SPE 84867 Society of Petoleun Engineers Further Evaluation of Microbial Treatment Technology for Improved Oil Production in Bokor Field, Sarawak Bangkong Sabut and Mat Ali Hj Salim, Petronas Carigali Sdn, Bhd,, Ahmad Sharby A. Hamid and S.F.Khor, Petronas Research & Scientific Services Sdn. Bho. ep 203, Sao Paton Enea oe Certaeee Ace Paiva ung Malye, 2021 Ole 203 ‘es pp wae steer preseraon by a SPE Progam Canto flown rv of ‘Monta crsees an above sabato] br Be ao) Cates of Ow oapo et [Desert hava no tne eed byt Seely Palm Ena wwe ane e ‘Seton tye ory Tre aol vaio Sus at hcteary Yet any aston et te Soc of Pewaun engooa, fe cbunm smemburs fap orenosed [See esteem nue! to acatonrvon by Cseal Conmnoes ft Saco PorocuErgrwus Charon oeautan datindone borge ety pt of he paps {erconmaretpoptse win te niten sre oe Sosy o Pars Engrs = frenotes Ponacanto opus pet vasreg oa tes rt mor 300 ‘SSrevedgret ute anywho be pape petared te arian, SPE PO. Abstract ‘This paper depicts the laboratory results as well as the well production performances of five oil wells that were treated ‘with microbial technology using ‘huff & puff” method. It is the second microbial stimulation project in Bokor field after the pilot project implemented in July 2000. However, in this project the wells selected for the treatment ‘were not very much depleted as compared to the three pilot wells, which were very much depleted in their production, Several types of laboratory analyses conducted on the crude oil samples showed encouraging results in favour of this technology whereby there is an improvement in crude oil flow characteristic. This is due to the degradation of heavy ‘molecular weight into lighter hydrocarbons upon reaction with the microbes. Crude oil rheological study conducted on post- treatment samples concluded an enhancement in crude oil mobility in a majority of the wells treated. A reduction in the emulsion stability of the crude was also. observed after treatment. Post treatment production performance monitoring for all the five wells have shown positive response to treatment with better oil gained per well. Collectively, the five wells produced an average of 111 bopd per well of incremental oil, ‘compared to 90 bopd per well ineremental in the pilot project over five months post treatment monitoring period. Nonetheless, these favourable results were largely ‘overshadowed by the high variability between good responding wells and the poor responding wells. Detail explanations to describe the well responses due to treatment ‘were provided based on laboratory analyses results and well ‘production performances. Introduction In July 2000, the pilot project of microbial treatment was implemented in Bokor field, Sarawak. Three strings namely, B-1, B-2 and B-3 were treated with microbial cultured products using ‘hulf and puff method. ‘The field deseription, reservoir fluid characteristics and results of the project are ‘well documented in the previous paper” In the pilot project, the average oil guin of 270 bbliday (47% incremental) was reported over the 5 (five) months post microbial treatment. Analysis on produced fluids ater treatment showed thatthe crude ofl quality was enhanced with reduced viscosity and emulsion’ stability, Hydrocarbon compositional analysis indicated that there was an increase in the solubilisation ofheavy components and breakdown of igh molecular weight into low molecular weight components Bacteria analysis conducted on produced water showed negligible SRB activity inthe reservoir. ‘The encouraging results of the pilot project has then justified for a spin-off project and an additional 5 (five) wells from the same reservoir in Bokor were then identified and selected for similar treatment. However, inthis project, the wels selected for mierobial treatment were not very much depleted as compared to those 3 (three) pilot wells, where productions have been depleted atthe time of treatment. Field Deseription ‘The Bokor field is located in the Baram Delta Area which is, about 40 kilometers offshore Lutong (Miri) at a water depth of 67 meters below msl. Stacked and laterally continuous shale sequences characterize the fiek! stratigraphy and are deposited in a coastal plain to fluviomarine environment. Based on core measurements, porosities range between 15% and 32%, while permeabilities range from 50 mD to 4000 mD. Oil gravities range from 19° API to 22” API in the shallower, reservoirs (1500 FLSs - 3000 FLSs) to 37° API at the deeper reservoir (6300 Fi. Ss). The reservoirs in the Bokor field can be divided into two main groups, ie. the main reservoirs (A-F) and the deep reservoirs (H-L). In this project, the treatment ‘was focused on the A reservoir, which isthe major reservoir of. the field.SPE 84867 Feasibility Evaluation and Project Implementation Prior tothe projet implementation, feasibility evaluation was conducted in the laboratory on the crude oil samples from Bokor field and have shown positive alteration in crude oil characeristies due to mierobial activity" Following the successful implementation of the pilot project, the same treatment procedure was adopted for this project Microbial products were injected into the 5 wells using huff and puff method. The treatment program was designed based ‘upon well characteristics and treatment procedures. The type and concentration of the microbial treatment fluid used was similar to that applied in the previous pilot project at 60000 pm. After treatment, the wells were shut-in for 7 days to soak-up and allow the microbes to colonize the reservoir and perform the desire activity to boost oil production, Since the microbes used are all nafural and non-hazardous, no special precautions were needed during injection and handling the produced fluids when the wells were retumed to production Pre- Treatment Before the treatment, FBUs were conducted to establish a baseline for Pr, Pw and skin. It is used as a control measures to check the effect of microbe after treatment. Post-treatment Performance Monitoring and Analysis After 7 days of shut-in period the individual well production performances were closely monitored for 6 months to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment. In doing so, the following ‘monitoring parameters were established and measured: - Production well tests (gross rate, oil rate, watercut, FGOR, ete.) Tubing and casing head pressures Sand production Pressure gradient surveys In order to further understand and validate the individual well production response after treatment, a series of laboratory tests, were conducted on post-treatment wellhead crude samples from each well. The laboratory results were then compared to those of pre-treatment samples to identify the effects and changes on erude oil characteristics upon treatment. Those laboratory analyses conducted were: - 2 Geochemical analysis Q-_Rhelogical analysis 2_Emulsion separation test ‘Treatment Results Wellhead Samples Analysis Results In this project, 3 sets of wellhead crude oil samples from each of the treated wells were collected for laboratory analysis. The pre-treatment samples were collected 6 weeks before injection Whereas the post-treatment samples were taken after 2 weeks (1 post-treatment) and 24 weeks (2 post-treatment) after treatment respectively. (1) Geochemical Analysis The objective of the analysis isto determine the characteristics of the crude oil in terms of changes in the hydrocarbon composition and distribution after undergoing microbial treatment. The bulk properties used to monitor the erude oil characteristics due to treatment were APL gravity and kinematic viscosity. Results on the API gravity analysis shown in Figure | revealed that the crude oils did undergo some minor alteration after microbial treatment. In this ease, there is slight increase in the API gravites for B-4, B-5 and B-8. However the reduction is small, varying from 0.11 to 0.54 API. This observation is agreed to be due to the biodegration of the crude oil in the reservoir as reported inthe feasibility studies*. In this ease, the already biodegraded crude oils were le with no_ light hydrocarbons, therefore the microbes reacted with the remaining, ' more resistant, higher molecular ‘weight hydrocarbons. The kinematic viscosity results of the post-treatment crude oil samples are shown in Figure 2. Significant reduction in viscosity, particularly in B-4 was observed in * post- treatment sample. The reduced viscosity is believed to be the result of in-situ microbial activities to generate bio-solvents and gases that are able to react and mix with the crude oil to reduce its viscosity. Here the bio-enzymes and metabolites produced by the microbes are able to breakdown the hydrocarbon molecules and this has further reduced the oil viscosity. The viscosity appeared to fall back to its original pre-treatment level after 24 weeks of treatment. This observation suggested that the microbial activities had probably slowed-down and deteriorated after a certain period of time and thereafter no longer effective in producing the beneficial by-products Results of whole oil GC analysis indicated that there isa relative inerease in the lower molecular weight compounds, particularly for samples B-4 and B-S as depicted in Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively. Similar results were also observed in the erude oil samples in pilot project indicating the breakdown of high molecular weight components by the microbes. Nevertheless only slight changes took place in the ‘nude oil compositional distribution as observed in B-6 , B-7 ‘and B-8 (results not shown). (2) Rhelogical Analysis Rhelogical study was conducted on crude oil samples to investigate the flow behavior of the crude oil before and after microbial treatment. Prior to the test, the wellhead fluid samples were treated with demulsifier to separate the erude oil and the water portion. The crude oil portion was then analyzed to determine the viscosity profile as a function of temperature. {In general, the rhelogical analysis indicated that the microbes had improved the fluid quality and/or flow behavior of the crude oils. However the magnitude of reduetion varies for each well. As illustrated in Figure 5, 1" post-treatment sample of the well B-4 experienced significant reduction in dynamic viscosity alter treatment as compared to pre-treatment sample.‘SPE 04067 ‘The reduction fell in the range of 4.9 oP at 48°C (reservoir temperature) and 17.7 cP when the temperature was gradually reduced to 25°C (room temperature). Viscosity changes can also can be observed for the wells B-S, B-7 and B-8 with higher reduction observed at room temperature than at clevated temperature. However, there is no viscosity change ‘observed for the well B-6 (results not shown), @) Emulsion Separation Test ‘The crude oil from the treated reservoir in Bokor field is produced in the form of stable emulsion. With microbial treatment, it i believed that the produced bio-surfactants can reduce the interfacial tension and destabilize the emulsions, hhence improve oil mobility and restore emulsion induced skin ddamage by removing the emulsion blockage inthe reservoir. Under controlled conditions in the laboratory, the crude samples were allowed to separate for 7 days at both room and reservoir temperatures. The volume of emulsion, oil and formation water were monitored and measured against time. Monitoring results forall the samples are summarized in Table 1. Prior to microbial treatment, the emulsion separated partially into its phases in about 7 day's and a stable emulsion portion was still observed then after. However, the post- treatment samples showed that the emulsified crude breakout almost completely into oil and water in a much shorter period. This has enhanced the fluid flowability asthe separated erude oil i less viscous as compared to the emulsified crude, Well Production Performance To investigate how the treated wells have respond to the microbial treatment, the production performances in all the treated wells were closely monitored. Based on the well tests on produetion rate monitored for 6 months, an average oil gain of 506 bpd was reported and these gains are mainly contributed by the wel Bland B.S. The following is the summary of the individual well produetion performances ‘monitored over the 6 months period. Well B Production rate and water cut trends in Figure 6 indicate a rapid reduction in water cut in Dec 2001 before returning to pre-treatment level at 60%. At the same time, the gross liquid production rate increased and peak production was recorded at 2500 bpd in mid Jan 2002 before falling back to 2000 bpd after 6-month production period. Consequently, the net oil also increased with the increase in the gross liquid production. The average net oil gain from the well was 346 bpd, representing (68% gain of the total oil gain Well B-S Figure 7 shows that the gross liquid production remained flat but water cut trend slightly reduced from 15% to less than 10% after treatment. Consequently, average net oil gain of 190 bpd was achieved, representing about 38% of the total gain of the project. Well B-6 The water trend was observed to inerease from about 25% to 55% after treatment as shown in Figure 8. However, the gross liquid production, apart from the inital spike after the well resumed production, responded positively. The recorded average net oil gain was 36 bpd, representing about 7% of the total gain on the project. WellB7 Figure 9 shows that both the gross liquid and watereut trends remained unchanged after treatment, The well was shut-in for couples of days. during its initial production time after resuming production due to high sand production (> 300 pptb) The well was then reopened and production resumed. However sand out is a familiar phenomenon for this well as the sanding issue has been reported in the past, especially, after any well treatment job. Consequently, the net oil rate decreases below the projected baseline with an average oil reduction of 64 bpd was recorded. Well Figure 10 shows that both the gross liquid and watercut trends remained unchanged with the average rate maintained at about {620 bopd after microbial treatment Project Evaluation — Performance Review Collectively, the post treatment production performances, showed thatthe treated wells have responded positively tothe microbial treatment with overall incremental oil obtained per well. Also, many of the parameters monitored such as oil ‘quality analyses have shown beneficial changes as a result of the treatments. Based on these observations, this project can, be considered to have achieved the primary success criteria set upon. However, the overall positive results obtained were largely overshadowed by high variability between the good responding wells (B-4, B-5 and B-6) and the poor responding wells (B-7 and B-8). Based on the posttreatment well performances, the reasons for the mixed results are hardly explained. Production gains from some of the wells have been very substantial, and indicate that microbial treatments were effective to boost the oil production in some wells that are producing oil at a rate below their potential. In other wels, the treatments had shown little effect, if any, on oil production rate, There does not appear to be any strong parameter that stands out as being the obvious reason for the mixed results, Many attempts have been made to understand and explain the variations of well responds using microbial stimulation. It began with identifying the quality of the microbes used during treatment. Laboratory resulls of posttreatment samples were then been diagnosed and correlated to individual well production performance. Before the laboratory results could be used to explain the well responds, it is very important to ensure the microbes performed consistently in all the wells during injection. As a quality control, microbe samples were collected during each ‘Well injection and analyzed for their presence and activity. The‘SPE 64067 results of laboratory quality control analyses showed that in terms of the microbe quality used, they have been consistent In fact, quality control samples taken during the treatment of the wells B-7 and B-8 (poor responding wells) scored approximately the same as samples taken for the treatment of the wells Band B-S (good responding wel). Metabolic activity ofthe microbes in the treated formation are known to cause several changes in fluid properties such as decreased emulsion stability, decreased oil viscosity and increased API gravity. These observations were based on the wellhead samples collected and analyzed before and after treatment. Essentially, the results in Table 2 show that microbial activity has occurred and caused changes inthe fluid properties in all the wells. Although the level of fluid properties change varies for all the samples, the data indicated that the microbes have to a certain degree altered the crude oil properties in all the wells. Primary mechanisms by which the microbial activity stimulates oil production include*: 2 Remove or reduce skin damage in the near-wellbore area. This can include near-wellbore formation damage caused by paraffin or asphaltene deposition, emulsion blocks, or wettability (relative permeability) problems. Improve flow properties (mobility) of the oil. This improvement can include reducing oil viscosity and lowering capillary forces. Oil in the formation also may form an emulsion during the process of its retrieval from the production zone where the agitation and shearing forces are profound. Emulsion has significantly higher viscosity than the oil. Reducing the stability of such emulsion can in effect reduce fluid viscosity and improves flow properties. In the case of skin damage, only one datum point for each well is available. Unfortunately, only pressure gradient analyses were conducted after treatment and hence no representative skin values were established for the wells. Nevertheless, the plot of oil gain as a function of pre-treatment skin for all the wells indicates a good correlation between the well responses and skin values for good responding wells (Figure 11). This observation was further supported by the pressure gradient analyses that had shown significant drawdown improvement for the good responding wells. On the other hand, the wells B- 7 and B-8 did not respond with significant increase in the oil production rate although these two wells also have very high skin factors, similar to those of good responding wells. It is known that emulsion blocks can also contribute to skin factor. Based on the emulsion stability results as shown in ‘Table 1, data indicates that emulsion became less stable after treatment in all wells. This would suggest that emulsion problems would have been mitigated to some extend. However, there is remained unclear whether the skin has been reduced or not completed evolved after treatment until the post-treatment skin data becomes available Flowability of fluid is very much related to its viscosity. A plot of oil gain as a function of the observed decrease in kinematic viscosity is shown in Figure 12. As with the skin damage, the decrease in kinematic viscosity correlates strongly with the oil gain for the three wells that responded with Positive of gains. These wells appeared to be good candidate ‘wells and they responded favorably to treatment. Based on the above observations, the analyses that have been conducted thus far indicated that good responding wells correlate closely with pre-treatment skin values and observed improvements in erude oil quality. Quick review of the sand production history of the well B-7 showed that the well had ‘observed to produce sand in the past especially after well treatment exercises. The transient sand production was again observed instantancously but temporary in this project when the well resumed production after treatment. Therefore it is believed that the fine or sand particle is the cause that responsible for the high skin developed at the near-wellbore area, And itis well known that such inorganic induced damage is impossible to be removed by microbial treatment. The reasons for the poor response of the well B-8 to microbial treatment are not entirely clea, Lastly, the production response of individual well after treatment was reviewed. In the pilot project reported earlier, the 3 treated wells responded with an average oil prdtion rate increase of 47% aller 5 months port-treatment monit period. Although the average pereentage increase ffom the 3 treated wells in this project over the same monitoring period ‘was less, only 18%, more incremental oil was. actually produced. Collectively the treated 5 wells produced an average ‘of 11 bopd per well incremental oil, compared to 90 bopd per ‘well incremental oil in the pilot project. Production profile of the treated wells in the pilot project suggests that the wells were substantially depleted and producing at very low rates compared to historical rates, 10 ~ 30% of the maximum production rate at around 900 — 1000 bopd. In such cases, response to microbial treatments ‘was strong, however, because of the low baseline the response in terms of percentage was very large. After treatment, production rates increase were around 15 ~ 35% of the historical production rates. n the other hand, the wells treated in this project are not very much depleted at the time of treatment. These wells were produced historically at the maximum rates similar to those pilot wells. At the time of treatment, baseline production of these wells was still up around 60 — 80% of the maximum rate that these wells had historically produced. Response to the microbial treatment in 3 of the wells was strong, with substantial increases in oil production. Production rates after treatment in those positively responding wells was 70 ~ 90% of the historical production rates. However, because of the higher baseline applied, the percentage gain was. less ‘compared to the pilot wells,SPE 84867 ‘Conclusions Generally, the overall success rate for the microbial treatments is favorable, based on the positive changes in properties ‘causing an increased oil production in a majority of the wells, treated. For more detail information and results are ‘documented in the report listed in Reference 7. In conclusion, the salient points gathered during this project can be ‘summarized as follows; Production Performance Results |G Production increase observed is mainly due to high ‘gross production, reduced water cut and probably reduction in skin values. Although the wells treated in this project are not very much depleted atthe time of treatment, most of the ‘wells responded positively to microbial treatment. In fact, an average of 111 bopd per well incremental oil was gained from these wells, compared to 90 bopd. ‘per well incremental oil inthe pilot project. Laboratory Analyses Results Quality control of microbes showed that the activity of the microbes were consistent during well injections 2 Geochemical analyses revealed that there is an improvement in erude oil quality in B-4 and B-5 due to degradation of heavy molecular weight into lighter hydrocarbons by microbial activities. 2 Crude theological study for post-treatment samples showed that crude oil mobility has been enhanced for all the erude except for samples B-6, 2 Emulsion separation test conducted on the wellhead crude oil samples has shown that the emulsion stability ofthe erude has been reduced after microbial treatment Project Economies The total project costs are USS 0.94 Millon, At $05 bopd @ 6 months, PI8 NPV @ 15% is USS 0.045 Million. At 505 bopd @ PIB, project break even after 5.5 months, Acknowledgements ‘The authors would like to thank the management of PETRONAS, PCSB, and PRSS for their kind support and permission to submit paper. Special thanks to all project team members from PCSB and PRSS for their full commitment during the implementation of the project. Lastly ‘many thanks to Dr. Scott Bailey of Micro-Bac Inc for his kind effort for providing detail explanation of the well responses after treatment References PCSB & PRSS, “Pilot Project Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR) Bokor Field, Sarawak (Final Report)”, February 2001, Karim, M.G.M, Salim, M.A.H., Zain, Z.M. and Talib, N.N.: “Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR) Technology in Bokor Field, Sarawak”, SPE 72125, Proceedings of the SPE Asia Pacific Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 89 October 2001 3. PRSS, “Feasibility Studies of Microbial EOR (MEOR) Mechanisms and Potential Pilot Application in Bokor Field, Sarawak, Phase 1: Well/Reservoir Data Gathering", Report no.: PRSS-TCS-06-99-02, Nov 1999. 4. PRSS, “Feasibility Studies of Microbial EOR Mechanisms and Potential Pilot Application in Bokor Field, Sarawak”, Report no.: PRSS-TCS06-00-03, ‘Aug 2000 5. PRSS, “Operational Report on Microbial Stimulation (Ul) in Bokor Field, Sarawak”, Report no.: PRSS-L2- (02-03, Jan 2002. 6. Bryant, RS.: “Biotechnology for Heavy Oil Recovery”, 7" UNITAR Intemational Conference on Heavy Crude and Tar Sands, Oct 1998 7. PCSB & PRSS, “Microbial Treatment of Wells Bokor Field (Final Report)", Report no PRSS-L2- (02-08, Nov 2002.‘Table 1: Time (day) required for the wellhead fluid samples to separate and stabilize without using demulsiier Obeaned dapat Halts 12] Wellhead fluid samples | separate and stabilize B4] BS] 86] B7] BS Pre-treatment sf1y7{1yt Post-treatment Tf<]2};a]a ‘Table 2: Summary of oil properties changes after microbial treatment (1* post-treatment wellhead crude oil samples) Ba] BS [BG [87 [Be Emulsion Less Stable | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes ‘API Gravity Reduction | Yes | Ves | No | No | No Viscosity Reduction | Ves | Ves | Ves | Yes | Ves ‘Pl Gravy of Wathen Crate OH Samples ‘SPE 64067 ‘The Wel 4% Ares namalind ve Caron # atbton (91939) Figure 3; Relative carbon distribution of wellhead crude oil samples before and after microbial treatment (B-4) remanent Manse | protenent (i st post M26 post, | Figure 1: API Gravity of Wellhead Crude Oil Samples before and after microbial treatment Cl retresiment 2 tetpost ML antpoet Figure 2: Kinematic viscosity of wellhead crude cil samples ‘before and after microbial treatment Figure 4; Relative carbon distribution of wellhead crude oil samples before and after microbial treatment (B-5) Viscosity vs. Temporature for B- 8D Temperature (©) Figure 5: Viscosity profile of wellhead crude oil samples before and after microbial treatment (B-4)‘SPE 64867, B-4 : Production Performance [Post-treatment Gross Rate vere : Production Performance B.6 : Production Performance [re-reatrent] [Postireatment| Figure 8: Production Performances for the well B-6 at pre & post microbial treatmentB-7 : Production Performance ‘SPE 84887 Pre-treatment) Post-treatment B-8 : Production Performance Figure 11: Oil gain as a function of pre-treatment skin values 3 OilGain 1%) 3 a? 5 © 8 © B&B Decrease Kinematic Viscosity () Figure 12: Oil gain asa function of decreased kinematic viscosity