SPE 130726

Recent Developments and Updated Screening Criteria of Enhanced Oil

Recovery Techniques
Ahmad Aladasani1,2, SPE; Baojun Bai2, SPE
1.Kuwait Oil Company, 2. Missouri University of Science and Technology

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the CPS/SPE International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition in China held in Beijing, China, 8–10 June 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by a CPS/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

This paper reviews recent developments in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques published in SPE conference
proceedings for 2007 to 2009. It also updates the EOR criteria developed by Taber et al. in 1996 based on field applications
reported in Oil & Gas Journal and at various SPE conferences. It classifies EOR methods into five main categories: gas-based,
water-based, thermal, others, and combination technologies. New developments in EOR techniques, chemicals, and mechanisms
are summarized to clarify advances in EOR criteria beyond previous limitations. Reservoirs that had previously been ruled out
based on specific reservoir conditions are now candidates under updated EOR screening criteria. To demonstrate this potential,
this work has established guidelines for the selection and optimization of chemical EOR methods for a specific reservoir.

Introduction

Crude oil is found in underground porous sandstone or carbonate rock formations. In the first (primary) stage of oil
recovery, the oil is displaced from the reservoir into the wellbore and up to the surface under its own reservoir energy, such as gas
drive, water drive, or gravity drainage. In the second stage, an external fluid such as water or gas is injected into the reservoir
through injection wells located in the rock that have fluid communication with production wells. The purpose of secondary oil
recovery is to maintain reservoir pressure and displace hydrocarbons towards the wellbore. The most common secondary recovery
technique is waterflooding1. Once the secondary oil recovery process has been exhausted, about two thirds of the original oil in
place (OOIP) is left behind. EOR methods aim to recover the remaining OOIP.2 Enhanced oil production is critical today when
many analysts are predicting that world peak production is either imminent or has already passed and demand for oil is growing
faster than supply. Of the total 649 billion barrels remaining in reservoirs in the United States (US), only 22 billion barrels are
recoverable by conventional means. However, EOR methods offer the prospect of recovering as much as 200 billion barrels of oil
from existing US reservoirs, a quantity of oil equivalent to the cumulative oil production to date.3
2 SPE 130726

In the early 1980s, many researchers focused on EOR research because oil prices were rising unabated and there was a
dramatic need to extract oil from depleted reservoirs. During this time, most major oil companies had research centers and funded
major programs to develop new technologies. These programs resulted in production of more than 20,000 bbl/day as a result of
chemical EOR in the United States alone. However, oil prices collapsed in 1986 and hovered around $20 per barrel from 1986 to
2003. Most operators were concerned about the lower price of oil and simply did not invest in either new EOR technologies or
new ideas to extract incremental oil from existing reservoirs. However, oil prices have recently reached new highs of $60 to even
$140 per barrel, and many analysts believe that the price of oil may stabilize above $70 per barrel. In this new price environment
and under conditions of increasing world wide oil demand, few new-field discoveries, and the rapid maturation of fields
worldwide, EOR technologies have drawn increased interest. More than 400 papers on EOR have been presented at SPE
conferences within the last three years.

EOR has the potential to reclassify unrecoverable and contingent reserves. The demand for oil continues to grow, and oil
is predicted to dominate the world energy supply for the next three decades. It is more important than ever to understand lessons
learned from past EOR applications and to develop new technologies and methods. However, the application of EOR in many
major oil-producing countries remains in its conceptual stage, especially for chemical EOR methods. Taber et al. published the
EOR screen criteria in 1996 (SPE 35385 and 39234), and these have been widely cited. However, they must be updated to reflect
recent breakthroughs in conventional EOR methods as well as newly developed EOR methods such as surfactant imbibitions, in-
depth conformance-control technologies, and low-salinity water flooding. The work presented here describes the recent
development in EOR methods, updates EOR screening criteria, and provides guidance on the selection of EOR methods.

Oil Recovery Mechanisms

Two thirds of crude oil is left behind, due to both microscopic and macroscopic factors. Microscopic factors include the
various effects of oil-water interfacial tension (IFT) and rock-fluid interaction (wettability) that give rise to oil in pores and
crevices; this oil cannot be dislodged under even large applied pressures.4,5 The reservoir pore size maybe as small as 0.1 μm or
less; therefore it is not surprising that IFT influences oil mobilization. The oil that is left behind after a sweep is called residual oil
saturation, expressed as Sor. Macroscopic factors include reservoir stratification with some strata showing varying permeabilities.
Thus, the displacing fluid channels through the high-permeability zones leaving oil in the low-permeability zones unswept.6,7 Even
in a uniformly permeable reservoir, uniform displacement can break down when the displacing fluid is less viscous than the crude,
a situation known as adverse mobility ratio. In places, the less viscous fluid penetrates the oil, a feature called viscous fingering.
Another important reason why oil remains unswept is the negative capillary force in oil-wet formations; this force impedes water
imbibition into pore spaces in the reservoir rock. It often occurs in carbonate reservoirs, more than 80% of which are said to be oil
wet. Other factors, such as areal heterogeneity, permeability anisotropy, and well patterns, also leave some oil unswept by water.
The oil that is unswept is called remaining oil, and its corresponding saturation is called remaining oil saturation.
SPE 130726 3

Oil recovery is the multiplication of displacement efficiency (ED) and sweep efficiency (ES). EOR methods focus on
increasing either displacement efficiency by reducing residual oil saturation in swept regions or sweep efficiency by displacing the
remaining oil in unswept regions. Residual oil saturation is a function of capillary number, which is the ratio of viscous force to
capillary force. Typically, the capillary number for water flooding is confined to below 10-6, usually to 10-7. The capillary number
increases in effective EOR application by three magnitudes to about 10-3 to 10-4. The capillary number can be significantly reduced
by either lowering the interfacial tension or altering the rock wettability to a more water-wet surface. Although the capillary
number can be reduced by increasing the viscous forces, the reservoir fracture gradient and pressure drops across the wells are
limiting factors.2 Oil in unswept regions can be recovered by (1) increasing the viscosity of the displacing fluid, (2) reducing oil
viscosity, (3) modifying permeability, and/or (4) altering wettability.

Field Applications and Updated Screening Guidelines for EOR Techniques

The EOR criteria published by Taber et al. in 1996 are updated here in Table 1 based on 633 EOR projects reported in
The Oil and Gas Journal from 1998 through 2008 and SPE publications. It tabulates a range of oil and reservoir properties for the
various EOR methods. Updates to the EOR criteria include the addition of porosity and permeability ranges; microbial EOR,
Water Alternating Gas (WAG) miscible, and hot-water flooding as EOR methods, along with subcategories of immiscible gas
flooding. Oil property and reservoir characteristic fields were queried to determine the range of each reservoir property and the
average value of each EOR method. Boxed figures in Table 1 represent the values adopted from Taber et al. (1996). Table 1
provides guidelines; it is not intended to represent threshold limits, which can be developed only through scientific development.

Table 1: A Summary of EOR Projects - Oil Properties and Reservoir Characteristics”

Source line: [Taber et al. (1996), Anonymous (1998, 2000, 2002, 2006) ; Mortis (2004); Kottungal (2008);
Awan et al. (2006); Cadelle et al. (1980); Demin et al. (1999)]

Oil Properties  Reservoir Characteristics 
Oil 
#  Gravity  Viscosity  Porosity  Formation  Permeability  Net  Temperature 
SN  EOR Method  Saturation  Depth (ft) 
Projects  (⁰API)  (cp)  (%)  Type  (md)  Thickness  (⁰F) 
(% PV) 

Miscible Gas Injection 
28[22]‐ 3‐37 Sandstone  a
35‐0  15‐89  1.5‐4500  [Wide  1500 ‐13365  82‐250 
1  CO2  139  45  Avg.  or 
Avg.  2.1  Avg. 46  Avg. 201.1  Range]  Avg. 6171.2  Avg. 136.3 
Avg. 37  14.8  Carbonate 
18000‐
23‐57  4.25‐45  Sandstone  [Thin  4040[4000]‐
0.04  30‐98  0.1‐5000  85‐329 
2  Hydrocarbon  70  Avg.  Avg.   or  unless  15900 Avg. 
Avg.  Avg. 71  Avg.  726.2  Avg. 202.2 
38.3  14.5  Carbonate  dipping]  8343.6 
286.1 
33‐39  11 ‐24
0.3‐0  130‐1000    7545‐8887  194‐253 
3  WAG  3  Avg.  Avg.    Sandstone 
Avg. 0.6  Avg. 1043.3  NC  Avg. 8216.8  Avg. 229.4 
35.6  18.3 
38[35]‐
0.2‐0  7.5‐14  0.76[0.4]‐ Sandstone  [Thin  10000[6000]‐
54  0.2‐35  190‐325 
4  Nitrogen  3  Avg.  Avg.  0.8  or  unless  18500 
Avg.  Avg. 15.0  Avg. 266.6 
0.07  11.2  Avg.  0.78  Carbonate  dipping]  Avg. 14633.3 
47.6 
4 SPE 130726

Immiscible Gas Injection
16‐54  18000‐0  11‐28
47‐98.5  3‐2800    1700‐18500  82‐325 
5  Nitrogen  8  Avg.  Avg.  Avg.  Sandstone 
Avg. 71  Avg.  1041.7    Avg. 7914.2  Avg. 173.1 
34.6  2256.8  19.46 
11‐35  592‐0.6  17‐32 Sandstone 
42‐78  30‐1000    1150‐8500  82‐198 
6  CO2  16  Avg.  Avg.  Avg.  or 
Avg. 56  Avg. 217    Avg. 3385  Avg. 124 
22.6  65.5  26.3  Carbonate 
5‐22
22‐48  4‐0.25  75‐83  40‐1000  6000‐7000  170‐180 
7  Hydrocarbon  2  Avg.  Sandstone   
Avg. 35  Avg. 2.1  Avg. 79  Avg. 520  Avg. 6500  Avg. 175 
13.5 
16000 ‐
18‐31.9  Sandstone 
Hydrocarbon   9.3‐41  0.17  Avg. 88  100‐6600  2650 ‐9199  131‐267 
8  14  Avg.  or   
+ WAG  Avg. 31  Avg.    Avg. 2392  Avg. 7218.71  Avg. 198.7 
25.09  Carbonate 
3948.2 
(Enhanced) Waterflooding
b
4000 ‐
13‐42.5  10.4‐33  e
0.4  34‐82  1.8  ‐5500  700‐9460  74‐237.2 
9  Polymer  53  Avg.  Avg.  Sandstone  [NC] 
Avg.  Avg. 64  Avg. 834.1  Avg. 4221.9  Avg. 167 
26.5  22.5 
123.2 
23[20]‐  c
Alkaline  6500 ‐11 
34[35]  26‐32  68[35]‐ 2723‐ 118 [80]‐
Surfactant  Avg.  596[10]‐
10  13  Avg.  Avg.  74.8  Sandstone  [NC]  3900[9000]  158[200]  
Polymer  875.8  1520 
32.6  26.6  Avg.  73.7  Avg. 2984.5  Avg. 121.6 
(ASP)   
 
16‐16.8
Surfactant +  22‐39  15.6‐3  43.5‐53  50‐60  625‐5300  122‐155 
11  3  Avg.  Sandstone  [NC] 
P/A  Avg. 31  Avg. 9.3  Avg. 48  Avg. 55  Avg. 2941.6  Avg. 138.5 
16.4 
Thermal/Mechanical
Sandstone 
2770‐
10‐38  14‐35  or 
1.44  50‐94  10 ‐15000  400‐11300  64.4‐230 
12  Combustion  27  Avg.  Avg.  Carbonate  [>10] 
Avg.  Avg. 67  Avg. 1981.5  Avg. 5569.6  Avg. 175.5 
23.6  23.3  [Preferably 
504.8 
Carbonate] 
d
8‐30  5E6‐3   12‐65 e
35‐90  1 ‐15000  200‐9000  10‐350 
13  Steam  271  Avg.  Avg.  Avg.  Sandstone  [>20] 
Avg. 66  Avg. 2605.7  Avg. 1643.6  Avg. 105.8 
14.5  32971.3  32.2 
8000‐
12 ‐25  25‐37 
170  15‐85  900‐6000  500‐2950  75‐135 
14  Hot Water  10  Avg.  Avg.  Sandstone  ‐ 
Avg.  Avg. 58.5  Avg. 3346  Avg. 1942  Avg. 98.5 
18.6  31.2 
2002 
[Zero  [> 3:1 
[Surface  [7] –  [>8 wt%  [Mineable  
15  ‐  cold  [NC]  [NC]  [>10]  overburden to  [NC] 
Mining]  [11]  Sand]  tar sand] 
flow]  sand ratio] 
Microbial
12‐33  8900‐1.7  55‐65
12‐26  180‐200  1572‐3464  86‐90 
16  Microbial  4  Avg.  Avg.  Avg. 60  Sandstone  ‐ 
Avg. 19  Avg. 190  Avg. 2445.3  Avg. 88 
26.6  2977.5   
The following reported EOR reservoir characteristics have extreme values that impact the respective average and range in Table 1. 
 
14
a – Minimum CO2 miscible flooding depth reported in Salt Creek Field, U.S.A.  
14
b – Maximum polymer flooding  viscosity reported in Pelican Lake, Canada.  
12
c – Maximum ASP flooding viscosity reported in Lagomar, Venezuela.   
14
d – Maximum steam Injection viscosity reported in Athabasca Oil Sands, Canada.  
14
e – Minimum steam Injection permeability reported in North Midway‐Sunset , U.S.A.   

To provide a concise representation of the EOR criteria, Figures 2 through 8 show reservoir property distributions.
Extreme minimum and maximum values could adversely impact the EOR guidelines, even when averages are reported; therefore,
boxed charts to illustrate reservoir property distribution for the main EOR methods. Figures 2 through 8 show the range in which
the majority of EOR projects are located, plotted against selected reservoir properties. Light shading indicates a favorable
reservoir property range.
SPE 130726 5

48%
Chemical EOR (#70) 52%

48%
Combustion (#27) 50%

Steam Flooding  64%
78% Project Concentration
(#271)

Immiscible Flooding  51%
(#40) 66%

Miscible Flooding 
51% 73%
(#212)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Figure 2 : EOR Method API Gravity Distribution
Source line: [Taber et al. (1996), Anonymous (1998, 2000, 2002, 2006) ; Mortis (2004); Kottungal (2008);
Awan et al. (2006); Cadelle et al. (1980); Demin et al. (1999)]

Chemical EOR 
(#70) 48%

Combustion 
(#27) 48%

Project Concentration
Steam 
Flooding  64%
(#271)

Immiscible 
Flooding (#40)
51%

Miscible 
Flooding  55%
(#212)

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Figure 3 : EOR Method Depth Distribution
Source line: [Taber et al. (1996), Anonymous (1998, 2000, 2002, 2006) ; Mortis (2004);  Kottungal (2008); 
Awan et al. (2006); Cadelle et al. (1980); Demin et al. (1999)]

Figures in parentheses indicate number of projects.

6 SPE 130726

Chemical EOR 
(#70)
65%
Project Concentration
Combustion 
(#27) 70%

Steam 
Flooding  64%
(#271)
Immiscible 
Flooding (#40) 67%

Miscible 
Flooding  62%
(#212)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Figure 4 : EOR Methods Oil Saturation
Source line: [Taber et al. (1996), Anonymous (1998, 2000, 2002, 2006) ; Mortis (2004);  Kottungal (2008); 
Awan et al. (2006); Cadelle et al. (1980); Demin et al. (1999)]

Chemical EOR (#70) 60%
Project Concentration
Combustion (#27) 52%

Steam Flooding (#271) 56%

Immiscible Flooding (#40) 53%

Miscible Flooding (#212) 64%

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Figure 5: Permeability Distribution Vs EOR Methods
Source line: [Taber et al. (1996), Anonymous (1998, 2000, 2002, 2006) ; Mortis (2004); Kottungal (2008);
Awan et al. (2006); Cadelle et al. (1980); Demin et al. (1999)]
SPE 130726 7

Chemical EOR (#70) 69%

Project Concentration
Combustion (#27) 67%

Steam Flooding (#271) 51%

Immiscible Flooding (#40) 58%

Miscible Flooding (#212) 64%

0.0001 0.01 1 100 10000

Figure 6: EOR Methods Viscosity Distribution
Source line: [Taber et al. (1996), Anonymous (1998, 2000, 2002, 2006) ; Mortis (2004);  Kottungal (2008); 
Awan et al. (2006); Cadelle et al. (1980); Demin et al. (1999)]

Chemical EOR (#70) 67%

Combustion (#27) 55% Project Concentration

Steam Flooding 
76%
(#271)

Immiscible Flooding 
(#40) 69%

Miscible Flooding 
62%
(#212)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure 7: EOR Methods Porosity Distribution
Source line: [Taber et al. (1996), Anonymous (1998, 2000, 2002, 2006) ; Mortis (2004); Kottungal (2008);
Awan et al. (2006); Cadelle et al. (1980); Demin et al. (1999)]
8 SPE 130726

Chemical EOR 
65%
(#70)

Combustion  64%
(#27)
Project Concentration
Steam Flooding 
77%
(#271)

Immiscible 
68%
Flooding (#40)

Miscible 
Flooding (#212) 52%

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Figure 8: Temperature Distribution Vs EOR Methods
Source line: [Taber et al. (1996), Anonymous (1998, 2000, 2002, 2006) ; Mortis (2004);  Kottungal (2008); 
Awan et al. (2006); Cadelle et al. (1980); Demin et al. (1999)]

Figures in parentheses indicate number of projects.

Advances in EOR Technologies

Traditionally, EOR methods have been classified into four major categories: gas, thermal, chemical, and other.2 This
paper classifies EOR methods into five principle categories: gas-based, water-based, thermal-based, other, and combination
methods. It introduces the water-based methods to replace the chemical methods because of two promising technologies included
in this category low-salinity water flooding and wettability alteration. It also introduces combination methods that involve two
major EOR methods because such methods break through the limitations of single-mechanism EOR methods. Figure 9 illustrates
the various EOR methods.

Tables 3 through 5 summarize advances in EOR technologies mainly based on SPE conference proceedings for 2007 to
2009. They list EOR limitations reported by Taber et al. in 1996, and developments in EOR technologies that either break through
previous limitations or result in favorable oil recovery conditions.
SPE 130726 9

Figure 9: Enhanced Oil Recovery Methods

Heavy Oil                 CO2
Carbonate Reservoir  Acidic Gases
Heavy Oil & Carbonate Reservoir  Sour 
Miscible Hydrocarbon Gases Gas

Nitrogen

Gas EOR CO2
Acidic Gases Sour 
Hydrocarbon Gases Gas
Immiscible
Nitrogen
Alkaline
Flue Gas
Surfactant
Gel Treatment 
Polymer
Water‐Based EOR Polymer Flooding
Micellar

Low Salinity Water
Gravity Drive
Imbibition
Counter‐Current
Cyclic 

Steam Drive
SAGD
In‐Fill Drilling EOR Methods 
Dry
Wet
Thermal EOR Forward 
Air Injection
In Situ Combustion Reverse
Catalyst 
Hot Water Air Injection
Electrical Heating
MEOR
Others
Modified Enzyme
WAG SWAG
CO2 + WAG
Alkaline  Surfactant Polymer (ASP)

Alkaline + Surfactant (AS)
Miscible CO2 + SAGD
Combination EOR 
ASP + CO2

Conformance Control + CO2
Foam

Foam + Miscible CO2
Conformance Control + ASP
10 SPE 130726

 
Table : 3  ‐ Gas EOR Methods  
Limitation(s) : (Taber, J.J., et al. 1996) 
A steep‐dipping reservoir is preferred to permit some stabilization of the displacing front.  
  
Reservoir Property  Application 
SN  Advances in EOR Technologies 
(Oil / Lithology)    Studies  Pilot  Commercial 
In‐fill drilling extends the production plateau, improves existing 
  (Miscible CO2 Flooding) and future EOR methods (Miscible WAG)  SPE 108060         SPE 
Light  / Sandstone    
1  because the displacing front remains stabilized in short  SPE 106575  114199 
20,21,22
distances.  
Combinations of water‐based EOR methods with gas EOR methods to overcome volumetric sweep efficiency limitations 
Light & Heavy /  
WAG is used to overcome the inherently unfavorable gas injection  SPE 89353  SPE 
2  23,24,25,26 Sandstone &  SPE 113933 
mobility ratios, which result in poor sweep efficiencies.   SPE 25075  106575 
Carbonate   
Modified WAG methods include simultaneous water and gas 
injection (SWAG) and a modified SWAG technique in which water is  SPE 105071 
3       
injected on top of the reservoir and gas is injected at the bottom to  SPE 124197 
27,28
improve sweep efficiency.  
SAG, foam is injected into the reservoir by alternating slugs of  SPE 114800 
Light  /  
surfactant solution and gas injection to improve the mobility ratio  SPE 110408  
4  Sandstone &     
and sweep efficiency by decreasing the gas velocity and plugging  SPE 113370 
29,30,31,32 Carbonate  
high‐permeability zones.     OTC 19787 
5  ASP are co‐injected with CO2 to enhance WAG flood.33      SPE 123866     
Conformance control by applying gel treatment to improve CO2 
6      SPE 35379  SPE 35361 
flooding sweep efficiency.34,35   

Table : 4  ‐ Chemical EOR Methods  
Limitation(s) : (Taber, J.J., et al. 1996) 
(a)  An areal sweep efficiency of at least 50% on water flood is desired. 
(b)  Relatively homogenous formation is preferred.  
(c)  Formation chlorides should be < 20,000 ppm and divalent ions (Ca++ and Mg++ should be < 500 ppm).  
(d)  Where the rock permeability is < 50 md, the polymer may only sweep fractures effectively unless the molecular weight is reduced.  
 
Reservoir Property  Application 
SN  Advances in EOR Technologies 
(Oil / Lithology)    Studies  Pilot  Commercial 
Polymers 
Successful application of polymer flooding in heterogeneous 
Light /  SPE 107727  
1  and low‐permeability reservoirs when combined with in‐fill     
36,37  Sandstone   SPE 108661 
drilling.  
High‐molecular‐weight polymers (18‐20 million daltons) exhibit 
high viscosities at salinities up to 170,000 ppm.  For high 
2    SPE 113845     
concentrations of calcium, copolymers and AMPS can be 
38
considered.  
3  Displacement of viscous oil by associative polymer solutions.39    SPE 122400     
40,41 Heavy/  SPE 104432 
4  Hydrophobically associating polymer tolerant to salts.      
Sandstone   IPTC 11635 
The visco‐elastic property of a polymer can reduce the residual 
5  42    SPE 106005     
oil saturation.   
Gel treatment 
Application of a organically cross‐linked polymer that can 
6  withstand high temperature conformance treatment  up to      SPE 121143   
43
350 F.  
In the absence of diavalent cations, HPAM can remain stable   
7  with at least half the initial viscosity for over 7 years at 100 C    SPE 121460     
and about 2 years at 120 C.44   
SPE 130726 11

Reservoir Property  Application 
SN  Advances in EOR Technologies 
(Oil / Lithology)    Studies  Pilot  Commercial 
In depth conformance control by injecting a low‐viscosity pH‐
Sandstone &   
8  triggered polymers into the reservoir to block swept fractures  SPE 124773   
45 Carbonate   
and high‐permeability zones.  
Preformed particle gel (PPG) is used for large volume  Reference 
9  Sandstone     
conformance‐control treatments.  (95) 
Surfactants 
Super‐and viscoelastic surfactants provide both IFT reduction  Light /        
  SPE 106005 
and mobility control over a wide temperature and pressure  Sandstone &      
10   
range.46    Carbonate 
The cost of chemical surfactant has always been a drawback in 
Light /        
actual field application.  The use of agricultural effluent to 
11  Sandstone &   SPE 106078     
generate biological surfactants provides a possible low‐cost 
47 Carbonate 
alternative.  
Alkaline, Alkaline‐Surfactant (AS), ASP   
Application of alkaline‐surfactant (AS) flooding in a high‐ Light /  
12  48   SPE 109033   
temperature (119 C) and high salinity.   Sandstone  
Adverse effects of alkaline injection are mitigated by using  SPE 107776  
Light/ 
13  organic alkaline, ceramic coatings on progressing cavity pumps  SPE 109165  SPE 104416   
49,50,51,52 Sandstone  
(PCP), and weak ASP systems.    SPE 114348 
Olefin sulfonates when used with appropriate cosurfactants, 
Heavy / 
14  cosolvents, and alkali yield results required for near‐100% oil  SPE 113432     
53 Sandstone  
recovery in cores.  

Table : 5  ‐ Thermal EOR Methods  
Limitation(s) : (Taber, J.J., et al. 1996) 
(a)  Combustion sustainability is a limitation.  
(b)  Porosity must be high to minimize heat losses in the rock matrix. 
(c)  Sweep efficiency is poor in thick formations.  
(d)  Steam injection is limited to shallow reservoirs with thick (20 ft) pay zones to limit heat loss.  
(e)  Steam injection has a high cost per incremental barrel and thus is not used for carbonate reservoirs.  
Application 
Reservoir Property 
SN  Advances in EOR Technologies   
(Oil / Lithology)   
Studies  Pilot  Commercial 
Steam‐assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) follow‐up to cyclic steam 
  Heavy / 
stimulation  improved daily oil production capacity of single    SPE 104406   
1  54 Sandstone  
horizontal well from the initial 20‐40 t/d to 70‐80 t/d.   
Redevelopment of an abandoned oilfield with SAGD. The power 
plant would generate steam and deliver surplus electricity to the 
Light/ 
2  national power grid.  Wastewater from nearby sewage plant will    IPTC 11700   
Sandstone 
used to produce boiler feed water, and SAGD is expected to 
55
deliver more than 100 million bbls of oil.  
Steam injection used to improve recovery of a mature 
waterflooding reservoir.  Steam overriding can improve vertical  Light/ 
3    SPE 116549   
sweep efficiency and therefore enhance recovery to 50% from  Sandstone  
56
14%.  
Combinations of water‐based EOR methods with thermal EOR methods to overcome volumetric sweep efficiency limitations 
Thermo reversible gel‐forming system improves the efficiency of 
cyclic steam treatments.  Steam injection conformance is 
Heavy/ 
4  achieved since gelation occurs at high temperatures.  During oil    SPE 104330   
Sandstone 
drainage, the reservoir temperature decreases and the gel 
57
converts into liquid.  
A high temperature slag‐blocking agent (with silicate as the main 
Heavy/ 
5  component) was developed for steam injection to plug gas    SPE 104426   
58  Sandstone  
channeling paths and improve sweep efficiency.   
12 SPE 130726

Reservoir Property  Application 
SN  Advances in EOR Technologies 
(Oil / Lithology)    Studies  Pilot  Commercial 
Chemical additives including “SEPA” are incorporated into the 
SPE 108398 
6  steam to improve the efficiency of the stimulation process and  Heavy      
59,60 SPE 104404 
increase oil recovery factors.  
Catalysts are used for in situ combustion in carbonate reservoirs 
Heavy/ 
7  to generate a faster combustion front, higher combustion    SPE 107946   
61 Carbonate  
efficiency and higher initial temperatures.  
Applied reaction technology uses molybdenum oleate in steam  Heavy/   
8  62    SPE 106180 
stimulation to effectively reduce oil viscosity.   Sandstone    
The vaporized solvent when co‐injected with steam condenses 
9  and mixes with oil, creating a zone of low viscosity between the  Heavy   SPE 122078     
steam and heavy oil.63 
Combinations of gas‐based EOR methods with thermal EOR methods to overcome steam generation draw backs or improve recovery  
Non thermal processes involving CO2 flooding is used in 
10  combination with steam for oil recovery to limit the drawbacks of  Heavy   SPE 113234     
64
steam generation.  
SAGD performance is improved by air injection and gas assisted  SPE 106901 
11  Heavy      
gravity drainage (GAGD).65,66  SPE 110132 

Promising EOR Methods

Low-Salinity Water Flooding

Low salinity water flooding (LSWF) is a new technology developed about a decade ago to improve oil recovery.
Experimental work carried out by Tang, et al. (1997) concluded that a decrease in salinity favorably altered wettability and
improved spontaneous imbibition and oil recovery by waterflooding. Alotaibi, et al. (2009) concluded that “optimal salinity
should be maintained to maximize oil recovery” pg. #6. This concept was previously highlighted by Surkalo, (1990), who stated
that “the effectiveness in reducing the interfacial tension depends on the where the surfactant forms. If the salinity is high or low
the surfactant forms away from the oil-water interface” pg. #6.

The mechanism of LSWF oil recovery remains unclear despite several interpretations (Boussour et al. 2009). Karoussi
and Hamouda (2007) argue that oil recovery by spontaneous imbibition does not exclusively depend on the imbibing fluid
composition, but also on the composition of the initial reservoir fluid. Akin et al. (2009) note that favorable wettability
alternations have been associated with increased recovery temperatures, whereas Strand et al. (2005) associated favorable
wettability alternation in chalks with sulfate concentrations in the injection fluid as well as with temperature. Use of an injection
fluid high in sulfate ions, such as seawater, to favorably alter wettability may have adverse effects on reservoir permeability if the
formation water contains high concentrations of barium and strontium ions. Carageorgos et al. (2009) explains the adverse effects
on permeability of injection fluid that is incompatible with the formation water.
SPE 130726 13

Table 6 – Low‐Salinity Water Flooding (LSWF) 
Description 
Decreasing the injection water salinity by reducing the total suspended solids (TSD) has been proved to increase oil recovery.  
Mechanisms 
• Favorable wettability alternation in sandstone cores occurs when injection water TSD is reduced below 6,000 ppm.67,75 
• Interfacial tension is reduced in carbonate cores when the injection water TDS was reduced from 214,943 ppm down to 52,346 ppm.76 
Limitations & Challenges  
• The mechanism of LSWF oil recovery remains unclear, despite several interpretations.70 
• The availability of low‐salinity water sources is a limiting factor in LSWF application. 
• Maximized oil recovery during LSFW requires optimal salinity 68,69 to effectively alter wettability without decreasing reservoir 
permeability.75,77 

Water-Alternating-Gas

WAG is a combination of alternating water-flood and gas-flood to stabilize the displacement front. The breakdown of the
water-alternating gas interface mainly due to gravity segregation or low injection pressures offsets the favorable mobility ratio and
degrades the sweep efficiency. The critical design parameters in WAG are timing and water-to-gas ratio. If excessive water is
used or flooding is prolonged, capillary trapping occurs and solvent-oil banks are broken. In the opposite case, where inadequate
quantities of water and short alternating durations are used, gas channeling occurs and an unfavorable mobility ratio degrades
sweep efficiency. Therefore, well spacing, injection pressure, and reservoir permeability variations are key WAG candidate
selection criteria. Reservoir simulation should be used to determine the optimal WAG design parameters.

Table 7 – Water Alternating Gas (WAG) Flooding  
Description 
WAG is a process of injecting gas as a slug alternately with a water slug to overcome the inherently unfavorable gas injection mobility ratios. 78  
Mechanisms 
Ning and McGuire (2004) state “Immiscible WAG flooding in saturated or near‐saturated reservoirs results in incremental recovery mainly due 
to an improvement in sweep efficiency. By contrast, immiscible WAG flooding in under‐saturated reservoirs results in incremental recovery due 
 
to a reduction in oil viscosity and oil swelling” pg. #3.  Miscible WAG flooding in suitable candidate reservoirs results in incremental recovery 
due to a reduction in interfacial tension and improvement in sweep efficiency.24 
Applied Parameter Ranges  
Miscible WAG  Immiscible WAG 
Number Of Projects Reported: 3   Number of Projects Reported : 11  
Oil Properties   Oil Properties 
API Gravity Range :  33‐39   API Gravity Range : 9.3 – 41  
Oil Viscosity (cP): 0.3‐0.9  Oil Viscosity (cP) : 0.17‐ 16000  
   
Reservoir Properties  Reservoir Properties 
Porosity : 11‐24 %   Porosity :  18‐31.9 %  
Permeability (md) : 130‐2000   Permeability (md) : 100‐6600  
Depth (feet) : 7545‐8887    Depth (feet) : 2650‐9090   
   
Limitations & Challenges  
Stone  (1982)  states  “WAG  is  often  limited  by  vertical  gravity  segregation,  which  causes  the  injected  gas  to  rise  and  the  injected  water  to 
79
migrate to the bottom of the formation” pg. #2. This limitation can be mitigated by using high injection rates or reduced well spacing.  
Gorell (1988) suggests that “Mobile water may shield in place oil from contract with the injected solvent” pg.# 227. Therefore, the water slug 
size is critical in order to maintain an optimum balance between reducing the oil interfacial tension and improving the sweep efficiency.80 
14 SPE 130726

Foam Flooding

Recent developments in gas-miscible EOR methods are based on mobility control. Bernard et al. (1980) cite laboratory
work conducted at New Mexico State University, concluding that foam viscosities can be expected to be proportional to gas
saturation. Therefore, gas over riding effects can be controlled during oil displacement. The same work suggested adapting this
concept to carbon dioxide-miscible flooding. Foam is a dispersed bubble in a liquid and can reduce reservoir gas permeability to
less than 1% of its original value.

Carbon Dioxide EOR and Sequestration

Recently there has been renewed interest in carbon-dioxide (CO2) EOR. Growing concerns about climate change and
greenhouse gas have increased interest in carbon capture and sequestration. CO2 EOR provides an added opportunity to increase
crude-oil production while sequestering substantial volumes of industrial CO2. The advantages of this approach in a hydrocarbon
reservoir include:82
• favorable geological conditions.
• seal and storage capacity.
• infrastructure, available wells, and operation facilities.
• more than 30 years of industry experience in CO2 injection.

The difference between the objective of CO2 EOR and that of CO2 EOR sequestration is that the former maximizes
recovery with a minimum amount of injected fluid, but the latter maximizes the amount of CO2 retained in a reservoir by
increasing its physical trapping or solubility in reservoir fluids. Except for reservoir depth and oil viscosity, all screening
parameters specifically by Taber et al. (1996) can be used to screen a reservoir for CO2 EOR sequestration.83

Surfactant Imbibition

Surfactants can be used to lower the interfacial tension during water flooding.84,85 However, recent work has noted that
surfactants favorably alter wettability in oil-wet reservoirs. Tests reported by Flumerfelt et al. (1993) on the surfactant-based
imbibition/solution drive process for single-well treatment in low-permeability, fractured environment demonstrate that “the
surfactant appears to alter the wetting state of the rock and promote imbibition significantly beyond that possible with water alone
or water with dissolved CO2” pg.# 67.

Babadagli (2003) conducted an analysis of oil recovery by spontaneous imbibition of surfactant solution on a variety of
rock types including sandstone, limestone, dolomitic limestone, and chalk; he concluded that “for some rock samples the
imbibition recovery by surfactant solution was strictly controlled by the surfactant concentration” pg.#1. However, the difference
in recovery rate and ultimate recovery rate between high and low interfacial tension samples can also be affected by wettability
alteration and adsorption that can vary with rock type.
SPE 130726 15

Table 8 – Surfactant Imbibition  
Description 
Oil is recovered from fractured carbonate reservoir by wettability alternating with surfactants.88  
Mechanisms 
• Cationic surfactants can recover oil from chalk cores by spontaneous counter‐current imbibitions.89  
• Anionic and non‐ionic surfactants at low concentrations (<0.1 wt%)  can improve oil recovery up to 60% OOIP in carbonate cores. This is a 
gravity drainage process.90 
Limitations & Challenges  
• Incremental recovery by a counter‐current imbibition process depends on brine pH.91  
• Spontaneous imbibition in carbonate reservoirs is very slow because it is a gravity driven process.90 
• Surfactant treatment is difficult in carbonate reservoirs due to poor volumetric sweep efficiency.92  
• Surfactants represent a significant cost item.  

In-Depth Conformance Control

In-depth conformance control began in the late 1990s when most oilfields had become mature with less remaining oil
near wellbore and an interlayer heterogeneity conflict dominated. A major drawback of near-well-bore gel treatments is displacing
fluid by pass and reverse flow in the high-permeability zone; this effect occurs especially when small quantities of plugging agent
are used. As a result, the gel treatment has little effect on water production and incremental oil recovery. Large volumes of
conformance control treatment are much more effective in improving the sweep efficiency, especially if the agents can be placed
between wells. Chemicals typically used in large-volume conformance-control treatment are a polymer-crosslinker-retarder weak
gel system, colloid dispersion gel (CDG), and particle gels. The latter include micro-to millimeter-sized preformed particle gel
(PPG), microgel (Zaitoun et al. 2007), and the submicro-sized particle gel Bright water® (Frampton et al. 2004). Polymer
concentrations usually range from 800 to 2,000 mg/l for weak gel and from 400 to 1,000 mg/l for CDG. China has accumulated
much experience in the application of large-volume of PPG treatment, which has been used for more than 2,000 wells.95

Table 9 – In‐Depth Conformance Control  
Description 
Plugging agents such as weak bulk gel, colloid dispersion gel, and particle gels are injected deep into the reservoir to divert injection water to 
un‐swept hydrocarbon zones/areas. This improves oil recovery and reduces water production.  
Mechanisms 
 Correct the severe heterogeneity of a reservoir with cross‐flow between layers to redistribute water flow and thus  improve sweep efficiency.  
Limitations & Challenges  
• Delivering a bulk gel or particle gel to target locations is a challenge.96 
• Gel properties designed for in situ crosslinking systems are hard to control in formation due to shearing, dilution, and the chromatography 
effect of chemicals.  
• Selection of particle gel size and strength appropriate for a specific formation is a challenge because no proper technologies exist to 
identify the size of channels/streaks, a process necessary for an in‐depth conformance control design. 
• A cost‐effective gel system for a high‐temperature and high‐salinity reservoir is not available.  
16 SPE 130726

Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery

Microbes can be used to improve oil recovery. Microbial EOR (MEOR) has always been an attractive EOR method due
to its low cost and potential to improve both microscopic and macroscopic displacement efficiencies. However, the uncertainties,
sensitivities, and time impact of biological agents have always limited their success and the application envelope. Nevertheless,
MEOR has introduced the use of organic substitutes for chemical EOR methods; these include alkaline (Guerra et al. 2007),
surfactants (Kurawle et al. 2009), and polymers (Jiecheng et al. 2007 and Sugai et al. 2007). In addition, MEOR continues to be
successful in some field applications (Town et al. 2009).

Table 10 – Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR)  
Description 
Microorganisms  and  nutrients  are  injected  into  the  reservoir  so  that  the  microorganism(s)  multiply  and  their  metabolic  products  such  as 
98
polymers, surfactants, gases, and acids improve oil recovery.  
Mechanisms 
• Increase in reservoir pressure, as a result of microbial gas generation.  
• Reduction in oil viscosity.   
• Permeability modification due to acidic dissolution or plugging.    
• Decrease  in  interfacial  tension  resulting  from  microbial  biosurfactant  generation  and  a  decrease  in  the  population  of  sulfate‐reducing 
bacteria.  
Bacteria Functions in MEOR100 
IFT Reducers  Conformance  Viscosity Reducers  Permeability Modifiers   Paraffin Deposition Reducers 
(Surfactant)  (Polymer)  (Gas)  (Solvent)  (Acid) 
Acinetobacter  Bacillus  Clostridium  Clostridium  Clostridium  Pseudomonas 
Arthrobacter  Leuconostoc  Enterobacter  Zymomonas  Enterobacter  Arthrobacter 
Bacillus  Xanthomonas  Desulfovibrio   Klebsiella   
Pseudomonas   
Biosurfactants  (Reported IFT Measurements in  Reference 
mN/m) 
Mixed Culture  0.020  (Kowalewski et al. 2005) 
Rhamnolipid  0.006  (Hung, Shreve 2001) 
Lipopeptide Surfactin  0.080  (Makkar, Cameotra 1999) 
Limitations & Challenges  
• The majority of successful MEOR projects have been applied to reservoirs with temperatures below 55  Celsius.104 
• MEOR projects are suited for low‐production‐rate and high‐water‐cut reservoirs.   
• In the past ten years, the success rate of MEOR projects has been about 60%.104  
• Surfactant adsorption to the reservoir rock and biodegradation adversely impact MEOR performance.105 

Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage

Horizontal wells achieved commercially viability in the late 1980s.106 This milestone was preceded by the development of
steam-assisted-gravity-drainage (SAGD), which consists of two parallel horizontal wells. The shallower well is injected with
steam and, at times solvent to mobilize the oil. Gravity drains the oil to the bottom well for production. SAGD was originally
discovered by Dr. Roger Butler and proved commercially successful in 1992.107 Recent developments in SAGD include the use of
solvents (Galvo et al. 2009) and air (Belgrave et al. 2007) to enhance oil recovery.
SPE 130726 17

Table 11 – Steam‐Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) 
Description 
Reis  (1992)  states  “Steam  is  injected  into  the  formation  through  a  horizontal  well,  and  oil  drains  into  a  separate,  parallel,  horizontal  well 
located below the injection well” pg.#14 .    
Mechanisms 
Steam  injection  reduces  the  oil  viscosity  and  causes  the  oil  to  swell.    The  macroscopic  displacement  is  further  improved  by  the  density 
difference between the steam and the oil, depending on flow regimes. (Reis 1992) The oil interfacial tension could also decrease as a result of 
steam distillation.110 
Limitations & Challenges  
• Reservoir depth.8  
• Formation net thickness. 8  
• Pay zone net thickness should be deep enough to drill two parallel horizontal wells one above the other. 
• Albahlani, Babadagli (2008) states that SAGD is challenged by the “high vertical permeability requirement and high energy consumption” 
pg. #1. 

Summary

• EOR methods are categorized into five groups: gas-based, water-based, thermal, other and combination technologies.
• The EOR selection criteria published by Taber et al. in 1996 have been updated with additional project details.
• Reservoir property distributions based on published field application data have been developed as a guidance tool for
selecting main EOR methods.
• Novel EOR methods and combined EOR technologies have been provided as additional options to enhance oil recovery.
• The breakthrough in EOR mechanisms and the resilience of new developed chemicals extend conventional EOR methods to
a wider range of reservoirs.
18 SPE 130726

References
1. Craig, F.F., Jr. (1971) The Reservoir Aspects of Waterflooding, SPE Dallas, Texas, U.S.A
2. Green, D.W., and Wilhite, G.P. (1998) Enhanced Oil Recovery, SPE Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.
3. Department of Energy, 2005. ”Oil Exploration & Production Program, Enhanced Oil Recovery”.
4. Stegemeier, G.L. (1977) Mechanisms of entrapment and mobilization of oil in porous media. Improved Oil Recovery by Surfactant and
Polymer Flooding, D.O. Shah and R.S. Schechter, eds., Academic Press, New York, p. 55.
5. Slattery, J.C. (1974) Interfacial effects in the entrapment and displacement of residual oil. AIChE J 20, 1145.
6. Bai, B., Li, L., Liu, Y., Liu, H.,Wang, Z., and You, C. (2007) Conformance control by preformed particle gel: factors affecting its properties
and applications. SPE Res. Eval. Eng. 10, 415.
7. Bai, B., Liu, Y., Coste, J.-P., and Li, L. (2007) Preformed particle gel for conformance control: transport mechanism through porous media.
SPE Res. Eval. Eng. 10, 176.
8. Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D., Seright, R.S., 1996. EOR Screening Criteria Revisited. Proceedings of the SPE/DOE Tenth Symposium on
Improved Oil Recovery, April 21-24, 1996, held at Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., SPE 35385
9. Anonymous, 1998. 1998 Worldwide EOR Survey. The Oil and Gas Journal, 96, 16, 60-77.
10. Anonymous, 2000. 2000 Worldwide EOR Survey. The Oil and Gas Journal, 98, 12, 46-61.
11. Anonymous, 2002. 2002 Worldwide EOR Survey. The Oil and Gas Journal, 100, 15, 72-83.
12. Mortis, G., 2004. EOR Continues to Unlock Oil Resources. The Oil and Gas Journal, 102, 14, 54-65.
13. Anonymous, 2006. Special Report: 2006 Worldwide EOR Survey. The Oil and Gas Journal, 104, 15, 46-57.
14. Koottungal, L., 2008. 2008 Worldwide EOR Survey. The Oil and Gas Journal, 106, 15, 47-59.
15. Awan, A.R., Teigland, R., Kleppe, J., 2006. EOR Survey in the North Sea. Proceedings of a SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil
Recovery, 22-26 April 2006, held at Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., SPE 99546.
16. Cadelle, C.P., Burger, J.G., Bardon, C.P., Machedon, V., Carcoana, A., Petcovici, V., 1981. Heavy-Oil Recovery by In-Situ Combustion
Two Field Cases in Romania. Proceedings of the SPE 50th California Regional Meeting, April 9-11, 1980, held at Los Angeles, California,
U.S.A., SPE 8905.
17. Demin, W., Jiecheng, C., Junzheng W., Zhenyu Y., Yuming, Y., Hongfu, L., 1999. Pilot Tests of Alkaline/Surfactant/Polymer Flooding in
Daqing Oil Field. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 12, 4, 229-233.
18. Demin, W., Jiecheng, C., Qun, L., Junzheng, W., Wenxiang, W., Yanqing, Z., 2001. Summary of ASP Pilots in Daqing Oil Field.
Proceedings of a SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Improved Oil Recovery, 25-26 October, held at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, SPE 57288.
19. Hongfu, L., Guangzhi, L., Peihui, H., Zhenyu, Y., Xiaoline, W., Guangyu, C., Dianping, X., Peiqiang, J., 2003.
Alkaline/Surfactant/Polymer (ASP) Commercial Flooding Test in Central Xing2 Area of Daqing Oilfield. Proceedings of a SPE Asia Pacific
Conference on Improved Oil Recovery, 20-21 October 2003, held at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, SPE 84896.
20. Leonardo Lopez G., Analiesse Rivas, Joaquin Bello, Pablo Cordoba, 2007. Speeding Up Oil Recovery by Infill Drilling Prior to Considering
Implementation of a Full-Field WAG Process – El Furrial; Field, Venezuela. Proceedings at the 2007 SPE Latain American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference, 15-18 April, held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, SPE 108060.
21. Secaeddin Sahin, Ulker Kalfa, Demet Celebioglu, 2007. Bati Raman Field Immiscible CO2 Application, Status Quo and Future Plans.
Proceedings at the 2007 Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, 15-18 April, held in Buenos Aires, Argentina,
SPE 106575-PP.
22. Yunting Xu, Hui Pu, Lianjie Shi, 2008. An Integrated Study of Mature Low Permeability Reservoir in Daqing Oil Field. Proceedings at the
2008 SPE Western and Pacific Section AAPG Joint Meeting, 31 March – 2 April, held in Bakersfield, California, U.S.A., SPE 114199.
23. S.X. Ning, P.L. McGuire, 2004. Improved Oil Recovery in Under-Saturated Reservoirs Using the US-WAG Process. Proceedings at the
2004 SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, 17-21 April, held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., SPE 89353-MS.
SPE 130726 19

24. Surguchev, L.M., Rogaland Research; Korbol, Ragnhild, Haugen, Sigurd, Krakstad, O.S., 1992. Screening of WAG Injection Strategies for
Heterogeneous Reservoirs. Proceedings at the European Petroleum Conference , 16-18 November, held in Cannes, France.
25. Secaeddin Sahin, Ulker Kalfa, Demet Celebioglu, 2007. Bati Raman Field Immiscible CO2 Application, Status Quo and Future Plans.
Proceedings at the 2007 Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, 15-18 April, held in Buenos Aires, Argentina,
SPE 106575-PP.
26. Wen Shi, Jeff Corwith, Andre Bouchard, Russ Bone, Eric Reinbold, 2008. Kuparuk MWAG Project after 20 years. Proceedings at the 2008
SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 19-23 April, held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., SPE 113933.
27. Meshal Algharaib, Ridha Gharbi, Adel Malallah, Wafaa Al-Ghanim, 2007. Parametric Investigations of a Modified SWAG Injection
Technique. Proceedings at the 15th SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference, 11-14 March, held in Bahrain International
Exhibition Centre, Kingdom of Bahrain, SPE 105071-PP.
28. A. Faisal, K. Bisdom, B. Zhumabek, A. Mojaddam Zadeh, W. R. Rossen, 2009. Injectivity and Gravity Segregation in WAG and SWAG
Enhanced Oil Recovery. Proceedings at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 4-7 October, held in New Orleans,
Louisiana, U.S.A., SPE 124197.
29. Renjing Liu, Huiqing Liu, Xiusheng Li, Zhicheng Fan, 2008. The Reservoir Suitabiulity Studies of Nitrogen Foam Flooding in Shengli
Oilfield. Proceedings at the 2008 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, 20-22 October, held in Perth, Australia, SPE
114800-PP.
30. W.J. Renkema, W.R. Rossen, 2007. Success of Foam SAG Processes in Heterogeneous Reservoirs. Proceedings at the 2007 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, 11-14 November, Anaheim, California, U.S.A., SPE 110408-MS.
31. Viet A. Le, Quoc P. Nguyen, Aaron W. Sanders, 2008. A Novel Foam Concept with CO2 Dissolved Surfactants. Proceedings at the 2008
SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 19-23 April, held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., SPE 113370.
32. Guoqiang Yin, Reid B. Grigg, Yi Svec, 2009. Oil Recovery and Surfactant Adsorption During CO2 – Foam Flooding. Proceedings at the
2009 Offshore Technology Conference, 4-7 May, held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., OTC 19787.
33. S. hamid Behzadi, Brian F. Towler, 2009. ASPaM, A New EOR Method. Proceedings at the 2009 Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, 4-7 October, held in New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A., SPE 123866-PP.
34. Raje, M., Asghari, K., Vossoughi, S., Green, D.W., Willhite, G.P.,1996. Gel Systems for Controlling CO2 Mobility in Carbon Dioxide
Miscible Flooding. Proceedings at the 1996 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 21-24 April, held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A.,
SPE 35379-MS.
35. Fullbright, G.D., Hild, G.P., Korf, T.A., Myers, J.P., O'Toole, F.S., Wackowski, R.K., Smith, M.E.,1996. Evolution of Conformance
Improvement Efforts in a Major CO2 WAG Injection Project. Proceedings at the 1996 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 21-
24 April, held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., SPE 35361-MS.
36. Ivonete P. Gonzalez da Silva, Maria Aparecida de Melo, Jose Marcelo Luvizotto, Elizabete F. Lucas, 2007. Polymer Flooding: A
Sustainable Enhanced Oil recovery in the Current Scenery. Proceedings at the 2007 SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, 15-16 April, held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, SPE 107727.
37. Cheng Jiecheng, Sui Xinguang, Bai Wenguang, Luo Jiangtao, 2007. Cases Studies on Polymer Flooding for Medium Reservoirs in Daqing
Oilfield. Proceedings at the 2007 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, 30 October – 1 November, held in Jakarta,
Indonesia, SPE 108661-PP.
38. David B. Levitt, Gary A. Pope, 2008. Selection and Screening of Polymers for Enhanced-Oil Recovery. Proceedings at the 2008 SPE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 19-23 April, held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., SPE 113845.
39. M. Buchgraber, T. Clemens, L.M. Casanier, A.R. Jovscek, 2009. The Displacement of Viscous Oil By Associative Polymer Solutions.
Proceeding of the 2009 SPE ATCE Annual Conference and Exhibition, 4-7 October, held in New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A., SPE 122400.
20 SPE 130726

40. Ming Han, Wentao Xiang, Jian Zhang, Wei Jiang, Fujie Sun, 2006. Application of EOR Technology by Means of Polymer Flooding in
Bohai Oilfields. Proceedings at the 2006 SPE International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, 5-7 December, held in Beijing, China,
SPE 104432.
41. Zhou Wei, Zhang Jian, Han Ming, Xiang Wentao, Feng Guozhi, Jiang Wei, Sun Fujie, Zhou Shouwei, Guo Yongjun, Ye Zhongbin, 2007.
Application of Hydrophobically Associating Water-soluble Polymer for Polymer Flooding in China Offshore Heavy Oilfield. Proceedings at
the International Petroleum Technology Conference, 4-6 December, held in Dubai, U.A.E., IPTC 11635.
42. Istvan Lakatos, Janos Toth, Tibor Bodi, Julianna Lakatos, Hung, Acad, Paul D. Berger, Christie Lee, 2007. Application of Viscoelastic
Surfactants as Mobility Control Agents in Low-Tension Surfactant Floods. Proceedings at the 2007 SPE International Symposium on
Oilfield Chemistry, 28 February – 2 March, held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., SPE 106005.
43. Modesto Mercado, Juan Carlos Acuna, Julio Vasquez, Carlos Cabellero, Eduardo Soriano, 2009. Successful Field Application of a High-
temperature Conformance Polymer in Mexico. Proceedings at the 8th European Formation Damage Conference, 27-29 May, held in
Scheveningen, The Netherlands, SPE 121143-MS.
44. R.S. Seright, A.R. Campbell, P.S. Mozley, 2009. Stability of Partially Hydrolyzed Polyacrylamides at Elevated Temperatures in the
Absence of Divalent Cations. Proceedings at the 2009 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, 20-22 April, held in The
Woodlands, Texas, U.S.A.,SPE 121460.
45. Farshad Lalehrokh, Steven L. Bryant, 2009. Application of pH-Triggered Polymers for Deep Conformance Control in Fractured Reservoirs.
Proceedings at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 4-7 October, held in New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A., SPE
124773-MS.
46. Istvan Lakatos, Janos Toth, Tibor Bodi, Julianna Lakatos, Hung, Acad, Paul D. Berger, Christie Lee, 2007. Application of Viscoelastic
Surfactants as Mobility Control Agents in Low-Tension Surfactant Floods. Proceedings at the 2007 SPE International Symposium on
Oilfield Chemistry, 28 February – 2 March, held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., SPE 106005.
47. S.J. Johnson, M. Salehi, K.E. Eisert, J.T.Liang, G. Bala, S.L. Fox, 2007. Biosurfactants Produced From Agriculture Process Waste Streams
To Improve Oil Recovery in Fractured Carbonate Reservoirs. Proceedings at the 2007 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry,
28 February – 2 March, held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., SPE 106078.
48. Mohamed Othman, Mizan Omar Chong, Rithauddin M. Sai, Suzalina Zainal, M. Sukri Zakaria, Aisha Ashikin Yaacob, 2007. Meeting the
Challenges in Alkaline Surfactant Pilot Project Implementation at Angsi Field, Offshore Malaysia. Proceedings at the Offshore Europe
2007, 4-7 September, held in Aberdeen, Scotland, U.K., SPE 109033-PP.
49. Cao Gang, Liu He, Shi Guochen, Wang Guoqing, Xiu Zhongwen, Ren Huaifeng, Zhang Ying, 2007. Technical Breakthrough in PCPs’
Scaling Issue of ASP Flooding in Daqing Oil Field. Proceedings at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 11-14
November, held in Anaheim, California, U.S.A., SPE 109165-PP.
50. E. Guerra, E. Valero, D. Rodriguez, L. Gutierrez, M. Castillo, J. Espinoza, G. Granja, 2007. Improved ASP Design Using Organic
Compound-Surfactant-Polymer (OCSP) for La Salina Field, Maracaibo Lake. Proceedings at the 2007 SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference, 15-18 April, held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, SPE 107776.
51. Wan Xinde, Huang Mei, Yu Huiyu, Zhang Yingzhi, Chen Weidong, Gao Ershuang, 2006. Pilot Test of Weak Alkaline System ASP
Flooding in Secondary Layer with Small Well Spacing. Proceedings at the 2006 SPE International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, 5-
7 December, held in Beijing, China, SPE 104416.
52. Hong-Fu Li, Dian-Ping Xu, Jiang Jiang, Xiong-Wen Du, J-Chun Hong, Yang Jiang, Yan-Shu Xu, 2008. Performance and effect analysis of
ASP commercial flooding in Centeral Xing2 Area of Daqing oil field. Proceedings at the 2008 SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 19-
23 April, held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., SPE 114348.
SPE 130726 21

53. Ping Zhao, Adam C. Jackson, Chris Britton, Do Hoon Kim, Larry N. Britton, David B. Levitt, Gary A. Pope, 2008. Development of High-
Performance Surfactants for Difficult Oils. Proceedings at the 2008 SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 19-23 April, held in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, U.S.A., SPE 113432.
54. Yang Li-qiang, Zhou Da-sheng, Sun Yu-huan, 2006. SAGD as follow-up to cyclic steam stimulation in a medium deep and extra heavy oil
reservoir. Proceedings at the 2006 SPE International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, 5-7 December, held in Beijing, China, SPE
104406-PP.
55. Frank Jelgersma, 2007. Redevelopment Of The Abandoned Dutch Onshore Schoonebeek Oilfield With Gravity Assisted Steam Flooding.
Proceedings at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, 4-6 December, held in Dubai, U.A.E., IPTC 11700-PP.
56. Wu Shuhong, Guan Wenlong, Ma Desheng, Shen Dehuang, Liang jinzhong, Wang Xiaojin, 2008. Utilising Steam Injection to Improve
Performance of Mature Waterflooding Reservoir. Proceedings at the 2008 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, 20-22
October, held in Perth, Australia, SPE 116549.
57. Lyubov Altunina, Vladimir Kuvshinov, Lyubov Stasyeva, 2006. Improved Cyclic-Steam Well Treatment With Employing
Thermoreversible Polymer Gels. Proceedings of the 2006 SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition, 3-6 October, held
in Moscow, Russia, SPE 104330.
58. Jingjun Pan, Weibin Deng, Zhuofei Wang, 2006. Studies and Application of Slag Blocking Agent for Steam Injection Reservoir.
Proceedings at the 2006 SPE International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, 5-7 December, held in Beijing, China, SPE 104426.
59. Veronica Belandria, Alejandra Balza, 2006. Heavy oil and chemical additive interaction for EOR thermal applications. Proceedings at the
2006 SPE Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition, 11-13 April, held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, SPE 108398.
60. Xie Jianjun, Shi Buqian, Zhou Jianhua, Jiangli, Liu Guosheng, Yao Yiming, 2006. New Technology for Raising the Production in Injecting
Steam Well by Using SEPA. Proceedings at the 2006 SPE International Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, 5-7 December, held in
Beijing, China, SPE 104404.
61. M.A. Ramirez-Garnica, D.D. Mamora, H.R. Nares, P. Schacht-Hernandez, A. A. Mohammed, M.C. Cabrera-Reyes, 2007. Increase Heavy-
Oil Production in Combustion Tube Experiments Through the Use of Catalyst. Proceedings at the 2007 SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference, 15-18 April, held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, SPE 107946.
62. Shoubin Wen, Yujian Zhao, Yongjian Liu, Shaobin Hu, 2007. A study of Catalytic Aquathermolysis of Heavy Crude Oil during Seeam
Stimulation. 2007 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, 28 February – 2 March, held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., SPE
106180.
63. E.R. V. P. Galvo, M.A.F. Rodrigues, J.L.M. Barillas, T.V. Dutra Jr., W. da Mata, 2009. Optimization of Operational Parameters on
Steamflooding with Solvent in Heavy Oil Reservoirs. Proceedings at the 2009 SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference, 31 May – 3 June, held in Cartagena, Columbia, SPE 122078-PP.
64. A.S. Bagci, S. Olushola, E. Mackay, 2008. Performance Analysis of SAGD Wind-Down Process with CO2 Injection. Proceedings at the
2008 SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 19-23 April, held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., SPE 113234.
65. J.D.M. Belgrave, B. Nzekwu, H.S. Chhina, 2007. SAGD Optimization With Air Injection. Proceedings at the 2007 Latin American &
Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, 15-18 April, held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, SPE 106901-MS.
66. T.N. Mahmoud, D.N. Rao, 2007. Mechanisms and Performance Demonstration of the Gas-Assisted Gravity-Drainage Process Using Visual
Models. Proceedings at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 11-14 November, held in Anaheim, California,
U.S.A., SPE 110132.
67. G.Q. Tang, N.R. Morrow, 1997. Salinity, Temperature, Oil Composition, and Oil Recovery by Waterflooding. SPE Reservoir
Engineering,12, 4, 269-276.
68. M.B. Alotaibi, H.A. Nasr-El-Din, 2009. Effect of Brine Salinity on Reservoir Fluids Interfacial Tension. Proceedings at the
EUROPEC/EAGE Conference and Exhibition, 8-11 June, held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, SPE 121569-MS.
22 SPE 130726

69. Surkalo, H., 1990. Enhanced Alkaline Flooding. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 68,42 ,6-7.
70. S. Boussour, M. Cissokho,; P. Cordier, H. Bertin, G. Hamon, 2009. Oil Recovery by Low-Salinity Brine Injection: Laboratory Results on
Outcrop and Reservoir Cores. Proceedings at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 4-7 October, held in New
Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A., SPE 124277.
71. Omid Karoussi and Aly A. Hamouda, 2008. Imbibition of Sulfate and Magnesium Ions into Carbonate Rocks at Elevated Temperatures and
Their Influence on Wettability Alteration and Oil Recovery. Energy Fuels, 22,3, 2129–2130.
72. Serhat Akin, Demet Celebioglu, Ulker Kalfa, 2009. Optimum Tertiary Steam-Injection Strategies for Oil-Wet Fractured Carbonates.
Proceedings at the 2009 SPE Western Regional Meeting, 24-26 March, held in San Jose, California, U.S.A., SPE 120168-MS.
73. Skule Strand, Eli J. Høgnesen, Tor Austad, 2005. Wettability alteration of carbonates—Effects of potential determining ions (Ca2+ and
SO42−) and temperature. Colloids and Surface, 275,1-3, 1-10.
74. T. Carageorgos, M. Marotti, P. Bredrikovetsky, 2008. A New Method To Characterize Scaling Damage From Pressure Measurements.
Proceedings at the 2008 SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, 13-15 February, held in Lafayette,
Louisiana, USA, SPE 112500.
75. British Petroleum plc, 2009. Less Salt More Oil. Frontiers,25, 6-9.
76. Taha M. Okasha, Abdul-Jalil A. Al-Shiwaish, 2009. Effect of Brine Salinity on Interfacial Tension in Arab-D Carbonate Reservoir, Saudi
Arabia. Proceedings at the 2009 SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, 15-18 March, held in Bahrain International Exhibition
Centre, kingdom Of Bahrain, 119600-MS.
77. Tang, G., Morrow, N.R., 1999. Influence of brine Composition and Fines Migration on Crude Oil/Brine/Rock Interactions and Oil
Recovery. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 24, 2-4, 99-111.
78. M. Dong, J. Foraie, S. Huang, I. Chatzis, 2002. Analysis of Immiscible Water-Alternating-Gas (WAG) Injection Using Micromodel.
Proceedings at the Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Jun 11 - 13, held in Calgary, Alberta, 2002-158.
79. Stone, Herbert L, 1982. VERTICAL, CONFORMANCE IN AN ALTERNATING WATER-MISCIBLE GAS FLOOD. Proceedings at the
1982 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 26-29 September, held in New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A., SPE 11130-MS.
80. Gorell, S.B, 1988. Modeling the Effects of Trapping and Water Alternate Gas (WAG) Injection on Tertiary Miscible Displacements.
Proceedings at the 1988 SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, 16-21 April, held on Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., SPE 17340-MS.
81. Bernard, George C., Holm, L.W., Harvey, Craig P., 1980. Use of Surfactant to Reduce CO2 Mobility in Oil Displacement. SPE Journal, 20,
4, 281-292.
82. R.E. Sweatman M.E. Parker, ExxonMobil, S.L. Crookshank, 2009. Industry Experience With CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery Technology.
Proceedings at the 2009 SPE International Conference on CO2 Capture, Storage, and Utilization, 2-4 November, held in San Diego,
California, U.S.A., SPE 126446.
83. Gozalpour, F., Ren, S.R., Tohidi, B., 2005. CO2 EOR and Storage in Oil Reservoirs. Oil & Gas Science and Technology, 60, 3, 537-546.
84. Calhoun, J.C. Jr., Stahl, C.D., Preston, F.W., Nielson, R.F., 1951. A Review f Laboratory Experiments on Wetting Agents for
Waterflooding. Production Monthly, 16,15.
85. Dunning, H.N., Hsiso, L., 1953. Experiments with Detergents as Waterflooding Additives. Production Monthly. 18,24.
86. Flumerfelt, R.W., Li, Xiaoyu, Cox, J.C., Hsu, Wen-Fu, 1993. A Cyclic Surfactant-Based Imbibition/Solution Gas Drive Process for Low-
Permeability, Fractured Reservoirs. Proceedings at the 1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 3-6 October, held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., SPE 26373-MS.
87. T. Babadagli, 2003. Analysis of Oil Recovery by Spontaneous Imbibition of Surfactant Solution. Proceedings at the 2003 SPE International
Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia Pacific, 20-21 October, held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, SPE 84866-MS.
88. R.Gupta, K.K. Mohanty, 2008. Wettability Alteration of Fractured Carbonate Reservoirs. Proceedings at the 2008 SPE/DOE Symposium on
Improved Oil Recovery, 20-23 April, held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., SPE 113407-MS.
SPE 130726 23

89. Austad, T., Milter, J., RF, 1997. Spontaneous Imbibition of Water Into Low Permeable Chalk at Different Wettabilities Using Surfactants.
Proceedings at the 1997 International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, 18-21 February, held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., SPE 37236-MS.
90. R. Gupta,B. Adibhatla, K.K. Mohanty,2008. Parametric Study to Enhance Oil Recovery Rate From Fractured Oil-Wet Carbonate
Reservoirs. Proceedings at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 21-24 September, held in Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.,
SPE 116485-MS.
91. Satoru Takahashi, Anthony R. Kovscek,2009. Spontaneous Countercurrent Imbibition and Forced Displacement Characteristics of Low-
Permeability, Siliceous Shale Rocks. Proceedings at the 2009 SPE Western Regional Meeting, 24-26 March, held in San Jose, California,
U.S.A., SPE 121354-MS.
92. D. Wang, P. Han, Z. Shao, J. Chen, R.S. Seright, 2008. Sweep Improvement Options for the Daqing Oil Field. Proceedings at the 2006
SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, 22-26 April, held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., SPE 99441.
93. A. Zaitoun, R. Tabary, D. Rousseau, T. Pichery, S. Nouyoux, P. Mallo,O. Braun, Seppic, 2007. Using Microgels To Shut Off Water in a
Gas Storage Well. Proceedings at the 2007 International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, 28 February-2 March, held in Houston, Texas,
U.S.A., SPE 106042-MS.
94. H. Frampton, J.C. Morgan, S.K. Cheung, L. Munson, K.T. Chang, D. Williams, 2004. Development of a novel waterflood conformance
control system. Proceedings at the 2004 SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, 17-21 April, held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A.,
SPE 89391-MS.
95. Liu, Y., Bai, B.,Wang, Y. 2010. Applied Technologies and Prospect of Conformance Control Treatments in China. Oil & Gas
Science and Technology 65 (1): 1-20. DOI: 10.2516/ogst/2009057.
96. David B. Levitt, Gary A. Pope,2008. Selection and Screening of Polymers for Enhanced-Oil Recovery. Proceedings at the 2008 SPE/DOE
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, 20-23 April, held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., SPE 113845-MS.
97. Irfan Kurawle, Mohit Kaul, Nakut Mahalle, Amith Nair, Nikhil Kulkarni, Zohaib Amin, Vickey Carvalho, 2009. Bio-Genetic Engineering,
Future of Multi Microbial Culture EOR – A Detailed Report. Proceedings at the 2009 SPE Offshore Europe Oil & Gas Conference &
Exhibition, 8-11 September, held in Aberdeen, U.K., SPE 123303.
98. Yuichi Sugai, Hong Chengxie, Tadashi Chida, Heiji Enomoto, 2007. Simulation Studies on the Mechanisms and Performances of MEOR
using Polymer Producing Microorganism Clostridium sp. TU-15A. Proceedings at the 2007 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and
Exhibition, 30 October – 1 November, held in Jakarta, Indonesia, SPE 110173-PP.
99. K. Town, A. J. Sheehy, B.R. Govreau, 2009. MEOR Success in Southern Saskatchewan. Proceedings at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, 4-7 October, held in new Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A., SPE 124319.
100. Sen, R., 2008. Biotechnology in Petroleum Recovery: The Microbial EOR. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 34, 714-24.
101. E. Kowalewski, I. Rueslåtten, T. Boassen, E. Sunde, J.à &. Stensen, B.L.P. Lillebø, G. Bødtker, T. Torsvik,2005. Analyzing Microbial
Improved Oil Recovery Processes From Core Floods. Proceedings 2005 International Petroleum Technology Conference, 21-23 November,
held in Doha, Qatar, IPTC 10924.
102. Hung, H.C., Shreve, G.S., 2001. Effect of The Hydrocarbon Phase on Interfacial and Thermodynamic Properties of Two Anionic Glycolipid
Biosurfactants in hydrocarbon/Water Systems. Journal of Physical Chemistry, B, 105, 12596-12600.
103. Makkar, R.S., Cameotra, S.S., 1999. Structural Characterization of a Biosurfactant Produced by Bacillus Subtilis at 45 Degrees C." Journal
of Surfactants and Detergents, 2, 367-372.
104. Chang Hong Goa, Abdulrazag Zekri, Khaled El-Tarabily, 2009. Microbes Enhance Oil Recovery through Various Mechanisms. Oil and Gas
Journal, 107, 31, 39-43.
105. Gray, M.R., Yeung, A., Foght, J.M., Yarranton, H.W., 2008. Potential Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery Processes: A Critical Analysis.
Proceedings of a SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 21-24 September 2008, held at Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., SPE 114676.
24 SPE 130726

106. Robert F. King, 1993.. Drilling Sideways -- A Review of Horizontal Well Technology and Its Domestic Application. Energy Information
Administration, DOE/EIA-TR-0565.
107. N.R. Edmunds, J.A. Kovalsky, S.D. Gittins, E.D. Pennacchioli, 1994. Review of Phase A Steam-Assisted Gravity-Drainage Test. SPE
Reservoir Engineering Journal, 9, 2, 119-124.
108. E.R. V. P. Galvo, M.A.F. Rodrigues, J.L.M. Barillas, T.V. Dutra Jr., W. da Mata, 2009. Optimization of Operational Parameters on
Steamflooding with Solvent in Heavy Oil Reservoirs. Proceedings at the 2009 SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference, 31 May – 3 June, held in Cartagena, Columbia, SPE 122078-PP.
109. John C. Reis, 1992. A Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage Model For Tar Sands: Linear Geometry. Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, 31,10, Paper No. 92-10-01.
110. Cadelle, C.P., Burger, J.G., Bardon, C.P., Machedon, V., Carcoana, A., Petcovici, V., 1981. Heavy-Oil Recovery by In-Situ Combustion
Two Field Cases in Romania. Proceedings of the SPE 50th California Regional Meeting, April 9-11, 1980, held at Los Angeles, California,
U.S.A., SPE 8905
111. A.M. Albahlani, SPE, T.Babadagli, 2008. A Critical Review of the Status of SAGD: Where Are We and What Is Next? Proceedings at the
2008 SPE Western Regional and Pacific Section AAPG Joint Meeting, 29 March-2, held in Bakersfield, California, U.S.A., 113283-MS.