SPE-185640-MS

IOR Methods in Unconventional Reservoirs of North America:

Comprehensive Review

Dheiaa Alfarge, Iraqi Ministry of Oil, Missouri University of Science and Technology; Mingzhen Wei and Baojun Bai,
Missouri University of Science and Technology

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2017 SPE Western Regional Meeting held in Bakersfield, California, USA, 23 April 2017.

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
Unconventional resources have played a significant role in changing oil industry plans recently. Shale
formations in North America have huge oil in place, 900 Billion barrels of recoverable oil in Bakken only.
However, the predicted primary recovery is still low as less than 10%. Therefore, seeking for improved oil
techniques to increase oil recovery in these complex plays is inevitable. In this paper, three stages of review
have been combined to find out the applicability of the most feasible IOR methods in these unconventional
reservoirs. Firstly, the most common fluid and rock properties of these reservoirs have been investigated
and extensively discussed. Secondly, a comprehensive review has been conducted on most of published
experimental studies, simulation works, and pilot tests which were performed to examine the applicability of
different IOR methods in these unconventional plays. Finally, the performance of different IOR methods in
pilots tests have been compared with experimental and simulation observations. These comparisons between
field scale approaches (Pilot tests) and lab experiments have been used to diagnose the gap beween what
had been reported from lab works and what happened in the field tests.
This study found the integration method of different tools such as experimental, simulation, and pilot
tests is the proper technique to accurately diagnose the most feasible IOR methods in these poor-quality
reservoirs. This research found that CO2, surfactant, and natural gas are the most applicable IOR methods
in these unconventional reservoirs. CO2 injection seems the most feasible technique among the reported
IOR methods. However, this study found that there is a clear gap between lab-works conclusions and pilot
tests performance. This gap mainly happened due to the misleading predicting for that diffusion mechanism
would be the most dominant mechanism for CO2 in field conditions due to the pre-reported lab observations.
However, pilot tests performance generaly denied any significant role for diffusion mechanisim on CO2
performance. Furthermore, although pilot tests indicated that injectivity problem is not a big obstacle in
these unconventional reservoirs, most of the evidences explained that the improvement in the observed
injectivity was due to Injection Induced Fractures (IIF) which are the main reason for conformance problems
which happened in the reported pilot tests. The slow imbibition rate of surfacatant methods in these types
of reservoirs might impair their potentinal success. Pilot tests apparently approved success of natural gas
due its high compressibility and avialbility in these fields. Finally, this work specifies the most common
problems which could face the most potentional unconventional IOR methods in field applications. Also,
2 SPE-185640-MS

this study recommended new directions to be considered for fututure investigations on applicability of some
IOR methods in these plays since they are more complex and very different from conventional formations.

Introduction
According to the recent reports, oil production from tight formations including shale plays has shared for
more than 50% of total oil production in US (Yu et al., 2016a). Hoffman et al., (2016) reported that 4 million
barrels per day as increment in US daily oil production comes from these unconventional oil reservoirs.
From 2011 to 2014, Unconventional Liquid Rich (ULR) reservoirs contributed to all natural gas growth and
nearly 92% of oil production growth in US. Specifically, Bakken and Eagle Ford contributed for more than
80% of oil production from these tight formations in US (Yu et al., 2016a). More recently, Bakken only
delivers close to 10% of the total US production with more than 1.1 million barrels per day (Alvarez et al,
2016). This revolution in oil and gas production happened mainly because shale oil reservoirs have been
just increasingly developed due to advancements in horizontal wells and hydraulic fracturing in last decade.
Several studies have been conducted to estimate the recoverable oil in place in these complex formations
indicating huge oil in place. The available information refers to 900 Billion barrels in Bakken only. However,
the predicted recovery from primary depletion could lead to 7% only of original oil in place (Clark, 2009).
Furthermore, some investigators argued that the primary recovery factor is still in range of 1-2 % in some
of the plays in North America (Wang et al., 2016). For example, the North Dakota Council reported that
"With today's best technology, it is predicted that 1-2% of the reserves can be recovered" (Sheng, 2015).
The reason causing this low oil recovery is due to the production sustainability which is the main problem in
these unconventional reservoirs. The producing wells usually start with high production rate initially. Then,
they show steep decline rate until they get leveled off at low rate. According to Yu et al. (2014), the main
reason beyond the quick decline in production rate is due to the fast depletion in natural fractures with slow
recharge from rock matrix (the storage). Therefore, oil recovery factor from primary depletion has been
predicted typically to be less than 10% (LeFever et al, 2008; Clark, 2009; Alharthy et al., 2015; Kathel and
Mohanty 2013, Wang et al., 2015; Alvarez et al, 2016).
Infill drilling is the current practice to develop these unconventional reservoirs and get short-term
increment in oil production; however, this high oil rate from new wells would not last for long time as
like the previous wells. In addition, the cost of drilling new horizontal wells with long lateral length is
so high. Therefore, infill drilling is not the economic practice. Seeking for different options is mandatory.
It is known that the main drive mechanism in most of the shale reservoirs is depletion drive. This drive
mechanism could recover up to 8-12% of OOIP which is the main motivation to apply one of the IOR
methods in these reservoirs (Kurtoglu et al., 2014). Since these reservoirs have huge original oil in place,
any improvement in oil recovery factor would result in enormous produced oil volumes. Therefore, IOR
methods have huge potential to be the major starrier in these huge reserves. Although IOR methods are well
understood in conventional reservoirs, they are new concept in unconventional ones. All basic logic steps
such experimental works, simulation studies, and pilot tests for investigating applicability of different IOR
methods have just started over the last decade.
Classically, application of feasible IOR methods in most of oil and gas reseroirs should be mandatory
to increase oil recovery factor from its primary depletion value. However, IOR methods applications and
mechanisms in conventional reservoirs would not be necessary the same in unconventional reservoirs due
to complex and poor-quality properties of these plays. The public understanding for that the main critical
properties in unconventional reservoirs is the low porosity and ultralow permeability need to be considered.
However, seeking for the IOR methods which are insensitive to the very small pore throats of these porous
media was the priority. The reported IOR techniques which might be feasible for these unconventional
reservoirs are miscible gases, surfactant, and low salinity water flooding (Song and yang, 2013; Wan et
al., 2013; Fragoso et al., 2015; Wan and Sheng, 2015; Zhu et al., 2015; Yu et al., 2016). The tools used in
SPE-185640-MS 3

their studies are experimental work, mathematical approaches, and numerical simulation. Moreover, a few
pilot tests have been conducted in North Dakota, Montana, and South Saskatchewan (Wood et al, 2011;
Schmidt et al., 2014; Hoffman, 2016). It is clear that the methods used in experimental works, simulation
studies, and pilots are different from each other. Also, the conclusions are different from one researcher to
another. Conducting a critical review on previous researches to diagnose the problems, strength points, and
future scopes in each method is a crucial way to clear the discrepancies in most of feasible unconventional
IOR methods. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to investigate the applicability of different IOR
methods in these shale plays through three steps. The first step gives a brief summary of the most common
rock and fluid properties for these unconventional reservoirs. Second, a critical review has been conducted
about the preliminary results of the previous experimental works and simulation approaches. Third, the
results and problems of IOR pilot tests conducted in North America have been reviewed and compared with
experimental and simulation studies conclusions.

Rock and Fluid Properties of Shale Plays

The Purpose of presenting the rock and fluid properties because it is essential to understand the conditions
of these unconventional reservoirs before deciding which IOR method is more feasible to be applied. The
common rock properties have been gathered from different resources and presented in Table 1. Also, the
common fluid properties have been summarized in Table 2. The formations which have been characterized
are Bakken, Eagle Ford, Wolfcamp, and Barnet which represent most if not all of the productive shale
reservoirs in North America.

Table 1—Most common rock properties of unconventional reservoirs

Reservoir Characteristics Common Quality Common Quantity References

Porosity (%) Low 5-10 SPE-178659-MS; SPE-178489-PA

Permeability (md) Ultralow 0.0001-0.1 SPE-168915-MS

Temperature (F) High 240 SPE-184486-STU

Wettability Poor Oil wet to intermediate SPE-179688-MS;

URTeC: 2461651;
SPE-153853-PA

Natural Fracture Intensity #/ft High 0-32 SPE-168915-MS

Grain Density g/cc Usual 2.55-2.75 URTeC 2461651

Drive mechanism Poor Depletion SPE-171668-MS

Oil Saturation (%) Good 50-75 SPE-179533-MS

Median pore radius (µm) Poor 0.034- 0.010 SPE-179688-MS;

URTeC: 2461651

Dominant Grain Size (µm) Tiny <62.5 SPE-179533-MS

Total Organic Content (wt%) Rich 0.1 to 5 URTeC 2461651

Reservoir Depths (ft) Deep 5045-12150 URTeC: 2433692;

21-1921 WPC

Pressure (Psi) Abnormal 0.78 SPE-169575-MS

Bulk Density g/cc Usual 2.3-2.5 URTeC 2461651

Net Thickness (ft) Intermediate 10–40 URTeC: 2433692

Formation Type Complex Silt, limestone, sand, shale URTeC 1619698

Clay Content % High 7-30% URTeC 2461651

SPE-180378-MS
4 SPE-185640-MS

Table 2—Most common Fluid properties of unconventional reservoirs

Fluids Properties Common Quality Common Quantity Reference

Oil Density, API Excellent 38-42 21-1921 WPC

Brine Specific Gravity Heavy 1.9 SPE-171668-MS

Saturation Pressure, psia High 2500 to 3,403 SPE-175034-MS

Contact Angle High 81-142 URTeC 2461651

Brine TDS, (mg/l) High salinity 228500-285,000 SPE-171668-MS

SPE-178489-PA

Oil Viscosity, cP Very low <4.2 URTeC: 2433692;

SPE-178489-PA

Total Acid Number, KOH/g Low 0.02-0.36 SPE-171668-MS

URTeC 2461651

Crude Oil Polarity Favorable More Paraffinic SPE-171668-MS

Total Base Number, KOH/g Low 0.12-1.16 SPE-171668-MS

URTeC 2461651

PH More Acidic 5.7 SPE-171668-MS

GOR, SCF/STB High 507-1712 URTeC: 2433692;

SPE-171668-MS

MMP for CO2, Psi Achievable 2450 −2650 SPE-175034-MS

IFT W/O (mN/m) High 17.2-34 URTeC 2461651

Bakken formation is the most productive oil-producing formation of 900 billion barrels estimated oil in
place (Kurtoglu et al., 2014) with 7.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil (Gaswirth et al., 2013).
Furthermore, Bakken might be the only formation which had reported IOR pilot tests. Therefore, Bakken
geological structure and other its properties need to be specifically discussed in this section which could help
in providing a clear idea bout how these unconventional reservoirs look like. Bakken formation consists of
two portions in Williston Basin. One portion is in US falling under 8000ft depth mainly in North Dakota,
South Dakota, and Montana. The second part is in Canada falling under 5050 ft mainly in Saskatchewan
and Manitoba. Since these two parts are very different, we would present the properties of each one of them
separately.
Firstly, rock properties of US Bakken would be presented. Although the rock properties in Bakken have
huge heterogeneity, the most common average values have been presented in this paper. The geological
structure of middle Bakken is facies with high diversity of mineral composition mainly limestone, siltstone,
dolomite, and sandstone while the upper member and lower member are mainly shale. The formation system
is generally oil wet to intermediate. The average porosity of middle Bakken is in range of 5-10% (Sorenson
et al., 2015). The average matrix permeability has large range of 0.01-0.001 md (Pu et al., 2016). These
types of reservoir have typically high temperature of 240F. The upper and lower members of Bakken are
organic rich, with total organic carbon (TOC) in range of 12-36wt% (Tran, 2011) while the middle member,
the main reservoir, is organic-poor, with TOC content of 0.1 to 0.3wt% (Kurtoglu et al., 2013). These Two
members of shale have a high concentration of Type-II kerogen and considered as the source rocks for the
petroleum in the Bakken formation (Zhang et al., 2016). The natural Fracture intensity is in range of 1-32#/
ft. There is approximately agreement about the net pay in this portion which equal to 40ft. Also, Bakken
formation is abnormally pressurized with initial pressure of 7500psi. Water saturation is between 25% and
50% in the Middle Bakken (Pu et al., 2016). Secondly, the Canadian Bakken has unconformity geological
structure. Also, the reservoir system is well known as oil wet. The reservoir porosity range is in between 9%
to 12% (Schmidt et al, 2014) which is generally higher than the US-Bakken prorosity due to the difference
in depth between these two portions. The formation composition is typically composed of siltstone and
SPE-185640-MS 5

black shale. The formation is generally has three members. The upper and the lower ones are dominated
by shale while the middle one is dominated by siltstone and sandstone. Permeability is in range of 0.01-0.1
md which is much better than the US-Bakken while the net pay is in range 23-26 ft which is thinner than
the Bakken portion in US (Schmidt et al., 2014). The pore pressure in this portion of Bakken is normally
pressurized with pressure approximately of 2320 psi.
Generally, it can be said that there is no much difference in fluid properties between Canadian Bakken
and US Bakken. The brine in such reservoirs is heavy with specific gravity about 1.9 and high salinity where
TDS is about 285,000 mg/l. The total acid number, total base number, and water content in these oils are
0.09mg KOH/g, 1.16 mg KOH/g, and 0.02 wt% respectively (Kurtoglu et al., 2014). The most common API
for these oils is about 40 degree and with low viscousity less than 3 cp (Schmidt et al., 2014; Zhang, 2016).
Furthermore, the oil type is more paraffinic than aromatic (Kurtoglu et al., 2014). Moreover, these oils have
high gas oil ratio (GOR) varies from 507 to 1,712 SCF/bbl, and the bubble point pressure ranges from 1,617
to 3,403 psi (Pu et al., 2016). The minimum miscible pressure of CO2 in these types of oil has a controversial
range which could be between 2500psi to 3300 psi. To sum up, the most common rock criteria in most
of unconventional reservoires of North America are low porosity, low permeability, oil wet, high intensity
of natural fractures, and wide range of mineral composition. Also, the most common fluid properties in
unconventional reservoirs are high quality oil with high API, low viscous, more paraffinic, and high GOR.

Possible IOR Methods in Unconventional Reservoirs

Although there have been more than 20 IOR methods which have been understood and investigated in
conventional reservoirs, applicability of any method of those in unconventional reservoirs is a new concept
due to the previous unique properties. However, the ultratight matrix and high conductivity of natural
fractures might be the most two important factors which impair success of conventional IOR methods as we
will discuss them in pilot tests section of this paper. We conducted a critical review on more than 70 studies
which have been reported to find applicability of different IOR methods in unconventional reservoirs.
Different tools have been used in these studies such experimental work, numerical simulation methods,
pilot tests, and mathematical approach as shown in Figure 1. These studies conducted on different types of
formations such as Bakken, Eagle Ford, Wolfcamp, Barnet and others as shown in Figure 1. The following
section would discuss each IOR category separately.

Figure 1—A- Different formations were studied for IOR methods

applicability; B- Different tools Used to investigate IOR methods applicability
6 SPE-185640-MS

Chemical Methods
Generally, this category has three methods which are surfactant, polymer, and alkaline. Surfactant has the
most promising potential to improve oil recovery in these reservoirs. These reservoirs have been well known
as intermediate wet to oil wet, so this type of rock affinity would prevent the aqueous phase from invading
the matrix to displace oil in place. Therefore, the ability of surfactant to change wettability and enhance water
imbibition would be a good strategy to improve oil recovery (Sheng, 2015). Several researchers investigated
the potential of surfactant to improve oil recovery in shale oil reservoirs (Shuler, et. al., 2001; Wang et. al.,
2011; Wang et al., 2012; Nguyen, 2014; Dawson et al., 2015).
Alvarez et al., (2014) conducted experimental work to evaluate surfactant potential to alter wettability
and improve oil recovery in unconventional liquid rich reservoirs by using nonionic and anionic surfactant.
They used carbonate and siliceous preserved side-wall cores in their experiments. They found that surfactant
can lower contact angel (more water wet) and improve oil recovery although the surfactant performance
are different from nonionic to anionic type. Dawson et al. (2015) conducted experimental work on how
surfactant can be used in Bakken formation to enhance oil recovery and they upscaled the lab results to
the field scale by numerical simulation methods. The oil recovery factor which have been obtained with
spontaneous imbibition enhancement in their cores in range of 30-40%. However, there are still some
concerns on imbibition rate which might be very slow on filed scale (Sheng, 2015). Furthermore, the
adsorption rate might be very high in these types of reservoirs, so these two factors need to be investigated in
future. Wang et al., (2016) investigated the imbibition rate of surfactant and the penetration depth into matrix
by upscaling their lab work to field scale by using simulation methods. They concluded that surfactant cannot
be much beneficial in increasing oil recovery if it would be performed in reservoir with only hydraulically
induced fractures due to small penetration depths into matrix. However, if it would have been approved
that these unconventional reservoirs have high intensity of natural fractures, surfactant technology would
be quiet promising in increasing oil recovery in such plays due to increasing in the contact area. Shuler et
al., (2016) investigated surfactant potential to be used in huff-n-puff process during stimulation process to
increase flowback production and make oil production sustainable for long time. They used oil-on-plate
methodology in their experimental work where they investigated surfactant penetration into oil molecules.
They concluded that the oil-removal efficiency of surfactant is function of the surfactant chemistry and oil
type. Alvarez et al., (2016) investigated the effect of different types of surfactants on interfacial tension and
contact angle by using premium basin cores. They found all types of surfactants could change the wettability
from oil wet to water wet. However, the anionic surfactant had better performance by reducing both of the
interfacial tension and contact angle in unconventional liquid rich cores. Nguyen et al., (2014) investigated
effect of different types of surfactants such as non-ionic, cationic, anionic, and amphoteric for spontaneous
imbibition into oil-wet shale cores in both of Bakken and Eagle Ford. They found that surfactant imbibition
generally would increase oil recovery in Eagle Ford shale outcrop cores and Bakken reservoir cores more
than the oil recovery obtained if brine is being used only. They also reported that wettability alteration is
more important than reducing interfacial tension by surfactants. However, they found the high salinity in
these reservoirs might be big obstacle for applying surfactants because surfactant performance for reducing
interfacial tension and wettability alteration would be downgraded at high salinity conditions. Finally, Xu
et al., (2015) found that using surfactant with stimulation fluid would enhance the penetration of fracturing
fluid twice compared without using surfactant. They used CT scanning to monitor the penetration depths
for different cases in experimental works. They thought the reason beyond increasing in penetration depth
of fracturing fluid with surfactant is due to reduction in interfacial tension, which in turn, would enhance
productivity index of these reservoirs.
The other two types in chemical category are alkaline and polymer. To our understanding, there is no
study conducted to investigate their applicability in these types of unconventional reservoirs. We think
that the reason beyond no investigiation has been conducting on applying polymer in these reservoirs is
due to injectivity problems although conformance problems are more dominant in the reported pilot tests
SPE-185640-MS 7

(Hoffman, 2016). Also, injecting polymer into these reservoirs would plug the pores throats which are very
small in these plays. On the other hand, investigating of alkaline potential in these reservoirs has not been
conducted by any reported study. One of the possible reasons causing that might be due to that there is no
compatibility between this chemical agent and mineral-compostion complexity of these reservoirs. Table
3 gives a clear summary for the most significant studies which conducted for using chemical methods to
improve oil recovery in these unconventional reservoirs. Table 4 summaries the applicability, motivations,
solutions, and abstacles might result from applying any of chemical EOR methods in shale reservoirs.

Table 3—The reported chemical IOR methods in unconventional reservoirs

SN Authors, Year Paper n. Approach Formation IOR Method IOR Mechanism

1 Wang et al. 2012 SPE-153853-PA Experimental Bakken Surfactant Wettability

alteration

Kathel et al. 2013 SPE-166281-MS Experimental X Surfactant wettability

Alteration

2 Alvarez et al. 2014 SPE-169001-MS Experimental preserved side-wall Surfactant wettability

core alteration/
Reduction in IFT

3 Nguyen et al. 2014 SPE-169085-MS Experimental Eagle Ford and surfactant Wettability
Bakken alteration and IFT
R.

4 Dawson et al. 2015 SPE-175937-MS Experimental/ Bakken Surfactant Wettability

Simulation alteration

Xu et al. 2015 SPE-175536-MS Experimental X Surfactant Reducing IFT and

deep penetration

5 Alvarez et al. 2016a SPE-177057-PA Experimental Permian Basin Surfactant Wettability

alteration and IFT
reduction

6 Alvarez et al. SPE-179688-MS Experimental Bakken Surfactant &CNF Wettability

2016b alteration and IFT
reduction

7 Alvarez et al. 2016c URTeC 2461651 Experimental Bakken, Eagle Water Wettability
Ford, Wolfcamp, Alteration
Barnet

7 Wang et al. 2016 SPE-178489-PA Experimental/ Bakken Surfactant Wettability

Simulation alteration

8 Shuler et al. 2016 SPE-179667-MS Experimental oil-on-a-plate Surfactant X

Li et al., 2016 URTec2461736 Experimental/ Bakken Surfactant Wettability

Simulation Alteration
8 SPE-185640-MS

Table 4—Summary of chemical IOR methods in unconventional reservoirs

Smart Water Flooding Technique

Recently, intensive studies have been conducted to investigate effect of Low Salinity Water (LSW) flooding
on enhancing oil recovery. It has been reported by different studies that maximum oil recovery can happen
at optimum concentration of salt for brine injected in cores (Lab work) or in field (simulation work).
Wettability alteration and interfacial tension might be the main mechanisms beyond the increment in oil
recovery as a result of injection LSW. However, the underlying mechanisms which are behind of wettability
alteration are still controversial. Double layer expansion and multicomponent ion exchange might be the
main mechanisms behind the wettability alteration due to an addition of salt. However, most of the studies
focused on conventional reservoirs with high permeability.
Applying of LSW in unconventional reservoirs was tried recently by Morsy et al, (2013). They conducted
experimental and simulation studies to investigate LSW on oil recovery in Eagle Ford formation. They
compared the oil recovery at distilled water and 2% KCl. They got 19% as Recovery Factor (RF) from
samples placed in distilled water while they got 12% as RF from samples placed in 2% KCl. They concluded
that the higher oil recovery from distilled water was due to shale cracking because of clay swelling. Morsy
and Sheng (2014) evaluated the change in oil recovery for different shale rocks of Mancos, Marcellus,
Barnett and Eagle Ford when these cores interacted with NaCl and KCl brines with different concentration 0
wt% to 30 wt%. They found that Mancos core plugs would crash into fragments at low salinity solutions up
to 15% while Barnett core plugs showed consecutive cracks along bedding planes at low salinities. However,
minor cracks were seen on Marcellus, while no visual cracks were noticed in Eagle Ford core plugs at
low salinities. Furthermore, they noticed that 2% −15% of oil was recovered from oil-saturated shale plugs
by water spontaneous imbibition, depending on water salinity and rock mineralogy. Valluri et al., (2016)
conducting another set of experimental tests by injecting different concentration of sodium chloride and
calcium chloride brines in sidewall cores of an ultra-tight liquid rich shale from South Texas. Their study
confirmed the potential of low salinity brines to change shale rock wettability and enhance oil recovery by
penetrating them deeper into the reservoir rock as compared with brine itself. Table 5 gives a clear summary
for the most significant studies which conducted for using LSW and water itself to improve oil recovery in
these unconventional reservoirs. Table 6 summaries the applicability, motivations, solutions, and abstacles
might result from applying of LSW and water injection methods in shale reservoirs.
SPE-185640-MS 9

Table 5—The reported studies for low salinity water and brine flooding technique in unconventional Reservoirs

SN Authors, Year Paper n. Approach Formation IOR Method IOR Mechanism

1 Wang et al., 2011 SPE 138521 Experimental Bakken brine Shale Cracking

2 Morsy et al. 2013 SPE −167056-MS Experimental/ Eagle Ford LSW Shale cracking
Simulation

Zhang et al., 2013 SPE 167142 Experimental Bakken LSW Wattability

alteration and IFT
reduction

3 Wang et al., 2014 URTeC:1920887 Experimental Niobrara LSW Shale cracking

4 Morsy et al. 2014 CSA-5604-PA Experimental Mancos, Marcellus, LSW Shale Cracking,
Barnett, and Eagle and Water
Ford Spontaneous
Imbibition

Li et al., 2016 URTec2461736 Experimental/ Bakken LSW Osmosis

Simulation

5 Valluri et al., SPE-180274-MS Experimental Side wall Cores LSW Wettability

(2016). Alteration, and IFT
Reduction

6 Yu et al., 2016 SPE-180378-MS Experimental Eagle Ford Cyclic water Repressurization

and fracturing

Table 6—Summary of low salinity water and brine flooding technique in unconventional reservoirs

Miscible Gas Injection

One of the most investigated IOR methods in unconventional liquid rich reservoirs is gas injection. Over the
last decade, different studies reported the potential of miscible gas injection to increase oil recovery in these
reservoirs. The gases which have been investigated are CO2, N2, and an enrich natural gases. However, the
majority of studies focused on CO2 due to different reasons. CO2 might dissolve in shale oil easily, swells
the oil and lowers its viscosity. CO2 has a lower miscibility pressure with shale oil rather than other gases
such as N2 and CH4 (Zhang et al., 2016). However, The minimum miscible pressure of CO2 in these types
of oil has a controversial range in between 2500psi to 3300 psi. The low value of acid number which has
been reported might give the hope to apply CO2 injection successfully since there is no much danger from
asphalten precipitation (Kurtoglu et al., 2014).
The early-published studies in this category started by using modeling methods (Shuaib et al, 2009;
Wang et al., 2010). These models showed that 10-20% of increment oil could be recovered by continuous
gas flooding while 5-10% could be recovered by huff-n-puff gas protocol (Hoffman et al., 2016). Dong
et al., (2013) reported a numerical study evaluating CO2 injection performance for the Bakken interval
in a sector of the Sanish Field. They came up with scenario to increase CO2 injectivity in that field by
drilling more horizontal injection wells. This scenario predicted the possiblity to inject 5000 Mscf/day at
maximum injection pressure of 8000 psi. From their simulation study, they found that using CO2 injection
method might increase oil recovery from 5% to 24% in that field. Xu et al., (2014) evaluated the reservoir
performance of Elm Coulee field in Eastern Montana under CO2 flooding with different hydraulic fracture
orientations. They found that transverse fractures have higher oil recovery factor, but it has lower utilization
10 SPE-185640-MS

value than longitudinal fractures due to breakthrough problems. Zhu et al., (2015) constructed a model in
which gas could be injected into a hydraulic fracture along a horizontal well and the production process
could occur from an adjacent fracture which has an intersection with the same well. They found substantial
improvement in oil recovery by injecting CO2 in reservoirs with fluid flow from fracture to fracture. Pu et
al., (2016) introduced a new model which considers capillarity and adsorption effect of the small pores for
shale reservoirs. They found that using this model would simulate CO2 EOR in unconventional reservoirs
properly. Furthermore, Capillarity consideration in modeling process would predict higher oil recovery by
CO2 injection than the cases which did not include capillarity property.
Regarding lab-work tools, study of Song et al. (2013) might be one of the early studies which started
conducting experimental work to compare results from injecting CO2 and water in cores from Bakken-
Canada. They found that water flooding would enhance oil recovery better than immiscible CO2 in Huff-n-
Puff protocol. However, miscible and near miscible CO2 Huff-n-Puff would overcome water performance
in enhancing oil recovery. Hawthorne et al., (2013) investigated the mechanism beyond increasing oil
recovery by CO2 injection in Bakken cores. They proved that diffusion mechanism is the main mechanism
for CO2 to increase oil recovery in these complex plays. However, to extract oil from shale matrix by CO2,
long times of exposure combined with large contact areas are required. Gamadi et al. (2014) conducted
experimental work on shale cores from Mancos and Eagle Ford to investigate potential of CO2 injection in
these reservoirs. Their laboratory results indicated that cyclic CO2 injection could improve oil recovery from
shale oil cores from 33% to 85% depending on the shale core type and other operating parameters. Alharthy
et al., (2015) compared performance of injecting different types of gases such CO2, C1-C2 mixtures, and N2
on enhancing oil recovery from Bakken cores experimentally. They concluded that injecting gas, composed
of C1, C2, C3, and C4, could produce nearly as much oil as CO2 injection produce which was 90% from
several Middle Bakken cores and nearly 40% from Lower Bakken cores. Also, they found the counter-
current mechanism is the main mechanism for these gases to recover oil from shale cores. Finally Yu et al.,
(2016) investigated N2 flooding process experimentally on Eagle Ford core plugs saturated with dead oil.
They examined different flooding time range and different injection pressure on N2 flooding performance.
They found that more oil was produced with a longer flooding time and higher injection pressure. Table
7 gives a clear summary for the most significant studies which conducted for using miscible gases EOR
methods to improve oil recovery in these unconventional reservoirs. Table 8 summaries the applicability,
motivations, solutions, and abstacles might result from applying any miscible gases EOR methods in shale
reservoirs.

Table 7—The reported studies for Miscible Gas Injection technique in unconventional Reservoirs

SN Authors, Year Paper n. Approach Formation IOR Method IOR Mechanism

1 Kovscek et al. 2008 SPE-115679-MS Experimental Siliceous shale CO2 Diffusion

reservoir core

2 Shoaib et al. 2009 SPE 123176 Simulation Bakken CO2 pressure

maintenance

3 Vega et al. 2010 SPE −135627-MS Experimental/ siliceous shale Core CO2 Diffusion
Simulation

4 Hoteit et al. 2011 SPE 141937-MS Mathematical X CO2 diffusion

Approach

5 Hoffman et al. 2012 SPE 154329 Simulation Bakken CO2/Natural Gas X

6 Dong et al. 2013 SPE-168827-MS Simulation Bakken CO2 X

7 Hawthorne et al. SPE-167200 -MS Experimental Bakken CO2 Extraction

2013
SPE-185640-MS 11

SN Authors, Year Paper n. Approach Formation IOR Method IOR Mechanism

8 Tao Wan et al. 2013 SPE 168880 Simulation Eagle Ford CO2 Oil Viscosity
reduction and
Pressure m.

9 Xu et al. 2013 SPE 168774-MS Simulation Bakken CO2 pressure

maintenance

10 Kurtoglu et al. SPE-168915-Ms overview/ Bakken CO2 Oil Viscosity

2013 Simulation reduction and
swelling

11 Chen et al. 2013 SPE-164553-MS simulation Bakken CO2 X

12 Tovar et al. 2014 SPE-169022-MS Experimental preserved side-wall CO2 Diffusion/

core X Reduction in
Capillary forces

13 Chen et al. 2014 SPE-164553-PA Simulation Bakken CO2 Diffusion

14 Gamadi et al. 2014 SPE-169142-MS Experimental Mancos and Eagle CO2 Repressurization
Ford.

15 Schmidt et al. 2014 21-1921 WPC Pilots Bakken Natural gas Displacement oil in
matrix

16 Tao Wan et al. 2014 SPE-169069-MS Simulation Eagle Ford CO2 Oil viscosity
reduction and
Pressure m.

17 Adekunle, O. 2014 PhD dissertation/ Experimental/ Bakken CO2/NGL X

CSM Simulation

18 Fai-Yengo et al. URTeC:1922932 Simulation Bakken CO2 Combination

2014

19 Sheng et al. 2014 JNGSVolume 22, Simulation X CO2 X

January 2015,
Pages 252–259

20 Alharthy et al. 2015 SPE-175034-MS Experimental/ Bakken CO2 Diffusion

Simulation

21 Tao Wan et al. 2015 SPE 1891403-PA Simulation Eagle Ford CO2 Diffusion
mechanism

22 Alharthy et al. 2015 PhD dissertation/ Experimental/ Bakken CO2/NGL Swelling,

CSM Simulation Repressurization,
Diffusion

23 Sheng et al. 2015 2015-438 ARMA Simulation Wolfcamp shale Gas X

Conference Paper -
2015

24 Hoffman et al. 2016 SPE-180270-MS Pilots Bakken CO2/Water X

flooding

25 Pu et al. 2016 SPE-179533-MS Simulation Bakken CO2 Capillarity and

Adsorption

26 Yang et al., 2016 SPE-180208-MS Simulation Eagle Ford CO2 CO2 Adsorption

27 Yu et al., 2016 SPE-180378-MS Experimental Eagle Ford N2 Repressurization

and fracturing

28 Yu et al., 2016 SPE-179547-MS Experimental Eagle Ford N2 Repressurization

12 SPE-185640-MS

Table 8—Summary of Miscible Gas Injection technique in unconventional reservoirs

IOR Pilot Projects

In previous part, we introduced a detailed review about previous lab works and simulation studies which
conducted to investigate applicability of different IOR methods in unconventional liquid rich reservoirs.
Logically, pilot tests review should be the next step. Although there are limited studies which reported field
pilots in this area, the next section would present the published results of these pilots which have been
conducted in US and Canada.

IOR Pilot Projects in Canadian Bakken

Wood et al., (2011) reported eight pilot tests conducted in Canadian Bakken by using water flooding.
Although most of them in the early time of excution, some of them were showing encouraging results. We
would take pilot test#1 as sample of those pilots. The interesting point is that all pilot tests which have
been performed in Canadian Bakken have approximately the same well pattern which is Toe-Heel pattern.
Furthermore, the most interesting criteria in these pilots rather than US Bakken pilots is that the spacing
between the injection wells and production wells is short as 200 ft although the porosity and permeability
of Canadian Bakken is much bigger than US Bakken. This spacing beween injectors and producers is
much shorter than the spacing between injectors and porducers in pilot tests which have been done in US
Bakken. This short spacing might be one of the main reasons beyond success of these pilots. The lateral
length for production wells and injection wells which were drilled horizontally in Canadian Bakken area
is approximately equal to one mile. Figure 2 shows the pilot test#1 design structure with number of wells,
spacing among them and the lateral length for each one. Pilot test#1 had 4 producers and one injector in
the center. The water injection rate scenarios and oil production rates are shown in Figure 3. The results for
this pilot test showing increment in oil production rate from around 75 bbl/day to 550 bbl/day due to water
injection. Although the injection process was sporadically as shown in Figure 4. Any injectivity problems
in this project had not been reported.
SPE-185640-MS 13

Figure 2—Wells Structure of Canadian Bakken Pilot Test#1 (Wood et al., 2011)

Figure 3—Injection and production rates of Canadian Bakken Pilot Test#1 (Wood et al., 2011)

Figure 4—Production from two Bakken wells performing huff-n-puff CO2 injection (Hoffman et al., 2016)
14 SPE-185640-MS

Schmidt et al., (2014) reported a successful project in the Canadian Bakken. We would refer to this pilot
test is pilot test#2 of Canadian Bakken. This pilot project covered 1280 acres which was developed by a
combination of 80 acre and 160 acre spacing. The fluid and rock properties are shown in Table 9. These
fluid and rock properties could be considered the same criteria for the previous pilot test (pilot test#1) of
Wood et al., (2011) since both of projects were approxiametly in the same area. They designed this project
by one mile horizontal injector and nine perpendicular horizontal producers. As like Pilot test#1, the wells
pattern was Toe-Heel pattern. Natural gas (primary methane) was used as injectant due to its availability in
these reservoirs, high compressibility, and low viscosity. They injected this lean gas (with C2-C7 content
in range of 138 bbl/MMCF to 145 bbl/MMcf) at injection rate of 350 Mscf/day- 1000 Mscf/day without
reported problems in injectivity.

Table 9—Summary of fluid and rock properties of project area in Canadian Bakken (Schmidt et al., 2014)

The reported results of this pilot were encouraging in all nine offset producers where oil production
increased from 135 bbl/day to 295 bbl/day. However, there were some problems related to conformance
control where some early injected gases got breakthrough in some of producers. The gas utilization value
had been improved form 10MCF/bbl to 6.5 MCF after some treatment done to control gas breakthrough.
The results from this pilot are motivating. However, the main reasons for this success might be that Canadian
Bakken has permeability with 1-2 orders of magnitude higher than US Bakken and porosity is as twice as
US Bakken (Hoffman et al., 2016). Furthermore, the short spacing between injectors and producers could
be considered one of the main reasons in success of these pilots.

IOR Pilot Projects in US Bakken

Hoffman et al., (2016) reported seven pilot tests in Bakken conducted in North Dakota and Montana.
Therefore, all information provided below about these pilots are from Hoffman et al., (2016). The pilots
which they reported mainly used water and gas as IOR fluids. Two pilots were in the Elm Coulee field
in Montana and five pilots in North Dakota. Three of seven pilots used water as injectant while the other
four pilots injected gases. Three of gases-used pilots injected CO2 while the fourth one injected enriched
natural gas. Some of the pilots were designed as huff-n-puff protocol while others were designed to perform
continuous injection process. Table 10 shows the pilots distribution and the type of fluid injected.
SPE-185640-MS 15

Table 10—Summary of pilot tests in the Bakken-North America (Hoffman et al., 2016)

Name State Year Fluid Type

Pilot Test #1 ND 2008 CO2 Huff-n-puff

Pilot Test #2 MT 2009 CO2 Huff-n-puff
Pilot Test #3 ND 2012 Water Huff-n-puff
Pilot Test #4 ND 2012-2013 Water Flood
Pilot Test #5 ND 2014 CO2 Vertical inj.
Pilot Test #6 MT 2014 Water Flood
Pilot Pilot#7 ND 2014 Nat. gas Flood

The start point is from the projects which were performed as Huff-n-Puff tests. Pilot test#1 and Pilot
test#2 were conducted at different parts of US Bakken by two different operators. They injected CO2 as
Huff-n-Puff protocol. Both of them did not show problems related to injectivity where they injected 1000
Mscf/day and 1500-2000 Mscf/day at 2000-3000 psi respectively. However, a clear production increment
from both of them had not been recognized as shown in Figure 4.
Pilot test#3 injected water as huff-n-puff protocol. The mechanism beyond injecting water as huff-n-puff
is counter-current imbibition (Hoffman et al., 2016). This mechanism requires that rock to be water wet so
water can get sucked to rock surfaces, which in turn, expelling oil out. However, the common criteria for
these reservoirs are oil wet to intermediate wet (Kurtoglu et al., 2014). Also, it seems that they did not use
any surfactant with water to alter wettability. They injected water at 1200 bbl/day in two cycles. Each cycle
lasted a month and 2 weeks as soaking time. They reported that there was neither injectivity problem nor
additional oil produced. Pilot test#5 was conduced in vertical well with 60 ft of middle Bakken pay thickness
to perform CO2 cyclic process. They injected 300-500 Mscf/day for 20-30days. After that, they did shut in
the well for 20 days, then production process started back. They observed CO2 in offset well which was 900
ft away. It is clear that they fractured the vertical well at that high flowrate, so they stopped the operations.
Continuous injection process has been performed in pilot test#4 and pilot test#7. Pilot test#4 has one
injector in the center surrounded by four offset wells. Two of the producers which are to the east and the
west were 2300ft away from the injector while the other two which are to the north and south were 900 ft
and 1200 ft away from injector respectively as shown in Figure 5. They injected 1350 bbl/day of water for
8 months which raised the bottom hole pressure to about 6000 psi. The offset wells to the east and west
got significant increment in water production. That injected water got breakthrough in the producers in less
than a month. However, there was no increment in oil production.

Figure 5—General layout of Pilot Tests #4/7 (Hoffman et al., 2016)

16 SPE-185640-MS

The interesting point is that the fast breakthrough happened in the wells which they are to the east and
west of the injectors (2300 ft far from the injector) and did not happen in the wells which are to the north
and south of injector (900 ft, and 1200ft respectively far from the injector). We think the reason beyond
that is that the injection process created induced fractures. And, these Injection Induced Fractures (IIF) are
commonly growing in west-east direction in US (Baker et al., 2016). Moreover, according to the time in
which breakthrough happened, these IIF seem have length more than the half of injector-producer spacing
(Bakker et al., 2016). For the second cycle of flooding, they reduced the injection flowrate to 380 bbl/day at
bottom hole pressure of 5500 psi for 8 months. Like the first cycle, there was no increment in oil production.
However, the water production in the offset wells had been reduced. This is another evidence that they
created IIF because IIF would usually close when injection rate get lowered (Baker et al., 2016). After that,
the injection well was converted into gas injector which was shown as pilot test #7 in Table 10. The injected
gas was an enriched natural gas with approxiametly 55% mehane, 10% nitrogen, and 35% C2+ fractions.
The injection rate was 1600 Mscf/day for 55 days at target surface injection pressure equals to 3500 psi. As
a result, all four offset wells had increment in production. Some people argued whether that increment from
injection process or from frac hits which were going on in neighboring wells. Once again, natural gas like
what happened in Canadian Bakken approved to be a promising technique in these reservoirs.
Finally, pilot test#6 injected water by using one injector and some offset wells for producing and
monitoring. They started injecting about 1700 STB/day of water for 3 months. After that, the injection
rate was reduced to below 1000 STB/day for 5 months. Just like other pilots, some additional produced
oil observed in the offset well with substantial water production due to conformance problems. It is clear
that these conformance problems resulted from Injection Induced Fractures (IIF) like what happened in
pilot test #4. Furthermore, some people argued that these additional produced oils are not certainly from
injection process because the additional oil might result from frac hits which were going on in some of
the closed wells.
To sum up, the pilots tests reported that all projects which used natural gas as injectant were approxiametly
successful. Second, although the reports indicated there was no problems in injectivity, the injectivity in
pilot tests are induced not original. What we mean by induced injectivity is that this injectivity came from
IIF. Furthermore, IIF are the main reason beyond the conformance problems which were happening in these
pilot tests. Third, CO2 injection did not prove any success in Huff-n-puff protocols which might give a
clear indication that the proposed CO2 diffusion mechanism are not existing in field conditions as we will
dicuss that in next section. The recommendations to overcome these problems would be mentioned in next
section too.

Results and Discussions

It is clear that extensive studies have been conducted to investigate the applicability of IOR methods in these
unconventional reservoirs recently. These studies are including experimental, simulation, and pilot tests.
Also, it has been reported different mechanisms for each IOR method in lab work as in simulation studies.
Although some IOR methods are more applicable than others, there are still obstacles for all methods need
to be solved as shown in Table 11. However, there is a wide gap between microscale studies (lab works)
and macroscale investigations (pilot tests). Conducting studies to integrate all tools of lab, simulation, and
pilot tests should be necessary to establish a good understanding for applicability of each IOR method in
these complex plays.
SPE-185640-MS 17

Table 11—Applicability of different IOR methods in unconventional reservoirs

Which IOR technique is most appropriated for theses complex plays?. It is clear from the previous
review that CO2, natural gas, surfactant, and LSW/water are the most applicable IOR methods consequently
as shown in Figure 6. The most common mechanisms which have been reprted for these applicable IOR
methods are listed in Table 12. CO2 injection is in the top list of these applicable IOR methods according to
the simulation studies and experimental works. However, natural gases are over-performed CO2 in pilots
tests (Schmidt et al. 2014; Hoffman et al., 2016). This indicated there is something missing which creates this
gab between lab works and pilots tests for CO2 injection technique. Specifically, understanding the physical
mechanism for CO2 in field scale is the main problem for getting these disappointed results from CO2 pilots’
tests. Upscaling the proposed lab mechanisms for CO2 such as diffusion mechanism and diffusion rate to
the field scale by specifying these exact values is misleading way and more optimistic at the same time.
The best proof can be shown by comparing real oil-production rate plot for CO2-puff process from pilot
tests with the typical curves (CO2 with diffusion curve versus CO2 without diffusion curve) from reported
simulation process. The results indicated the best fit comes from matching the non-diffusion curve with
actual pilot's curve. This is a clear indication that diffusion mechanism for CO2 in experimental conditions
does not exist in the field scale or at very low diffusion rate. Therefore generalizing the diffusion mechanism
form lab condition to field conditions needs to be reconsidered.
18 SPE-185640-MS

Figure 6—The most Potential IOR methods in ULR

Table 12—The most Potential IOR methods with their mechanisms in ULR

CO2 Diffusion Mechanism. Most of the experimental studies reported that CO2 diffusion mechanism is
beyond the increment in oil recovery which obtained in lab conditions. This increment in oil recovery or
diffusion rate which observed in lab conditions were upscaled directly to field level by numerical simulation
methods. This direct upscaling methodology is so optimistic due to that the lab-cores have higher contact
area and longer exposure time to CO2 than what happened in these reservoirs conditions. Therefore, both of
simulation studies and experimental works were optimistic to predict a quick improvement in oil recovery
from injection CO2 in these unconventional reservoirs. However, the results from pilot tests which were
SPE-185640-MS 19

using CO2 as injectant were disappointing. If we went back to some of procedures and conditions of
experimental works, we found very small core chips of bakken or other formations had been used. Also,
these chips were exposed to CO2 for long time, up to 96 hrs to get increment oil recovery (Hawthorne
et al., 2013). Therefore, to get a practical diffusion rate for CO2 in ultralow permeability reservoirs, long
exposure time and large contact area are required. However, diffusion mechanism for CO2 in pilot tests had
not well been recognized, which in turn, did not enhace oil production rate in those wells. Either of kintecs
of oil recovery process in productive areas of these reservoirs are too fast or CO2 diffusion rate in field
condtions are too slow. To sum up, success of CO2 in shale reservoirs is mainly depending on understanding
its main mechanisms which is totally different from its mechanisims in conventional reservoirs. Although
most of unconventional IOR studies investigated applicability of CO2, they did not well understand its soul
mechanism in field scale. For future studies, we recommend intensive studies to be done on CO2 diffusion
mechanim in field scale.
Gas Cyclic versus continuous flooding. Although most of the previous investigators thought that the
right choice to inject any miscible gas in these poor-quality plays is by huff-n-puff protocol, this belief
is not always correct. This trend was due to the following two main reasons. The first reason is that the
ultralow permeability in these reservoirs might prevent or impair any flooding process. Second, most of the
previous researchers recommended using CO2 cyclic instead of continuous flooding due to the diffusion
mechanism which they thought it is more dominant in these types of reservoirs so CO2 Huff-n-Puff protocol
would be more economic. We can say that the significant reported-improved oil recovery which happened
in lab conditions and some of simulation studies were due to the proposed or observed high diffusion
rate of these miscible gases into oil molecules, which in turn, produce oil by countercurrent method.
However, from previous discussed pilot tests, it has been approved that the injectivity is not a big issue for
several injectants. Furthermore, diffusion mechanism in field tests has not been exhibited. According to this
contrast beween what have been reported from lab and simulation studies in one side and what we have
noticed in performance of field pilot tests, the prevous selection between the cyclic protocol and continuous
flooding for any gas to be injected in these unconventional reservoirs need to be reconsidered. To select
cyclic protocol over continuous injection or vice versa, the choice should technically depend on two main
factors. These factors are the ratio of reservoir permeability to the injector-producer spacing and diffusion
mechanism. The first and most important factor is the ratio of reservoir permeability to the injector-producer
spacing. As far as this ratio is higher than the critical economic value for the target reservoir, the continuous
flooding would overcome cyclic protocol. However, when this value is less than the economic value for
the target reservoir and the diffusion rate of miscible gas in reservoir oil is high enough, the cyclic protocol
would overcome the continuous flooding process.
Conformance problems in IOR pilots’ tests. In reality, the reasons beyond conformance problems which
reported in pilots tests have not been understood. Did the conformance problems happen due pre-existing
natural fractures? Although these types of unconventional reservoirs have high intensity of natural fractures,
the indications refer to that these pre-existing natural fractures donot contribute to this kind of severe
conformance problems as it has been noticed in US-Bakken. Assuming that these conformance problems
happened due to natural fractures, why Canadian-Bakken did not experience these problems although it
is an extension for US-Bakkken? All indications refered to that these conformance problems were due to
Induced Fractures (IF). However, the main question whether these conformance problems due to wells
completions status (hydraulically fractured) or from injection process. Although some pilots injected fluids
at injection pressure which was lower than fracturing pressure, most of them injected at very closed to
injection pressure. Furthermore, these pilots had been done on depleted reservoirs, so using initial fracturing
pressure as reference pressure to be aware of is dangerous. Especially, these types of reservoirs have soft
shales which need to use geomechanic coupling methods to calculate the new fracture pressure at any pore
pressure. To determine whether these conformance problems came from Injection Induced Fractures (IIF)
20 SPE-185640-MS

or not, Baker et al., (2016) recommended a good strategy to be applied for water flooding process. This
strategy includes injection any fluid at differrnt injection rate and monitoring the injection pressure change.
If the changes in injection pressures versus changing in injection rate do not happen according to diffusive
Darcy law, this means the conformance problems were due to IIF. Moreover, according to Baker et al.,
(2016), injection induced fractures can be closed at low injection rate. Both of the two previous indications
were clearly happening in Pilot test#4 in US-Bakken which had been reported by Hoffman et al., (2016).
When the operators reduced water injection rate from 1350 STB/day to 380 STB/day, there was not much
water breaking to the offset well as previously. Furthermore, to remove any discrepancies from pre-existing
hydraulic fractures on injection rate versus injection pressure plot, we recommend preforming some new
pilots’ tests in unfractured wells since the injectivity is not a big issue as proved from previous pilot test.
The new results would be compared with the previous results for the previous pilots to examine the possible
reasons beyond the conformance problems.
Injectivity problems. The main concern for all IOR methods was how to inject these injectants in such
low permeability. However, after some IOR pilot tests reported that the injectivtiy is not a big issue in
these complex plays, some reseachers speculate whether this injectivity is natural or induced from induced
fractures as a result of injection process. Globally, some researchers argue that about 60% of water flooding
process creates injection induced fractures (Baker et al., 2016). The chance of creating injection induced
fractures in oil reservoirs increases with reduction in permeability and injection low viscous fluids such
water and miscible gases (Baker et al., 2016). Therofore, the characterization of unconventional reservoirs
and injectants properties which injected in IOR pilots indicated that there is a significant chance to induced
new fractures. These induced fractures were the reason beyond improvement in the injectivity. Furthermore,
pilot test#4 which was performed in US-Bakken has one injector and four offset producer in all four
directions. The offset wells in east and west which are far away from injection well as compared with the
offset wells in north and south got high water cut and early breakthrough while the offsets in the north and
south did not get any water. This is good evidence that this breakthrough happened due to injection induced
fractures which had growth in East-West direction, the common direction of Injection Induced Fractures
(IIF) in US according to Baker et al., (2016). Therefore, most of the indications referred to the injectivity
improvement in these pilot tests came from induced fractures. Moreover, it is not necessary to raise the
injection pressure above the fracturing pressure to create fractures in these plays; it is so possible to induce
new fractures by pressure depletion, thermal effects, or plugging effects (Baker et al., 2016).
Limited Surfactant Imbibition Rate. Most of the previous studies which investigated surfactant
applicability in unconventional reservoirs recommended that surfactant or any CNF fluid to be used in
fracturing process or in a Huff-n-Puff protocol as permeability enhancement. Using surfactant with longer
shut in time after fracturing process could enhance post frac performance (Li et al., 2016). However, most
researchers were not sure to use surfactant imbibition process in continuous flooding process. The main
concern beyond that is the imbibition rate limitation. Wang et al., (2016) proved that surfactant imbibition
cannot proceed more that a few meters into these ultralow permeability formaions. However, they reported
that surfactant can penetrate deeper just in cases of reservoir with high-intensity of natural fractures. The
high-intensity natural fractures would increase the contact area between injected surfactant and reservoir.
They also recommended that the most productive wells in pimary recovery stage are the best candidate
for surfactant applications due to the high chance of exisiting intensive natural fractures. However, the
combined injection of low salinity brine with surfactant has been reported as the best strategy to increase
imbibition rate (Li et al., 2016). Wang et al., (2016) supported this strategy in an indirect way where oil
recovery factor had been improved in very quick (2hrs) way in their cores which had been under a certain
value of irreducible water saturation. The other cores which had irreducible water (swi) equal to zero took 24
hrs to get an improvement in oil recovery factor from using surfactant. Therefore, injecting low salinity water
is a crusial way to enhace surfactant imbibtion rate. To sum up, surfactant imbibition rate is a challenging
SPE-185640-MS 21

problem in these plays. However, high intensity of natural fractures and combination of LSW with surfactant
might solve this problem.
Thermal Methods. It is clear that oil viscosity in such reservoir is very low as shown in the fluid properties
section. Moreover, these unconventional reservoirs have light oil with reservoir temperature typically high
about 240F. Therefore, there is no motivation to investigate the applicability of thermal methods in shale
reservoirs since the conventional main goal from these methods to produce viscous and heavy oils. Also,
to our understanding, there is no research have been conducted in this area. To sum up, thermal methods
category should be eliminated from potential IOR methods in these unconventional reservoirs.
Microbial Methods. It is known that this category is one of the modern IOR methods which have been
mainly built on biological principles. The general microbial goals are to generate biopolymer and bio-
surfactant at appropriated conditions (Sheng, 2015). Generating bio-surfactant might be potential to alter
wettability of these formations. However, nutrients availability might be one of the big obstacles. Moreover,
to our knowledge, there is no study conducted in this area to generate bio-surfactant in shale reservoirs. The
main reason beyond that is the complex environment of these reservoirs which created lack of understanding
to what is going on in the biological processes. On the other hand, generating bio-polymer does not give
any advantage point to increase oil recovery in these reservoirs. Also, to our understanding, there is no any
previous investigation which had been conducted to use this kind of EOR methods in shale reservoirs.

Summary

• Reviewing unconventional reservoirs properties proved that wettability, heterogeneity, and

depletion are the main targets for IOR methods.
• This study found a wide gap between conclusions of microscopic studies (experimental works)
and field scale (pilot tests) reports on different IOR methods in unconventional reservoirs.
• CO2, natural gas, surfactant, and LSW/water consequently are the most applicable IOR methods
in shale reservoirs.
• Experimental studies supported the diffusion mechanism for CO2 while pilot tests did not give any
a clear indication about this mechanism in field scale.
• Pilot tests generally proved success of natural gas injection technique. However, CO2 could not be
much beneficial in huff-n-puff as in flooding process if it has been approved that either of kintecs
of oil recovery process in productive areas of these reservoirs are too fast or CO2 diffusion rate
in field condtions are too slow.
• Miscible gases cyclic process in lab conditions should not be considered as the cyclic process in
the field unless the the relationship between diffusion mechanism in field scale and lab scale being
well understood. Using the results from lab-cyclic process to be matched in numerical simulation
is misleading way to upscale the results to the field scale.
• Regardless of IOR method success, the pilot tests proved that injectivity is not big problems in
unconventional reservoirs as the conformance problem.
• Although IOR pilot tests indicated no problems in injectivity, all evidences refer to the
improvement in injectivity resulted from Injection Induced fractures (IIF).
• Conformance problems which have been reported from Pilot tests indicated that the injection
process induced long fractures as compared to the injecting-producer spacing.
• Surfactant imbibition rate is a challenging problem in these plays. However, high intensity of
natural fractures and combination of LSW with surfactant might solve this problem.
22 SPE-185640-MS

References
Alharthy, N., Teklu, T., Kazemi, H. et al. 2015. Enhanced Oil Recovery in LiquidRich Shale Reservoirs: Laboratory to
Field. Society of Petroleum Engineers. DOI: 10.2118/175034-MS.
Alvarez, J.O. and Schechter, D.S. 2015. Wettability Alteration and Spontaneous Imbibition in Unconventional Liquid
Reservoirs by Surfactant Additives. Society of Petroleum Engineers. DOI: 10.2118/177057MS.
Alvarez, J. O., Neog, A., Jais, A., & Schechter, D. S. (2014). Impact of Surfactants for Wettability Alteration in
StimulationFluids and the Potential for Surfactant EOR in Unconventional Liquid Reservoirs.Society of Petroleum
Engineers.doi:10.2118/169001-MS SPE-180270-MS15
Alvarez, J.O. and Schechter, D.S. 2016. Altering Wettability in Bakken Shale by Surfactant Additives and Potential
of Improving Oil Recovery During Injection of Completion Fluids. Society of Petroleum Engineers. http:10.2118/
SPE-179688-MS.
Baker, et al.,(2016). The Myths of Waterfloods, EOR Floods and How to Optimize Real Injection Schemes. SPE-179536-
MS paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference held in Tulsa, Oklahoma,
USA, 11–13 April 2016.
Chen, C., Balhoff, M. T., & Mohanty, K. K. (2014). Effect of Reservoir Heterogeneity on Primary Recovery and CO2
Huff-n-Puff Recovery in Shale-Oil Reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/164553-PA
Clark, A. J., (2009). Determination of Recovery Factor in the Bakken Formation, Mountrail County, ND. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/133719-STU.
Dawson, M., Nguyen, D., Champion, N., & Li, H. (2015). Designing an Optimized Surfactant Flood in the Bakken. Society
of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/175937-MS
Dong, C., & Hoffman, B. T. (2013). Modeling Gas Injection into Shale Oil Reservoirs in the Sanish Field, North Dakota.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.1190/URTEC2013-185Energy Information Administration (EIA), (2015).
Evans, J., Heath, L., Reichhardt, D., & Todd, B. (2015). Elm Coulee EOR Study: Interim Report, Montana Board of Oiland
Gas. Ferris, F. G., Stehmeier, L.G., Kantzas, A., Mourits, F. M., (1996). Bacteriogenic mineral plugging, Journal of
CanadianPetroleum Technology,13,57–67.
Fitzel, S., Sekar, B., Alvarez, D., & Gulewicz, D. (2015). Gas Injection EOR Optimization Using Fiber-Optic Logging
with DTS and DAS for Remedial Work. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/175891-MS
Flannery, J., and Kraus, J., (2006). Integrated analysis of the Bakken petroleum system, U.S. Williston Basin: American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Search and Discovery Article No. 10105.
Foo, D. B., Krislock, J., Meador, T. J., & Cheng, T., (2014). Horizontal Well Injection Profiling Using Distributed
Temperature Sensing. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/171586
Fragoso, A., Wang, Y., Jing, G.et al. 2015. Improving Recovery of Liquids from Shales through Gas Recycling and Dry Gas
Injection. Presented at the SPE Latin American and CaribbeanPetroleum Engineering Conference, 18–20 November,
Ecuador, Quito. SPE-177278-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/177278-MS.
Gamadi, T. D., Sheng, J. J., Soliman, M. Y., Menouar, H., Watson, M. C., & Emadibaladehi, H. (2014). An
ExperimentalStudy of Cyclic CO2 Injection to Improve Shale Oil Recovery. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/169142-MS
Gaswirth, S.B., Marra, K.R., Cook, T.A., Charpentier, R.R., Gautier, D.L., Higley, D.K., Klett, T.R., Lewan, M.D.,
Lillis,P.G., Schenk, C.J., Tennyson, M.E., and Whidden, K.J.2013. Assessment of Undiscovered Oil Resources in the
Bakken and Three Forks Formations, Williston Basin Province, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota, 2013 U.S.
Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2013-3013. U.S. Geological Survey: Denver, CO.
Hawthorne, S. B., Gorecki, C. D., Sorensen, J. A., Steadman, E. N., Harju, J. A., & Melzer, S. (2013). Hydrocarbon
Mobilization Mechanisms from Upper, Middle, and Lower Bakken Reservoir Rocks Exposed to CO. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/167200-MS
Hoffman, B. T. (2012). Comparison of Various Gases for Enhanced Recovery from Shale Oil Reservoirs. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/154329-MS
Hoffman, B. T., and Evans J., (2016). Improved Oil Recovery IOR Pilot Projects in the Bakken Formation. SPE-180270-
MS paper presented at the SPE Low Perm Symposium held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 5–6 May 2016.
Kathel, P. and Mohanty, K.K. 2013. Eor in Tight Oil Reservoirs through Wettability Alteration. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. DOI: 10.2118/166281MS.
King, G. E. (2014). 60 Years of Multi-Fractured Vertical, Deviated and Horizontal Wells: What Have We Learned? Society
of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/170952-MS
Kurtoglu, B., & Salman, A. (2015). How to Utilize Hydraulic Fracture Interference to Improve Unconventional
Development. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/177953-MS
Kurtoglu, B., Kazemi, H., Boratko, E. C., Tucker, J., & Daniels, R. (2013). Mini-Drillstem Tests to Characterize Formation
Deliverability in the Bakken. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/159597-PA
SPE-185640-MS 23

Kurtoglu, B., Kazemi, H., Rosen, R., Mickelson, W., & Kosanke, T. (2014). A Rock and Fluid Study of Middle Bakken
Formation: Key to Enhanced Oil Recovery.Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/171668-MS.
Kurtoglu, B., Sorensen, J. A., Braunberger, J., Smith, S., & Kazemi, H. (2013). Geologic Characterization of a
BakkenReservoir for Potential CO2 EOR. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.1190/URTEC2013-186.
Kurtoglu, B. 2013. Integrated Reservoir Characterization and Modeling in Support of Enhanced Oil Recovery for
Bakken.Ph.D. Dissertation, Colorado School of Mines.
Lane, C., Laun, L. E., & Schlosser, D. (2013). Reducing Water Volume in Multistage Fracturing Using Sliding Sleeves
and Coiled-Tubing-Deployed Resettable Frac Isolation. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/163935-MS
Lawal, H., Jackson, G., Abolo, N., & Flores, C. (2013). A Novel Approach To Modeling and Forecasting Frac Hits InShale
Gas Wells. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/164898-MS
LeFever, J., & Helms, L., 2008, Bakken Formation Reserve Estimates, North Dakota Geological Survey.
Li, X., Teklu, W., Abass, A., and Cui, Qi. 2016. The Impact Of Water Salinity /Surfactant On Spontaneous Imbibition
Through Capillarity And Osmosis For Unconventional IOR. URTec#2461736 presented at the Unconventional
Resources Technology conference held in san Antonio, Texas, USA, 1-3 August.
Liu, G., Sorensen, J. A., Braunberger, J. R., Klenner, R., Ge, J., Gorecki, C. D., Harju, J. A. (2014). CO2-Based
Enhanced Oil Recovery from Unconventional Reservoirs: A Case Study of the Bakken Formation. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/168979-MS Montana Board of Oil and Gas (MBOG), 2015. Live Data Access, Montana Board
of Oil and Gas (MBOG), 2015. Live Data Access,http://bogc.dnrc.mt.gov/WebApps/DataMiner/
Morsy, S and Sheng, J.J., 2014. Effect of Water Salinity on Shale reservoir Productivity. Advances in Petroleum
Exploration and Development 8(1): 9–14. DOI:10.3968/5604
Morsy, S., Sheng, J. J., & Soliman, M. Y. (2013). Waterflooding in the Eagle Ford Shale Formation: Experimental and
Simulation Study. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/167056-MS.
Nguyen, D., Wang, D., Oladapo, A., Zhang, J., Sickorez, J., Butler, R., Mueller, B., 2014. Evaluation of surfactants for oil
recovery potential in shale reservoirs. Paper SPE 169085. Presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium.
Tulsa, Oklahoma. April 12–16.
North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC), 2015.Oil and Gas Division, https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/
Patterson, R., (2015). Bakken Decline Rates Worrying For Drillers OilPrice.com, February 25, http://oilprice.com/Energy/
Crude-Oil/Bakken-Decline-Rates-Worrying-For-Drillers.html Prats, M. (1982). Thermal Recovery, SPE Monograph
SeriesVol.7,283 pp.
Price, L.C., (1999). Origins and characteristics of the basin-centered continuous-reservoir unconventional oil resource base
of the Bakken source system, Williston Basin: unpublished manuscript: www.undeerc.org/Price16SPE-180270-MS
Pu, W., & Hoffman, B. T. (2014). EOS Modeling and Reservoir Simulation Study of Bakken Gas Injection Improved Oil
Recovery in the Elm Coulee Field, Montana. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.15530/urtec-2014-1922538
Pu, H., and Li, Y., (2016). Novel Capillarity Quantification Method in IOR Process in Bakken Shale Oil Reservoirs.
SPE-179533-MS presentated at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 11–13
April 2016
Schmidt, M., & Sekar, B. K. (2014). Innovative Unconventional 2EOR-A Light EOR an Unconventional Tertiary
Recovery Approach to an Unconventional Bakken Reservoir in Southeast Saskatchewan.World Petroleum Congress.
Sheng, J.J. 2015. Enhanced oil recovery in shale reservoirs by gas injection. Journal of Natural Gas Science and
Engineering 22: 252–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2014.12.002
Shoaib, S., & Hoffman, B. T. (2009). CO2 Flooding the Elm Coulee Field. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/123176-MS.
Shuler, P., Tang, H., Zayne, Lu., Tang, Y., 2001. Chemical processes for improved oil recovery from Bakken shale Paper
SPE 147531. Presented at the Canadian Unc. Res. Conf. Calgary, Alberta. November 15–17.
Song, C., & Yang, D. (2013). Performance Evaluation of CO2 Huff-n-Puff Processes in Tight Oil Formations. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/167217-MS.
Sorensen, J. A., Braunberger, J. R., Liu, G., Smith, S. A., Hawthorne, S. A., Steadman, E. N., & Harju, J. A. (2015).
Characterization and Evaluation of the Bakken Petroleum System for CO Enhanced Oil Recovery.Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/178659-MS.
Teletzke, G. F., Wattenbarger, R. C., & Wilkinson, J. R. (2010). Enhanced Oil Recovery Pilot Testing Best Practices.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/118055-PA
Todd, B., (2016). An Evaluation of EOR Potential in the Elm Coulee Bakken Formation, Richland County, Montana,
SPERocky Mountain Student Symposium, Butte, MT, Feb. 26.
Tovar, F. D., Eide, O., Graue, A., & Schechter, D. S. (2014). Experimental Investigation of Enhanced Recovery in
Unconventional Liquid Reservoirs using CO2: A Look Ahead to the Future of Unconventional EOR. Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/169022-MS.
24 SPE-185640-MS

Tran, T., Sinurat, P., and Wattenbarger, R.A.2011. Production Characteristics of the Bakken Shale Oil. Presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, USA, 30 October-2 November. SPE-145684.
Valluri et al., (2016). Study of the Rock/Fluid Interactions of Sodium and Calcium Brines with Ultra-Tight Rock Surfaces
and their Impact on Improving Oil Recovery by Spontaneous Imbibitio SPE-180274-MS confrernce paper presented
at the SPE Low Perm Symposium held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 5–6 May 2016.
Wan, T., & Sheng, J. (2015). Compositional Modelling of the Diffusion Effect on EOR Process in Fractured Shale-
OilReservoirs by Gasflooding. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/2014-1891403-PA.
Wan, T., Meng, X., Sheng, J. J., & Watson, M. (2014). Compositional Modeling of EOR Process in Stimulated Shale Oil
Reservoirs by Cyclic Gas Injection. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/169069-MS.
Wan, T., Sheng, J. J., & Soliman, M. Y. (2013). Evaluate EOR Potential in Fractured Shale Oil Reservoirs by Cyclic Gas
Injection. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.1190/URTEC2013-187
Wang, D., Butler, R., Liu, H. et al. 2011. Flow Rate Behavior and Imbibition in Shale.SPE Res Eval & Eng14(4): 505–512.
SPE-138521-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/138521-PA.
Wang, D., Butler, R., Zhang, J. et al. 2012. Wettability Survey in Bakken Shale With Surfactant-Formulation Imbibition.
SPE Res Eval & Eng15(6): 695–705. SPE-153853-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/153853-PA.
Wang, D., Butler, R., Zhang, J., & Seright, R. (2012). Wettability Survey in Bakken Shale With Surfactant-
FormulationImbibition.Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/153853-PA.
Wang, D., Butler, R., Zhang, J., 2012.Wettability survey in Bakken shale with surfactant formulation imbibition, Paper
SPE 153853 presented at the 18th SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium. Tulsa, OK. April 14–18
Wang, D., Butler, R., Zhang, J., 2012.Wettability survey in Bakken shale with surfactant formulation imbibition, Paper
SPE 153853 presented at the 18th SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium. Tulsa, OK. April 14–18.
Wang, D., Zhang, J. and Butler, R. 2014. Flow Rate Behavior and Imbibition Comparison between Bakken and Niobrara
Formations. Presentedat SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Denver, 25–27 August.
SPE-2014-1920887-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.15530/urtec-2014-1920887.
Wang, X., Luo, P., Er, V., & Huang, S.-S. S. (2010). Assessment of CO2 Flooding Potential for Bakken Formation,
Saskatchewan. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/137728-MS.
Wang, D., Zhang, J., Butler, R., and Olatunji, K., (2016). Scaling Laboratory-Data Surfactant-Imbibition Rates to the Field
in Fractured-Shale Formations. Socienty of Petroleum Engineers. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/178489-PA.
Wood, T., & Milne, B., (2011). Waterflood potential could unlock billions of barrels: Crescent Point Energy. http://
www.investorvillage.com/uploads/44821/files/CPGdundee.pdf
Xu, T., & Hoffman, T. (2013). Hydraulic Fracture Orientation for Miscible Gas Injection EOR in Unconventional
OilReservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.1190/URTEC2013-189
Yang et al., (2016). Effects of Multicomponent Adsorption on Enhanced Shale Reservoir Recovery by CO2 Injection
Coupled with Reservoir Geomechanics. SPE-180208-MS paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Low Perm
Symposium held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 5–6 May 2016.
Yu, Y., Li, L. and Sheng J., (2016a). Further Discuss the Roles of Soaking Time and Pressure Depletion Rate in Gas Huff-
n-Puff Process in Fractured Liquid-Rich Shale Reservoirs. SPE-181471-MS paper presented in at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dubai, UAE, 26-28 September 2016.
Yuet al., (2016b). Experimental Evaluation of Shale Oil Recovery from Eagle Ford Core Samples by Nitrogen Gas
Flooding. SPE-179547-MS Paper presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference held in Tulsa, Oklahoma,
USA, 11–13 April 2016.
Yu et al., (2016c). Experimental Investigation of Light Oil Recovery from Fractured Shale Reservoirs by Cyclic Water
Injection. SPE-180378-MS paper presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting held in Anchorage, Alaska, USA,
23–26 May 2016.
Yu, W., Lashgari, H., & Sepehrnoori, K. (2014). Simulation Study of CO2 Huff-n-Puff Process in Bakken Tight
OilReservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/169575-MS
Zhang, J., Wang, D. and Butler, R. 2013. Optimal Salinity Study to Support Surfactant Imbibition into the Bakken Shale.
Presented at SPE Unconventional Resource Conference, Canada, Calgary, 5–7 November. SPE-167142-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/167142-MS.
Zhang, K., 2016. Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Oil Recovery from Bakken Formation by Miscible CO2
Injection. Paper SPE 184486 presented at the SPE international Student Paper Contest at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Dubai, UAE, 26-28 September 2016.
Zhu, P., Balhoff, M. T., & Mohanty, K. K. (2015). Simulation of Fracture-to-Fracture Gas Injection in an Oil-Rich Shale.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/175131-MSSPE-180270-MS17