Energy Sources

ISSN: 0090-8312 (Print) 1521-0510 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueso19

Secondary Recovery of Gas and Oil

S. W. NICKSIC

To cite this article: S. W. NICKSIC (1974) Secondary Recovery of Gas and Oil, Energy Sources,
1:2, 237-247, DOI: 10.1080/00908317408945923

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00908317408945923

Published online: 25 Apr 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 14

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueso20

Download by: [University of California, San Diego] Date: 27 June 2016, At: 23:02
 Secondary Recovery of Gas and Oil
S. W. NICKSIC·
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 23:02 27 June 2016

Abstract: About two-thirds of the original crude oil is so tightly held

in reservoir rock that it cannot be economically displaced by known
methods. This is expected to be an important new source of energy
when price incentives stimulate large-scale testing of newer oil re-
covery methods, so that further developments and improvements can
evolve as a result of field experience. Various thermal and "chemi-
cal flooding" processes seem to be the leading candidates among a
moderately large number from which to draw.

Secondary recovery has been an integral part of petroleum production for

many years. For example, it is widely held that the first waterfiood occurred
as a result of accidental water injection in 1865. Many of the other early
waterfioods also occurred accidentally and, although the main function of
water injection was not appreciated in the early days, the benefits certainly
were known. The practice of waterflooding grew rapidly in Pennsylvania
during the 1920's, and by the middle 1940's most major oil-producing areas
had waterfiooding to improve oil recovery.
Although secondary recovery has been known for a long time, it is very ap-
propriate to discuss it at the present time from these points of view: (l) ex-
tending secondary recovery in marginal cases as economics become favora-
ble, developing new techniques, and improving existing techniques through
better technology, and (2) including in the definition of secondary recovery
methods which might be considered tertiary, quaternary, etc., and also cases
where a battery of procedures is applied successively or even simultaneous-
ly. For the purposes of this discussion, 'secondary recovery' will be con-
sidered to mean any 'assisted recovery' technique and will include border-

• Chevron Oil Field Research Company, La Habra, California. Presented at the Sym-
posium on New Sources of Energy, University of Southern California, 7-9 May, 1973.

Energy Sources Volume 1, Number2

Copyright © 1974 by Crane,Russak & Company, Inc.
237
 238 S. W. NICKSIC

line items such as fracturing and well stimulation, which can be important
'new sources of energy'. Of course secondary recovery thus defined as a
source of energy depends on a complex interplay of economics, politics,
technology, and human factors. The need for energy, the conservation of
energy, the confrontation of environmental programs with energy utilization
programs, the balance of payments, and the host of peripheral points that
bear on the need for improved petroleum recovery will not be discussed.
Only the application of science and technology to increasing the production
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 23:02 27 June 2016

of petroleum from subsurface reservoirs will be considered.

What Is The Problem?

It should be clear to everyone that oil does not occur as a lake or river un-
derground and that its recovery is not simply a matter of pumping it out.
Rather, oil occurs as a fluid trapped in a rock matrix from which it must be
freed before it can be recovered at the surface of the earth. The forces that
trap oil and hold it in place are so strong that only about one-third of the oil
can be recovered economically.
Figure 1 shows simplistically how oil occurs and how much of it presently
goes to waste (is not recovered). Figure 1a shows the petroleum reservoir
located say 1,2, 3, or more miles below the surface of the earth. The oil in
the rock matrix might be a heavy viscous fluid thickened by asphaltenes,
waxes, or sulfur compounds, or it can be a thin fluid resembling gasoline, or
even a light gas. The rock itself ranges in porosity from say 5% to 35% and
its composition can be highly variable. It might be a sandstone, a carbonate,
or both, and it may contain clay minerals and/or zeolites. It may be very
permeable, or it may be so 'tight' that fluid movement is difficult. The pore
space may contain mostly oil or mostly water with some oil. A good rule of
(C)

1 cu. FT. OF ROCK CONTAINS NATURAL GAS PRESSURE FLOODING THE WELL WITH WATER
, QT. OF WATER AND 3 QT. OF OIL PUSHES UP 20% Of Oil BRINGS UP ANOTHER 15%

Fig. 1. Recovery of crude oil: the challenge.

 SECONDARY RECOVERY OF GAS AND OIL 239

thumb is that a cubic foot of rock (7.5 gal) contains about 1 quart of very
saline water and 3 quarts of oil. The story of finding the oil in the first place,
drilling the well, and putting in equipment to produce, transport, and refine
the oil is a fascinating tale of adventure, enterprise, and human drama
which will go untold at this point, but which no doubt is familiar. Thus the
first inkling of difficulty is that the fluid is distributed over a large volume of
inorganic surface in a remote location. Figure 1b shows that natural forces
such as gas pressure, or water pressure, or both can push the oil to the sur-
face or at least force it into the well bore where it can be lifted to the surface
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 23:02 27 June 2016

by various mechanical means. This is known as the primary recovery phase

of the reservoir history. The remaining 80% of the oil stays behind, tightly
held in a rock matrix. In Fig. lc application of secondary recovery, usually
some form of fluid injection, frequently water, which can drive another
15 % or so of oil into the well bore where it can be brought to the surface as
before, is shown.
The challenge is now clear. How do we recover the 2 quarts of oil, about
65% of the original discovery, that remain in the rock? The task is even
more difficult than indicated in Fig. 1b because the residual oil is not com-
pressed into a smaller space but is distributed at a lower concentration
throughout the original pore space. To complicate matters even further, in-
jected water or other fluids do not always go where they can do the most
good, so that there is a loss of efficiency which can mean that a large portion
of the injected fluid does no good at all. Variations in the ability of the rock
to transmit fluids (permeability) make matters even worse, leading to a by-
passing of portions of the reservoir, and of course the reservoir limits are
not so clearly defined as the 'bottle' picture indicates. When the crude oil is
more viscous than the displacing fluid, the unswept region may constitute a
major part of the reservoir so that the recovery may be only a few per cent
of the original oil in place and water flooding is non-economic. Special tech-
niques have been developed for recovery of these so-called 'heavy' oils, but
the problem is still difficult, as we cannot see what is taking place in the pe-
troleum reservoir, the response time can be months and even years, and the
injection process itself is associated with a number of unique problems.
Petroleum engineers frequently differentiate according to the time or pe-
riod in the life history of the reservoir at which the fluids are injected. If
fluid injection begins early in the life of an oil field, the term 'pressure main-
tenance' is used in contrast to 'secondary recovery' which applies when fluid
injection begins at the time that natural reservoir energy is exhausted or
nearly exhausted. When secondary recovery is no longer economic, we must
either abandon the field or turn our attention to the so-called tertiary recov-
 240 S. W. NICKSIC

ery methods. In many of our older fields today the limit of what fluid injec-
tion or conventional secondary recovery methods can do has been reached.
Whether tertiary methods will succeed in squeezing old oil wells dry, both
technically and economically, is a major point of discussion and investiga-
tion in the oil industry today.

U. S. Domestie Oil Supply, Sources, and Trends

Figure 2 shows the U.S. domestic oil supply according to source and trends
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 23:02 27 June 2016

projected to the year 1980. Secondary recovery production is given by the

solid black bars and tertiary production is indicated by the shaded bars. It
should be noted that in 1970 secondary and tertiary recovery accounted for
about 30% or 3 million barrels/day, and that by 1980 over half the oil pro-
duced in the U.S. will be by secondary and tertiary recovery according to
these projections. North Slope crude oil is not included in Fig. 2 because of
uncertainty in pipeline construction, but by 1980, from I to 2 million barrels
per day will beavailable from this source. Figure 3, based on data from the

12------------·r1
• SECONOARY OIL
IZ?:l TERTIARY

D ALL OTHER
PRODUCTION

o 1945 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Fig. Z. U.S. domestic oil supply.
 SECONDARY RECOVERY OF GAS AND OIL 241
4.0 ~-----------------------.,

., 3.0
..J
W
a:
a:
~
:s 2.0
~
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 23:02 27 June 2016

o
:::;
..J
iii 1.0

58 59 60 67 68· 69 70

Fig. 3. Revisions to recoverable U.S. reserves. (From API data.)

American Petroleum Institute (API), plots the source of 'additions' to

the nation's 'recoverable crude oil reserves', according to (I) new discoveries,
(2) new reservoirs in old fields, (3) extensions to existing fields, and
(4) revisions of recovery estimates. These revisions are mainly due to
installation or improvement of assisted recovery projects, which in turn
are anchored to the estimated $200 million which the industry has spent
on oil-recovery research in the last decade. Therefore we can say that
the amount of crude oil added to reserves since 1965 by oil-recovery tech-
nology is greater than all the new oil discovered by exploratory drilling.
The impact of tertiary recovery projected by the Oil Supply Task Group of
the National Petroleum Council is given in Fig. 4. It must be kept in mind
that such predictions are very difficult, that they are contingent on economic
incentives, and that there is a great deal of scientific investigation required
to develop and prove the new methods. Taken at face value, the tertiary re-
covery shown in Fig. 4 will be of major importance as a source of reserves,
but no one knows for sure that workable tertiary methods are now at hand,
or that they will be developed in a practical way in the future.

How Are We Doing?

Let us look at our progress in improving recovery efficiency and compare it
with both yesterday and tomorrow. Certainly there has been a great im-
provement in average oil-recovery efficiency but a precise determination is
not possible. A reasonable guess is given in Fig. 5 which projects to the year
 242 S. W. NlCKSIC

3 H~-+---+---+-+----j---::::±;""",,""":l
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 23:02 27 June 2016

NEW OIL
o l...-_---l_ _---L_ _...l..-_ _L.-_---L_ _..J
19~ ~ ~ ro ~ 00 ~

Fig. 4. Future additions to U.S. recoverable reserves (excluding North Slope).

1985. In the year 1930 (not shown) average recovery efficiency was proba-
bly on the order of 15%. It should be noted from Fig. 5 that, although there
is a rough parallel between cumulative oil in place discovered with cumula-
tive recovery efficiency, the latter is expected to increase more rapidly in the
future. It is particularly striking that in 1955 recovery efficiency was about
25%, today it is about 33%, and by 1985 it is expected to be about 37%.
Several factors are important in improving recovery efficiency. Some of these
are given below.
1. A large body of engineering principles has been developed, many of
which have been confirmed or supported by field experience. This has r~
sulted in early application of fluid-injection programs and widespread use in
older fields. At the same time better and faster computer facilities to assist
engineering calculations have appeared on the scene, and there has been
widespread encouragement for the use of all new tools as they become avail-
able.
2. Petroleum engineers, statisticians, mathematicians, programmers, and
other professionals from literally all walks of life are being trained and used.
Seminars, textbooks, technical society meetings, information retrieval sys-
tems, and the like can be included in this item.
3. Optimized control of natural production from reservoirs, operating un-
der primary energy sources, has become accepted practice perhaps as a con-
sequence of items 1 and 2 above.
4. Unitized operations have rapidly evolved. These permit the most
efficient use of fluid-injection techniques and afford important benefits such
 SECONDARY RECOVERY OF GAS AND OIL 243

500

en
-'
~ 450 40
a: CUMULATIVE ORIGINAL X
« OIL IN PLACE DISCOVERED X------I

I I~~ ____ I~O

<XI I-
Z
u. w

:::nx~o
0400 35 o
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 23:02 27 June 2016

.
a:

1"//)T"FI~O
. ~
en w
Z
o
,"Moe",",
-'
--'
<XI
350 f----
7 0 RECOVERY
EFFICIENCY
30

X .....--0 I I
300 ..0 " ' - - ' 1 I I 25
1955 . __ .
1960 .. __.
1965 -_.
1970 . .. __.
1975 .. ... -
1980 1'9-85

Fig. 5. Total U.S. recovery efficiency and oil in place (excluding North Slope).

as providing additional information on specific projects or offering a wider

body of technical assistance on integrated projects.
5. Enabling legislation has been passed which permits unitization, or
which encourages, if it does not make mandatory, the use of efficient pro-
duction practices whether directly or through economic incentives.
6. A host of technological improvements has been developed which
bear on both efficiency and economy of operation. Hydraulic fracturing has
permitted the recovery of an estimated 7.3 billion barrels of oil which other-
wise would not have been recoverable. Better hardware of all kinds has
been made available. Many chemicals and stimulation procedures previous-
ly viewed as novelties are now commonplace. Control of scale, control of
corrosion, control of bacterial growth, improved water treatment, paraffin-
treating chemicals and solvents, demulsifiers, diverting agents, sand-consoli-
dation agents and procedures, polymeric water thickeners, and numerous
surfactants are all in the panorama of progress that underlies improved re-
covery efficiency. Credit should also be given to various service companies
for contributing to the technology and especially for making it available
even in remote areas of the world.

What About Tertiary Recovery?·

Waterflooding is the principal tool for secondary recovery. However, water
alone cannot loosen the vast quantities of oil trapped in the pore system,
and, to the extent waterflooding does work, it is reaching the limit of capa-
 244 S. W. NlCKSIC

bility. Natural gas, liquified petroleum gas, and other hydrocarbons which
can be injected to improve recovery are becoming more expensive and in
short supply. Flooding with carbon dioxide alone or in combination with
water, the use of gas along with water in what has become known as WAG
(water alternating gas), and other combination techniques have been or are
now being tested, but great expectations have yet to be demonstrated. Those
techniques classified as tertiary recovery which seem to be attracting atten-
tion are in situ combustion of some type and what is broadly classed as
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 23:02 27 June 2016

'chemical flooding'. The combustion methods are sometimes grouped with

steam into a category called 'thermal recovery'.
For in situ combustion the trend is to ignite by pumping in air and then
allow the oil to burn while water is periodically injected. It has not seemed
worthwhile (or technically feasible) to bum a large part of the remaining oil
so that more oil could be produced, but if water is added it ought to pick up
heat from the rock and form steam which would further heat and thin the
otherwise too viscous oil. In this way it is unnecessary to bum as much oil
leaving more of it to be recovered in the process. Combustion methods are
characterized by great problems with the control of subsurface movement of
gases, liquids, and the fire itself, not to mention both vertical and horizontal
sweep-efficiency problems associated with layering, fingering, or gravity
over-ride. However, interest in combustion continues with the hope of appli-
cation to reservoirs having favorable characteristics for the process, and in
anticipation of better subsurface fluid control. A great deal of information
has been developed, most of it proprietary, on underground combustion
methods. At this time generation of steam at the surface for downhole injec-
tion is further developed than subsurface combustion.
Chemical-flooding processes generally use slugs of detergents in solutions
called soluble oils, microemulsions, micellar solutions, and the like. Many
proprietary formulations exist together with the methodology of application.
Variations on the theme can require water-softening agents, freshwater spa-
cers, or polymers to thicken the final drive water. To some extent at least
the various chemicals tend to adsorb on rock surfaces or to become ineffec-
tive in the presence of calcium or magnesium ions. Cost of chemicals can be
a major factor in chemical-flooding methods, especially where the chemical
has a strong tendency to hang up on rock. The use of polymer-thickened
water in conjunction with chemical flooding has given excellent laboratory
results, but chemical cost is greatly increased and a number of additional
problems are introduced. Chemical flooding appears at this time to be re-
stricted to higher gravity, more valuable crude oils, but even then there is
need for greater economic incentive and for continued development.
 SECONDARY RECOVERY OF GAS AND OIL 245

Various stimulation techniques have been used to enhance petroleum pro-

duction. In particular, hydraulic fracturing has been unusually successful in
certain types of reservoirs. Many companies have experimented with liquid
explosives which can be pumped down the well prior to detonation which
hopefully produces fractures through which oil can flow to the well bore.
Safety problems are very great in these processes. Some experiments have
been carried out with a system utilizing two or more non-explosive chemi-
cals which can be pumped down the well separately where they mix to form
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 23:02 27 June 2016

the explosive. The search for low-cost fracturing methods continues in some
laboratories, but most oil companies prefer to wait for commercial develop-
ments rather than invest in extensive fracturing research.
Nuclear explosions have been tested for stimulating gas wells and addi-
tional experiments are on the drawing board. Nuclear explosions have in-
deed caused gas production to increase but not enough to pay for the great
cost of the explosion. There are questions about radioactivity in the pro-
duced gas. As far as can be determined the direct consequences of gas ra-
dioactivity may not be severe, but the levels can be high enough to exceed
legal specifications where blending with non-radioactive gas prior to end use
is impractical. The real problem is that nobody wants an atomic bomb in his
backyard in spite of assurances that it is safe. This becomes even more im-
portant when consideration is given to exploding several nuclear devices in
the same well in order to produce enough gas to make it pay. Nobody has
yet fired these devices in sequence after the first one goes off. The recent
Project Rio Blanco in Colorado used three devices fired simultaneously. The
triple blast was heard and felt but did no visible damage at the surface. The
popular press has dubbed this experiment 'Project Dubious' in view of the
general pessimism, but from a scientific basis it is best to reserve judgment
until all the data is at hand.
In all of the recovery processes mentioned above, there has been con-
siderable technical improvement over the years and still more improvement
can be expected. Most people think that the real breakthrough will come
when the price of crude oil goes up far enough to encourage more extensive
field testing. Some people even feel that various procedures are already on
the shelf and that these will be dusted off as soon as the price structure be-
comes favorable. When this occurs there will be a better definition of the
laboratory work necessary to formulate the next generation of tertiary re-
covery recipes. There is a chance that operating equipment and chemical
costs will rise more than the price of crude oil so that tertiary methods will
have competition from other energy sources.
 246 S. W. NICKSIC

What's Going On In The Field?

Table 1 gives a partial summary of various field tests of assisted recovery
projects. This summary is not a definitive review. It represents only those
field tests about which reasonable information could be obtained in a rea- .
sonable time. Subjective evaluation has been added by taking various kinds
of tests together and estimating the success or failure from the available in-
formation. If the project clearly makes money, or definitely shows that eco-
nomics are favorable, it is classified in the 'win' column. If it is clearly un-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 23:02 27 June 2016

profitable it goes into the 'lose' column. When the profitability of the project
is unclear or where there is a stalemate on the basis of today's economics, it
goes into the 'draw' category. For all practical purposes the 'draw' cases
would go with losers but their status could change quickly if the price struc-
ture changes markedly. It should be kept in mind that these are listed ac-
cording to the number of arbitrarily selected field experiments, and not ac-
cording to the relative economic value or to the amount of reserves which
could be added to our oil inventory by the application of the assisted recov-
ery process. It is fair to say that on the whole the situation is not particularly
encouraging. On the other hand it can be seen that there are a moderately
large number of processes from which to draw, so that perhaps a higher de-
gree of success will come when more information on specific reservoirs is
obtained. Also economic incentives or changes in the crude supply picture
can make the situation much brighter. My personal view is that tertiary re-
covery will be a reality but that it will come later than indicated by today's
predictions.

Table 1
Partial survey of recovery processes tested in the field
Type of process Win Lose Draw Total
Carbon dioxide 2 2
In situ combustion 6 25 15 46
In situ combustion wet 4 1 5
Micellar-solution flood 1 11 12
Miscible flood 1 1 2
Miscible flood, carbon dioxide 1 1
Miscible flood, flue gas 1 1
Miscible flood, hydrocarbon 7 8 4 19
Miscible flood, bydrocarbon-waterftood 2 2
Polymer flood 7 9 17
Soluble oil flood 1 1
Steam drive 10 8 10 28
Steam soak 24 3 4 31
Steam soak-steam drive 1 1
 SECONDARY RECOVERY OF GAS AND OIL 247

WhatAbout the Future?

There is a growing acceptance of the view that recovery of oil in place is so
challenging that it will require the intensive effort of the entire industry for
solutions, answers, and even clues about what to do next. In April 1972 a
"Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery" was held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, at
which information on proprietary processes was shared or exchanged to a
degree never before anticipated. This was done with recognition of .the enor-
mous challenge remaining before us, and with the realization that the job is
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 23:02 27 June 2016

hard enough even with the combined technical talent of the industry work-
ing on it simultaneously. There is another historic first in the form of a
"Gordon Research Conference on the Chemistry and Physics of Subsurface
Fluid Displacement" which was held in August 1973. Scientists freely ex-
changed information on the fundamental scientific questions which under-
lie oil-recovery problems, and they reinforced their thinking by the sifting
and winnowing of ideas in an open forum.
It has been estimated that the industry has spent about $200 million in
the last ten years on research related to oil recovery. Others have indicated
that annual oil-recovery expenditures have doubled in the last five years.
Whatever the amount of money spent on studying oil recovery problems it is
clear that the challenge outlined above will be remembered when succeeding
generations study the history and the action of those who have gone before
them.