Enhanced Oil Recovery Pilot Testing
Best Practices
G.F. Teletzke, SPE, R.C. Wattenbarger, SPE, and J.R. Wilkinson, SPE, ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company
Summary
Enhanced-oil-recovery (EOR) implementation is complex, and
successful applications need to be tailored to each specific reser-
voir. Therefore, a systematic staged evaluation and development
process is required to screen, evaluate, pilot test, and apply EOR
processes for particular applications. Pilot testing can play a key
role in this process. Before field testing, pilot objectives need to
be clearly defined and well spacing, pattern configuration, and
injectant volumes determined.
This paper outlines a staged approach to EOR evaluation and
focuses specifically on pilot testing best practices. These best
practices were derived from ExxonMobil’s extensive piloting
experience, which includes more than 50 field pilot tests cover-
ing the full range of EOR processes. Topics covered include: (1)
determining whether a pilot is needed and defining pilot objec-
tives, (2) considerations for successful pilot design, (3) types
of pilots and their advantages and disadvantages, (4) tools and
techniques for assessment of key reservoir mechanisms, and (5)
minimizing uncertainty in pilot interpretation. Key issues that are
often addressed by pilots are discussed, including areal sweep
and conformance, gravity override, viscous fingering, and loss of
mobility control. Also included are aspects of instrumentation and
measurements in pilot injection, production, and monitoring wells.
Several ExxonMobil piloting examples are used to illustrate the
best practices, including a single-well injectivity test, an uncon-
fined pilot with observation wells, a small-scale confined pilot, and
a large-scale multipattern pilot.
Staged Process for EOR Project Evaluation
and Development
The complexity and cost of EOR requires a disciplined work
process for project evaluation, design, and implementation. To put
pilot testing best practices in perspective, Fig. 1 outlines a staged
workflow that ExxonMobil has used for evaluation and design of
EOR projects. The role of field tests and pilots in this process is
highlighted in the yellow box.
EOR evaluation starts with screening-level data collection,
candidate process selection, injectant source identification, and
screening economics. If these are favorable, design and imple-
mentation of an EOR project then requires in-depth analysis of
the most promising processes. In addition to standard laboratory
tests, specialized fluid characterization and reservoir-conditions
coreflood tests using in-situ fluids and a range of injectants are
performed to customize a process for each reservoir. Reservoir
characterization studies are conducted concurrently to identify
the key geologic controls on field-scale sweep efficiency. The
laboratory experiments and reservoir characterization studies are
then used as input to geologic and dynamic reservoir-simulation
modeling of the process at various scales to evaluate options, define
a preferred process design, and provide input to screening-level
development and facilities planning. If anticipated rates, recover-
ies, and economics are favorable, pilot testing in the target field is
often undertaken to resolve uncertainties and fine tune operational
and execution details. Additional laboratory, reservoir characteriza-
Copyright © 2010 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 118055) was accepted for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 3–6 November 2008, and revised
for publication. Original manuscript received for review 9 September 2008. Revised
manuscript received for review 3 April 2009. Paper peer approved 9 April 2009.
February 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
tion, and simulation work may be undertaken after pilot testing to
resolve uncertainties further, as indicated by the feedback loop in
Fig. 1. If the technical and commercial outlook is still positive, this
is then followed by commercial-scale implementation. Stakeholder
reviews, indicated by stars, are held after each stage of this process.
Additional detail on the staged evaluation process, as applied to
polymer flooding, is provided by Kaminski et al. (2007).
Pilot Objectives
Defining clear pilot objectives is the first step in designing and
executing a successful pilot. Pilots are conducted to address key
technical and business uncertainties and risks associated with
applying an EOR technology in a specific field. The benefits of
piloting, however, need to be weighed against the time and expense
of piloting and against other available alternatives. Conducting a
pilot is one of several options for reducing risk that might include
additional data gathering/appraisal or phased development. If there
are better alternatives to address uncertainty and risk, then a pilot
may not be required. Clearly stating the key uncertainties and pilot
objectives early in the evaluation process helps determine if a pilot
is the best approach for addressing these risks and helps guide pilot
design and execution.
Care should be taken when developing pilot objectives to ensure
that the pilot is appropriately used as a component of an overall
long-term field-development strategy. Pilots should not be a “trial-
and-error” test of various field recovery processes; rather they are
selectively applied to field test recovery processes that have been
technically and economically evaluated beforehand. Additionally, the
recovery process to be field tested should be optimized through both
laboratory and reservoir-simulation studies in order to maximize oil
recovery at the lowest possible cost. Before field testing, the most
appropriate well spacing, pattern configuration, length and orienta-
tion of wells, injectant, and injection strategy [e.g, continuous gas
injection, water-alternating gas (WAG), simultaneous water and gas
(SWAG)] should be defined. Pilots are not run simply to gain experi-
ence with application of technology, although training of operators
may be an important component of the pilot testing program.
With these comments in mind, specific piloting objectives may
include the following:
• Evaluate the EOR process recovery efficiency in the field
of interest.
• Assess effects of reservoir geology on process performance,
particularly sweep efficiency.
• Improve field-production forecasts to reduce technical and
economic risk.
• Obtain data to calibrate reservoir-simulation models for full-
field predictions.
• Identify operational issues and concerns for full-field devel-
opment.
• Assess the effect of development options on recovery (e.g.,
well spacing, processing rate, and completion strategy).
• Guide improvements in current operating strategy to improve
economics/recovery.
Considerations for Successful Pilot Design
Once pilot objectives have been defined clearly, sufficient time
and effort need to be expended in designing a pilot to ensure
that the pilot objectives can be achieved. Time spent up front in
pilot design and optimization usually leads to earlier full-field
implementation. Poorly designed pilots could potentially lead to
143
 Staged Process for
EOR Project Evaluation and Development
Screen Candidate Processes
• EOR process identification
• Injectant sources
• Screening economics
Evaluate Most Promising Processes In Depth
• Fluid and rock property data collection/laboratory studies
• Reservoir characterization studies
• Mechanistic/fine-scale modeling
• Screening-level development/depletion/facilities plan
Field Tests and Pilots to Address Key Uncertainties
• Objectives and design
• Data collection and interpretation
• Facilities reliability and wellbore integrity verification
Commercial Project Plan
• Field-wide project design and costs
• Full-field or multiple segment models
• Field-wide development/depletion plan and economics
Implementation, Surveillance, and Operations
Fig. 1—Staged process for EOR project evaluation and development.
the wrong conclusion or even to no conclusions at all. A poorly
designed and executed pilot may lead to condemning an appropri-
ate EOR process incorrectly or promoting an inappropriate EOR
process, incorrectly; both of which will result in suboptimal field
development.
By their nature, pilots are a scaled down version of the full
commercial implementation of an EOR process. This scaling
down is brought about to reduce key uncertainties for decision
making in a manner that is as timely and cost-effective as possible.
When designing a pilot, care should be taken to both understand
and minimize the impact of the scaled down nature of the pilot.
Reduced well spacing, judicious placement of observation wells,
and elevated injection rates are techniques that have been used to
provide information on process-recovery performance in a reason-
able time frame. However, it is important that the pilot be designed
to be scalable to the conditions for full-field application. Pattern
configuration, well design, the chosen injectant, and process
operations should allow for confidence in scale up to the field-wide
implementaton of the process. Finally, the pilot location should be
chosen to ensure as much as possible that it can be well character-
ized and is representative of the broader EOR target.
Reservoir simulation and geologic modeling, which incorporate
the best available reservoir description and are history matched to
pilot performance, are the most effective tools for designing and
interpreting pilot performance and translating that performance to
field-scale predictions. A properly designed pilot should ensure
that the pilot area is sufficiently characterized and sufficient pilot
data are collected to underpin reservoir modeling. Without proper
pilot design, however, reliable data for history matching field per-
formance will not be gathered, and, therefore, confident assessment
of field-scale performance will be at risk.
EOR pilots should typically be designed to provide insight on
both the local displacement efficiency of the injectant at the pore
scale and the volumetric sweep efficiency at the reservoir scale. A
frequent challenge is to obtain a volumetric sweep efficiency that
adequately captures the improved local displacement efficiency
observed in the laboratory.
With these comments in mind, the following are the require-
ments for a successful pilot test:
• Pilot objectives should be clearly defined in advance. The
key questions to be answered before doing a pilot are: (1) What
144
Reservoir Characterization
Lab Data
Reservoir Simulation
Pilot Testing
Flood Management
Surveillance
Stakeholder review/approvals
results are needed to facilitate full-field investment and operating
decisions and (2) when are results needed?
• The pilot should be designed and operated to meet the objec-
tives, aided by a predictive reservoir-simulation model. The pilot
should be able to distinguish between local reservoir/well effects
and general process mechanisms.
• Available reservoir characterization information should be
reviewed to define key geologic factors that may affect injectivity
and sweep efficiency and to identify a pilot site having represen-
tative geology. Additional geologic studies may be required in
advance of the pilot to define the reservoir description to a suf-
ficient level of accuracy.
• A surveillance and monitoring plan should be developed that
ensures that data are of high quality and that all needed data are
obtained on a timely schedule. Data should be gathered on opera-
tional factors such as downtime and backpressure.
• The pilot should be designed and operated to ensure that it
is interpretable. It is important that surrounding operations do not
affect pilot results. In addition, high-integrity well completions
are essential to understand and control sweep efficiency in the
reservoir. Finally, a reliable injectant supply is required.
Types of Pilots and Their Advantages and
Disadvantages
Before discussing the types of pilots, it is important to clarify the
distinction between data gathering, pilot, and phased implementa-
tion. The following is offered as a simple distinction:
• Data gathering: The primary purpose of data gathering is to
collect field data to address specific key uncertainties that could
have a significant impact on a business decision. Example: If injec-
tivity is a key uncertainty in assessing feasibility of a waterflood,
then conduct a field test(s) to measure injectivity under a defined
set of conditions.
• Pilot: The primary purpose is to validate the performance of
a particular EOR process in the field. Example: Laboratory tests
and simulation studies indicate that a CO2 WAG project is likely to
yield the highest recovery and best overall economic value among
recovery processes considered. Before making a huge investment
required for a large-scale application, a pilot is conducted at a well
spacing scalable to that expected for full-scale application.
February 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 Pilot Size Should be Consistent with
Process/Reservoir Knowledge, Available Time, and Risk
Process Well Understood*
Reservoir Well Understood**
Low Economic/
Injectant Supply Risk
Commercial Application
* Process has been proven commercially in other fields
** Nearby analog or previous application in same field
Fig. 2—Factors to consider when selecting pilot size and type.
• Phased implementation: The primary purpose is to manage
uncertainty by implementing a project in phases, with appropriate
adjustments in scope and optimization of design between phases.
Example: A new reservoir development with limited injectant
supply planned as phased development, with the scope of the
second phase (i.e., wells, facilities, recovery process) adjusted to
incorporate learnings from the first phase.
With these definitions in mind, the types of pilots can be
grouped into four configurations:
1. Nonproducing pilot.
2. Small-scale unconfined pilot.
3. Small-scale confined pilot.
4. Multipattern producing pilot.
While each pilot configuration has its place and purpose, it is
generally true that a more complex, and therefore, more costly,
configuration will yield more data and be easier to scale up to com-
mercial conditions. Therefore, a balance must be struck between
the risks of a commercial project and the cost of ensurance pro-
vided by data from a pilot.
Fig. 2 illustrates factors that should be considered when selecting
pilot type and scale. Two extreme cases are shown. In the first case,
the recovery process is well understood because it has been proved
commercially in other fields, the reservoir is well understood because
there is a nearby analog or existing application in the same field, and
there is low economic and injectant supply risk. In this case, commer-
cial application without pilot testing may be considered, with some
additional data gathering or phased implementation to manage risk, as
discussed earlier in this section. In the second case, the recovery pro-
cess is untested, the reservoir is complex or not understood, and there
is significant economic and injectant supply risk. In this case, small-
scale pilots, followed by a larger commercial demonstration pilot, are
frequently used to manage risk before commercial application. Clearly,
a range of alternatives between the two extreme cases is possible.
The following is a discussion of pilot designs that have been
used to gather the necessary performance data to make commer-
cial-scale implementation decisions, particularly for gas injection
and WAG processes. Both producing and nonproducing pilot
designs have been used successfully. Fig. 3 summarizes the non-
producing configurations.
February 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Process Untested
Reservoir Complex
or not Well Understood
Significant Economic/
Injectant Supply Risk
Small-Scale Pilot
Large Demonstration Pilot
Commercial Application
Nonproducing Pilots. The simplest design is a single-well injectiv-
ity test to determine the ease at which gas can be injected into the
formation and to evaluate injectivity losses resulting from WAG
processes. By adding an observation well, the vertical sweep and the
local displacement efficiency of the gas at the observer location can
be determined. Addition of a second observer permits the assessment
of the vertical sweep over the distance separating the two observers.
The locations of the observation wells will need to account for both
reservoir heterogeneities and near-well pressure gradients (drift) that
may result in the injected fluids moving away from rather than toward
the observation wells. Because gas injectants are frequently less dense
than the in situ oil, observation wells will provide valuable information
on gravity override that may lead to poor sweep efficiency.
One key to successful gasflooding processes is achieving high
volumetric sweep efficiency. Placement of multiple observers
around the injector permits an assessment of not only the vertical
sweep efficiency at the injectors but also the areal sweep efficiency.
The product of the vertical and areal sweep efficiencies gives an
estimate of the volumetric sweep efficiency for the pattern.
Fig. 4 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of nonpro-
ducing pilots. This type of pilot may be useful for providing quick
and inexpensive estimates of injectivity and vertical sweep effi-
ciency, but it does not provide quantitative data on overall volumet-
ric sweep efficiency and ultimate recovery efficiency. In addition,
it provides no operational experience with handling and recycling
produced fluids and is extremely sensitive to fluid drift.
Producing Pilots. Pilots that incorporate production wells, other-
wise known as “oil-in-the-tank” pilots, provide the most direct data
on oil recovery, fluid transport through the reservoir, and pressure
drop between injectors and producers. Important factors to con-
sider when designing and interpreting producing pilots include:
• Drift: Is the pattern acting as a truly confined flow system?
• Balance: Are the relative rates of injectors and producers
allocated to maximize areal sweep efficiency in the pilot area?
• Isolation: Is the zone taking injection the only zone that is
producing?
The cost of running a pilot that is truly confined, balanced,
and isolated may be considerable because offset production may
145
 Pilot Types: Non-Producing
Single Well Injectivity Test
Determine: Injectivity
Injector Offset with Multiple
In-Line Observers
Determine: Injectivity
Vertical sweep at observers
Displacement efficiency at observers
Vertical sweep vs. distance
Reservoir description between
injection and observation wells
Fig. 3—Nonproducing pilot designs.
need to be curtailed. This is especially important in systems with
gas or light oil in which pressure gradients across the pilot site
may result in significant fluid flux that will compromise pilot
interpretation. A compromise may have to be struck between the
best possible data and a situation that can be simulated later with
reasonable confidence.
Another opportunity provided by a producing pilot is the
experience with separation and handling of produced fluids. Small-
scale facilities can be constructed, and easily modified, to gain
experience with separation and recycling of fluids. If the pilot
is successful, then the experience gained with facilities design
will translate into cost savings associated with construction of the
commercial facilities.
Observation wells provide a means of monitoring fluid movement
at various points intermediate to the injector and producer. Valuable
information on conformance, fluid transport in the reservoir, and
Non-Producing Pilots
Advantages
• Low cost
• Quick estimate of oil mobilization vs.
distance
• Estimate of vertical conformance
• No production facilities required
• Estimate of injectivity
• Fast results
Fig. 4—Advantages and disadvantages of nonproducing pilots.
146
Injector Offset with Static Observer
Determine: Injectivity
Vertical sweep at observer
Displacement efficiency at observer
Reservoir description between injection
and observation well
Injector Offset with Multiple
Areal Observers
Determine: Injectivity
Vertical sweep at observer
Displacement efficiency at observers
Areal sweep
Reservoir description between
injection and observation wells
fluid mobilities can be gained from observation wells. Methods for
data acquisition from observation wells typically include logging,
sampling, and pressure measurements.
Fig. 5 summarizes some representative producing pilot con-
figurations. Producing pilots provide not only an understanding of
the injectivity of fluids into the formation, but more importantly,
some quantitative data on the production potential of the recovery
process, and subsequently a rough estimate of oil recovery. Single,
inverted five-spot patterns are often used to provide such informa-
tion. Observation wells are often included to evaluate the vertical
sweep and displacement efficiency at the observers, vertical and
areal sweep at a distance, fluid mobilities within the formation,
and to estimate oil recovery.
As indicated in Fig. 6, although unconfined producing pilots
can provide some production experience rapidly and at relatively
low cost, the swept volume can be difficult to evaluate and perfor-
Disadvantages
• No oil in tank
• No operational experience with
production
• No confirmation of swept volume
• Limited data on mobility control,
overall conformance, chemical
retention
• Extremely sensitive to fluid drift
February 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 Pilot Types: Producing
Single Inverted 5-Spot
Determine: Injectivity and productivity
Approximate estimate of oil recovery
Single Inverted 5-Spot
With Observers
Determine: Injectivity and productivity
Estimate of oil recovery
Vertical sweep at observers
Displacement efficiency at observers
Vertical sweep vs. distance
Areal sweep
Fig. 5—Examples of producing pilots.
mance may not be representative of a repeated pattern and may be
difficult to scale. In addition, they are sensitive to fluid drift and
can take as long to run as a true pattern flood.
Better recovery estimates can be obtained by using a single,
normal five-spot pattern. In this design, water or gas is injected at
the four corners of the pattern to provide confinement of the oil
within the pattern and, therefore, improved estimates of recovery
compared to an unconfined pattern. To reduce pilot duration, con-
fined pilots are typically run at a closer well spacing than planned
for commercial application. Advantages and disadvantages of such
small-scale confined pilots are summarized in Fig. 7. This type of
pilot can provide good estimates of oil displacement and, when
coupled with the use of observation wells, vertical sweep efficiency
as a function of distance from the injection well at modest cost.
In addition, detailed data on pressure gradients, fluid mobilities,
and fluid transport can be obtained that enable rigorous calibration
of simulation models. However, the small size of the pattern may
Unconfined Producing Pilots
Advantages
• Estimate of injectivity
• Low cost
• Rough estimates of mobility control,
oil mobilization, chemical retention
• Some production experience
• Fast results
Fig. 6—Advantages and disadvantages of unconfined producing pilots.
February 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Single Normal 5-Spot
Determine: Injectivity and productivity
Improved estimate of oil recovery
Repeated Inverted 5-Spot
Determine: Injectivity and productivity
Oil recovery from multiple
confined patterns
not sample representative heterogeneities, reflect the balance of a
repeated pattern flood, scale to wider well spacings, or indicate
long-term problems.
For improved confidence in scaling pilot results to potential
full-field applications, repeated inverted five-spot patterns have
sometimes been used. This arrangement provides the best estimates
of oil recovery and sweep efficiency, the best data for calibrating
simulation models, and the most direct scaleup to commercial
operations. However, this type of pilot will have the longest
duration and will require extensive evaluation time. Naturally,
piloting costs increase with the number of patterns placed on test.
Advantages and disadvantages of large-scale, multipattern pilots
are summarized in Fig. 8.
Assessment of Key Reservoir Mechanisms
The specific tools used to assess key reservoir mechanisms will
depend on the EOR process being pilot tested. For illustrative
Disadvantages
• Swept volume difficult to evaluate
• Streamlines, pressure gradients, oil
recovery not representative of
repeated pattern
• Performance difficult to scale
• Sensitive to fluid drift
• Takes as long to run as a pattern
flood
147
 Small-Scale Confined Pilots
Advantages
• Good estimate of oil displacement,
and vertical conformance vs.
distance
• Detailed data on mobility control,
pressure gradients, and chemical
transport
• Data for simulator calibration
• Easier to scale-up to commercial
• Modest cost
• Moderately fast results
Fig. 7—Advantages and disadvantages of small-scale confined pilots.
purposes, this section will focus on the key reservoir mechanisms
associated with gas injection EOR. Fig. 9 summarizes three sig-
nificant problems that can arise in horizontal gas injection and
WAG EOR projects (Healy et al. 1994). This figure focuses on
problems associated with horizontal floods because these make
up the majority of gas injection EOR pilots that have been con-
ducted to date.
First, in some situations, it may not be possible to inject water
and gas at the desired rates. Reservoir variables that control injec-
tivity are effective permeabilities and near-wellbore damage. Water
injectivity has been a problem in some floods, especially in low-
permeability reservoirs. If injectivity is a potential problem, it can
be evaluated in the design phase through careful laboratory measure-
ments, and by conducting pilot injectivity tests.
Large-Scale, Multipattern Pilot
Advantages
• Best estimate of oil recovery and
sweep efficiency
• Confirmed “oil-in-the-tank”
• Best data for calibrating simulators
• Easiest to scale-up to commercial
performance
• Commercial-scale operating
experience and cost data
Fig. 8—Advantages and disadvantages of large-scale, multipattern pilots.
148
Disadvantages
• May not sample representative
heterogeneities
• May not reflect pattern balance of
repeated pattern flood
• May not scale to wider well spacings
• May not indicate long-term problems
A second problem is that gas can channel through high-per-
meability “thief” zones, leading to poorer-than-expected sweep
efficiency. Channeling is controlled by permeability distribution.
Gas channeling can be evaluated in the design phase by conducting
thorough geological and reservoir description studies along with
small-scale reservoir simulation studies that properly account for
the governing geologic heterogeneities. Also, the sweep experi-
enced in a prior waterflood will provide a strong indication of
the degree of channeling to be expected in a gas injection project.
Thus, an accurate reservoir description combined with history
matching prior waterflood performance can help evaluate the
potential for channeling in the gasflood.
The final potential problem is that gas, which is usually less
dense than oil or water, can gravity override or flow to the top of
Disadvantages
• Very expensive
• Extensive evaluation time
February 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 Potential Problems with
WAG and Gas Injection Processes
Potential Problem Evaluation of Problem

Injectivity
• Cannot inject gas or Water Gas Water • Lab measurements
water at desired rates • Pilot injectivity tests

• Gas channels through • Geological, reservoir

high-permeability description studies
zones • Pulse (interference) testing
Gas
prior to gas injection
• Waterflood history matching
• Pilot tests for conformance

• Severe gravity override • Geological, reservoir

of gas occurs
Gas description studies
• Simulation studies to test
completion strategy and
injection rate
• Pilot test for vertical sweep

Fig. 9—Potential problems with WAG and gas injection processes.

a reservoir unit as it moves away from injection wells. When this
occurs, it will sweep only the very top portion of the zone. Gas
override is highly sensitive to vertical permeability and to the lateral
extent of barriers to vertical flow. Again, geological and reservoir
description studies and perhaps pilot tests can help to identify
conformance problems and thus avoid a surprise. Because grav-
ity override is sensitive to the viscous-to-gravity ratio (VGR), it is
important to operate a gas injection or WAG pilot at water and gas
throughput rates and well spacing that result in a VGR comparable
to that which could be achieved in a commercial-scale project (Stone
1982; Jenkins 1984).
In summary, the key mechanisms to be assessed during pilot
testing of gas injection processes include injectivity, gravity over-
ride, channeling, viscous fingering, and areal sweep. Table 1
outlines the data needed for interpretation of each mechanism and
monitoring tools and techniques that can be used to acquire the
required data.
Understanding injectivity changes requires measurement of not
only the injectivity index, but also the permeability distribution and
fluid mobilities near the injection well. Frequent measurements of
injection rates and bottomhole pressures are used to provide high-
resolution injectivity data. Flow profiles, fall-off tests, and step-rate
tests have been used to characterize the near-well permeability
distribution and fluid mobilities. Permanent downhole monitoring
tools are now being used routinely to obtain high-resolution real-
time temperature and pressure data.
To assess gravity override properly, the change in oil saturation
with depth and distance behind the passing gas displacement front

TABLE 1—TOOLS FOR KEY-RESERVOIR-MECHANISM ASSESSMENT

Mechanism Data Needed for Interpretation Tools/Techniques
Injectivity Injectivity index Injection rates
Bottomhole pressure
Permeability distribution near injection well Flow profiles
Fall-off tests
Step-rate tests
Gravity override Oil saturation change with depth and Time-lapse logging in monitor wells
distance from injector Core after passage of flood front
Vertical permeability Core data
Vertical pulse tests
Cross-layer pulse tests
Channeling/viscous fingering/loss of Oil saturation change with depth and Time-lapse logging in monitor wells
mobility control distance from injector
Gas/oil ratio or water cuts vs. time at Sample producers for early breakthrough
producers of injectant
Interwell tracers Sample producers
Pressure surveys Flowing and shut-in pressures
Areal sweep/conformance Volume balance of oil, gas, water, and Sample producers for injected tracers
tracers produced to determine swept pore
volume

February 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 149

and the effective pattern vertical permeability are needed. Time-
lapse logging, coring behind the flood front, and either vertical
or cross-layer pulse tests have been used to provide this informa-
tion. Cased-hole logging tools used for time-lapse logging include
nuclear logs (steel and nonmetallic casing) for gas saturation and
total porosity and induction logs (nonmetallic casing) for water
saturation. Fitz and Ganapathy (1993) provide an example of quan-
titative monitoring of fluid saturation changes during a gas injection
EOR project. Post-flood core wells have been used to measure verti-
cal conformance and remaining oil saturation. In some cases, spot
fluid samples for composition have been collected at observation
wells, but usually after critical log data have been obtained.
Channeling and loss of mobility control or viscous fingering are
the other key mechanisms affecting sweep efficiency. In addition
to assessing the change in oil saturation behind the flood front,
the gas/oil ratio and water-cut behavior of producers over time,
interwell tracers (radioactive or chemical) and pressure surveys are
commonly used to estimate the degree of channeling and viscous
fingering. Careful and regular sampling of produced fluids, flowing
and static bottomhole pressure surveys, and time-lapse logging are
available techniques for acquiring such data.
Finally, flood conformance or areal sweep is needed to comple-
ment the channeling and gravity override data and determine the
volumetric sweep efficiency within the pattern. Swept pore volume
can be determined by carefully tracking the movement and break-
through of tracers at production wells and keeping accurate records
of oil, water, and gas production
Pilot Interpretation
Successful pilot interpretation requires advance planning. It is
essential that a detailed reservoir simulation model of the pilot
area (with appropriate boundary conditions) be built in advance to
optimize the pilot design and monitoring program, anticipate data
needed for history matching the pilot, enable timely interpretation
of pilot, and assess the need for selective use of additional observa-
tion wells and post-flood coring. The geology of the pilot area and
a good understanding of the target oil distribution are critical inputs
to the simulation model. Pilot wells should be cored and logged,
if at all possible. Core, log, and pressure transient data should be
integrated into a consistent reservoir description.
The following pilot design and operational best practices help
to minimize uncertainties in test interpretation and facilitate history
matching of pilot results:
• Production facilities, well completions, tubulars, and artificial
lift should be representative of the anticipated commercial-scale
development.
• Several good baseline logs and possibly a single-well tracer
test should be run in wells before the pilot begins and at regular
time intervals to verify reproducibility of the log measurements and
ensure accurate determination of saturation changes during time-
lapse logging at observation wells. Having logging tools dedicated
to the project also helps to ensure reproducibility.
• An adequate period of steady baseline injection and produc-
tion should be achieved before initiating the EOR process. This
will reduce uncertainty in interpretation of injectivity, saturation
changes, and incremental oil production.
• Fluid drift should be minimized so that the pilot area acts as
a truly confined system. This can be accomplished by regulating
rates in the surrounding patterns or locating the pilot in an area
without strong pressure gradients.
• The relative rates of injectors and producers should be
allocated to maintain pattern balance and maximize areal sweep
efficiency in the pilot area.
• Steady and uninterrupted injection and production rates
should be maintained. This is important to maintain the desired
VGR, maintain pattern balance, and minimize the effects of exter-
nal influences.
• Injection and production zones should be isolated so that only
the targeted production zone is taking injection.
• An adequate volume of EOR fluid should be injected to
reduce uncertainty in interpretation of sweep efficiency, satura-
150
tion changes, and incremental oil production. Experience indicates
that the volume of EOR fluid injected needs to be at least 20%
of the pattern hydrocarbon pore volume before the pilot can be
interpreted adequately.
• The original pilot operating and monitoring plan should be
continued until sufficient data are acquired to validate simulation
models; do not attempt to optimize on the basis of early results.
Assessing incremental oil recovery over waterflood should be a
key objective of a pilot. This can be accomplished in several ways,
each of which has advantages and disadvantages:
• In cases where the waterflood is very mature (>90% water
cut), an increase in oil cut can provide a direct measure of improved
recovery. A disadvantage is that this may delay the pilot, or the
waterflood may contact only part of the target zone.
• In cases in which the waterflood is less mature, the baseline
waterflood recovery can be estimated by using a reservoir simu-
lation model to history match the pilot area and extrapolate the
prepilot waterflood production trend. This requires an adequate
prepilot waterflood period to reduce uncertainty in the history
match and extrapolation.
Pilot Examples
The best practices described in the preceding text were derived
from ExxonMobil’s extensive piloting experience, which includes
more than 50 field pilot tests covering the full range of EOR pro-
cesses. Table 2 is a list of representative ExxonMobil pilot tests
that have been described previously in the open literature. Four
ExxonMobil pilot tests are used below to illustrate (1) definition
of pilot objectives, (2) design of pilots to meet the objectives, (3)
tools and techniques for assessment of key reservoir mechanisms,
and (4) integrated interpretation of pilot data aided by reservoir
simulation.
Single-Well Injectivity Test. This example is a low permeability
sandstone reservoir located in Wyoming, USA. Average reservoir
permeability is 6.6 md, average formation thickness is 50 ft, and
the reservoir is being waterflooded on a vertical well spacing of
80 acres. The concern was that injectivity would be low during
miscible CO2 WAG injection. Therefore, an injectivity test was
performed to determine injectivity before, during, and after CO2
injection and to estimate field-scale injectivity to assist prediction
of miscible process performance.
The test consisted of 3 months of baseline water injection fol-
lowed by 2 months of CO2 injection before returning the well to
water injection. The radius of investigation of the test was approxi-
mately 100 ft. Bottomhole injection pressures and surface injection
rates were monitored continuously during the test to determine
injectivity index changes during injection of water and CO2. Pres-
sure fall-off tests were conducted and injection flow profiles were
measured during both the baseline water injection and CO2 injec-
tion to characterize the permeability distribution and changes in
fluid mobilities in the near-well region. Step-rate tests were also
conducted to confirm that the formation was not fractured.
The results of the test were used to calibrate a radial simulation
model of the near-well region. Results of the radial model were
used to guide the construction of a full-field simulation model,
which was then used to evaluate WAG injection process options.
Unconfined Pilot With Observation Wells. Evidence of grav-
ity segregation between water and an enriched hydrocarbon gas
was observed in a tertiary horizontal miscible WAG flood at the
Judy Creek Beaverhill Lake ‘A’ Pool. The gas override resulted in
bypassing of potential miscible reserves and decreased ultimate
oil recovery. An unconfined producing pilot was undertaken by
Imperial Oil Resources, a majority indirectly owned affiliate of
ExxonMobil, to verify the existence and extent of gravity override,
quantify the factors affecting vertical sweep efficiency, identify
optimum well spacing and pattern size, and determine residual oil
saturations to water and enriched hydrocarbon gas (Pritchard et
al. 1990). Results of the pilot were used to calibrate a mechanistic
reservoir simulation model, which was subsequently used to guide
optimization of pattern configuration and WAG operating strate-
February 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 TABLE 2—REPRESENTATIVE EXXONMOBIL EOR PILOT TESTS
Field Date Type Pilot Process References
Borregos 1965–66 5-spot Surfactant Pursley and Graham
(1975)
Loudon 1969–70 5-spot Surfactant Pursley et al. (1973)
Loudon 1980–81 5-spot Surfactant Bragg et al. (1982,
1983)
Loudon 1982–83 5-spot Surfactant Reppert et al. (1990)
Loudon 1982–86 40-acre multipattern Surfactant Huh et al. (1990)
Loudon 1982–86 80-acre multipattern Surfactant Huh et al. (1990)

Means San Andres 1982–83 Nonproducing Co2 miscible Stiles et al. (1983)
Judy Creek “A” 1987 Unconfined pattern Hydrocarbon miscible Pritchard et al. (1990,
1992)
Redwater 1988–89 Multipattern Hydrocarbon miscible Wood et al. (1993)
Slaughter 1991–92 Multipattern Co2 foam Hoefner and Evans
(1995)
Greater Aneth 1992–94 Multipattern Co2 foam Hoefner and Evans
(1995)
East Texas Basin 2001–2005 Single patten Gravity-stable immiscible gas Hyatt and Hutchison
injection with horizontal wells (2005)

Norman Wells 1986–90 Multipattern Polymer gel Twiedt et al. (1997)

Cold Lake (Ethyl) 1964– Multipattern Cyclic steam stimulation Buckles (1979)
Cold Lake (May) 1972– Multipattern Cyclic steam stimulation Buckles (1979)
Cold Lake (Leming) 1975– Multipattern Cyclic steam and steam drive Buckles (1979)
with horizontal wells
Cold Lake (H22 Pad) 2002– Multipattern Laser Leaute (2002), Leaute
and Carey (2005)
South Belridge 1986–87 Multipattern Steam foam Djabbarah et al. (1990,
1997)
South Belridge (Diatomite) 1992–96 Multipattern Steam drive Murer et al. (2000)
Esperson Dome 1984–87 Single pattern In-situ combustion Choquette et al. (1991)
Celtic 1996–99 Single well (horizontal) SAGD Saltuklaroglu et al.
(2000)
Celtic 1997–2001 Dual well (horizontal) SAGD Saltuklaroglu et al.
(2000)
Celtic 2002–2005 5-spot SSE Kaminsky and
Wattenbarger (2008)

gies (Pritchard and Neiman 1992). The field is a limestone reef
reservoir located approximately 200 km northwest of Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada. Its average horizontal permeability is 43 md and
average thickness is 68 ft. Gravity override was a concern because
the reservoir has good vertical permeability. The pilot was situated
in a location that (1) was representative of the reef margin facies
that was the primary target of the hydrocarbon miscible flood, (2)
would ensure an interpretable pilot, and (3) would be an economic
venture on its own by accessing unswept reservoir.
The pilot pattern configuration is shown in Fig. 10. The test
consisted of 6 months of baseline water injection followed by 1 year
of WAG injection with enriched hydrocarbon gas at a volumetric
WAG ratio of 1.0. This WAG ratio was accomplished by 1 week of
enriched hydrocarbon gas injection at an average rate of 2000 res
m3/d followed by 3 weeks of water injection at an average rate of
660 res m3/d. These rates were chosen to achieve the same VGR as
the planned commercial operation. The gas was injected at a higher
rate than the water to maximize vertical sweep at the injector and
be representative of the vertical injection profile of a commercial
operation. A lower water injection rate was used to reduce the total
average fluid rate and, thus, achieve the target VGR.
The monitoring program included:
• Induction resistivity and neutron logging to determine oil,
water, and gas saturation changes at a fiberglass-cased observation
well (Georgi et al. 1991). The observation well was placed within
the expected WAG commingled zone on the basis of prepilot reser-
voir simulation modeling. The location was chosen to confirm the
expected size and shape of the WAG commingled zone (Fig. 11).
• Production and injection profile logs for monitoring changes
in fluid production rates and fluid entry horizons. These consisted
of a suite of spinner, density, capacitance, and temperature tools.
• Water and solvent tracer for defining the areal distribution of
injected water and gas. A gas-phase tracer (sulfur hexafluoride)
and liquid phase tracer (tritiated toluene) were used to monitor
fluid movement.
Conclusions of the pilot, on the basis of an integrated interpreta-
tion of the monitoring data, were that (1) a definite oil bank was
formed by the miscible process, (2) gravity override was consistent
with the simulation model predictions, and (3) a reduction in pat-
tern size would improve sweep efficiency and ultimate oil recovery.
The calibrated simulation model was used to define an optimized
injection strategy comprising (1) injection of an initial high-rate
bank of the enriched gas before WAG injection, (2) tapering the
WAG ratio, (3) proper timing of lean chase gas injection, and (4)
tailoring of WAG cycle length and bank size to pattern geology.
Small-Scale Confined Pilot. The initial pilot of the solids-sta-
bilized emulsion (SSE) heavy-oil-recovery process developed by

February 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 151

 400 m
2-8 110 m Injector 4-9

Observation well

T 64 R 11
R 10
Sweep
pilot

T 65 16-5

Reef edge

Fig. 10—Judy Creek vertical sweep pilot configuration.

ExxonMobil was conducted at the Celtic field in Saskatchewan,
Canada. The SSE process involves the generation and injection of
solids-stabilized water-in-oil emulsion to more favorably displace
viscous oils (Kaminsky and Wattenbarger 2008). After several
years of laboratory and theoretical development, the SSE recovery
process was deemed ready for piloting in the field. The objectives
of the pilot were (1) to gain operational experience with the SSE
process, (2) to confirm the ability to generate and inject a solids-
stabilized emulsion in the field, (3) to confirm the in situ stability of
the injectant, and (4) to confirm improved reservoir displacement.
After review of several potential pilot locations, the Celtic field was
chosen because its reservoir characteristics matched the desirable
target characteristics for the SSE process, it had existing infrastruc-
ture, and it was well characterized with historic performance data.
The Celtic SSE pilot was designed as an isolated five-spot pat-
tern with four corner injection wells, a central producing well, and
three observation wells (see Fig. 12). Use of a full, isolated pattern
minimized interference with existing operations and ensured that oil
recovery during the pilot came from within the pilot pattern. Initial
characterization of the pilot included logging, coring, extensive
coreflood analysis, a new method to measure steady-state relative
permeabilities for heavy oil systems, fluid characterization, geologic
Observation
Injector well
modeling, and reservoir simulation. Initial reservoir modeling stud-
ies were conducted before the pilot to confirm that the chosen well
spacing and 3-year piloting period would be sufficient to gather nec-
essary injection, production, and observation-well data to meet pilot
objectives. Falloff tests were conducted periodically to characterize
the pilot area further and to evaluate changes in well injectivity.
The reservoir surveillance program included: close monitor-
ing of injection and production rates, continuous measurement
of bottomhole pressures and temperatures, producer sampling
and analysis, tracers, and observation well logging. Fiber-optic
sensors were placed in each of the observation wells to measure
pressure response. Temperature logs were run in the observation
wells on a routine basis to help detect the arrival of the slightly
heated injected fluid. Carbon/oxygen and induction logs were run
less frequently to detect changes in fluid saturation. Water-phase
and injector-specific oil-phase tracers were added to the injected
fluid to help track the movement of the injected fluids and to aid
in the determination of in situ stability. Regular sampling and an
in-line viscometer were used to control the quality of the injectant.
These quality controls were helpful in identifying and correcting
initial startup problems with injectant preparation. At the end of
the 3-year pilot, a post-flood well was drilled to take core from
the swept region of the flood. The ability to generate and inject
solids-stabilized emulsion in the field was demonstrated early on
in the pilot. Integrated analysis of the post-flood core-well results
Producer and extensive surveillance data allowed estimation of the in situ

24
Gas flowing zone
(including dispersion)
R3
INJ1 injection well
20
production well
Flow Thickness (m)

16
Commingled Water flowing
observation well
zone zone R2
12
35 45 25
PROD ft ft ft
8 Log INJ2
interpreted Predicted INJ4 OBS2 OBS1
base of commingled
4 commingled R1
zone
zone dimension
OBS3
0 150 ft
0 100 200 300 400 40
ft
Distance from Injector (m)
INJ3
N
Fig. 11—Simplified cross section of Judy Creek vertical-sweep
pilot showing observation well location. Fig. 12—Celtic SSE pilot configuration.

152 February 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 750 5
675 10
Bitumen Rates (m 3/d)
12 15
600
20
525
450
375
300
225
150
75 Cycle 6
0 0
-0
0 00 01 01 02
ar ug- eb- ug- eb-
M A F A F A
Fig. 13—Comparison of LASER (orange) and CSS (blue) performance for Cold Lake LASER Pilot.
stability of the injectant and displacement performance, which
were found to be consistent with prior laboratory corefloods and
performance estimates.
Large-Scale Multipattern Pilot. The first pilot of the liquid-
assisted steam enhanced recovery (LASER) process was conducted
in the H22 pad of the Cold Lake field in Alberta, Canada (Leaute
2002; Leaute and Carey 2005). The LASER process, developed by
Imperial Oil, involves the addition of an intermediate hydrocarbon
solvent to steam injected in later cycles of a cyclic steam stimu-
lation (CSS) operation. Laboratory physical models, theoretical
analysis, and reservoir simulations provided the confidence to test
this novel recovery concept in the field.
The primary objectives of the LASER pilot were to validate
the improvement in cycle bitumen recovery over the base CSS
process and to determine the amount of solvent recovery. Because
of the variability in CSS well performance, both between wells
and in individual wells over time, a large-scale multipattern pilot
design was chosen. In this design, LASER was applied to several
wells in the H22 pad and its performance was compared to that of
a neighboring control pad (H21), where CSS was applied without
the addition of solvent. The H22 and H21 pads were chosen for
the pilot and control, respectively, because they had nearly iden-
tical pad-level performance through the first six cycles of CSS
and because their performance and reservoir characteristics were
representative of future LASER targets (see Fig. 13).
Starting in 2000, solvent was introduced in the seventh and
eighth cycles into eight wells of the H22 pad, with extensive
well-level and pad-level analysis of injection and production data.
Frequent sampling, in-line measurement, and analysis of produced
well streams allowed for accurate determination of the solvent
production. A key element of the sampling protocol was to measure
the solvent in both the produced liquid and the produced vapor
streams. Statistical analysis along with reservoir simulation and
history-matching, was used to estimate improvements in cycle bitu-
men recovery, confirm understanding of the process, and estimate
performance in future cycles and in commercial application.
Summary
A staged approach to EOR development focusing specifically on
pilot testing best practices has been outlined. Topics covered include
(1) factors to consider when determining whether a pilot is needed
and defining pilot objectives, (2) requirements for a successful pilot,
(3) types of pilots and their advantages and disadvantages, (4) tools
and techniques for assessment of key reservoir mechanisms, and (5)
minimizing uncertainty in pilot interpretation.
Application of these best practices enables the acquisition of
accurate and definitive test data to (1) assess effects of reservoir
geology on process performance, particularly sweep efficiency;
February 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
0.5
1 0.45
6
0.4
11
20
0.35
Cycle OSR
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
Cycle 7 0.05
02 03 03 04 04
ug- eb- ug- eb- ug-
F A F A
(2) calibrate reservoir simulation models for full-field predictions;
(3) improve field production forecasts; (4) reduce technical and
economic risk; and (5) guide improvements in current operating
strategy to improve economics/recovery.
Several ExxonMobil pilot tests were used to illustrate the best
practices and the role of pilots in the staged EOR development
planning process. The case histories included a single-well injec-
tivity test, an unconfined pilot with observation wells, a small-scale
confined pilot, and a large-scale multipattern pilot.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank ExxonMobil management for
their support and permission to publish this paper. In addition,
the authors would like to thank the many current and former
employees of ExxonMobil and its affiliates who have contributed
to the development of the pilot testing best practices described in
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 sep-
arateness 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.
References
Bragg, J.R., Gale, W.W., and Canning, J.W. 1983. Loudon Surfactant Flood
Pilot—Overview and Update. Paper SPE 11505 presented at the Middle
East Oil Technical Conference and Exhibition, Bahrain, 14–17 March.
doi: 10.2118/11505-MS.
Bragg, J.R., Gale, W.W., McElhannon, W.A. Jr., Davenport, O.W., Petri-
chuk, M.D., and Ashcraft, T.L. 1982. Loudon Surfactant Flood Pilot
Test. Paper SPE 10862 presented at the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, 4–7 April. doi: 10.2118/10862-MS.
Buckles, R.S. 1979. Steam Stimulation Heavy Oil Recovery at Cold Lake,
Alberta. Paper SPE 7994 presented at SPE California Regional Meet-
ing, Ventura, California, USA, 18–20 April. doi: 10.2118/7994-MS.
Choquette, S.P., Sampath, K., Northrop, P.S., Edwards, J.T., Laali, H.,
Rowland, B., and Morrow, D. 1991. Esperson Dome Oxygen Combus-
tion Pilot Test: Postburn Coring Results. SPE Res Eng 8 (2): 85–93.
SPE-21774-PA. doi: 10.2118/21774-PA.
Djabbarah, N.F., Weber, S.L., Freeman, D.C., Muscatello, J.A., Ashbaugh,
J.P., and Covington, T.E. 1990. Laboratory Design and Field Demon-
stration of Steam Diversion With Foam. Paper SPE 20067 presented at
153
 the SPE California Regional Meeting, Ventura, California, USA, 4–6
April. doi: 10.2118/20067-MS.
Djabbarah, N.F., Weber, S.L., Skaufel, R.M., and Macfadyen, R.L. 1997.
Field Applications of Steamfoam Technology at Mobil. Paper presented
at the Reserve Foam Mini-Workshop, Tromso, Norway, 12–13 June.
Fitz, D.E. and Ganapathy, N. 1993. Quantitative Monitoring of Fluid
Saturation Changes Using Cased-Hole Logs. Paper XX presented at the
SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, Calgary, 13–16 June.
Georgi, D.T., Pritchard, D.W., and Hemingson, P.A. 1991. Wireline Log
Contributions to the Evaluation to the Judy Creek Hydrocarbon Misci-
ble Flood Pilot. Trans., SPWLA Annual Logging Conference, Midland,
Texas, USA, June, Paper RR.
Healy, R.N., Holstein, E.D., and Batycky, J.P. 1994. Status of Miscible
Flooding Technology. Proc., World Petroleum Congress, Stavanger,
29 May–1 June. 407–416.
Hoefner, M.L., Evans, E.M., Buckles, J.J., and Jones, T.A. 1995. CO2
Foam: Results from Four Developmental Field Trials. SPE Res Eng 10
(4): 273–282. SPE-27787-PA. doi: 10.2118/27787-PA.
Huh, C., Landis, L.H., Maer, N.K. Jr., McKinney, P.H., and Dougherty,
N.A.1990. Simulation to Support Interpretation of the Loudon Surfac-
tant Pilot Tests. Paper SPE 20465 presented at SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 23–26 September. doi:
10.2118/20465-MS.
Hyatt, J.H. and Hutchison, D.A. 2005. Enhanced Oil Recovery in East
Texas. Paper SPE 93631 presented at SPE Middle East Oil Show and
Conference, Bahrain, 12–15 March. doi: 10.2118/93631-MS.
Jenkins, M.K. 1984. An Analytical Model for Water/Gas Miscible Dis-
placements. Paper SPE 12632 presented at the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil
Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 15–18 April. doi: 10.2118/12632-MS.
Kaminsky R.D. and Wattenbarger, R.C. 2008. Solids-Stabilized Emul-
sions—A Novel Heavy Oil Recovery Technology. Keynote paper
presented at the First ISOPE Frontier Energy Resources (FER-2008)
Symposium, Vancouver, Canada, 6–11 July, Session 16.
Kaminsky, R.D., Wattenbarger, R.C., Szafranski, R.C., and Coutee, A.S.
2007. Guidelines for Polymer Flooding Evaluation and Development.
Paper IPTC 11200 presented at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference, Dubai, 4–6 December. doi: 10.2523/11200-MS.
Leaute, R.P. 2002. Liquid Addition to Steam for Enhancing Recovery
(LASER) of Bitumen with CSS: Evolution of Technology From
Research Concept to a Field Pilot at Cold Lake. Paper SPE 79011
presented at the SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil
Symposium and International Horizontal Well Technology Conference,
Calgary, 4–7 November. doi: 10.2118/79011-MS.
Leaute, R.P. and Carey, B.S. 2005. Liquid addition to steam for enhancing
recovery (LASER) of bitumen with CSS: Results from the first pilot
cycle. Paper 2005-161 presented at the Canadian International Petro-
leum Conference (CIPC), Calgary, 7–9 June.
Murer, A.S., McClennen, K.L., Ellison, T.K., Larson, D.C., Timmer, R.S.,
Thomson, M.A., and Wolcott, K.D. 2000. Steam Injection Project in
Heavy-Oil Diatomite. SPE Res Eval & Eng 3 (1): 2–12. SPE-60853-PA.
doi: 10.2118/60853-PA.
Pritchard, D.W.L. and Neiman, R.E. 1992. Improving Oil Recovery Through
WAG Cycle Optimization in a Gravity-Override-Dominated Miscible
Flood. Paper SPE 24181 presented at the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil
Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 22–24 April. doi: 10.2118/24181-MS.
Pritchard, D.W.L., Georgi, D.T., Hemingson, P., and Okazawa, T. 1990.
Reservoir Surveillance Impacts Management of the Judy Creek Hydro-
carbon Miscible Flood. Paper SPE 20228 presented at the SPE/
DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 22–25 April. doi:
10.2118/20228-MS.
Pursley, S.A. and Graham, H.L. 1975. Borregos Field Surfactant Pilot Test.
J. Pet Tech 27 (6): 695–700. SPE-4084-PA. doi: 10.2118/4084-PA.
Pursley, S.A., Healy, R.N., and Sandvik, E.I. 1973. A Field Test of Sur-
factant Flooding, Loudon, Illinois, USA. J. Pet Tech 25 (7): 793–802.
SPE-3805-PA. doi: 10.2118/3805-PA.
Reppert, T.R., Bragg, J.R., Wilkinson, J.R., Snow, T.M., Maer, N.K. Jr., and
Gale, W.W. 1990. Second Ripley Surfactant Flood Pilot Test. Paper SPE
20219 presented at the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium,
Tulsa, 22–25 April. doi: 10.2118/20219-MS.
154
Saltuklaroglu, M., Wright, G.N., Conrad, P.R., Conrad, J.R., and Manches-
ter, G.J. 2000. Mobil’s SAGD experience at Celtic, Saskatchewan. J.
Cdn Pet Tech 39 (4): 45.
Stiles, L.H., Chiquito, R.M., George, C.J., and Long, L.D. 1983. Design
and Operation of a CO2 Tertiary Pilot: Means San Andres Unit. Paper
SPE 11987 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Francisco, 5–8 October. doi: 10.2118/11987-MS.
Stone, H.L. 1982. Vertical Conformance in an Alternating Water-Miscible
Gas Flood. Paper SPE 11130 presented at the SPE Annual Techni-
cal Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 26–29 September. doi:
10.2118/11130-MS.
Tweidt, L.I., Chase, W.D., Holowatuk, C.R., Lane, R.H., and Mitchell,
C.M. 1997. Improving Sweep Efficiency in the Norman Wells Naturally
Fractured Reservoir through the use of Polymer Gels: A Field Case
History. Paper SPE 38901 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 5–8 October.
doi: 10.2118/38901-MS.
Wood, K.N., Lai, F.S., and Heacock, D.W. 1993. Water Tracing Enhances
Miscible Pilot. SPE Form Eval 8 (1): 65–70. SPE-19642-PA. doi:
10.2118/19642-PA.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
°API 141.5 / (131.5 + °API) = g/cm3
cal × 4.184* E+00 = J
cp × 1.0* E−03 = Pa·s
°F (°F − 32) / 1.8 = °C
psi × 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
scf × 2.831 685 E−02 = m3
STB × 1.589 873 E−01 = m3
*Conversion factor is exact.
Gary F. Teletzke currently is team lead for CO2 storage research
at ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company. He holds a BS
degree from Northwestern U. and a PhD degree from the U.
of Minnesota, both in chemical engineering. Teletzke’s past
work has included development of surfactant-based EOR pro-
cesses, development of foam processes for gasflood sweep
improvement, laboratory and simulation studies to evaluate
EOR process applications, and leadership of compositional
simulation and gas injection processes research. He has par-
ticipated in design and interpretation of six field pilot tests and
has led projects to evaluate EOR opportunities in the United
States, Europe, Malaysia, and Middle East. Teletzke currently
is an Associate Editor of SPE Res Eval & Eng and has received
commendation as an outstanding Technical Editor and
Associate Editor. R. Chick Wattenbarger currently leads the
heavy-oil recovery research team for ExxonMobil Upstream
Research, which works to develop and apply heavy-oil recov-
ery technologies. He holds a BS degree from the U. of Texas
at Austin, a MS degree from Texas A&M U., and a PhD degree
from Stanford U., all in petroleum engineering. Before join-
ing ExxonMobil, Wattenbarger worked for Shell Development
Company. His past work has included developing methods for
modeling and characterizing deepwater reservoirs, develop-
ing methods for evaluating reservoir performance uncertainty,
evaluating offshore technologies, and performing integrated
field studies. John R. Wilkinson is currently a senior engineering
consultant for ExxonMobil Upstream Research. He holds a
Bachelor’s degree in geological engineering from the U. of
British Columbia, Canada. After working summers doing miner-
als exploration, Wilkinson’s oil and gas career started with tech-
nical positions in petrophysics, drilling, subsurface engineering,
and reservoir engineering. He has recently lead an upstream
team on next generation improved hydrocarbon recovery
(IHR) for ExxonMobil and also represents the company in sev-
eral industry and governmental carbon capture and seques-
tration (CCS) forums.
February 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering