IPA19-E-322
PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION
Forty-Third Annual Convention & Exhibition, September 2019
BIO-SURFACTANT INJECTION FIELD TRIALS AT VOLCANIC FORMATION IN FIELD M
WEST JAVA
Ariadji. T*, Rachmadi. H**, Adam. T.B**, Sasongko. S.Y***, Nugroho. R***
ABSTRACT
One of the formations in Field M is volcanic
formation that contains oil with API of 25 – 33° and
a high pour point of 45°C with a recovery factor
(RF) of about 20% in 2017. This RF value signify
that there is still potential for additional oil
recovery. To increase the oil production, one of the
alternative methods is injection of bio-surfactant
into the reservoir. This paper describes result of the
alternative method of bio-surfactant injection
targeting the Field M volcanic formation. This bio-
surfactant is generated at the surface in a bioreactor,
and intended to be naturally continued in the
reservoir by in-situ microorganism. The objectives
are to increase oil production and decrease water cut
by injecting the bio-surfactant into several wells,
namely M-X1, M-X2 and M-X3, which produce
with a water cut of 85% - 98% and oil production of
3 - 17 BOPD. M-X1 well is selected for Huff &
Puff injection, while M-X2 and M-X3 well are
selected for both huff & puff and well
interconnectivity observation.
This project has been progressed in several stages,
i.e. laboratory activities; preparation;
implementation; and monitoring. Monitoring was
being conducted to both injection and surrounding
wells. The results of this project can be summarized
as follows:
At M-X1 Huff & Puff Injection Well, the water cut
decreased (from 85% to 70%) thus oil production
increased (from 3 BOPD to 7 BOPD). There are
indications of well-to-well connectivity (M-X4) as
indicated by observations of microbe population. At
M-X2 Injection Well, water cut did not decrease but
surrounding wells were affected as indicated by
microbe population observations. At M-X3 Huff &
Puff Injection Well, wells water cut decreased thus
oil increased (from 17 BOPD to 22 BOPD).
Surrounding Well M-X4 was affected by bio-
surfactant injection at M-X1 and M-X2 wells,
resulting a decrease in water cut. Therefore, the
total work results into increasing the oil production
* Bandung Institute of Techonology
** Pertamina EP
*** Aimtopindo
(cumulative gain of 8773 bbls) and decreasing
water cut by injecting 15500 bbls with additional
cost of 15.58 USD per barrel oil gain for a year.
INTRODUCTION
Field M is one of the mainstay fields for oil
production of PT Pertamina EP. One formation in
Field M is a volcanic formation (V) consisting of
fracture rocks and matrix rocks. Volcanic formation
produces oil of HPPO (High Pour Point Oil) type.
This HPPO oil has an API value of 25-33° and pour
point temperature of 45°C. The estimated recovery
factor for volcanic formation in 2017 was 19.96%.
The cumulative oil production in 2017 was
estimated 83,128 MSTB. Production of volcanic
formation is very different at the beginning of
production compared to present. When initial
production in 1973, volcanic formation production
reached 40,000 BOPD, while in 2001 production
was only around 1,500 BOPD (Saing.M.P, 2001).
High oil production between 1973 and 1982 is
likely from oil in fractures, while low production in
the last 20 years is likely to be the contribution of
oil from the matrix.
One effort to increase oil production in volcanic
formation, especially from the matrix part is by
injecting bio-surfactants. The purpose of bio-
surfactant injection is to increase oil production by
reducing water cut (WC). The bio-surfactant used is
produced from the secretion of microbes at the
surface in the bioreactor, which naturally continues
in the reservoirs. This concept is similar to injection
of microbes in Melibur Field (Subiantoro, 2012)
and Mangunjaya Field (Ariadji et al., 2017).
Implementation of MEOR also applied worldwide,
for instance in Dupont, Canada (Jackson et al.,
2015) and Daqing Oil Field, China (X. Wu et al,
2012). Zahner et al (2011) has reviewed more than
one hundred MEOR application with general
remarks of successfully increasing oil production.
They found that the success rate of MEOR is 89%
average and can increase oil production up to 127%
average. McInerney et al (2001) - states that bio-
surfactant is one of the important substances
produced by microbes in MEOR’s success.
Bio-surfactants are enzymes produced by microbes,
which can be from the hydrocarbonoclastic group
that consume hydrocarbon as food in specific
conditions for producing bio-surfactant (S. Mnif et
al, 2011). The presence of bio-surfactants in a
mixture of water and oil is expected to change the
mix fluid characteristics, such as swelling index,
that will result in increased oil production.
P. Hosseininoosheri et al. (2016) has investigated
mathematical model of bio-surfactant flooding and
observe the effect of several parameter, i.e,
temperature, salinity, pH, and nutrient
concentration. They concluded that temperature,
salinity, and nutrient concentration have significant
influence in oil recovery. Based on their simulation
results, it is shown that in-situ bio-surfactant can
increase 10-15% oil recovery compared to water
flooding.
In this activity, we focused on the effect of in-situ
producing bio-surfactant by microbes to increase oil
production. We present the results and lessons
learned from the injection of bio-surfactants in the
volcanic formation at Field M, which can be used as
an eco-friendly treatment to increase oil production.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The bio-surfactant injection project is divided into
two main activities, namely, huff & puff, and huff
& puff for observing well interconnection. Huff &
puff is carried out in well M-X1 and M-X3. In this
activity, monitoring was also carried out to the
surrounding wells. Meanwhile, the huff & puff for
observing well interconnection was carried out in
well M-X2 as an injector, with well M-X4 as a
monitoring production well. The monitoring well
M-X4 was selected based on the results of the
observation of the M-X1 huff & puff well, which
indicates good connectivity to the M-X4 well.
The position between the wells is shown in Figure
1. Production rate for M-X1 well (MD 2060 m) was
20 BFPD/3 BOPD/ 85%, M-X2 well (MD 2170 m)
was 183 BFPD/13 BOPD/92.7%, and M-X3 well
(MD 1916 m) was 850 BFPD/17 BOPD/98%. The
lifting mechanism all these wells is gas lift. Log
analyses for each candidate well are presented in
Figure 2. The source of water used is a produced
water from water pond (in this field, salinity 28000
ppm) near the collecting station, with 15,500 bbl. of
water. Before used, the water was filtered to
eliminate contaminant that will potentially inhibit
microbial growth.
METHODOLOGY
In implementing this bio-surfactant injection,
several stages of activities are carried out, including
the Laboratory Test Phase, the Preparation Phase,
and the Field Implementation Phase, which includes
on-site production, injection & soaking, and
production & monitoring.
Laboratory Work Phase
The laboratory work consists of properties analysis,
microbe isolation, and laboratory simulation as
briefly explained below.
Properties analysis
This activity aims to determine the character of oil
and produced water. Observations were made on
parameters including pH, TDS, microbial
population (Total Plate Count, TPC), viscosity, pour
point, interfacial tension (IFT).
Microbe isolation
This activity aims to obtain bio-surfactant-
producing microbes that are compatible with
reservoir conditions. Isolation was carried out using
a special medium to obtain a suitable microbial
consortium for operation purposes.
Nutrient composition
This laboratory work determines the concentration
and composition of nutrient for field
implementation. To obtain the most suitable
composition, several combinations of components
were applied for a particular field that has different
characteristic (such as fluid, formation, rock
properties, etc). The major components are Nitrogen
(N), Phosphorus (P), and Pottasium (K), and the
minor components are Natrium (Na), Magnesium
(Mg), Manganese (Mn), Calcium (Cl), and Chlor
(Cl).
Laboratory simulation
This activity aims to determine the effect of adding
a bio-surfactant solution to the fluid characteristics
and flow of a mixed fluid. Tests conducted in the
form of bottle test, swelling test, and changes in
viscosity, IFT and microbe population (Total Plate
Count, TPC).
Preparation Phase
The first stage of implementation was the
preparation stage, including preparation of
equipment, consumables, electricity, and other
technical matters. Consumables materials include
nutrient and produced water. In this work, it took
about 15,500 bbl produced water for flushing and
microbial production. Produced water (salinity
28000 ppm) was collected into a tank and filtered
using a filtration unit. In addition, the preparation
stage also included measuring production
parameters before bio-surfactant injection.
Production parameters measured included water cut
and gross fluid.
Field Implementation
The field implementation is carried out in several
stages as explained in the following.
On-site Microbial Bio-Surfactant Production
During this period, microbial isolates were mixed
with produced water, several types of nutrients and
crude oil.
For this field implementation, the nutrient
concentration used was 1%. Range of optimal
nutrients concentration is between 0.5 - 3% of the
total fluid injection. Based on our experience,
microbes are sensitive to their surrounding
environment, i.e., salinity, water contaminants, and
type of oil (specific gravity).
Microbial growth lasted for approximately 5 days in
conditions close to reservoir temperature and took
place in the atmospheric tank. The purpose of
microbial production is to make available large
quantities of bio-surfactant-producing microbes.
This approach is intended for microbes to grow and
live close to well condition before being injected.
This stage is crucial because if there is no good
adaptation, microbes population cannot be
maintained at high level while injected; some of
microbes can be dead.
Injection and Soaking Period
After on-site production period, the microbial
solution along with the resulting bio-surfactant was
injected into the formation through tubing and
soaked for 7 days. The result of laboratory (bottle)
test determined the duration of microbial growth
and soaking period. Pre-flush injection with
produced water was conducted before the main
injection to move fluid in the casing. After soaking
for 7 days, post-flush injection was carried out to
push the injection fluid away from the wellbore.
The amount of injected fluids was determined by
considering well data such as production history
and reservoir condition. For this work, the injected
fluid is the following:
1. Total fluid, including pre-flush and post-flush,
which is injected into the M-X1 well around
1,000 bbls consists of 200 bbls pre-flush, 600
bls bio-surfactant injection and 200 bbl. post-
flush.
2. The total fluid, including pre-flush and post-
flush, is injected into the M-X2 well around
7,600 bbl. consists of 200 bbl pre-flush, bio-
surfactant injection 7,200 bbl. and post-flush
200 bbl.
3. Total fluid, including pre-flush and post-flush,
is injected into the M-X3 well around 6,900
bbl. consists of 200 bbl. pre-flush, bio-
surfactant injection 6,500 bbl. and post-flush
200 bbl.
Production and Monitoring Period
After the soaking period ends (8th day), well
production is carried out at a gradual rate. During
the production period, production parameters were
monitored such as gross fluid, oil net, and water cut
in injection wells and observation wells. In addition,
laboratory analysis is also routinely carried out on
fluid (produced water and oil) which includes
microbial population (TPC), pH, and TDS.
Viscosity and IFT parameters are also measured at
certain times.
RESULTS
Produced Water & Oil Properties Analysis
Result
The results of the water analysis are presented in
Table 1. As can be seen, the microbial population of
all wells increase very much up to 109 cfu (colony
forming units) after the injection. The number of
microbe is the critical key to success, and thus,
these numbers indicate, the treatments work well.
Oil samples from each well were taken and
analyzed to see how the effect of bio-surfactant on
oil properties. The results of oil analysis are
presented in Table 2. All wells do not show
significant changes.
Production Monitoring after Execution
After soaking for 7 days, each injection well was
produced. Then production monitoring was carried
out on injection wells and observation wells.
Well M-X1
The production performance of injection huff &
puff in well M-X1 is presented in Figure 3 and
Figure 4.
Oil production began to increase after 10 days of
production, reaching a 700% increase from the
baseline. For 5 months, oil production is still above
the baseline, which is around 7 BOPD. In July,
there was a well service job, causing well shut
down. In August, production rose to 200% from the
baseline. At the end of August, the well was shut
down and in early September, when it was re-
produced, oil production rose again to around 700%
above the baseline. After that, production begins to
fall to around the baseline.
Overall, in the observation period from January
2017 to December 2017, the production rate
increased from 20 BFPD to 25 BFPD. The oil rate
also increased from 3 BOPD to 7 BOPD and the
water cut level dropped from 85% to 70%.
From this injection, it was also observed that there
was one well that might have interconnection with
well M-X1, namely, well M-X4. This
interconnection is indicated from the microbe
population at well M-X4, which also increased after
injection in well M-X1.
Well M-X2
The production performance of well M-X2 is
presented in Figure 5 and Figure 6.
Injection at well M-X2 aims at interconnecting
wells with production still observed after injection.
The volume injected was large, which is 7200 bbls.
The injection rate per day is around 400 bfpd. As
shown in Figure 5, there were no significant
changes of oil production before and after
production. It is estimated that a large injection
volume in a short time and a pressure loss is the
cause of no oil gain in well M-X2. In addition, gross
production could not be attempted to return to initial
production due to the existence of structural damage
due to sand. Overall, from January 2017 to
December 2017, the production rate decreased from
average 183 BFPD to 57 BFPD. So that the oil rate
drops from average 13 BOPD to 4 BOPD and the
water cut level is relatively constant at 92.7%
average.
Well M-X4
The performance of the production of
interconnecting injection of the affected well, M-
X4, is presented in Figure 7 and Figure 8. There are
two injection wells that affect the oil production of
well M-X4, which are well M-X1 well and well M-
X2. The injection duration of well M-X1 is short
with a low total injection volume (600 bbls). This
injection had impact the oil production of M-X4
wells, which were seen in January - April.
The injection of well M-X2 lasted for 20 days with
a total injection volume of around 7,200 bbls. This
semi-continuous injection resulted in a significant
increase in well M-X4 when viewed in the same
time span between April and June. In June, well
production is average of 61 bopd or cumulative
production of 2246 bbls for 36 days of production.
When compared to April (average production of 48
bopd), there was a production increase of 13 bopd
average.
The effect of injection first felt in the production
well after 45 days from the initial injection of well
M-X2 with a distance between wells of around 500
m. This indicates that the velocity of fluid
movement is very slow (at 0.0004 ft / sec) so that
fluid is suspected to flow in the rock matrix media
as opposed to in the fracture reservoir. This is a
passing condition for a low oil recovery factor and
passing fractured reservoir production period. More
importantly, during the significant training period,
the amount of gas lift injection remains constant,
gross production increases and water decreases. In
the period September - December, well production
decreased to the initial figure. This shows that the
injection effect has run out. Overall, the production
rate for 1 year increased from an average of 35
BFPD to 70 BFPD. In addition, the oil level rose
from an average of 19 BOPD to 39 BOPD and the
rate of decline in water dropped from 45% to 40%.
To the extent of our experience about relating the
injection volume and nutrient concentrations, it is
suspected that concentrations be reduced for
continuous injection.
Well M-X3
The production performance of injection huff &
puff at Well M-X3 is presented in Figure 9 and
Figure 10 below.
The response to the increase in production due to
injection is quite slow, which is reflected in the
microbial population (Figure 9b).
In the observation period from January 2017 to
December 2017, the production rate decreased from
an average of 850 BFPD to 75 BFPD. However, the
oil rate increased from an average of 17 BOPD to
22 BOPD and the water cut level dropped from
98% to 70%.
The following figure (Figure 11) of cummulative oil
production with respect to gross (liquid) production
of Well M-X1 (upper) clearly shows the
incremental of oil production after the MEOR
treatment (blue color) as indicated by the
continuously significant increasing difference
between the sources, in other word, increasing oil
cut, after one month (1000 bbls of gross). The plot
also indicates the trend of increasing oil cut or
reducing water cut by a slope of 0.3.
However, for Well M-X3, the performance does not
show any incremental oil production until at about
cummulative liquid production of 20,000 bbls, or, at
about 4 months. After that, the oil cummulative
production takes off very steep, but, unfortunately
the monitoring period was stopped.
Implementation Cost
The cost of rigless bio-surfactants implementation
consists of equipment rent, personnel costs, and
consumable (nutrient). Cost calculation for injection
huff & puff bio-surfactant interconnection work in
injection wells M-X1 and M-X2, and M-X4
observation well was 15.58 USD per barrel oil gain
for 1 year.
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions from the implementation of bio-
surfactant injection in the Field M volcanic
formation are as follows:
1. The nutrient concentration is the most
influencing parameter for microbial growth, and
for this field, it is 1% of the total injected fluid.
2. The optimum nutrient composition consists of
major components, i.e., Nitrogen, Phosphorous,
and Pottasium, and the minor components, i.e.,
Na, Mg, Mn, Ca, and Cl.
3. Indications of increasing oil production and
reducing the water cut of the investigated wells
are clear providing a technically appropriate
design implementation with the responses
varying depending upon well condition
(location and previous production history) and
reservoir characteristics.
4. The Huff&Puff results for one injection well
and observation well project produce promising
oil gain. This shows the interconnection
between wells indicated by the increase in the
number of microbes, such as in the M-X4
affected well due to injection in the M-X2 well.
5. Injection of bio-surfactant huff & puff in
injection wells of M-X1 and M-X2 has an
impact on increasing production at distant well
M-X4 (approximately 600 meters) of 7,443
barrels of oil against the baseline (56%) in
during the observation period.
6. Bio-surfactant huff & puff injection in the M-
X3 well has an impact on increasing oil
production itself by1330 bbls (72%) during the
observation period.
7. The total increase in oil production in the
volcanic formation due to injection of bio-
surfactant in three wells is 8,773 bbl. of oil
against the baseline or equivalent to an increase
in average production of 24 BOPD for 1 year.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
1. Preferably, continuous injection compared to
huff & puff. It is recommended for more
continuous injection.
2. For conditions such as the M-X2 well, it is
recommended that the injection be carried out at
a low rate and then gradually increase.
3. It is recommended to utilize existing facilities
for continuous injection.
4. For continuous injection, it is recommended to
add the microbe consortium and nutrient to
produced water stream that will be injected into
the well.
5. In our opinion, there is a possibility that nutrient
concentrations can be reduced for continuous
injection.
6. Parameters that should be monitored daily at the
injection wells and the surrounding wells are
microbes population, salinity, water cut, IFT,
oil viscosity, and oil density.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are thankful for all stakeholder for supporting
our activity to obtain this field implementation
result. In addition, we thank to our team and people
who worked together for the field implementation.
REFERENCES
Ariadji, T., Astuti, I., Purwasena, I.A., Persada,
G.P., Soeparmono, M.R., Amirudin, N.H.,
Ananggapida, A.A., Sasongko, S.Y., Abqory, M.H.,
Ardianto, R.N., Subiantoro, E., Aditya, G.H., 2017,
Microbial Huff and Puff Project at Mangunjaya
Fields Wells: The First in Indonesia Towards
Successful MEOR Implementation: SPE/IATMI
Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition.
Hosseininoosheri, P., Lashgari, H., Sepehrnoori, K.,
2016, Characterization of In-Situ Bio-Surfactant in
Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery : SPE Trinidad
and Tobago Section Energy Resources Conference.
Jackson, S.C., Alsop, A.W., Fallon, R., Perry, M.K.,
Hendrickson, E.R., Fisher, J., 2012, Field
Implementation of DuPont’s Microbial Enhanced
Oil Recovery Technology : Society of Petroleum
Engineer.
McInerney, M.J., Han, S.O., Maudgalya, S.,
Mouttaki, H., Folmsbee, M., Knapp, R., Nagle, D.,
Jackson, B.E., Staudt, M., Frye, W., 2001,
Development of More Effective Biosurfactants for
Enhanced Oil Recovery: U.S. Departement of
Energy.
Mnif, S., Chamka, M., Labat, M., Sayadi, S., 2011,
Simultaneous Hydrocarbon Biodegradation and
Biosurfactant Production by Oilfield-selected
Bacteria: The Society for Applied Microbiology
v.111, p.525-536
Subiantoro, E., Noprianti, A., Maryanti, L., Aditiah,
Y., Putra, E., Satriawulan, D., Sasongko, S.Y.,
2012, Field Trial Microbial EOR in the Melibur Oil
Field: Ikatan Ahli Teknik Perminyakan
Indonesia/IATMI.
Saing, M.P, 2001, Tinjauan Ulah Produksi Sumur-
sumur Lapisan Vulkanik Jatibarang Daerah Operasi
Hulu Cirebon: IATMI, Proceeding Nasional.
Xiaolin, W., Zhaowei, H., Xumou, D., Wei, L., Rui,
W., Xiaolei, W., 2012, The Application of
Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery in Chaoyanggou
Daqing Low-Permeability Oilfield: Bentham (The
Open Petroleum Engineering Journal), v.5, p 118-
123.
Yudono, B., Purwaningrum, W., Estuningsih, S.P.,
Kaffah, S., 2017, Oil Recovery Test Using Bio
Surfactants of Indigenous Bacteria in Variation
Concntration of Carbon Source: IOP Science 65.
Zahner, R.L., Tapper, S.J., Marcotte, B.W.G.,
Govreau, B.R., 2011, What Has been Learned from
A Hundred MEOR Applications: SPE Enhanced Oil
Recovery Conference.
 Water
Well pH TDS Microbe Population
(ppm) TPC (cfu)
Before
M-X1 7 28200 7 x 102
M-X2 7 28200 1 x 103
M-X3 7 28200 1 x 103
M-X4 7 28200 13 x 107
After
M-X1 7 26500 2 x 109
M-X2 7 28100 1 x 109
M-X3 7 28100 1 x 109
M-X4 6 21600 6 x 109

Table 1 – Produced Water Analysis Results.

Oil
Well Viscosity Pour Point IFT
o
cP C mN/m
Before
M-X1 269 40 1.2
M-X2 220 44 1.1
M-X4 257 45 1.2
After
M-X1 245 39 0.98
M-X2 200 43 1.05
M-X4 250 40 1

Table 2 – Oil Properties Analysis Results.

Figure 1 - The position of the Well.

Figure 2 – Log Analysis & Injection Interval.
Figure 3 – Production Performance at Well M-X1; Nett Oil, Water Cut, and Gross Fluid vs Time.

Figure 4 – Production Performance at Well M-X1; Water Cut, Microbe Population (TPC), Gas Lift
Injection, and Gas Out vs Time.
 Figure 5 – Production Performance at Well M-X2; Nett Oil, Water Cut, and Gross Fluid vs Time.

Figure 6 – Production Performance at Well M-X2; Water Cut, Microbe Population (TPC), Gas Lift
Injection, and Gas Out vs Time.
 Figure 7 – Production Performance at Well M-X4; Net Oil, Water Cut, and Gross Fluid vs Time.

Figure 8 – Production Performance at Well M-X4; Water Cut, Microbe Population (TPC), Gas Lift
Injection, and Gas Out vs Time.
 Figure 9 – Production Performance at Well M-X3; Net Oil, Water Cut, and Gross Fluid vs Time.

Figure 10 – Production Performance at Well M-X3; Water Cut, Microbe Population (TPC), Gas Lift
Injection, and Gas Out vs Time.
 Figure 11 – Cumulative Gross vs Cumulative Oil Production at M-X1.

Figure 12 - Cumulative Gross vs Cumulative Oil Production at M-X3 well.