Spe 99546 Pa P PDF

A Survey of North Sea
Enhanced-Oil-Recovery Projects Initiated

During the Years 1975 to 2005
A.R. Awan, SPE, NTNU/Total E&P Norge; R. Teigland, SPE, Total E&P Norge; and J. Kleppe, SPE, NTNU
Summary
This paper provides a summary and a guide of the enhanced-oil-
recovery (EOR) technologies initiated in the North Sea in the
period from 1975 until beginning of 2005. The five EOR tech-
nologies that have been initiated in this region are hydrocarbon
(HC) miscible gas injection, water-alternating-gas (WAG) injec-
tion injection, simultaneous water-and-gas (SWAG) injection,
foam-assisted WAG (FAWAG) injection, and microbial EOR
(MEOR). Each EOR technology that has been initiated in the
North Sea was identified with its respective maturity level and/or
maturation time frame, technology use restrictions, and process
efficiency on the basis of incremental oil.
Apart from WAG at Ekofisk and FAWAG at Snorre central
fault block (CFB), all technologies have been applied successfully
(i.e., positive in economic terms) to the associated fields. HC mis-
cible gas injection and WAG injection can be considered mature
technologies in the North Sea. The most commonly used EOR
technology in the North Sea has been WAG, and it is recognized
as the most successful EOR technology.
The main problems experienced were injectivity (WAG,
SWAG, and FAWAG projects), injection system monitoring, and
reservoir heterogeneities (HC miscible gas injection, WAG,
SWAG, and FAWAG projects). Approximately 63% of all the
reported EOR field applications have been initiated on the Nor-
wegian continental shelf (NCS), 32% on the UK continental shelf,
and the remainder on the Danish continental shelf. Statoil has
been the leader in conducting EOR field applications in the
North Sea. The majority of future research will concentrate on
microbial processes, CO
2
injection, and WAG (including SWAG)
injection schemes.
In this review, laboratory techniques, global statistics, simula-
tion tools, and economical evaluation were not considered and are
considered outside of the scope of this paper.
Introduction
In the North Sea, current average recovery factors (Hughes 2004;
Xia 2004; Hansen and Westvik 2000; Blaker et al. 2006) are above
40%. As of 2003, the estimated oil reserves (OG21 2006) on the
NCS are approximately 3850 million sm
3
, translating to an average
recovery factor of 45% as shown in Fig. 1. The Ministry of Pe-
troleum and Energy of Norway established the OG21 Task Force
in 2001 to address the challenge of targeting a 50% average oil
recovery factor set by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
(NPD). This will yield 600 million sm
3
additional oil. Among
other technologies, EOR is one of the solutions to meet this goal.
Since 1982, several major Norwegian increased-oil-recovery
(IOR) programs (Hinderaker et al. 1996), as listed in Table 1, have
been initiated for additional oil recovery. Approximately 50 mil-
lion USD has been invested in these Norwegian research programs
(19821995). In 2003, the Oil and Gas in the 21st Century (OG21
Task Force) identified nine technology target areas to obtain the
average recovery factors of 50% for oil and 75% for gas on the
NCS (Blaker et al. 2006). On the basis of the IOR potential for
each method and an evaluation of the importance and complexity
of the technology gap, they proposed the following ranking of the
different recovery methods:
Priority 1: (a) HC gas injection, WAG/SWAG, and FAWAG; (b)
CO
2
flooding; and (c) microbial IOR (MIOR).
Priority 2: (a) waterflooding; (b) massive depressurization; and
(c) air injection.
Priority 3: (a) gas condensate; (b) water additives; and (c) N
2
and
flue-gas injection.
Apart from these research programs, it is important to review
the EOR technologies that have been initiated in the North Sea.
The application of EOR technologies in the North Sea environ-
ment is more complex than, and quite different from, onshore
applications. Thus, it is necessary to identify the applied EOR
technologies in the North Sea with their respective maturity level,
technology use restrictions, and process efficiency on the basis of
incremental oil. The main objectives of this survey are to catego-
rize the different EOR technologies initiated in the North Sea with
respect to their respective maturity level to recognize important
EOR related data such as reservoir fluid, formation properties,
injection parameters, and enhanced production. In addition, we
attempt to identify the EOR frontrunner in the North Sea by
method, technology, location and company, lessons learned/key
issues regarding EOR processes in the North Sea, and the EOR
trend in the North Sea.
We would also like to emphasize that this review is based
purely upon open literature and, therefore, may lack some impor-
tant data that are not accessible through this source. This review
should be considered as a guide for the EOR technologies initiated
in the North Sea.
EOR Survey in the North Sea
An extensive review of the technologies (HC miscible gas, WAG,
SWAG, FAWAG, and MEOR) that have been initiated in the
North Sea are presented. A total of 19 reported EOR technologies
were conducted in the North Sea as shown in Fig. 2. Because no
MEOR data at the Norne field were available for discussion, 18
field applications using different technologies were reviewed in
the North Sea (HC Miscible Gas, WAG, SWAG, and FAWAG),
while more than 21 field trials on MEOR were reviewed world-
wide. All of the 18 reviewed EOR field projects (both pilots and
field-scale applications) in the North Sea are illustrated in Table 2.
Each project has been listed in chronological order according to
EOR field project startup date, operator name, field, location, and
formation. Pertinent reservoir data that have been entered for each
project include
Lithology
Depth
Net thickness
Porosity
Permeability
Temperature
Pressure
Reserves
Reservoir fluid properties such as oil gravity, water salinity,
oil viscosity, bubblepoint pressure, and oil-formation-volume factor
Specific EOR-related data such as the number of injection
and production wells, incremental recovery potential as mentioned
Copyright 2008 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 99546) was accepted for presentation at the 2006 SPE/DOE Symposium
on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 2226 April, and revised for publication. Original manu-
script received for review 14 February 2006. Revised manuscript received for review 30
January 2008. Paper peer approved 23 February 2008.
497 June 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
by the operator, injection rate, and calculated-daily and total-
enhanced production
Calculated-incremental-recovery potential over the reported time.
Data such as depth, water-oil contact (WOC), oil viscosity
o
,
bubblepoint pressure P
b
, oil-formation-volume factor B
o
, porosity
, and average reservoir permeability k are presented as a range or
an average value for the respective formation.
The five EOR technologies (HC miscible gas, WAG, SWAG,
FAWAG, and MEOR) are discussed below.
HC Gas Injection
The gas-mobility ratio is unfavorable when compared to water
mobility, and most of the North Sea reservoirs are very heteroge-
neous with high-permeability streaks, which lead to poor gas-
sweep efficiency in HC gas injection. In order to improve gas-
sweep efficiency, updip gas injection can be used to create a grav-
ity-stable front (Steele and Adams 1984; Zick 1986; Broekers et al.
1986; Bath 1987; Buza and Unneberg 1987; Novosad and Costain
1987; Haugen et al. 1987; Kleppe and Skjveland 1992; Hjelme-
land and Jelemert 1992; Skauge 1982; Carcoana 1992; Grant 1993;
Aadland et al. 1994; Lake 1989; Braithwaite 1994; Jakobsson and
Christian 1994; Jensen et al. 1999; Taber et al. 1996, 1997; Chaus-
sumier and Sakthikumar 1997; Hermansen et al. 1997; Gunawan
and Caie 2001; Thibeau 2002; Burns et al. 2002; Cutt and Niznik
2005; Mller 2005). Except for Alwyn North, all the HC-miscible-
injection projects had updip gas injection to displace oil downdip.
These miscible-gas-injection projects could work twofold as for
gas storing/disposing, as well as some incremental production.
The first important aspect is to understand is the objective of
these HC-miscible-gas-injection field applications. At Ekofisk (Ja-
kobsson and Christian 1994; Hermansen et al. 1997) and Statfjord
(Buza and Unneberg 1987; Haugen et al. 1987; Aadland et al.
1994), HC miscible gas injection was initiated because of the
limited gas-export capacities. Because of miscible displacement,
before reaching the bubblepoint pressure, a good recovery was
reported at Ekofisk (Jakobsson and Christian 1994; Hermansen
et al. 1997) in 1978. At Statfjord (Buza and Unneberg 1987; Hau-
gen et al. 1987; Aadland et al. 1994), produced gas was reinjected
in the Statfjord reservoir to maintain the reservoir pressure above
the minimum miscibility pressure. The main drive mechanism in
Beryl (Steele and Adams 1984; Grant 1993; Cutt and Niznik 2005)
and Brent (Broekers et al. 1986; Bath 1987; Braithwait 1994;
Mller 2005) was gravity-assisted drainage, and multiple-contact
miscibility was expected because of mass transfer between the
reservoir fluid and high-pressure injection gas. The Beryl (Steele
and Adams 1984; Grant 1993; Cutt and Niznik 2005) and Brent
(Broekers et al. 1986; Bath 1987; Braithwait 1994; Mller 2005)
fields also had good structural dip (7 to 25), and updip gas in-
jection was used, which could improve the miscible sweepout by
taking advantage of gravity and the density difference between gas
and oil. The Brent reservoir of the Alwyn North field had already
been waterflooded, and downdip gas injection pattern was used on
the Alwyn North field (Chaussumier and Sakthikumar 1997; Burns
et al. 2002) to displace the bypassed and capillary trapped oil. HC
gas injection was also initiated in the Garne formation of the
Smrbukk South (Jensen et al. 1999; Thibeau 2002) field to en-
hance oil recovery through miscible displacement.
Fig. 1Average oil-recovery-factor evolution on the NCS
(Source: NPD).
Fig. 2Cumulative number of EOR field applications in the North Sea since 1975 (total of 19 projects).
The second important aspect to discuss is the type of multiple-
contact miscibility process (vaporizing, condensing, or condens-
ing/vaporizing) through which miscibility was achieved. The Stat-
fjord field (Buza and Unneberg 1987; Haugen et al. 1987; Aadland
et al. 1994) was planned to achieve miscibility through vaporizing
gas drive, while at the Beryl field (Steele and Adams 1984; Grant
1993; Cutt and Niznik 2005), condensing/vaporizing-gas drive was
reported. However, on other fields, the displacement process was
not classified, and the operators tended to emphasize general field
data. The technical screening criteria for HC miscible flooding as
recommended by Stalkup (1983) suggests that the displacement
process in the reviewed fields in which injected gas was lean could
be vaporizing-gas drive, because gravity, oil viscosity, and depth
of the reviewed fields are in favor of vaporizing-gas drive. In some
fields like Alwyn North (Chaussumier and Sakthikumar 1997;
Burns et al. 2002), where the injected gas was rich, the displace-
ment process could be the condensing-gas drive. However, injec-
tion of lean or rich gas depends on the composition of available gas
and operational problems. In some fields of the North Sea, the
produced associated gas is rich, but sometimes lean gas is also
injected after processing. This may be caused by operational prob-
lems or by composition constraints on gas export. In such cases of
HC-lean/rich-gas injection, the displacement process could be va-
porizing/condensing. In reality, it is not possible to differentiate
between vaporizing or condensing drive without having the correct
knowledge of injection parameters and reservoir fluid composi-
tion, and it is mainly a pressure/volume/temperature (PVT) issue.
In real field cases, it may not only be difficult to distinguish
between vaporizing and condensing drives, but it may also be
difficult to differentiate between miscible and immiscible pro-
cesses. In real field cases, loss of injectivity and/or failure of
pressure maintenance may even cause the process to fluctuate
between miscible and immiscible (Christensen et al. 1998); for
example, in the Statfjord formation of Statfjord field, Haugen et al.
(1987) reported the process as being miscible, but a secondary gas
cap was developed, and it may be that the process is slightly
submiscible. The other example is WAG injection in the Brent
reservoirs of the Statfjord field (Crogh et al. 2002). The operator
had classified this process as immiscible WAG, but multiple-
contact miscibility with swelling of oil and vaporizing has also
been observed. So, during the life of oil production, the required
pressure to maintain miscibility can fail, and a given field recovery
process can fluctuate between miscible and immiscible process.
The third essential feature is to identify the incremental recov-
ery because of miscible gas injection. Three methods were de-
scribed by Instefjord and Todnem (2002) for the estimation of
incremental oil. In general, these methods are visual and based on
a comparison between estimated decline curves with actual pro-
duction. On the basis of a combination of such plots together with
material balance calculations and general field knowledge, one
tries to get rough estimates. Instefjord and Todnem (2002) remark
that the methods are clearly not without uncertainties, but that the
methods give a rough indication of whether or not a given EOR
strategy is a profitable drainage strategy.
Few studies mention the total incremental recovery potential
because of miscible gas injection, and this can vary from 1.4 to
3.3% of the total original oil in place (OOIP). The incremental
production because of miscible gas injection was not reported in
any of the fields except for Alwyn North. The reasons for this may
be the confidentiality of data, or difficulty in evaluating the incre-
mental oil, and/or not classifying the gasflood as an EOR process.
However, the authors have classified this as an EOR process be-
cause of presumably miscible displacement and the potential of
producing incremental oil. At Alwyn North (Chaussumier and
Sakthikumar 1997; Burns et al. 2002), about 3 million sm
3
of
additional oil during 15 years has been estimated because of mul-
tiple-contact miscible displacement as compared to waterflooding
in the Brent East panel; and from 1999 through 2002, they had
recovered about 0.24 million sm
3
of incremental oil. The calcu-
lated gas-injection efficiency (incremental oil produced per vol-
ume of gas injected) is just 143 sm
3
oil/million sm
3
of gas for the
Alwyn North field. Problems such as gas compressor restrictions
and gas breakthrough because of high-permeability channels were
reported on the Alwyn North field and may be responsible for this
poor gas-injection efficiency (Table 3).
Maturity Level and/or Maturing Timeframe
In order to improve gas sweep efficiency, updip gas injection can
be used to create a gravity-stable front. Such gravity-assisted
drainage may give higher recoveries than downdip gas injection,
but the long delay in oil response can make the process unattrac-
tive, as studied on the South Brae field (Jethwa et al. 2000; Phillips
1991). In the North Sea, problems like limited gas-handling, stor-
age, and export capacities may arise andin such circumstances
updip gas injection can be used, which can work two-fold for gas
storing/disposing, as well as some incremental production if the
displacement is miscible. HC gas injection has been used as an
EOR approach in the North Sea since 1975 and can be considered
as a mature technology. The injection of other gases, such as N
2
and CO
2
, is being considered, but no such applications have yet
been implemented. In the North Sea, future research will be fo-
cused on the injection of CO
2
for EOR purposes (Table 4).
Technology Use Restrictions. The restrictions to the application
of HC gas injection cited here are based on literature review. The
reservoir and fluid-property ranges are taken from the criteria of
Stalkup (1983) and Taber (1983).
Is it more profitable to sell gas immediately or to inject the gas?
Thin formations are recommended unless they are dipping,
and highly permeable streaks may be a detrimental factor.
Generally, gravity above 23API, oil viscosity below 3 cp, oil
saturation above 30% pore volume (PV), uniform permeability,
high percentage of light components, and a depth deeper than 1200
m are recommended for miscible HC-gas process.
WAG Injection. In the North Sea, WAG has been used to improve
oil recovery by increasing the macroscopic and microscopic sweep
efficiency because residual oil to WAG is less than water or gas
(S
orWAG
<S
orw
; S
org
). The main objective of WAG injection is to
reduce unfavorable mobility ratio. In the North Sea, effective oil
recovery has been observed by waterflooding because the water/oil
mobility ratio is often favorable. However, attic oil may not be
produced by waterflooding alone. In the reviewed fields [Thistle
(Laidlaw et al. 1986; Clyne et al. 1993), Gullfaks (Instefjord and
Todnem 2002), Statfjord (Crogh et al. 2002), South Brae (Chris-
tensen et al. 1998), Snorre (SnA) (Christensen et al. 1998, Slotte
et al. 1996), and Oseberg st (OG21 2006)], WAG was mainly
used through downdip injection. In this manner, the gravity dif-
ference will help displace the attic oil by gas and the bottom oil by
water. Thus, by using downdip injection, WAG can provide
dipersed flow zones as well as displace attic oil.
WAG injection in the North Sea is not the same as on onshore
fields. The five-spot pattern with close well spacing has been
reported to be most successful in onshore fields (Christensen et al.
1998). However, in the North Sea, drilling new wells is very
expensive and, therefore, the wells are more likely to be placed
based on geological considerations and seldom use any fixed in-
jection pattern. The best example of WAG strategy is found on the
Statfjord field (Crogh et al. 2002). In the Brent reservoir of the
Statfjord field, horizontal WAG injectors were perforated deep in
the formation for the gas to come into contact with as much oil as
possible on its way up, and production wells were perforated and
sidetracked in order to produce the oil-by-gas sweep without ex-
cessive gas or water production.
At Gullfaks (Instefjord and Todnem 2002), Brage (Lien et al.
1998) and Snorre (SnA) (Christensen et al. 1998; Slotte et al. 1996),
the WAG ratio was planned to be 1:1. On other fields [Brae South
(Christensen et al. 1998), Magnus (Haajizadeh et al. 2001; Phil
2004), Thistle (Laidlaw et al. 1986; Clyne et al. 1993), Ekofisk
(Jensen et al. 2000; yno et al. 1996), Statfjord (Crogh et al.
2002), and Oseberg st], the WAG ratio was not reported. The 1:1
is the optimum WAG ratio as reported by Christensen et al. (1998).
Under normal operational conditions, the reasonable length of
a WAG cycle could be 2 or 3 months. Generally, the trend is to
decrease gas cycle length as gas breaks through. At Snorre (SnA)
(Christensen et al. 1998; Slotte et al. 1996), the initial WAG cycle
was 3 months. Later, the WAG cycle was reduced to 1 month per
well after gas breakthrough. At Brage, a 90+90-days WAG cycle
was initially suggested. It is also possible that the scheduled WAG
cycle may not be followed in practice because of operational con-
straints such as tubing annulus leaks, gas or water shutoff-
intervention jobs, and competition between gas injection and sell-
ing the gas. Some authors believe that the oil recovery is not
sensitive to the duration of the WAG cycles. For instance, at South
Brae (Jethwa et al. 2000; Phillips 1991), it has been concluded that
gas injection can be fixed to seasonal gas requirements in order to
maximize the economic value of the project. The same observation
has also been published for Alwyn North (Chaussumier and Sak-
thikumar 1997; Burns et al. 2002) (i.e., oil recovery is related to
the quantity of the gas injected and not to the timing). Also, on the
Gullfaks field (Instefjord and Todnem 2002), it was reported that
the gas cycles are dependent on the availability of the gas and that
more gas was injected during summer. A general trend in the North
Sea is to inject more gas during summer and less during winter
(because of gas market prices).
There were six field applications (out of nine) in which en-
hanced production was reported as shown in Table 2. Practically,
material balance and reservoir simulation are commonly used to
evaluate the gas/water injection efficiency. Because of the com-
plexity of data required for these practical methods, the injection
efficiencies, enhanced oil/gas injected (GIE) and enhanced oil/
water injected (WIE), were roughly estimated. The total reported
enhanced production was divided by the cumulative injection rate
(gas/water) to determine the gas/water injection efficiency, as de-
tailed in Table 2. However, the most common type of error in
calculating gas- or water-injection efficiency is to neglect the other
dependent variables. Generally, incremental oil is calculated
against only one parameter (e.g., water injection) while neglecting
other parameters, such as water influx, gas injection, or pressure
depletion. For an effective displacement of oil by WAG, gas and
water recirculation should be minimized. So WIE and GIE are
better in reservoirs producing at low water cut and low gas/oil ratio
(GOR). Since all of the WAG injection fields had initial produc-
tion under waterflooding, the enhanced production because of GIE
is important to discuss.
The GIE for WAG varies from 228 to 1359 sm
3
oil/ million
sm
3
gas as shown in Table 2. In all of these projects, the calculated
incremental recovery is significantly lower than the estimated po-
tential. The significant difference in the calculated and total pre-
dicted recovery is because of the time span over which the recov-
ery was estimated. Additionally, the WAG ratio, cycle length,
operational constraints, and high-permeability channels may also
be responsible.
A miscible WAG pilot was initiated by Statoil on the Snorre
field (Christensen et al. 1998; Slotte et al. 1996). Slotte et al.
(1996) estimated an incremental oil of about 1.5 million sm
3
through gas injection, with the calculated GIE amounting to about
514 sm
3
of oil/million of sm
3
gas (Table 2). It has been reported
that the high permeability layers are responsible for the poor GIE
and resulted in early gas breakthrough. Updip WAG with a grav-
ity-stable front has also been suggested in order to improve gas-
sweep efficiency and to remove attic oil.
Normally, it is suggested that the earlier the WAG process is
applied, the better. But this is not the case for the Brage field (Lien
et al. 1998). WAG has also been conducted at the Brage field (Lien
et al. 1998) early in its life, but gas breakthrough occurred earlier.
The first gas breakthrough was observed after 3 months, and later
gas cycles had also resulted in poor sweep efficiency. In 2 months,
GOR was increased significantly from its initial level of 93 sm
3
/
sm
3
to 480 sm
3
/sm
3
. The reason for this was the presence of a thin
high-permeablity layer, which acts as a thief zone and connects the
injector and production well. The high-permeability layer is prob-
ably the main reason for the poor GIE of WAG process at the
Brage field, and that is why WAG was terminated in 2000.
Immiscible WAG was also initiated at Thistle (Laidlaw et al.
1986; Clyne et al. 1993) early in its life. The initial production was
under waterflooding, and it was believed that because of the pres-
ence of high permeability layers at the base of the formation, oil
was bypassed in the upper sections of formation. Laidlaw et al.
(1986) reported that most of the oil recovered was from the lower-
quality sand units, and that approximately 86 000 sm
3
of incre-
mental oil had been recovered from the direct contact of gas.
However, high permeability channels may also have been respon-
sible for the low calculated GIE (708 sm
3
of oil/million sm
3
of gas)
at the Thistle field (Laidlaw et al. 1986; Clyne et al. 1993).
Statfjord (Crogh et al. 2002) is a light-oil field, and full-field
WAG was initiated in the Brent group when production wells had
a water cut of approximately 70%. Approximately 3.5 million sm
3
of incremental oil had been recovered up to 2002. The calculated
GIE is not as good as for Gullfaks; furthermore, it seems to give
more gas back-production during WAG cycles, and high-
permeability channels may also be responsible for the poor GIE in
this case, (Crogh et al. 2002) also reported extensive gas migration
in the Brent formation of the Statfjord field. This vertical migration
had resulted in poor volumetric sweep of gas and, hence, low GIE.
WAG was conducted in the Brent reservoir of Gullfaks (Instef-
jord and Todnem 2002), when all production wells had water cut
above 50%. Although Gullfaks enhanced production is less than
that in Statfjord, the amount of gas injected yielded a good recov-
ery (1359 sm
3
of oil/million sm
3
of gas) attributed to WAG.
Miscible WAG process was started on the South Brae field
(Christensen et al. 1998) when good recovery had already been
obtained through waterflooding because of a good mobility ratio.
A pilot test was carried out from 1994 through 1997: by injecting
gas into one well, the displacement was believed to be vaporizing-
gas drive or high-pressure gas process. More than 0.43 million sm
3
of incremental oil has been recovered from four wells by the
injection of 623 million sm
3
of gas until 1999. The calculated GIE
is just 642 sm
3
of oil/million sm
3
of gas, which seems to give more
gas back-production, and this may be caused by the high-
permeability channels and/or gas override.
Maturity Level and/or Maturing Time Frame. WAG is a ma-
ture technology and has been applied extensively worldwide since
1957 (Christensen et al. 1998). The most commonly used EOR
technology in the North Sea is WAG. WAG is highly sensitive
to heterogeneities.
Most of the North Sea fields are under waterflooding, which
results in cooling of the reservoir around the wellbore. Injection of
gas after waterflooding may trigger the potential for hydrate for-
mation and was the main reason for WAG failure at the Ekofisk
field. Some attempts have been proposed by operators to prevent
hydrate formation. For example, Statoil suggested a combination
of chemical heating near the wellbore area before gas injection and
heating of the injection water to avoid hydrate formation. How-
ever, for future projects, problems related to injectivity can be
considered as a key issue in the case of gas injection.
WAG demands special relative-permeability description, since
gas and water saturations will increase and decrease alternatively.
New relative-permeability and capillary-pressure hysteresis mod-
els are required.
In the North Sea, WAG has been initiated using HC gas
because of its availability and lower cost. CO
2
injection has also
proven to be a successful technology worldwide, and, in many
cases, it has a lower minimum miscibility pressure than HC gas.
This has made it very attractive, as seen in the Gullfaks field
(Agustsson and Grinestaff 2004). Statoil has shown that by using
a new well pattern for Gullfaks and by using CO
2
miscible WAG
(Agustsson and Grinestaff 2004), field production can be extended
up until 2030. This is better than the water- and HC-gas-injection
strategy, which yields field production only up to 2020. The main
problem is the availability of CO
2
(e.g., 5 million tonnes/year for
Gullfaks WAG), and, therefore, WAG technology using CO
2
is
currently not an attractive approach. The studies of CO
2
WAG
(Jensen et al. 2000) at Ekofisk have also shown more incremental
oil recovery than HC WAG. However, in this field, the main issues
(Madland 2005) besides the availability of CO
2
are the likelihood
of the CO
2
to contracting matrix residual oil (fracture-matrix flow)
and CO
2
-chalk interaction (water-weakening process).
Technology Use Restrictions. The following summarizes the re-
strictions on the use of WAG technology in the North Sea:
Increased operational problems (Table 3): Hydrate formation
can give injectivity problems (e.g., Ekofisk).
CO
2
issues: Availability in sufficient quantities, flow behav-
ior, interaction with chalk reservoirs, and corrosion issues.
Is selling gas and/or condensate more profitable, or is it more
profitable to inject?
Pressure, temperature, and composition of the injected gas
and of the original oil in place (miscible WAG).
Well spacing, WAG ratio, reservoir thickness, permeability
anisotropy, and WAG cycle.
SWAG. If HC gas volumes are limited and uneconomical to ex-
port, then SWAG injection (Quale et al. 2000; Berge et al. 2002;
Stone 2004; Ma et al. 1995; Stoisits et al. 1995; Walker and Turner
1968; Stephenson et al. 1993) can be used, and this has been done
on the Siri field (Quale et al. 2000; Berge et al. 2002) in the North
Sea. Statoil has implemented this technology with a minimum
number of wells and with lower investment in surface equipment
such as gas compressors because of the lower related in-
jection pressure needed in comparison to WAG. Using SWAG,
Statoil has reported an increased recovery of 6% compared to a
water-injection scheme (Quale et al. 2000; Berge et al. 2002).
By using SWAG, the operating costs can be reduced, because
WAG conversions are no longer required. Furthermore, oil recov-
ery can also be improved because of enhanced sweep efficiency, as
shown on the Joffre Viking CO
2
miscible flood (Stephenson et al.
1993) and SWAG at the Kuparuk River field (Stoisits et al. 1995).
Maturity Level and/or Maturing Timeframe. Relatively few
worldwide field applications of SWAG (Christensen et al. 1998)
have been reported, and it appears that WAG is more beneficial
and easier to implement than SWAG. In the North Sea, WAG has
been used most because injectivity is better when one phase is
injected at a time.
It has been reported that by reducing the time period for water
and gas cycling, one could increase the recovery efficiency (Ma
et al. 1995; Stoisits et al. 1995; Walker and Turner 1968). To
reduce the water/gas cycle, injecting both phases simultaneously
has been suggested. One of the major challenges in SWAG injec-
tion is the potential of gas and water to separate if there are any
branches in the injection pipe network. This problem can be re-
solved by mixing both fluids immediately before the wellhead, as
suggested for the Kuparuk River field (Stoisits et al. 1995). There
is also a possibility of hydrate formation during SWAG injection,
and this was considered a key issue for the Siri field. This problem
can be prevented by heating the seawater before injection, but at
the expense of increased operating cost. Produced water can be
used as an alternative to seawater. In addition, backpressure valves
are needed to prevent the flow of the opposite medium into the
respective compression systems. Despite the surface and wellbore
challenges related to SWAG injection, reservoir challenges also
need to be addressed (Table 3). At the Siri field (Quale et al. 2000;
Berge et al. 2002), reduction in injectivity was experienced be-
cause of the presence of two phases around the wellbore and
injection above the fracture pressure. Injectivity can be increased
by fracturing the formation and can improve the injectivity index
by a factor of four [see e.g., Siri field (Quale et al. 2000; Berge
et al. 2002)]. However, when the fraction of gas becomes too large,
a reduction in injectivity index has been observed at the Siri field.
This is because the gas has a higher tendency to escape into the
formation compared to water and is therefore not able to preserve
a fracture. This results in closing the fracture (i.e., fracture length
decreases) and the effective permeability of the fracture becomes
less. During SWAG injection, gravity can also cause the water and
gas to segregate quickly in the reservoir and can lead to early gas
breakthrough. Recently, Stone (2004) used a new approach for
SWAG injection. They reported that injecting water at the upper
levels of the formation and gas near the bottom of the formation
can give a three-fold greater vertical gas sweep in comparison to
WAG. However, SWAG seems more challenging than WAG.
In the North Sea, the future research trend is more on WAG
than on SWAG (Table 4).
Technology Use Restrictions. On the basis of SWAG at Seeling-
ton (Walker and Turner 1968), Joffre Viking (Stephenson et al.
1993), Kuparak River (Ma et al. 1995; Stoisits et al. 1995) and Siri
(Quale et al. 2000; Berge et al. 2002), the following technology use
restrictions can be made:
Increased monitoring of the system because of its instabil-
ity (segregation).
Reduced injectivity because of two-phase presence in the
wellbore, two-phase relative permeability affects around the well-
bore, decrease in fracture length, and effective permeability (frac-
ture closure) at high gas rates above the fracturing pressure
Possibility of hydrate formation.
FAWAG. It has been observed that the initial WAG cycle is the
most efficient and that later cycles do not yield as much incre-
mental recovery as the first cycle [Gullfaks (Instefjord and Tod-
nem 2002), Statfjord (Crogh et al. 2002), Snorre (Blaker et al.
1999; Skauge et al. 1999; Aarra and Skauge 2000; Aarra et al.
2002), Brage (Lien et al. 1998)]. Furthermore, because of the
establishment of trapped gas saturation in the formation after first
gas injection and mass-exchange reduction between oil and gas in
the second gas-injection period, gas breakthrough is expected to
come earlier in the late gas-injection cycles during WAG. The
FAWAG technology (Suffridge et al. 1989; Hanssen 1992; Hans-
sen et al. 1994, 1996a, 1996b; Dalland and Hanssen 1996; Aarra et
al. 1996a, 1996b, 2002; Svorstol et al. 1997; Vassenden et al.
1998; Blaker et al. 1999; Skauge et al. 1999, 2002; Aarra and
Skauge 2000) has the potential for plugging selected zones or
layers with foam while the reservoir remains under WAG flood. In
this way, more gas can be forced into less permeable or unswept
areas and, thus, increase the sweep efficiency of the gas.
There were two reported FAWAG field applications on the
Snorre field (Blaker et al. 1999; Skauge et al. 1999; Aarra and
Skauge 2000; Aarra et al. 2002). WAG injection was used as the
main oil-recovery mechanism on the Snorre CFB (Blaker et al.
2002) and western fault block (WFB) (Skauge et al. 1999; Aarra
et al. 2002). At both Snorre Blocks, FAWAG (Suffridge et al.
1989; Hanssen 1992; Hanssen et al. 1994, 1996a, 1996b; Dalland
and Hanssen 1996; Aarra et al. 1996a, 1996b, 2002; Svorstol et al.
1997; Vassenden et al. 1998; Blaker et al. 1999; Skauge et al. 1999,
2002; Aarra and Skauge 2002) was initiated to delay gas break-
through and to increase gas storage in the reservoir. At Snorre
CFB, one objective was to develop design rules for later treatment.
Maturity Level and/or Maturing Time Frame. Since 1994,
foam has been applied successfully both for mobility control
(Blaker et al. 1999; Skauge et al. 1999; Aarra and Skauge 2000;
Aarra et al. 2002) and blocking of gas in production wells (Aarra
et al. 1996; Blaker et al. 1999; Hanssen et al. 1996; Svorstol et al.
1997). In 1997, the FAWAG project was initiated at the Snorre
Field (Blaker et al. 1999; Skauge et al. 1999; Aarra and Skauge
2000; Aarra et al. 2002) with large volumes of surfactant solution
and gas, and it ranks as one of the most extensive pilot projects in
the North Sea.
FAWAG can be used to control mobility, which has been prac-
ticed successfully at Snorre WFB (Skauge et al. 1999; Aarra et al.
2002). FAWAG is very sensitive to reservoir heterogeneities, and
vertical communication may limit foam propagation (Blaker et al.
2002). It has also been observed that surfactant alternating gas
(SAG) is better than coinjection because it is easier to perform
below fracture pressure (Table 3). The FAWAG at Snorre WFB
has been conducted successfully, and approximately 33% free
back-produced gas was reduced during FAWAG in comparison to
WAG injection. The FAWAG process at Snorre WFB (Skauge
et al. 1999; Aarra et al. 2002) is expected to produce 2 million sm
3
at a cost of USD 1 million (in 2002 dollars).
In addition, recent laboratory and simulation studies have
shown an incremental oil recovery of about 288,000 sm
3
for the
Visund field (Aarra et al. 2002). Considering this high potential for
FAWAG, more FAWAG injection projects could be expected in
the North Sea.
The successful FAWAG application at the Snorre WFB shows
that it is possible to generate foam at large interwell distances
(1000 to 2000 m apart). However, even greater distances and het-
erogeneous reservoirs can limit the extent of foam propagation.
One of the challenging issues during FAWAG injection is to main-
tain injectivity. Snorre CFB results indicated that SAG injection is
better than coinjection. Hanssen et al. (1996) showed that the high
reservoir pressure (200 to 400 bar) experienced in North Sea fields
is not critical for generating foam. However, temperatures above
200C can degrade foam. Most of the North Sea fields are under
waterflooding, which may cool the reservoir to a suitable tempera-
ture of 100C. Dry HC gas is mainly used in the North Sea fields
and is not critical for achieving desirable foam properties in com-
parison to rich HC gas (Suffridge et al. 1989). Studies (Blaker
et al. 1999; Skauge et al. 1999) have observed that surfactant
adsorption (maximum 0.5 mg/g of rock), critical surfactant con-
centration, foam drying effect, oil tolerance, and foam strength
[i.e., mobility reduction factor (MRF)] have the largest impact on
foam treatment efficiency. They have also observed on Snorre
CFB that foam collapses below a critical water saturation (15 to
20%). A residual oil saturation of approximately 20% after water
injection has been found to degrade foam.
In an offshore environment, chemical transport, logistics, and
storage are more complex (Skauge et al. 1999). A surface foam
generator may be used to inject prefabricated foam. Heated water
may be required to prevent hydrate formation. Up to now, the
surfactants used in Norwegian fields have been alpha olefin sul-
fonates (AOSs) because they are more stable, have a low loss
factor, and are environmentally friendly.
Among other issues, the mechanism behind successful foam
injection is not well understood. There is still a lack of understand-
ing in foam modeling, upscaling of foam models, and simulator
optimization with respect to foam. Current research topics, such as
mobility control by foam, are being studied for applications in the
North Sea (Table 4).
Technology Use Restrictions. The most important factors that
could affect the foam efficiency on the basis of the reviewed
FAWAG process (Blaker et al. 1999; Skauge et al. 1999, 2002;
Aarra and Skauge 2000; Aarra et al. 2002) on the Snorre field are:
Gas injectivity below fracturing pressure.
Large interwell distance (1000 to 2000 m), vertical perme-
ability, and interlayer communication may limit foam propagation.
Critical water saturation (<15 to 20%) and residual oil satu-
ration (20%) can degrade foam.
Above 200C, AOS may become unstable (P
r
is not critical).
MEOR. MEOR technology has been applied on the Norne field
(Sorheim et al. 1996; Hinderaker et al. 1996; Burger et al. 2005;
Brown 2002; Hughes 2002, 2003; Brealey 2003; NTNU 2005) in
the North Sea. Future MEOR projects are planned by Statoil on the
Gullfaks; NTNU 2005) and Statfjord A fields. There were no
reported data on the Norne field (in the open literature) that explain
the MEOR objectives and mechanisms. Because of a lack of data
on MEOR in the North Sea, a worldwide literature survey on
MEOR technology (Portwood 1995; Kowalewski et al. 2005; Frick
1972; Sunde et al. 1992; Bryant and Rhonda 1996; Yonebayashi
et al. 1997; Ohno et al. 1999; Zhang et al. 1999; Bryant and
Lockhart 2000; Nagase et al. 2001, 2002; Karem et al. 2001;
Kadarwati et al. 2001; Bailey et al. 2001; Sayyouh 2002; Delshad
et al. 2002; Feng et al. 2002; Ibrahim et al. 2004; Deng et al. 1999;
He et al. 2000; Dietrich et al. 1996; Trebbau et al. 1999; Bryant
et al. 1990; Jenneman et al. 1996, 1997; Brown et al. 2000; Sheehy
1990; Knapp et al. 1992; Portwood et al. 1992; Matz et al. 1992;
Gullapalli et al. 1998; Sabut et al. 2003; Hitzman et al. 1994;
Sorheim and Paulson 1996; Burger et al. 2005; Yusuf and Kadar-
mati 1999; Brown 2002; Hughes 2002, 2003; Brealey 2003;
NTNU 2005) has been made in order to understand its mecha-
nisms, maturity, and potential.
According to the type of production problem, microbial pro-
cesses can be grouped into wellbore cleanup, well stimulation
(Karem et al. 2001; Ibrahim et al. 2004; Deng et al. 1999; He et al.
2000; Zhang et al. 1999; Dietrich et al. 1996; Trebbau et al. 1999;
Sheehy 1990; Sabut et al. 2003), and enhanced waterflooding
(Yonebayashi et al. 1997; Ohno et al. 1997; Nagase et al. 2001,
2002; Bryant et al. 1990, 1994; Jenneman et al. 1994; Brown et al.
2000; Sheehy 1990; Knapp et al. 1992; Portwood et al. 1992;
Gullapalli et al. 1998). The enhanced microbial waterfloods in-
volve large-scale injection of bacteria and/or nutrients into the
reservoir to improve microscopic and macroscopic displacement
or to reduce reservoir souring.
From the literature review in the first paragraph of this section,
it has been observed that MEOR processes depend on the type of
bacteria, nutrients, aerobic/anaerobic conditions, and reservoir and
fluid properties. The possibility of the application of MEOR to the
Norwegian fields has been investigated using the general screening
criteria (Bryant and Rhonda 1996; Ohno et al. 1999), as mentioned
in Table 5. Statoil has implemented MEOR at Norne, and the
general screening criteria show that there is potential for more
MEOR application in the Norwegian fields offshore.
Only the Gyda and Ula oilfields have water salinity greater than
the general screening criteria. Microbial growth is suitable at res-
ervoir temperatures below 80C and in all 22 fields reviewed (with
the exception of the Gyda and Ula fields). Injection of seawater
creates a potentially cooler region around the wellbore, which
makes MEOR application possible. Reservoir souring and reduced
injectivity has been observed in the North Sea fields (Sorheim and
Paulson 1996; Hinderaker et al. 1996), and the application of
MEOR technology can mitigate these problems. The successful
worldwide references for reservoir souring control are the south-
east Vasser Vertz sand unit (Sheehy 1990) and the Coleville field
(Jenneman et al. 1997) . The most successful worldwide MEOR
field trials for plugging high-permeability channels are notably the
Southeast Vesser Vertz field (Knapp et al. 1992), Burbank unit
(Jenneman et al. 1994), North Blowhorn Creek Oil unit (Brown
et al. 2000), Fuyu Oil field (Yonebayashi et al. 1997; Ohno et al.
1999; Nagase et al. 2001, 2002), and Eunice Monument field
(Gullapalli et al. 1998), which can be used as references. This
criterion is only general; in considering the application of MEOR
to any field, a detailed assessment of the technical, logistical, cost,
and oil-recovery potential should be made.
Maturity Level and/or Maturing Time Frame. MEOR pro-
cesses have been declared as the cheapest among all EOR pro-
cesses. In 1992, Sunde et al. (1992) concluded that, in most cases,
aerobic MEOR in an offshore environment is both practically fea-
sible and economical. However, very little experience with MEOR
processes has been obtained in offshore environments. The only
two known offshore trials of MEOR are in the Norne (Sorheim and
Paulson 1996; Hinderaker et al. 1996; Burger et al. 2005; Brown
2002; Hughes 2002, 2003; Brealey 2003; NTNU 2005) (Norway)
and Bokor (Karem et al. 2001; Ibrahim et al. 2004; Sabut et al.
2003) (Malaysia) fields.
In the North Sea, high-permeability channels can lead to early
gas breakthrough, which has been experienced at Brage (Lien et al.
1998), Gullfaks (Instefjord and Todnem 2002) and Snorre (Chris-
tensen et al. 1998; Slotte et al. 1996). In such cases, selective
plugging through microbial mechanisms can be useful in contact-
ing the bypassed oil.
Most of the MEOR field trials are in sandstone reservoirs, and
very few field trials are in fractured reservoirs and carbonates. The
Romashkino reservoir (Russia), San Andres (US) (Dietrich et al.
1996), and Eunice Monument (US) (Gullapalli et al. 1998) are the
only reported microbial applications in limestone reservoirs. The
understanding of MEOR mechanisms in fractured chalk reservoirs
in the North Sea can be more complex. The screening study for
Ekofisk (Jensen et al. 2000) had showed limited reserves potential
and therefore had been dropped because of the lack of technical
ability to economically mobilize waterflooded residual oil. In
terms of aerobic or anaerobic conditions, only the Norne (Norway)
(Sorheim and Paulson 1996; Hinderaker et al. 1996; Burger et al.
2005; Brown 2002; Hughes 2002, 2003; Brealey 2003; NTNU
2005), Caddo (USA) (Portwood et al. 1992), and Romashkino
(Russia) fields are reported as being in aerobic conditions.
It is also important to consider which microbial process (aero-
bic or anaerobic) is suitable for the North Sea. Both processes
aerobic and anaerobichave advantages and disadvantages. For
the aerobic process, oxygen is the limiting factor, and an optimal
amount of oxygen should be injected to obtain the desired con-
centration of bacteria. However, the aerobic process can be used
only if the metallurgy of the topside equipment and downhole
tubulars are made of high-quality steel or are suitably coated. In
the North Sea, most of the fields do not have corrosion-resistant
tubulars and would suffer severe corrosion in the presence of in-
jected oxygen.
In order to avoid corrosion, combustion, or oxygen transport,
the anaerobic process can be used. However, for the large North
Sea fields, a major shortcoming of the anaerobic process is the
large quantity of sugar required. Sunde et al. 1990 mentioned that
3000 tonnes/d sugar are needed to treat all injectors on a specific
North Sea platform. Offshore platforms usually have severe limi-
tations with respect to space and weight. If an anaerobic process is
selected, then there may be problems in transferring large amounts
of nutrients which, when added to the cost of nutrients and ship-
ment handling costs, could make it uninteresting. Aerobic pro-
cesses with indigenous microbes using residual oil as their carbon
source seems to be an attractive approach in the North Sea because
fewer logistical problems are encountered in comparison to the
anaerobic process.
Most of the field trials make use of anaerobic and facultative
anaerobic processes, for which there is still a shortage of process
understanding. In terms of the bacterial source (indigenous or ex-
ogenous), exogenous bacteria require facilities for their cultiva-
tion, while indigenous bacteria need the application of specialized
coring and sampling techniques to evaluate the bacterial activity.
Indigenous bacteria may be a better option than exogenous bac-
teria for the North Sea reservoirs because they are already pres-
ent and are dispersed throughout the reservoir as a result of prior
water injection.
A successful MEOR trial was reported for the Bokor field
(Karem et al. 2001; Ibrahim et al. 2004; Sabut et al. 2003). The
microbial injection reduced water cut by approximately 20 to 45%,
and an enhanced production of 484 sm
3
/d was reported. Anaerobic
process with exogenous microbes was selected in the shallow res-
ervoirs (<1000 m) of the Bokor field to degrade heavier oil com-
ponents ranging from 4 to 10 cp. The technology can be useful in
the North Sea fields, but at depths greater than 1000 m, logistical
problems for anaerobic bacteria retention and adsorption for ex-
ogenous process can be very challenging.
It has also been observed that MEOR processes have not
reached the same large-scale application as other EOR processes.
Despite several decades of research and many positive laboratory
and field results, MEOR technology still has not matured. There is
still a lack of understanding of the microbial-oil-recovery mecha-
nisms and a deficit of mathematical models that can be applied to
integrate the microbial behavior for different reservoirs.
However, it seems that Statoil is confident with its use of this
technology on the Norne field, and that is why it is planning more
MEOR pilots such as at the Gullfaks (NTNU 2005) and the Stat-
fjordA fields. In the future, a majority of the EOR research will be
focused on MEOR processes (Table 4).
Technology Use Restrictions. The following are the major tech-
nology restrictions for MEOR processes:
Generally, layer permeability greater than 50 md, reservoir
temperature less than 80C, salinity less than 150g/L, and reservoir
depth less than 2400 m is suitable for microbial growth.
Corrosion issues in case of aerobic process.
Logistical problems in the case of anaerobic process (specific
to the offshore environment in the North Sea).
Discussion
EOR Leader in the North Sea by Method, Technology, Loca-
tion, and Company. In the North Sea, most of the EOR field
applications (Fig. 3) were of the WAG type. Among the 19 field
applications of EOR technologies, six were miscible gas injection
(Ekofisk, Beryl, Statfjord, Brent, Alwyn North, and Smrbukk
South), three were miscible WAG [Snorre (SnA) , Brae South, and
Magnus], six were immiscible WAG (Thistle, Gullfaks, Brage,
Ekofisk, Statfjord, and Oseberg st), two were FAWAG (Snorre
CFB and WFB), one was SWAG (Siri), and one was MEOR (Norne).
Since the 1980s, there have been numerous field trials with gas
injection and WAG in the North Sea. However, FAWAG, SWAG,
and MEOR can be considered new technologies. They are consid-
ered new because there have been far fewer field trials as com-
pared to gas and WAG injection.
Approximately 12 field applications were on the Norwegian
continental shelf, six were on the UK continental shelf, and one
was on the Danish continental shelf. Among the 19 EOR field
applications, seven were initiated by Statoil (Fig. 4).
Fig. 3Distribution of EOR field applications by method in the
North Sea (total of 19 projects).
Fig. 4Distribution of EOR field applications by country in the
North Sea (total of 19 projects).
Reservoir Fluid and Formation Properties. All of the field res-
ervoirs in this review produce light oil (32 to 41API) at depths
ranging from 1740 to 3800 m subsea. Smrbukk South (Jensen
et al. 1999; Thibeau 2002) was the deepest field (3800 m) and had
the highest reservoir pressure (500 bar) and reservoir temperature
(165C). In terms of rock type classification, all the fields re-
viewed had high-permeability channels as shown in Table 2.
Ekofisk is a fractured reservoir with a low permeability matrix
(0.1 md), while Gullfaks had the greatest range of permeability (80
to 4,500 md). Apart from Ekofisk, all the reviewed EOR applica-
tions have been initiated in sandstone and nonfractured reservoirs.
Only two fields, the Brent and the Smrbukk South fields, had
primary gas caps.
Injection Parameters and Enhanced Production. Both updip-
and downdip-injection methods have been used in the North Sea.
In the North Sea, WAG has been initiated mainly through downdip
injection, which was adopted at Thistle (Laidlaw et al. 1986; Clyne
et al. 1993), Gullfaks (Instefjord and Todnem 2002), Statfjord
(Crogh et al. 2002), South Brae (Christensen et al. 1998), Snorre
(SnA) (Christensen et al. 1998; Slotte et al. 1996), and Oseberg st
(OG21 2006). It was not clear which injection method was being
used on the Brage (Lien et al. 1998), Ekofisk (Jensen et al. 2000;
yno et al. 1996), and Magnus (Haajizadeh et al. 2001; Phil 2004)
fields. Both FAWAG (Blaker et al. 1999; Skauge et al. 1999, 2002;
Aarra and Skauge 2000; Aarra et al. 2002), and SWAG (Quale
et al. 2000; Ma et al. 1995) also had downdip injection. Except for
Alwyn North (Chaussumier and Sakthikumar 1997; Burns et al.
2002), all the miscible-gas-injection projects had updip injection.
All of the reported WAG applications have been conducted with
the use of downdip injection in order to reduce the residual-oil and
attic-oil saturation. If the objective is to remove the cellar oil or for
better pressure maintenance, then updip injection can also be a
useful approach in the North Sea as shown for the Statfjord field
(Hegro et al. 1994). It is estimated that there is approximately 5%
of increased oil recovery using updip water injection. Updip WAG
injection was also suggested at the Snorre field in order to increase
the gas macroscopic sweep efficiency.
The injected gas used in all EOR field applications in the North
Sea was primarily HC gas. In terms of HC-gas type, only Alwyn
North (Chaussumier and Sakthikumar 1997; Burns et al. 2002) and
South Brae (Christensen et al. 1998) fields reported using HC rich
gas for injection, while HC lean gas was injected in most other
fields. At Thistle (Laidlaw et al. 1986; Clyne et al. 1993) and Siri
(Quale et al. 2000; Ma et al. 1995) fields, the injected gas type was
not reported.
One of the important injection parameters is to know the well
spacing or area being developed by an EOR technique. For the
Statfjord and Smrbukk South fields, the area of interest was re-
ported to be 35 and 25 km
2
, respectively. The injected foam vol-
ume at Snorre CFB and WFB was expected to treat a 100- to
200-m radius around the injector. For other fields, there are no
reported data, and it is very difficult to calculate this parameter
without having data of expected effective radius, or at least the
distance between production and injection wells. The Statfjord and
Smrbukk South fields show that gas-injection methods cover a
larger effective area than FAWAG. It may be appropriate to say
that pure-gas injection, WAG/SWAG injection, covers larger ef-
fective distances than FAWAG or MEOR.
There were only eight fields among the 18 EOR field applica-
tions as listed in Table 2 in which enhanced oil production was
reported (TEPR). The total enhanced production in the North Sea
for the above mentioned fields is only 8.39 million sm
3
during the
reported time (Fig. 5). The total estimate of enhanced production
is very small, mainly because this review is restricted to the data
reported in the open literature. For this reason, the actual con-
tribution of EOR in the North Sea is not known. In addition,
methods (in the extended definition of EOR) such as 4D seismic,
infill drilling, and inflow control valves are used simultaneously
with the classical EOR methods, making it difficult for even the
operator to evaluate the actual EOR contribution from each of
these methods.
Table 2 shows the total predicted incremental recovery (TPIR)
by operator (except for Thistle) and the calculated incremental
recovery (CIR) over the reported time as a percentage of OOIP for
eight fields. These recoveries (TPIR and CIR) are usually com-
pared to waterflooding (or previous production), but unfortunately
no baseline was available in the literature for comparison. In all
these fields, the calculated incremental recovery during the re-
ported time is significantly lower than the estimated potential. The
significant difference in the calculated and total predicted recovery
is because of the length of time during which the recovery was
estimated as well as the difference in injection pattern, cycle
length, operational constraints, and high-permeability channels.
Key Issues Regarding EOR Processes in the North Sea. Apart
from WAG at Ekofisk and FAWAG at Snorre CFB, all the tech-
nologies have been applied successfully on the corresponding
fields. There are no conclusive results on mobility reduction effect
at Snorre CFB (Blaker et al. 1999), and the WAG pilot on the
Ekofisk field was considered a failure because of hydrate forma-
tion. There are only a few key problems that have been reported in
the open literature, and these are summarized in Table 3. The main
challenge with the application of gas injection can be considered to
be poor macroscopic sweep because of highly permeable layers.
Operationally, pure-gas injection may not be as challenging as
WAG, SWAG, or FAWAG. However, wet-gas injection can create
problems such as corrosion. The main operational limitations with
Fig. 5Total enhanced production (million sm
3
) by method during the reported time.
WAG, SWAG, or FAWAG are the possibility of hydrate forma-
tion and injectivity problems. For future projects, the corrosion
problem associated with the use of CO
2
injection or aerobic
MEOR can also be considered a key issue.
EOR Trends in the North Sea. It is interesting to note that apart
from the single application of MEOR, only HC-gas-injection-
related EOR methods have been used in the North Sea. The other
EOR methods, in particular chemical-injection methods using sur-
factant and polymer, are expensive, and their application has up
until now been considered too expensive. However, major focus
has been given to gas-injection methods both at laboratory- and
field-scale application during the period of 1990 through 2005.
One other reason for the use of HC-gas injection is the predomi-
nantly light-oil fields found in the North Sea, which are suitable
candidates for gas-injection EOR methods. WAG injection can be
considered the most successful EOR technology applied in the
North Sea.
The flexibility (with respect to gas cycles) when implementing
WAG-injection cycles, and a better microscopic/macroscopic ef-
ficiency than using pure-water or pure-gas injection, made it an
attractive EOR approach in the North Sea. Furthermore, WAG is
considered a mature technology, and reservoir engineers are con-
fident with it because it is relatively simple to design and easy to
implement. WAG can be the better choice (assuming favorable
reservoir conditions) when HC gas is available in sufficient quan-
tities and noneconomical to export, while SWAG is favorable
when injected HC gas is available in limited quantities.
It is presumed that FAWAG injection could be a potentially
viable method for more fields in the North Sea, but this process
requires a good understanding of foam propagation in the reser-
voir, which, at the present, is lacking. Large interwell distances
restrict the propagation of foam deep into the reservoir. Compared
to pure-gas or WAG/SWAG injection methods, FAWAG needs
more careful well monitoring. Because of the very few field ap-
plications in the North Sea and the associated challenges, FAWAG
is considered an immature technology in this region. Worldwide
MEOR technology is not mature, but it is one of the cheapest
existing EOR methods, and it has become a focal point of research
for the North Sea area.
Recently, particular attention has also been given to the injec-
tion of CO
2
in the North Sea. CO
2
injection is commonly used in
the US because of the gass availability. However, CO
2
resources
in sufficient quantities have not yet been available for North Sea
applications. The NPD has estimated the EOR potential of CO
2
injection in the North Sea to be approximately 240 to 320 million
sm
3
. In order to achieve this additional recovery, a total of 12 to 16
million tonnes of CO
2
are required annually for 25 years (Midttun
2003). Together with the current focus on CO
2
emissions, en-
hanced production by CO
2
injection is considered attractive and
will be the main focus of future research programs. On the basis of
Table 4, the future EOR trend in the North Sea seems to be CO
2
injection and MEOR. However, with the current oil-price regime,
it is expected that chemical-based methods, such as the use of
surfactants and polymers, could also become attractive.
Conclusions
On the basis of this review, the following conclusions can be made:
1. The five EOR technologies that have been conducted in the
North Sea are as follows:
HC gas injection (six miscible-field applications)
WAG injection (three miscible- and six immiscible-field
applications)
SWAG injection (one field application)
FAWAG injection (two field applications)
MEOR (one field application, no published data)
Among these technologies, the new technologies which have
been initiated in the North Sea are SWAG, FAWAG, and MEOR.
2. On the basis of total enhanced production and the number of
field applications, WAG seems to be the most successful EOR
technology in the North Sea as compared to other technologies
(miscible gas injection, SWAG, FAWAG, and MEOR). North
Sea reservoirs may often give effective oil recovery by water-
flooding, and WAG can be used effectively to displace attic oil
and reduce residual oil saturation.
3. HC miscible gas injection at Ekofisk (Jakobsson and Christian
1994; Hermansen et al. 1997) and Statfjord (Buza and Un-
neberg 1987; Haugen et al. 1987; Aadland et al. 1994), WAG
at Snorre (Christensen et al. 1998; Slotte et al. 1996), and
SWAG at Siri (Quale et al. 2000; Ma et al. 1995) were initiated
because of limited gas-handling, storage, and export capacities,
but they also have the potential for incremental oil recovery.
4. Downdip injection in the North Sea fields [Thistle (Laidlaw
et al. 1986; Clyne et al. 1993), Gullfaks (Instefjord and Tod-
nem 2002), Snorre (SnA) (Christensen et al. 1998; Slotte et al.
1996), South Brae (Christensen et al. 1998), Statfjord (Crogh
et al. 2002) and Alwyn North (Chaussumier and Sakthikumar
1997; Burns et al. 2002)] has been used successfully to remove
attic oil and reduce residual oil saturation.
5. Both WAG and SWAG involves the same mechanisms in or-
der to achieve improved oil recovery. However, WAG is a
mature technology, and reservoir engineers are comfortable with
its application because of its simple design and easy imple-
mentation. The main difference between WAG and SWAG is
in field-operation strategies, which are determined by reservoir
characteristics. If HC gas is found in limited amounts, then
SWAG is the better choice. On the other hand, WAG is the
preferred choice if HC gas is present in sufficient volumes.
6. The main problems associated with WAG, SWAG, and
FAWAG applications are injectivity, injection-system moni-
toring, and reservoir heterogeneities.
7. In the North Sea, reservoir souring and reduced injectivity have
been observed (Sorheim and Paulsen 1996; Hinderaker et al.
1996), and the application of MEOR processes can be useful in
reducing these problems.
8. Reservoir heterogeneities, such as high-permeability channels,
can lead to early gas breakthrough, as has been experienced at
Brage (Lien et al. 1998), Gullfaks (Instefjord and Todnem
2002) and Snorre (Christensen et al. 1998; Slotte et al. 1996).
In such cases, selective plugging through microbial mecha-
nisms can be useful in contacting the bypassed oil.
9. Aerobic processes seem to be an attractive approach in the
North Sea because of the fewer logistical problems encoun-
tered compared to anaerobic processes.
10. SWAG, FAWAG, and MEOR are still immature technolo-
gies in the North Sea and require further laboratory- and field-
scale investigations.
11. Approximately 63% of all the reported EOR field applications
in the North Sea from 1975 until the beginning of 2005 have
been initiated on the NCS. Statoil was the leader in conducting
EOR field applications in the North Sea.
12. In the future, the majority of research will be conducted on
microbial processes, CO
2
injection, and WAG (including
SWAG) injection schemes.
Nomenclature
B
o
oil formation volume factor, rm
3
/sm
3
C
s
salinity, g/L
D depth to crest, m subsea
h
n
net reservoir thickness, m
h
t
gross reservoir thickness, m
k average reservoir permeability, md
N stock tank OOIP of field, 10
6
sm
3
P
b
bubblepoint pressure, bar
P
i
initial reservoir pressure, bars
P
r
reservoir pressure
R
c
recoverable field oil reserves up to 2004, 10
6
sm
3
R
m
remaining oil field reserves up to 2004, 10
6
sm
3
R
s
solution GOR, sm
3
/sm
3
T reservoir temperature, C
o
oil viscosity, cp
porosity, %
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Total E&P Norge and NTNU for
the permission to publish this work. In addition, special thanks to
Danielle Morel, Igor Potapieff, Tianxiang Xia, Cecilie Pedersen,
Eric Zaugg, Erwan Bure, Thomas Bogn, and Thor Martin Hegre
of Total and Christian Crescente of NTNU for their help, ideas,
and suggestions during this research. The authors would also like
to thank Alan Burns of Total, Anna Inger Eide of NPD, Tor
Karlsen, and Juliette Leyris of Norsk Hydro for support during this
work. Special thanks to Prof. Arne Skauge of CIPR, Sigmund
Stokka of Rogaland Research, and Torleif Holt of SINTEF for
providing information on ongoing EOR research projects.
References
Aadland, A., Dyrnes, O., Olsen, S.R., and Drnen, O.M. 1994. Statfjord
Field: Field and Reservoir Management Perspectives. SPERE 9 (3):
157161; Trans., AIME, 297. SPE-25027-PA. DOI: 10.2118/25027-
PA.
Aarra, M.G. and Skauge, A. 2000. Status of Foam Application in the North
Sea. Paper 22 presented at the Annual International Energy Agency
Workshop and Symposium, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 1922 Septem-
ber.
Aarra, M.G., Skauge, A., Sgnesand, S., and Stenhaug, M. 1996. A Foam
Pilot Test Aimed at Reducing Gas Inflow in a Production Well at the
Oseberg Field. Petroleum Geoscience 2 (125): 125132.
Aarra, M.G., Skauge, A., and Martinson, S. 2002. FAWAG: A Break-
through for EOR in the North Sea. Paper SPE 77695 presented at the
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29
September2 October. DOI: 10.2118/77695-MS.
Agustsson, H. and Grinestaff, G.H. 2004. A Study of IOR by CO
2
Injection
in the Gullfaks Field, Offshore Norway. Paper SPE 89338 presented at
the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 1721
April. DOI: 10.2118/89338-MS.
Bailey, S.A., Kenney, T.M., and Schneider, D.R. 2001. Microbial En-
hanced Oil Recovery: Diverse Successful Applications of Biotechnol-
ogy in the Oil Field. Paper SPE 72129 presented at the Asia Pacific
Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 69 October. DOI:
10.2118/72129-MS.
Bath, P.G.H. 1987. Enhanced Oil Recovery in the North Sea. In North Sea
Oil and Gas Reservoirs: v.1, ed. J. Kleppe et al., 217230. Norwegian
Institute of Technology: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bedrikovetsky, P., Andrade, G.M., Ferreira, L.E.A., and Menezes, G.L.
1996. Optimization of Miscible Water-Alternate-CO
2
Injection (Based
on an Analytical Model). Paper SPE 35390 presented at the SPE/DOE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 2124 April. DOI:
10.2118/35390-MS.
Berge, L.I., Stensen, J.., Crapez, B., and Quale, E.A. 2002. SWAG In-
jectivity Behavior Based on Siri Field Data. Paper SPE 75126 pre-
sented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa,
1317 April. DOI: 10.2118/75126-MS.
Blackwell, R.J., Terry, W.M., Rayne, J.R., Lindley, D.C., and Henderson,
J.R. 1960. Recovery of Oil by Displacements With Water-Solvent Mix-
tures. Trans., AIME, 219: 293300.
Blaker, T., Aarra, M.G., Skauge, A. et al. 1999. Foam for Gas Mobility
Control in the Snorre Field: The FAWAG Project. SPEREE 5 (4):
317323. SPE-78824-PA. DOI: 10.2118/78824-PA.
Blaker, T., Coutts, S., Eide, A.I. et al. 2006. Technology Strategy for
Stimulated Recovery. OG21 TTA3 final report, Ministry of Petroleum
and Energy, Norway. http://www.og21.org/filestore/Strategy_reports/
TTA3_Enhanced_Recovery_Final_18_Oct_06.doc.
Braithwaite, I.M. 1994. A Review of the IOR/EOR Opportunities for the
Brent Field: Depressurisation, the Way Forward. Paper SPE 27766
presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa,
1720 April. DOI: 10.2118/27766-MS.
Brealey, N. 2003. A Method to Predict MEOR Benefits on a Field Basis.
SHARP IOR eNewsletter 4 (January): http://ior.senergyltd.com/issue4/
SMEs/RML/index.htm.
Broekers, M.P. and van Dorp, W.G. 1986. Miscible Gas Drive in Unit 1 of
the Statfjord Reservoir. Paper SPE 15876 presented at the European
Petroleum Conference, London, 2022 October. DOI: 10.2118/15876-
MS.
Brown, L.R. 2002. Thoughts on MEOR From the DTI Workshop. SHARP
IOR eNewsletter 2 (May): http://ior.senergyltd.com/issue2/events/
past1-3.htm.
Brown, L.R., Vadie, A.A., and Stephens, J.O. 2000. Slowing Production
Decline and Extending the Economic Life of an Oil Field: New MEOR
Technology. Paper SPE 59306 presented at the SPE/DOE Improved
Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 35 April. DOI: 10.2118/59306-
MS.
Bryant, R.S., Burchfield, T.E., Dennis, D.M., and Hitzman, D.O. 1990.
Microbial-Enhanced Waterflooding: Mink Unit Project. SPERE 5 (1):
913. SPE-17341-PA. DOI: 10.2118/17341-PA.
Bryant, S. and Rhonda, L. 1996. World-Wide Applications of Microbial
Technology for Improving Oil Recovery. Paper SPE 35356 presented
at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 2124
April. DOI: 10.2118/35356-MS.
Bryant, S., Stepp, A.K., Bertus, K.M., Burchfield, T.E., and Dennis, M.
1994. Microbial Enhanced Waterflooding Field Tests. Paper SPE
27751 presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium,
Tulsa,1720 April. DOI: 10.2118/27751-MS.
Bryant, S.L. and Lockhart, T.P. 2000. Reservoir Engineering Analysis of
Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery. Paper SPE 63229 presented at the
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 14 October.
DOI: 10.2118/63229-MS.
Burger, E.D., Jenneman, G.E., Vedvik, A. et al. 2005. A Mechanistic
Model To Evaluate Reservoir Souring in the Ekofisk Field. Paper SPE
93297 presented at the International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry,
Houston, 24 February. DOI: 10.2118/93297-MS.
Burns, L.J., Richardson, G.J., and Kimber, R.N. 2002. Tertiary Miscible
Gas Injection in the Alwyn North Brent Reservoirs. Paper SPE 78349
presented at the European Petroleum Conference, Aberdeen, 2931
October. DOI: 10.2118/78349-MS.
Buza, J.W. and Unneberg, A. 1987. Geological and Reservoir Engineering
Aspects of the Statfjord Field. In North Sea Oil and Gas Reservoirs:
v.1, ed. J. Kleppe et al., 2338. Norwegian Institute of Technology:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Carcoana, A. 1992. Applied Enhanced Oil Recovery. 175202. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Chaussumier, A. and Sakthikumar, S. 1997. Alwyn North IOR Gas Injec-
tion PotentialA Case Study. Paper SPE 37755 presented at the
Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 1518 March. DOI: 10.2118/37755-
MS.
Christensen, J.R., Stenby, E.H., and Skauge, A. 1998. Review of WAG
Field Experience. SPEREE 4 (2): 97106. SPE-71203-PA. DOI:
10.2118/71203-PA.
Clyne P.A., Bajsarowicz, C.J., Jones, K., Milne, D., and Richardson, S.M.
1993. Saving Thistles Bacon: The Role of Reservoir Management in
Optimising a High-Watercut Field. Paper SPE 26787 presented at the
Offshore European Conference, Aberdeen, 710 September. DOI:
10.2118/26787-MS.
Crogh, N.A., Eide, K., and Morterud, S.E. 2002. WAG Injection at the
Statfjord Field: A Success Story. Paper SPE 78348 presented at the
European Petroleum Conference, Aberdeen, 2931 October. DOI:
10.2118/78348-MS.
Cutt, R.N. and Niznik, M.R. 2005. Beryl Field: Extracting Maximum
Value From a Mature Asset Through the Evolution of Technology.
Paper SPE 92763 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, 2325 February. DOI: 10.2118/92763-MS.
Dalland, M. and Hanssen, J.E. 1996. Foam Application in North Sea Res-
ervoirs, II: Efficient Selection of Products for Field Use. Paper SPE
Tulsa, 2124 April. DOI: 10.2118/35375-MS.
Delshad, M., Asakawa, K., Pope, G., and Sepehrnoori, K. 2002. Simula-
tions of Chemical and Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery Methods.
Paper SPE 75237 presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, 1317 April. DOI: 10.2118/75237-MS.
Deng, D., Li, C., Ju, Q. et al. 1999. Systematic Extensive Laboratory
Studies of Microbial EOR Mechanisms and Microbial EOR Applica-
tion Results in Changqing Oil Field. Paper SPE 54380 presented at the
Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, 2022
April. DOI: 10.2118/54380-MS
Dietrich, F.L., Brown, F.G., Zhou, Z.H., and Maure, M.A. 1996. Microbial
EOR Technology Advancement: Case Studies of Successful Projects.
Paper SPE 36746 presented at the Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, 69 October. DOI: 10.2118/36746-MS.
Feng, Q., Zhou, J., Chen, Z., and Wang, X. 2002. Study on EOR Mecha-
nisms by Microbial Flooding. Paper SPE 79176 presented at the An-
nual International Technical Conference and Exhibition, Abuja, Nige-
ria, 57 August. DOI: 10.2118/79176-MS.
Frick, J.R. Jr. 1972. Bacterial Processes for Improved Oil Recovery. JPT
24 (12): 14691470. SPE-4161-PA. DOI: 10.2118/4161-PA.
Grant, C. 1993. Beryl Reservoir Management Study: The Solution of a
Complex Problem. Paper SPE 26779 presented at the Offshore Euro-
pean Conference, Aberdeen, 710 September. DOI: 10.2118/26779-
MS.
Gullapalli, I.L., Bae, J.H., Hejl, K., and Edwards, A. 1998. Laboratory
Design and Field Implementation of Microbial Profile Modification
Process. SPEREE 3 (1): 4249. SPE-60910-PA. DOI: 10.2118/60910-
PA.
Gunawan, S. and Caie, D. 2001. Handil Field: Three Years of Lean-Gas
Injection Into Waterflooded Reservoirs. SPEREE 4 (2): 107113. SPE-
71279-PA. DOI: 10.2118/71279-PA.
Haajizadeh, M., Narayanan, R., and Waldren, D. 2001. Modeling Miscible
WAG Injection EOR in the Magnus Field. Paper SPE 66378 presented
at the Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, 1114 February.
DOI: 10.2118/66378-MS.
Hansen, H. and Westvik, K. 2000. Successful Multidisciplinary Teamwork
Increases Income. Case Study: The Sleipner East Ty Field, South Vi-
king Graben, North Sea. Paper SPE 65135 presented at the European
Petroleum Conference, Paris, 2425 October. DOI: 10.2118/65135-
MS.
Hanssen, J.E. 1992. Sweep Improvements. In Recent Advances in Im-
proved Oil Recovery Methods for North Sea Sandstone Reservoirs, ed.
J. Kleppe and S.M. Skjveland, 277283. Norwegian Petroleum Di-
rectorate, SPOR Monograph Series. ISBN 82-7257-340-7
Hanssen, J.E., Dalland, M., Surguchev, L. et al. 1996. The Foam Subpro-
gram. In RUTH, 19921995, A Norwegian Research Program on Im-
proved Oil Recovery, ed. S.M. Skjveland, A. Skauge, L. Hinderaker,
and C.D. Sisk, Stavanger: Norwegian Petroleum Directorate.
Hanssen, J.E., Holt, T., and Surguchev, L.M.. 1994. Foam Processes: An
Assessment of Their Potential in North Sea Reservoirs Based on a
Critical Evaluation of Current Field Experience. Paper SPE 27768
1720 April. DOE: 10.2118/27768-MS.
Haugen, S.A., Lund, ., and Hoyland, L.A. 1987. Statfjord Field: Devel-
opment Strategy and Reservoir Management. JPT 40 (7): 863873.
SPE-16961-PA. DOI: 10.2118/16961-PA.
He, Z., She, Y., Xiang, T. et al. 2000. MEOR Pilot Sees Encouraging
Results In Chinese Oil Field. Oil & Gas J. 98 (4), http://www.ogj.com/
currentissue/index.cfm?p7&v98&i4.
Hegro, E., Dalen, V., and Strandenaes, H.O. 1994. IOR Potential With
Updip Water Injection in the Statfjord Formation at the Stafjord Field.
Paper SPE 28841 presented at the European Petroleum Conference,
London, 2527 October. DOI: 10.2118/28841-MS.
Hermansen, H., Thomas, L.K., Sylte, J.E., and Aasboe, B.T. 1997. Twenty-
Five Years of Ekofisk Reservoir Management. Paper SPE 38927 pre-
sented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Anto-
nio, Texas, 58 October. DOI: 10.2118/38927-MS.
Hinderaker, L., Utseth, R.H., Hustad, O.S. et al. 1996. RUTHA Com-
prehensive Norwegian R&D Program on IOR. Paper SPE 36844 pre-
sented at the European Petroleum Conference, Milan, Italy, 2224
October. DOI: 10.2118/36844-MS.
Hitzman, D.O. and Sperl, G.T. 1994. A New Microbial Technology for
Enhanced Oil Recovery and Sulfide Prevention and Reduction. Paper
SPE 27752 presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Sym-
posium, Tulsa, 1720 April. DOI: 10.2118/27752-MS.
Hjelmeland, O. and Jelemert, T.A. 1992. Immiscible Gas Injection. In
Recent Advances in Improved Oil Recovery Methods for North Sea
Sandstone Reservoirs, ed. J. Kleppe and S.M. Skjveland, 214216.
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate SPOR Monograph Series. ISBN 82-
7257-340-7
Hughes, D. 2004. EOR in the High Oil Price Environment. SHARP IOR
Newsletter 9 (November), http://ior.senergyltd.com/issue9/talking-
point/.
Hughes, D.S. 2002. MEOR-Reservoir Engineering Design Principles.
SHARP IOR Newsletter 3 (September), http://ior.senergyltd.com/
issue3/rd/sme/rml/page1.htm.
Hughes, S. 2003. Revival of Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR)
Initiatives on UK Continental Shelf. Presented at the Annual Workshop
and Symposium Collaborative Project on Enhanced Oil Recovery, In-
ternational Energy Agency, Canada, September 8-9 2003.
Ibrahim, Z., Omar, M.I., Foo, K.S., Elias, E.J., and Othman, M. 2004.
Simulation Analysis of Microbial Well Treatment of Bokor Field, Ma-
laysia. Paper SPE 88453 presented at the Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Perth, Australia, 1820 October. DOI:
10.2118/88453-MS.
Improved Oil Recovery, 91112. 1983. Oklahoma City: Interstate Oil Com-
pact Commission.
Improved Oil Recovery. 1997. Stavanger: Norwegian Petroleum Director-
ate.
Instefjord, R. and Todnem, A.C. 2002. 10 Years of WAG Injection in
Lower Brent at the Gullfaks Field. Paper SPE 78344 presented at the
European Petroleum Conference, Aberdeen, 2931 October. DOI:
10.2118/78344-MS.
Jackson, D.D., Andrews, G.L., and Claridge, E.L. 1985. Optimum WAG
Ratio vs. Rock Wettability in CO
2
Flooding. Paper SPE 14303 pre-
sented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas,
Nevada, 2226 September. DOI: 10.2118/14303-MS.
Jakobsson, N.M. and Christian, T.M. 1994. Historical Performance of Gas
Injection of Ekofisk. Paper SPE 28933 presented at the Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 2528 September.
DOI: 10.2118/28933-MS.
Jayasekera, A.J. and Goodyear, S.G. 2002. Improved Hydrocarbon Recov-
ery in the United Kingdom Continental Shelf: Past, Present, and Future.
Jenneman, G.E., Moffitt, P.D., and Young, G.R. 1996. Application of a
Microbial Selective-Plugging Process at the North Burbank Unit:
Prepilot Tests. SPEPF 11 (1): 1117. SPE-27827-PA. DOI: 10.2118/
27827-PA.
Jenneman, G.E., Moffitt, P.D., Baja, G.A., and Webb, R.H. 1997. Field
Demonstration of Sulfide Removal in Reservoir Brine by Bacteria In-
digenous to a Canadian Reservoir. Paper SPE 38768 presented at the
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 58
October. DOI: 10.2118/38768-MS.
Jensen, B., Hjelleset, E., and Larsen, L. 1999. Interference Testing To
Verify Drainage Strategy for a Large Offshore Development. Paper
SPE 56420 presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhi-
bition, Houston, 36 October. DOI: 10.2118/56420-MS.
Jensen, J.I., Nesteby, H., Slotte, P.A., and Berg, L.A. 1996. Brage WAG
Pilot. In RUTH, 19921995, A Norwegian Research Program on Im-
proved Oil Recovery, ed. S.M. Skjveland, A. Skauge, L. Hinderaker,
and C.D. Sisk, 93104. Stavanger: Norwegian Petroleum Directorate.
Jensen, T.B., Harpole, K.J., and sthus, A. 2000. EOR Screening for
Ekofisk. Paper SPE 65124 presented at the European Petroleum Con-
ference, Paris, 2425 October. DOI: 10.2118/65124-MS.
Jethwa, D.J., Rothkopf, B.W., and Paulson, C.I. 2000. Successful Miscible
Gas Injection in a Mature U.K. North Sea Field. Paper SPE 62990
presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
14 October. DOI: 10.2118/62990-MS.
Kadarwati, S., Udiharto, M., Hadi, N., Brinkman, J.P., and Yulianto, B.
2001. Microbial EOR Study To Improve Sweep Efficiency in Caltex
Fields. Paper SPE 72126 presented at the Asia Pacific Improved Oil
Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 69 October. DOI: 10.2118/
72126-MS.
Karim, M.G.A., Salim, M.A.H., Zain, Z.M., and Talib, N.N. 2001. Micro-
bial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR) Technology in Bokor Field, Sa-
ravak. Paper SPE 72125 presented at the Asia Pacific Improved Oil
Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 69 October. DOI: 10.2118/
72125-MS.
Kleppe, J. and Skjveland, S. M. ed. 1992. Gas Flooding. In Recent Ad-
vances in Improved Oil Recovery Methods for North Sea Sandstone
Reservoirs, Chap. 9, 207226. SPOR Monograph Series.
Kleppe, J. and Skjveland, S.M. ed. 1992. Key Parameters for Norwegian
Sandstone Reservoirs. In Recent Advances in Improved Oil Recovery
Methods for North Sea Sandstone Reservoirs, 323331. SPOR Mono-
graph Series.
Knapp, R.M., McInerney, M.J., Coates, J.D. et al. 1992. Design and Imple-
mentation of a Microbially Enhanced Oil Recovery Field Pilot, Payne
County, Oklahoma. Paper SPE 24818 presented at the Annual Tech-
nical Conference and Exhibition, Washington DC, 47 October. DOI:
10.2118/24818-MS.
Kowalewski, E., Rueslatten, I., Steen, K.H., Bodtker, G., and Torsaeter, O.
2005. Microbial Improved Oil RecoveryBacterial Induced Wettabil-
ity and Interfacial Tension Effects on Oil Production. Unpublished
internal report.
Laidlaw, W., Bayat, M.G., and Tehrani, A.D.H. 1986. Gas Injection in the
Eastern Fault Block of the Thistle Field. Paper SPE 15877 presented at
the European Petroleum Conference, London, 2022 October. DOI:
10.2118/15877-MS.
Lake, L.W. 1989. Enhanced Oil Recovery, 249259. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Lien, S.C., Lie, S.E., Fjellbirkeland, H., and Larsen, S.V. 1998. Brage
Field: Lessons Learned After 5 Years of Production. Paper SPE 50641
presented at the European Petroleum Conference, The Hague, 2022
October. DOI: 10.2118/50641-MS.
Ma, T.D., Rugen, J.A., Stoisits, R.F., and Voungren, G.K. 1995. Simulta-
neous Water and Gas Injection Pilot at the Kuparuk River Field: Res-
ervoir Impact. Paper SPE 30726 presented at the Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 2225 October. DOI: 10.2118/
30726-MS.
Madland, M.V. 2005. Water Weakening of ChalkA Mechanistic Study.
Dr. Ing. Thesis no. 11, University of Stavanger.
Matz, A.A., Borisov, A.Y., Mamedov, Y.G., and Ibatulin, R.R. 1992. Com-
mercial (Pilot) Test of Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery Methods.
Paper SPE 24208 presented at the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery
Midttun, . 2003. Problem Gas Could Give Improved Recovery. Norwe-
gian Petroleum Directorate. http://www.npd.no/English/Emner/
Ressursforvaltning/Utbygging_og_drift/okt_utvinning/miljoforum_
gunnar_berge_innlegg.htm.
Mller, S. 2005. Progress With Brent Field Depressurisation. SHARP IOR
Newsletter 10 (June), http://ior.senergyltd.com/issue10/articles/shell/.
Nagase, K., Zhang, S.T., Asami, N. et al. 2001. Improvement of Sweep
Efficiency by Microbial EOR Process in Fuyu Oil Field, China. Paper
SPE 68720 presented at the Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Jakarta, 1719 April. DOI: 10.2118/68720-MS.
Nagase, K., Zhang, S.T., Asami, H. et al. 2002. A Successful Field Test of
Microbial EOR Process in Fuyu Oil Field, China. Paper SPE 75238
presented at the Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 1317
April. DOI: 10.2118/75238-MS.
Novosad, Z. and Costain, T.G. 1987. Mechanisms of Miscibility Develop-
ment in Hydrocarbon Gasdrives: New Interpretation. SPERE 4 (3):
341347. SPE-16717-PA. DOI: 10.2118/16717-PA.
NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of
Pet rol eum Engi neeri ng and Appl i ed Geophysi cs. ht t p: / /
www.ipt.ntnu.no/landsbyen/Gullfakslandsbyen2006/.
Ohno, K., Maezumi, S., Sarma, H.K. et al. 1999. Implementation and
Performance of a Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery Pilot in Fuyu Oil
Field, China. Paper SPE 54328 presented at the Asia Pacific Oil and
Gas Conference, Jakarta, 2022 April. DOI: 10.2118/54328-MS.
yno, L., Whitson, C.H., and Haldoupis, A.J. 1996. Dry Gas Injection
After Water Injection in Fractured Chalk Reservoirs. In RUTH, 1992
1995, A Norwegian Research Program on Improved Oil Recovery, ed.
S.M. Skjveland, A. Skauge, L. Hinderaker, and C.D. Sisk, 115123.
Stavanger: Norwegian Petroleum Directorate.
Phil, T. 2004. SHARP IOR Newsletter 6 (January), http://ior.senergyltd
.com/pastissues.htm.
Phillips, I.C. 1991. Reservoir Gas Management in the Brae Area of the
North Sea. Paper SPE 22918 presented at the Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, Dallas, 69 October. DOI: 10.2118/22918-MS.
Portwood, J.T. 1995. A Commercial Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery
Technology: Evaluation of 322 Projects. Paper SPE 29518 presented at
the Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
24 April. DOI: 10.2118/29518-MS.
Portwood, J.T. and Hiebert, F.K. 1992. Mixed Culture Microbial Enhanced
Waterflood: Tertiary MEOR Case Study. Paper SPE 24820 presented at
the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington DC, 47
October. DOI: 10.2118/24820-MS.
Quale, E.A., Crapez, B., Stensen, J.A., and Berge, L.I. 2000. SWAG In-
jection on the Siri FieldAn Optimized Injection System for Less
Cost. Paper SPE 65165 presented at the European Petroleum Confer-
ence, Paris, 2425 October. DOI: 10.2118/65165-MS.
Righi, E.F., Royo, J., Gentil, P. et al. 2004. Experimental Study of Tertiary
Immiscible WAG Injection. Paper SPE 89360 presented at the SPE/
DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 1721 April. DOI:
10.2118/89360-MS.
Sabut, B., Salim, M.A.H., Hamid, A.S.A., and Khor, S.F. 2003. Further
Evaluation of Microbial Treatment Technology for Improved Oil Pro-
duction in Bokor Field, Sarawak. Paper SPE 84867 presented at the
International Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia Pacific, Kuala
Lumpur, 2021 October. DOI: 10.2118/84867-MS.
Sanchez, N.L. 1999. Management of Water Alternating Gas (WAG) In-
jection Projects. Paper SPE 53714 presented at the Latin American and
Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Caracas, 2123 April.
DOI: 10.2118/53714-MS.
Sayyouh, M.H. 2002. Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery: Research Studies
in the Arabic Area During the Last Ten Years. Paper SPE 75218
1317 April. DOI: 10.2118/75218-MS.
Sheehy, A.J. 1990. Field Studies of Microbial EOR. Paper SPE 20254
presented at the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa,
2225 April. DOI: 10.2118/20254-MS.
Skauge, A. 1992. Gravity Stable Displacement. In Recent Advances in
Improved Oil Recovery Methods for North Sea Sandstone Reservoirs,
ed. J. Kleppe and S.M. Skjveland, 224226. Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate SPOR Monograph Series. ISBN 82-7257-340-7
Skauge, A. 1997. Simulation Studies of WAG Using Three-Phase Relative
Permeability Hysterisis Models. Paper 015 presented at the European
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, The Hague, 2022 October.
Skauge, A., Aarra, M.G., Surguchev, L., Martinsen, H.A., and Rasumus-
sen, L. 2002. Foam-Assisted WAG: Experience from the Snorre Field.
Slotte, P.A., Stenmark, H., and Aurdal, T. 1996. Snorre WAG Pilot. In
RUTH, 19921995, A Norwegian Research Program on Improved Oil
Recovery, ed. S.M. Skjveland, A. Skauge, L. Hinderaker, and C.D.
Sisk, 8591. Stavanger: Norwegian Petroleum Directorate.
Sorheim, R. and Paulsen, J.E. 1996. Microbiology and Water Injection in
North Sea Oil Fields. In RUTH, 19921995, A Norwegian Research
Program on Improved Oil Recovery, ed. S.M. Skjveland, A. Skauge,
L. Hinderaker, and C.D. Sisk, 420. Stavanger: Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate.
Stalkup, F.I. Jr. 1983. Miscible Displacement. Henry L. Doherty Mono-
graph Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas 8.
Steele, L.E. and Adams, G.E. 1984. A Review of the Northern North Seas
Beryl Field After Seven Years Production. Paper SPE 12960 presented
at the European Petroleum Conference, London, 2225 October. DOI:
10.2118/12960-MS.
Stephenson, D.J., Graham, A.G., and Luhning, R.W. 1993. Mobility Con-
trol Experience in the Joffre Viking Miscible CO
2
Flood. SPERE 8 (3):
183188. SPE-23598-PA. DOI: 10.2118/23598-PA.
Stoisits, R.F., Krist, G.J., Ma, T.D. et al. 1995. Simultaneous Water and
Gas Injection Pilot at the Kuparuk River Field, Surface Line Impact.
Paper SPE 30645 presented at the Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, 2225 October. DOI: 10.2118/30645-MS.
Stone, H.L. 2004. A Simultaneous Water and Gas Flood Design With
Extraordinary Vertical Gas Sweep. Paper SPE 91724 presented at the
International Petroleum Conference in Mexico, Puebla, Mexico, 79
November. DOI: 10.2118/91724-MS.
Suffridge, F.E., Raterman, K.T., and Russell, G.C. 1989. Foam Perfor-
mance Under Reservoir Conditions. Paper SPE 19691 presented at the
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
811 October. DOI: 10.2118/19691-MS.
Sunde, E., Beeder, J., Nilsen, R.K., and Torsvik, T. 1992. Aerobic Micro-
bial Enhanced Oil Recovery for Offshore Use. Paper SPE 24204 pre-
sented at the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa,
2224 April. DOI: 10.2118/24204-MS.
Surguchev, L.M. and Hanssen, J.E. 1996. Foam Application in North Sea
Reservoirs, I: Design and Technical Support of Field Trials. Paper SPE
Tulsa, 2124 April. DOE: 10.2118/35371-MS.
Surguchev, L.M., Korbol, R., Haugen, S., and Krakstad, O.S. 1992.
Screening of WAG Injection Strategies for Heterogeneous Reservoirs.
Paper SPE 25075 presented at the European Petroleum Conference,
Cannes, France, 1618 November. DOI: 10.2118/25075-MS.
Svorstol, I., Blaker, T., Tham, M.J., and Hjellen, A. 1997. A Production
Well Foam Pilot in the North Sea FieldApplication of Foam to
Control Premature Gas Breakthrough. Paper 001 presented at the Eu-
ropean Symposium on IOR, The Hague, 2022 October.
Taber, J.J. 1983. Technical Screening Guides for the Enhanced Recovery
of Oil. Paper SPE 12069 presented at the Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Francisco, 58 October. DOI: 10.2118/12069-MS.
Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D., and Seright, R.S. 1996. EOR Screening Criteria
RevisitedPart 1: Introduction to Screening Criteria and Enhanced
Recovery Field Projects. SPERE 12 (3): 189198. SPE-35385-PA.
DOI: 10.2118/35385-PA.
Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D., and Seright, R.S. 1997. EOR Screening Criteria
RevisitedPart 2: Applications and Impact of Oil Prices. SPERE 12
(3): 199206. SPE-39234-PA. DOI: 10.2118/39234-PA.
Thibeau, S. 2002. Smrbukk Field: Impact of Small Scale Heterogeneity
on Gas Cycling Performance. Paper SPE 75229 presented at the SPE/
DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 1318 April. DOI:
10.2118/75229-MS.
Trebbau, G.L., Nuez, G.J., Caira, R.L. et al. 1999. Microbial Stimulation
of Lake Maracaibo Oil Wells. Paper SPE 56503 presented at the An-
nual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 36 October.
DOI: 10.2118/56503-MS.
Vassenden, F., Holt, T., and Solheim, A. 1998. Foam Propagation on
Semi-Reservoir Scale. Paper SPE 39682 presented at the SPE/DOE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 1922 April. DOI:
10.2118/39682-MS.
Vikingstad, A.K., Aarra, M.G., and Skauge, A. 2004. Effect of Surfactant
Structure on Foam-Oil InteractionsComparing Fluorinated Surfac-
tant and Alpha Olefin Sulfonate in Static Foam Tests. Paper presented
at the IEA Annual Workshop and Symposium, Stavanger, 58 Sep-
tember.
Walker, J.W. and Turner, J.L. 1968. Performance of Seeligson Zone 20B-
07 Enriched-Gas-Drive Project. JPT 20 (4): 369373. SPE-1884-PA.
DOI: 10.2118/1884-PA.
Xia, T. 2004. Air Injection: Maximizing IOR Benefit From UKCS Light
Oil Fields. SHARP IOR eNewsletter 8 (May): http://ior.senergyltd.com/
issue8/rnd/universities/bath/.
Yonebayashi, H., Ono, K., Enomoto, H., Chida, T., Hong, C., and Fuji-
wara, K. 1997. Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery Field Pilot in a
Waterflooded Reservoir. Paper SPE 38070 presented at the Asia Pacific
Oil and Gas Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 1418 April. DOI: 10.2118/
38070-MS.
Yusuf, A. and Kadarwati, S. 1999. Field Test of the Indigenous Microbes
for Oil Recovery, Ledok Field, Central Java. Paper SPE 57309 pre-
sented at the Asia Pacific Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala
Lumpur, 2526 October. DOI: 10.2118/57309-MS.
Zhang, Y., Xu, Z., Ji, P., Hou, W., and Dietrich, F. 1999. Microbial EOR
Laboratory Studies and Application Results in Daqing Oil Field. Paper
SPE 54332 presented at the Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Jakarta, 2022 April. DOI: 10.2118/54332-MS.
Zhdanov, S.A., Amiyan, A.V., Surguchev, L.M., Castanier, L.M., and
Hanssen, J.E. 1996. Application of Foam for Gas and Water Shut-off:
Review of Field Experience. Paper SPE 36914 presented at the Euro-
pean Petroleum Conference, Milan, Italy, 2224 October. DOI:
10.2118/36914-MS.
Zick, A.A. 1986. A Combined Condensing/Vaporizing Mechanism in the
Displacement of Oil by Enriched Gases. Paper SPE 15493 presented at
the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 58
October. DOI: 10.2118/15493-MS.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
bar 1.0* E + 05 Pa
cp 1.0* E03 Pa s
F (F32)/ 1.8 C
*Conversion factor is exact.
Anwar Awan holds a MS degree from the department of pe-
troleum engineering and applied geophysics at the Norwe-
gian University of Science and Technology. He currently works
for StatoilHydro, where he has been since 2005, as a reservoir
engineer. Rune Teigland holds a MS degree in applied me-
chanics from the University of California, San Diego and a PhD
degree in applied mathematics from the University of Bergen.
He also holds a Master of Management Degree from the Nor-
wegian School of Business Management. Teigland has eight
years of experience as a petroleum engineer within reservoir
and hydrocarbon characterisation, reservoir simulation, and
improved oil recovery methods. Furthermore, he has three
years of experience in field development of petroleum reser-
voirs, in particular within exploration rounds and early phase
development and planning. In addition, Teigland has six years
experience as numerical analyst/software developer with em-
phasis on computational fluid dynamics applications. He cur-
rently works in the strategy and business development unit at
the Total E&P headquarters in Paris as a petroleum architect.
Jon Kleppe is a professor of reservoir engineering and depart-
ment chairman of the department of petroleum engineering
and applied geophysics at the Norwegian University of Sci-
ence and Technology. He holds BSc and MSc degrees in me-
chanical engineering from SDSMT and a PhD degree in petro-
leum engineering from Texas A&M University. He has more than
30 years of experience in research, consulting, and teaching
related to reservoir engineering and reservoir simulation, and
has supervised around 150 MSc students and around 20 PhD
students.

Spe 99546 Pa P PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spe 99546 Pa P PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Survey of North Sea

Enhanced-Oil-Recovery Projects Initiated

You might also like