetical secondary
recovery. )
In Texas and Louisiana, actual oil recovery
(except for SACROC) is generally in line with initial
predictions, although several of the projects are
sti 11 underway. At Rock Creek, West Vi rgi ni a, only
47 B/AF were recovered against initial recovery
estimates of 221 B/AF, one-fifth of the originally
predicted recovery.
The table also illustrates the long lead time of
C02 flooding. Several of the projects were started
5 to 10 years ago, but recovery in many cases has
just begun and will continue for many years.
A comparison of reservoir properties, Table 11,
indicates that C02 flooding works best under the
following conditions:
In low oil viscosity reservoirs with
reservoir pressure in excess of 2,000 psi,
with high waterflood sweeps of 75% or more,
and small spacing.
In dipping reservoirs where a gravity stable
C02 flood front can be maintained.
In the moderate recovery projects, the viscosity
of the crude is higher, the reservoir pressure is
lower and the prior waterflood sweeps less
efficient. As a consequence, the C02 may have
preferentially fingered through the reservoir leading
to low oil recovery.
Table 12 shows that the amount of C02 required
per barrel of incremental oil recovered ranges
widely, from 3 to 27 r-1cf. Lower values are expected
at Slaughter Estate (3 Mcf/B), in the steeply dipping
Weeks Island test (6 fief/B) and in the large scale
Kelly Snyder (SACROC) project (9-10 Mcf/B).
The field tests also indicate an optimum C02
slug size ranging from 20 to 40% hydrocarbon pore
volume (HCPV). Additional C02 injected beyond this
optimum will continue to recover oil, but at rapidly
increasing C02/oil ratios. Al so, to improve the
economics, recycled C02 was used for one-half or
more of the total injection requirements at Little
Creek, Lick Creek, and Crossett.
SURFACTANT FLOODING
The application of surfactant flooding for
enhanced oil recovery has evolved from the large
volume, low concentration process of the 1960's to
the current complex, high concentration
surfactant-slug process with mobility control polymer
drive. Field tests were started in the late 1960's
and early 1970's, particularly in the Illinois
Basin. While many of the early applications were at
field scale, the projects undertaken by industry
without Government support since 1974 have all been
pilots, except the Robinson 219-R which is in a field
with many prior pilots. Despite the optimism of the
early 1970's, surfactant flooding is still in its
early stages of development and there is considerable
uncertainty associated with its use.
Performance and reservoir data were collected on
20 surfactant flooding projects. Primary and
secondary oil recoveries for reservoirs under
surfactant flooding have generally been high, 40% to
60% of OOIP. Waterflood sweeps are also high in the
70% to 90% pore volume (PV) range. The majority of
the projects have been in high API gravity (30
0
+)
reservoirs with low temperature (less than 120
0
F)
and low salinity. Thus, the bulk of the light oil
resource is in reservoirs with temperature and
salinity values yet to be tested by field projects.
However, several projects have begun to extend the
process to more difficult settings and heavier oils.
The Sloss project was in a moderately high
temperature reservoir (l65-200
0
F), but the
reservoir brines were low in salinity (2,500 ppm).
Two recently completed tests, Loudon and Wichita Co.
Regular, were in reservoirs with salinities of
104,000 and 160,000 ppm, but low temperatures
(800-90
0
F). Al so, two projects are currently
near completion in heavier oils, at Wilmington
(API gravity of 18
0
; viscosity of 25 cp), and at
Chateaurenard (API gravity of 27
0
; viscosity of 40
cp) .
Surfactant flooding projects have been divided
into four groups, based on performance, Table 13.
Five of the 20 projects have had high oil recovery,
35 to 40% of ROIP, with one pilot project, Loudon,
reaching 60% of ROIP. Six projects have had moderate II
oil recoveries of 17 to 30% of ROIP and seven
projects have had low recovery, 15% of ROIP or
below. Two projects are too early to evaluate.
Three findings emerge from the analysis of
expected versus actual performance of surfactant
floods, Table 14:
The initial expectations for
surfactant-polymer flooding were high, with
anticipated oilrecoveri es of two to three
hundred B/AF and more than 40% of ROIP.
Subsequent research and lack of field
response have led many of the operators to
scale back their expectations, with latest
recovery estimates generally dropping to 15%
to 30% of ROIP.
Actual oil recovery in the large scale
demonstration tests in light oils has
generally been lower and slower than expected.
The field results show that the surfactant
process is not adequately predicted by conventional
models nor does it yet match laboratory performance.
Surfactant flooding has performed best in the
Illinois Basin with oil recoveries of 30% to 40% of
ROIP. In contrast, the tests in Appalachia and the
mid-continent have much lower, 5% to 20%,
efficiencies. The high oil recovery projects have
been in reservoirs with permeabilities greater than
50 md, residual oil saturations (in the waterflood
swept zone) of 25% or more, a temperature of less
than 120
0
F, and salinity of less than 25,000 ppm
(except for Loudon). For the projects with lower oil
recovery, one or more of these conditions are usually
not met, Table 15.
Table 16 examines the efficiency of surfactant
flooding in light of the key process variables: the
amount and design of the chemical injected.
Comparisons of surfactant flooding projects are
complicated by the numerous process formulations
variations in surfactant slug volumes and concen-
trations, use of co-surfactant and crude oil as part
of the slug and the size and concentration of the
polymer mobility buffer. Even so, several general
observations can be made:
Surfactant-to-oil ratios, measured in pounds
of lOot active sulfonate, range from 20 to 40
pounds per barrel of incremental oil. The
three projects below the 20 pounds per barrel
ratio, Robinson 119-R, Chateaurenard, and
Bradford (Bingham), likely include some
secondary oil in their recovery figures.
Four of the five projects appreciable above
the 40 pounds per barrel, Borregos,
Delaware-Childers, Loudon (1969) and Benton,
were small 1 to 2 acre pilots that may not
have captured all of the displaced oil.
Polymer-to-oil ratios generally range from 2
to 3 pounds per recovered barrel. Some
projects (e.g., Salem and Wichita Co.
Regular) used very small, 30% PV, and low
concentration, 400-500 ppm, mobility drives
and had ratios of 1 pounds per barrel or
less. Projects in the heavier oils (such as
Wilmington and Chateaurenard) used much
higher volumes and concentrations of polymer
and had ratios at or above 4 pounds per
barrel.
index of. performance has been developed to
establlsh a ranklng of performance. Arbitrary unit
values were assigned to the various chemicals
(surfactant = 0.5 units; co-surfactant [alcohol] =
0.2 units; co-surfactant Coif] = 0.1 unit; and
polymer = 1.5 units). This ranking of projects,
Table!7, shows that, except for the projects that may
have specific problems (e.g., severe
channe11ng), there is a distinct correlation between
the index value and recovery efficiency -- greater
chemical usage leads to higher recovery but at
continually increasing chemical-to-oil ratios.
POL YMER FLOOD! NG
There \tere approximately 50 projects in the
United States using polymer flooding in 1982 and 29
of these projects were started after 1980. The
majority of projects were located in Wyoming and the
mid-continent (Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas).
Reservoir properties and performance were
tabulated for 15 polymer floods, 13 of which were
more than 20 acres each; two of the projects North
Stanley Stinger and West Yellow Creek, are 1,000
acres each. In general, the polymer projects are in
reservoirs with moderate temperatures (900 to
14ooF), good permeabi1ities (up to 2,300 md) and
low salinity reservoir waters (less than 60,000 ppm),
except West Yellow Creek (133,000 ppm).
Polymer flooding has been tested in heavier as
well as lighter oil reservoirs. Eight of the
projects have an API gravity ranging from 30
0
to
400 and a corre spondi ng low oi 1 vi scosi ty of 1 ess
than 10 cpo The remaining six projects are in
reservoirs with the oil between 18
0
and 30
0
API
and a moderate viscosity of 10 to 50 cpo
The majority of the projects are in reservoirs
where the primary and secondary recovery have
generally been modest, at 10 to 40% of OOIP.
However, three of the reservoirs, Pembina, North
Burbank, and Howard Glassock, had good prior
recoveri es of 40% to 60% of OOIP.
The 13 mature polymer floods separate into two
distinct categories with respect to oil
efficiency, Table 18:
Higher Oil Recovery. In the six higher oil
recovery projects, oil recoveries have been
from 3% to 17% of ROIP; the highest oil
recovery project, Taber Manville, recovered
190 B/AF and 16% of ROIP. However, secondary
oil reserves are likely included in this and
some of the other polymer flooding projects.
The large scale polymer flood at West Yellow
Creek, on 4,000 acres, expects recoveries of
5% to 10% of ROIP.
Lower Oil Recovery. For the six lower
recovery proJects, oil recoveries have been
less than 10 B/AF with recovery efficiencies
ranging from essentially zero to 2% of ROIP.
While the additional oil recovery that can be
expected from polymer flooding may be moderate to
low, it remains attractive due to its relative ease
of ooeration and rapid oil resoonse
Oil recovery from polymer flooding has generally
been lower than origina1y predicted, Table 19. Two
higher oil recovery projects have achieved 50% to 70%
of their recovery estimate. The lower oil recovery
projects, however, have achieved only 20% or less of
their initial recovery target.
Analysis of the data, Table 20, indicates that a
polymer flood works best when: (a) the project is
implemented in a secondary mode, such as at Skull
Creek or Taber Manville, when mobile oil still exists
in the reservoir; (b) adequate polymer is injected to
achieve a favorable mobility ratio and overcome
polymer loss due to degredation; and, (c) the crude
has low to moderate viscosity.
Although the data are very sparse, there appears
to be little difference in the slug size, design and
concentration between the more and less successful
projects. The higher oil recovery projects are
characterized by a chemical usage of 0.5 to 1 pound
of polymer per incremental barrel of oil. The lower
oil recovery projects have ratios ranging from 2
pounds of polymer per barrel of incremental oil
produced up to 80 pounds of polymer per barrel of oil
for the now terminated Storms Pool test.
ALKALINE FLOODS
Interest in alkaline or caustic flooding has
increased recently. Eighteen projects were reported
operating in early 1982 with an oil production of 600
barrels per day. In addition, numerous new projects
are being planned or have started recently.
Reservoir properties were collected on eight
alkaline floods. However, four of the tests were
conducted about 20 years ago and only limited data is
available. In general, alkaline floods have been
undertaken in relatively heterogeneous, higher oil
saturation (40%+) reservoirs with low to moderate
viscosity oils (2 to 40 cpl. Because the recovery
mechanisms are thought to involve emulsification
and/or wettability alteration, acidic crudes are
thought to be preferable. While the acid numbers in
the early tests were low, two recent tests,.at .
Wilmington and Huntington Beach, have been 1n heav1er
oils with higher acid numbers.
Production response to the alkaline process is
often difficult to measure since the expected
incremental production rates are small and.
considerable time is often needed to establ1sh a
significant change in the oil production decline
curve.
The alkaline flooding project with the highest
reported oil recovery efficiency is North Ward Estes,
Table 21. While published sources indicate oil
recovery of up to 10% of ROIP and 100 B/AF, the
erratic nature of oil production, changes in the
water injection rate and undefined remaining
secondary oil make incremental oil recovery difficult
to gauge. The other early projects (Harrisburg,
Whittier and Singleton) had reported oil recoveries
ranging from 22 to 48 B/AF. The three most recent
projects--at Orcutt, Huntington Beach and
Wilmington--have experienced low oil recovery of less
than 1 B/AF to date (Spring 1983). However, the
latter two projects are still early in their lives
and expect recoveries of 3 to 7% of ROIP (23 to 50
B/AF)
/ ( ( '-(
Typically, the chemica1s-injected-to-oi1-
recovered ratio ranges from 30 to 50 pounds of alkali
per barrel of oil (lb/B), although a low of 3 lb/B is
reported for Whittier and a high of 100 1b/B is
expected at Wilmington, Table 22.
Three early alkaline projects that had reported
oil recoveries of 22 to 48 B/AF were in low acid
number crude oil reservoirs with moderate oil
viscosities that may have precluded efficient water
flooding. These projects used a low volume alkaline
slug, below 10% PV, and injected less than 700 pounds
alkaline per acre-foot of reservoir. They reported
chemical-injection-to-oil-recovery ratios of 3 to 32
pounds per incremental barrel.
The best reported performance has been in the
North Ward Estes project, where a high pore volume
(15% PV) and high concentration (4.9% wt.) alkaline
slug was used. Lowest recovery is reported for the
small slug (2% PV) and low alkaline concentration
(0.4% wt.) test at Orcutt. The alkaline-to-oil
ratios for these two tests were, however, similar, at
40 to 50 pounds per incremental barrel of oil.
The two most recent projects, in heavier oil
reservoirs with higher acid number crudes, are using
a much larger size alkaline slug, 40-60% PV, and
injecting 2,000+ pounds of alkaline per acre-foot of
reservoir. However, these projects are still too
early in their lives to reliably assess their
performance.
CONCLUSIONS
The main conclusions of this study are:
1. Oil Recovery Efficiency. Steam drive has the
highest recovery efficiency of the EOR processes,
with oil recoveries of 400 to 800 barrels per
acre-foot and 30 to 60% of the remaining
oil-in-place. At the other extreme, alkaline
flooding--when successful--has recoveries of 20 to 40
B/AF and 2% to 5% of ROIP, as shown below:
EOR Techni que
Steam Dr1ve
Oil
In Situ Combustion
Carbon Dioxide Flooding
Surfactant Flooding
Po 1 ymer Flood i ng
Alkaline Flooding
Recovery (Successful Proj ects)
B/AF % of ROIP
400 - 800 30 - 60
100 - 250 15 - 25
50 - 120 20 - 30
70 - 200 15 - 40
10 - 60 2 - 10
20 - 40 2 - 5
2. Process Efficiency. - The key process efficiency
measure for EOR 1S volume or pounds of material injected
versus additional barrels of oil recovered. The table
below summarizes this data for the six EOR techniques:
EOR Technique
Steam Drive
In Situ Combustion
Carbon Dioxide Flooding
Surfactant Flooding
Polymer Flooding
AHal i ne Flooding
Conventional Measure
Of Performance
4-6 B Steam/B oil
15-20 Mcf Ai riB oi 1
10-25 Mcf C02/B oi 1
20-40 lb. Surfactant/B oil
1-2 lb. Po1ymer/B oil
0.5 - 2 lb Polymer/B oil
30 - 60 1b AHa1ine/B oil
3. Steam Drive. In well engineered and
geologically favorable settings, the steam drive
process may recover up to 70% of ROIP. The bulk of
the projects have been conducted in relatively
shallow (less than 2,800 feet), high permeability
(500+md), high porosity (0.25+), heavy oil (less than
200API) reservoirs. The steam drive process is
currently being extended to more difficult reservoir
settings as well as to lighter oils and tar sands.
Pilot efforts of using additives with steam show
considerable promise.
4. In-Situ Combustion. In-situ combustion or
fireflooding has been tried in a variety of settings,
at depths that range from 500 to over 11,000 feet and
in oils gravities of 11
0
to 40
0
API.
Recovery efficiencies are from 15% to 25% of ROIP,
and from 100 to 250 B/AF, although approximately
one-third of the projects have failed to recover any
appreciable additional oil. The more successful
projects have been in reservoirs with high oil
saturation, moderate viscosities and shallow depths.
5. Carbon Dioxide Flooding. This process has
shown good results in West Texas (U.S.) with
recoveries of 20% to 30% of ROIP and about 100 B/AF.
However, carbon dioxide flooding has been less
successful in Appalachian reservoirs where recovery
efficiencies have been 15% of ROIP or less. The
successful field projects have generally been in
deep, low permeability reservoirs with lighter oils.
The analysis indicates that there is an optimum
volume of C02 injection and a correlation between
smaller spacing and higher oil
u.s. OIL PRODUCTION DUE TO ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY
(Barrels per day)
1982 1978
-
The nna 1
Steam Drive 218,100 128,600
In-Si tu Combusti on 10,200 10,000
Subtotal 228,300 138,600
Gas Injection
Carbon Dioxide 21,900 40,200
Other Gases 50,000 69,800
Subtotal n ,900 110,000
Chemical
Micellar-Polymer 900 500
Polymer
2,600 2,500
Alkal ine 600 -
-- --
Subtotal 4,100 3,000
TOTAL 304,300 251,600
Source: 0, I ana Gas Journal
7
6. Surfactant Flooding. While great
expectations continue to be held for the surfactant
fl oodi ng technology, its performance to date has
fallen short of its potential. The best results of
surfactant flooding have been obtained in the
Illinois Basin and the northern states with recovery
efficiencies of 20% to 40% of ROIP and from 70 to 200
B/AF. However, field tests in Appalachia and the
mid-continent have achieved lower recovery, less than
20% of ROIP.
7. Polymer And Alkaline Floods. When
successful, polymer flooding shows recoveries of
about 5 to 10% of ROIP and 30 to 60 B/AF. However, a
number of tests (such as North Stanley Stringer) show
very low, 1 to 3% recoveri es of ROI P, and many of the
high oil recovery tests (such as Taber Manville)
include secondary reserves in their recovery
figures. Oil recovery due to alkaline flooding has
been low, at 2% to 5% of ROIP and 20 to 40 B/AF.
These techniques have been undertaken in reservoirs
with moderate to high gravity oils (20
0
to 40
0
API and 1 to 50 cp viscosity) and in relatively deep
reservoirs (deeper than 2,500 feet) with high
permeability. The high failure rates for the polymer
and alkaline floods and the inherent difficulties in
quantifying incremental tertiary oil lead to
considerable uncertainties as to the actual
performance of these two EOR technologies.
TABLE 2
REVIEW OF OIL RECOVERY--STEAM DRIVE
(By Reservoir Setting)
RECOVERY EFFICIENCY, ROIP
Reservoir Setting
1. Shallow, Heavy Oil
a. California
o Pilot Projects
o Field Scale
b. Other
2. Li ght Oil
3. Tar Sands
* Too early to tell.
a Spri ng 1983
Actual a
5-48
2-59
6-47
0-18
*-54
33-64
20-74
29-47
0-19
35-70
46
50
30
18
*
TABLE 3
REVIEW OF PREDICTED VERSUS ACTUAL PERFORMANCE--
STEAM DRIVE
Remaining Ultimate Recovery
Oil Prealct:lons
Reservoir Setting In-Place Ori na 1 Latest Actual Comments
(6 AFJ TB7AFT TB7AFT
1. Shallow, Hea vy Oil
a. California
Kern River I 1,370 717 1,020 808+ Heat scaven9ing
Mt. Po so 1,380 860 515 401+ Production at 20 MBD
Kern River II 1,358 745 754 760+ Steam with chemicals
Midway-Sunset II 1,347 865 60+ Shallow steam drive
Yorba Linda 1,760 920 740+ Complex reservoir
b. Other
Wi nkl eman DOme 1,346 732 410 240+ Test started in 1964
Slocum 1,786 1,028 842 Large PV of stear.1
Smackover 1,236 360 100+ Combination of
steam, air & water
Ti a Juana (M-6) 1,818 598 525 110+ Production at 25 MBD
Schoonebeek,
Netherlands 1,988 378 6+ Just started
2. Li ght Oil (No predictions)
3. Tar Sand
---
Cat Canyon 1,329 446 + Steam soak only
Peace River 1,673 670-1,170 + Just started
+ AS of Sprlng 1983, proJect is still continuing.
TABLE 4
COMPARISON OF RESERVOIR PROPERTIES FOR
HIGHER AND LOWER RECOVERY PROJECTS -- STEAM DRIVE
Actual Or
Hi gher Oil Predicted Oil Net
Recovery Projects Efficiency Saturation Vi scosi ty
*
Porosity Depth
('l>ROIP) (cp) t) lftT
Kern River I 74 0.52 2,700 97 0.34 700
Kern River II 56 0.50 4,500 70 0.35 870
Midway Sunset I 65 0.50 1,500 260 0.27 1,300
Midway Sunset II 64 0.58 6,500 150 0.30 400
Midway Sunset III 4sa 0.51 7,000 400 0.28 1,000
Yorba Linda 52 0.76 6,400 300 0.30 650
Inglewood 44a 0.65 1,200 43 0.39 l,OUO
Cymric 64 0.57 3,500 63 0.35 1,200
Range of val ues 44-74 0.50-0.76 1,200-7,000 43-400 0.27-0.39 400-1,300
Lower Oil
Recovery Projects
Brea 01 inda 21 0.71 3,100 144 0.31 800
S. Bel ri dge 2Qa 0.67 1,600 91 0.35 1,100
Coal i nga 3sa 0.60 3,000 66 0.34 1,300
Mt. Poso 37 0.54 280 55 0.33 1,800
Range of val ues 20-37 0.54-0.71 280-3,100 55-144 0.31 -0.35 800-1,800
a Ac tual recovery
TABLE 5
OIL-STEAM RATIO FOR SELECTED HEAVY OIL STEAM DRIVE PROJECTS
Current
Recovery , % of ROIP O/S Ratio
ACtual (v/v)
Hi 9her Oi 1 Recovery Projects
Kern River I 74 59a+ 0.17
Kern River II 56+ 0.16
Lower Recovery Efficiency
Slocum 47 0.14
Winkleman Dome 30 18+ 0.20
Chat'Co Redondo 31 0.05
Mt. Poso 37 29+ 0.22
Coal i nga 38 + 0.19
a Includes injection of water to scavenge heat.
+ Continuing as of Spring 1983
TABLE 6
REVIEW OF OIL RECOVERY FROM IN-SITU COMBUSTION
Successful Projects
Del hi (D)
Glen Hummel {WI
Bellevue III (WI
W. Newport (NR)
Bell evue I (W)
Shannon (NR)
Bell evue II (W)
Glori ana (WI
II (D)
S. Be ri dge (D)
Moderately Successful Projects
Brea Olinda (D)
Midway-Sunset I (D)
W. Heidelberg (NR)
Trix-Li z (D)
Fry (D)
Sloss (W)
lola (NR)
W. Casa Blanca (D)
Bartlesville Sand (D)
Asphalt Ridge II (D)
Unsuccessful Projects
N. Tisdale (D)
Talco (D)
N. Government (D)
Little Tom (D)
Paris Valley (W)
Asphalt Ridge I
Kyrock (NR)
o = Air lnJectl0n only
W = Air and water injection
NR = Not reported
Recovery Expected
To Date Recovery
(% ROIP) (% ROI P)
69 Compl eted
36 52
35 47
45
27 45
42 Completed
18 41
32 34
51 Compl eted
40 Completed
23 25
20 NR
18+ 26
17+ Compl eted
18 Completed
15 Completed
13 Completed
11 Completed
12 Completed
25 Completed
NR Completed
4 Completed
low Compl eted
Completed
low Completed
Compl eted
Completed
+ As of Spring 1983, project is still continuing.

Current
Steam
Injection
(Pore Vo1.1
1.2a
1.7
2.3
0.6
2.0
0.7
1.0
TABLE 7
REVIEW OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL RECOVERY--
IN SITU COMBUSTION
Remaining U1 timate Recovery
Oil Prea, c'f, ons
In-P1 ace
mm
1 Latest Actual
Successful Projects (BJAf) TBlAIT TB7Afl
Glen Hummel 1,543 BOO 551+
Bellevue I II 1,909 675 737 677+
Bellevue I 1,550 691 415+
Bell evue I I 1,640 6BO 303+
Gloriana 1,324 389 449 422+
Moderately Successful
Pro3ec't:s
Brea 01 inda 1,155 200 290 270+
W. Heidelberg 775 42 200 140+
Tri x-Liz 1,140 615 105
Asphalt Ridge II 1,563 400 390
Unsuccessful Projects
Talco l,76oe 90 73
Litt1 e Tom 958 259
Pari s Valley 1,568 700 low
Asphalt Ridge 1,563 400
+ As of Spring 1983, project is st, 11 continuing.
e Estimated
TABLE 9
REVIEW OF OIL RECOVERY--CARBON DIOXIDE FLOODING
Oil Recovery to Date
B/AF % ROIP
High Recovery Projects
Little Creek 138 46
35+
8+
2+
29+
Slaughter Estate 125+
Weeks Island 24+
Levelland Field (tertiary) 4+
Levelland Pilot (secondary) 55+
Moderate Recovery Projects
Twofreds (East)
Li ck Creek
Crossett
Kelly Snyder - field
43
70+
53+
14+
Suspended
8+
4+
11+
8+
Low Recovery Projects
Wasson! win ara
Granny s Creek 34 10
Rock Creek 47 9
Kelly Snyder - pilot 9 6
+ As of Spring 1983, project is still continuing.
Expected Oil Recovery
B/AF % ROIP
Comp1 eted
141 40
150 52
99 48
85 45
154
277
120
16
Completed
Completed
Completed
27
17
25
11
TABLE 8
COMPARISON OF RESERVOIR PROPERTIES AND PROCESS VARIABLES--
IN-SITU COMBUSTION PROJECTS
Primary/ Air-
Oil Oil Secondary Oil Air
rHf
Vi scosity Saturation Ratio Injected
(cp) ('.t OUIP (MCl7l!") 1MlICf7lIF")
Successful Projects
Delhi 3,400 3 0.33 0.47 14 7
Glen Hummel 2,300 50 0.56 0.15 5 3
Be 11 evue II I 350 680 0.72 0.09 15 10
W. Newport 1,400 700 0.69 0.10 11
Bellevue I 350 450 0.53 0.14 16 7
Shannon 950 80 0.60 0.02 6 3
Bellevue II 350 700 0.60 0.22 15 5
Gloriana 1,600 100 0.50 0.15 10 4
Midway-Sunset II 1,500 1,600 0.61 0.30 15 8
S. Be1ridge 1,100 1,600 0.68 0.09 6
Moderately Successful Projects
Brea 01 inda 3,500 20 0.54 0.28 8 2
Midway-Sunset I 2,400 110 0.62 0.17 3
W. Heidelberg 11,500 6 0.73 0.06 5
Trix-Li z 3,650 26 0.55 0.14 8
lola 850 750 0.71 0.10 27 4
W. Casa B1 anca 1,000 150 0.45 0.28 16 2
Bartlesville Sand 830 70 0.74 0.05 23 3
Asphalt Ridge II 350 106 0.65 140
Unsuccessful Projects
N. Tisdale 930 175 0.65 0.05 25
N. Government 2,300 10 0.36 0.40 NR
Li tt1e Tom 2,700 90 0.59 0.03 High
Pari s Vall ey 840 200,000 0.63 Hi gh
Asphalt Ridge I 350 106 0.65 Hi gh
NR = Not Reported
TABLE 10
---
REVIEW OF PREDICTED VERSUS ACTUAL PERFORMANCE--C0
2
FLOODING
Remaining U1 timate Recovery
011 Pre eli cil ons
Projects In-P1 ace

Latest Actual Comments
---rsnwr TB71WT TB71WT
---
Kelly Snyder (fie1 d) 143 54 16 14+ Secondary flood
since 1972
Crossett, N. 458 120 53+ Secondary flood
since 1972
Weeks Island 288 150 24+ Dipping reservoir,
si nce 1978
Slaughter, Estate 356 116 141 125+ Small Pilot, since
1976
Levell and (12 acre) 206 99 4+ WAG Pilot, since
1979
Levell and (1 acre) 189 110 85 55+ Technical Pilot,
since 1978
Li ck Creek 1,307 220 54+ Secondary CO2
flood in heavy oil
Rock Creek 541 221 47 47 Termi nated
+ As of Spri ng 1983, f100d st,11 , n progress.

TABLE 11
COMPARISON OF RESERVOIR PROPERTIES
FOR HIGH AND LOW OIL RECOVERY PROJECTS
--CARBON DIOXIDE FLOODING
AP I Oil Wa terfl ood
Viscosity Pressure SWeep
(cp) --rpm- til Acres
High Recovery Projects
32 5,100 80 Weeks Is I ana 0.3
Littl e Creek 39 0.5 5,000 90
Slaughter, Estate 30 1.0 2,000 76
Levelland Field 30 2.0 1,900 81
Leve 11 and Pil ot 30 2.0 2,900 83
Moderate Recovery Projects
Iworreds 36 1.5 3,100
Crossett 44 0.4 1,650 51
Kelly Snyder 44 0.4 2,315 67
Lick Creek 17 160.0 1,050
Low Recovery Projects
Granny 's Creek 45 3.0 1,800 90
Rock Creek 43 3.0 1,800 78
--
Not Reported.
TABLE 13
REVIEW OF OIL RECOVERY FROM SURFACTANT FLOODING
Recovery Efficiency
Actua 1 Expected
(I1m!'J5")
Recovery Projects
Loudon (1980) 60 Completed
Robi nson 119-R 38 Completed
Chateaurenard 38 Completed
Bi Muddy (1 Acre) 36 Comp1 eted
Wi mington 27+ 35
Moderate Recovery Projects
..
Robi nson 219-R 25+ 27-33
Bradford (Bingham) 21 Campl eted
Borregos 20 Comp1 eted
Sloss 18 Completed
North Burbank 14+ 17
Salem 17 Completed
Low Recovery Projects
Wichita County Regular 9+ 16
Loudon (1969) 12-15 Completed
Bell Creek 7+ 11-16
Delaware Childers 7+ 10
Benton (1 Acre) 5 Completed
Bradford (Lawry) 5 Completed
Griffin Consolidated 1 Completed
Too Early to Tell
Robi nson M-1 + 40
E1 Dorado 6+ 50
+ Continuing as of Spr1ng 1983
8
40
6
2
1.5
40
40
51
45
7
10
TABLE 12
PROCESS VARIABLES AND CO
2
/OIL RATIOS--
CARBON DIOXIDE FLOODING
Injection Materials (Planned) Expected
Rater Carbon 01 oxide .912/011 Ratio
(Wl'V) ("ACPv) (Bet) t" Recycled) 1l'lCf C02/BO)
Hi gh Recovery Proj ects
Li tt I e Creek 260
Slaughter Estate 56 19 *
Weeks Island 31
Moderate Recovery Projects
Ke Ily Snyder 80 15
Crossett 80
Lick Creek 29 40
Low Recovery Projects
Granny , s Creek 68
Rock Creek 57
-- Not Reported
* Plus 29% HCPV of nitrogen as chase gas
+ As of late 1980
a Expected to actual as of Spring 1983
3.37
0.37
0.86
574 +
160 +
14.1 +
0.21
0.61
TABLE 14
---
53 27
3
6
24 9-1Qa
50 + 15
46 + 10-19a
17-34
11-28
REVIEW OF PREDICTED VERSUS ACTUAL PERFORMANCE--
SURFACTANT FLOODING
Remaining ULTIMATE OIL RECOVERY
Oil Predi c ti ons
In-Place oriii nal Latest Actual Contnents
DOE (BJAF) (i alP) (I1m!'J5")
Funded Projects
E1 Dorado 628 51 6+ Demonstration Test;
Started 1974
North Burbank 418 34 17 14+ Demonstration Test;
Started 1975
Delaware-Childers 500 44 10 8+ 2.5 Acre Pilot
Robi nson (M-1) 586 41 + Contnercia1 Scale
Project
Wi1mi ngton 855 35-45 35 27+ 10 Acre Pilot in
Heavy Oi 1
Bell Creek 610 72 11-16 7+ Demonstration Test;
Started 1977
Industry
Funded Projects
Borregos 480 42 20 1. 2 Acre Pil ot
Wichita Co. Reg. 380 39 16 9+ Demonstration Test;
Started 1973
Bi Muddy 446 34-45 36 36 1 Acre Pilot
Sa em 335 56 19-28 17 5 Acre Pilot
Sloss 475 46 27 18 9 Acre Pilot
Benton 440 57 53 5 1 Acre Pil ot
Robinson (219-R) 652 37 30-33 25+ Demonstration Test;
Started 1974
+ AS or Spr1ng 1983, proJect is still continuing.
1:(1)'1
TABLE 15
---
COMPARISON OF RESERVOIR PROPERTIES FOR HIGH AND LOW
RECOVERY PROJECTS -- SURFACTANT FLOODING IN LIGHT OIL
Actual Or
Predicted Waterf100d
Penn. Sor

IgFl' Ii> ROI P)
TiiiCIT ""TIJ
Recovery Projects
Robi nson ll9-R 38a 200 30 75 85
Big Muddy 36a 52 30 50 120
Lo udon (1 980) 60a 27 95 78
Moderate Recovery Projects
Robi nson 219-R
27-33 105 30 76 72
Sloss 18a 93 30 95 165
Borregos 20a 430 16 71 165
North Burbank 17 50 30 87 120
Bradford (Bi ngham) 21 82 31 80 68
Salem 17a 87 25 93 85
Low Recovery Projects
Bell Creek 11-16 1,050 28 99 110
Wichita Co. Reg. 16 53 25 95 89
Loudon (1969) 12-15a 100 78
Delaware-Childers 10 80 27 78 86
Benton (1 acre) 5 60 30 90 95
Bradford (Lawry) 5 19 40 95 64
Griffin Consolo 1 79 30 85
-- Data not reported
a
Actual recovery as of Spring 1983
TABLE 16
PROCESS VARIABLES AND CHEMICAL/OIL RATIOS--
SURFACTANT FLOODING
Surfactant
Pi Conc.
Wi (wt.%)
High Recovery Projects
Robi nson 119-R 7.0 10
Wilmington 6.5 14
Chateaurenard 9.5 14
I Loudon (1980)
40.0 2.3
Bi g Muddy
(1 Acre) 25 2.5
Moderate Recovery Projects
Robinson
219-R 10.3 10
Borregos 47.0 2.3
North Burbank 5.3 6
Bradford
(Bi ngham) 5.2 7.4
Sloss 15.5 4.4
Salem 28.5 2
Low Recovery Projects
Bell Creek 3.8 13
Wichita Co. Reg 15.0 1.9
Del aware-
Childers 8.9 5.4
Loudon (1969) 40 2.3
Benton (1 Acre) 19 1.3
Bradford (Lawry) 9 6
0 Cosurfactant (0,1); aCosurfactant
e
Estimated
Polymer
PV Conc.
(%) (ppm)
105 600
93 2,100
135 1,450
90+ 1,000
55 200
105 660
* *
48 730
120 650
100 800
30 500
100 460
30 420
40 600
32 560
60 300
90 220
(a 1 coholl
*
Polymer assumed added to surfactant slug.
Key Chemical To Oil
#Surf./ #Cosurf./
Bb1 Oil Bb1 Oil

16 2
a
;35
0
26 320
18 11
a
;54
0
22
20
31 5a ;470
60 17e
21 11a
13 2a;780
38 30a
40
36-50 99-138
26
54 18a
85
54 54a
90 46a;330
Salinity

23,500
7,000
104,000
23,000
2,500
33,000
30,000
150,000
40,000
3,450
160,000
104,000
11,000
3,000
3,100
Ratios
#Polymer!
Bbl Oil
m7BJ
2
6
4
3
2
0.6e
3
3
6
1
4-5
1
3
3
6
4
TABLE 17
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHEMICAL EFFICIENCY INDEX VALUE
AND OIL RECOVERY--SURFACTANT FLOODING
Chemical Actua1a Or
Usage Expected
Index Value Oi 1
( Umts) (8/AF )
Hi Efficiency
(In,ts)
Wichita Co. Regular 15 60
Robinson 119-R 16 230
Big Muddy (pilot) 16 160
North Burbank 17 70
Bradford (Bi ngham) 19 158*
Medium Efficiency
(20 - 30 On,ts)
Chateaurenard 21 590*
Salem 22 57
Robinson 219-R 26 175-215
Wi1mi ngton 26 295
Low Efficiency
()30 On,ts)
Borregos 34 96
Sloss 34 85
Bell Creek 34-47 70-100
Delaware-Childers 40 50
Benton 41 21
Other
Loudon (1980) 16 233
E1 Dorado Too early to tell
Robinson M-l Too early to tell
* May ,nclude secondary oil
a As of Spring 1983
J
Recovery

(% kOlP)
16
3B
36
17
21
38
17
27-33
35
20
18
11-15
10
5
60
TABLE 18
TABLE 20
---
REVIEW OF OIL RECOVERY--POLYMER WATERFLOODING
COMPARISON OF RESERVOIR AND PROCESS VARIABLES--
or L RECOVERY
Actua 1 Expected
% ROI P B/AF !t ROI P B/AF
Higher Oil Recovery
Skull Creek (Texaco) 6+
Skull Creek (Am.Pet.) 3
N. Burbank 3
Stroud 8
Taber Manville 16*
Main Consolidated 17*
Lower Oil Recovery
Wilmington
1969
Howard G1 assock 2
C-H Field
1974
N. Stanley Stringer 2+
Coal i nga 1
Storms Pool low
Too Early To Tell
N. Yellow Creek +
61
26
34
190
138
9
4
6
+ As of Sprlng 1983, proJect 15 stl11
* May include secondary oil reserves
14
Completed
Comp1 eted
Completed
Comp1 eted
Completed
No recovery
Comp1 eted
No recovery
3
Terminated
Terminated
5-10
continuing.
TABLE 19
13
53
Project
Initiation
Date
1974
1965
1970
1970
1971
1975
63
1970
1975
1980
1980
1976
Hi9her Projects
Skull Creek (Texaco)
Skull Creek (Am. Pet.)
N. Burbank
Stroud
Taber Manvi 11 e
Main Consolidated
Lower Recovery Projects
Wilmington
Howard G1 assock
C-H Field
N. Stanley Stringer
Coal i nga
Storms Pool
Too Early to Tell
Pembina
W. Yellow Creek
e Expected
NR = Not reported
POLYMER FLOODING
Polymer
Oi 1 Slug Size and Chemical Usage
Vi scosity Concentration M lbs 1 bs/bbl
(cp)
3 O. 20PV /750ppm 253 0.43e
3 0.1 OPV /260ppm 108 0.6
3 0.21 PV /250ppm 85 1.1
1 70 0.2e
54 O. 20PV /25 Oppm 530 0.2
10 1.30PV/NR NR 1e
50 0.10PV/210ppm No oil recovery
11 NR 14 1
23 --/300ppm No oil recovery
2 0.17PV/280ppm 1,200 2e
25 --/550 ppm NR NR
6 0.35PV/300ppm 150 80
0.04PV/l000 ppm
tapered
20 0.20PV/600 ppm 3,000 1.5
TABLE 21
COMPARISON OF PREDICTED VERSUS ACTUAL RECOVERY--
POLYMER WATERFLOODING
REVIEW OF OIL RECOVERY--ALKALINE FLOODS
Hi9her Oil Recovery
Skull Creek (Texaco)
Taber Manvill e
Lower Oil Recovery
N. Stanley Stringer
Coal i nga
Storms Pool
Too Early to Tell
Pembina
W. Yellow Creek
+ As of Sprlng 1983,
Remaini ng
Oil
In-P1 ace
(B/AF)
659
1,166
515
U1 timate Recovery
Predlcbons
Latest Actual
(B AF) ll!7ArT ll!7ArT
68 32+
290 190
21 13 6+
Comments
Secondary fl Dod
Secondary flood
Project
Harri sburg
Whitti er
Singleton
N. Ward Estes
Orcutt
Hunti ngton Beach
Wilmington
Actual
BJAF % ROlP B/AF
!J3.Q!f
22 Comp1 eted
48 Completed
29 Comp1 eted
0-100 0-10 Completed
low Completed
+ TETT 50 7
+ TETT 23 3
744 37 6
(Low)
Marginal
Terminated
Terminated
+ FIOOO 1n progress, Sprlng 1983
561 65
-220
25
697 53
+
37 - 70 +
Secondary fl ood
Too early to
tell
TETT = Too Ear1v To Tell
slll
TABLE 22
PROCESS VARIABLES AND CHEMCIAL/OIL RATIOS--ALKALINE FLOODS
Alkaline Slug Total Chemical Pounds AHa1 i/
Pore Volume Concent. Injected Barrel Oil
Project (%) (wt%) 10
3
lb 1bm/AF (IIIB)
Harri sburg 9 2.0 280 700 32
Whitti er 8 0.2 1,100 130 3
Si ng1 eton 8 2.0 420 690 24
N. Ward Estes 15 4.9 720 4,000 40 to very hi gh
Orcutt 2 0.4 3,200 50 50
Huntington Beach 40 1.0 45,000* 2,600* TETT (5oe)
Wilmington 60* 0.4 110,000* 2,000* TETT (looe)
*Planned; e EXfected
TETT = Too Ear y To Tell