Application of a Microbial
SelectiveĆPlugging Process at the North
Burbank Unit: Prepilot Tests
G.E. Jenneman, SPE, P.D. Moffitt, SPE, and G.R. Young, Phillips Petroleum Co.
Summary
Microbial enhanced-oil-recovery (MEOR) nutrients were injected
in an injection well at North Burbank unit (NBU) in Oklahoma to
plug off high-permeability layers through the growth of indigenous
microorganisms and to divert injection fluid to lower-permeability,
higher-oil-saturation zones. Several different types of treatments
were performed using both sequential and co-injection of nutrients.
Pressure falloff/injection tests and vertical injection profiles were
conducted before and after nutrient injection. The results of pressure
injection tests following co-injection of nutrients and an incubation
period indicated a 33% drop in the effective permeability to the in-
jection fluid and a negative skin factor, while injection profile sur-
veys showed a 33% reduction in the zone taking water. Swabbed
samples from the injector following shut in revealed abundant bac-
terial concentrations and products as well as oil and inorganic solids.
Although significant in-depth permeability reduction was observed
following nutrient co-injection tests, the unstable behavior of the
plug suggested that insufficient biomass was being formed to effec-
tively seal off the higher-permeability zones.
Introduction
The NBU located in Osage County, OK has been the target of nu-
merous enhanced-oil-recovery (EOR) efforts over the past 25
years.1-4 It is estimated of the 671 MMbbl of original oil in place
(OOIP), over 300 MMbbl of oil remain. In 1980, a freshwater poly-
merflood was initiated in a 1,440 acre section of NBU, and this proj-
ect accounted for an additional 2.5 MM STB of oil over that attribut-
able to waterflooding alone. However, declining oil prices and the
costs associated with procuring fresh water have made the further
expansion of freshwater polymerflooding in NBU only marginally
attractive. For these reasons, Phillips Petroleum Co. began to look
to MEOR as an alternative method to chemical EOR for increasing
oil production at NBU.
MEOR has several potential advantages over chemical EOR. Mi-
crobial processes can use inexpensive feedstocks (e.g., molasses)
and convert them to products, such as solvents, surfactants, acids,
polymers, and gases, that have potential for increasing oil recovery.
Microbial processes can be applied in situ so that products are pro-
duced in the reservoir, avoiding some of the problems of product
retention by the reservoir rock. Also, MEOR processes are environ-
mentally friendly because they use only biodegradable chemicals
and nonpathogenic microorganisms.
The numerous EOR projects conducted in the past at NBU pro-
vided an adequate characterization of the reservoir to suggest that
a plugging type of mechanism would provide the best chance for
commercial application. This reservoir has a high degree of vertical
heterogeneity with permeability streaks as high as several darcies.
It is premised that injected water is channeling through higher-
permeability zones, thus bypassing significant quantities of mobile
oil. Therefore, a microbial process was designed that could selec-
tively plug off these water channels with bacterial cells and polymer
produced by the in-situ growth of indigenous microorganisms.
Details of the theory and design of this MEOR process have been
described previously.5-7
Copyright 1996 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review June 9, 1994. Revised manuscript received
Feb. 20, 1995. Paper peer approved July 27, 1995. Paper (SPE 27827) first presented at the
1994 SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, OK, April 17–20.
SPE Production & Facilities, February 1996
Over the past couple of years, Phillips Petroleum Co. has been en-
gaged in evaluating the technical feasibility of MEOR at NBU. A
number of single-well injector tests and near-wellbore tests involv-
ing either sequential injection of nutrients or nutrient co-injection
have been performed. The objective of these single-well tests was
to demonstrate that microorganisms and their products could
achieve effective and stable plugs similar to that accomplished dur-
ing the application of the NBU freshwater polymerflood. This paper
presents the results of the field tests.
Site Location and Description. NBU is located near Shidler, OK
in Osage County. The field is approximately 12 miles long and 5
miles wide. The wells produce from the Burbank sandstone at a
depth of about 3,000 ft and has been under waterflood for over 40
years. The site chosen for the single-injector field tests was a 23-acre
plot in the northwest corner of the field containing four producers
(16-1, 16-2, 16-9, and 16-10) surrounding a single injector (16W21)
(Fig. 1).
The bottomhole pressure (BHP) (i.e., static) at injector 16W21 is
about 800 psi and the temperature of the brine measured at the sur-
face is between 40 and 45°C. The brine has a total dissolved-solids
concentration between 100,000 and 110,000 mg/L, of which more
than 90% is sodium chloride. Significant concentrations of calcium,
magnesium, and barium also are present. The pH measured at atmo-
spheric pressure is between 6.0 and 6.5. The Burbank crude oil is a
light oil with an API gravity of 40° and a viscosity of 3.0 cp at reser-
voir conditions. More complete descriptions of this reservoir and its
fluids have been published previously.4,7
Sequential Nutrient Injection
Test Description. Tracer Test. A tracer test was conducted 5
months before nutrient injection to characterize flow patterns within
the MEOR pilot area. A nine-Curie sample of tritiated water was in-
jected into injector 16W21 on December 31, 1991. Following injec-
tion, samples were collected during preselected times at the four pi-
lot producers and analyzed for tritium with a liquid scintillation
counter.
Nutrients and Microbes. The nutrients selected for injection at
NBU were a soluble, corn-starch maltodextrin (MD) and an ethyl
acid phosphate (EAP). Nitrogen in the form of ammonium ion was
present in the brine in adequate amounts (25 to 60 mg/L) to promote
good growth and biopolymer production of indigenous microorgan-
isms. The microorganisms responsible for growth and polymer pro-
duction in these tests were indigenous to the Burbank injected brine.
Therefore, no additional microbes were injected and the inoculation
of the reservoir was assumed to have occurred throughout the life
of the waterflood. These microbes were determined to be strict
anaerobes and therefore injection of oxygen was undesirable. Selec-
tion and design of chemical mixing and injection facilities have
been described elsewhere.7
Nutrient Injection (Preslug). To acclimatize the indigenous
bacteria to the nutrients, a preslug of MD and EAP was injected into
16W21 starting May 20, 1992. This preslug consisted of pumping
EAP at 0.07 bbl/D for 5 days into a brine-injection stream flowing
at 2,500 bbl/D. This resulted in an injected EAP concentration of 7.9
mg/L as phosphorus. This was followed by 7 days of brine injection
and then 5 days of MD at an injected concentration of 500 mg/L
(Fig. 2).
Nutrient Injection (Main Slug).The main nutrient slug was
started on June 8, 1992, 2 days following the end of the preslug in-
11
 Fig. 2—Sequential nutrient-injection test.

Fig. 1—NBU MEOR pilot area. were adequate for the biological reaction to reach completion using
similar nutrient concentrations and growth conditions.
jection. EAP was pumped at 0.45 bbl/D for 10 days at an injected MD-Retention Test. The following year, another near-wellbore
test was performed at producer 12-9 to determine the in-situ reten-
concentration of 50 mg/L as phosphorus followed by 18 days of
tion of the MD carbohydrate. We felt the laboratory retention tests
brine injection. On July 6, MD was injected for 5 days at an injected
had underestimated the MD retention and thus the EAP and MD
concentration of 4,000 mg/L followed by another 18 days of brine
were not combining “in-depth” as predicted by the 2D adsorption/
injection and then 5 days of MD injection. This same nutrient slug
desorption model.
sequence was repeated starting Aug. 3 (Fig. 2). On March 15, 1993, 420 bbl of brine containing 3,565 mg/L of
Pressure-Injection Tests. Pressure-transient testing was used to MD and 986 mg/L methanol were pumped down the tubing string
determine if MEOR-nutrient injection in the pilot area could signifi- of producer 12-9. The MD solution was made up as six 70-bbl
cantly reduce the effective permeability to the injection fluid batches, as described for the previous near-wellbore test. Twelve li-
through the generation of bacterial cells and biopolymer in situ ters of methanol were added immediately to each batch following
without creating a plug at the wellbore face. During the course of the dissolution of the MD. This solution was then pumped down pro-
sequential nutrient injection, five pressure-transient tests were con- ducer 12-9 at approximately 2 bbl/min. The wellbore was then
ducted on Well 16W21 between March 1992 and Jan. 1993. The flushed with 15 bbl of brine and the well shut in for approximately
procedure for these tests consisted of the following: (1) a BHP bomb 20 hours to allow for equilibration. The well was placed back on
was run in the hole and injection was continued for 4 hours while the pump and samples of produced fluids sampled periodically. The
BHP bomb was on bottom, (2) the well was shut-in for 96 hours for samples were returned to the laboratory and analyzed for MD and
the fall off portion of the test, and (3) injection was resumed for 24 methanol by gas chromatography.
hours at 2,500 bbl/D while the BHP bomb was still on bottom for
the injection portion of the test. Results. Tracer Test. Tracer breakthrough occurred first at produc-
The falloff and injection portions of the tests were both analyzed ing Well 16-10 at 308 days following tracer injection. This was fol-
to determine the response of the formation to MEOR-nutrient injec- lowed by appearance of tritium at Wells 16-9, 16-1, and 16-2, re-
tion, and these two portions of the pressure-transient test gave sig- spectively. The highest concentration of tritium was observed in
nificantly different results. The discrepancy in results was attributed Well 16-9, with lesser concentrations measured in the other three
to a falling liquid level during the falloff portion of the test, obscur- producers (Fig. 3).
ing the analysis of this portion of the test. Consequently, the injec- Pressure-Injection Tests. Four pressure falloff/injection tests
tion portion of the test was assumed to be more valid and was taken were performed following sequential nutrient injection of EAP and
as representative of reservoir conditions. MD. Pressure injection tests indicated little reduction in the injec-
Biological-Activity Tests. Several months following injection of
the main nutrient slug, a test was conducted to determine the extent
of biological activity that occurs in situ after injection of EAP and
MD. This test was proposed because pressure-transient testing at the
injector failed to indicate significant permeability reduction follow-
ing sequential injection of nutrients. Field tests were compared to
control tests run in the laboratory.
Two producers, 5-9 and 12-9, were selected for this test; however,
because of the similarity of results, only the results of Well 12-9 will
be presented. Well 12-9 is located approximately 2 miles northeast
of the pilot site (Fig. 1). A nutrient solution consisting of 1.1 lbm of
MD and 7.1 cc of EAP per bbl of Tract 5 brine was mixed at the mix
facility and then hauled to producer 12-9 in a tank truck. A total of
420 bbl was pumped down the producer at a pump rate of approxi-
mately 2 bbl/min. Following nutrient injection, approximately 15
bbl of brine was injected to flush the nutrients out of the tubing and
wellbore area. The well was then shut in for 2 weeks, after which the
well was restarted and samples of produced fluids were collected at
pre-determined times until approximately 35% of the injected fluids
had been produced. Laboratory tests had indicated that 2 to 3 weeks Fig. 3—Tritium tracer survey.

12 SPE Production & Facilities, February 1996

 TABLE 1—PRESSURE FALLOFF/INJECTION TESTS AT
INJECTOR 16W21.
Injection kw,
Test Date md Skin Comments
First 3/9/92 304 0.07 Before nutrient injection
Second 8/30/92 276 0.75 After first sequential
injection sequence
Third 10/4/92 284 0.34 After second sequential
injection sequence
Fourth 11/23/92 301 0.02 2 months after end of
sequential injection
Fifth 1/11/93 280 *1.49 4 months after end of
sequential injection
Sixth 4/19/93 304 *0.74 Before co-injection of
nutrients Fig. 4—Pressure falloff/injection tests at Injector 16W21.
Seventh 6/17/93 200 *1.53 Immediately after first
co-injection sequence that the experimental error in measuring MD concentrations could
Eighth 7/7/93 224 *0.68 Before restarting brine be as high as 10%.
injection at 2,500 BWPD
Ninth 8/9/93 271 0.60 1 month after restarting Nutrient CoĆInjection
brine injection
Because of the lack of any noticeable change in effective permeabil-
Tenth 11/2/93 229 0.12 Immediately after second ity at injector 16W21 following the sequential nutrient treatments
co-injection sequence
and the more positive results observed at the two near-wellbore tests
using co-injection of nutrients, we decided to design a test at this in-
tion-fluid mobility and little change in skin factor as a result of the jector using co-injection of the nutrients MD and EAP to evaluate
sequential nutrient injection tests (Table 1 and Fig. 4). changes in effective permeability.
Biological-Activity Tests. The ammonia concentration of the pro-
duced fluids following shut in increased sharply during the first 20 Test Description. Co-Injection Test No. 1. Before co-injection of
bbl produced and then rapidly declined well below the ammonia nutrients, the water-injection rate was lowered from 2,500 to 1,750
concentration of either the injected brine (43 mg/L) or the produced bbl/D. Injection of EAP at 10 mg/L phosphorus was initiated on
brine assayed before nutrient injection (38 mg/L); whereas, ethanol, April 26th, 1993 followed 16 days later by injection of a 3,000 mg/L
which is a microbial byproduct of the fermentation of maltodextrin, slug of MD. These two nutrients were co-injected for a total of 20
remained well above baseline concentrations measured in the in- days, after which the injector was shut in for 2 weeks to allow the
jected fluids (i.e., < 1.0 mg/L) (Fig. 5). microbes to use the injected nutrients. A total of 36,700 lbm of MD
Maltodextrin concentrations, although detectable, remained be- and 1,100 lbm of EAP were injected during this test.
low 5% of the injected concentration in all produced samples col- Gas Analysis. During the shut in, wellhead pressure was mea-
lected. Chloride concentration increased sharply and then decreased sured by either a test gauge or by mounting a pressure transducer in-
in the produced fluids. This decrease in chloride concentration indi- line and having the output logged at preset intervals to a laptop com-
cated the large dilution of the injected brine (chloride+65,000 puter. A total of three wellhead samples were collected in
mg/L) collected at Tract 5 by the formation brine at producer 12-9 oxygen-free, stainless steel, gas-sampling vessels for later composi-
(chloride+52,000 mg/L) (Fig. 5). tional analysis by gas chromatography. Stable carbon-isotope anal-
MD-Retention Test. Fig. 6 shows the fraction of MD and metha- ysis of gas samples was performed by a commercial laboratory. The
nol produced in relation to the amount injected (Co) vs. the barrels data is reported relative to the Peedee Belemnite (PDB) standard
of fluid produced back following the shut in. Both nutrients dis- and are accurate to 0.2/mile.
played similar patterns of retention, with peak concentrations at Swab Analysis. Following the 2-week shut in, a swab line was run
70% to 80% of that injected. The differences in retention between down the injector and a total of 20 bbl of fluid were swabbed from
methanol and MD were determined not to be significant considering a total of 16 swab runs. Samples from each swab were collected in
clean, polypropylene bottles and taken back to the laboratory where
they were centrifuged and the percent of oil, water, and solids was
determined. Water was analyzed for low-molecular-weight alcohols

Fig. 5—Ethanol and ammonia concentrations in Producer 12-9

following the biological-activity test. Fig. 6—Relative retention of methanol and MD in Producer 12-9.

SPE Production & Facilities, February 1996 13

 TABLE 2—COMPOSITION OF WELLHEAD GAS COLLECTED the same rate, so that by the end of the second week the pressure was
AT INJECTOR 16W21 FOLLOWING NUTRIENT again in excess of 400 psi. This shut in, build-up, and venting of
COINJECTION. wellhead pressure continued over the next several weeks. The rate
of gas build-up increased with time, reaching a maximum rate of
Gas
Component 6/15/93 6/28/93 7/7/93
approximately 183 psi/D.
Gas Analysis. Gas analyses indicated that the gas samples col-
He 0.42 0.42 0.04
lected on four different days were very similar in terms of composi-
H2 0.58 0.05 <0.01
tion (Table 2). The predominant gases were methane, nitrogen, and
N2 20.4 21.1 5.86
ethane, with lesser amounts of propane and n-butane being present.
C1 56.9 67.9 69.9
Swab Analysis. Samples swabbed from the injector collected be-
C2 12.0 7.19 17.1
fore the seventh falloff/injection test contained oil only for the first
C3 6.41 2.36 5.65
several swabs; however, after the fourth swab mostly water and sol-
i-C4 0.76 0.22 0.44
ids were observed. The solids fraction contained mostly smectite
n-C4 1.51 0.47 0.78
i-C5 0.30 0.11 0.13
and barite, whereas the aqueous phase was turbid, consisting of bac-
n-C5 0.29 0.11 0.12
terial cells and emulsified oil. Bacterial counts ranged from a high
CO2 0.46 <0.01 <0.01 of 5.9 108 bacteria/mL in swab 8 to a low of 1.7 106 bacteria/mL
TOTALa 100 100 100 in swab 16. The aqueous phase also contained significant amounts
of ethanol, butanol, acetate, and formate characteristic of a bacterial
aNormalized mole % calculated on air-free basis.
carbohydrate fermentation (Table 3). No residual MD was detected
in any of the swabbed samples.
TABLE 3—FERMENTATION BY-PRODUCTS ASSAYED IN Pressure-Injection Tests. Following the co-injection of EAP and
SWAB SAMPLES FROM INJECTOR 16W21 FOLLOWING MD, a reduction in the effective permeability to water was achieved
COINJECTION TEST NO. 1 as the permeability decreased from 300 md before co-injection to
Swab Ethanol Butanol Acetate Formate AODC 200 md after co-injection. This permeability-reduction effect di-
No. mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L cells/cc minished with time, which was evident from the results of the eighth
and ninth pressure-injection tests.
5 438 5 ND ND 1.87e+08
Fig. 4 shows the change in injectivity achieved by the injection
6 397 4 ND ND ND
of MEOR nutrients. Some fluctuation in injectivity was experienced
8 687 8 402 110 5.86e+08
10 719 11 410 98 ND
during the pilot, but a definite reduction in injectivity was noted af-
12 690 9 400 102 1.63e+08
ter co-injection of MEOR nutrients.
14 586 8 517 107 3.32e+07 Vertical-Injection-Profile Tests. Diversion of the injected fluid in
16 610 9 405 109 1.68e+08 the formation was achieved, shown in Fig. 7, which shows the verti-
cal injection profiles taken before and after MEOR nutrient injec-
ND, not determined; AODC, acridine orange direct counts
tion. The upper part of the formation, which was taking 28% of the
fluid before nutrient injection, was no longer taking fluid during the
and acids, maltodextrin, and bacterial cells. Solids were analyzed by second profile survey subsequent to nutrient co-injection.
X-ray diffraction. Co-Injection Test No. 2. Following co-injection test No. 2, well-
Vertical-Injection-Profile Survey. An injection-profile survey head pressure caused by gas buildup was again observed to increase
was run on Well 16W21 before any nutrient injection on May 13, as before, except the rate was only about 40% of that observed during
1992, and then also on July 12, 1993, after nutrient co-injection. The co-injection test No. 1. The maximum pressure reached at the end of
profile survey used radioactive iodine to determine the percent loss the 2-week incubation period was approximately 420 psi. Analysis of
in the formation.
this gas revealed a composition similar to that of the first co-injection
Pressure-Injection Tests. Five additional pressure falloff/injec-
tion tests were run following the co-injection tests: one before co-in- test (Table 2). Also, a further permeability reduction was seen with the
jection test No. 1; three following the co-injection test No. 1; and second sequence of co-injection of MEOR nutrients, shown by the re-
one following co-injection test No. 2. The falloff portion of the test sults of the tenth pressure injection test in Table 1.
was not recorded on tests 7, 8, and 10 because the well had been shut
in before these tests for incubation of the MEOR-nutrient solution. Well Monitoring
Co-Injection Test No. 2. The second nutrient co-injection test fol-
To evaluate the progress of the field tests, chemical, physical, and
lowed the ninth injectivity test that was completed on Aug. 10. This
biological properties of the injected and produced fluids within the
co-injection test was designed to increase the EAP slug size and in-
crease the MD concentration over that used in the first test. We pilot area were monitored.
hoped that the increase in EAP slug size would allow greater overlap
of the two nutrient slugs predicted by the adsorption/desorption Test Description. Chemical. Regular monitoring for all four pro-
model6,7 and that an increase in MD would stimulate production of ducers (16-1, 16-2, 16-9, and 16-10) and the injector (16W21) be-
more biomass, resulting in greater permeability reduction and sta- gan in May 1992. This data provided a baseline for comparison of
bility. results once the treatments were initiated. Wellhead samples were
The EAP slug was injected first and contained EAP at 10 mg/L collected at least once per month.
as phosphorus followed on Sept. 29 by injection of MD at a con- Water from the producers and injector were analyzed for changes
centration of approximately 4,000 mg/L. Co-injection continued for in concentrations of ammonia, total dissolved solids, various metals
20 days, after which time the injector was shut in for 2 weeks. A total (e.g., Fe, Mg, Mn, and Ca), chloride, alkalinity, sodium, pH, dis-
of approximately 49,000 lbm of MD and 3.3 bbl of EAP were in- solved gases, phosphorus, sulfate, MD, low-molecular-weight
jected.
acids (e.g., acetate and formate), and alcohols (e.g., methanol, etha-
Results. Co-Injection Test No. 1. After nutrient injection and shut nol, propanol, and butanol).
in of injector 16W21, a rapid rise in wellhead pressure was observed Biological. Water was analyzed for the presence of maltodextrin-
caused by gas generation. At the end of 7 days, the pressure was in utilizing bacteria (MUB) and sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB). The
excess of 400 psi. Upon venting the gas and shutting in the well, the API-RP388 bottle method was used to monitor SRB, whereas
pressure immediately began to build backpressure at approximately bottles containing NBU brine and 0.1% MD were used to monitor

14 SPE Production & Facilities, February 1996

Fig. 7—Injection profile survey at Injector 16W21 before and af-
ter nutrient treatments.
MUB. The titer for the MD test was determined by the highest dilu-
tion bottle showing visible growth (i.e., turbidity).
Results. During the course of the field tests, the only significant
chemical change observed in the brine composition was an increase
in the biometabolite, acetate, at three of the four producers (Fig. 8).
Acetate concentrations were first detected at producer 16-9, reach-
ing a high of 61 mg/L by December of 1993. By October, acetate
levels were also detectable in produced water from Wells 16-9 and
16-1.
No significant increase or decrease in SRB or MUB was observed
at the producers or injector following the conclusion of the nutrient
treatments.
Discussion
Sequential-Nutrient Injection. Sequential injection of nutrients
was designed to reduce the use of injected nutrients near the well-
bore and thus enhance the transport of nutrients in-depth such that
microbial growth and plugging would occur away from the well-
bore, thereby limiting skin effects. The results of previous laborato-
ry studies involving microbial plugging of cores suggests that face
plugging is a potential problem, as revealed by higher biomass accu-
mulation and permeability reduction at the inlet vs. the outlet section
of the core.9,10 However, skin factors measured at injector 16W21
following both sequential injection and co-injection of nutrients re-
vealed no significant skin damage, which suggested wellbore plug-
ging was not a problem for this injector (Table 1). Differences be-
tween laboratory and field results could be caused by the inability
of the model core system to properly emulate the field condition.
The injection face at the wellbore is likely to be very irregular, un-
like laboratory cores that are cut to be smooth and flat. This differ-
ence could affect the way particulates, such as bacteria, filter out at
the face of the rock matrix. Pore throats of the matrix rock in the field
may be larger than those in model cores, allowing for easier bacteri-
al penetration. Also, the fluid velocities (e.g., shearing effect) at the
face of the wellbore were much greater than those used in the labora-
tory studies.
The lack of response of injector 16W21 with regards to in-depth
permeability reduction following sequential nutrient injection sug-
gested several possibilities: (1) the nutrient slugs were not mixing
properly in the reservoir; (2) the bacteria responsible for generation
of biomass were not active in-depth; (3) not enough biomass was be-
ing generated in-depth to create a significant permeability reduction
response; or (4) a combination of these possibilities.
Near-Wellbore Tests. Typically, laboratory results indicated that
the indigenous bacteria in the injection brine would use 20% to 90%
of the MD in a 2,000 mg/L MD solution within 8 to 14 days. The
amount used and the rate of use increased with increasing hydrostat-
ic pressure.11 The biological activity test at producer 12-9 suggested
that significant in-situ metabolism had occurred as determined by
a decrease in MD and ammonia, as well as an increase in biopro-
ducts, such as ethanol and cells (Fig. 5).
SPE Production & Facilities, February 1996
Fig. 8—Breakthrough of acetate at the pilot producers following
the first sequential nutrient-injection test.
The similarity in the retention curves of MD and methanol (Fig.
6) suggests that the retention of MD in situ was not significant be-
cause methanol was used previously at NBU as a conservative trac-
er. Significant microbial use of the MD was not a factor because no
phosphorus source was mixed with the injected MD and a very short
incubation period was employed to avoid significant use. Therefore,
we concluded that adsorption/desorption coefficients derived from
laboratory core tests for MD retention were reasonable values for
modeling the nutrient slugs. It was not possible to determine from
these near-wellbore studies if the amount of biomass being gener-
ated in situ or away from the wellbore was adequate to effect a re-
duction in permeability. This would have to be determined from
larger-scale co-injection tests at the injector.
Nutrient Co-Injection Tests. The results of the nutrient co-injec-
tion tests as determined from pressure-transient testing indicated
significant reduction in the injection-fluid effective permeability
(from 300 to 200 md), but the reduction in permeability decreased
with time once brine injection was resumed (Table 1). Injection fluid
mobilities in the NBU freshwater Block A polymerflood were re-
duced by factors ranging from two to four, and this reduction in in-
jection-fluid mobility was sustained over a period of several years.3
The unstable behavior of the plug generated by the MEOR process
could have resulted from a lack of biomass (i.e., bacteria and biopo-
lymer) to sustain the reduction in permeability when brine injection
was resumed or could also have resulted from a rapid deterioration
of the plug caused by bacterial activity.
The reduced injection-fluid mobility was the result of either (1)
a reduction in permeability within a radial zone around the wellbore
(estimated to extend 150 to 200 ft into the reservoir) or (2) a plug-
ging off of part of the wellbore caused by the injection of MEOR nu-
trients. The first possibility was investigated with a radial compos-
ite, pressure-transient model. The results indicated a zone of
reduced permeability around the wellbore could not be discerned by
pressure-transient analysis as the zone of reduced permeability
would be obscured by wellbore storage at early time. The perme-
ability determined by pressure-transient analysis should, conse-
quently, be the permeability of the reservoir beyond the reduced
permeability zone (in this case, 300 md). This was true even when
the permeability of the reduced permeability zone was decreased to
one-tenth of the unaltered reservoir permeability (30 md).
The second possibility for calculating a reduced permeability
from the pressure-injection tests following nutrient co-injection is
that part of the formation was plugged off because of co-injection
of MEOR nutrients and, consequently, the effective net pay avail-
able for injection was reduced. This would occur in a layered, no-
crossflow reservoir system because injection fluid could not cross-
flow into layers that were not taking fluid at the wellbore (NBU does
display a high value of hyperbolic exponent b, 0.9, characteristic of
layered, no-crossflow systems). After the first nutrient co-injection
sequence, the flow capacity, Kh, was reduced by one-third. Injection
profile surveys run before and after nutrient co-injection showed the
15
interval taking injection fluid was also reduced by one-third, from
17 to 12 ft (Fig. 8). This indicates the reduction in flow capacity, Kh,
determined from the pressure-transient tests was probably caused
by a reduction in the thickness of the formation taking injection fluid
rather than a reduction in permeability in the area around the well-
bore. In-depth plugging of the formation must have occurred as the
pressure-injection tests showed flow capacity, Kh, decreased rather
than the skin factor increased (Table 1).
The production of large amounts of gas at the injector following
the first nutrient co-injection was somewhat unexpected because
co-injection and shut in of two producing wells during the near-
wellbore tests had failed to show more than 20 psig of surface pres-
sure. The high methane and nitrogen content (Table 2) of the gas
along with the amount of gas produced suggested that this gas did
not result directly from the metabolism of the added nutrients. Fur-
ther evidence that this gas was abiogenic was revealed by the stable
carbon isotope values for the methane fraction. The del 13CPDB val-
ue of *44.4 to *45 indicated a higher proportion of 13C than would
be expected if this methane was of biogenic origin. Also, organic
geochemical analysis of the swabbed oil indicated no significant
biodegradation of the oil had occurred following nutrient co-injec-
tion, lessening the possibility that the gas was formed through deg-
radation of the oil. Therefore, it is more likely the gas resulted by
some indirect mechanism of the treatments—e.g., an immobile or
trapped gas pocket located near the wellbore was released because
of formation of biogenic gas or some other microbial product.
The inability to detect MD in the swabbed samples following nu-
trient co-injection test No. 1 and the presence of significant amounts
of microbes, ethanol, butanol, acetate, and formate suggested that
a high MD-use rate occurred in situ at injector 16W21 (Table 3).
These high use rates and high concentrations of byproducts are not
observed in screening tests performed at atmospheric conditions,
but previous results from this laboratory confirm that pore pressur-
es, such as those in the field (u500 psig), result in increased MD-
use rates and higher concentrations of reduced byproducts (e.g., al-
cohols) than those observed at atmospheric pressure.11
Well Monitoring. The time to tracer breakthrough had been esti-
mated to be 210 days with the method of Smith and Brigham.12 The
layer properties used to estimate breakthrough time were taken from
the waterflood history match of a 2D reservoir model for the Tract
16 area.7 Slower breakthrough of the tracer (compared with pre-
dicted breakthrough times) indicated the pilot area was more homo-
geneous than originally was modeled and breakthrough of micro-
bial byproducts will be slower than initially projected. The areal
heterogeneity which exists within the pilot area can be seen by
comparing the different well responses in the pilot area (Fig. 3).
The concurrent detection of acetate, which is a byproduct of MD
metabolism, at producers 16-1 and 16-10 (Fig. 8) may have indi-
cated that an areal shift in flow had occurred in the pilot area because
the tritium tracer survey performed before treatment indicated that
fluid mobility to producer 16-1 should lag as much as 4 months be-
hind that of producing Well 16-10 (Fig. 3). It is likely that the acetate
detected during this phase of the monitoring was a result of the se-
quential nutrient test because only 60 days had lapsed between the
nutrient co-injection test and detection of acetate at Well 16-9 (Fig.
8).
Conclusions
1. Co-injection of the limiting nutrients maltodextrin (i.e., carbon
source) and ethyl-acid phosphate (i.e., phosphate source) resulted
in a 33% decrease in effective permeability following a 2-week
shut-in of injector 16W21.
2. The production of gas, microbial cells, microbial acids, and al-
cohols, as well as reductions in ammonia and maltodextrin near the
injector, indicated that this permeability reduction was the result of
the in-situ activity of indigenous microorganisms.
16
3. Pressure-injection tests and injection-profile surveys follow-
ing nutrient co-injection and shut in indicated an in-depth plug was
formed that was restricting flow in the high-permeability layers, but
this bioplug was not very stable to continuous brine injection.
4. The pattern of breakthrough of the biometabolite, acetate, at
the three of the four producers suggested that some change in areal
flow characteristics had occurred following the MEOR treatments.
5. The sequential injection of the limiting nutrients did not result
in any significant reduction in effective permeability at injector
16W21.
Acknowledgments
We thank Jim Stevens for his excellent technical assistance, help
with collection of field samples, and with preparation of figures. We
also acknowledge the help of M. Davey and D. Gevertz (Agouron
Inst.) for performing bacteria counts and maltodextrin assays. A
special thanks to J.B. Clark and R.B. Needham, retired, who were
instrumental in the initiation of this project. We also appreciate the
support of Jim Johnson, Chris Luppens, D.R. Zornes, Greg Ste-
phens, and A.J. Perry for their help in design, implementation, and
supervision of these tests. We thank Phillips Petroleum Co. and the
NBU working-interest owners for the opportunity to present this
work.
Nomenclature
b+ hyberbolic decline curve exponent
h+ thickness, L, ft
K+ permeability, L2, md
Kh+ formation flow capacity, md-ft
References
1. Clampitt, R.L. and Reid, T.B.: “An Economic Polymerflood in the
North Burbank Unit, Osage County, Oklahoma,” paper SPE 5552 pres-
ented at the 1975 SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, Dal-
las, Sept. 28–Oct. 1.
2. Trantham, J.C., Threlkeld, C.B., and Patterson Jr., H.L.: “Reservoir De-
scription for a Surfactant/Polymer Pilot in a Fractured, Oil-Wet Reser-
voir—North Burbank Unit Tract 97,” JPT (Sept. 1980) 1647–1656.
3. Zornes, D.R., Cornelius, A.J., and Long, H.Q.: “An Overview of the
North Burbank Unit Block A Polymer Flood Project, Osage County,
Oklahoma,” paper SPE 14113 presented at the 1986 SPE International
Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, March 17–20.
4. Moffitt, P.D. et al.: “Application of Freshwater and Brine Polymerflood-
ing in the North Burbank Unit (NBU), Osage County, Oklahoma,”
SPERE (May 1993) 128.
5. Clark, J.B. and Jenneman, G.E.: “Nutrient Injection Method for Subter-
ranean Microbial Processes,” U.S. Patent No. 5,083,611 (1992).
6. Jenneman, G.E., Clark, J.B., and Moffitt, P.D.: “A Nutrient Control Pro-
cess for Microbially Enhanced Oil Recovery Applications,” Develop-
ments in Petroleum Science (1993) 39, 319–334.
7. Jenneman, G.E. et al.: “Design of a Microbially Enhanced Oil Recovery
Project For The North Burbank Unit, Osage County, Oklahoma: A Pre-
Pilot Study,” Biohydrometallurgical Technologies, Vol. 2, Fossil Ener-
gy, Materials, Bioremediation, Microbial Physiology, A.E. Torma, M.L.
Apel, and C.L. Brierley (eds.), TMS Publications, Warrendale, PA
(1993) 385–400.
8. American Petroleum Inst. RP38, “Recommended Practice for Biologi-
cal Analysis of Water Flood Injection Waters,” API, Dallas (May 1959).
9. MacLeod, F.A., Lappin-Scott, H.M., and Costerton, J.W.: “Plugging of
a Model Rock System By Using Starved Bacteria,” Appl. Environ. Mi-
crobiol. (1988) 54, 1365–1372.
10. Gevertz, D., Solis, R.M., and Wood, W.A.: “Analysis of Biomass in
Rock Cores Following Nutrient Stimulation,” Developments in Petro-
leum Science (1991) 31, 45–59.
11. Jenneman, G.E. and Clark, J.B.: “The Effect of In-Situ Pore Pressure on
MEOR Processes,” paper SPE 24203 presented at the 1992 SPE/DOE
Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, April 22–24.
12. Brigham, W.E. and Smith, D.H.: “Prediction of Tracer Behavior in Five-
Spot Flow,” paper SPE 1130 presented at SPE Production Research
Symposium, Tulsa, OK, May 3–4, 1965.
SPE Production & Facilities, February 1996
SI Metric Conversion Factors G.E. Jenneman is a bioscience specialist with Phillips Petroleum
Co. (PPCo) in Bartlesville, OK, where he has worked for the past
acre 4.046 873 E*01 +ha 7 years. He holds a PhD degree in microbiology from the U. of
°API 141.5/(131.5)°API)+g/cm3 Oklahoma. His interests include microbial EOR, biocorrosion,
bbl 1.589 873 E*01 +m3 bioremediation, and biosouring. P.D. Moffitt is a senior reservoir
cp 1.0* E*03 +Pa@s engineering specialist with PPCo. He holds a BS degree in agriĆ
curie (3.7 1010) E +Bq cultural engineering from Oklahoma State U. and an MS degree
ft 3.048* E*01 +m in petroleum engineering from the U. of Oklahoma. He has
°F (°F*32)/1.8 +°C worked for Phillips for 17 years in the areas of reservoir engineerĆ
gal 3.785 412 E*03 +m3 ing, reservoir simulation, and EOR. Moffitt is a member of the ResĆ
lbm 4.535 924 E*01 +kg ervoir Engineering Technical Committee for the Annual MeetĆ
ing. Gordon R. Young is a district engineer for PPCo in Shidler, OK.
md 9.869 233 E*04 +mm2
He holds BS and MS degrees in petroleum engineering from the
mile 1.609 344* E)00 +km U. of Texas at Austin. He joined Phillips in 1989 and has worked
psi 6.894 757 E)00 +kPa in drilling, well completions, workovers, and design of both miĆ
*Conversion factor is exact. SPEPF crobial and polymer EOR facilities.

Jenneman Moffitt Young

SPE Production & Facilities, February 1996 17