Cover page

i
Title Page

ii
CERTIFICATION

iii
DECLARATION

iv
DEDICATION

v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

vi
 Abstract
This study was on a comparative analysis of some selected enhanced oil recovery techniques in
Niger Delta field XYZ. Three research objectives were developed for the study. In determining
the suitability of the chosen reservoir for the EOR methods studied in this research work,
effective screening practices was employed to identify suitable candidates. During the reservoir
selection process, the reservoir rock and fluid environment in place was considered. As part of
the screening, discounted cash-flow projections was performed to assess profitability. At the core
of these projections is an estimate of recovery performance, as the process was implemented in
such a way that it resulted in an economically attractive project. Also, the Net Present Values
(NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and other economic parameters for the EOR methods
selected were computed through a probabilistic approach to ascertain their profitability, using
Monte Carlo simulation with Crystal ball software. Findings of the study showed that, CO2
flooding technique was a more efficient technique of EOR than surfactant flooding. More so,
surfactant flooding was more efficient that the water flooding technique. In addition, CO 2
flooding is more economical than the other EOR techniques with a final recovery factor of
67.2% and NPV of $2,795 MM after tax. The researcher recommended that, CO2 flooding
should be used as the main EOR technique once the reservoir meets the technical conditions for
its usage.

vii
Table of contents
Cover page....................................................................................................................................................i
Title Page.....................................................................................................................................................ii
CERTIFICATION......................................................................................................................................iii
DECLARATION........................................................................................................................................iv
DEDICATION............................................................................................................................................v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................................vi
Abstract....................................................................................................................................................vii
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 BACKGROUND.........................................................................................................................1
1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM....................................................................................................2
1.3 AIM OF STUDY.........................................................................................................................3
1.4 OBJECTIVE OF STUDY............................................................................................................3
1.5 SCOPE OF STUDY....................................................................................................................3
1.6 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY.................................................................................................4
1.7 RESEARCH METHOD..............................................................................................................4
CHAPTER TWO.........................................................................................................................................5
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................................5
2.2 PRIMARY RECOVERY TECHNIQUES.......................................................................................8
2.2.1 Rock and Liquid Expansion.....................................................................................................9
2.2.2 Solution Gas Drive..................................................................................................................9
2.2.3 Gas-cap Drive........................................................................................................................10
2.2.4 Water Drive...........................................................................................................................10
2.2.5 Gravity Drainage Drive..........................................................................................................10
2.2.6 Combination Drive................................................................................................................11
2.3 SECONDARY RECOVERY PROCESSES....................................................................................11
2.3.1 Water flooding.......................................................................................................................12
2.3.2 Gas Injection.................................................................................................................................14
2.4 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY METHODS (EOR) PROCESSES................................................15
2.4.1 Chemical EOR Processes............................................................................................................17
2.4.2 Gas Flooding.......................................................................................................................20

viii
 2.4.3 Thermal Recovery EOR Processes............................................................................................21
2.5 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY (EOR) MECHANISMS.............................................................21
2.5.1 Mobility Ratio........................................................................................................................23
2.5.2 Capillary Number..................................................................................................................25
2.5.3 Calculation of Overall Recovery Efficiency.........................................................................25
2.5.4 Oil Recovery Factor....................................................................................................................26
CHAPTER THREE...................................................................................................................................28
3.1 METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................28
3.2 RESERVOIR SELECTION............................................................................................................28
3.2.1 Oil/Reservoir Characteristics of Successful Projects.............................................................29
3.2.2 Analysis of Reservoir XYZ (Niger Delta Onshore)...................................................................31
3.2.3 Selection of suitable EOR Methods for Reservoir XYZ........................................................32
3.3 Economic Evaluation.....................................................................................................................33
CHAPTER FOUR.....................................................................................................................................35
RESULT AND DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................35
4.1 RESULT........................................................................................................................................35
4.2 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................38
CHAPTER FIVE.......................................................................................................................................39
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.........................................................................................39
5.1 CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................................39
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................................39
References.................................................................................................................................................41

ix
 Chapter One

Introduction

1.1 BACKGROUND

The rate of new oilfield discoveries is declining, and most of the producing oilfields are in the

late stages of production. The fast growth of worldwide demand for oil can be met effectively by

finding new hydrocarbon resources or by enhancing the oil recovery of available reservoirs.

According to the Department of Energy U.S.A (cited in Ikporo & Okotie 2014), the amount of

oil produced worldwide is only one third of the total oil available. The importance of improving

oil production efficiency by applying suitable and effective enhanced oil recovery (EOR)

techniques is highly acknowledged because in many of the world’s reservoirs about two thirds of

the oil in place cannot be recovered by conventional production methods.

According to Abubaker, Zulkefli and Abdurahman (2015), enhanced oil recovery is the

recovery of oil by injection of a fluid that may or may not be native to the reservoir. EOR is a

means to extend the productive life of an otherwise depleted and uneconomic oil field. It is

usually practiced after recovery by other, less risky and more conventional methods, such as

pressure depletion (primary recovery) and water flooding (secondary). The lifecycle of an

oilfield is typically characterized by three main stages: production buildup, plateau production,

and declining production. Sustaining the required production levels over the duration of the

lifecycle requires a good understanding of the recovery mechanisms involved and the ability to

control these mechanisms.

Primary and secondary recovery methods including waterflooding or reinjection of

produced natural gas, produce on the average about one-third of the original oil in place

(OOlP). However, by applying the tertiary recovery (commonly called Enhanced Oil

1
Recovery, EOR), production could reach 40 to 60% of oil in the reservoir. EOR can

generally be divided into two methods; non-thermal and thermal methods (Abubaker,

Zulkefli and Abdurahman, 2015). The non-thermal methods include chemical flood, and gas

flood. On the other hand the thermal methods involve steam injection, hot water flooding, and

situ combustion. Gas Injection can be miscible or immiscible with oil, they include: liquefied

petroleum gases (LPGs) such as propane, methane under high pressure; methane enriched with

light hydrocarbons; nitrogen under high pressure; flue gas; carbon dioxide, and nitrogen.

Most of the studies and reviews show that the amount of oil that can be recovered with

primary drive mechanisms (i.e., natural depletion of reservoir pressure) is about 20 – 30% and by

secondary recovery through water or gas injection can reach up to 40%, but using modern

enhanced oil recovery techniques recovery can reach up to 60 – 65% (Tunio et al, 2011). These

techniques of enhanced oil recovery are essentially designed to recover the residual oil that

cannot be extracted by primary recovery as well as secondary recovery techniques. By using

optimal EOR techniques we will be able to produce more oil as the demand increases and with

this, millions of barrels of oil can be extracted from existing fields as EOR increases the recovery

up to 60 % of the oil in the reservoir. This will lead to maximum recovery with the lowest

possible cost from the existing fields before moving to the remote areas (Tunio et al, 2011).

1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

While EOR technologies have grown over the years, significant challenges remain.

Currently the daily oil production comes from mature or maturing oil fields and reserves

replacement is not keeping pace with the growing energy demand. The world average recovery

factor from hydrocarbon reservoirs is stuck in the mid-30 per cent range. This challenge becomes

an opportunity for advanced secondary and enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technologies that may

2
mitigate the demand-supply balance. Also, in the last few years, Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)

processes have re-gained interest from the research and development phases to the oilfield EOR

implementation.

This renewed interest has been furthered by the current high oil price environment, the

increasing worldwide oil demand, the maturation of oilfields worldwide, and few new-well

discoveries. Likewise, Petroleum companies are interested in producing the remaining amount of

oil in the existing fields by applying new EOR technologies to increase the recovery factor while

simultaneously searching for oil in very remote areas; like deep offshore waters, where field

development is very costly. Hence, the rationale of this study which is to carry out a comparative

analysis of CO2 injection and surfactant flooding using water flooding as the base case

parameter.

1.3 AIM OF STUDY

The aim of this study is to carry out a comparative analysis of CO2 injection and surfactant

flooding enhanced oil recovery techniques in Niger Delta Oil field.

1.4 OBJECTIVE OF STUDY

The objectives of this research work are:

i. To define the conditions for selecting a candidate reservoir for different EOR

techniques.

ii. To study the recovery efficiencies of secondary and tertiary EOR processes.

iii. To study the performance and economic benefit of carrying out a tertiary EOR

process after primary and secondary recovery methods.

3
1.5 SCOPE OF STUDY

EOR processes for mature or depleted reservoirs after primary recovery can be achieved through

different techniques like; water flooding, gas injection (miscible and immiscible gas injection),

chemical injection (polymer flooding, alkaline and surfactant flooding, etc.), thermal recovery

methods and microbial injection. Most of these techniques will be studied in this research work,

as they have been applied in some Niger Delta oil fields to increase their recovery efficiencies.

Other EOR methods that are omitted in this research work were not omitted because they lacked

applicability in the Niger Delta, but their omission was out of personal volition of the researcher.

1.6 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

This study is limited to the Niger Delta fields. The EOR processes in this study is limited to

water injection, surfactant flooding and CO2 flooding.

1.7 RESEARCH METHOD

Reservoir selection and Economic Analysis will be considered in this research work, as

not all reservoirs are amenable to a particular EOR method. In determining the suitability of a

given reservoir for any of the EOR methods studied in this research work, effective screening

practices will be employed to identify suitable candidates. Any EOR technique or process

selected must be suitable to the selected reservoir, given the reservoir rock and fluid environment

in place. As part of the screening, discounted cash-flow projections will also be performed to

assess profitability. At the core of these projections is an estimate of recovery performance, as

the process must be implemented in such a way that it will result in an economically attractive

project. Also, the Net Present Values (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and other economic

parameters for the EOR methods selected will be computed through a probabilistic approach to

ascertain their profitability, using Monte Carlo simulation with Crystal ball software.

4
5
 CHAPTER TWO

2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

The Niger Delta oil province, also known as the Niger Delta Basin, is a geologic province

in the Niger Delta region of West Africa. The tertiary Niger Delta (Akata-Agbada) petroleum

system is the only petroleum system in the province. The majority of it is located within

Nigeria's borders, with suspected or confirmed connections to Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, and

So Tomé and Principe. At the point of origin, this petroleum system has up to 34.5 billion barrels

of recoverable oil and 94 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This field is made up of hundreds of

small reservoirs, the most majority of which are sandstone pockets trapped within oil-rich shale

strata. The Akata-Agbada system produces roughly 2 million barrels per day in total. The US

Geology Survey estimates that future discovered oil could total 40 billion barrels, making the

province the world's sixth largest, with typical primary recovery of around 34% of the original

oil in place (OOIIP). As a result, the remaining 66 percent of OOIP in Nigeria has the potential

for increased oil recovery. This amounts to a potential recovery of around 22.77 billion barrels of

oil. As a result, higher oil recovery efficiencies in Niger Delta oilfields necessitate the use of

appropriate EOR techniques. Some Nigerian exploration and production companies have already

begun secondary and tertiary recovery projects.

Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is currently gaining popularity around the world since it is

thought to be the fuel of the future. Oil prices are rising, and concerns about future oil supply are

prompting a renewed focus on Enhanced Oil Recovery techniques, which can greatly boost the

recovery factor from reservoirs by injecting certain fluids into the reservoir to sweep out any

remaining oil. Some of these EOR techniques are now being used to produce significant

additional oil. Various improved oil recovery strategies have been developed and used to mature

and mostly exhausted oil reservoirs over the last 40 years (Fu and Mamora, 2010). When
6
compared to primary (pressure depletion) and secondary (water flooding) oil recovery

technologies, these strategies boost efficiency. EOR is a word used to describe ways for

extracting oil from a petroleum reservoir in excess of what can be recovered using primary and

secondary procedures. As a result, improved oil recovery is frequently confused with tertiary

recovery, even though Enhanced Oil Recovery techniques can be applied earlier in the process.

Primary recovery is the process of extracting energy from a reservoir's inherent energy, such as

gas under pressure or a natural water drive. Secondary recovery, on the other hand, usually refers

to the use of gas or water flooding, whilst tertiary recovery refers to the use of procedures that go

beyond primary and secondary recovery to recover oil. When the naturally available pressure

gradients or energies are plainly insufficient to create the fluids at the desired rate or percentage,

the reservoir pressure/energies must be maintained by supplemental mechanisms to ensure that

fluid production continues as planned. As production continues, this primary energy is lost,

resulting in a fall in pressure, and production using primary recovery methods approaches a point

where it is uneconomical to continue.

The first supplemental pressure-maintenance system is known as secondary, and it entails

injecting pressured water or gas into the oil-bearing deposit to displace oil, resulting in extra flow

from the wells (Dake, 2001). The natural recovery rates obtained are minimal, unless there is an

active aquifer (supplied from the outside) or in the case of gases (20 to 25 percent).

Unfortunately, even after using both primary and secondary procedures, only around 20% to

30% (20-30%) of the fluid predicted to be in place is retrieved, leaving more than two-thirds of

the original oil in place underneath the earth (Ikporo and Okotie, 2014). As a result, the

petroleum industry's focus shifts to tertiary recovery technologies. Primary recovery methods,

secondary recovery methods, and tertiary recovery methods are the approaches or approaches

7
available to the petroleum engineer in reaching this goal of bringing or recovering these reservoir

fluids to the surface. The many oil recovery processes or procedures used in the petroleum

business are depicted in Figure 2.1. The migration of hydrocarbons to production wells due to a

pressure difference between the reservoir and the production wells is the general mechanism of

oil recovery. There are three basic categories for recovering oil reserves, as illustrated in Figure

2.2.

Fig 2.1 Different Methods of Oil Recovery

8
 Figure 2.2 Recovery stages of a hydrocarbon reservoir through time.

2.2 PRIMARY RECOVERY TECHNIQUES

Primary recovery refers to the first step of production, which is triggered by the natural

displacement energy in a reservoir. Oil is driven out of the petroleum reservoir by the inherent

pressure of trapped fluids in the reservoir during this recovery process. The efficiency of oil

displacement in the primary oil recovery process is mostly determined by the reservoir's natural

pressure, which aids in driving the oil to the surface (Romero-Zerón, 2012). The natural energy

required for oil recovery is essentially provided by six driving mechanisms. The oil recovery

ranges for these driving mechanisms are listed in Table 2.1. Primary recovery refers to the

recovery of oil using any of the above driving processes.

Table 2.1 Approximate recovery range of a reservoir, with various drive mechanisms (Source:

Abubaker, Zulkefli and Abdurahman, 2015)

Driving Mechanism Oil Recovery Range %

Rock and liquid expansion 3–7

Solution gas drive 5–30

Gas-cap drive 20–40

Water drive 35–75

Gravity drainage drive <80

Combination drive 30–60

9
The production of hydrocarbons from a reservoir without the need of any secondary recovery

operations (such as water injection) or tertiary recovery techniques to enhance the reservoir's

natural energy is referred to as primary recovery. When evaluating potential EOR possibilities,

the major drive mechanism and expected ultimate oil recovery should be taken into account. For

various driving systems, the approximate oil recovery range is reported in Table 2.1. Note that

these figures are estimates, and oil recovery may fall outside of these ranges.

2.2.1 Rock and Liquid Expansion

When a crude oil has less gas than is required to saturate the oil at the pressure and

temperature of the reservoir, it is said to be under-saturated. Much of the reservoir energy is held

in the form of fluid and rock compressibility when the oil is significantly under-saturated. As

fluids are extracted from an under-saturated reservoir, pressure drops rapidly until the bubble

threshold is achieved. Then, for fluid displacement, solution gas drive becomes the source of

energy. An under-saturated reservoir will be identified using reservoir fluid analysis, PVT

behavior, and reservoir pressure data. These reservoirs are ideal candidates for water injection to

keep reservoir pressure high and boost oil recovery.

2.2.2 Solution Gas Drive

Under high pressure, crude oil can contain a lot of dissolved gas. As fluids are extracted

from the reservoir, gas comes out of solution and displaces oil from the reservoir to the

producing wells. The volume of gas in solution, the rock and fluid properties, and the geological

structure of the reservoir all influence the efficiency of solution gas drive. Recoveries are

modest, ranging from 5 to 30% of the OOIP. Because the gas phase in the reservoir is more

mobile than the oil phase, recovery is limited. As pressure drops, gas flows quicker than oil,

10
resulting in rapid reservoir energy depletion, as evidenced by growing gas/oil ratios in the field.

Water-flooding reservoirs are usually suitable options for solution gas drive reservoirs.

2.2.3 Gas-cap Drive

When a reservoir has a large gas cap, it's possible that there's a lot of energy stored in

compressed gas. As fluids are extracted from the reservoir, the gas cap expands, displacing the

oil via a gas drive assisted by gravity drainage. The intended pressure level in the reservoir, as

well as gas production once gas enters production wells, limit the gas cap's expansion. Reservoirs

with substantial gas caps aren't seen to be ideal water-flood candidates in general. The pressure

in some of these reservoirs has been maintained by injecting gas into the gas cap.

2.2.4 Water Drive

A hydraulic link exists between a water drive reservoir and a porous, compressed water

saturated rock known as an aquifer. As oil production reduces reservoir pressure, the water

expands, resulting in a natural water-flood at the reservoir/aquifer interface. The compressibility

of the rock in the aquifer also contributes to reservoir energy. When the aquifer is large enough

and contains enough energy, optimal fluid extraction rates can “water-flood” the entire reservoir.

It is possible to recover 35 to 75 percent of the original oil in place (OOIP).

2.2.5 Gravity Drainage Drive

In thick reservoirs with good vertical connection or in steeply dipping reservoirs, gravity

drainage may be the predominant producing mechanism. Because gas must move up the

structure or to the top of the formation to cover the space previously occupied by oil, gravity

drainage is a sluggish process. Because gas migration is faster than oil drainage, the rate of oil

drainage determines the oil rates.

11
2.2.6 Combination Drive

This is the most frequent drive mechanism, in which both water and free gas are available

to displace the oil toward the producing wells to some extent.

2.3 SECONDARY RECOVERY PROCESSES

The adoption of secondary recovery methods at the early phases of the primary

production phase, before reservoir energy has been depleted, is a common technique to

optimizing primary oil recovery. When compared to oil output gained from the solitary action of

natural driving forces during primary oil recovery, this production approach of integrating

primary and secondary oil recovery processes typically yields better oil recovery (Lyons and

Plisga, 2005). The first stage in extending oil recovery beyond natural depletion is to maintain

pressure by adding fluids (water or gas). Because of its relative simplicity, availability of water,

and cost-effectiveness, water flooding is the most often employed secondary oil recovery method

for both conventional and heavy oil reservoirs.

Secondary oil recovery works in a similar way to primary oil recovery, except that more

than one well bore is involved, and the reservoir pressure is intentionally increased or maintained

to force oil to the production wells. Secondary recovery procedures entail injecting artificial

energy into the reservoir through one wellbore while producing oil and/or gas via another. The

immiscible procedures of waterflooding and gas injection, or gas-water combination floods,

known as water alternating gas injection (WAG), where slugs of water and gas are injected

successively, are usually used for secondary recovery. SWAG (simultaneous injection of water

and gas) is also used, however water is the most commonly injected fluid due to its availability,

low cost, and high specific gravity, which makes injection easier (Lyons and Plisga, 2005; Satter

et al., 2008).

12
2.3.1 Water flooding

Water flooding is accomplished by injecting water into a series of wells while still

producing from the nearby wells. Water flooding initiatives are typically performed to achieve

one or more of the following goals:

i. Reservoir pressure maintenance

ii. To sweep or displace the oil from the reservoir, and push it towards an oil production

well.

Water flooding has become the most extensively used secondary recovery strategy around the

world throughout the years. The following are some of the reasons for the widespread acceptance

of water flooding: Water is an efficient agent for displacing light to medium gravity oil, it's

relatively straightforward to inject into oil-bearing formations, it's widely available and

inexpensive, and water flooding has lower capital and operating expenses, resulting in favorable

economics (Satter et al. 2008). Various sorts of well flooding configurations are commonly used

to implement water flooding. The five-spot layout, as seen from various angles in Figures 2.3

and 2.4, is the most typical arrangement of injection and production wells in water flooding.

Water is injected into the central well, displacing oil from the four production wells around it.

13
 Figure 2.3: Later view from a common water flooding arrangement (Donaldson et al, 1989).

Figure 2.4: Description from a top view reference of a water flooding process (Donaldson et al,

1989)

Water flooding efficiency is determined by intrinsic characteristics such as hydrocarbon

characteristics, microscopic oil displacement efficiency, rock/fluid characteristics, and reservoir

heterogeneities, just as primary recovery. In the end, a number of external factors, such as the

architecture, number, and positioning of water injection and production wells, affect the recovery

factor for water floods. The selection of these parameters to optimize reservoir sweep is the first

stage in water flooding optimization and an important component of successful field

development planning. As a result of this decision, the micro and macroscopic oil displacement

and sweep efficiency should be optimized. In addition, the primary criterion for selecting a given

pattern geometry is cost. The cost of drilling new wells, the expense of moving existing wells to

a different kind (for example, from a producer to an injector), and the loss of revenue from

production when moving from a producer to an injector are all issues to consider. The direct-

14
line-drive and staggered-line-drive schemes, for example, are often utilized because they need

the least amount of capital. If the reservoir characteristics result in lower injection rates than

intended, the operator should consider employing a seven- or nine-spot pattern with more

injection wells per pattern than production wells, as recommend by Craft and Hawkins (1991).

2.3.2 Gas Injection

Gas injection uses immiscible gas (one that won't mix with oil) to keep formation

pressure up, decrease the pace of natural reservoir drive decline, and sometimes improve gravity

drainage. Oil fields with poor oil saturation in the primary or secondary gas cap are ideal

candidates for gas injection into the gas cap to boost recovery. Gas injection reduces oil

shrinkage even more. Because it keeps the pressure gradient on the oil phase relatively high,

relative permeability to oil stays high, and oil is produced faster and in higher quantities.

Reservoirs with volatile oil may respond similarly, resulting in substantial oil recovery. In other

words, if the reservoir has enough vertical permeability or relief for gravity segregation to work,

gas injection could be a good and optimal solution.

Natural gas derived from oil, nitrogen, and flue gas are examples of immiscible gases.

Immiscible gas pumped into the well acts similarly to a gas-cap drive in that it expands to force

increasing amounts of oil to the surface. Gas injection necessitates the employment of

compressors to increase the gas's pressure so that it may penetrate the pores of the formation

(Van Dyke, 1997). In general, immiscible gas injection projects provide poorer oil recovery than

water flooding operations, but in some cases, immiscible gas injection is the only viable

secondary recovery option. Those circumstances include, among others, very low permeability

oil formations (such as shales), reservoir rock containing expanding clays, and thin formations

15
with solution-gas drive as the major driving mechanism (Lyons and Plisga, 2005). Furthermore,

gas is inferior to water in recovering oil due to its unfavourable viscosity ratio (greater mobility

ratio). Gas may be more cost-effective. A miscible or immiscible displacement technique can be

used for gas injection. The type of process will be determined by the characteristics of the oil and

gas, as well as the temperature and pressure conditions of the injection. Some of the primary and

secondary recovery mechanisms have limits such as:

i. Rapid decrease in reservoir pressure – leads to low oil production rates and oil recovery

(5 – 10 % of original oil in place).

ii. Secondary recovery often does not yield a good recovery due to reservoir heterogeneity,

unfavorable mobility ratio between oil and water, low sweep efficiency water and gas

coning problems.

2.4 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY METHODS (EOR) PROCESSES

EOR, also known as Tertiary Recovery, is a technique for enhancing the quantity of

hydrocarbon that may be retrieved from a reservoir by using thermal, chemical, or miscible gas

injection, as well as additional approaches like microbial flooding (Sunmonu and Onyekonwu,

2013). EOR refers to processes that recover oil from porous media that aren't produced by

traditional primary and secondary production methods. EOR aims to increase reservoir sweep

efficiency by using injectants that can lower leftover oil saturation below the level attained by

traditional injection procedures. Both the oil trapped in flooded areas by capillary forces

(residual oil) and the oil in areas not flooded by the injected fluid are included in the leftover oil

defined here (bypassed oil). CO2 or chemicals added to the injected water are examples of

injectants. To effectively improve oil output, fluids other than typical water (for water flooding)

16
and immiscible gas (for gas injection) are introduced into the formation during tertiary oil

recovery. Water flooding was once assumed to be enhanced oil recovery, but nowadays, EOR is

assumed to come after water flooding, as many EOR recovery methods are deployed after water

flooding (Sydansk and Romero-Zerón, 2011).

After primary and secondary processes, the purpose of enhanced oil recovery techniques

is to recover at least a portion of the remaining oil-in-place. The characteristics of the reservoir

fluid are altered by these approaches. The goal of EOR is to enhance the pressure differential

between the reservoir and the production wells, or to increase the oil mobility by lowering the

viscosity of the oil or lowering the interfacial tension between the displacing fluids and the oil.

The overall procedures of EOR approaches, according to Donaldson et al (1989), include:

i. Chemical processes.

ii. Miscible displacement processes (Gas flooding).

iii. Thermal processes.

There are several EOR techniques under these processes that are considered to be promising, as

shown in Figure 2.5.

17
 Figure 2.5: Classification of the different EOR methods (Donaldson cited in Ikporo & Okotie

2014)

2.4.1 Chemical EOR Processes

Chemical processes are those in which non-natural components are introduced to fluids to

increase mobility between the displacing and displaced fluids. These are EOR techniques that

use water. Chemical flooding processes can be divided into three main categories:

i. Surfactant flooding

ii. Polymer flooding

iii. Caustic flooding

Chemical flooding involves injecting a mixture of alkaline, surfactant, and polymer (ASP) into

the reservoir. By altering the mobility ratio between the invading fluids and the displaced fluid,

the polymer improves the sweep efficiency of the invading fluid. The surfactant is present to

minimize interfacial tension and change the wet-ability of the formation rock if necessary. When

18
caustic is introduced into a petroleum reservoir, it reacts chemically with the fatty acids in the

petroleum derivatives, forming in-situ sodium salts of fatty acids. These surfactants produce

ultra-low interfacial tension as a result of their production. Hence, EOR methods that can further

enhance the recovery by chemical additives in the injection water. The chemical flooding

processes have been schematically illustrated in the Figure 2.6.

Figure 2.6: Chemical flooding process description (Donaldson cited in Ikporo & Okotie 2014).

Chemical methods of enhanced oil recovery are defined by the addition of chemicals to water to

provide fluid characteristics or interfacial conditions that are more conducive to oil displacement.

Polymer flooding with polyacrylamides or polyaccarides is conceptually simple and affordable,

and despite the fact that it only increases potential production by modest increments, its

commercial use is growing. Surfactant flooding is a complicated process that necessitates

laboratory testing to support field project planning. It's also pricey, and just a few large-scale

projects use it. Alkaline flooding has only been employed in reservoirs containing specific types

of crude oil with a high acid number.

19
 During water or surfactant flooding, polymers are utilized to obtain favorable mobility

ratios. During the flooding phase, which might last several years, it is critical that the viscosity of

the polymer solution does not decrease. Temperature can alter polymer viscosity in two ways: by

changing the state of energy of the polymer chain and by causing temperature-dependent

chemical breakdown of the polymer chain. The high viscosity of the polymer solution can

drastically impair injectivity and result in low injection rates. The temperature affects how much

polymer is injected. In recent years, polymer flooding has become a popular EOR technique.

This gain can be explained by the fact that increasing water viscosity with small amounts of

polymer is quite simple. For oil viscosities of 10 to 100 cp, this enhances the mobility ratio and

leads to good reservoir sweep efficiency. Polymer flooding, also known as polymer enhanced

water flooding, involves mixing water with water-soluble polymers before injecting it into a

reservoir.

The simplest and most extensively utilized chemical EOR approach for mobility control

is polymer flooding. Polymer concentrations are typically modest, ranging from 250 to 2,000

mg/L, and the polymer solution slug size injected is typically 15 percent to 25% of the reservoir

pore volume (Pope, 2011). Hydrolyzed polyacrylamides (HPAM) and the biopolymer Xanthan

are the most often used polymers. Polymer solutions may be injected over a 1-2 year period for

very large field projects, after which the project reverts to a typical water flood. Incremental oil

recovery is on the order of 12% of the original oil in place (OOIP) when polymer solution is

injected for about one pore volume and values as high as 30% OOIP have been reported for

some field projects (Pope, 2011). Furthermore, the displacement is more efficient in that less

injection water is required to produce a given amount of oil. To produce an incremental barrel of

oil, about 1 to 2 lbs of polymer are required (Lyons and Plisga, 2005).

20
 The affordable price of polymer (approximately USD 1.5/bbl to USD 3/bbl) compared to

the price of oil, explains why presently, the number of polymer flooding projects is increasing

exponentially; for instance, in the U.S.A approximately 1 billion lbs of polymer was used in

2011 for mobility-control EOR (Pope, 2011). Mobility-control performance of any polymer

flood within the porous media is commonly measured by the resistance factor, (RF), which

compares the polymer solution resistance to flow (mobility) through the porous media as

compared to the flow resistance of plain water. As exemplified by Lyons and Plisga (2005), if a

RF of 10 is observed, it is 10 times more difficult for the polymer solution to flow through the

system, or the mobility of water is reduced 10-fold. As water has a viscosity around 1cP, the

polymer solution, in this case, would flow through the porous system as though it had an

apparent or effective viscosity of 10 cp even though a viscosity measured in a viscometer could

be considerably lower.

2.4.2 Gas Flooding

The basic improved recovery mechanism for gas flooding EOR is the fact that the

residual oil for gas displacement is lower than that for water flooding. In principle this could

result in an incremental recovery in the range 10 to 15% over the recovery by water flooding.

The difference is in the residual oil for gas and water flooding, and thus the incremental

recovery, could be much greater when gas and oil are miscible. Miscible methods have their

greatest potential for enhanced recovery of low-viscosity oils. Among these methods, CO 2

miscible flooding on a large scale is expected to make the greatest contribution to miscible

enhanced oil recovery in the future. However, the most efficient recovery mechanism by gas

flooding relies on injecting the gas (CO2, N2, etc.) at high pressures so that it is miscible with oil.

In this case, the incremental recovery can theoretically exceed 50% of the oil initially in place

21
(OIIP) (or reach 100% of the residual oil). This theoretical value is difficult to achieve by

continuous gas injection: the unfavorable mobility ratios between gas and oil/water leads to poor

reservoir sweep due to gravity override, viscous fingering, and channeling through high-

permeability streaks, resulting in gas recycling that is expensive due to compression costs. A

modest improvement can be obtained using water-alternating-gas (WAG) schemes. A step-

change in the recoveries by gas flooding requires the use of more robust methods of mobility

control. One such method is foam; i.e., a dispersion of the gas obtained by co-injecting a

surfactant solution and gas (Farajzadeh et al. 2010).

2.4.3 Thermal Recovery EOR Processes

Thermal recovery methods are based on adding heat to the oil, mainly to decrease its

viscosity. In this way, the mobility ratio between oil and the displacing fluids becomes more

favorable. The most common thermal methods are steam flooding and steam cycling. These

techniques experienced enormous development in the last few decades and have grown to be the

largest contributor to oil output by EOR. They are effective for the oil viscosity range between

100 and 100,000 cp. The reservoir sweep efficiency of steam flooding is limited by gravity

segregation. One way to overcome this problem is using the steam-assisted gravity drainage

(SAGD) method. SAGD is limited by the reservoir thickness needed to develop a steam

chamber. Ongoing SAGD research is aimed at improving the displacement efficiency and speed

by using solvents. In-situ combustion techniques are being developed, but controlling the process

is a challenge.

2.5 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY (EOR) MECHANISMS

The ultimate goal of EOR processes is to increase the overall oil displacement efficiency,

which is a function of microscopic and macroscopic displacement efficiencies. Microscopic

22
efficiency refers to the displacement or mobilization of oil at the pore scale and measures the

effectiveness of the displacing fluid in moving the oil at those places in the rock where the

displacing fluid contacts the oil (Green, Hirasaki, Pope and Willhite, 2011). For instance,

microscopic efficiency can be increased by reducing capillary forces or interfacial tension

between the displacing fluid and oil or by decreasing the oil viscosity (Satter et al., 2008).

Macroscopic or volumetric displacement efficiency refers to the effectiveness of the displacing

fluid(s) in contacting the reservoir in a volumetric sense. Volumetric displacement efficiency

also known as conformance indicates the effectiveness of the displacing fluid in sweeping out the

volume of a reservoir, both a really and vertically, as well as how effectively the displacing fluid

moves the displaced oil toward production wells (Green, Hirasaki, Pope and Willhite, 2011).

Hence, the success of any enhanced oil recovery process depends on:

i. The mechanism by which the injected fluid displaces the oil (displacement efficiency).

ii. The volume of reservoir which the injected fluid contacts (conformance or sweep

efficiency).

According to Lake (1989), EOR refers to the recovery of oil through the injection of

fluids and energy not normally present in the reservoir. These injected fluids must accomplish

several objectives like boosting the natural energy in the reservoir and also interact with the

reservoir rock/oil system to create conditions favorable for residual oil recovery that includes

among others:

i. Provide mobility-control

ii. Increase the capillary number

iii. Alteration of the reservoir rock wettability

iv. Reduction of the interfacial tension between the displacing fluid and oil

23
 v. Reduce capillary forces

vi. Increase the drive water viscosity

vii. Oil swelling

viii. Oil viscosity reduction. (Green, Hirasaki, Pope and Willhite, 2011).

The overall displacement efficiency of any oil recovery displacement process can be

increased by improving the mobility ratio or by increasing the capillary number or both (Satter et

al., 2008). All of currently available EOR technique is based on one or more of these two

principles: increasing the capillary number and/or lowering the mobility ratio, compared to their

waterflood values. Increasing the capillary number means, practically speaking, reducing oil-

water interfacial tension. The injectant mobility may be reduced by increasing water viscosity,

reducing oil viscosity, reducing water permeability or all of the above.

2.5.1 Mobility Ratio

Mobility ratio is defined as the mobility of the displacing fluid (i.e. water) divided by the

mobility of the displaced fluid (i.e. oil). High mobility ratios cause poor displacement and sweep

efficiencies, which can be caused by a large viscosity contrast between the displacing fluid (i.e.

water) and oil or by the presence of high permeability flow channels that result in early

breakthrough of the displacing fluid (i.e. water) at the producer well (Lyons and Plisga, 2005).

For water floods, this is the ratio of water to oil mobilities. The mobility ratio, M, for a water

flood is given by the following expressions:

K o KK ro
Mobility of oil, Mo= = (2.1)
μo μo

K w KK rw
Mobility of water, Mw= = (2.2)
μw μw

mobility of displacing fluid (Mw ) ( K w/ μ w)

Mobility ratio, M = = (2.3)
mobility of displaced fluid (Mo ) (K o/ μ o)

24
 Volumetric sweep efficiency increases as mobility ratio decreases, therefore mobility

ratio is an indication of the stability of a displacement process, with flow becoming unstable

(non-uniform displacement front or viscous fingering) when M> 1.0. Thus, a large viscosity

contrast between the displacing fluid (i.e. water) and the displaced fluid (i.e. oil) causes a large

mobility ratio (unfavorable M) which promotes the fingering of water through the more viscous

oil and reduces the oil recovery efficiency as shown in Figure 2.7. Here, water flooding has

unfavorable mobility ratio (M> 1), while Polymer-augmented water flooding has a favorable

mobility ratio (M ≤ 1).

Figure 2.7 Water flooding with unfavorable mobility vs. Polymer-augmented water flooding

with favorable mobility ratio (Sydansk and Romero-Zerón, 2011).

As such mobility ratio can be improved by increasing the drive water viscosity using polymers.

In the process of polymer flooding, polymers are added to the flood water to improve the water-

oil mobility ratio by increasing the viscosity of the flood medium and decreasing its relative and

25
effective permeability, respectively. For practical purposes, the mobility ratio (M) in polymer

flooding is often expressed in terms of the effective oil and polymer solution permeabilities (keffo

and keffp) and the corresponding viscosities (µo and µp).

( K effp /μ p)
M= (2.4)
( Keff o/ μ o)

2.5.2 Capillary Number

The capillary number, Nc, is a dimensional group expressing the ratio of viscous to

capillary (interfacial) forces as follows:

viscous forces ѵ µw
N c= = (2.5)
capillary forces σ ow

Where ѵ is the interstitial velocity of the displacing fluid (i.e. water), µw is the viscosity of the

displacing fluid (i.e. water), and σow is the interfacial tension between the oil and the displacing

fluid. Capillary numbers for a mature water flooding process are commonly in the order of 10 -7

to 10-6 (Green, Hirasaki, Pope and Willhite, 2011). At the end of the water flooding process,

experience has shown that at these low capillary numbers an important amount of oil is left

behind in the reservoir trapped by capillary forces at the pore scale. Thus, if the capillary number

is increased through the application of EOR processes, residual oil will be mobilized and

recovered. The most practical alternative to significantly increase the capillary number is through

the application of surfactants or alkaline flooding (chemical flooding) (Sydansk and Romero-

Zerón, 2011).

26
2.5.3 Calculation of 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 = EDEAEV (2.6)

Cumulative oil production, NP can be expressed as:

NP = NS EDEAEV (2.7)

Where, RF = overall recovery factor;

NS = initial oil in place at the start of the flood, STB;

NP = cumulative oil produced, STB;

ED = displacement efficiency;

EA = areal sweep efficiency;

EV = vertical sweep efficiency.

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

water flood 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.

2.5.4 Oil Recovery Factor

The oil reserves obtained as a result of EOR methods in addition to the primary or

conventional reserves may be expressed as the percentage of original oil in places (OOIP). To

estimate how much EOR methods can add oil reserves, the recovery potential of the reservoir has

to be known. This is defined by the reservoir’s characteristics and prior recovery mechanism. For

27
instance, the ultimate oil recovery factor of individual reservoirs under primary and/or

conventional recovery methods may range from 5% of OOIP for the poorest reservoir

characteristics or for viscous oil, to as high as 55 or 60 % of OOIP for the best reservoir

characteristics or for light oil. These are possibly attained by the respective recovery mechanism,

as follows:

i. 5-10 % -Tight oil reservoirs, slightly fractured or heavy oil reservoirs

ii. 10-25 % -Oil reservoirs produced mainly by solution gas drive.

iii. 25-40 % -Oil reservoirs producing under partial water drive, gas injection or gravity

drainage

iv. 40-55 % -Oil reservoirs produced by conventional water-flood.

28
 CHAPTER THREE

3.1 METHODOLOGY

The importance of choosing the best recovery method becomes increasingly important to

Petroleum Engineers, as conventional oil production has continued to fall globally. When

contemplating an EOR technique for a reservoir, reservoir engineer should be aware of the

criteria for a successful project. Screening criteria for suitable EOR methods serve as the first

step for candidate reservoir and has helped petroleum engineers make these decisions over the

years. In determining the suitability of a given reservoir for a secondary or tertiary enhanced oil

recovery process, the following factors will be considered in this research work:

1. Reservoir Selection

2. Economic Evaluation.

3.2 RESERVOIR SELECTION

The screening criteria used for this research work is based on a combination of the

reservoir and oil characteristics of successful projects (field and laboratory information that has

become available over the years), plus an understanding of the optimum conditions needed for

good oil displacement by the different EOR fluids. The substances (or specific mixtures) that

must be purchased and injected into the reservoir for mobility control are always at costs

somewhat greater than for the injection of water, but experience, as well as the results gotten

from this project indicates that the best profits come only from those methods where several

barrel of fluid (liquid or gas at reservoir pressure) can be injected per barrel of incremental oil

produced. This limits the main methods to either water (including heated, as steam, or as a dilute

chemical solution: polymer/surfactant flooding) or one of the inexpensive gases (CO2). There is

hope that these methods might become more profitable as oil prices rise significantly.

29
3.2.1 Oil/Reservoir Characteristics of Successful Projects

Oil and reservoir characteristics, including depth and corresponding oil gravity of most

EOR projects in the world are shown in Figure 3.2. A convenient way to show these EOR

methods is to arrange them by oil gravity as shown in Figure 3.1. This “at-a-glance” display also

provides approximate oil gravity ranges for different field projects that are now underway

globally.

Fig. 3.1 Oil gravity range of oil that is most effective for different EOR methods (Taber et al,

2008).

30
Figure 3.2 Summary of Screening Criteria for different EOR Methods.

[NC = not critical. Underlined values represent the approximate mean for current field projects,

while the ascending or descending arrows indicate that higher or lower values may be better

respectively (Taber et al, 2008).

31
3.2.2 Analysis of Reservoir XYZ (Niger Delta Onshore)

Reservoir XYZ with rock and fluid properties shown in Table 3.1 was considered in this

research work for EOR screening, as its oil production is now in its last phase. The reservoir has

been operating on water injection for pressure maintenance from year 2019 to present (2021).

TABLE 3.1 Properties of Reservoir XYZ

Initial Reservoir Pressure 3955 psig

API Oil Gravity, oAPI 30o API

Well depth, d 5500 ft

Net pay thickness, h 80 ft

Reservoir temperature 140o F

Permeability, k 50 MD

Average porosity, Ø 0.25

Water viscosity, µw 1.0 cp

Oil viscosity, µo 10.0 cp

Oil formation volume factor, Bo 1.438

Initial water saturation, Swi 0.20

Connate water saturation, Swc 0.20

Current gas saturation, Sg 0.10

Oil Originally in place (OOIP) 109,393,831 BBL

32
The current recovery from the reservoir through water injection is low (29%), hence the is need

for developing cost efficient enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods that can improve the sweep

efficiency significantly so as to get out as much as possible of the oil left before the operation

costs become higher than the income. To manage this, different EOR methods will be evaluated

in the following sub-sections.

3.2.3 Selection of suitable EOR Methods for Reservoir XYZ

All the available field data was examined to compare different alternative EOR methods

for Reservoir XYZ using Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2, which shows a range of basic reservoir and

fluid properties suitable for different EOR methods. The screening criteria of Figure 3.2

compares between the rock and fluid properties of the reservoir and the standard criteria required

for the different EOR processes. The graphical model utilized for this case as shown in Figure

3.1, together with the oil properties and reservoir characteristics of Figure 3.2 gives a simplified

method for proper selection of an EOR method not just for our case in Niger Delta, but for other

reservoirs as well. Analyzing the EOR options given in the screening criteria for Reservoir XYZ,

we can conclude that:

i. Steam-drive has reservoir depth limitations (must be lower than 4500ft) because of heat

losses and the steam temperature obtainable.

ii. Polymer flooding is feasible, but not suitable for reservoir XYZ since its oil viscosity

from the field data is below the acceptable range in the screening criteria.

iii. CO2 miscible process is feasible for reservoir XYZ due to favourable oil gravity and

reservoir depth, though with oil viscosity of 10cp.

iv. Surfactant flooding is also feasible for the reservoir in some aspects like oil viscosity

(10cp < 35cp), depth (5500ft < 900ft), oil gravity and permeability within range.

33
The selection process therefore shows that two EOR methods are most suitable for Reservoir

XYZ. The methods selected were:

1) CO2 injection

2) Surfactant flooding

Hence, a technical and economic evaluation of recovery efficiency of CO2 and Surfactant

flooding on Reservoir XYZ will be analyzed and compared with base case parameters of water

flooding. Earlier simulations were run on Eclipse to analyze Reservoir XYZ in order to estimate

and review the actual status of the reservoir. The analysis was done by showing three different

EOR methods (C02 miscible injection, surfactant flooding and water flooding as base case).

3.3 Economic Evaluation

The implementation of an EOR technique is intimately tied to the price of oil and overall

economics. With the reservoir management practices of today, engineers consider the various

EOR options much earlier in the productive life of a field. Obviously, economics always play the

major role in “go/no-go” decisions for expensive injection projects, but a cursory examination

with the technical criteria (Figure 3.2) is helpful to rule out the less-likely candidates. EOR is

capital and resource intensive, and expensive, primarily due to high injectant costs. The choice of

injectants has widened considerably since the evolution of EOR, but the petroleum engineer still

must choose an injection fluid and an overall process to try to recover the maximum amount of

oil from the reservoir while still making a profit. Laboratory and field tests have indicated that

even under very favourable conditions, injection of 5-20 Mscf of CO 2 is required to recover an

additional barrel of oil (Bonder, 1992). This will be applied in economic analysis of this research

work.

34
 In the design of the mobility control requirement for an EOR process, the final criterion

should be the economic parameters of the project such as

Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Profit to Investment Ratio, etc. The net

present value of a time series of cash flows, both incoming and outgoing, is the sum of the

present values (PVs) of the individual cash flows. NPV compares the value of 1 dollar today its

value in future, taking inflation and returns into consideration. NPV is a measure of profitability

of any project. If the NPV of a prospective project is positive, it is accepted. However, if NPV is

negative, the project should be discouraged because cash flows will also be negative. Other

factors that also influence the economic considerations for EOR other than reservoir

characteristics are availability of water or other EOR injectants, capital and operating expenses,

marketing conditions and Oil prices.

35
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 RESULT

By assuming the continuous injection of water in the upcoming years until 2028 without

any chemical addition (as a separate scenario), it was possible to calculate the other scenarios for

both CO2 and surfactant flooding. The extrapolated oil production data from ECLIPSE

simulation for a 10 year period is presented in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Oil production data from different EOR methods.

Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 202 Total
8

Water 11951 11479 1056 10379 9435 9498 8995 8743 8492 761 35,459,750
Injection 7 1
(bbl/day)

Surfactan 13146 12627 1162 11416 10379 10448 9894 9617 9341 897 39,224,360
t flooding 4 2
(bbl/day)

C02 14102 13546 1246 12247 11133 11208 1061 10317 10020 898 41,842,505
Flooding 9 4 1
(bbl/day)

Table 4.1 and 4.2, and Figure 4.1 summarizes the production results obtained from extrapolating

the information gotten from ECLIPSE and making the proper assumption regarding each method

according to literature. Table 4.2 also shows a 6% increase for CO 2 injection against water

36
injection (base case) for the 10 year injection period. This seems like a very small number, but it

is actually some barrels of oil and a lot of money.

Table 4.2 Prognosis and percentage of oil recovery from the different EOR methods.

% of total Oil
Method To year Cumulative oil recovery
production (bbl)
Water injection
(Before EOR) 2019 31,670,150 29%

2028 67,129,900 61.4%

Water injection (Base case)

Surfactant Flooding 2028 70,894,510 64.8%

CO2 flooding 67.2%

2028 73,512,655

37
 16000

14000

12000

10000
bbl/day

8000
Water Inject
Surfactant Flooding
6000 CO2 Flooding

4000

2000

0
2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
Year

Figure 4.1 Oil production rates according to the EOR methods selected and compared with
water injection (base case).

According to the economical analysis and the information given for the project (including the

estimated future rates and data of Reservoir XYZ); the Net Present Values (NPV), Internal Rate

of Return (IRR) and other economic parameters for CO2 injection and Surfactant flooding

methods were obtained through a probabilistic approach, using Monte Carlo simulation with

Crystal ball software. A summary of the result is presented in Table 4.3. The complete cash flow

analysis for CO2 injection and Surfactant flooding for reservoir XYZ are presented in Appendix

A and Appendix B respectively of this work.

38
Table 4.3 Net Present Values obtained from analysis of the EOR methods

NPV MM ($)
Method
Before Tax After Tax

Surfactant flooding 5,314 1,895

CO2 flooding 7,114 2,795

4.2 DISCUSSION

Surfactant flooding EOR process can be used to improve the recovery efficiency as seen

in the field case. However, nearly 90% of the surfactants injected are believed to be retarded by

the formation when passing through the reservoir rock. Thus, only a small amount is lowering

the interfacial tension between the oil and water. It is therefore extremely important to be able to

quantify the amount of surfactant needed for a successful chemical flooding. High cost of

surfactants and their retention impose high risk and uncertainty to their implementation and

make them less attractive economically.

Also, to decide whether a project is profitable or not, the Net Present Value (NPV) has to

be calculated. The Net Present Value of a project is a measure of how much a future investment

is worth today. An investment will be profitable if the NPV of the project is positive. The

calculation was done using a 10% discount rate for future in and outgoing cash. Sensitivity

Analysis showed that cumulative oil production and oil price are the most sensitive inputs

(Appendices C and D), while the final result indicated that CO 2 flooding is more economical and

should be used on reservoir XYZ as it gave a higher oil recovery than surfactant flooding.

39
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 CONCLUSION

Different EOR methods have been studied and understood from oil and reservoir

characteristics of previous EOR projects. Surfactant flooding and CO 2 flooding were chosen for

XYZ Reservoir based upon reservoir temperature, reservoir rock, fluid properties and

compositions. These methods were discussed and studied in detail at the same time that an

economic evaluation has been done. A simplified graphical method showed that it would be

appropriate to implement CO2 flooding for both oil recovery and economical reasons, with a

final recovery factor of 67.2% and NPV of $ 2,795 MM after tax. The final results show that for

both economical and oil recovery reasons, CO2 flooding should be applied on reservoir XYZ.

Also, most of the EOR methods are time-dependent function. Surfactant flooding and

CO2 injection EOR methods require considerable investments; however the response in the extra

oil production is usually delayed 5-10 years. This means that in order to be economical an EOR

method has to recover most of the extra oil within the time schedule for conventional recovery.

Otherwise the project will be uneconomical due to extra operational costs and higher risk of

realization.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

The comprehension of technical and economical knowledge regarding CO2 injection and

Surfactant flooding EOR methods has been achieved successfully from analysis of reservoir

XYZ (Niger Delta onshore) and therefore recommended for Niger Delta reservoirs. These EOR

40
methods will yield huge return on investment when implemented not just in the Niger Delta

alone, but in other oil production areas around the world.

41
References

Abubaker H. A., Zulkefli B. Y. and Abdurahman, H. N. (2015). An Overview of Oil Production

Stages: Enhanced Oil Recovery Techniques and Nitrogen Injection. International

Journal of Environmental Science and Development, Vol. 6, No. 9, pp. 693-701.

Craft B. C. and Hawkins, M. F. (1991): Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering, Second

edition, New Jersey, Prentice Hall PTR.

Donaldson, E. C., Chilingarian, V. G., Yen, T. F., and Sharma, M. K. (1989): Developments in

Petroleum Sciences: Enhanced Oil Recovery; Volume 17B: Processes and Operations;

Elsevier B.V.; Amsterdam; pp 1-9.

Farajzadeh, R., Andrianov, A., and Zitha P. L. (2010): Investigation of Immiscible and Miscible

Foam for Enhancing Oil Recovery, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 49(4): 1910-1919.

Fu, Xuebing and Mamora, D. (2010): “Enhanced Oil Recovery of viscous oil by injection of

water-in-oil emulsion made with used engine oil” A paper presented at the 2010 SPE

Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma U.S.A, 24–28 April; SPE

129902.

Green, D. W., Hirasaki, G., Pope, G. A. and Willhite, G. P. (2011). Surfactant flooding. Digital

edition. Tulsa, OK: Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Ikporo B. and Okotie S. (2014): “An investigation of the efficacy of enhanced oil recovery by

means of micro-organisms in Niger Delta Reservoir”; Journal of Petroleum and Gas

Exploration 4 (2): 24-31.

Lake L. W. (1989): Enhanced Oil Recovery. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

42
Lyons W. and Plisga, B. S. (2005): Standard Handbook of Petroleum and Natural Gas

Engineering (Second edition). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Inc. ISBN-13:978 0-7506-7785-

1.

Pope G. (2011): "Recent Developments and Remaining Challenges of Enhanced Oil Recovery";

JPT, 65-68.

Romero-Zerón, L. (2012). Advances in Enhanced Oil Recovery Processes, University of

New Brunswick, Chemical Engineering Department, Canada.

Satter A., Iqbal, G. and Buchwalter, J. (2008): Practical Enhanced Reservoir Engineering.Tulsa,

Oklahoma: PennWell.

Sunmonu R. M. and Onyekonwu M.O. (2013): Enhanced Oil Recovery using Foam Injection; a

Mechanistic Approach. SPE 167589; Presented at the Nigeria Annual International

Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 30 July–1 August.

Sydansk R. D. and Romero-Zerón, L. (2011): Reservoir Conformance Improvement;

Richardson, Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Taber, J. J., Martin, E. D., and Seright, R.S., (2008): “EOR Screening Criteria Revisited – Part 1:

Introduction to Screening Criteria and Enhanced Recovery Field Projects,” presented at

the 2008 SPE/DOE Improved oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A.

Tunio, S. Q., Tunio, A. H., Ghirano, N. A., and El Adawy, Z. M. (2011): Comparison of

different enhanced oil recovery techniques for betteroil productivity; International

Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 1.

Van Dyke K. (1997): Fundamentals of Petroleum (Fourth Edition). Austin, Texas: The

University of Texas at Austin.

43
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

RESERVOIR XYZ CASH FLOW ANALYSIS (CO2 INJECTION)

CO2 Injection
Inputs         Distribution Type
Assumptions   Minimum Likeliest Maximum  
Cumulative oil
production(bbl) 41,842,505 20800000 41842505 53000000 Triangular
Oil Price ($/bbl) 70 50 70 90 Triangular
Capital cost ($) 2,200,000,000 1,000,000,000 2,200,000,000 3,500,000,000 Triangular
Operating Cost
($/mscf) 25 25 0 30 Uniform
Feedstock
($/mscf) 0.001 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 Triangular
CO2 Injected per
incremental bbl of 20
oil (mscf/bbl)        

Output Forecast (After Tax)

Total CO2
Consumed
(mscf) 8.368501E+08 mscf

NPV ($) 2,795,391,597.17 $

IRR 35% %
Profit to
Investment
Ratio 3.70 [-]

PVR 1.27 [-]

Payback Time 2.71 yrs

Profitability
Index 2.27 [-]

Output Forecast (Before Tax)

Total CO2 Consumed (scf) 8.368501E+08 mscf
NPV ($) 7,114,880,812.7 $

44
 2
IRR 69% %
Profit to Investment Ratio 6.89 [-]
PVR 3.23 [-]
Payback Time 1.45 yrs
Profitability Index 4.23 [-]

45
  2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2028
Cashflow
Calculation
After Tax Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 10
Revenue   2928975350 2928975350 2928975350 2928975350 2928975350
Royalty   366121918.8 366121918.8 366121918.8 366121918.8 366121918.8
Net Revenue   2562853431 2562853431 2562853431 2562853431 2562853431
Operating Cost   1046062625 1046062625 1046062625 1046062625 1046062625
Feed Cost   836850.1 836850.1 836850.1 836850.1 836850.1
Depreciation   110000000 110000000 110000000 110000000 110000000
Pretax profit   1405953956 1405953956 1405953956 1405953956 1405953956
Tax   702976978.1 421786186.8 421786186.8 421786186.8 421786186.8
Net Profit   702976978.1 702976978.1 702976978.1 702976978.1 702976978.1
Operating
Cash flow   812976978.1 812976978.1 812976978.1 812976978.1 812976978.1
Investment -2200000000          
Net Cash flow -2200000000 812976978.1 812976978.1 812976978.1 812976978.1 812976978.1
Cumulative
Cash flow -2200000000 -1387023022 -574046043.9 238930934.2 1051907912 5929769781

Cashflow
Calculation
Before Tax Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 10
Pretax profit   1405953956 1405953956 1405953956 1405953956 1405953956
Operating
Cash flow   1515953956 1515953956 1515953956 1515953956 1515953956
Investment -2200000000          
Net Cash flow -2200000000 1515953956 1515953956 1515953956 1515953956 1515953956
Cumulative
Cash flow -2200000000 -684046043.9 831907912.3 2347861868 3863815825 12959539562

46
 APPENDIX B

RESERVOIR XYZ CASH FLOW ANALYSIS

(SURFACTANT FLOODING)

Surfactant Flooding
Distribution
Inputs         Type
Assumptions   Minimum Likeliest Maximum  
Cumulative oil
production(bbl) 39,224,360 30800000 39224360 49000000 Triangular
Oil Price ($/bbl) 70 50 70 90 Triangular
Capital cost ($) 2,200,000,000 1,000,000,000 2,200,000,000 3,900,000,000 Triangular
Operating Cost ($/kg) 30 30 0   35 Uniform
Feedstock ($/kg) 0.001 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 Triangular
Surfactant consumed per
incremental bbl of oil 70
(kg/bbl)        

Output Forecast (After Tax)

Total Surfactant
Consumed (kg) 2.745705E+09 kg
NPV ($) 1,895,401,733.99 $
IRR 28% %
Profit to Investment
Ratio 3.03 [-]
PVR 0.86 [-]
Payback Time 3.30 yrs
Profitability Index 1.86 [-]

Output Forecast (Before Tax)

Total Surfactant Consumed (kg) 2.745705E+09 kg
NPV ($) 5,314,901,086.34 $
IRR 55% %
Profit to Investment Ratio 5.56 [-]
PVR 2.42 [-]
Payback Time 1.80 yrs
Profitability Index 3.42 [-]

47
  2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2028
Cashflow
Calculation
after Tax Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 10
Revenue   2745705200 2745705200 2745705200 2745705200 2745705200
Royalty   343213150 343213150 343213150 343213150 343213150
Net Revenue   2402492050 2402492050 2402492050 2402492050 2402492050
Operating Cost   1176730800 1176730800 1176730800 1176730800 1176730800
Feed Cost   2745705.2 2745705.2 2745705.2 2745705.2 2745705.2
Depreciation   110000000 110000000 110000000 110000000 110000000
Pretax profit   1113015545 1113015545 1113015545 1113015545 1113015545
Tax   556507772.4 333904663.4 333904663.4 333904663.4 333904663.4
Net Profit   556507772.4 556507772.4 556507772.4 556507772.4 556507772.4
Operating
Cash flow   666507772.4 666507772.4 666507772.4 666507772.4 666507772.4
Investment -2200000000          
Net Cash flow -2200000000 666507772.4 666507772.4 666507772.4 666507772.4 666507772.4
Cumulative
Cash flow -2200000000 -1533492228 -866984455.2 -200476682.8 466031089.6 4465077724

Cashflow
Calculation
before Tax Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 10
Pretax profit   1113015545 1113015545 1113015545 1113015545 1113015545
Operating
Cash flow   1223015545 1223015545 1223015545 1223015545 1223015545
Investment -2200000000          
Net Cash flow -2200000000 1223015545 1223015545 1223015545 1223015545 1223015545
Cumulative
Cash flow -2200000000 -976984455.2 246031089.6 1469046634 2692062179 10030155448

48
 APPENDIX C

Tornado and Spider Charts for CO2 Injection

Tornado Charts for CO2 Injection

Total CO2 Consumed (mscf)

4.000000E+08 6.000000E+08 8.000000E+08 1.000000E+09 1.200000E+09

Cumulative oil production(bbl) 29,031,456 47,006,075

Oil Price ($/bbl) 58.94

Upside
Downside
Capital cost ($) 1,589,915,248

Operating Cost ($/mscf) 25.5

Feedstock ($/mscf) 0.000944721

  Total CO2 Consumed (mscf) Input

Variable Downside Upside Range Downside Upside Base Case
Cumulative oil
production(bbl) 5.806291E+08 9.401215E+08 3.594924E+08 29,031,456 47,006,075 39,206,095
Oil Price ($/bbl) 7.841219E+08 7.841219E+08 0.000000E+00 58.94 58.94 70
Capital cost ($) 7.841219E+08 7.841219E+08 0.000000E+00 1,589,915,248 1,589,915,248 2,329,968,153
Operating Cost
($/mscf) 7.841219E+08 7.841219E+08 0.000000E+00 25.5 25.5 27.5
Feedstock
($/mscf) 7.841219E+08 7.841219E+08 0.000000E+00 0.000944721 0.000944721 0.001

49
 Spider Charts for CO2 Injection

Total CO2 Consumed (mscf)

1.000000E+09

9.000000E+08

8.000000E+08 Cumulative oil production(bbl)

Oil Price ($/bbl)
Capital cost ($)
7.000000E+08 Operating Cost ($/mscf)
Feedstock ($/mscf)

6.000000E+08

5.000000E+08
90.0% 70.0% 50.0% 30.0% 10.0%
Percentiles of the variables

  Total CO2 Consumed (mscf)

Variable 90.0% 70.0% 50.0% 30.0% 10.0%
Cumulative oil
production(bbl) 5.806291E+08 7.011460E+08 7.841219E+08 8.523644E+08 9.401215E+08
Oil Price ($/bbl) 7.841219E+08 7.841219E+08 7.841219E+08 7.841219E+08 7.841219E+08
Capital cost ($) 7.841219E+08 7.841219E+08 7.841219E+08 7.841219E+08 7.841219E+08
Operating Cost ($/mscf) 7.841219E+08 7.841219E+08 7.841219E+08 7.841219E+08 7.841219E+08
Feedstock ($/mscf) 7.841219E+08 7.841219E+08 7.841219E+08 7.841219E+08 7.841219E+08

50
 APPENDIX D

Tornado and Spider Charts for Surfactant Flooding

Tornado Charts Surfactant Flooding

Total Surfactant consumed (kg)

09 09 09 09 09 09
0 E+ 0 E+ 0 E+ 0 E+ 0 E+ 0 E+
0 0 0 0 0 0
00 00 00 00 00 00
50 00 50 00 50 00
1. 2. 2. 3. 3. 4.

Cumulative oil production(bbl) 28,502,366 46,339,853

Upside
Downside
Oil Price ($/bbl) 58.94

Capital cost ($) 1,589,915,248

Operating Cost ($/kg) 30.5

  Total Surfactant consumed (kg) Input

Variable Downside Upside Range Downside Upside Base Case
Cumulative oil
production(bbl) 1.995166E+09 3.243790E+09 1.248624E+09 28,502,366 46,339,853 38,023,014
Oil Price ($/bbl) 2.661611E+09 2.661611E+09 0.000000E+00 58.94 58.94 70
Capital cost ($) 2.661611E+09 2.661611E+09 0.000000E+00 1,589,915,248 1,589,915,248 2,329,968,153
Operating Cost
($/kg) 2.661611E+09 2.661611E+09 0.000000E+00 30.5 30.5 32.5

51
 Spider Charts for Surfactant Flooding

Total Surfactant consumed (kg)

3.500000E+09

3.000000E+09

Cumulative oil production(bbl)

2.500000E+09 Oil Price ($/bbl)
Capital cost ($)
Operating Cost ($/kg)

2.000000E+09

1.500000E+09
90.0% 70.0% 50.0% 30.0% 10.0%
Percentiles of the variables

  Total Surfactant consumed (kg)

Variable 90.0% 70.0% 50.0% 30.0% 10.0%
Cumulative oil
production(bbl) 1.995166E+09 2.389862E+09 2.661611E+09 2.902500E+09 3.243790E+09
Oil Price ($/bbl) 2.661611E+09 2.661611E+09 2.661611E+09 2.661611E+09 2.661611E+09
Capital cost ($) 2.661611E+09 2.661611E+09 2.661611E+09 2.661611E+09 2.661611E+09
Operating Cost ($/kg) 2.661611E+09 2.661611E+09 2.661611E+09 2.661611E+09 2.661611E+09

52