You are on page 1of 39

INCREASING WATERFLOOD RECOVERY EFFICIENCY

THROUGH MICROBIAL SELECTIVE PLUGGING

UPN “VETERAN” YOGYAKARTA


H ANDI K A AG UNG NUG ROH O
OUTLINE

Waterflood Laboratory Test Compared


Microbial
Oil to the Oil
Selective by Conclusion
Recovery Reservoir
Plugging J. Shaw & Suthar
Operation Condition
Waterflood Oil Recovery Operation
Waterflood Oil Recovery Operation
Waterflooding is one of improve oil recovery method that is injecting water through the injection
well to the reservoir to push oil out through the production well.
Production Well
injection Well
Waterflood Oil Recovery Operation
Waterflooding is one of improve oil recovery method that is injecting water through the injection
well to the reservoir to push oil out through the production well.
Production Well
injection Well
Waterflood Oil Recovery Operation
Waterflooding is one of improve oil recovery method that is injecting water through the injection
well to the reservoir to push oil out through the production well.

Production Well
injection Well
Waterflood Oil Recovery Operation
Waterflooding is one of improve oil recovery method that is injecting water through the injection
well to the reservoir to push oil out through the production well.

Production Well
injection Well
Water Injection Tends To Flood The High Permeability Zone

Reservoir rock consist of variations of


permeability, it gives a negative effect
to the waterflooding. Because of the
variations of the reservoir rock
permeability, water injection flows
through the thief permeability zone
(fracture zone or high permeability
zone) and leaving oil in the low
permeability zone, or called as zones
unrecovered. This condition can be
indicated as water breakthrough and
water channeling.
Water Injection Tends To Flood The High Permeability Zone

Reservoir rock consist of variations of


permeability, it gives a negative effect
to the waterflooding. Because of the
variations of the reservoir rock
permeability, water injection flows
through the thief permeability zone
(fracture zone or high permeability
zone) and leaving oil in the low
permeability zone, or called as zones
unrecovered. This condition can be
indicated as water breakthrough and
water channeling.
Microbial Selective Plugging
Water Injection Tends To Flood The High Permeability Zone
Water Injection Tends To Flood The High Permeability Zone
Water Injection Tends To Flood The High Permeability Zone
Water Injection Tends To Flood The High Permeability Zone
Water Injection Tends To Flood The High Permeability Zone
TWO TYPES OF MICROBIAL SELECTIVE PLUGGING

Plug by Bacteria Dead Cells


• The selective plugging can be achieved by
increasing microbial dead cell mass caused by the
microbial growth in the reservoir pore rock. The
example of microbe which can be implemented
are Biomass Bacillus, Leuconostoc, Xanthomonas.
• The injected nutrient and microbes preferentially
flow into the high permeability zones of the
reservoir and as a result of cell growth, the
biomass selectively plugs these zones (Crawford,
1961 & 1962).
TWO TYPES OF MICROBIAL SELECTIVE PLUGGING

Plug by Viable Bacteria Bioproduct


• The microbes bioproduct from its metabolic
process can also plug the pore rock, such as bio-
polymer, and slime. The example of microbe which
can be implemented are Bacillus, Brevibacterium,
Leuconostoc, Xanthomonas.
• In waterflooding operations, biopolymers plug high-
permeability zones to redirect the water-flood to
oil-rich zones in the reservoir and the sweep
efficiency increases by equalizing the permeability
across the reservoir (Casellas et al., 1997; Yakinov et
al., 1995;Abu- Ruwaida et al., 1991).
THREE QUESTION BEFORE THE MSP OPERATION

Which type of MSP that give an optimum plugging?

Can MSP increase oil recovery in waterflood


operation?

Can microbes grow and proliferate in reservoir


condition?
Laboratory Test
by
J. Shaw & Suthar
LABORATORY TEST BY J. SHAW (1982)

Viable Pseudomonas sp. in citrate and mineral salt


medium injected to the core. Cell suspension were
2-3 x 107 cell/ml and elapsed times were 23 hours.
• Unifrom glass beads core , 90 𝜇m.
• Coherent cylinder core with 1
The Pseudomonas sp. isolated from
cm dimatere and 5 cm in length.
the rock surface of Marmot Greek,
• The core has 38% porosity. 6,5D
Kananaskis, Alberta.
permeability, and 33 𝜇 m pore
throat size.
Viable Pseudomonas sp. injected to the core, then
killed by 5% formaldehyde. Cell suspension were 2-
3 x 107 cell/ml and elapsed times were 29 hours.
LABORATORY TEST BY J. SHAW (1982)

a b

Decreasing
Low-magnification Scanning Permeability
electron to Image
Microscope the Showing
volume (Size
of cell
bar, 5 µm) (J. Shaw, 1982). :
suspension (live and dead
a) Live bacteria produce polysaccharide (slime) cell bacteria) that injected
to thecells
b) The clumps of dead core.
of pseudomonas particularly plugging the glass bead model
LABORATORY TEST BY SUTHAR (2009)

Biofilm
Analysis
The Bacillus licheniformis TT33 was isolated from Tuva-Timba
Sandpack hot spring, Gujarat, India.
Column
Experiment
LABORATORY TEST BY SUTHAR (2009) – BIOFILM ANALYSIS

A standard microscopic slide


The
Erlenmeyer maximum
flask containingBiofilm
50 ml (75×25 mm) was dipped in a 250
ofthickness, average
K. Jenny’s medium. biofilm ml Erlenmeyer flask containing 50
thickness can be measured by ml of K. Jenny’s medium.
using COMSTAT (a software
image analysis). And the result
was the maximum biofilm
thickness is 46.72±0.19 µm After 72 h of incubation at 37oC
and average biofilm thickness is under static condition, the slide
33.23±7.73
This flask wasµm thenindicated
sterilizedthe
and was removed from the flask. The
formation of
inoculated a dense
with the biofilm
Bacillus images of the biofilm formed on
on the substratum.
licheniformis TT33 strain. the slide were collected by a LSM
510 META confocal microscope
(Carl Zeiss, Germany).
LABORATORY TEST BY SUTHAR (2009) – SANDPACK EXPERIMENT

• The sand pack was


flooded
Sandpack withcolumnbrine
untilthat,
After there0,6 wasn’t oil
pore The amount of
Then
was
coming
thethebrine
saturated by
After
volume of with
incubation, the brine
Bacillus unrecoverable oil
was
was replaced
brine,
flooding,
column
licheniformis indicated
itTT33 withby
is indicated
flooded was as (AOR)recovered by
brine
injectedoil,with
pore
as (10% indicated
volume
NaCl),
waterflood. K.theas
the as of Bacillus licheniformis
•waterflood
Jenny’s medium
operationto the
after TT33 is 27.7±3.5%.
OOIP.
Brine
the Itspack.
flooding
sand volume was
Its
microbial
sand
able pack,
selective
and
to recover incubated
plugging.
about
for 20 days at 50 C. ml.
was
volume 45- 51
was
0 in a
53.1±2.6% of OOIP,
range 54-65about
leaving ml.
46.9±2.7% of oil
THE FOLLOWING IS THE FORMULATION TO CALCULATE THE OIL RECOVERED BY THE BACILLUS LICHENIFORMIS TT33:

 Pore Volume (ml) =Volume of brine required to saturate the column


 Original Oil in Place (ml) =Volume of brine displaced by oil saturation
 Sorwf (ml) = Residual oil saturation after water flooding
 Sorbp (ml) = Oil collected over residual oil saturation after plugging

𝑋
𝑋  𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑤𝑓 = 𝑖 × 100%.
 𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑆𝑤𝑖 = × 100% 𝑂𝑂𝐼𝑃
𝑃𝑉  Xi = OOIP – Volume of oil recovered initial waterflood
 X = Pore Volume – Volume of Brine replaced by oil 𝑋𝑏𝑝
𝑂𝑂𝐼𝑃  𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑏𝑝 = 𝑂𝑂𝐼𝑃 × 100%.
 𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑆𝑜𝑖 = 𝑃 𝑉 × 100%
 𝑋𝑏𝑝 = Oil collected by waterflood after plugging

𝑂𝑖𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑙𝑢𝑔𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑏𝑝


𝐴𝑂𝑅 = × 100%
𝑂𝑖𝑙 𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛 𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑆𝑜𝑟𝑤𝑓
LABORATORY TEST BY SUTHAR (2009) – SANDPACK EXPERIMENT

 At the end of the experiment, the packed sand was analyzed using environmental scanning electron
microscopy (ESEM), ESEM analysis of sand packed in column showing biofilm and bacterial cells.
Compared to the Oil Reservoir Condition
GENERAL MEOR SCREENING (GAMMER-ELDEEN AHMED E. ET AL., 2013)
Factor Limit Optimum Comment
Extremely high pressure are
Pressure 1160 atm <600 atm troublesome to non adapted
bacteria
Temperature <900C 300C-500C Depend on the microbe

API Gravity >15 30-40 Heavier crude information wasn’t sufficient

pH >5, <9 6-8 Main Factor


<10% NaCl
Salinity - -
<150000 ppm
Lithology Not critical carbonate -

Depth <7800 ft - Depend on the corresponding temperature

Porosity >10 % >10% Not limiting


Permeability >50 mD >150mD -
Successful trials with a low saturation was
Oil Saturation - >25%
reported
Factor Limit Optimum Comment
Extremely high pressure are
Pressure 1160 atm <600 atm troublesome to non adapted
bacteria
The Oil Field Reservoir Data in Indonesia (Sri Kadarwati et al., 1999)
Reservoir Rock Pressure Temperature
Oil Field Depth (ft)
Type (atm) (0C)
Cepu Limestone, Sandstone 2227,7-3300,5 21-92 53-65

Limestone, Sandstone,
Cirebon 3494-8320 85-182 100-139
Volcanic

Rantau Sandstone 1010-2985,6 21-65 50-71


Prabumuli
Sandstone 3937-5433 32-125 86-112
h
Factor Limit Optimum Comment

Depth <7800 ft - Depend on the corresponding temperature

The OilThe
FieldDepth of Reservoir
Reservoir Data Percentage
Data in Indonesia of Oil Field
(Sri Kadarwati in 1999)
et al., Six States of USA (D. M. Munnecke and J.B. Clark, 1979)
Reservoir Rock Pressure
Percentage Temperature
of Reservoir with depth (ft)
Oil Field Depth (ft)
Type (atm) (0C) Percentage of Reservoir
Number of
U.S. State Sandstone with Depth Potential for
Cepu Limestone, Reservoir 2227,7-3300,5
<2001
21-92
2001-4000 4001-5000
53-65
5001-7500 7501-10000 >10000 MEOR
Limestone, Sandstone,
Cirebon 3494-8320 85-182 100-139
Volcanic

Rantau Oklahoma
Sandstone 7286 1010-2985,6
14.3 30.5
21-65 12.9
50-71 26.3 11.4 4.6 84
Prabumuli
Sandstone 3937-5433 32-125 86-112
h
Colorado 853 5 11.5 27.3 50.1 6 0.1 93.9

Texas 37606 5.7 19.1 13.6 34.1 20.1 7.3 72.5

Mississippi 1020 0.9 3.3 8.8 34.6 16.7 35.7 47.6

New
1079 10.7 17.1 10.3 16.6 19.8 25.5 54.7
Mexico

Wyoming 1080 12.8 23.3 11.1 29.1 16.3 7.4 76.3


Factor Limit Optimum Comment

Temperature <900C 300C-500C Depend on the microbe

The Oil
TheField Reservoirof
Temperature Data in Indonesia
Reservoir (Sri Kadarwati
Data Percentage et al.,
of Oil Field1999)
in Six States of USA (D. M. Munnecke and J.B. Clark, 1979)
Reservoir Rock Pressure Temperature
Oil Field Depth (ft)
Type (atm) (0C)
Percentage of Reservoir with Temperature (0C)
Cepu Limestone, Sandstone 2227,7-3300,5 21-92 53-65
Percentage of Reservoir with
Number of
U.S. State Sandstone,
Limestone, Temperature Potential for
Cirebon Reservoir3494-8320 85-182 100-139
Volcanic MEOR
<35 35-45 45-55 55-75 >75
Rantau Sandstone 1010-2985,6 21-65 50-71
Prabumuli
Sandstone 3937-5433 32-125 86-112
h Oklahoma 24 0 36 44 16 4 80

Colorado 183 1 1.9 19 49.5 30 20.9


Texas 549 9.1 14.3 19 39.5 18.1 33.3

Mississippi 904 6 1 5 35 58 6

New Mexico 203 8 15 8.7 53 22.5 23.7

Wyoming 256 13 10 20 34 36 30
Factor Limit Optimum Comment

pH >5, <9 6-8 Main Factor

The pH of Reservoir Data Percentage of Oil Field in Six States of USA (D. M. Munnecke and J.B. Clark, 1979)

Percentage of Reservoir with pH


Percentage of Reservoir
U.S. State with pH Potential for
<3 3-3.9 4-4.9 5-5.9 6-6.9 7-7.9 8-8.9 9-9.9 >9.9 MEOR

Oklahoma 0.9 0.5 4.3 21.8 44.4 22.2 4.6 0.8 0.3 66.6

Colorado 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.9 10.8 39.4 42.4 5 1 50.2

Texas 0.5 0.8 2.9 8.4 29.8 43.6 11.3 1.5 0.8 73.4

Mississippi 0 1 6.7 29.7 39.7 20.4 1.9 0 0.6 60.1

New Mexico 1.2 0.4 1 6.1 29.9 42.4 15.2 3 0.8 72.3

Wyoming 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 8.7 39.1 45.3 4.7 0.9 47.8
Factor Limit Optimum Comment

API Gravity >15 30-40 Heavier crude information wasn’t sufficient

The API Gravity of Reservoir Data Percentage of Oil Field in Six States of USA (D. M. Munnecke and J.B. Clark, 1979)

Oil Field in U.S. Number of Percentage of Reservoir with API Gravity


State Reservoir
01-17 17-31 31-42 >42

Oklahoma 8071 0.3 6.7 72.1 21

Colorado 525 0.4 8.6 78.3 12.5


Texas 37997 1.6 9.8 47 41.6

Mississippi 979 2 12.7 54.6 30.6

New Mexico 835 0.1 9.9 54 35.9

Wyoming 751 4.1 31.2 51.1 13.6


Factor Limit Optimum Comment
Porosity 10 % >10% Not limiting

The Porosity of Reservoir Data Percentage of Oil Field in Six States of USA (D. M. Munnecke and J.B. Clark, 1979)

Percentage of Reservoir with porosity (%)


Number Percentage of Reservoir
U.S. State of with Porosity Potential
reservoir 0.1-10.9 11.0-17.9 18-25.9 >40 for MEOR

Oklahoma 346 8.1 56.6 32.5 2.8 91.9

Colorado 410 11.9 44.4 41.5 1.7 87.6


Texas 4445 19.5 38.7 28.6 15.7 83
Mississippi 1011 3.8 23.3 24.2 48.2 95.7
New
475 61.3 26.9 11.6 0 38.5
Mexico

Wyoming 531 17.7 56.5 23.9 1.9 82.3


DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION

 Microbial selective plugging can increase recovery efficiency of waterflood after breakthrough by plugging the high
permeability zone and make water injection flow through the less permeability zone where the unsweep oil is
(Unsweep zone).
 There are two types of microbial selective plugging, are bacteria dead cells plugging and viable bacteria bioproduct
plugging. In 1987, J. Shaw has researched about the 2 type of the microbial selective plugging. He was comparing
which one is more effective in reducing permeability. He used the Pseudomonas sp.
 The dead bacteria cell was only particularly plug the pore rock and there are some dead cells can’t resist the
water injection flow.
 Different to the viable bacteria which can produce biofilm to adherent to the surface of pore rock, so it can
resist the water injection flow.
 Based on the Suthar and his team had observed about microbial selective plugging in two ways, the first is
measure the biofilm thickness and then microbial plugging in sand pack column using Bacillus licheniformis TT33.
 And the result was the maximum biofilm thickness is 46.72±0.19 µm and average biofilm thickness is
33.23±7.73 µm indicated the formation of a dense biofilm on the substratum.
 The microbial plugging in sand pack column, amount of unrecoverable oil recovered by Bacillus licheniformis
TT33 IS 27.7±3.5%.
DISCUSSION

 From that comparison between the General MEOR Screening criteria to the oil field reservoir condition
data in Indonesia and percentage of reservoir with its characteristic in six States of USA.
 Based on reservoir data from four oil fields in Indonesia, there are Cepu and Cirebon which compatible
to the optimum condition for microbes to grow based on general MEOR screening. Cirebon and
Prabumulih has temperature more than 900C which more than Temperature limitation for MEOR.
 And from the percentage of reservoir with its characteristic data from six states of USA, all of the
reservoir in six states has a good potential for MEOR. So it is possible to implement the microbial
selective plugging in oil and gas reservoir.
CONCLUSION

1. There are two type of microbial selective plugging based on the condition of the microbe, are using
dead cell bacteria, and using viable bacteria and its bioproduct. Based on the J. Shaw research, viable
bacteria is more effective to selective plugging on pore rock than dead cell bacteria.
2. Based on the Suthar and his team research about microbial selective plugging in sand pack column
using Bacillus licheniformis TT33. The amount of unrecoverable oil (AOR=27.7±3.5%), it is proved that
plugging using bacteria effectively to increase oil recovery.
3. Based from the comparison between the General MEOR Screening criteria to the oil field reservoir
condition data in Indonesia and percentage of reservoir with its characteristic in six States of USA.
Microbes can grow and proliferate in oilfield reservoir condition.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION