See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/345503486

ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY EOR Final Report Done by

Article · August 2020

CITATIONS READS
0 3,618

1 author:

Mohaymen Alutbi
University of Thi-Qar
15 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fishbones Stimulation Technique and Simulation of Wells Using ECLIPSE Software with Evaluation Study View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohaymen Alutbi on 08 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY EOR
Final Report

Done by
Mohaymen Alutbi

SEPTEMBER 6, 2020
UNIVERSITY OF THI-QAR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
Petroleum and Gas Engineering Department
 1
Enhanced Oil Recovery EOR

Introduction
Conventional recovery methods (primary and secondary) typically extract approximately one-third
of the original oil-in-place in a reservoir. Estimates (made in the late 1970s) of worldwide oil in-
place range up to 1.5 trillion barrels; using that figure, it is estimated that the oil remaining as a
residual oil saturation after conventional recovery would be approximately 1.0 trillion barrels.
Several enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques—generally grouped together as tertiary
production schemes—have targeted this huge unexploited reserve.
In the past, chemical, thermal, and miscible techniques have been used by the industry on a
commercial scale. EOR techniques require the injection of chemical compounds dissolved in
water, the injection of steam, or the injection of a gas that is miscible with the oil in place. As a
result, all current EOR techniques are much more expensive to implement than normal secondary
water injection projects. Therefore, the amount of oil that can ultimately be recovered by existing
EOR techniques is directly related to the price of crude oil.
Oil reservoir's recovery process involves three phases: primary, secondary and tertiary recovery.
During primary recovery phase, oil is produced due to natural reservoir energy (compaction drive,
solution gas drive, water drive, gas cap drive, gravity drive) with recovery factors of 10-30%.
Secondary recovery methods are water or gas injection for reservoir pressure maintenance or/and
production increase. Additional recovery factor due to application of these methods is 10-20%.
The average recovery factor of current producing oil reservoirs in the world is about 35-40%
(Bonder, 2010) Tertiary methods called 'Enhanced Oil recovery methods' (EOR) are mostly
applied in mature oil fields with declining production trend after primary and secondary methods
or immediately after primary production phase. These 'Enhanced Oil Recovery' methods (EOR)
implies injection of gases or fluids to mobilize residual oil captured in reservoir rock due to
presence of strong viscous and capillary forces and high value of interfacial tension between fluid
and rock. Recovery increase by these methods can be 15-25%.
Depending on the specific principles of functioning, EOR methods can be divided into two
categories:
1. Methods that improve the efficiency of oil microscopic displacement by fluid injection.
2. methods that improve volumetric sweep efficiency of reservoir by fluid injection (Satter
and Thakur, 1994).
(EOR) is emerging as an essential technique in global oil production, as production from mature
fields is declining and new hydrocarbon discoveries are not sufficient to match the growing energy
demand. EOR is a thermal or compositional transformation of either the hydrocarbons or reservoir
rock to aid in the recovery of additional volumes. EOR helps to maximize the oil reserves
recovered, extend the life of fields, and increase the recovery factor. It is an important tool for
firms helping to maintain production and increasing the returns on older investments.
 2
Enhanced Oil Recovery EOR

Although, benefitting from the presence of existing infrastructure EOR technology is often costly
and uneconomic. The high cost of EOR efforts has been deterrent to its wider use but, when
economical, it can provide equivalent or lower cost barrels when compared to new greenfield
developments. As fewer large new discoveries are made, EOR will be an option to maintain or
increase production for mature fields. EOR will continue to be an important technology to increase
the value of the late life assets and as new techniques evolve EOR will play a greater role in the
global supply of oil. New technologies and materials are greatly improving the yield from EOR
techniques and will continue to provide additional production at mature fields. In addition, EOR
is now being considered during the field development to further enhance the performance of new
fields. The macro economic effects of increasing EOR programs will increase production and
recoverable reserves of oil though most will only be viable in a higher price environment.
Factors Influencing Successfully Implementation of Enhanced Oil Recovery Projects:

Figure 1: Phases of EOR projects' implementation. From Gharbi et al. 2012.

Implementation of the EOR project is complex and long-lasting process comprising the phases
shown in Figure 1. In order to achieve a greater level of efficiency and reduction of risks and
uncertainties of the project outcome, it is necessary to define the comprehensive management of
the EOR process starting from EOR method selection, process designing, performing the pilot test
 3
Enhanced Oil Recovery EOR

and full implementation at the whole oil reservoir (Gharbi et al. 2012). Phase 1 refers to the
preliminary multi-criteria analysis in order to estimate the possibilities of application of adequate
EOR methods at certain oil reservoir. Main properties of fluids and reservoir (potential candidate
for the EOR method application), which are comparing to the criteria defined on the basis of
laboratory results and practical results of a large number of EOR projects involve: oil viscosity
and density, oil saturation, thickness, permeability, porosity, depth, reservoir temperature and
pressure, formation type (Trujillo et al. 2010).
Further step after the selection of one or more of EOR methods for application in a particular
reservoir is conduction of complex reservoir studies involving laboratory testing and development
of static geological and dynamic reservoir models. Accurate reservoir model is essential for
understanding the behavior of reservoir fluids and production optimization. Numerical simulators
are used for selecting the optimal strategy reservoir’ recovery based on prediction of reservoir
performance in different production conditions and economic analysis in order to determine the
profitability of selected EOR methods. Modelling of all types of EOR techniques such as injection
of CO2 and other gases, chemical and thermal processes by 3D simulators provides selecting the
optimum EOR techniques for application in reservoir with unique characteristics. It should be
emphasized that a very good understanding of recovery process by selected EOR method is needed
for developing an adequate reservoir simulation models, and on that basis to define reliable
outcome of EOR process’ implementation prediction.
The next stage of the process implementation is designing and implementing the pilot test of
selected EOR method at one (mini pilot test) or more wells. Usually, three types of wells are
present: injection well for fluid injection, observation well for monitoring and control of critical
operating parameters and production well. During the pilot test, a continuous monitoring of
production and injection parameters is performed. Also, geophysical well logging in observational
wells is done for analysis of oil saturation changes in order to obtain direct estimate of reservoir
characteristics as well as insight in injected fluid front’s movement. After realization of pilot test,
the planning and full implementation of EOR project at the whole reservoir is following. This final
stage is based on the results of the pilot test and 'response' of reservoir’s part where pilot test has
been implemented in the terms of incremental oil production. For EOR project implementation is
required 6-10 years, where first phase of selection EOR method, laboratory testing and process
modeling lasts 1-2 years, pilot test implementation is 2-4 years, and for application of EOR process
in the whole reservoir is required 3-5 years (Bonder, 2010; Schlumberger, 2014).
EOR Methods and Categories:
EOR can extract 30% to 60% or more of a reservoir's oil, compared to 20% to 40% using primary
and secondary recovery. According to the US Department of Energy, carbon dioxide and water
are injected along with one of three EOR techniques: thermal injection, gas injection, and chemical
injection. More advanced, speculative EOR techniques are sometimes called quaternary recovery.
There are three primary techniques of EOR: gas injection, thermal injection, and chemical
injection.
 4
Enhanced Oil Recovery EOR

Gas injection: The concept behind miscible flooding, such as carbon dioxide floods, is that the
best way to eliminate the interfacial tension between the in-place oil and injected fluids is to inject
a solvent for that oil (a solvent being a material that is miscible in all proportions with the dissolved
material). The residual oil saturation to displacement by a solvent would be 0.0. In practice, a
solvent must be found that is miscible with the oil and costs no more than the oil. Finally, the
volumetric sweep efficiency of the process must be high enough to make this scheme economical.
Because the relative permeability effects have been removed by the miscible nature of the
displacement, the sweep efficiency is primarily a function of the viscosity of the solvent relative
to the viscosity of the oil. Current applications of miscible flooding have concentrated on carbon
dioxide (CO2), hydrocarbon gas, and nitrogen injection processes. The gas solvents tend to be
much less viscous than reservoir oils so that the sweep efficiencies are often very low for miscible
gas floods. Design efforts center around finding methods to improve this volumetric sweep
efficiency. In the case of carbon dioxide floods, the gas is injected into the reservoir in small slugs
that are alternated with water slugs as a means of lowering the mobility of the injected fluid (Figure
2).

Figure 2: Schematic diagram of carbon dioxide flooding. The viscosity of oil is reduced,
providing more efficient miscible displacement. From AAPG Wiki.
Secondary benefits of miscible gas injection include the effects of the solubility of the solvent in
the oil phase. As the carbon dioxide, hydrocarbon gas, or nitrogen dissolve in the oil phase, the oil
is swelled and its viscosity lowered. Both of these phenomena add to the mobility of the oil relative
to the injected solvent. In practice, although miscible displacement implies no residual oil
saturation in the area swept by the solvent, a small residual saturation is left due to economic
considerations of producing at high GORs and the phase behavior of the system prior to the
attainment of miscibility in the reservoir.
 5
Enhanced Oil Recovery EOR

Thermal injection: All thermal recovery processes involve the use of heat to accelerate the oil
recovery process. The heat can be generated at the surface and injected into the reservoir, as in the
case of steam injection (Figure 3), or generated in the reservoir by injecting a fluid such as air that
is combustible with the in-place oil (Figure 4). The choice of which technique to use to add thermal
energy to the reservoir depends on an analysis of the oil reservoir and the economics of generating
the energy.

Figure 3: Schematic diagram of steam flooding. In this method, heat reduces the viscosity of oil
and increases its mobility. From AAPG Wiki.
However, a major goal of all thermal methods is to reduce the viscosity of the in-place oil. For
most thermal processes, this is accomplished by heating a very heavy oil (API gravity). In a thermal
flood, much effort is devoted to treating the boiler water and the stack gases resulting from the
burning of produced oil or gas to generate heat. Because of environmental considerations, this
usually limits the technique to unpopulated areas.
Thermal recovery techniques have been the most successful of the techniques implemented to date.
This is because the remaining oil saturation prior to a thermal flood is usually high so that the EOR
target is large. The choice of hot water injection, continuous steam injection, cyclic steam
injection, or in situ combustion is dependent on the depth of the reservoir, the thermal properties
of the surrounding formations, and the fluid properties of the in-place oil. Therefore, the design
phase of a thermal project typically concentrates on determining how fast energy can be transferred
to the reservoir by the process being considered and the cost of producing that thermal energy.
 6
Enhanced Oil Recovery EOR

Figure 4: Schematic diagram of in situ combustion. The mobility of oil is increased by reduced
viscosity caused by heat and solution of combustion gases. From AAPG Wiki.
Chemical injection: The basic purposes of chemical flooding are to add a material (chemical) to
the water being injected into a reservoir to increase the oil recovery by:
1. increasing the water viscosity (polymer floods).
2. decreasing the relative permeability to water (cross-linked polymer floods).
3. increasing the relative permeability to oil and decreasing Sor by decreasing the interfacial
tension between the oil and water phases (micellar and alkaline floods).
The process is depicted schematically in Figure 5. Chemical additives to reduce interfacial tension
are detergent type compounds such as petroleum sulfinates and are so expensive that chemical
floods are often technical successes and economic failures. Successful design of chemical floods
always revolves around minimizing the amount of chemicals needed to achieve the desired change
in interfacial tension and/or mobility ratio.
This minimization is achieved by preceding the chemical injection with a pre-flush to buffer the
chemicals from reactions with the in-situ water and following the chemical injection with the
injection of a polymer solution to maintain a favorable mobility ratio for the flood. One of the
major problems with the injection of surfactants and other chemicals into reservoir rock is that the
chemicals are surface active. Thus, they have a great affinity for the minerals found in reservoirs,
causing adsorption of chemicals from solution onto the rock in great quantities.
 7
Enhanced Oil Recovery EOR

Figure 5: Schematic diagram of chemical flooding (alkaline). From AAPG Wiki.

Enhanced oil recovery technologies are also being used for in-situ extraction of organic pollutants
from permeable media. In these applications, the extraction is referred to as cleanup or
remediation, and the hydrocarbon as contaminant. Enhanced oil recovery processes use water-
soluble chemicals that may be toxic to organisms and carcinogenic to man if transported in
sufficient quantities to ground or surface waters. For example, petroleum sulfonates and alkyl aryl
sulfonates, which are used as surfactants in micellar-polymer flooding, are moderately toxic to
man if ingested (Silvestro and Desmarais, 1980). Other potential problems include seepage of
pollutants, such as drilling muds and brines and scrubber sludges from steam generators, from
waste disposal pits and accidental spills of oil, brine, or other chemicals.
EOR Target and Its Estimation:
On the average, light oil reservoirs yield one-third of the original oil-in-place when produced using
natural reservoir energy (primary recovery or by artificial injection of water and/or gas in a
secondary recovery operation. However, the currently available technologies now provide the
means to recover at least a further 10 to 20% of assess the conventional oil remaining in many
reservoirs. The collection of technologies involving the use of thermal, gases, chemical means and
horizontal drilling to extract this additional oil, are termed enhanced oil recovery (EOR), and the
target oil for their application is the two-thirds of the discovered oil left in the ground at the
conclusion of conventional primary and secondary recovery operations.
Much of the interest in enhanced oil recovery centers not only on the amount of oil it is potentially
applicable to, but also on how much it can recover. This target oil in the fields discovered so far in
the world, is about 3500 billion barrels. Assuming that EOR can provide the means to recover
 8
Enhanced Oil Recovery EOR

some 50% of the target oil, it would mean that we would have at our disposal additional oil reserves
of over 1600 billion barrels. At the current level of world oil consumption, which is some 59
million barrels/day, these reserves correspond to over 73 years of production at the current rate.
The techniques of EOR target oil estimation are broadly of geological and reservoir engineering
types and can conveniently be classified as (a) field techniques, (b) laboratory techniques, and (c)
material-balance method. The field techniques include coring, well logging and well testing; and
laboratory techniques include core analyses, fluid analyses and dynamic flow experiments. The
integrated analysis leading to EOR target oil determination involves the application of techniques
relevant to the evaluation of:
1. Residual Oil Saturation.
2. Reservoir Characterization and Continuity.
3. Flow Efficiency Experiments in the Laboratory.
4. Flow Efficiency in the Reservoir.
The determination of the amount of reserves left after primary and secondary recovery operations
is the first step before embarking on increasingly more expensive advanced recovery programs.
The financial viability of any future scheme first requires a reliable quantitively assessment of how
much oil remains to be recovered. The distinction between crude oil resources and crude Oil
reserves is one that frequently eludes even some petroleum industry experts, "Known Resources"
can be defined as total original (OOIP) less cumulative oil produced today "Crude Oil Reserves"
on the other hand, are the estimated quantities which geological and engineering data demonstrate
to be recoverable from known reservoirs under prevailing economics and technology, It should be
noted that an increase in OOIP does not necessarily mean an increase in "Reserves". It is the
"effective" or "dynamic" OOIP that contributes to recovery and not the geological OOIP. Chicnci
(1989) estimates that the or oil, that is to say.
This consideration from future discoveries would bring the total quantities of oil which represents
the target for EOR to more than 5000 billion barrels. Expected reserves from this target oil through
the application of EOR technologies could be as high as 2510 billion barrels. This is made up of
about 1600 billion barrels from the EOR target oil in world's currently producing fields, and about
910 billion barrels from EOR target oil from future discoveries. From the above it is easily seen
that the estimated expected recovery from EOR is nearly 1.5 times the size of known remaining
oil reserves and all future discoveries taken together.
The techniques of estimating the future-discovery component of the overall EOR target oil are
founded in geology and geophysics and will not be discussed in this report. Enhanced oil recovery,
on the other hand, involves redefining of (achieving incremental oil) reserves because of change
in economics of extraction technology. The author will focus the rest of this discussion on residual
oil saturation of discovered fields, and techniques and errors of their estimation. It appears that the
discussion of the techniques of the estimation of EOR target oil must, of necessity, center on those
techniques relevant to the evaluation of the following interdependent data:
1. Remaining /residual oil saturation (ROS).
 9
Enhanced Oil Recovery EOR

2. Reservoir continuity (reservoir description).

3. EOR efficiency in the laboratory, and the field.
4. Well and reservoir performance.
The development, implementation and evaluation of EOR methods depend on knowing the target
in-situ oil volume before and after such methods are applied. The amount and distribution of
residual oil saturation are, therefore, critical parameters in deciding the suitability of EOR methods
for economic exploitation of a reservoir. ROS in the swept parts of the reservoir (which are also
best accessible for EOR processes) is normally in the range of 0.20-0.65 PV. On average, however,
ROS is in the range of 0.25-0.40 PV. An error of 0.1 PV in an estimated ROS could mean the
difference between economic success and failure of an EOR project. The need for high accuracy
in ROS determination therefore, is apparent.

Principles of Waterflooding
Waterflooding is perhaps the most common method of secondary recovery. However, before
undertaking a secondary recovery project, it should be clearly proven that the natural recovery
processes are insufficient; otherwise there is a risk that the substantial capital investment required
for a secondary recovery project may be wasted. Thomas, Mahoney, and Winter (1989) pointed
out that in determining the suitability of a candidate reservoir for waterflooding, the following
reservoir characteristics must be considered:
• Reservoir geometry.
• Fluid properties.
• Reservoir depth.
• Lithology and rock properties.
• Fluid saturations.
• Reservoir uniformity and pay continuity.
• Primary reservoir-driving mechanisms.
The most common procedure for determining the optimum time to start waterflooding is to
calculate:
• Anticipated oil recovery.
• Fluid production rates.
• Monetary investment.
• Availability and quality of the water supply.
• Costs of water treatment and pumping equipment.
• Costs of maintenance and operation of the water installation facilities.
• Costs of drilling new injection wells or converting existing production wells into injectors.
 10
Enhanced Oil Recovery EOR

These calculations should be performed for several assumed times and the net income for each
case determined. The scenario that maximizes the profit and perhaps meets the operator’s desirable
goal is selected.
Selection of Flooding Patterns:
One of the first steps in designing a waterflooding project is flood pattern selection. The objective
is to select the proper pattern that will provide the injection fluid with the maximum possible
contact with the crude oil system. This selection can be achieved by converting existing production
wells into injectors or drilling infill injection wells. When making the selection, the following
factors must be considered:
• Reservoir heterogeneity and directional permeability.
• Direction of formation fractures.
• Availability of the injection fluid (gas or water).
• Desired and anticipated flood life.
• Maximum oil recovery.
• Well spacing, productivity, and injectivity.
In general, the selection of a suitable flooding pattern for the reservoir depends on the number and
location of existing wells. In some cases, producing wells can be converted to injection wells while
in other cases it may be necessary or desirable to drill new injection wells. Essentially four types
of well arrangements are used in fluid injection projects:
• Irregular injection patterns.
• Peripheral injection patterns.
• Regular injection patterns.
• Crestal and basal injection patterns.
It is important to consider the following items in the design and implementation of a
comprehensive waterflood surveillance program.
• Accurate record-keeping of each injector’s and producer’s data performance in terms of:
➢ Injection and production rates.
➢ Bottom-hole pressures.
➢ Fluid profiles, for example, water and oil cut, WOR, GOR, etc.
• Monthly comparison of actual and predicted performance.
• Estimate of sweep efficiency and oil recovery at various stages of depletion.
• Performance and operating conditions of facilities.
• Accurate and detailed reservoir description.
• Water quality and treating.
• Economic surveillance.
• Diagnosis of existing/potential problems and their solutions.
 11
Enhanced Oil Recovery EOR

As a general objective, a surveillance program should allow for the maximum oil recovery to be
achieved at the lowest WOR and operation cost. From a reservoir viewpoint, this can be achieved
by maximizing the water recovery factors, which are primarily controlled by the three main
efficiency factors (EA, EY, and ED) with a minimum amount of injected water. There are useful
plotting and diagnostic techniques and procedures that are designed to supplement prediction
methods and assist in quantifying the flood performance. Some of these techniques are briefly
discussed here.
I. DISPLACEMENT EFFICIENCY
As defined previously, displacement efficiency is the fraction of movable oil that has been
recovered from the swept zone at any given time. Mathematically, the displacement efficiency is
expressed as: ED = (Soi – So) / Soi
The displacement efficiency ED will continually increase at different stages of the flood, i.e., with
increasing Sw. The equation above suggests that ED reaches its maximum when the average oil
saturation in the area of the flood pattern is reduced to the residual oil saturation Sor or
equivalently, when Sw = 1 – Sor.
II. AREAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY
The areal sweep efficiency EA is defined as the fraction of the total flood pattern that is contacted
by the displacing fluid. It increases steadily with injection from zero at the start of the flood until
breakthrough occurs, after which EA continues to increase at a slower rate. The areal sweep
efficiency depends basically on the following three main factors:
1. Mobility ratio M.
2. Flood pattern.
3. Cumulative water injected Winj.
4. Pressure distribution between injectors and producers.
5. Directional permeability.
Correlations of sweep efficiency as a function of mobility ratio will be presented in a subsequent
section for several well patterns. If directional permeability trends can be identified, injection and
production wells can be arranged to take advantage of the trends to enhance areal sweep efficiency.
It is also possible to maximize areal sweep through a careful management of pressure distribution
and proper injection–production pattern selection.
III. VERTICAL SWEEP EFFICIENCY
The vertical sweep efficiency, EV, is defined as the fraction of the vertical section of the pay zone
that is the injection fluid. This particular sweep efficiency depends primarily on the mobility ratio
and total volume injected. As a consequence of the nonuniform permeabilities, any injected fluid
will tend to move through the reservoir with an irregular front. In the more permeable portions,
the injected water will travel more rapidly than in the less permeable zone. Perhaps the area of the
greatest uncertainty in designing a waterflood is the quantitative knowledge of the permeability
 12
Enhanced Oil Recovery EOR

variation within the reservoir. The degree of permeability variation is considered by far the most
significant parameter influencing the vertical sweep efficiency. To calculate the vertical sweep
efficiency, the engineer must be able to address the following three problems:
1. How to describe and define the permeability variation in mathematical terms.
2. How to determine the minimum number of layers that are sufficient to model the
performance of the fluid.
3. How to assign the proper average rock properties for each layer (called the zonation
problem) A complete discussion of the above three problems are given below.
Overall Recovery Efficiency
The overall recovery factor (efficiency) RF of any secondary or tertiary oil recovery method is the
product of a combination of three individual efficiency factors as given by the following
generalized expression: RF = ED * EA * EV
The displacement efficiency ED is the fraction of movable oil that has been displaced from the
swept zone at any given time or pore volume injected. Because an immiscible gas injection or
waterflood will always leave behind some residual oil, ED will always be less than 1.0. The areal
sweep efficiency EA is the fractional area of the pattern that is swept by the displacing fluid. The
major factors determining areal sweep are:
• Fluid mobilities.
• Pattern type.
• Areal heterogeneity.
• Total volume of fluid injected.
The vertical sweep efficiency EV is the fraction of the vertical section of the pay zone that is
contacted by injected fluids. The vertical sweep efficiency is primarily a function of:
• Vertical heterogeneity.
• Degree of gravity segregation.
• Fluid mobilities.
• Total volume injection.
Note that the product of EA EV is called the volumetric sweep efficiency and represents the overall
fraction of the flood pattern that is contacted by the injected fluid. In general, reservoir
heterogeneity probably has more influence than any other factor on the performance of a secondary
or tertiary injection project. The most important two types of heterogeneity affecting sweep
efficiencies, EA and EV, are the reservoir vertical heterogeneity and areal heterogeneity. When
the reservoir has a poor heterogeneity or it is more homogeneous, the volumetric sweep efficiency
will be nearly neglected or unaffected and RF will be equal to ED. The volumetric sweep efficiency
can also be affected with the mobility, so we can understand that any poor parameters can be
affected to the calculations of RF.
 13
Enhanced Oil Recovery EOR

In determining the suitability of a reservoir for waterflooding, a high oil saturation that provides a
sufficient supply of recoverable oil is the primary criterion for successful flooding operations. Note
that higher oil saturation at the beginning of flood operations increases the oil mobility that, in
turn, gives higher recovery efficiency. Several studies have been conducted to determine the fluid
injectivity at mobility ratios other than unity. All of the studies concluded the following:
• At favorable mobility ratios, i.e., M < 1, the fluid injectivity declines as the areal sweep
efficiency increases.
• At unfavorable mobility ratios, i.e., M > 1, the fluid injectivity increases with increasing
areal sweep efficiency.
Dake used the two parameters of end-point mobility ratio to define the following stability criteria:

• If M* > 1. The displacement is stable if G > (M* – 1), in which case the fluid interface
angle β < ϴ. The displacement is unstable if G < (M* – 1).
• If M* = 1. This is a very favorable condition, because there is no tendency for the water to
bypass the oil. The displacement is considered unconditionally stable and is characterized
by the fact that the interface rises horizontally in the reservoir, i.e., β = ϴ.
• If M* < 1. When the end-point mobility ratio M* is less than unity, the displacement is
characterized as unconditionally stable displacement with β > ϴ.

Figure 6: Stable and unstable displacement in gravity segregated displacement: (a) stable β < ϴ,
(b) stable β > ϴ, (c) unstable β = ϴ. From Courtesy of Elsevier.
 14
Enhanced Oil Recovery EOR

Conclusion
Much of the interest in enhanced oil recovery centers not only on the amount of oil it is potentially
applicable to, but also on how much it can recover. Assuming that EOR can provide the means to
recover some 50% of the target oil. At the current level of world oil consumption, which is some
59 million barrels/day, these reserves correspond to over 73 years of production at the current rate.
EOR by chemical flooding is based on two basic mechanisms viz. increase of macroscopic
efficiency and increase of microscopic displacement efficiency. Wettability is of major importance
to oil recovery, especially for fractured oil-wet carbonate reservoirs where water flows through the
fractures but does not imbibe into the matrix because of negative capillary pressure. The chief
concern is to develop cost-effective chemical formulations that change the carbonate wettability
from oil-wet to water-wet. The properties of the rock and the fluids and these properties include
thermal conductivities, heat capacities, thermal expansion, viscosity and the thermodynamic
properties of steam.

References
• https://wiki.aapg.org/Enhanced_oil_recovery.
• www.doe.gov. U.S. Department of Energy. Enhanced Oil Recovery.
• Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA (1999). "Enhanced Oil Recovery Scoping
Study." Final Report, No. TR-113836.
• Clean Air Task Force (2009). "About EOR" Archived March 13, 2012, at the Wayback
Machine.
• H. G. Douglas and E. N. Tiratsoo (1975). Introduction to petroleum geology. Scientific
Press. ISBN 9780901360076.
• W. Mark and L. W. Lake (2003). A generalized approach to primary hydrocarbon recovery.
Elsevier.
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 21st century technologies.
1998. OECD Publishing. pp. 39. ISBN 9789264160521.
• K. M. Vesna, L. Branko and D, Dušan. Factors Influencing Successful Implementation of
Enhanced Oil Recovery Projects. University of Belgrade - Faculty of Mining and Geology
Underground Mining Engineering. 25 (2014) 41-50.
• E. O. Egbogah. EOR target oil and techniques of its estimation. Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering 10 (1994) 337-349.
• Tarek Ahmed. Reservoir Engineering Handbook Second Edition. Gulf Professional
Publishing, 2012.
• R. E. Millemann, R. J. Haynes, T. A. Boggs and S. G. Hildebrand. Enhanced Oil Recovery:
Environmental Issues and State Regulatory Programs. Environmental Sciences Division,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830, USA. 1981.

View publication stats