Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth (2014) International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference www.isope.

org
Busan, Korea, June 15-20, 2014
Copyright © 2014 by the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1 880653 91-3 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

Screening Criteria for Application of EOR Processes in Offshore Fields

Pan-Sang Kang and Jong-Se Lim
Department of Energy and Resources Engineering, Korea Maritime and Ocean University
Busan, Korea

Chun Huh
Department of Petroleum & Geosystems Engineering, University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas, USA

ABSTRACT
Comprehensive onshore and limited offshore application databases of
EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery) processes were analyzed; and
successful offshore applications were incorporated into the new EOR
screening criteria. Water-Alternating-Gas (WAG), hydrocarbon
miscible, polymer, immiscible gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) miscible
processes can be successfully implemented in offshore fields and the
screening criteria for each of these processes are discussed in this paper.
With the rapidly increasing, current interests in applying EOR to huge
remaining reserves in offshore fields, the refined screening criteria
should be useful for the initial EOR feasibility studies.
KEY WORDS: Enhanced Oil Recovery; offshore; screening.
INTRODUCTION
While oil production from most oil fields worldwide is rapidly
declining, discovering new oil fields is extremely difficult.
Alternatively, primary and secondary recoveries from methods such as
water flooding are typically no more than 10–20% of the original-oil-
in-place (OOIP). This provides many opportunities to produce the huge
amount of oil remaining in those known reservoirs. To increase oil
recovery and extend the productive life of an oil field, EOR which is oil
recovery by the injection of materials not normally present in the
reservoir (Lake, 1989) have been effectively applied. Most EOR
projects are capital sensitive with high risk of undesirable consequences
and not all reservoirs are amenable to EOR. Therefore, appropriate
EOR process selection of targeted oil fields is crucial. An inappropriate
EOR method needs to be quickly identified and dismissed at early
stages, before detailed feasibility studies of possible applicable EOR
processes take place. Most EOR methods have been applied to onshore
fields due to relatively lower cost and risk than offshore fields. Hence,
most EOR screening criteria have focused on onshore oil fields.
Recently, EOR application in offshore oil fields is receiving significant
attention. The size of targeted offshore oil fields is generally large,
because their OOIP had to be sufficiently large to overcome the high
cost of offshore oil development. Therefore, the amount of recoverable
oil using EOR is enormous. The risks of applying EOR are lower than
the exploration for deep-water oil, because EOR except for thermal
EOR is usually applied to the already producing oil fields. Because of
the above reasons, offshore EOR application has been considered as a
highly acceptable option. However, application conditions for offshore
oil fields are more complex than onshore oil fields due to the unique
factors present in offshore fields. Therefore, successful EOR
application in an offshore oil field requires screening criteria that are
different from the conventional onshore screening criteria.
This paper analyzes comprehensive cases of successful EOR onshore
and offshore applications. Highly acceptable EOR methods, which are
applicable to offshore oil fields, are suggested based on parameters
unique to the offshore application of EOR. A new screening criterion
for offshore EOR application is suggested based on through analysis of
field cases and previously suggested EOR screening criteria.
DATABASE OF EOR APPLICATION CASES
Generally, the data available in the literature on EOR screening criteria
fall into three main categories. First, laboratory tests, which were
performed to check the feasibility of a specific EOR process, for a
known reservoir with fluids and rocks available. Experimental data
available from these tests comprise the main core of data usually used
for EOR screening. Second, simulations of oil reservoirs under EOR
processes were performed, mostly by using commercial reservoir
simulation software. However, the most reliable category of
information is the specifications of reservoirs under successful EOR
projects, whose technical and economical capabilities have been proved
practically (Zerafat, et al., 2011). Therefore, only successful EOR
applications in oil fields were used in this study. Fig. 1 summarizes the
data collection and processing procedure of EOR application cases.
EOR application data for onshore oil fields is generally extracted from
a series of worldwide EOR surveys on field-scale successful EOR
projects around the world (Oil and Gas J, 1996–2012). 79.8% of the
total 3,025 EOR cases were removed because of duplications. The
remaining 13.2% of successful EOR cases were classified according to
their field location in order to identify onshore or offshore fields using
numerous literature surveys. Oil fields in lakes or rivers were classified
as onshore oil fields. After this data filtering processing as described in
Fig 1., 387 successful cases of EOR applications in onshore were used
for analysis. Although offshore EOR application has received great
attention, application cases are not as many as onshore. Only 32 cases

159
were classified as successful EOR cases in offshore fields, however,
screening criteria using these cases are effectively helpful for screening
out inappropriate method at early stage of EOR application. EOR
application data in offshore oil fields was mostly gathered by literature
survey (Dymond and Spurr, 1988; Osterloh and Law, 1998; Jayasekera
and Goodyear, 1999; Hongwen and Bo, 2000; Han et al., 2006; Awan
et al., 2008; Oil and Gas J, 2008; Choudhary et al., 2011; Rosman et al.,
2011; Yongtao, et al., 2011; Xiaodong et al., 2011; Brodie, et al., 2012;
Ha et al., 2012; Morel et al., 2012; Oil and Gas J, 2012 & Alvarado and
Manrique, 2013). Unsuccessful cases were not used for development of
EOR screening criteria because failures of EOR applications are
commonly related with economics, facility limitation, decision making
process, and compatibility with project of vicinal oil field, which are
field-specific and project-specific factors.
Fig. 1 Procedure of data collection of EOR application cases
CLASSIFICATION OF EOR METHODS
Processed data were classified according to EOR methods as shown in
Table 1. While there are many EOR classifications, this was only based
on the database in this paper.
Steam or hot water
Thermal EOR
In-situ combustion
CO2 miscible
Gas EOR Hydrocarbon miscible
Immiscible gas
Nitrogen miscible
Polymer
Chemical EOR
Chemical
WAG
Other
Microbial
Table 1 Classification of EOR method
Thermal EOR methods mainly work by heating oil to reduce its
viscosity, thus allowing it to flow more easily through the formation
toward producing wells. This process is typically applied to heavy oil
(<22.3 °API) fields. The steam or hot water method involves injecting
hot water or steam to heat the oil in the reservoir, which reduces its
viscosity. In-situ combustion is the injection of air into an oil well. The
air is then ignited, which creates heat and reduces the oil viscosity.
Gas EOR methods use CO2, nitrogen, and hydrocarbon gases to push
remaining oil into a producing well. This method is widely used on
light oil (>31.1°API) reservoir. Gas EOR comprises of methods mainly
based on the miscibility of the oil. Miscibility is defined as the ability
160
of two or more substances to form a single homogeneous phase when
mixed in all proportions (“first-contact” miscible), which however is
seldom achieved (Holm, 1986). If the reservoir pressure is higher than
the MMP (Minimum Miscibility Pressure), the mass transfer will result
in a mixture that is miscible with the oil (“multiple-contact miscibility”),
in which case the predominant recovery mechanism is a miscible
displacement, now with no interfacial tension between the resident oil
and the displacing gas. If this fails, the displacement will be immiscible.
Immiscible displacements are not as efficient as miscible displacements
but may still recover oil by swelling, viscosity reduction, or
permeability increase, or pressure build up. CO2 and hydrocarbon gas
are usually employed as miscible displacement agents, while nitrogen is
usually for immiscible displacement. Even though miscible
displacement is more efficient than immiscible displacement, achieving
and maintaining miscible conditions in an oil field is very difficult
mainly due to operational and facility issues.
Chemical EOR methods use chemicals as displacing fluids. Polymer
methods consist of injecting water with a small amount of polymer into
reservoir in order to increase the viscosity of the injectant. An increase
in viscosity of the injectant leads to an increase of sweep efficiency.
Sweep efficiency is defined as the fraction of the floodable portion of
the reservoir swept or contacted by the injectant. High sweep efficiency
means that the injectant has contacted a high proportion of the oil in the
reservoir; hence, there is a higher possibility that more oil will be
displaced. Chemical and polymer methods are similar but with the
addition of a surfactant or alkaline to the injectant. This surfactant or
alkaline reduces oil-water interfacial tension to 0.01 to 0.001 dyne/cm,
to generate an almost miscible condition.
WAG (Water-Alternating-Gas) process is the alternating injection of
water and gas for a period of time to provide better sweep efficiency
and reduce gas channeling from injector to producer. There are four
types of WAG, they are miscible WAG, immiscible WAG, SWAG
(Simultaneous Water-And-Gas injection), and FAWAG (Foam-
Assisted WAG) but these are all classified as WAG in this paper.
Microbial process is injecting a solution of live microorganisms and a
nutrient, such as industrial molasses, into a well. The microorganisms
feed on the molasses, producing everything from acids and surfactants
to gases, such as hydrogen and CO2. These byproducts reduce
interfacial tension and increase oil flow.
Major EOR methods, which have been applied both onshore and
offshore, can be seen in Fig. 2. In onshore fields, the hot water or steam
process is the most common EOR method. In addition to the hot water
or steam process, CO2 miscible, hydrocarbon miscible, immiscible gas,
polymer, and in-situ combustion have been major EOR methods in
onshore fields. However, WAG has been generally applied to offshore
fields. This means that there are unique governing parameters in
offshore fields and these parameters can include remote location, severe
weather condition, expensive drilling cost and large well spacing, space
and weight limitations on the deck, injectant availability, limited
disposal option, and environmental regulation. However, these
parameters are very difficult to quantify for analysis because they are
field specific parameters. This paper only focuses on quantifiable data
including oil and reservoir properties.
Gathered data were analyzed to set the screening criteria of WAG,
hydrocarbon miscible, polymer, immiscible gas, and CO2 miscible. The
screening criteria for chemical, nitrogen miscible and microbial is not
present in this paper because there are few onshore application cases,
which indicates that these methods are in their early stages. This
decision cannot direct towards high-risk options for offshore
application but only proven EOR methods by field applications that
were analyzed in this paper. Thermal EOR requires large investments
and has to overcome technical challenges for offshore application
(Wehunt et al., 2003). Therefore, case data of thermal EOR processes
was not analyzed in this paper. Field application of thermal EOR was
only reported in Bohai field in China (Yongtao et al., 2011). However, Permeability criteria also needs to be modified according to Table 3. A
Alvarado and Manrique (2013) predicted that the thermal EOR process reservoir needs to be “homogeneous with few fractures” because
would not have a major impact in offshore oil production during next injectant channeling often occurs through high permeable layers such
decades compared to gas and chemical EOR. as fracture in a heterogeneous reservoir, reducing the volumetric sweep
Most available data used for analysis was given in ranges, because all efficiency drastically. Manrique et al. (1998) reported that the viscosity
reservoir properties are heterogeneous and oil properties are changing ratio of WAG using CO2 is between 10 and 30. Since the most
over production time. For setting screening criteria in this paper, commonly used gas for WAG in offshore fields is hydrocarbon gas, the
averaged values were used for analysis. All the parameters of suggested viscosity ratio is not discussed in this paper.
screening criteria in this paper were based on previously suggestions.
Parameters Screening criteria
Oil viscosity (cp) <2
Oil gravity (°API) 30-45
Permeability (md) <100
Viscosity ratio 10-30
Net thickness (ft) <100 unless dipping
Previous production method Water flooding preferred
Table 2 Previously suggested screening criteria for WAG (modified
from Manrique et al., 1998).

Parameters Max Min Average

Oil viscosity (cp)
1.8 0.3 0.9
12/14a
Oil gravity (°API) 41.0 28.0 36.1
(a) Onshore 14/14a
Permeability (md)
2,300.0 100.5 998.2
13/14a
Previous production
method Water flooding
10/14a
a = number of offshore WAG cases analyzed / total offshore
WAG cases in database.
Table 3 Analyzed field cases of WAG process.

Hydrocarbon Miscible Process

Offshore field applications of hydrocarbon miscible have been mainly

(b) Offshore
Fig. 2 EOR application cases according to onshore and offshore fields
DATA ANALYSIS FOR SCREENING CRITERIA
WAG Process
Most WAG applications in offshore fields have been implemented in
the North Sea where there is generally light oil. The most used injectant
for WAG in the North Sea is produced hydrocarbon gas because of
limited gas handling for storage and export, high availability with low
cost, and potential for incremental oil recovery (Awan et al., 2008).
Table 2 summarizes the modification of the screening criteria that were
previously suggested for WAG. Non-critical parameters were omitted.
Only offshore application data were analyzed as shown in Table 3.
These data of oil viscosity, and the previous production method,
matched reasonably with previously suggested criteria; however, the oil
gravity criteria need to be changed to “>28 °API.” “Thin unless
dipping” for criteria of net thickness is reasonable. The dipping
structure of a reservoir can lead to gravity-stable displacement by the
injectant, and gravity override has often occurred in thick reservoirs.
applied in the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico. This process has high
potential for offshore application because it reduces the handling effort
of produced hydrocarbon gas as described in the WAG process.
Table 4 summarizes modified screening criteria, which were previously
suggested for hydrocarbon miscible.
Onshore and offshore application data were analyzed as shown in Table
5; however, oil saturation data in offshore cases is not available. Based
on this analysis, the proper criteria of oil viscosity is “<2 cp.” The
suggested criteria for oil gravity and oil saturation by Al-Bahar et al.
(2004) matched well with our data analysis results. Depth criteria are
difficult to include as an offshore criteria. Depth relates to reservoir
pressure for miscible condition; however, water depth also needs to be
considered in offshore fields. Reservoir pressure at the start of EOR
application is more appropriate but these data are not available in the
database. Oil composition also relates to miscible condition. Therefore,
depth and oil composition criteria are incorporated into “reservoir
pressure<MMP.” Because of gas displacement issues described in the
WAG process, “thin unless dipping” and “homogeneous with few
fractures” are reasonable reservoir criteria. Generally, the presence of a
gas cap is unfavorable but hydrocarbon miscible application in Brent
field, which have primary gas cap, was successful. The presence of a
gas cap is not discussed in this paper.

161
 Ref. no. chelating agent. “<500 ppm hardness” is reasonable. However, the
Ref. 1 Ref. 2 Ref. 3 Ref. 4 Ref. 5 salinity and hardness limit highly depends on the type of polymer used,
Parameters and an appropriate polymer selection should be considered. Wettability,
Oil viscosity net thickness, water drive, and GOR (Gas Oil Ratio) were not
<20 <10 <3 <5 <3 considered for setting screening criteria because these parameters are
(cp)
Oil gravity less critical. In an offshore field, the actual length of the injection line
>26 >35 >23 >24 >23 and reservoir pressure may be more meaningful than depth because
(°API)
these can affect polymer injectivity into reservoir. The criteria of
Oil High % of High % of High % of
- light light - light formation type and temperature (<200 ºF) were reasonably matched
composition hydrocarbon hydrocarbon hydrocarbon with analyzed data. Too small pore size causes polymer entrapment and
Oil therefore, low polymer injectivity. However, only porosity cannot
saturation >25 >30 >30 >30 >30 represent regional pore size in reservoir. Porosity was not considered
(% PV) for setting criteria.
Depth (ft) - - >4,000 >3,937 >4,000
Homo- Homo- Ref. no.
Permeability geneous
-
geneous
- - Ref. 1 Ref. 2 Ref. 3 Ref. 4 Ref. 5
Thin, Thin Thin Thin Parameters
Net thickness dipping unless unless - unless Oil viscosity
preferred dipping dipping dipping <20 <150 <100 <150 <200
(cp)
Reservoir Oil gravity
>1,500 - - - >MMP
pressure (psi) >25 >15 >22 - -
(°API)
Gas cap - - - None -
Oil
Table 4 Previously suggested screening criteria for hydrocarbon
saturation >10e >50 >50 >60 -
miscible (modified from Brashear and Kuuskraa, 1978 <ref. 1>;
(% PV)
Goodlett et al., 1986 <ref. 2>; Taber et al., 1997b <ref. 3>; Al-Bahar,
Salinity
2004 <ref. 4>; Bourdarot and Ghedan, 2011 <ref. 5>). <100,000 - <100,000 <100,000 <100,000
(ppm)
Hardness
Parameters Max Min Average - - <5,000 <1,000 <500
(ppm)
Oil viscosity (cp)
2.0 0.1 0.6 Water-
7/8a, 45/45b
Wettability wet - - - -
Oil gravity (°API) 57.0 24.0 37.6 preferred
8/8a, 45/45b Depth (ft) <9,000 <9,000 <9,000 - -
Oil saturation (%) Formation Sandstone Sandstone Sandstone
98.0 30.0 71.2 - -
42/45b Type preferred preferred preferred
a = number of offshore hydrocarbon miscible cases analyzed / Temperature
total offshore hydrocarbon miscible cases in database. <200 <200 <200 <158 <200
(℉)
b = number of onshore hydrocarbon miscible cases analyzed /
total onshore hydrocarbon miscible cases in database. Permeability
>20 >10 >50 >50 >10
(md)
Table 5 Analyzed field cases of hydrocarbon miscible process.
Porosity (%) ≥20 - - - -
Polymer Process Net thickness
>10 - - - -
(ft)
c c
The polymer process in offshore fields has been mainly applied at the Water drive - - None None -
Bohai Bay in China; and the field-tests in Captain Field (North Sea) GOR - - - <10 -
and Dalia Field (Angola) were reported to be successful. Since the c = with no gas cap
polymer process is a well proven technology by the earlier onshore Table 6 Previously suggested screening criteria for polymer (modified
applications, especially in China, it has high potential for medium oil from Goodlett et al., 1986 <ref. 1>; Taber et al., 1997b <ref. 2>;
Alvarado et al., 2002 <ref. 3>; Al-Bahar, 2004 <ref. 4>; Xiaodong et al.,
(22.3–31.1 °API) and even for heavier oil recovery. Onshore and
2011 <ref. 5>).
offshore application data were analyzed as shown in Table 7. Data from
Pelican Lake field was not used. Maximum oil viscosity in Pelican
Lake field is approximately 40,000 cp. High oil viscosity requires Parameters Max Min Average
highly viscous injectant, hence, the low injectivity problem. However, Oil viscosity (cp)
use of horizontal wells was one of the key technologies that remedied 240.0 1.7 34.2
6/6a, 12/15b
this problem (Delamaide et al., 2013). Such application of high-
concentration polymer injection to offshore fields would require a Oil gravity (°API) 40.0 15.2 25.4
special care, because of the long injection line needed in the cold 3/6a, 12/15b
subsea conditions. Oil viscosity criteria needs to be changed to “<240 Oil saturation (%)
76.1 45.0 62.9
cp” from the previously suggested screening criteria as shown in Table 13/15b
6. The screening criteria of oil gravity, saturation, salinity, and Salinity (ppm)
25,000.0 2,870.0 11,828.0
permeability were changed according to Table 7. Since hardness can 5/6b
significantly affect polymer precipitation and decrease viscosity, this Formation Type
Sandstone
parameter cannot be excluded as screening criteria. Sheng (2011) 6/6a, 13/15b
discussed that 1,000 ppm hardness is probably too high or needs extra

162
 Temperature (℉) temperature mainly relate to CO2 miscibility, these parameters were
185.0 60.0 122.4 incorporated into “reservoir pressure>MMP”. Because of gas
6/6a, 14/15b
displacement issues described in WAG process, “thin unless dipping”
permeability (md) and “homogeneous with few fractures” are reasonable reservoir criteria.
5,250.0 85.0 1,666.3
6/6a, 14/15b
a = number of offshore hydrocarbon miscible cases analyzed / Ref. no.
total offshore hydrocarbon miscible cases in database. Ref. 1 Ref. 2 Ref. 3 Ref. 4 Ref. 5
b = number of onshore hydrocarbon miscible cases analyzed / Parameters
total onshore hydrocarbon miscible cases in database.
Oil viscosity
Table 7 Analyzed field cases of polymer process. <12 <15 <10 <15 <10
(cp)
Oil gravity
Immiscible Gas Process >26d >25 >22 >25 >22
(°API)
CO2, nitrogen and hydrocarbon gas have been used for immiscible gas High % High % High %
Oil
process. Immiscible gas process can be an acceptable option in offshore - of C5- of C5- of C5- -
composition
fields if injected gas is available economically. The Cantarell/Akal field C12 C12 C12
in Bay of Campeche (Mexico) is largest nitrogen injection project in Oil
the world. saturation >25 >30 >20 >25 >25
(% PV)
Ref. no. Varies
Ref. 1 Ref. 2 Ref. 3
Parameters Depth (ft) - >2,000 with >2,500 >1,970
Oil viscosity (cp) - <600 <600 depth
Temperature
Oil gravity (°API) ≥30 >12 >13 - - - - >86
(℉)
Oil saturation Permeability Homog-
- >35 >50 - - - -
(% PV) (md) eneous
Depth (ft) - >1,800 >656 Thin Thin
Water drive - - Noc Net thickness Wide
Thin unless unless -
(ft) range
c = with no gas cap dipping dipping
Table 8 Previously suggested screening criteria for immiscible gas Reservoir
- ≥MMP - ≥MMP ≥MMP
(modified from Clancy et al., 1985 <ref. 1>; Taber et al., 1997a <ref. pressure (psi)
2>; Al-Bahar et al., 2004 <ref. 3>). Gas cap - - - None None
d = in case of only Californian, other than Californian oil is >30 °API
Criteria of oil viscosity, gravity, and saturation in Table 8 were changed
Table 10 Previously suggested screening criteria for CO2 miscible
according to Table 9. Water driven parameter is not discussed in this
paper. (modified from Brashear and Kuuskraa, 1978 <ref. 1>; Goodlett et al.,
1986 <ref. 2>; Taber et al., 1997b <ref. 3>; Alvarado et al., 2002 <ref.
4>; Al-Bahar et al., 2004 <ref. 5>).
Parameters Max Min Average
Oil viscosity (cp)
592.0 0.1 44.9 Parameters Max Min Average
2/2a, 15/18b
Oil viscosity (cp)
Oil gravity (°API) 6.0 0.4 1.3
54.0 11.0 27.1 75/92b
2/2a, 18/18b Oil gravity (°API)
Oil saturation 45.0 22.0 37.0
1/1a, 92/92b
(% PV) 98.5 30.0 64.8
Oil saturation
13/18b
(% PV) 89.0 17.0 46.8
a = number of offshore immiscible gas cases analyzed / total
79/92b
offshore hydrocarbon miscible cases in database.
b = number of onshore immiscible gas cases analyzed / total a = number of offshore CO2 miscible cases analyzed / total
onshore hydrocarbon miscible cases in database. offshore hydrocarbon miscible cases in database.
b = number of onshore CO2 miscible cases analyzed / total
Table 9 Analyzed field cases of immiscible gas process.
onshore hydrocarbon miscible cases in database.
Table 11 Analyzed field cases of CO2 miscible process.
CO2 Miscible Process

CO2 miscible process has been proven as a successful technology

worldwide, mainly in onshore fields. In many cases, MMP of CO2 is
lower than hydrocarbon gas; hence, the CO2 miscible process has a
wider range of field candidates. In view of the current active interests in
seeking synergy between CO2 storage and the high efficiency of the
CO2-based oil recovery, this process has high potential for offshore
EOR application. However, the main challenge for application in
offshore fields is the economical availability of CO2.
Criteria of oil viscosity, gravity, and saturation in Table 10 were
changed according to Table 11. Since oil composition, depth, and

163
RECOMMENED SCREENING CRITERIA FOR OFFSHORE screening criteria of these processes are presented based on the analysis
EOR APPLICATION of the available field data. Most screening criteria suggested in this
paper are generally similar to those previously suggested. Due to the
Table 12 summarizes the screening criteria based on our analysis of the recent significant polymer development efforts and their active
successful EOR cases. The upper and lower bounds given are not applications, however, the difference for oil viscosity criteria in the
absolute limitation but only a guideline, because a successful polymer process is relatively large. There is a high potential for further
implementation of EOR requires additional, field-specific criteria extension in the polymer process, e.g., based on the recent
considerations of the logistics, environmental regulations, platform Pelican Lake field data. In addition to these screening criteria, the
space limitations, and other aspects. offshore-unique factors such as higher cost, remote location, space and
weight limitations on the platform, limited disposal option, and
WAG process environmental regulations can significantly affect the feasibility of
offshore EOR application. These field-specific factors are very difficult
Parameters Screening Criteria
to generalize and efforts to include these factors in our refined EOR
Oil viscosity (cp) <2 screening criteria are under way.
Oil gravity (°API) >28
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
>100
Permeability (md) Homogeneous with few This work was supported by the Energy Efficiency & Resources of the
fracture Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning
Net thickness Thin unless dipping (KETEP) grant funded by the Korea government Ministry of Trade,
Previous production method Water flooding preferred Industry and Energy (20122010300020).
Hydrocarbon miscible process
Oil viscosity (cp) <2 REFERENCES
Oil gravity (°API) >24 Al-Bahar, MA, Merrill, R, Peake, W, Jumaa, M, and Oskui, R (2004).
Homogeneous with few “Evaluation of IOR Potential within Kuwait,” SPE 88716 presented
Permeability
fracture at Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Confer and Exh, Abu Dhabi.
Oil saturation (% PV) >30 Alvarado, V, Ranson, A, Hernandez, K, Manrique, E, and Matheus, J
Net thickness Thin unless dipping (2002). “Selection of EOR/IOR Opportunities Based on Machine
Reservoir pressure >MMP Learning,” SPE 78332 presented at European Petroleum Confer,
Aberdeen.
Polymer process Alvarado, V and Manrique, E (2013). “Engineering Design Challenges
Oil viscosity (cp) <240 and Opportunities beyond Waterflooding in Offshore Reservoirs,”
Oil gravity (°API) >15 OTC 24105 presented at Offshore Tech Confer, Houston.
Awan, AR, Teigland, R, and Kleppe, J (2008). “A Survey of North Sea
Oil saturation (% PV) >45
Enhanced-Oil-Recovery Projects Initiated During the Years 1975 to
Salinity (ppm) <25,000 2005,” SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, Vol 11, No 3, pp
Hardness (ppm) <500 497-512.
Formation type Sandstone preferred Bourdarot, G, and Ghedan, S (2011). “Modified EOR Screening
Criteria as Applied to a Group of Offshore Carbonate Oil
Temperature (℉) <200
Reservoirs,” SPE 148323 presented at Reservoir Characterisation
Permeability (md) >85 and Simulation Confer and Exh, Abu Dhabi.
Immiscible gas Brashear, JP, and Kuuskraa, VA (1978). “The Potential and Economics
Oil viscosity (cp) <592 of Enhanced Oil Recovery,” J of Petroleum Technology, Vol 30, No
9, pp 1231-1239.
Oil gravity (°API) >11 Brodie, J, Zhang, P, Hetland, SM, Moulds, T, and Jhaveri, B (2012).
Oil saturation (% PV) >30 “BP North Sea Gas Injection Projects: Sustaining Offshore
CO2 miscible Production,” SPE 161189 presented at Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Confer and Exh, Abu Dhabi.
Oil viscosity (cp) <6
Choudhary, MK, Parekh, B, Dezabala, E, Marks, D, Pujiyono, and
Oil gravity (°API) >22 Zambrano, J (2011). “Design, Implementation and Performance of a
Homogeneous with few Down-Dip WAG Pilot,” IPTC 14571 presented at International
Permeability Petroleum Tech Confer, Bangkok.
fracture
Oil saturation (% PV) >17 Clancy, JP, Gilchrist, RE, Cheng, LHK, and Bywater, DR (1985).
“Analysis of Nitrogen-Injection Projects to Develop Screening
Net thickness Thin unless dipping
Guides and Offshore Design Criteria,” J of Petroleum Technology,
Reservoir pressure >MMP Vol 37, No 6, pp 1097-1104.
Table 12 Recommended screening criteria for EOR. Delamaide, E, Zaitoun, A, Renard, G, and Tabary, R (2013). “Pelican
Lake Field: First Successful Application of Polymer Flooding in a
CONCLUSIONS Heavy Oil Reservoir,” SPE 165234 presented at Enhanced Oil
Recovery Confer, Kuala Lumpur.
Through a comprehensive survey of EOR application cases in oil fields, Dymond, PF and Spurr, PR (1988). “Magnus Field: Surfactant
WAG, hydrocarbon miscible, polymer, immiscible gas, and CO2 Stimulation of Water-injection Wells,” SPE Reservoir Engineering,
miscible process is highly acceptable in offshore fields and the initial Vol 3, No 1, pp 165-174.

164
Goodlett, GO, Honarpour, FT, Chung, FT, and Sarathi, PS, (1986).
“The Role of Screening and Laboratory Flow Studies in EOR
Process Evaluation,” SPE 15172 presented at Rocky Mountain
Regioinal Meeting, Billings.
Ha, GH, Tran, ND, Vu, HH, Takagi, S, Mitsuishi, H, Hatakeyama, A,
Uchiyama, T, Ueda, Y, Nguyen, TV, Phan, TN, Nguyen, HN,
Nguyen, TH, and Dinh, QM (2012). “Design & Implementation of
CO2 Huff-n-Puff Operation in a Vietnam Offshore Field,” SPE
161835 presented at Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Conf and
Exh, Abu Dhabi.
Han, M, Xiang, W, Zhang, J, Jiang, W, and Sun, F (2006). “Application
of EOR Technology by Means of Polymer Flooding in Bohai
Oilfields,” SPE 104432 presented at International Oil & Gas Confer
and Exh, Beijing.
Holm, LW (1986). “Miscibility and Miscible Displacement,” J of
Petroleum Technology, Vol 38, No 8, pp 817-818.
Hongwen, Y, and Bo, L (2000). “The Methods Taken in SZ36-1
Oilfield in the Early Stage of Production,” SPE 64617 presented at
International Oil and Gas Confer and Exh, Beijing.
Jayasekera, AJ, and Goodyear SG (1999). “The Development of Heavy
Oil Fields in the U.K. Continental Shelf: Past, Present and Future,”
SPE 54623 presented at Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage.
Lake, LW (1989). Enhanced Oil Recovery, Prentice Hall, 1 p.
Manrique, E, Calderon, G, Mayo, L, and Stirpe MT (1998). “Water-
Alternating-Gas Flooding in Venezuela: Selection of Candidates
Based on Screening Criteria of International Field Experiences,” SPE
50645 presented at European Petroleum Confer, Hague.
Morel, D, Vert, M, Jouenne, S, Gauchet, R, and Bouger, Y (2012).
“First Polymer Injection in Deep Offshore Field Angola: Recent
Advances in the Dalia/Camelia Field Case,” Oil and Gas Facilities,
Vol 1, No 2, pp 43-52.
Oil and Gas J (1996). “Worldwide EOR Survey”.
Oil and Gas J (1998). “Worldwide EOR Survey”.
Oil and Gas J (2000). “Worldwide EOR Survey”.
Oil and Gas J (2002). “Worldwide EOR Survey”.
165
Oil and Gas J (2004). “Worldwide EOR Survey”.
Oil and Gas J (2006). “Worldwide EOR Survey”.
Oil and Gas J (2008). “Worldwide EOR Survey”.
Oil and Gas J (2010). “Worldwide EOR Survey”.
Oil and Gas J (2012). “Worldwide EOR Survey”.
Osterloh, WT, and Law, EJ (1998). “Polymer Transport and
Rheological Properties for Polymer Flooding in the North Sea,” SPE
39694 presented at SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symp, Tulsa.
Rosman, A, Riyadi, S, and Kifli, A (2011) “Oil Recovery Optimization
by Immiscible WAG in Offshore Mature Field: Dulang Case Study,”
SPE 144531 presented at Enhanced Oil Recovery Confer, Kuala
Lumpur.
Sheng, JJ (2011). Modern Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery, Gulf
Professional Publishing, 8-9 p.
Taber, JJ, Martin, FD, and Seright, RS (1997a). “EOR Screening
Criteria Revisited – Part : 1 Introduction to Screening Criteria and
Enhanced Recovery Field Projects,” SPE Reservoir Engineering, Vo
12, No 3, pp 189-198.
Taber, JJ, Martin, FD, and Seright, RS, (1997b). “EOR Screening
Criteria Revisited—Part 2: Applications and Impact of Oil Prices,”
SPE Reservoir Engineering, Vol 12, No 3, pp 199-206.
Wehunt, CD, Burke, NE, and Noonan SG (2003). “Technical
Challenges for Offshore Heavy Oil Field Developments,” OTC
15281 presented at Offshore Technology Confer, Houston.
Xiaodong, K, Jian, Z, Fujie, S, Fengjiu, Z, Guozhi, F, Junru, Y,
Xiansong, Z, and Wentao, X (2011). “A Review of Polymer EOR on
Offshore Heavy Oil Field in Bohai Bay, China,” SPE 144932
presented at Enhanced Oil Recovery Confer, Kuala Lumpur.
Yongtao, S, Lichang, Z, Tao L, Liguo, Z, Di, Y, and Hui, L (2011).
“Enhance Offshore Heavy Oil Recovery by Cyclic Steam-Gas-
Chemical Co-stimulation,” SPE 149831 presented at Heavy Oil
Confer and Exh, Kuwait City.
Zerafat, MM, Ayatollahi, S, Mehranbod, N, and Barzegari, D (2011).
“Bayesian Network Analysis as a Tool for Efficient EOR Screening,”
SPE 143282 presented at Enhanced Oil Recovery Confer, Kuala
Lumpur.