Reservoir-Engineering

Analysis of Microbial
Enhanced Oil Recovery
Generally, microbial enhanced oil
recovery (MEOR) recovers less of
the remaining oil in place than
other chemical EOR processes, both
in the laboratory and the field.
Efforts to explain this difference are
limited by the lack of quantitative
measures of microbial performance
(e.g., reaction rates, stoichiometry,
and required product concentrations). However, it is possible to
demonstrate quantitative relationships between microbial performance, reservoir characteristics, and
operating conditions (e.g., well
spacing, injection rates, and residual-oil saturation).

MEOR as a Chemical EOR

Table 1 shows the wide range of
microbial-reaction products commonThis article is a synopsis of paper
SPE 63229, Reservoir-Engineering
Analysis of Microbial Enhanced Oil
Recovery, by Steven L. Bryant, U. of
Texas, and Thomas P. Lockhart, SPE,
Enitecnologie, originally presented at
the 2000 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
14 October.

EOR/IOR

Introduction
Low oil prices led to a marked shift in
focus from EOR to improved-oilrecovery processes that use well technology (i.e., completions, well stimulation, or water shutoff). However,
interest in developing MEOR methods
persisted, largely because of the perceived potential to provide incremental oil production at low cost.
The full-length paper details a study
that adopted a reservoir-engineering
perspective, focusing on issues such as
scaling up laboratory results, process
design, and field implementation and
operation. This approach provides a
consistent framework for comparing
MEOR with other EOR processes. The
study focuses on enhanced recovery
processes that induce or promote
microbial activity that, in turn, generates appropriate chemicals in the
reservoir that enhance recovery.

ly cited as relevant
TABLE 1MICROBIAL REACTION PRODUCTS AND
to EOR. Except
THEIR CLAIMED EFFECTS FOR EOR
for biomass, all
the
microbial
Product
Effect
products correAcids
Increased rock porosity and permeability.
spond to families
Production of CO2 by reaction with
of chemicals alcarbonate minerals.
ready used or proBiomass
Selective and nonselective plugging.
posed for use in
Emulsification through adhesion to oil.
EOR processes.
Changing wettability of mineral surfaces.
Reduction of oil viscosity and pour point.
The claimed efDesulfurization of oil.
fects of biomass
Gases
Reservoir repressurization.
correspond
to
Oil swelling.
effects achievable
Viscosity reduction.
by use of other
Increased permeability by dissolving
chemicals. Curcarbonate rocks.
rent MEOR procSolvents
Dissolution of oil.
esses propose no
Surfactants
Lowering
interfacial tension.
fundamentally
Emulsification.
novel mechanism
Polymers
Mobility control.
of oil recovery.
Selective or nonselective plugging.
Hence,
MEOR
differs from other
EOR processes
only in the way that chemicals are side the reservoir recovered little or no
introduced into the reservoir (i.e., in- oil, even though the same chemicals
situ generation) and, therefore, should did lead to oil recovery when generatbe evaluated on the same basis as other ed in the reservoir. Reservoir heteroEOR processes. Therefore, any advan- geneity may severely reduce contact of
tage of MEOR will result from being the chemical slug with the oil-containmore efficient than other EOR ing reservoir rock, and fingering into
processes. In-situ generation has a the mobilized oil bank must be suppotential logistics advantage, especial- pressed. Also, the presence of recoveryly if residual oil can be used as an enhancing chemicals in the produced
in-situ carbon source. This logistics oil may create processing problems.
advantage is the most important, and
An EOR process moves fluids from
possibly the only, advantage over an injection to a production well, and
other processes. However, in-situ gen- physical and chemical interactions
eration introduces a new set of techni- occur as those fluids encounter differcal difficulties.
ent rock and fluid compositions.
In addition to challenges associated Theories that account for this movewith in-situ chemical generation, ment are established for steam, polyMEOR must overcome similar techni- mer, surfactant, miscible gas, and
cal problems and difficulties as other alkali-surfactant-polymer flooding.
EOR processes, particularly the place- These theories account for the behavment and propagation of recovery- ior of MEOR also, insofar as MEOR
enhancing chemicals. Previous studies operates by means of microbially genon chemical EOR underscore the erated chemicals. However, an extenimportance of chemical dissipation sion of existing theory is required to
through dispersion and diffusion, and account for the time required to genconsumption or retention by means of erate these species in-situ and the
interactions with the rock and oil. feedback loop that arises when generSimilarly, propagation cannot be taken ated species (e.g., polymers) alter the
for granted in microbial treatments; flow field. The full-length paper
injection of chemicals generated out- details this extension.

57
JANUARY 2001

TABLE 2KEY OPTIONS FOR MEOR-PROCESS IMPLEMENTATION

Design Feature

Design Options

Comments

Reactor Type

Fixed
Growing
Mobile
In situ
Ex situ
Indigenous

Microbes extend a finite, constant distance from wellbore.

Extent of microbes from wellbore increases as biomass is created.
Microbes suspended in aqueous phase and propagate without retention.
Residual oil.
Added to injected water; molasses is an example.
Bacteria native and hence specific to individual reservoir; use for MEOR
must be determined case by case.
Bacteria cultivated for use in MEOR; must adapt to reservoir conditions.

Carbon source
Microbe provenance

EOR/IOR

Exogenous

Base-Case Implementation
In essence, MEOR introduces reaction
engineering into reservoir engineering,
accompanied by concepts such as the
residence time in the reaction zone,
reaction kinetics and selectivity, and
limiting reactants. The current understanding of microbial reactions is inadequate for quantifying these concepts
in a reservoir setting. However, it is
possible to delineate some microbial
performance constraints imposed by
engineering considerations. Their
derivation assumes that the most likely
implementation of MEOR will entail
inoculation of injection wells with
microbes, a suitable shut-in period for
incubation, then resumption of waterflooding with water containing appropriate nutrients.
The incubation period establishes
bioreactors in the reservoir. It is
assumed that microbes remain stationary once established. This assumption
is convenient, but not crucial to the
constraints. When waterflooding
resumes, the microbes within each
bioreactor convert the injected nutrients and the carbon source into chemicals that move with the aqueous
phase into the reservoir and displace
the target oil.
This implementation implies continuous bioreactor operation, rather than
the batch operation commonly used in
microbial well stimulations. Typically,
the bioreactor volume is a small fraction of the reservoir volume; therefore,
production of recovery-enhancing
chemicals during the incubation period will make a negligible contribution
to the overall process. However, published laboratory studies of MEOR
report on batch microbial reactions,
highlighting one of the gaps hindering
a reservoir-engineering assessment of
the technologys potential.
Table 2 summarizes the design
options for the base-case implementation. The carbon source may be ex situ

(included in the injected stream) or

in situ (residual oil in the bioreactor).
The economic and logistic advantages
are greatest for an in-situ carbon
source and the discussion will proceed
on that premise. Use of indigenous
microbes (i.e., microbes native to the
reservoir) also circumvents some constraints. Generally, achieving the
desired reactions with such microbes
is more difficult. Some applications
that use indigenous microbes appear
to rely only on microbe growth, rather
than on reaction products.
Reaction-Engineering Constraints
The effective reactor size is limited by
the distance to which exogenous
microbes can be placed and by the distance dictated by nutrient solubility.
This limit imposes constraints on the
microbial performance and on slug
volume. The constraints are nontrivial
for reasonable values of reservoir
parameters. Moreover, in-situ generation of viscous fluids appears to be
intrinsically unreliable.
MEOR Experience
To date, laboratory work on MEOR
has not demonstrated recovery of
residual oil from cores at levels comparable with those of other EOR
processes. There are insufficient data
and inadequate mechanistic understanding to determine whether this
lack of recovery is caused by unfavorable kinetics, insufficient concentration of reaction products, or low efficacy of microbial-reaction products
for oil mobilization. Most field applications of microbial technology are
well stimulations rather than
enhanced-recovery processes. The
applications are intended to increase
oil-production rates rather than to
mobilize incremental oil. Significant
incremental oil recovery by means of
increased displacement efficiency has
not been demonstrated in the field.

Increasing volumetric efficiency by

promotion of biomass growth is technically simpler and appears to have a
better chance of success. However,
mechanistic explanations of laboratory and field results are lacking.
Conclusions
The use of microbes introduces reaction engineering into reservoir engineering, with associated concepts
including bioreactor volume, nutrientreaction kinetics and selectivity, and
minimum required level of conversion. These concepts enable quantitative relationships between reservoir
characteristics, operating conditions,
and microbial performance. Unfortunately, the current state of knowledge does not allow direct use of these
constraints to assess MEOR fieldimplementation feasibility.
Analysis with plausible values of
reservoir and microbial parameters
indicates an MEOR process that uses
in-situ carbon must overcome severe
performance constraints. Use of an
ex-situ carbon source circumvents or
relaxes some of the technical constraints, but the logistical and cost
advantages of an in-situ source
are lost.
Microbial gas production contributes to oil recovery. Analysis shows
that it is unlikely that gases such as
CO2 and CH4 could be produced
in situ in quantities needed for effective oil displacement.
In-situ generation of viscosifying
agents is intrinsically unstable. Thus,
robust mobility control of MEOR is
likely to require an ex-situ polymer,
reducing the potential logistical
advantage of the process.
JPT
Please read the full-length paper for
additional detail, illustrations, and references. The paper from which the
synopsis has been taken has not been
peer reviewed.

58
JANUARY 2001