SPE-169680-MS

Implementation of Enhanced oil Recovery Techniques in India: New

Challenges and Technologies
Vijai Kumar Baskaran, Kamal Chandra Dani, Krishna Pavan Kumar, Dr. Ashish Manohar Urkude, University of
Petroleum & Energy Studies, Dehradun, India

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia held in Muscat, Oman, 31 March2 April 2014.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Indias crude oil reserves tend to be light and sweet, with specific gravity varying from 38 API in the offshore
Mumbai High field to 32 API at other onshore basins. India produced roughly 880 thousand barrels per day
(bbl/d) of total oil in 2009 from over 3,600 operating oil wells. Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is a term applied to
methods used for recovering oil from a petroleum reservoir beyond that recoverable by primary and secondary
methods. Primary recovery normally refers to the production using the energy inherent in the reservoir from gas
under pressure or a natural water drive. Secondary recovery refers to usually refers to injection of water or water
flooding thus, enhance oil recovery is often synonymous with tertiary recovery. Four group of methods thermal
recovery, gas miscible recovery, chemical flooding and microbial flooding are included in this collection.
Implemented EOR techniques in India include alkaline surfactant flooding (ASF) in Jhalora-Rajasthan, KalolGujarat, and Ankleshwar-Gujarat, immiscible hydrocarbon water alternating gas injection (HC-WAG) in Gandhar
fields- South Gujarat, in-situ combustion/air Injection and simultaneous water and gas injection (SWAG) in
Mumbai High. Some of the EOR pilots on anvil are immiscible CO2, microbial in-situ stimulation, and paraffin
control microbes in western onshore regions of India. The planned techniques include air injection in light oil in
western offshore, immiscible flue gas in western onshore and immiscible CO2 in eastern onshore. The Indian
government and other oil E&P organizations expects this geographical dependence to rise in light of limited
prospects for domestic production and hence, interested in Enhanced oil recovery techniques.

SPE-169680-MS

Introduction
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) is a term for special techniques to increase the amount of crude oil that can be
extracted from a field, over and above conventional primary depletion or basic waterflooding which typically will
recover 20- 40% of the stock tank oil initially in place (STOIIP). Using typical EOR methods, an additional 1020% of STOIIP can be extracted from a field.

Figure 1: Worldwide EOR production rates

Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technologies are used to increase the amount of oil that can be extracted from an
oil field after the primary and secondary production stages. The global EOR technologies market- including
investments in research and development (R&D) as well as spending on acquiring and using the technologies - to
be worth$19.32bn in 2012. Growth over the ten year forecast period will be driven by a combination of factors,
including high oil prices, ageing oil fields, rapidly escalating global energy demands, a desire to increase energy
independence, increasing EOR opportunities in heavy oil and oil sands recovery, and a desire to reduce carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Microbial enhanced oil recovery
Reviving natural resources, naturally:
Tiny and invisible, bacteria are often maligned as bugs that cause diseases in humans and animals. Little do we
know of how wonderfully they help sustain life on earth. As the base of the food chain in many environments, they
do the most inane and tedious of jobsfrom breaking down dead, organic matter and recycling natural resources
to putting that tang in yoghurt, and that sour taste in dough bread. And now, scientists at Tata Energy Research
Institute (TERI) have developed ways of utilizing these bacteria to extract oil from sick or less productive oil wells
and putting them back in business.
A technological breakthrough
Microbial biotechnology came to the rescue when researchers at TERI cultured a set of microbes that could
survive temperatures as high as 90C, air pressure up to 140 kilograms per square centimeter, and strong salinity
with concentration levels ranging from 4% to 8%. Techniques used earlier for oil recovery employed microbes that
could bear temperatures only up to 65 C. TERI cultured these stronger bacteria in simulated conditions of oil
wells complete with high temperature, high pressure, and heavy salt concentration. The product was successfully
tested in oil wells in Gujarat and the rest, as they say, is history.
Tackling critical needs:
Ageing of wells is a perpetual and crucial concern that the global oil industry faces. Thousands of oil wells lie
abandonedthey are either unproductive or yield oil in insignificant quantities. An oil well becomes sick when
approximately 30% of oil in place has been recovered. The reason: natural gas in the reservoir (responsible for

SPE-169680-MS

pushing oil up to the mouth of the well) diminishes in quantity and loses pressure because of deep extraction. As
a result, the oil flow decreases and eventually stops. These so-called dead or sick wells still have a substantial
quantity of oil left in them. Conventional methods of recovery are extremely expensive and costs can vary from
140 000 to 200 000 dollars per well. However, as oil reserves dry up globally, the depth of wells increases, and
temperatures inside the reservoirs also increase (it varies between 80 C and 120 C), these methods prove
ineffective and the task becomes more challenging.
From unwell to oil well
The MEOR (microbial enhanced oil recovery) mechanism of extracting oil from less productive wells has solved
an age-old problem that perplexed the oil industry the world over. Also called the huff-puff method of oil recovery
(it involves injecting microbes and then sucking up oil), it extracts over three times the oil than any other
conventional process.

Figure 2: Preparing nutrients for injection into the oil well (Courtesy ONGC & TERI)

After these microbes are injected into an oil well, they take close to a fortnight to do their job. What happens in the
oil reservoir during the incubation time makes for interesting study. To understand it better, one needs to visualize
rocks with pores, much like a honeycomb. Oil, being viscous, is trapped in these pores.

Figure 3: Mixing nutrients with microbes (Courtesy ONGC & TERI)

These microbes produce carbon dioxide and methane, gases that enter the pores and squeeze out every ounce
of oil. They also produce bio-surfactants (detergent-like compounds) that reduce the tension between oil and the
rock surface and help release the oil. The reaction of these microbes in oil also releases alcohol and volatile fatty
acids. The alcohol reduces the viscosity of oil, making it light enough to flow out. The fatty acids solubilize the
rock surface and thus push oil off them. The MEOR process of oil recovery actually offers more than the

SPE-169680-MS

advantages of conventional methods of oil recovery plus the added strengths of the microbes.
Wells of the ONGC (Oil and Natural Gas Corporation) in Gujarat have been revived, thanks to this technology,
and are functioning again. The MEOR technology, when applied in 25 oil wells of ONGC, extracted 4500 cubic
metres of oil from one of the sick wells, translating into revenues of more than 675 000 dollars. The Company
plans to use the technology for other sick oil wells in Gujarat and Assam. Its benefits such as cost-effective use
and environment-friendly nature have generated interest among oil firms in the Middle East and other oilproducing countries. Funded partly by the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India, the project
received financial assistance of 10 million rupees from ONGC, and technical and infrastructural support from the
IRS (Institute of Reservoir Studies), a research wing of ONGC. T E R I and ONGC have already jointly applied for
a patent for this technology.
Applications/benefits:
Oil recovered through T E R Is microbial technology has helped bring down the cost of oil substantially.
Depending upon the nature of recovery, the price of each barrel of oil can decrease by as much as 35%40%.
Moreover, the environment-friendly nature of this form of oil recovery gives it an edge over other conventional
methods. The possibilities that these invisible, living organisms offer us are immense and still not fully tapped.

Figure 4: Injecting selected microbes into the oil well (Courtesy ONGC & TERI)

Chemical EOR
There has been a renaissance in chemical EOR during the past few years because of major advances in the
technology and high oil prices. Thermal and miscible gas methods are much more mature with the exception of
processes such as co-injection of gases and surfactants for mobility control. The synergy between the EOR
processes and improved reservoir characterization and formation evaluation, reservoir modeling and simulation,
reservoir management, well technology, production methods, and facilities is significant and not as widely
recognized as it should be. Polymer flooding is the simplest and most widely used chemical EOR process.
Polymer flooding has been used commercially since the 1960s; more oil is produced by polymer flooding than all
of the other chemical EOR processes combined. Adding polymer to the water increases its viscosity. The benefit
of polymer flooding increases as the oil viscosity and/or the reservoir heterogeneity increases. Polyacrylamide
copolymers or hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (HPAM) polymers are by far the most widely used polymer for EOR.
Much higher molecular weight HPAM is now available than when it was first used in the 1960s and 1970s. The
quality of commercial HPAM polymer has also improved dramatically and the price relative to crude oil has
decreased. In the early 1970s, oil sold for about USD 3/bbl and HPAM polymer for about USD 1.50/lb. Now oil is
about USD 100/bbl and HPAM stays about the same price.

SPE-169680-MS

About 1 to 2 lbs of polymer are needed to produce an incremental barrel of oil, which means the polymer cost is
about USD 1.50/bbl to USD 3/bbl. This helps explain why the number of polymer floods is increasing
exponentially and about 1 billion lbs of polymer will be used for EOR this year. Most early polymer floods were
done using very small amounts of polymer (i.e., low polymer concentrations and small pore volumes of polymer
solution), but now we know polymer floods perform much better at large polymer concentration. Incremental oil
recovery is on the order of 12% original oil in place (OOIP) when polymer solution is injected for about one pore
volume and values as high as 30% OOIP have been reported for some field projects.
We have also learned that under some circumstances, HPAM polymer can reduce the so-called irreducible oil
saturation below its water flood value and thus further increase oil recovery. Furthermore, low salinity brine can be
used for the polymer solution with the potential of reducing the irreducible oil saturation even more as well as
requiring a lower polymer concentration to provide the same viscosity. It is not surprising that injecting one pore
volume or more of polymer solution increases oil recovery and profit because decades of field experience show
that profit is increased by continuing to inject carbon dioxide in miscible gas floods and steam in steam drives.
The benefit of injecting polymer solution for long periods is often underestimated based on numerical simulations.
Water fingers into the more viscous polymer solution when it displaces it. This process is difficult to simulate
unless very small grid blocks are used. It is a myth that HPAM cannot be used in high salinity brines, but it is true
that more polymers is required to achieve a given viscosity as the salinity increases up to about 40,000 ppm total
dissolved solids. No additional viscosity reduction occurs at still higher salinities. However, the choice of a suitable
polymer also depends on the hardness of the brine and the temperature. Under anaerobic conditions,
polyacrylamide is thermally stable up to at least 120C, but it does hydrolyze at a significant rate above about
75C depending on the pH and other variables. In soft brine, this is not a problem and, in fact, the viscosity
increases with additional hydrolysis. The brine must be softened for alkaline surfactant polymer (ASP) flooding to
use a conventional alkali such as sodium carbonate, so HPAM polymer can be used in ASP floods evenat high
temperature. However, above a certain level of hydrolysis and divalent cations (such as calcium), HPAM will
precipitate. Commercial copolymers of acrylamide can be used under such conditions to extend the temperature
limit in hard brines to about 100C. More expensive copolymers of acrylamide or some more expensive
biopolymers are stable in hard brines up to at least 120C. The best choice of polymer will depend on the brines
hardness, temperature, polymer cost, reservoir characterisitcs and other factors that need to be carefully studied
and optimized to reduce risk and cost. Low permeability is another technical limitation of polymer flooding. The
lower limit of permeability depends on the molecular weight distribution of the polymer and the pore size
distribution of the rock. Usually the limit is on the order of 5 md. A highly successful commercial full field polymer
flood was done in a 5 md dolomite reservoir in the 1980s. In general, the economics become unfavorable at such
low permeability because more polymer is needed to viscosify the water using low molecular weight polymers.
Surfactant Polymer Flooding
Unlike polymer floods, surfactant polymer (SP) flooding was not commercial when oil prices were low, but many
technically successful SP pilots were done by 1986. Adding alkali to the surfactant solution (ASP flooding)
reduced the cost significantly. Several small commercial ASP projects were reported in the 1990s. A much
smaller amount of surfactant is needed for ASP flooding than for SP flooding. At current prices and under some
reservoir conditions, the economics of ASP flooding appear to be very favorable since the chemical costs can be
reduced to as little as USD 10/bbl of incremental oil produced. However, conventional ASP flooding is much more
complex than SP flooding, requires oils that react with the alkali to form soap in-situ, and the injection brine must
be softened. Incremental oil recoveries vary widely; when properly designed, it ranges between 20% and 30%
OOIP following mature water floods. There have been major advances in both SP and ASP EOR during the past
five years. It is hard to overstate the potential impact of these technical advances. Some of the best surfactants
now have a molecular weight 10 times larger than was previously used and the surfactant molecule is much more
highly branched. These surfactants have low adsorption on both sandstones and carbonates in part because of
the greater molecular branching. Though they cost about the same per pound as the old surfactants, they can be
more than three times more efficient in terms of oil recovery per pound of surfactant. Surfactants that perform well
in high salinity brines and at very high temperatures up to at least 120C are available. Both SP and ASP

SPE-169680-MS

floodings can be used to recover oils with a viscosity up to at least 200 cp. If the surfactants are added to hot
water, then the oil viscosity range can probably be extended to 10,000 cp or higher. Remarkably, the same highperformance anionic surfactants, such as alkyl ether sulfates developed for sandstone reservoirs, are also good
choices for carbonate reservoirs. Furthermore, these surfactants are of higher purity and quality than those used
previously and the inflation adjusted cost has gone down. In addition to having better surfactants at a lower cost
relative to crude oil, major advances have occurred in how to select the best surfactants, how to test them in the
laboratory, and how to scale up laboratory data to the field. The primary goal of adding surfactants to water is to
lower the interfacial tension (IFT) to about 0.001 mN/m. Essentially all of the oil trapped by capillary forces
(residual oil) is displaced from the pores when the IFT is reduced to such ultra-low levels. It is of equal or greater
importance that the surfactant solution form a micro emulsion with low viscosity when it mixes with the oil in the
rock. In practice, we almost always mix several chemicals in what we refer to as a formulation: primary surfactant,
co-surfactant, co-solvent, alkali (for ASP only) and brine of varying salinity and hardness (we typically add
polymer later). Fortunately, there is a simple, fast and inexpensive way to observe many chemical mixtures with
the brine and oil and then select the best one for more detailed testing. We mix several aqueous solutions of the
chemicals with the crude oil and visually observe the IFT and viscosity from a few hours up to a few weeks until
the mixture equilibrates, an approach we refer to as phase behavior testing. For surfactant mixtures that form
good micro-emulsions, we can reliably calculate the IFT from theory using only equilibrium phase behavior data.
This saves tremendous amounts of time and money and has other advantages.
The surfactant mixture must be formulated with each crude oil since they are all different. With current technology,
good results can be found for any crude oil, but the surfactant phase behavior tests must be done and careful
observations made to achieve optimum results. Using off-the-shelf surfactants without testing will inevitably lead
to below optimum results and maybe failure.
Solutions in Reservoir Cores
The next step in the laboratory testing program is to evaluate the SP or ASP solutions in reservoir cores. The
phase behavior method is now so effective that the SP/ASP flood usually reduces the final oil saturation to less
than 0.03 on the very first try. The most critical measurement of any core flood is the pressure drop across each
section of the core. If the pressure gradient greatly exceeds the value possible in the oil reservoir, then the core
flood data are not a good indication of reservoir performance and corrective measurements must be taken to
improve the surfactant formulation. Core floods must be done with a sufficiently long core and a sufficiently high
residence time to be able to reliably scale them up by more than 100- to 1000- fold to reservoir well spacing by
using a mechanistic reservoir simulator.

Figure 5: Reservoir simulation is needed to scale up the laboratory results to the field.

We now have mechanistic chemical flood simulators that can be used to design SP/ASP flooding processes and
predict performance. The improvements in simulation capability during the past few years have been continuous

SPE-169680-MS

and highly significant. We also now have a better understanding of what is most important to measure and model.
And we can do it much faster and more accurately than before. We can integrate the chemical flooding simulation
process into the project workflow to ensure a more robust design. Decades of laboratory and field experience with
SP flooding have shown that they are most robust when the formation salinity is higher than optimum salinity
(lowest IFT) and the salinity in the polymer drive is lower than optimum salinity (called a salinity gradient) so that
the surfactant goes through the optimum salinity even if the reservoir conditions (temperature, pressure, oil
composition e.g. solution gas) are different than expected. One of the biggest challenges of applying chemical
flooding commercially is to focus on just a few critical issues, such as the salinity gradient, rather than on issues
that make almost no difference with currently available high-performance surfactants and polymers. The most
critical engineering design factor by far is the salinity of the injected polymer drive. ASP flooding is especially
complex, but even so there are just a few design factors that dominate its performance. Research into altering the
wettability of a rock using surfactants has also been under way for decades. The main target is mixed wet or oil
wet fractured carbonate reservoirs where most of the oil remains in the tight matrix. Cationic surfactants were
used in most early research because of the positive charge on carbonate surfaces. Less expensive anionic
surfactants have recently been found to perform as well or better than cationic surfactants. The co-injection of gas
with surfactant solutions (SG/ASG) is a new and rapidly evolving option that does not require the use of polymer
and thus avoid some of the limitations of commercial polymers. Research on foams goes back several decades,
but the differences now are so profound that it is probably better to use new names for the process rather than
call it foam. The goal is not to make highly viscous foam for near well treatments. The goal of SG/ASG is to
provide mobility control for an ultralow IFT surfactant solution by increasing the apparent viscosity by a factor
similar to polymer viscosity so the pressure gradient will be low and the surfactant will transport long distances
between wells. A low-quality foam seems to work best for this purpose. Remarkably, most if not all of the best
surfactants for SP/ASP create enough foam in situ to reduce the mobility by the desired factor of about 10.
Surfactants can also be used with miscible gas flooding EOR such as carbon dioxide flooding. New CO2 soluble
surfactants have been developed that can be injected as a gas solution. There are several advantages to this
approach. For example, if the surfactant is injected as an aqueous solution, then the water can segregate
because of gravity or heterogeneity or both. Segregation reduces its effectiveness in controlling the mobility of the
gas and thus decreases its effectiveness in improving sweep efficiency and oil recovery. We used the same
fundamental scientific understanding of how to optimize surfactant molecular structure to make new surfactants
for CO2 that was developed by extensive research in the 1970s and 1980s for SP flooding. In fact, adding
surfactant to CO2 is likely to be the most common way to do CO2 floods in the future. There may be a continuum
between these different processes in the future.

SPE-169680-MS

Figure 6: Supplying chemicals for EOR offshore presents special challenges.

Selection of EOR Process

How does an operator decide which EOR process to use and when? To provide a satisfactory answer requires an
integrated study of the reservoir and its characteristics. In many cases, several of the EOR methods should be
studied in depth before making a final decision rather than follow conventional wisdom or simplified screening
criteria that may be out of date. The choice between carbon dioxide miscible flooding and one of the chemical
flooding methods seems difficult in many cases. A good starting point is to ask some very high-level questions:
What is the current oil saturation?
What is the expected residual oil saturation after water flooding? The latter is often very uncertain and may
require special testing such as partitioning tracers to determine the oil saturation with sufficient accuracy for EOR
planning purposes. If the residual oil saturation is too small, then both CO2 miscible gas and SP/ASP flooding are
unlikely to be profitable. On the other hand, polymer flooding might still make sense if the remaining oil saturation
is high.
What is the oil viscosity?
CO2 flooding becomes very inefficient as the oil viscosity increases above about 10 cp unless surfactant is used
to improve sweep efficiency. SP/ASP becomes less efficient above about 200 cp unless heat is used to reduce
the oil viscosity. Polymer flooding has been used up to about 1000 cp. Above 1000 cp, conventional thermal EOR
may be the best choice unless the reservoir is too deep or too thin and would cause excessive heat losses.
What is the permeability and porosity and how heterogeneous is the reservoir?
If the permeability is less than 5 md, then polymer, SP and ASP flooding become much less efficient compared
with gas flooding processes such as CO2 flooding and SG/ASG flooding. Of course the economics of EOR
improve dramatically for all of the processes as permeability, porosity and thickness increase but to different
degrees.
Are sufficient volumes of CO2 available or likely to be available at a reasonable cost in the future to flood the
reservoir?
Is the reservoir deep enough for the pressure to exceed the minimum miscibility pressure for CO2?

SPE-169680-MS

Is the reservoir naturally fractured and what are the characteristics of the fractures?
Polymer flooding and surfactant imbibition/wettability alteration processes can be used even in some highly
fractured reservoirs. After these questions are addressed, then what? The ideal strategy is to use both simplified
models and detailed reservoir simulation models to explore the options assuming the process might be economic.
If initial calculations indicate the process may be profitable, then there will be a need for additional laboratory and
field measurements followed by more modeling. In many cases, a single well test will be justified to evaluate
injectivity, reduction in oil saturation and other performance indicators that can only be assessed with field tests.
When comparing the economics of different processes, many factors must also be taken into account. The
chemical methods have the advantage of lower capital cost than miscible gas and thermal methods, and
commercial projects can start small and be expanded if successful without the need for expensive infrastructure
such as a pipeline. On the other hand, there may be an incentive to sequester CO2 oil reservoirs at some
locations. Typically it takes about 10 Mcf of CO2 to recover an incremental barrel of oil and about half of this gas
will be left in the reservoir at the economic limit. The cost of the CO2 will vary over a wide range depending on the
location. Large volumes of inexpensive CO2 are available in some places such as the Permian Basin in the US,
whereas CO2 that must be captured from a power plant will be very expensive. So what are the most significant
constraints on any kind of EOR? My guess is the following in order of importance: a shortage of experienced
engineers and geoscientists with a fundamental understanding of EOR, uncertainty in oil prices, and risk aversion
due in part to out-of-date knowledge and in part to the complexity of EOR compared with more conventional oil
recovery. There are also environmental concerns that must be addressed for each process and location. For
these and other reasons, it may take many years to ramp up EOR production to millions of barrels per day. The
ultimate potential to increase total light and heavy oil production as both EOR technology and enabling upstream
production technologies continue to improve is likely to be on the order of 1 trillion barrels assuming favorable
economic and regulatory conditions exist over the next few decades, and the above constraints are fully
understood and addressed. A much higher priority and much greater level of effort than currently being expended
will be required over the long term to achieve that high potential. The technology is sound. The need is great. The
potential is huge.
Case: Overview of Santhal Field, An EOR Implemented Field of Cambay Basin, Inferred from 3D Seismic
In-situ combustion process has been implemented in Santhal field on commercial scale since 1997 for enhancing
the recovery of heavy oil. During performance reviews of the wells involved in EOR process it was observed that
behavior of some of the wells does not confirm to prediction/ anticipation based on the existing geological model.
It with modification/up gradation of existing geological model incorporating faults interpreted from 3D seismic data.
The Santhal field is southern segment of the heavy oil belt comprising Lanwa, Balol and Santhal fields located in
North Cambay Basin. The heavy oil belt is a narrow, NW-SE striking, elongated strip, 30 km long and 1-1.5 km
wide. Crude oil viscosity ranges from 60-200 cps at 17 degree API gravity. The average reservoir pressure and
temperature are 100kg/ cm2 and 70 degree C respectively at a depth of 990 m below msl. The density of crude
oil is 0.95 gm/cc. Primary recovery from this field under active edge water drive is estimated to be 18 %. This
necessitated implementation of an enhanced oil recovery technique to produce more oil from this field. Extensive
laboratory studies were carried out at IRS for selecting most appropriate EOR technique. The In-situ Combustion
(ISC) process was found to be the most suitable enhanced oil recovery method for heavy Oil belt of Cambay
Basin.
The ISC process was executed in KS-1 reservoir sand in Santhal field, primarily involves conversion of an existing
oil producer to air injector by re-completion with heat shield, burner assembly and thermocouple run over tubing
for temperature monitoring at the surface. The ISC process is very much effective in terms of heavy displacement
of crude oil, reservoir pressurization with the formation of secondary gas cap resulting in added advantage of
gravity drainage. Moreover, only small amount of in-place oil is consumed while the rest is displaced, banked and
finally produced. In Santhal field around 15 MMT of ultimate recoverable oil was locked up that is being exploited
under Insitu combustion process -an Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) method. The ISC process has been
indicating satisfactory results in Santhal field in terms of enhanced production. However, somewhere during
implementation some anomalies have been observed which were prima-facie, inexplicable, hampering effective

10

SPE-169680-MS

reservoir management of the field. The problem was analyzed taking into account all available data and a view
emerged that there may be some subsurface faults/ barriers (not mapped so far) playing significant role in the
movement of EOR generated fluids. The recently acquired and processed 3D seismic data was interpreted with
an objective to analyze the effect of identified faults on the performance of ongoing ISC process and to take
necessary corrective measures.
The existing geological model did not incorporate any faults. Interpretation of available 2D seismic data was not of
much help as the seismic grid was discontinuous and had large data gaps. The newly acquired 3D seismic data
over Santhal field was interpreted for updating geological model. The VSP data of six wells was used to
identify/calibrate the Kalol top reflection event. GPS Location data of 202 wells were used to facilitate generation
of a composite base map. Six longitudinal faults FE1, F1, FW1, FE2, and FE3 & FE4 running parallel or sub
parallel to North-South have been identified over the area.

Figure 7: Santhal Field with well location

One of the faults FE1 is structure building fault close to Mehsana Horst. The faults F1,FE2,FE3 run parallel to the
structure building fault FE1 and are downthrown towards east with magnitude of throw varying between 5 to 10
ms. two way time. Fault FE1 is downthrown towards west by about 10 ms. The fault FW1 joins the fault F1 and
together they demarcate a small high. Time structure and Depth structure maps with faults are prepared. Kalol

SPE-169680-MS

11

sands of Santhal field are thinly laminated layers of sand and shale and one obvious implication of the mapped
faults is possible juxtaposition of one layer with another across the faults.

Figure 8: In-Line- XX showing different faults and Kalol Top

Figure 9: Inline-YY Showing Faults and Kalol Top

12

SPE-169680-MS

Figure 10: Time lapsed EOR influenced Area

As EOR scheme is being recast for dedicated injector/producer, the geological model needs to be reviewed with
consideration of faults. The envisaged data need to be generated throughout the field without considering vicinity
of injection points and future wells should be drilled away from the faults. Recently11 high-tech horizontal wells
and one high angled well are planned to drill taking into account of the faults.
Conclusions
1. Identified faults are non sealing in nature. Moreover, they appear to have a role in terms of preferential
migration of EOR generated fluids.
2. Faults FE1, FW1&F1 seems to provide conduit for movement of gases.
3. Fault F2 acts as conduit with temporary obstruction in flue gas migration from the injector SN # L.

SPE-169680-MS

13

Case: Mangala field of Cairn India

Polymers can be used to increase the viscosity of injected water, forcing it to move into regions of the reservoir
that would not be contacted by plain water; resulting in a more efficient flood and sweeping more oil to the
producers. Additionally, small amounts of detergent-like surfactants can also be injected with water and polymer;
these soaps help scrub more oil out of the rock wherever the water goes; further enhancing oil recovery.
The importance of EOR for the Mangala field (and subsequently for Bhagyam and Aishwariya) was realized
soon after its discovery in 2004. The field is expected to produce around 35% of STOIIP over thirty years of
conventional waterflood operations. In part, due to its moderate oil viscosity, this oil production will be
accompanied by large volumes of associated water production, as the less viscous injected water tends to
finger or channel through the oil, arriving at the production wells prematurely. Because of this, under
conventional waterflooding, the field can be expected to show moderate to steep oil production decline once it
comes off its maximum production plateau.
EOR screening studies by reputable international consultants suggested that aqueous-based chemical flooding
EOR processes are the most suitable, based on the Mangala rock and fluid characteristics. These chemical
processes are aimed at improving the sweep and oil displacement efficiency in the fields. That is, by adding
oilfield polymer chemicals, it is possible to make injection water just as viscous as oil, thereby minimizing the
tendency to finger through the oil. Thus, more oil will be displaced by the injected water, resulting in increased
sweep efficiency. Through the use of alkali and surfactant chemicals, injected water acts almost as soap,
helping to wash more oil off the reservoir rock surface, resulting in increased displacement efficiency.
Depending on the combination of chemicals used, these processes are called Polymer Flooding or Alkaline
Surfactant Polymer (ASP) Flooding. Successful application of these processes should result in significantly
increased oil reserves; arrest of production decline; and even less water production as premature arrival of
water at production wells is curtailed. All of this is intended to optimize and maximize oil production.

Figure 11: EOR Pilot Schematic

Water injection in the pilot, which started in December 2010, was completed in July 2011 after the water-cut in the
field rose to about 70-75% level. Polymer injection was then started through newly built facilities in August 2011.
Polymer flood response was as per expectations with the water-cut declining to 30% levels and staying at low

14

SPE-169680-MS

levels for 4-5 months, indicating that the success of polymer injection is improving the sweep efficiency within the
pilot and thereby enhancing oil recovery. In addition to continuous monitoring and evaluation of the production &
injection parameters at the pilot wells which help in estimating the oil recovery, there are three logging observation
wells inside the pilot area, where the changes in oil saturation as a result of flooding in the pilot are periodically
measured providing a direct assessment of the in-situ conditions and the progression of the flood front. The next
phase of the pilot operations is to inject an ASP slug and evaluate the incremental recovery benefits over the
polymer flood process. The pilot will conclude after the completion of the ASP phase. Preparations for next phase
of ASP flooding are in progress currently.
Beginning in 2006 and continuing to date, detailed laboratory studies have been conducted at Surtek Laboratories
(USA) and at the Petroleum Engineering Department of the University of Texas (Austin, Texas, USA), to quantify
the potential of the various chemical flood processes. The laboratory programmes were developed to evaluate the
potential of chemical flood processes for Mangala. Their main objectives were to screen and select chemicals that
are suitable for application in Mangala and then to use the best of those in reservoir corefloods to understand
process mechanisms; quantify incremental gains over waterflood; and recommend a chemical formulation for pilot
testing of the process in the field. Another important objective was to generate parameters specifically required by
commercialchemical flood simulators. Results confirm that these processes could significantly increase Mangalas
oil reserves. In the laboratory recovery of an additional 15% of the STOIIP, as compared to conventional
waterflooding, was achieved under polymer flooding. With application of ASP, recoveries were increased by over
30% of the STOIIP. Of course, due to the more heterogeneous nature of the whole field as compared to the
smaller samples tested in the laboratories, recoveries in a full-field application can be expected to be somewhat
lower. Further studies for the refinement of chemical systems to achieve better results are continuing at the
University of Texas, Austin. Results of a Mangala coreflood performed at University of Texas are shown where
almost 95% of the total oil incore was recovered.
Based on the positive response, a full-field polymer flood development plan has been prepared for Mangala
comprising more than 100 new injectors to be drilled from 15 existing well pads. The data and experience gained
from the pilot has been used to model, plan and optimize the full-field development concept. A Central Polymer
Preparation Facility (consuming about 190 tonnes of polymer per day) with an extensive distribution system is
now planned on an existing, old well location (centrally located in the field) to provide each well pad with high
concentrate polymer solution for dilution to the required level for each individual well on each well pad. The
polymer will be transported in granular form in dedicated closed containers to the Barmer area by train. Strategic
storage has been projected at the siding station approximately 30 km away from the field. It is expected that the
facilities will be operational for first polymer injection in 2014/15.

Current status of EOR in India

The global average or aggregate recovery factor from oil reservoirs is about a third. This is considered low and
leaves a substantial amount of oil underground. A global effort has been under way for some time to increase this
number and one reason for its failure is the relationship between oil price and resource availability. The cheapest
injectant for producing oil is water. As long as companies can produce oil by injecting water, they will continue to
do so. Besides the link of EOR to oil price, the projects are generally complex, technology-heavy and require
considerable capital investment and financial risks. The risks are aggravated with the fluctuations in the price of
oil. The unit costs of EOR oil are substantially higher than those of secondary or conventional oil. Another
challenge for EOR projects is the long lead time required for such projects. Typically, it may take several decades
from the start of the concept generating laboratory data and conducting simulation studies to the first pilot and
finally, full commercialization.
The two most popular EOR methods, thermal (steam) and miscible gas injection, which are mature technologies.
In chemical EOR, polymer injection is reaching commercial status. Acid gas injection, in-situ combustion
(including the newer high-pressure air injection, (HPAI)) and combination chemical flooding are still in the
technology development stage. Microbial, hybrid and other novel technologies are in the R&D stage. This

SPE-169680-MS

15

compounds and restricts the application of EOR for a given field. If thermal and miscible gas injection methods
are applicable to a given reservoir, then the decision to move forward is a little easier. If not, the decision is
harder, and depends on the availability of injectant and economics.
Challenges
Focus on ultimate oil recovery
There is a concerted move around the world as companies (especially the national oil companies, and
increasingly the international oil companies) realize that they need to focus on ultimate oil recovery and not on
immediate oil recovery that is driven by short-term profits. This commitment to a long-term view will ensure the
optimum exploitation of oil resources by keeping depletion rates low, improving secondary oil recovery through
sustainable development and focusing on long-term profits. Appropriate EOR methods can then be deployed to
maximize ultimate oil recovery.
Moving towards difficult resources
As the easy and conventional light oil gets depleted, a move towards more difficult hydrocarbon resources is
already well under way. These resources include heavy and extra heavy crudes, oil sands, bitumen and shale oil.
Typically, the conventional oil recovery for these resources is generally low. An EOR method has to be
implemented relatively early in these reservoirs. This has been, and will be, a primary driver for EOR, especially
thermal, in the more difficult resources worldwide.
Life-cycle planning
A more holistic approach in the life-cycle planning of a reservoir is happening across the industry. The motivation
towards maximizing recovery, rather than thinking about short-term profits, helps in better resource exploitation.
Life-cycle planning includes thinking about EOR early enough to conduct relevant R&D studies, feasibility testing
and conducting pilots to enable key decisions to be made at the right time.
R&D
Investment in R&D is essential to generate the right options for field development. Often, in a drive to produce oil
as fast as possible, incorrect strategy is adopted to develop an oil reservoir. This can lower the overall recovery
from the reservoir considerably. Proper R&D investment, especially early on, not only assures a good overall
strategy for secondary recovery, but for EOR as well.
Capability development
EOR projects are inherently complex compared to conventional recovery methods. These projects are also
manpower intensive, requiring highly-skilled professionals to run them. For companies that nurture, develop and
possess these competencies, implementation of EOR will be easier. In addition, EOR professionals also ensure
better IOR implementation strategies.
Stepwise implementation
EOR projects are also facilitated by stepwise implementation and integration of R&D, technology, people, and
commitment. A stepwise implementation involves moving from laboratory scale tests, single well tests, pilot tests
and on to full-field implementation. This will significantly reduce risks associated with typical EOR projects, and
eventually improve overall economics.
Energy security
EOR implementation may be aided by a companys or countrys need for energy security concerns. The US is a
prime example of this need and has taken a true leadership role in EOR implementation in its fields, in spite of
being a free economy. Another example is PDO where the dwindling oil production rates have forced it to
implement EOR projects aggressively.
Environmental concerns
In recent years, a strong boost to EOR has come from environmental concerns. This is especially true for CO2EOR. CO2, a greenhouse gas, has been closely linked to global climate change. There are incentives to
sequester this CO2. It is also a very good solvent for light crudes and is generally miscible with the oil at moderate
reservoir pressures. The number of projects injecting CO2 for EOR has been steadily rising and is anticipated to

16

SPE-169680-MS

increase further in the foreseeable future. In many ways, this is a win-win situation, sequestering CO2 at the same
time as producing incremental oil.
References
1. Clude p.et. al. Heavy oil Recovery by in-situ combustion SPE 8905.
2. Reports of Geological Model of Balol and Santhal fields, ONGC, Mehsana Asset, an internal unpublished
circulation.
3. Performance report on Santhal field an internal circulation by IRS, Ahmedabad.
4. Enhanced oil recovery Don w.Green and A. Paul Willhile. Burger J. et al. Thermal methods of oil recovery
5. Online resources (www.teri.com, www.cairnindia.com, www.ongcindia.com )