Guest Editorial J. Roger Hite, Business Fundamentals Group; George Stosur, Consultant; Norman F. Carnahan, Carnahan Corp.; and Karl Miller, Consultant
IOR AND EOR: EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION
REQUIRES A DEFINITION OF TERMS The purpose of this editorial is to call attention to the need to establish definitions for the terms Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) and Improved Oil Recovery (IOR). At present there is considerable confusion in their usage. In fact, a recent informal survey within the EOR/IOR Technical Interest Group (EOIO TIG) revealed a wide range of views. Some thought the terms were synonymous. Some believe that IOR covered just about everything that could be done to increase production, including infill drilling and reservoir characterization. There was a range of other views in between as well. Of the two, the term EOR has the clearer definition. Originally, it was used to refer to a variety of new recovery processes that were aimed at recovering oil left behind after waterflooding. Involving new developments in chemistry and physics, EOR increased reserves by mobilizing residual oil trapped by capillary forces and oil that was too viscous to be effectively displaced by waterflooding. The key processes were chemical, miscible, and thermal flooding. All of them came into popularity in the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s, at a time when producers were looking for additional reserves and prices were rising. Because waterflooding was a secondary process, these processes were sometimes referred to as tertiary recovery. All were developed and commercialized for oil left behind or not recovered by (secondary) waterflooding. The term IOR came into popularity later in the late 1980s and early 1990s, as interest in EOR processes began to wane. Some EOR processes were failing for technical and economic reasons. All were becoming less attractive as product prices declined and opportunities increased elsewhere. To stimulate attendance, organizers of conferences and symposia started adding the term IOR to define a scope that included not only EOR, but something more. The thinking was that expanding the scope beyond EOR would attract more attention and therefore more participants. But the term IOR never received a clear definition. With this much confusion surrounding two terms in common usage, some agreement on the definitions would be helpful and would clarify communications. The best way to gain consensus around these definitions would be to form an industry committee, perhaps under the auspices of the SPE or the World Petroleum Congress. We would like to recommend the formation of such a committee. To get the discussion started, we would also like to pose the following definitions: 1. EOR should refer to reservoir processes that recover oil not produced by secondary processes. Primary recovery uses the natural energy of the reservoir to produce oil or gas. Secondary recovery uses injectants to re-pressurize the reservoir and to displace oil to producers. The main realization of this concept is waterflooding, although gas rein-
16
jection for pressure maintenance is also included.
Enhanced oil recovery processes target what is left. They focus on the rock/oil/injectant system and on the interplay of capillary and viscous forces. 2. EOR is also sometimes referred to as tertiary recovery. In the case of thermal applications, this has always been a source of confusion. Steam processes are often the second process to be applied to a given field, after primary, rather than tertiary after waterflooding. In our opinion, tertiary is best thought of as referring to the third round of recovery processes to be developed by the industry (after primary and waterflooding), rather than as the order in which recovery processes are applied to a given field. 3. IOR refers to any practice to increase oil recovery. That can include EOR processes, as well as practices to increase sweep such as infill drilling, horizontal wells, and polymers for mobility control or improved conformance. In practice, such items as reservoir characterization or simulation (which are nearly always part and parcel of any recovery concept) are included in planning, execution, and analyzing the technical and economic results. Arguably, such de facto supporting activities should also be recognized within the definitions. But this approach muddies the definitions considerably, and we recommend they not be included. 4. The term exotic recovery has also been used at times. We recommend this be dropped. The connotation is impractical or quixotic. We should focus on what is economical and practical instead and drop the use of the term exotic. 5. The term advanced oil recovery was also used for a short time. Likewise, we believe this term does not add value and should not be used. In conclusion, there is a need to establish mutually acceptable definitions for the terms EOR and IOR. We suggest an industry effort be commissioned to resolve the uncertainties in the definition of these terms and would JPT value the opinions of the readers of JPT. J. Roger Hite, SPE, worked for Shell for more than 30 years, primarily in engineering and technology management. Since leaving Shell, he has been a principal of Business Fundamentals Group, a management and technology consulting service in Houston. He is cochair of the EOIO TIG and is chair of the Digital Energy Study Group of the SPE Gulf Coast Section. George J. Stosur, SPE, is a petroleum consultant in the Washington, DC area and has worked for Shell, Chevron, and the U.S. Dept. of Energy. He has been an SPE Distinguished Lecturer. Norman F. Carnahan, SPE, is a consultant with Carnahan Corp. in Houston. Karl Miller, SPE, is based in Calgary and works internationally in heavy oil exploitation. He also worked for several years in coal gasification and oil shale exploitation.