IPTC 13346

Staged Design of an EOR Pilot

B. L. Adibhatla, SPE, and R. C. Wattenbarger, SPE, ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company

Copyright 2009, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 7–9 December 2009.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have
not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the
International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Due to the complexity and uncertainty associated with most enhanced oil recovery (EOR) processes, a small-scale pilot is often
needed to demonstrate the successful application of an EOR process within a specific reservoir prior to wider commercial
implementation. To help manage the complexity and competing cost, schedule, and technical priorities of a pilot, a systematic
approach to planning and designing a pilot has been developed. The approach, which is described in this paper, covers various
subsurface activities necessary for design of an EOR pilot. Issues related to facilities and other aspects critical to pilot success are also
addressed, but in less detail. The sequence of these activities is described and managed in defined stages. The relationship between
various activities within a given stage is described using an activity matrix. The activity matrix has proven to be a useful tool for
planning and prioritizing various pilot activities. Examples of specific items in the staged approach to EOR pilot design are provided.

Introduction
A well-designed pilot can be a key element in the successful commercial application of an EOR process. A poorly designed pilot
can be costly and lead to an incorrect commercial decision, long delays, or a failed implementation. To help manage the complexity
and challenges associated with EOR pilots, guidelines were developed that describe various recommended activities for pilot design.
The guidelines, which are summarized in this paper, are designed to be fairly broad and describe recommended activities that are
applicable to most EOR pilots (e.g., thermal, gas, chemical). As such, the guidelines serve as a starting point for project-specific
guidelines that should be customized for the specific process, field, and pilot business needs.
The staged process for pilot design reflects experiences from ExxonMobil’s own studies and applications of EOR pilots as well as
the published experiences of others. ExxonMobil has piloted several EOR processes throughout the last 40 years. Some examples
include chemical processes at the Loudon field1-7 in the United States, the Pembina field8 in Canada, the West Yellow Creek field9 in
the United States, steamflood and LASER applications10-12, steam-foam applications13-14, CO2 flooding at the Means field in the
United States15, Solid Stabilized Emulsions (SSE)16 in Canada, piloting of miscible gas injection at Judy Creek17-18 in Canada, and
others19-21. The material presented in this paper builds upon the lessons learned from these pilots.
This paper is not intended to describe the overall process for evaluating and implementing an EOR process, nor is it meant to
summarize best practices for EOR pilots. These are described elsewhere22-23. Rather, the approach to pilot design described in this
paper is meant to serve as an overall guide to planning and properly sequencing the activities associated with EOR pilot design. These
activities include the cross-functional interaction between reservoir engineers, facilities engineers, surveillance engineers,
geoscientists, and other disciplines expected in any field development activity. As much as possible, the guidelines focus on the
activities that are specific to EOR pilots, leveraging as much as possible existing project management procedures and best practices.

EOR Staged Evaluation and Development Process

Pilot design and implementation is part of a broader workflow for evaluating and implementing an EOR process for a particular
field. The overall process, which has been described in earlier publications22-23, is briefly summarized in the next section.
An overview of a staged process to evaluate and implement EOR processes for a specific field is shown in Figure 1.22 EOR
evaluation starts with initial data collection, identification of potential EOR recovery processes, and screening economics. After initial
screening, promising EOR processes are evaluated in greater detail through laboratory experiments and detailed modeling studies. If
the results of the in-depth analysis indicate economic benefit, a field pilot may be performed to address key uncertainties. The
decision to pilot, requirements of a successful pilot, types of field pilots, and other piloting best practices have been described
elsewhere22. If the pilot is successful and the EOR process remains economically attractive, then the pilot is followed by commercial
application of the EOR process on a wider scale.
2 IPTC 13346

Figure 1: Staged Process for EOR Project Evaluation and Development.22

Figure 2 shows a more detailed example of the staged EOR evaluation process that was specifically developed for polymer
flooding23. In this schematic, Stage 1 is a preliminary screening of the process. Basic reservoir data are gathered and analysis is
performed at a scoping level to estimate the benefit of performing a particular EOR process. Emphasis is placed on obtaining good
analogs, and performing broad, preliminary analysis of several potential recovery options. If the process and economics look
promising, then the activity is taken to the next stage.

Stage 1: Preliminary Screening

• Gather basic reservoir description (rock Preliminary
1 Stage 2a: Preliminary Analysis
Screening
and fluid properties) • Preliminary laboratory screening
• Compare to analogous fields (brine-polymer compatibility, rheology)
• Select potential polymer types review • Develop initial, basic simulation
Pass Criteria: Favorable comparison with • Screening economics (injectant
general polymer flood screening criteria Preliminary sources, simulation results)
2a • Identification and analysis of key
Analysis
uncertainties and economic implications
Stage 2b: Detailed Analysis
Pass Criteria: Preliminary technical
• Detailed laboratory investigation review
investigations and economic uncertainty
(corefloods, aging tests)
assessment indicate strong potential
• Finalize specific polymer choice Detailed
• Improved reservoir description and 2b
Analysis
detailed simulation models
• Risk-weighted economic analysis Stage 3a: Field Testing
• Field test design review • Test large-scale polymer mixing
• Perform injectivity test (sustained
Pass Criteria: Technical feasibility
injection capacity, in situ polymer
demonstrated; risk-weighted economic 3a
Field Testing behavior)
favorable
• Assess pilot practicality; design pilot,
including diagnostic measures
Stage 3b: Field Pilot review
• Conduct field pilot; monitor technical / Pass Criteria: Probability of technical and
operational performance commercial success justifies pilot
• Interpret pilot and improve reservoir Field Pilot 3b
description and simulation model
• Update economic analysis Stage 4: Commercial Application
Pass Criteria: All technical milestones review • Develop commercial project and
achieved; economics are favorable surveillance plan
• Implementation, Surveillance, and
Commercial
Application
4 Operations
• Simulation updates to improve
production operations

Figure 2: Staged Process for EOR Evaluation and Development: Polymer Flooding.23
IPTC 13346 3

Stage 2 first involves a preliminary analysis of the process through initial laboratory experiments (e.g. basic rheology of polymer
solutions) and simulation studies. In this stage, and throughout the process, key issues that may impact the viability of the commercial
application of the EOR process need to be identified and a plan put in place to resolve or manage the risk. If the process economics
continue to look promising, the recovery process is studied in greater depth using more detailed laboratory and simulation studies.
Laboratory tests are performed to confirm process performance under reservoir specific conditions and to provide process
relationships as input to reservoir simulation studies. Where possible, the laboratory experiments should be performed at reservoir
conditions using reservoir rocks and fluids. Reservoir simulations, which include the results of the experimental studies, are performed
to compare the EOR process performance to alternative development options. This helps quantify the incremental benefit and
associated cost of the EOR process. The simulation studies also support preliminary field development planning for the EOR process.
If the risk-weighted economics appear favorable, the process is then taken to Stage 3.
Stage 3 involves performing smaller field tests and potentially larger-scale pilots to resolve key uncertainties. The activities related
to designing a successful pilot is the subject of this paper. A successful field pilot leads to next stage of activities.
Stage 4 involves expansion of the project from a pilot to commercial-scale application. In some cases, the project is expanded in a
staged manner. This is done to help manage any outstanding risks and to take advantage of subsequent improvements in the
application of the EOR process to later commercial stages. The scope of each commercial expansion is often determined by of the size
of facility modules and infrastructure constraints. The commercial implementation of EOR processes involves a continued
commitment to quality reservoir surveillance and strong communication between cross-functional teams.
Guidelines and checklists to manage activities for each stage of the overall EOR evaluation and development process are described
elsewhere23. A particularly useful component of these guidelines is a detailed matrix of activities that is organized by subject area and
stage23. The current paper also makes use of the activity matrix concept to manage a particular aspect of the overall workflow – that of
designing a field pilot.

EOR Pilot Activity Matrix

The EOR pilot activity matrix, shown in Figure 3, is a roadmap for a staged approach to EOR pilot design. The matrix is
organized by vertical columns representing pilot stages, and horizontal rows representing functional subject areas. The matrix can be
read horizontally to determine how the activities for particular area of interest, such as reservoir modeling, evolve in scope through the
pilot design process; or it can be read vertically to see how the various activities at a particular stage in the pilot design interact with
one another. The matrix aims to strike a balance between a high-level view of piloting activities and more detailed description of the
tasks needed to execute the design process. A key benefit of the matrix is to serve as a communication tool to help align the various
people and groups associated with pilot design. It allows each person working on the pilot to see how their effort fits with the effort of
others to help achieve the stage objectives. To help clarify roles the matrix can be formatted to indicate the group that has the lead
responsibility for a particular task.
The activity matrix is a starting point for approaching a complex task. It is intended to cover the subject areas and specific tasks
that are particularly important for EOR pilots. However, each EOR process and each field has its own character and specific issues.
Hence, depending on the EOR process and the particular field, new tasks can be added and certain activities can be dropped or
lowered in importance. Similarly, specific activities can be delayed or accelerated from one stage to another.

Pilot Stages and Milestones

Defined stages are a key element of many project management processes used in the upstream oil industry24-26. Each stage is
defined, in part, by key milestones that are to be achieved in the stage. The stages and milestones help to ensure that work activities
are well coordinated and that the amount of effort put forth in various areas is commensurate with overall project goals. Each stage
ends with a checkpoint to confirm that the key milestones have been met and that the project is ready to proceed to the next stage. As
progress is made from one stage to another, the project becomes better defined and key milestones become more specific. In this work,
the pilot design has been classified into four major stages.

Plan: The first stage in the activity matrix is the “Plan” stage. The “Plan” stage provides a foundation for the remainder of the
pilot design. This stage defines the “why” of the pilot and begins to address the “how” of the pilot. The key milestones that are
targeted in this stage are a) to define pilot objectives and to identify alternative pilot concepts, and b) to obtain a scoping estimate of
pilot cost. Work on cost, simulation, surveillance and facilities design is of a scoping nature.
Clearly defined objectives help provide a reference against which pilot design decisions and activities can be measured. The
reasons for performing a pilot are discussed in detail elsewhere22; however, most objectives involve some element of reducing the
uncertainty in the performance of the chosen EOR process in the reservoir of interest. It is worthwhile to define high-level pilot
objectives and to identify more specific detailed objectives (often tied to specific uncertainties or issues) that are stewarded throughout
the pilot.
The best mechanism for defining pilot objectives and to identify alternative concepts for the pilot design is to assemble a diverse
team of engineers, geoscientists, project planners and others to discuss various issues, concerns, and ideas related to the pilot.
Capturing issues to determine if and when they will be addressed by the pilot helps provide a good basis for pilot planning and it helps
align the various pilot team members, often with diverse perspectives, toward common goals and understanding. Results of this
exercise should be a clear understanding of pilot objectives and alternative pilot design concepts.
4 IPTC 13346

Figure 3: Pilot Design Activity Matrix. The matrix summarizes piloting activities by stages (columns) and function areas (rows).

Some questions that should be asked in the “Plan” stage of work are:
1) What are the goals of the pilot?
2) What does a successful pilot look like?
3) What data is needed to make an informed decision on commercial applicability?
4) Will the pilot address uncertainty in both the geologic description and the process performance?
5) What is the value of information from a pilot relative to implementation without first piloting?
Answering these questions is essential before moving forward with the next stage of the pilot design. Further details on setting pilot
objectives, concepts and types of pilots, and other considerations are discussed elsewhere.22 A final aspect of the “Plan” stage is to
identify candidate locations within the field of interest for conducting the pilot. Initiating pilot site selection helps clarify ideas and
concerns around key aspects of implementing the chosen EOR process in the field of interest.
IPTC 13346 5

Select: The second stage in the activity matrix is the “Select” stage. In the “Select” stage alternative pilot concepts are evaluated,
a lead concept is selected, and the lead concept is defined in more detail. Some of the key milestones in the “Select” stage are a) select
the pilot concept, b) specify the basis for further facility and subsurface design, including well count and estimated rates, C) define an
initial surveillance plan, and d) select and characterize the pilot location. This stage typically requires increased resources from
different skill areas including reservoir, surveillance, operations, facilities, project management, and cost estimation. Once the concept
has been selected and more detailed plans are in place the pilot design and objectives should be reconciled. If the objectives of the
pilot cannot be met with the selected design, then either the objectives or the design should be revisited. If a significant change is
made to the objectives, the decision to pilot should be re-tested with key decision makers.

Define: The third stage in the activity matrix is the “Define” stage. The “Define” stage is where detailed engineering design for
surface and subsurface facilities takes place. In the “Define” stage, one of the important milestones is finalizing the project design
basis. During this stage various design decisions will be made that could impact the ability of the pilot to achieve its objectives. Each
design decision and the final overall design should be tested against the objectives of the pilot.

Construct and Operate: The last stage in the activity matrix is the “Construct and Operate” stage. Because the primary purpose
of this paper is to help manage pilot design, the construction and operation have been grouped together here into a single stage. In this
stage the pilot is constructed, operated, and interpreted. Some of the key milestones are a) construct the surface facilities, b) develop a
detailed operating and surveillance plan and c) execute the pilot according to the operating plan. Near the end of pilot operations, the
pilot interpretation is completed and key lessons are captured to support commercial decisions. It is important to allow for an adequate
pilot duration and to realize that pilot interpretation can be more time consuming than anticipated.

Pilot Subject Areas

The ten subject areas in the activity matrix are a combination of subjects common to all project evaluations, such as economics and
facilities, and of subjects of particular interest to EOR piloting, such as injectivity and surveillance. The ten subject areas are:
1) Key Technical Milestones
2) Organization, Staffing, and Operation
3) Site Selection and Characterization
4) Reservoir Simulation
5) Surveillance
6) Injectivity/Productivity
7) Fluid Characterization
8) Wells and Completions
9) Facilities/Transport
10) Cost
Although each of these subject areas is critical to the success of the pilot, the level of effort in each area and in each stage should
be balanced to achieve the pilot objectives in the most efficient way. Detailed design work, for example, should not be undertaken
until the overall piloting objectives and strategy have been defined. The activity matrix helps to keep the level of effort and
expenditure on each activity appropriate to the overall stage of the design process.
Subject areas that are not specifically covered in the activity matrix, but that deserve consideration for similar attention are
regulatory, health, safety, and environment. It is important that the particular requirements of the EOR process in these areas be well
managed throughout the pilot design and execution.

Organization, Staffing, and Operation: As with most projects, proper organization and staffing is an important aspect of pilot
design and execution. Unfortunately, the staffing and organizational requirements of a pilot are often underestimated. A pilot
organization chart, a pilot lead, and staffing estimates should be established during the “Plan” stage. As the project progresses the
organizational structure and staffing requirements should be revised to meet changing project needs. In the “Select” stage, lead
engineers, geologists, facilities engineers, and planners should be identified. Discussions with key vendors and the vendor selection
process should be initiated. In the “Define” stage the roles, responsibilities, and organizational structure for the pilot operations should
be defined. In the later stages, operational workshops should be held for training needs of executing the pilot.

Site Selection and Characterization: Pilot success may strongly depend on where the pilot is performed. EOR processes are
complex by nature; unfortunately, so are the reservoirs in which many EOR processes are applied. Process and reservoir complexity
leads to challenges in pilot interpretation. The pilot should therefore be in an area where the geology is well understood. The pilot
should also be performed, however, in an area that is representative of the commercial EOR target. Pilots that are otherwise
conceptually sound can fail because they are poorly characterized or in a non-representative area. Pilot site selection should also take
into account surface constraints and potential interference from existing operations. Strong geosciences involvement is crucial for all
aspects of this activity area.
6 IPTC 13346

In the “Plan” stage the site selection screening criteria should be developed. These criteria typically include a) the generic criteria
for any EOR pilots, b) specific criteria pertinent to the specific EOR process, and c) criteria specific to the field. This analysis should
then be used to identify candidate pilot locations in the field.
In the “Select” stage, the leading sites are compared and evaluated in more detail by the entire pilot team. Guidelines for logging,
coring, and core analysis of new pilot wells are established. Reservoir characterization tools such as interference tests, seismic, and
other alternatives should be evaluated.
A series of geologic models should be constructed during the piloting process that incorporate newly acquired information and are
designed to meet piloting needs. For example, in the “Plan” stage, an element model using average properties may be sufficient to
meet stage objectives; however, in later stages a history-matched fine-scale geologic model may be required for pilot interpretation
and to perform commercial simulations. Some combination of finer-scale and larger-scale models may be appropriate.

Reservoir Simulation: Reservoir simulation is the primary means to assess the economic attractiveness of potential EOR
processes and compare them against alternative depletion methods. Reservoir simulation connects the results of laboratory
experiments to the unique character of the reservoir.
In the “Plan” stage, reservoir simulations are typically performed on simple element models using average reservoir properties.
This is done to get a scoping estimate of incremental recoveries and associated costs. Sensitivity studies are performed to identify key
uncertainties and key control variables. For more accurate reservoir modeling, a wide range of geological, field, and laboratory data
are required as inputs. Outstanding data needs for the pilot modeling should be identified in the “Plan” stage and a plan put in place
to acquire the data and or to quantify the impact of its uncertainty.
In the “Select” stage, reservoir simulations are performed to evaluate lead and alternative pilot concepts. Simulation results help to
better define competing pilot concepts and their associated costs and benefits. Other activities in this stage include studies on pilot size
and duration, expected ranges of injection rates, production rates, pressures, and composition of the EOR injectant. Reservoir
simulation is also used to assist surveillance design and to confirm that pilot objectives can be met. For example, reservoir simulation
can provide estimates of expected temperature and saturation changes in an observation well. This helps a surveillance engineer
design an appropriate logging program.
Other simulation activities may begin in the “Select” stage or wait until later stages depending on the specific needs of the pilot.
For many EOR processes it is important to understand the relationship between grid size and incremental recoveries. Similarly,
detailed history-matching of the pilot area may be started in the “Select” stage or wait until later stages when more data is available.
The timing of more specialized studies, such as those involving detailed wellbore or geomechanical analysis, will depend on the EOR
process. Lessons learned from pilot simulation studies should be applied to various commercial design activities during and following
the pilot.

Reservoir Surveillance: Pilots should be designed to collect data that can be interpreted to resolve the key uncertainties related to
commercial implementation. This requires reservoir-surveillance planning and technology. In the “Plan” stage, the primary
surveillance options needed to meet pilot objectives are identified. In the “Select” stage, a comprehensive list of surveillance options
is developed which may include observation wells, logging programs, bottomhole and surface measurements of pressures and
temperatures, tracers, seismic, coring and other geophysical methods. The surveillance options are then evaluated according to their
cost, their ability to meet pilot objectives, and their impact on other design decisions. Detailed evaluation of non-critical surveillance
items can be deferred to later stages as long as they are designed for and included in the pilot costs as a contingency. Surveillance
engineers should work closely with facility and completion design engineers to ensure that surveillance metering, sampling, and
logging requirements are accounted for in the facility and well designs. In the “Define” stage, the surveillance budget is finalized and
the initial surveillance program is drafted. The observation logging program is also finalized. In the later stages, the detailed
surveillance plan is developed along with roles and responsibilities for the field operators.

Injectivity/Productivity: For many EOR pilots, injectivity of EOR fluids is a key uncertainty. Furthermore, some injectants, such
as polymer solutions, may be altered by the injection process. EOR injectivity can be determined through a separate small-scale field
test, or as part of a larger pilot. In the “Plan” stage, injectivity and productivity are assessed through core floods and basic simulation
models. In the “Select” stage, specific injectivity testing is designed using numerical simulations and historical data. Specialized
modeling and lab analysis may also be performed during this stage to help further refine pilot design and interpretation. Data should
be gathered on nearby wells to understand injectivity in the current depletion plan and the associated issues. If possible, the pilot
should be designed to to determine whether or not any observed injectivity or productivity issues are specifically associated with the
EOR process (and injectant). In the “Define” stage, the injectivity test design is finalized, contingency plans are developed, and
expected response is clearly established. Success criteria are developed for the pilot in general and injectivity test in particular. In the
later stages, productivity/injectivity behavior is assessed and the pilot operations and commercial plan are modified as needed.

Fluid Characterization: Fluid sampling and characterization provides a foundation for reservoir simulation and pilot
interpretation. In the “Plan” stage, prior experimental work is reviewed to identify any outstanding gaps in the understanding of the
EOR injectants, surface processing chemicals, and in situ reservoir fluids. A plan to meet the outstanding fluid characterization needs
should be put in place. This should include a sampling and field testing program for reservoir fluids and injectant source streams. In
the “Select” stage, fluid compatibility tests are performed with reservoir rock and fluids. This might lead to secondary fluid
IPTC 13346 7

characterization studies. Simulation studies are conducted to optimize and confirm the composition of the EOR injectant. In the
“Define” stage tracer analysis and compatibility studies are performed. Other additives needed in the EOR pilot and their
compatibility with existing reservoir fluids and rocks are tested.

Wells and Completions: EOR processes may have specific well design requirements. For example, injection well completions for
polymer flooding should be designed to meet low-shear requirements and steamflood wells are designed to withstand high
temperatures. The requirements for injection, production, and observation wells should be defined in the “Select” stage. Observation
well requirements should incorporate the potentially competing needs of periodic logging, pressure and temperature monitoring, and
fluid sampling. In the “Design” stage, wells are designed to meet the requirements set in the “Select” stage. Typically the design of
the production and injection wells should be similar to that expected in the commercial design. The designs, however, may need to be
modified somewhat to allow for specialized downhole measurements.

Facilities and Transport: The transportation and processing of EOR injectants can be challenging. Consistent delivery of a
quality injectant to the injection wells is a basic requirement for most EOR processes and, as such, should be monitored. Quality
assurance of an EOR pilot is closely associated with facility issues. The quality assurance program is developed simultaneously with
facility design. For an EOR pilot, the injectant properties can be sensitive to contamination of the fluids during transportation,
handling, and mixing. Facility design is made robust enough to handle potential upset scenarios (for example, by adding redundant
independent storage). Development of a robust design involves careful identification of scenarios, determination of appropriate
monitoring methods, and determining appropriate corrective actions for each plausible scenario.
In the “Plan” stage, key facilities and their potential locations are identified. An initial supply (transportation) and storage plan for
the EOR injectants is also developed. Key facility issues for the pilot are captured. In the “Select” stage, different facility concepts are
evaluated and the final concept is selected. Preliminary process and instrumentation diagrams are developed. A critical inventory list
and sparing strategy are developed. In the “Define” stage possible upset scenarios and the mitigation plans are developed, long lead
items are ordered, and pre-pilot programs to test facility reliability, and a preventative maintenance program are developed. In the
construction stage, the facilities are constructed, critical spares are obtained, and pre-operation testing is conducted.

Costs: A cost analysis and an economic assessment are performed at each stage to evaluate the pilot costs and its impact on a
commercial project. This is based on the results from each stage of laboratory studies, reservoir modeling, and field studies. In the
“Plan” stage the assessment may be a simple success-case comparison to a base-case. The pilot costs are also based on initial scoping
estimates, which capture the high cost items. In later stages, detailed cost estimates are performed, and various vendors and options
evaluated to minimize the cost of the pilot. Low-cost alternatives should be tested against overall pilot objectives, with the realization
that additional flexibility and redundancy is often needed during piloting to mitigate additional uncertainty. Scenario trees may be
helpful to assess the potential impact of various design decisions. The scenario trees capture uncertainties in reservoir properties, pilot
performance, and potential upset events that may occur.
As plans are refined through each stage, pilot costs may be determined to be greater than the value of the data to be gathered. Such
a cost-benefit assessment could be dominated by monetary expense, time factors or technical limits on the data collection. If a pilot
project becomes unattractive, then it may be necessary to (a) redesign the pilot, (b) skip the pilot and accept more risk on a full-scale
project, (c) resolve the uncertainty with another approach, or (d) postpone a commercial project.

Summary
A large number of EOR pilots have been conducted in the past and are planned for the future. Nonetheless, EOR pilots continue to
be challenging to plan, design, and execute. In this paper, an activity matrix and staged approach to pilot planning and design is
presented. The activity matrix is organized by vertical columns representing pilot stages (“Plan”, “Select”, “Design”, “Construct and
Operate”) and horizontal rows representing functional subject areas (such as “Site-Selection and Characterization” and “Reservoir
Simulation”). The staged approach and activity matrix are useful tools for managing, communicating, and understanding the
interrelationship of a range of piloting activities that are needed for successful pilot planning and design.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank their peers for their numerous contributions in sharing their experiences in designing and
implementing EOR pilots. We specifically thank Robert Kaminsky, Gary Teletzke, John Wilkinson, Sergio Leonardi, Scott
Hommema, Tom Crosier, John Linderman, Fred Wagner, Chris Vadala, James Hacker, and K. Sampath for their contributions to this
paper. We also thank ExxonMobil management for their support in the preparation of this paper.

Exxon Mobil Corporation has numerous subsidiaries, many with names that include ExxonMobil, Exxon, Esso and Mobil. For
convenience and simplicity in this paper, the parent company and its subsidiaries may be referenced separately or collectively as
"ExxonMobil." Abbreviated references describing global or regional operational organizations and global or regional business lines
are also sometimes used for convenience and simplicity. Nothing in this paper is intended to override the corporate separateness of
these separate legal entities. Working relationships discussed in this paper do not necessarily represent a reporting connection, but may
reflect a functional guidance, stewardship, or service relationship.
8 IPTC 13346

References
1. Pursley, S. A. Healy, R. N. and Sandvik, E. I.: “A Field Test of Surfactant Flooding, Loudon, Illinois,” paper SPE 3805, 1973.
2. Reppert, T. R. et al: “Second Ripley Surfactant Flood Pilot Test,” paper SPE 20219, 1990.
3. Bragg, J.R., Gale, W.W., and Canning, J.W. 1983.: “Loudon Surfactant Flood Pilot -- Overview and Update,” paper SPE 11505 presented at
Middle East Oil Technical Conference and Exhibition, Bahrain, 14-17 March.
4. Bragg, J.R., Gale, W.W., McElhannon Jr., W.A., Davenport, O.W., Petrichuk, M.D., Ashcraft, T.L.: “Loudon Surfactant Flood Pilot Test,”
SPE 10862 presented at the 1982 SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 4-7 April.
5. Huh, C., Landis, L.H., Maer Jr., N.K., McKinney, P.H., and Dougherty, N.A.: “Simulation to Support Interpretation of the Loudon Surfactant
Pilot Tests,” paper SPE 20465 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 23-26
September.
6. Reppert, T.R., Bragg, J.R., Wilkinson, J.R., Snow, T.M., Maer Jr., N.K., and Gale, W.W.: “Second Ripley Surfactant Flood Pilot Test,” paper
SPE 20219 presented at the 1990 SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 22-25 April.
7. Pursley, S.A., Healy, R.N., and Sandvik, E.I.: “A Field Test of Surfactant Flooding, Loudon, Illinois.” JPT (1973) 25 (7): 793-802.
8. Groeneveld, H. George, R. A. and Melrose, J. C.: “Pembina Field Polymer Pilot Flood,”, paper SPE 5829, 1977.
9. Holstein, E. D.: “Polymer Augmented Waterflooding at the West Yellow Creek Field: Recovery and Cost Experience”, paper SPE 9826, 1981.
10. Buckles, R.S.: “Steam Stimulation Heavy Oil Recovery at Cold Lake, Alberta,” paper SPE 7994 presented at the 1979 SPE California Regional
Meeting, Ventura, California, 18-20 April.
11. Leaute, R.P. and Carey, B.S.: “Liquid Addition to Steam for Enhancing Recovery (LASER) of Bitumen with CSS: Results from the First Pilot
Cycle.” paper 2005-161 presented at the 2005 Canadian International Petroleum Conference (CIPC), Calgary, June 7-9.
12. Leaute, R.P.: “Liquid Addition to Steam for Enhancing Recovery of Bitumen with CSS: Evolution of Technology from Research Concept to a
Field Pilot at Cold Lake,” paper SPE/Petroleum Society of CIM/CHOA 79011, presented at the 2002 ITOHOS/CHWT Symposium, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, November 4-7.
13. Djabbarah, N. F., Weber, S. L., Skaufel, R. M., and Macfadyen, R. L.: “Field Applications of Steamfoam Technology at Mobil,” paper presented
at the 1997 Reserve Foam Mini-Workshop, Tromso, Norway, June 12-13.
14. Djabbarah, N. F., Weber, S. L., Freeman, D. C., Muscatello, J. A., Ashbaugh, J. P., and Covington, T. E.: “Laboratory Design and Field
Demonstration of Steam Diversion with Foam,” paper SPE 20067 presented at the 1990 California Regional Meeting, Ventura, CA, April 4-6.
15. Stiles, L.H., Chiquito, R.M., George, C.J., and Long, L.D.: “Design and Operation of a CO2 Tertiary Pilot: Means San Andres Unit,” paper
SPE 11987 presented at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, California, 5-8 October.
16. Kaminsky R.D. and Wattenbarger, R.C.: “Solids-Stabilized Emulsions - A Novel Heavy Oil Recovery Technology,” paper presented at Session
16, in the 2008 First ISOPE Frontier Energy Resources Symposium (Vancouver, Canada), July 6-11.
17. Pritchard, D.W.L., Georgi, D.T., Hemingson, P., and Okazawa, T.: "Reservoir Surveillance Impacts Management of the Judy Creek
Hydrocarbon Miscible Flood,” paper SPE/DOE 20228 presented at the 1990 SPE/DOE Seventh Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery in
Tulsa, April 22-25.
18. Pritchard, D.W.L., and Neiman, R.E.: “Improving Oil Recovery through WAG Cycle Optimization in a Gravity-Override-Dominated Miscible
Flood,” paper SPE/DOE 24181 presented at the 1992 SPE/DOE Eighth Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery in Tulsa, April 22-24.
19. Choquette, S. P., Sampath, K., Northrop, P. S., Edwards, J. T., Laali, H., Rowland, B., Morrow, D.: “Esperson Dome Oxygen Combustion Pilot
Postburn Coring Results,” paper 21774 presented at the 1991 SPE Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach, CA, 20-22 March.
20. Hoefner, M. L., and Evans, E. M.: “CO2 Foam; Results from Four Developmental Field Trials,” SPERE (1995) 10 (4): 273-282.
21. Hyatt, J.H., and Hutchison, D.A.: “Enhanced Oil Recovery in East Texas,” paper SPE 93631 presented at the 2005 14th SPE Middle East Oil
Show and Conference, Bahrain, 12-15 March.
22. Teletzke, G.F., Wattenbarger, R.C., and Wilkinson, J.R.: “Pilot Testing Enhanced Oil Recovery Best Practices,” paper presented at the 2008
IPTC 118055 presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., Nov. 3-6.
23. Kaminsky, R.D., Wattenbarger, R.C., Szafranski, R.C., and Coutee, A.S.: “Guidelines for Polymer Flooding Evaluation and Development,”
paper presented at the 2007 IPTC 11200 presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Dubai, U.A.E., Dec. 4-6.
24. Walkup Jr., G.W., Ligon, J.R.: “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of the Stage-Gate Project Management process in the Oil and Gas Industry,”
paper SPE 102926 presented at the 2006 SPE ATCE, San Antonio, TX, 24 – 27 September.
25. Vicklund, C.A., Craft, W.S.: “Management of Major Offshore Projects: An Industry Challenge,” JPT (1981), 33, 4, pp. 585-593.
26. Selamat, S., Teletzke, G.F., Patel, P.D, Darman, S., Suhaimi, M.A.: “EOR: The New Frontier in the Malay Basin Development,” paper IPTC -
12805, presented at the 2008 IPTC, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 3 – 5 December.