SPE 94637
Planning EOR Projects in Offshore Oil Fields
P.L Bondor, SPE, BonTech; J.R. Hite, SPE, Business Fundamentals Group; and S.M. Avasthi, SPE, Avasthi &
Associates, Inc.
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20 – 23 June 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) technologies can significantly
increase recovery from oil reservoirs. Some of these EOR
technologies are currently producing substantial incremental
oil, primarily in onshore applications; others have not yet
made a commercial impact. The application of these methods
is more complex in the offshore environment, as space and
weight restrictions, as well as the need for high reliability and
the challenging economics of such projects, impose
constraints not present in onshore applications. All EOR
processes are reservoir- and reservoir fluid-specific; thus it is
necessary to identify the appropriate EOR technology for use
in a reservoir, design the project to achieve the required
economic incremental recovery within the constraints imposed
by the offshore environment, and manage the project to meet
or exceed expectations.
This paper will focus on the impact of the offshore
environment on the planning, design and management of an
EOR project.
Introduction
Oil fields in the offshore environment, especially in the
deepwater, represent a significant resource available to meet
the expected increases in oil demand over the next few
decades. Given the high cost of development, and the resulting
necessity for a large reserve base, the size of developed
offshore fields is significantly larger than those onshore.
Consequently, the remaining resource after primary depeletion
(and pressure maintenance/waterflood) in a given reservoir is
also larger than the equivalent targets onshore. However,
given the constraints in the offshore, both subsurface (very
large well spacing, less detailed information about reservoir
geology, especially degree of continuity between wells) and
surface (availability and cost of EOR agents, weight and space
constraints, and high capital cost requirements), the
implementation of enhanced oil recovery to increase the
recovery efficiency in offshore fields can be fraught with
technical difficulties, as well as with economic and technical
risks. An appropriate design process1 which takes into account
the integrated surface and subsurface can address and mitigate
these risks, and can identify whether EOR is appropriate or
possible in a given offshore field.
Subsurface Information
A good understanding of the reservoir geology is critical to the
success of an EOR project. Because it is vital to contact
remaining oil-in-place with the injectant, the geological
understanding should be in sufficient detail to allow modeling
of these complicated processes. In most cases, the reservoir
will have sufficient production performance so that a history
match can be obtained. This will not necessarily provide a
sufficient geological description for EOR purposes. In EOR,
movement of injectant through a thief zone, causing premature
breakthrough, or loss of injectant out of zone, may result in
failure of the project. Mineralogy of the reservoir, by
determining the amount of adsorption of injectant (in the case
of polymer and chemical methods), will dictate the amount of
injectant necessary for success.
A detailed geologic study should precede any EOR effort.
This study should at a minimum revisit all logs, core and fluid
data, as well as result in a detailed geologic model that
provides a satisfactory history match to production
performance.
In addition, reservoir fluid and core samples should be
obtained and analyzed, and the data specific to the EOR
method to be used for project design identified and gathered.
It must be remembered that the injected medium will be
interacting with both the reservoir fluids and the reservoir
rock. These interactions should be well understood. If a pilot
is intended, data should be gathered in the pilot area, and
detailed geologic modeling carried out specific to the pilot.
2 SPE 94637
EOR Processes
EOR processes fall into two general categories: those that
improve volumetric sweep efficiency, and those that improve
displacement efficiency.
Improving sweep efficiency. Poor sweep efficiency results
from either reservoir heterogeneities, or poor mobility ratio.
The use of methods that improve mobility ratio may also
reduce the impact of reservoir heterogeneity. Mobility ratio
can be affected by decreasing the mobility of the injected fluid
(e.g., polymer flooding), or by increasing the mobility of the
target hydrocarbons (e.g., thermal methods).
Improving displacement efficiency. Displacement efficiency
is controlled by the capillary forces, which hold the oil in the
reservoir matrix. Methods that reduce the impact of these
capillary forces include chemical (surfactant, caustic, alkaline
flooding) and miscible (hydrocarbon gas, carbon dioxide,
nitrogen flooding). Microbial processes rely on the use of in-
situ microbes to generate surfactants and polymers, and so act
to improve displacement efficiency.
Process selection begins with the identification of a target
volume of hydrocarbons not recoverable by primary or
secondary means. This identification requires answers to the
following questions:
1) What is the remaining hydrocarbon in-place after
conventional methods?
2) Where is this resource located?
3) What is the reason it has not been recovered?
The determination and confirmation of the target volume and
location is a critical first step in process selection. In order to
answer these questions, a body of information about the
characteristics of both the reservoir and the reservoir fluids is
necessary. Geological analysis and dynamic modeling,
addressed later herein, can help answer these questions, but
should if possible be supported by field data: core analyses,
fluid properties measurement, and detailed production history
and pressure information.
Once a target volume has been identified, and the relevant
reservoir and fluid information collected, screening of EOR
processes for application takes place. There are screening
criteria in the SPE literature2,3 and commercial software is also
available for this purpose.
Screening will result in a few candidate processes.
Selection requires that the specific target reservoir be matched
to the specific process. This is not wholly a technical
question. The economic viability of the project will depend on
the matching process. The detailed subsurface work needed
will also depend on the process.
Not only must the process be matched to the reservoir, the
risks involved in application offshore must be examined. A
useful example is given in Table 1 in Ref. 4. Potential EOR
processes for the Ekofisk field which appear viable from a
technical screening perspective, are assessed for technical
readiness, risk, and issues which must be resolved prior to
beginning a field test. Other useful information is given in
Ref. 5, discussing the potential for EOR applications in the
North Sea, and Ref. 6, addressing EOR potential in Malaysia.
Current Status of EOR Applications in Offshore
Fields
While the processes referred to above can be used to improve
recovery, they vary widely in their viability under current
conditions.
Chemical flooding, whether surfactant or alkaline flooding,
has not been proven economically successful even in the
onshore environment,. As costs offshore are expected to be
substantially higher, early economic screening is essential.
Polymer flooding is being used successfully, but polymers are
sensitive to salinity and hardness of the make-up water being
used. Although certain classes of polymers are less sensitive to
salinity, in general a seawater-based process would require
higher concentrations of polymer, and thus be more expensive,
than an equivalent onshore application. In addition, surfactant
and polymer flooding processes will have temperature
limitations. They may become unstable at reservoir
temperatures.
Thermal recovery by steam injection requires a low pressure
reservoir, so that a large fraction of the injected heat may be
carried by the heat of vaporization, and is very sensitive to
heat losses in the wellbore. Injection of heat through a
substantial water column, even if the risers are well insulated,
will represent a thermal inefficiency which may be impossible
to be overcome. In spite of these difficulties, Elf Acquitaine
reported a steam flood pilot in 1985 (Ref 17).
Thermal recovery using combustion drive, where air (or
oxygen) is injected into the reservoir and used to support a
combustion front in the reservoir, may hold more promise
(Refs 7,8). However, this method has had only limited
success onshore owing to limited control of the progress of the
combustion front in the reservoir.
Microbial enhanced oil recovery is the most immature of the
EOR processes, and needs significant testing in an onshore
environment before any large-scale applications in the
offshore.
Gas injection is the process which has had significant success
onshore, and has been applied in a variety of projects offshore.
The use of hydrocarbon gases, for both miscible and
immiscible recovery, is ongoing in the offshore. One of the
largest current offshore EOR projects, at Mexico’s Cantarell
field in the Gulf of Mexico (Refs. 9,10), injects nitrogen to
provide pressure maintenance and retard the advance of
aquifer water. It has been very successful at increasing oil
recovery.
SPE 94637
Carbon dioxide flooding has been widely applied onshore in
the U.S., but has had only limited use offshore. The possible
advent of government incentives for sequestration of CO2, as
part of the attack on global warming, may provide an
opportunity to significantly improve the economics of
application of both miscible and immiscible CO2 in the
offshore.
One effort to use industrial CO2 for oil recovery is the CO2
for EOR in the North Sea (CENS) project. The CENS Project
will initially capture CO2 currently emitted from Danish and
UK coal-fired power plants, and transport the CO2 through a
pipeline infrastructure out into the North Sea so that it
becomes available for use by the major North Sea Oil field
operators (Ref 11).
Experience to Date in Application of EOR in Offshore
Fields
Table 1 presents a list of offshore EOR projects. Of these, by
far the largest is Pemex’s Cantarell project, referred to above.
Other applications are immiscible gas injection using available
gas (Refs. 5, 12, 14), and the use of foam for mobility control
in a gas injection project (Ref. 15). A pilot project for the use
of alkaline-surfactant-polymer has been reported to be in
planning (Ref.16) in the relatively shallow waters of Lake
Maracaibo.
Impact of Subsurface Selection on Surface Needs
The selection of an EOR process dictates the surface facilities
needed to carry out the development. In the offshore
environment, this interaction is critical. As all EOR processes
depend on the injection of surface materials into the reservoir,
the acquisition, handling, and injection of the necessary
materials, and the subsequent disposal of produced material, is
integral to the design process, and is exacerbated by the severe
constraints on space and weight offshore. For the purposes of
surface equipment definition, it is useful to separate EOR
processes into 1) water-based processes, in which the injectant
is incorporated into a water injection stream; and 2) gas-based
processes, in which the injectant is (or is incorporated into) a
gas injection stream.
Water-based Processes
In a water-based process, the active injectant material,
which may be polymer, surfactant, caustic, or a mixture of
these, must be delivered to the facility, stored, treated,
possibly diluted and filtered, and injected through dedicated
injection wells.
If the target reservoir(s) have previously been operated
under water injection conditions, either as a waterflood or as a
pressure maintenance project, some but not all of the
necessary facilities may already be in place. Even in this case,
there will be a need for additional facilities.
3
Water Handling Needs.
If the target reservoirs have not previously been under
waterflood, then the following need to be addressed.
Water Acquisition.
In an offshore environment, the obvious injection water
candidate is sea water. An alternative, if available, is a salt
water aquifer of sufficient size to supply injection
requirements over the life of the project. This is only viable if
there are sufficient well slots in the platform to allow the
drilling of water production wells, and if the cost of those
water producers is not so high as to make the project
uneconomic. Consideration also needs to be given to whether
produced water will be recycled.
It should be remembered that the reservoir rock and fluid
properties should be well understood. If, for example, the
reservoir contains a high fraction of clays (esp. illite or
kaolinite) the injection of water that is too fresh will result in
the clays swelling, doing irreversible damage to the injectivity
of the formation and resulting in a failed project. This
consideration should also be part of the selection of the source
water.
Water Injection.
Water injection will require both pumping facilities
with sufficient horsepower and volume to meet the subsurface
design requirements, and a water distribution system which
will deliver the design volumes to the designated injection
wells. The choice of reciprocal or rotating pumps will depend
on the specifics of project injection requirements and
economics.
In general, the injection water will need to be treated in some
way. Even if water is being produced from an aquifer, it may
need to undergo filtration to assure sufficient water quality to
maintain the design injection rates. If sea water is the source,
filtration is essential. In most cases, sand filters which are
properly maintained should be sufficient to provide injection
water to specifications. However, in the case of low
permeability formations, it is possible that further water
polishing may be necessary, e.g., using diatomaceous earth
filtration.
When sea water is the injectant of choice, the presence of
dissolved oxygen and sulfates in the water impose treating
requirements, as these provide the necessary conditions for
bacterial growth in the reservoir. Bacterial growth in the
wellbore and near-well environment will cause plugging of the
formation, resulting in the loss of injection capacity and
requiring frequent injection well treatment to restore
injectivity. In addition, sulfates in the injection water provide
a nutrient source for sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRBs); these
bacteria, by reducing the sulfates to hydrogen sulfide, may
sour the production stream, possibly to the extent that the
production stream no longer meets pipeline and refinery
specifications.
4 SPE 94637
It is advisable, then, to treat the injection stream with both an
oxygen scavenger, provided in excess to remove all dissolved
oxygen, and a biocide, to kill any bacteria in the injection
stream. To address the problem of potential souring, the use
of a sulfate removal facility is also possible. More recently,
the addition of nitrates into the injection stream has been
recommended. Nitrate reducing bacteria (NRBs), by
competing with the SRBs for the nutrients in the reservoir
crude, can significantly impact the souring potential of a
reservoir.
Injectant Handling Needs.
In a water-based EOR process, the active ingredients must
be blended with the injection water. Delivery of active
ingredients (surfactant, polymer, caustic) will be either as dry
product, or as an aqueous solution or emulsion in concentrated
form. Thus the dilution/blending of the concentrate into a
form which meets injection quality requirements will be
accomplished on the offshore facility – requiring storage
vessels, holding and mixing tanks, piping and monitoring and
quality control processes and procedures. The reliable
achievement of all of these will be critical to the success of the
EOR project.
Requirements and challenges will differ for the specific
process selected, but in every case must be understood by both
surface and subsurface personnel. Project specifications, both
injectant quality and injection rate, must be achieved on a
consistent basis to ensure success. An EOR project is not
“business as usual”; commitment to project success, and
thorough training of all personnel will be necessary.
Water Production and Disposal.
As any water-injection-based project matures, it will
become a water production project – late in life, water
production rates will exceed oil production rates. Thus, water
disposal will become a severe problem; more so since
environmental constraints are becoming ever more rigorous.
Disposal of water “over the side” is still allowed in many
areas, but must meet strict requirements for oil content. In the
Gulf of Mexico, any operation resulting in a visible sheen
must be reported, and could subject to operator to fines and
controls on his operation, including a mandated shut down of
the project. In practice, either the produced water must be
injected into a subsurface disposal interval (again an option
which uses a well slot on the platform or the drilling of an
expensive subsea completion), or water separation and
polishing facilities must be installed on board.
Gas-based Processes
As stated above, gas-based processes include injection of
hydrocarbon gases, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen, as well as air
and flue gas. The injection of heat is carried out via the use of
injected steam, also a gas-based process; however, in general
steam injection in the offshore is not viable from the
standpoint of thermodynamic efficiency – heat losses to the
seawater and subsea environment are too great. Thermal
processes may be usable offshore, but via the injection of air
or oxygen, resulting in an in-situ combustion process.
Gas Selection and Source.
Gas injection may be intended for either miscible or
immiscible EOR. The technically optimum process will be
determined by laboratory investigations of the rock, fluid and
injectant interactions, as described in ref. 1 and elsewhere.
Economic viability should be addressed early in the selection
process, as the acquisition and handling of the injectant will
generally incur large capital costs.
The most widely used miscible agent at present is carbon
dioxide. Availability may be limited offshore. Most
applications to date have relied on subsurface sources, either
as essentially pure CO2 or as a high fraction impurity in a
natural gas deposit. In the latter case, the CO2 must be
removed from the production stream in order to meet pipeline
quality specifications, so there is a high purity stream
available at the gas plant as a waste product. In either case,
the CO2 is available at relatively high pressure. If the use of
surface sources is contemplated (e.g., power plant exhaust
streams), then the cost of compression from atmospheric
conditions to pipeline levels, and thence to injection pressure,
will be significantly increased. An onshore gathering system,
and subsequent (large volume) pipelines for offshore delivery,
may require capital in such volumes that a multi-field project
may be necessary to make CO2 injection economically viable.
The use of nitrogen may be contemplated, for either a miscible
or an immiscible injection project. At present, a very large
nitrogen injection project is being successfully carried out in
the Canterell field, offshore Mexico, by Pemex.9,10 This
immiscible project is intended to retard advancement of a
bottom-water aquifer, and enhance the gravity drainage
process. In this project, the nitrogen is being supplied via on-
site separation from the atmosphere and compression for
injection.
Air or oxygen injection may be the gas of choice in the case of
an offshore thermal project. In general, steam injection will
not be technically viable, but the injection of compressed air,
or oxygen, to support an in-situ combustion process, may be
an attractive EOR method for offshore heavy oil.
Gas Handling Needs.
Gas Injection.
In any gas injection project, gas available at the platform will
require compression and drying. The ability to compress very
high gas volumes will entail high capital costs, as well as
require significant space and weight allowances.
Gas Production Handling.
At some point in the project life the production will begin
to be contaminated with injection gas. At very low fractions,
this stream may be able to be injected into the gas sales line,
SPE 94637
but this will not last long. Either the contaminated production
gas stream will need to be reinjected, or the stream will need
to be separated, with the hydrocarbon gas being sold and the
contaminant either mixed with the injection stream for
reilnjection, or vented to the atmosphere. Separation in the
case of a CO2 project will most likely entail an amine plant,
with its attendant costs and weight and space requirements.
Weight, Safety Constraints
Weight and space are always at a premium on platforms. The
need for injection/production equipment throughout the
project life needs to be recognized and accounted for during
the planning process.
Platform Weight Constraints and Tradeoffs.
If the offshore facility has been designed to accommodate
water injection and/or other supplemental recovery processes,
there may be sufficient surplus weight and space available to
allow for the installation of the necessary equipment for EOR.
In general, the requirements of the EOR process will challenge
the capacity of the facility, and tradeoffs must be made. For
example, is an in-place drilling rig still necessary, or can it be
removed? Are there surplus pieces of equipment which can be
removed? Can some equipment be removed later in life to
allow late-life critical equipment installation? The needs and
tradeoffs will be both process and site-specific, and must be
examined in light of both subsurface and surface requirements.
Safety.
Safety is always the primary consideration in oil field
operations; it is obviously paramount in offshore operations.
There are two primary issues which relate to EOR operations:
chemical use, and souring issues.
With respect to chemicals, use and handling of chemicals
associated with primarily with water-based EOR processes
should be a concern. The use of biocides in particular, while
necessary, will require specific safety procedures and training
in both storage and operations. In addition, other chemicals in
use for EOR may have other dangers – the supply of polymers
in dry form, for example, may require dust control and the use
of masks during handling. The early involvement of HSE
personnel, along with staff training and established safety
procedures, are essential to safe operation of the project.
The question of reservoir (and thus production stream) souring
may have been addressed already if the field has been
operated under water injection conditions. If not, it is
necessary to establish whether, and to what degree, the surface
and downhole equipment are rated sour service. An
equipment or well failure owing to hydrogen sulfide could
result in a catastrophic failure of the facility, and result in loss
of not only property, but life. If the well tubulars and surface
equipment are for sour service, the advent of sour production
will lead only to the need for handling of the production
fluids, but if the facility is not equipped for sour service,
5
modifications will be required as a condition for going
forward with the project. Systems for monitoring for H2S are
required, as are procedures to be followed should it be
detected.
Approaches to Solve the Weight/Space Dilemma
The obvious first step is to determine whether there is
equipment which is no longer necessary, or is redundant. Can
equipment which has been added as a result of modification
(e.g., additional generation units, compressors, etc.) be
rationalized by replacing two items with one of a larger
capacity? Is there equipment which is not essential to
operation of the project in an EOR mode? Can a large drilling
rig now be replaced by a smaller rig, now that all wells have
been drilled?
If sufficient space/weight cannot be freed up by such
approaches, then innovative ways are needed to provide the
necessary facilities. Barges may be able to be used to provide
storage for injection materials. FPSO-type vessels may be
used to carry most or all of the injection system, even
including an on-site monitoring laboratory. If necessary an
additional structure (satellite platform, spar, etc.) may be
placed adjacent to the existing structure. The economic
viability question would suggest that this is a last resort, but
with potentially very large target volumes for EOR, the
prospect should be seriously examined.
Conclusions
Enhanced Oil Recovery can provide an opportunity to
significantly increase the recoverable resource from existing
large offshore oil fields. However, owing to the severe
constraints under which offshore operations must be
conducted, it is necessary to have early involvement of surface
planning in conjunction with the subsurface effort. In many
cases, it is possible that the optimum process from a recovery
point of view may not be optimum economically. Successful
application will depend on innovative thinking, integration of
surface and subsurface planning, and execution of a
comprehensive plan for safe installation and management of
the project throughout project life.
Acknowledgement
We thank Avasthi & Associates, Inc., Business
Fundamentals Group, and BonTech for permission to prepare
and present this paper.
References
1. Hite, J.R., Avasthi, S.M., and Bondor, P.L., “Planning
EOR Projects”, SPE 92006, Presented at the SPE
International Petroleum Conference in Mexico, Puebla,
Mexico, 7-9 November 2004.
2. Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D., and Seright, R.S., “EOR
Screening Criteria Revisited: Part 1 – Introduction to
Screening Criteria and Enhanced Recovery Field
Projects”, SPERE, August 1997.
6 SPE 94637

3. Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D., and Seright, R.S., “EOR
Screening Criteria Revisited: Part 2 – Applications and
Impact of Oil Prices”, SPERE, August 1997.
4. Jensen, T.B., Harpole, K.J., and Osthus, A., “EOR
Screening for Ekofisk”, SPE 65124, presented at the SPE
European Petroleum Conference, 24-25 Oct., 2000.
5. Jayasekera, A.J., and Goodyear, S.G., “Improved
Hydrocarbon Recovery in the United Kingdom
continental Shelf: Past, Present and Future”, SPE 75171,
presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium, 13-17 April, 2002.
6. Egbogah, E.O., Hovdestad, W.R., Daud, M.E., and Raja,
D.A., “A Systems Approach to Enhanced Oil Recovery
Planning in Malaysia, SPE 27771, presented at the
SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 17-20
April, 1994.
7. Kuhlman, M I, “Expanded Uses of Nitrogen, Oxygen and
Rich Air for Increased Production of Both Light Oil and
Heavy Oil”, SPE 86954, presented at the Western
Regional Meeting, 16-18 March, 2004.
14. Nadeson, G., Anua, N.A.B., Singhal, A., and Ibrahim,
R.B., “Water-Alternating-Gas Pilot Implementation, A
First EOR Development Project in Dulang Field, Offshore
Peninsular Malaysia”, SPE 88499, presented at the SPE
Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, 18-
20 Oct., 2004.
15. Blaker, T., Celius, H.K., Lie, T., Martinsen, H.A.,
Rasmussen, L., and Vassenden, F., “Foam for Gas
Mobility Control in the Snorre Field: The FAWAG
Project”, SPE 56478, Presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, 3-6 Oct., 1999.
16. Hernandez, C., Chacon, L.J., Anselmi, L., Baldonedo, A.,
Qi, J., Dowling, P.C., and Pitts, M.J., “ASP System
Design for an Offshore Application in La Salina Field,
Lake Maracaibo”, SPE 84775, SPE Reservoir Evaluation
and Engineering, 6, No. 3, June, 2003.
17. Couderc, B M., Verpeaux, J F, Monfrin, D, and Quettier,
L. H., “Emeraude Vapeur: A Steam Pilot in an Offshore
Environment”, SOE 16723, SPE Reservoir Engineering,
November 1990.

8. Surguchev, L M, Koundin, A., and Yannimaras, D., “Air

Injection – Cost Effective IOR Method to Improve Oil
Recovery from Depleted and Waterflooded Fields”, SPE
57296, presented at the Asia Pacific Improved Oil
Recovery Converence, 25-25 October, 1999.

9. Rodriguez de la Garza, F., Sanchez, J.L., and Galindo-

Nava, A., “Mechanisms and Main Parameters Affecting
Nitrogen Distribution in the Gas Cap of the Supergiant
Akal Reservoir in the Cantarell Complex”, SPE 90288,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, 26-29 Sept., 2004.

10. Arevalo-V., J.A., Samamiego-V., F., and Lopez-C., F.F.,

and Urquieta-S., E., “On the Exploitation Conditions of
the Akal Reservoir Considering Gas Cap Nitrogen
Injection”, SPE 35319, presented at the International
Petroleum Conference and Exhibition of Mexico, 5-7
March, 1996.

11. CO2 for EOR in the North Sea. See www.co2.no.

12. Gliere, L., Brun, B., Ryan, M., and Al Jasmi, A.,
“Maturing Field: A Case History Offshore Abu Dhabi”,
SPE 88769, presented at the Abu Dhabi International
Conference and Exhibition, 10-13 Oct., 2004.

13. Bonnin, E., Levallois, B., and Joffroy, G., “Full Field
Tertiary Gas Injection: A Case History Offshore Abu
Dhabi”, SPE 78362, presented at the Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, 13-16
Oct., 2002.
SPE 94637 7

Table 1. Offshore EOR Projects

Country Field Region / Basin Operator EOR Process Start Status Ref
Date

Lake Environment
Venezuela La Salina Lake Maracaibo PDVSA ASP Pilot being 16
planned

Shallow Shelf Environment

Mexico Akal / Cantarell Complex Bay of Campeche Pemex Immiscible N2 injection from N2 2000 Ongoing 9,10
plant

Abu Dhabi Total Immiscible natural gas produced 1997 Ongoing 12,13
from underlying gas reservoir

Malaysia Dulang South China Sea Petronas Immiscible WAG by reinjection of 2002 Piloting 14
produced gas which contains 50%
CO2

United Kingdom Beatrice North Sea Polymer Terminated 5

United Kingdom South Brae North Sea / South VMarathon Immiscible gas WAG 1998 Ongoing 5

United Kingdom Magnus BP Injection of enriched surplus gas as 2000 Ongoing 5

WAG

Norway Snorre North Sea Saga Petroleum Foam assisted WAG 1998 15

Congo Emeraude Vapeur Elf Acquitaine Steam flood 1985 ?? 17