SPE 106978

Microbial Enhanced-Oil-Recovery Technologies: A Review of the Past, Present, and

Future
Saikrishna Maudgalya, SPE, Anadarko Petroleum Corp., and Roy M. Knapp, SPE, and Michael J. McInerney, SPE, U. of
Oklahoma, Norman

Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Production and Operations Symposium
held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 31 March3 April 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings
are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes
without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce
in
print
is
restricted
to
an
abstract
of
not
more
than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box
833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract. One form of tertiary oil recovery that does not require
exceptional investments is microbial enhanced oil recovery
(MEOR). With abundant and easily producible oil supplies
dwindling, MEOR could be an uncomplicated aliment to
conventional water flooding. Unfortunately it has not gained
credibility in the oil industry due to technical and economic
reasons. To better understand this problem, a survey of reported
MEOR field trials from across the world was conducted here. The
survey shows some widely prevalent practices in most of the
trials. Few tests could explain the mechanics of oil recovery or
presented any post treatment analysis and explanation of to how
results were calculated. And some showed improvements that
appeared disproportionate to the treatment size. Based on trends
observed in the survey results, recommendations are made to
overcome barriers to widespread use of MEOR and gain
credibility with more users.
One recommendation is to
standardize test procedures and reporting of results and analysis.
This would be the best way to avoid contradictory interpretations
of MEOR results. The initial few trials will be expensive if all the
pre-treatment and post-treatment recommendations are followed.
But the benefits of conducting a few systematic and well designed
tests to fully evaluate the potential of MEOR and bring credibility
outweigh the expense.
Introduction. Tertiary recovery has remained an attractive but
unrealized prospect for the petroleum industry. It is estimated that
approximately 300 billion barrels of oil still remain in the
continental United States after waterflooding or gas injection1.
Recovering even a small fraction of this oil can be economically
beneficial because of the large volume of oil. Tertiary recovery
methods such as polymer flooding, steam flooding, in-situ
combustion and chemical surfactant flooding have all been
investigated. But these methods were found to be technically
complex or uneconomical for widespread use. For example,

despite detailed research and numerous field trials, polymer and

chemical flooding was confined to a few individual operators
because of low oil prices and high adsorption losses that resulted
in a high cost per barrel of incremental oil2.
Microbial enhanced oil recovery was another process that
was investigated. Experimental results by Zobell first set the stage
for researchers across the world to conduct experiments of their
own3,4. These laboratory experiments consistently showed that
certain microbes alongwith proper nutrients and bio-catalysts
could grow under reservoir conditions such as high temperature,
pressure and salinity and produce bio-surfactants, alcohols, biopolymers, gases and acids as metabolic byproducts. These
products displaced trapped oil by altering saturations, rock
wettability or improving waterflood sweep efficiency resulting in
enhanced oil recovery from oil reservoirs. And because the
microbes needed plentiful but cheap nutrients to grow and
produce these products, MEOR potentially cost less.5 Gas
reservoirs were not considered for tertiary recovery because very
little gas usually remained in reservoirs at abandonment.
The main advantages of MEOR over conventional tertiary
recovery were2:
1. Potential low cost.
2. Multiple mechanisms working simultaneously, thereby
improving effectiveness.
3. Environmentally benign.
4. Indigenous microbes could be used making it possible to
partially overcome adsorption and other losses due to
degradation.
But laboratory successes and some successful field trials that
served as technology demonstrators have not made MEOR a
widespread commercially used technology. A survey of the
reports studied here shows that today, except for a waterflood
currently being run in Argentina, there isnt a single MEOR field
trial anywhere in the world.6 Two important reasons explain the
lack of support for microbial enhanced oil recovery in the oil and
gas industry; first, the lack of commercial incentive to invest in
this method caused by the absence of field tests and data
supporting the economic benefits of MEOR and second, the
perceived complexity of the process and the inability of its
proponents to allay this perception.7 These and some other
reasons resulted in MEOR being largely confined to laboratory
investigations and scattered field trials across the world.
Over the past few decades, cheap oil supplies have kept the
oil industry away from investing in tertiary oil recovery. The
industry wanted to invest in projects that had a low probability of

failure and high economic returns. Chemical tertiary recovery

methods did not satisfy this requirement. But now, with rising oil
prices and the lack of access to easily producible abundant oil
supplies, tertiary recovery methods could become commercially
viable. MEOR may also receive attention, given its potential cost
advantage over synthetic surfactants. Field tests and extensive
analysis will have to be carried out and presented to convince the
oil industry to invest in MEOR for tertiary oil recovery.
Before conducting any tests and experiments, a database of
MEOR field trials has to be created to identify any important
trends in the testing procedure and results. This work presents a
survey of MEOR field trials that have been reported from around
the world over the past fifty years. The results will help identify
issues in scaling laboratory research to the field and the
mechanisms that work and eventually help explain why a
particular MEOR process failed or succeeded. It will assist in
understanding the shortcomings of MEOR technology that have
prevented it from becoming more widely used. Finally, we hope
that the results of this survey will be used in designing a
systematic testing procedure for conducting credible MEOR field
tests.
Microbial oil recovery mechanisms. Any process that uses
microbes to improve oil and gas production is called MEOR. The
processes defined as MEOR are:
1. Well stimulation by removing well bore damage and
increasing oil and gas production. This includes paraffin and
asphaltene deposit removal from inside and around well
bores.
2. Permeability profile modification. This was designed for
reservoirs with high permeability streaks that reduce overall
waterflooding sweep efficiency. Microbes alongwith
nutrients are injected into the reservoir to plug these
channels. The microbes flow into these channels and grow
there, partially plugging them. Subsequent waterfloods get
diverted towards the unswept regions and recover more oil.
Sometimes the process uses indigenous microbes by injecting
only nutrients.
3. Oil bio-degradation. Certain bacteria attack long chain
hydrocarbon molecules by feeding on them and breaking
them into smaller chain molecules that generally have lower
viscosity. The reduced viscosity makes it easier to displace
oil by waterflooding.
4. Gas production to lower oil viscosity. Two products of
microbial metabolisis are carbon dioxide gas and methane.
Laboratory experiments show that if sufficient gas is
generated by microbes, it can get absorbed into the oil and
lower its viscosity. Gas can also displace oil by forcing it out
of the pores8.
5. Bio-surfactant, alcohol, bio-polymer and acids. Certain
microbes isolated from oil fields produce bio-surfactants,
alcohols, bio-polymers and acids during metabolisis under oil
field conditions9. These bio-chemicals release trapped oil by
lowering capillary trapping forces. The acids dissolve
carbonate rocks and increase permeability or generate gases
that help displace oil.
In this paper, only permeability modification oil biodegradation, gas production and bio-products generation were
considered as MEOR processes because they recovered trapped
oil by improving sweep efficiency or by lowering the magnitude
of trapping forces in reservoirs through gas production, altering

SPE 106978

interfacial tensions and oil bio-degradation10. Well stimulation,

despite being the most widely used microbial application, is not
considered as MEOR because it does not increase the amount of
recoverable oil. It only improves the wells productivity index and
accelerates oil recovery.
Review of field trials. The last comprehensive survey of
MEOR field trials was done by Lazar in 199011. The first reported
MEOR field trial carried out by the Mobil Research laboratory in
Arkansas in 1954 was classified a marginal success because it
increased oil flow rates at the producer wells12. But its analysis
also highlighted the complexity of using microbes. A large
number of microorganisms were found existing inside the
reservoir and the necessity of providing the right nutrients and
controlling the growth of unwanted microbes was an important
conclusion. In the fifty three years since then, more trials have
been carried out across the world and better technology has made
the analysis of the trials more detailed.
Data. Four hundred and seven field trials were found reported in
the available literature 6,11-46,58. All well stimulation, waterflooding
and permeability profile change field trials that defined
themselves as MEOR were initially included. It is likely that
some trials were not reported. Moreover, verification of some
data was not possible because it relied on personal
communication.
Classification procedure and observations. The field
trials were classified according to lithology, type of test, recovery
mechanism, microorganisms, nutrients and reservoir properties.
Classification according to reservoir lithology, type of test and
outcome. In MEOR, the effect of lithology on the retention of
cells and nutrients becomes important because microbes, nutrients
as well as products are transported through the reservoir. Trials
are first classified according to reservoir lithology and then
according to the type of trial because that affected the outcome.
Trials were classified into three categories and are tabulated in
Tables 1 and 2.
1) Well stimulation to remove wellbore damage or formation
damage.
2) Waterfloods.
3) Single well type field trials where inoculum are injected into
wells and produced back following an incubation period.
Also called huff-puff tests.
Observations.
1.

2.

Of the 407 examples considered, 333 were well stimulation

studies and the remaining seventy four were waterflooding
and single well (huff-puff type) studies. Well stimulation
studies were not considered for analysis.
Forty four of the remaining seventy (details were not
provided for four) trials analyzed were single well
experiments and the remaining twenty six were
waterflooding experiments. Thirty six of the single well tests
were classified successful which meant that improvements in
oil recovery rates were observed. Similarly, twenty of the
twenty six waterflooding experiments were designated
successful. Trial operators had their own methods to decide a
success or a failure. The best reported performance was
700% increase when oil rate improved from 9.0 BBL/D to 75
BBL/D for a period of four months25. Decline curve analysis
predicted the change in oil in place was about 5.0%

SPE 106978

3.

4.

5.

6.

Sixty six of the seventy trials were done in sandstone

reservoirs and four in carbonate reservoirs. The carbonate
reservoir trials successfully applied matrix acidizing by
metabolic acid and reduction of oil viscosity by produced gas 3.
absorption to improve oil recovery46. The bacteria Clostridia
produced this acid.
All the test reservoirs had an oil saturation between 40%70%. The early trials used depleted reservoirs with very low
oil saturation but the recent tests have used reservoirs with
higher trapped oil saturations.
Europe reported the maximum number of MEOR trials. Most
were done in the 1960s and 1970s and a few after that. The 4.
United States has the second highest number of reported tests
with most done in the 1980s. China has also reported a few
tests but data from there is vague. Two MEOR field trials are
reported from Argentina.
Except one waterflood6, all MEOR trials have been
discontinued. They were stopped either because of lack of
5.
funds or because they were technology demonstrators.

Classification according to type of recovery mechanism. The

seventy trials were classified according to their primary recovery
mechanism and outcome and is shown in Table 3. In MEOR,
microbes can generate gas, bio-surfactants, alcohols, degrade
large molecules and block high permeability channels at the same
time. To avoid any confusion and make classification simpler, the
recovery mechanism that contributed the most as stated in the test
reports was designated the primary recovery mechanism. In some
trials, more than one primary mechanism was active and due to
that, the sum of the trials employing each one of them was greater
than the number of trials. Consistently successful mechanisms
could be identified and further developed. The frequency with
which each recovery mechanism was active is shown in Figure 1.
The mechanisms were:
1) Permeability profile modification to improve volumetric
sweep efficiency during waterfloods.
2) Generation of bio-surfactants, alcohols, bio-polymers and
acids to increase capillary numbers and reduce permeability.
3) Bio-degradation of large viscous molecules to create smaller
molecules with lower viscosity.
4) Generation of gases and their subsequent absorption to lower
oil viscosity. The process was called methanogenesis if the
gas was methane.
Observations.
1.

2.

6.

7.

verified by chromatographs that showed the change in the

composition of produced oil samples. The decrease in oil
viscosity was also supported by viscometers.
Generation of carbon dioxide gas and methane to displace oil
by increasing gas saturation or reducing oil viscosity was
generally successful. Carbon dioxide was produced during
metabolisis or by the reaction between metabolic acids and
carbonate rocks. In the early trials, sulfate reducing bacteria
were used but that was discouraged due to souring. The
bacteria Clostridia were mostly used in the later tests to
generate gases.
Bio-surfactant production and wettability changes were the
primary mechanisms in a few waterfloods and single well
tests. But questions about its effectiveness arose because no
bio-surfactant, alcohols or polymers were ever measured in
the product streams. Conclusions about the effectiveness
were made on the basis of pre-trial laboratory core
experiments and improvements in oil flow rate.
Three of the four carbonate reservoirs successfully applied
matrix acidizing by produced acids and oil viscosity lowering
by produced gases for oil recovery. The fourth field trial was
a failure with low matrix permeability cited as the reason42.
Only five trials conducted post trial confirmatory studies.
Cores were extracted in only one test and only two trials
reported pressure transient analysis to verify altered average
permeabilities following permeability modification tests. In
most cases failure analysis were not done, but when done
were failures were attributed to reservoir conditions and
inadequate nutrients.
Except for four waterflood trials, multiple recovery
mechanisms were active in all the other trials.

Classification according to microbes. Field trials were classified

according to the bacterium used and whether they were used in
waterfloods or in single well tests. The classification is tabulated
in Table 4. Bacteria are critical because their adaptability and
robustness in reservoir conditions will affect oil recovery.
Bacteria could either have been indigenous or injected.
Indigenous microbes needed only nutrients as they were already
present inside reservoirs. The bacteria used in the trials are listed
below.
1) Bacillus: Produce bio-surfactant and alcohols and gases48,50.
2) Clostridia: Produce acids and gases - methane by
methanogenesis48,49,50.
3) Pseudomonas: Microbial growth, Produce bio-surfactant, and
bio-polymer and also for permeability modification50.
4) Sulfate reducing bacteria: Bio-degrade oil and lower oil
viscosity and produce methane by methanogenesis51.
5) Nitrate reducing bacteria: Modify permeability and control
souring51.
6) Others: Oxidize and bio-degrade hydrocarbons, permeability
modification, produce methane to lower gas viscosity51.
Observations.

Permeability profile modification was the most successful

method. In some successful waterfloods, only nutrients were
injected because indigenous bacteria were used. In three
trials, indigenous nitrate reducing bacteria were used. An
additional benefit of using them was that they prevented
sulfate reduction that caused oil souring. Even in single well
tests, where IFT reduction or degradation was the primary
process, bacteria reportedly established colonies in high
permeability regions and diverted water into unswept zones.
Permeability reduction and improved sweep efficiency was 1.
confirmed by produced oil analyses, pressure transient
analysis and cores. But these confirmatory tests were rare.
Oil degradation of large molecules into less viscous smaller
molecules was reported to be largely successful whether
applied in waterfloods or in single well tests. This was

Bacillus and Clostridia were the two most commonly used

bacteria. Spores of the Clostridia were used more frequently.
But two trials that used spores of Clostridia for easier
transport resulted in failures. Most experiments used a
combination of bacterium to take advantage of their different
abilities. Sulfate reducers were used early on but were later

avoided. Insitu nitrate reducers successfully modified

permeability and had the added benefit of reducing souring.
2. Successful experiments mostly used anaerobic bacteria. A
few early field trials used aerobic bacteria but the harmful
effects of air injection into the reservoir and inconclusive
results about their effectiveness discouraged their use.
3. The effectiveness of bio-surfactant, bio-polymer and alcohol
producing bacteria such as the Bacillus in the field was
inconclusive because of these products were never observed
in product streams during composition analysis.
4. Oil degrading bacteria were reported in most trials but they
were never specific about the type of microbe that was
actually used.
5. No relationship was observed between the type of bacterium
and trial outcome. Microbial behavior was generally
inconsistent. Microbes behaved in one way in laboratory
experiments, but in another way in the field. Also, a specific
microbe could give successful test outcome at times and a
failure at other times.
Classification according to nutrients. Nutrients are the largest
expense in the MEOR process and it is important that the right
combination and quantity be available. MEOR microorganisms
need a carbon source usually provided by sugar or the crude oil
itself. Jenneman has reported studies that show that metabolic
rates and generation of by-products considerably slows down if
in-situ oil is the nutrient51. The most common carbon source is
molasses because it is easily available as slurry and can be
pumped down a well. Other nutrients used are nitrates and
phosphorous salts are provided by fertilizers (Ammonium
Phosphate, Superphosphate, Ammonium Nitrate and Sodium
Nitrate)51. The most common combinations of nutrients are listed
below and the field examples were classified according to them
and tabulated in Table 5.
1) Molasses only.
2) Insitu hydrocarbon (crude oil).
3) Molasses and nitrogen and phosphorous salts.
4) Miscellaneous nutrients.
Observations.
1.
2.

The most commonly used nutrient was molasses.

Phosphorous and nitrogen fertilizers were the inorganic
component in most nutrient packages. This could have been
due to availability and cost.
Classification according to reservoir properties. Screening of
reservoir physical properties is an important aspect of MEOR.
Reservoir properties and conditions have a large impact on the
ability of microbes to produce products51. Permeability can have
an impact on microbial growth rates and salinity and high
temperatures are known to adversely impact the production of
bio-chemicals but not the ability of microbes to grow51.
Classification according to rock permeability. Field trials were
classified according to reservoir permeability and trial outcome.
This is shown in Table 6. The frequency of specific permeability
occurrences and the trial outcomes are shown in Figure 2.
Reservoir temperature. Trials were classified according to
reservoir temperatures and the results are shown in Table 7.
Reservoir Salininty. Trials were classified according to reservoir
salinity and the results are shown in Table 8.
Observations.

SPE 106978

1.

2.

3.

4.

Permeability. Most reservoirs had average permeabilities

between 75 and 1000 md and nearly three fourth of these
were successful (Figure 2). Only one carbonate reservoir test
in the 1-10 md range was reported51. Matrix acidizing was
tried in this reservoir but it failed. A few trials were reported
for the 10-75 md range. Injected microbes, sometimes at
concentrations several times the input concentration were
observed in neighboring wells in waterfloods and single well
tests, confirming their ability to move and multiply in porous
rocks. Failure analysis was not done in most cases to make
any definite conclusions.
Salinity. A majority of the successful reservoirs had salinities
less than 100000 ppm. Most of the early tests did not list
brine salinity. Half the reservoirs with brine salinity greater
than 100000 ppm salinity were successful making analysis
slightly difficult because a trend between high reservoir
salinity (>100000 ppm) was not observed.
Temperature. Most reservoirs temperatures were below 2000
F. This is usually the maximum temperature where MEOR
microbes can be effective.
Depth. No relationship was observed between reservoir
depths and test outcomes. But deep reservoirs are generally
associated with high salinity, low permeabilities and high
temperatures making them unlikely MEOR candidates.

Discussion. Observations and trends observed in the

classification are discussed below:
1. The results indicate that a minimum reservoir permeability of
75 md and temperatures less than 2000 F were most suitable
for MEOR trials. Studies reported by Jenneman51 show that
penetration and plugging are independent of permeability.
Besides rock permeability, pore size, pore size distribution
and shape of the microorganism are also important. But since
studies indicate that most MEOR bacteria cannot function in
salinities greater than 100000 ppm, it is hard to explain how
trials in highly saline (greater than 100000 ppm) reservoirs
were successful. One possible explanation is that these trials
were done in reservoirs that had been extensively
waterflooded previously with low salinity water. Mixing
between subsurface brine and injected water may have
lowered salinity below produced water.
The use of molasses or any organic sugar source as
carbon nutrient because it was easily available and nitrogen
and phosphorous fertilizers as inorganic nutrients was well
understood and routinely adopted in most trials. Most of the
trials routinely conducted pretest laboratory core studies to
test the recovery process but it was observed that laboratory
results could not be replicated in the field. This inconsistent
behavior was a primary cause for the failure of MEOR to
become an acceptable technology. But with advanced
technology becoming available, analysis of collected data
should provide accurate explanations.
2. Single well trials were preferred because they took less time
and money and a relatively small volume of nutrients was
required. These tests also served as effective technology
demonstrators of microbial growth and product generation.
These tests were largely successful because of the small test
volumes and well understood reservoir conditions that were
in the vicinity of the well. Result analysis was simple because
the process was reduced to a small bio-reactor. But, because

SPE 106978

3.

4.

5.

the injection and production well was the same and the
affected volume existed only around that well, it was difficult
to distinguish between well stimulation and tertiary oil
recovery.
From what has been learned so far, the European tests that
were reported were very likely well stimulations. Though the
produced fluids reported a lowered pH indicating acid
production, it is unclear if enhanced recovery was through
bio-degradation of hydrocarbon molecules by acids. Well
bore damage alleviation by the produced acids and resulting
improvement in oil flowrate was a more likely. In other field
tests, sulfate reducers may have generated some products that
mobilized oil. This would be similar to the results observed
by Zobell3,4 in his early laboratory tests. It is possible that the
increase in lighter oil production was because of better inflow
of resident oil previously blocked by deposition or damage.
MEOR biology and fluid mechanics are more
rigorously tested in waterfloods. It is easier to tell if the
microbes mobilize oil when fluids flow from one well to 6.
another. The use of decline curve analysis to predict the
ultimate recovery in single well tests is questionable since the
improvement can be due to well stimulation and is
temporary. Consequently, it is difficult to convince petroleum
engineers to use MEOR for tertiary recovery.
The predicted changes in oil saturation between the low
(0.8%) and quite significant (5.0%) were obtained using
decline curve analysis. Small changes are questionable
because of measurement errors. And because only one
waterflood is still in operation and predicted oil recoveries
from other waterfloods were never verified it is difficult to 7.
support the benefits of MEOR. Changes in oil saturation
could have been verified by core inspection but here again;
only one test14 had cores extracted after flooding making it
difficult to verify MEORs effectiveness for tertiary
recovery. Moreover, none of the tests were flooded till the
predicted changes could be verified. Under such
circumstances, recovery values were treated with skepticism.
Some trials were on nearly depleted reservoirs or stripper
wells. It is unlikely that any tertiary recovery method could
have recovered oil from these reservoirs. Consequently, 8.
improvements in oil rates were unimpressive even when the
outcomes were successful. On a relative scale, the
improvements were impressive with the biggest change close
to 700% in a well where the oil rate increased from 9.0
BBL/D to 75 BBL/D22. Another example, the Vassar field13,14
in Oklahoma with low oil saturation and no oil production
prior to the test was a technical success because oil increased
to 1.0 BBL/D from zero oil. These trials often had to be
conducted in such reservoirs because investors were reluctant
risk permanently damaging them. A small volume of oil is
unconvincing and is a reason why skepticism persists about
MEOR.
Waterflood candidate fields with relatively high oil
saturations and low oil rates are best suited for MEOR. These
fields operate waterfloods at high watercuts and generate
profits by maintaining lost cost operations. Small changes in
oil flow rates can mean large profits for their operators.
Successful MEOR trials consistently showed improvements
from 1 BBL/D to 700 BBL/D. MEOR maybe unsuitable if
large volumetric improvements in oil recovery are expected.

For example, MEOR may not be suitable for improving oil

recovery from 100 to 1000 BBL/D but maybe appropriate for
increasing the rate from 100 to 150 BBL/D. The small
improvements were probably due to two reasons; One, low
microbial bio-product concentrations that were generally in
the range of tens to hundreds of ppm instead of thousands of
ppm as commonly observed for synthetic surfactants. If
adsorption and other losses were also considered, biosurfactants and other bio-chemicals would be insufficient to
mobilize large quantities of oil.5 Two, the reservoirs these
tests were conducted had been extensively waterflooded and
already had low oil saturations. Further oil recovery would
not be substantial from these reservoirs. Large oil companies
will not be interested in MEOR because operating marginal
fields for small improvements is not economical for them but
small operators and independent firms that operate these
marginal fields may be a more receptive to applying MEOR
in their fields.
The survey confirmed the ability of microbes and nutrients to
travel and grow in porous media because they were observed
in wells neighboring the injector. Injector well spacing is
critical for MEOR success because microbes consume
nutrients and grow as they move forward, thus limiting the
distance from the injectors where microbes can thrive7.
Microbe retention can result in preferential microbial growth
around injectors and lower the treatments effectiveness.7,51
No studies were ever reported on this issue but interwell
spacing will be an important parameter for field scale MEOR
treatments.
If consistent success can be achieved as some tests have
shown, the oil bio-degradation can be especially useful for
heavy oil recovery. There are doubts though about which
species actually cause degradation and about its actual
occurrence Bubela50 has presented information that suggests
that anaerobic degradation is very slow if it happens at all.
Reports on degradation and oil viscosity lowering have to be
treated cautiously. The low molecular weight fractions could
be fractions of new oil during its movement from source
rocks to the reservoir.
Permeability modification is a simple method whose
repetitive success showed its effectiveness and versatility.
Results suggest that it depends only on microbial growth and
any bacterium can be used if nutrients and favorable reservoir
conditions exist. When indigenous bacteria were used, only
nutrients were needed. Another advantage of permeability
modification is that it can be easily verified by pressure
transient testing as shown in two field examples.
Unfortunately these tests did not evoke interest because they
were done on fields with very little remaining oil and
volumetric improvements were very small. But a test that
shows the effectiveness of permeability modification could
be the Arkansas test6. Its analysis suggests that improvement
in oil recovery was by successful permeability modification.
The presence of bio-products ahead of the oil could have
been due to viscous fingering through high permeability
channels. The oil following the bio-products was likely swept
by water that moved into the unswept regions. Problems also
persist with the stability of the microbial colonies15. The
methods effectiveness can be developed for larger projects.

9.

10.
1.
2.
3.
4.

11.

12.

13.

SPE 106978

The bacterium Clostridium47,48,49 proved effective in both

sandstone and carbonate reservoirs. Matrix acidizing in
carbonate reservoirs to increase permeability or displacing oil
by generating gases were both successful. In sandstone
reservoirs, it was successful by generating gases that lowered
oil viscosity. Its widespread success and versatility can make
this bacterium species a good candidate for future MEOR
trials.
The bacterium Bacillus was used because it can
produce bio-surfactants under reservoir type conditions in the
laboratory8. But the absence of bio-surfactants even in single
well tests, where relatively small volumes of fluids were
involved raises doubts about the Bacillus microbes abilities
to produce sufficient quantities of bio-surfactant in the field.
The results became more confusing because oil rates
generally improved in tests that utilized the Bacillus microbe.
This inconsistency highlighted a problem in most trials- that
despite well conducted laboratory experiments, laboratory
results would not observed in the field and efforts were rarely
made to explain this. The inability to adapt to reservoir
conditions could be a reason for the unpredictable behavior
of microbes.
Absence of metabolic products in the produced fluid could be
explained by:
No products were produced during microbial metabolisis.
Products were produced in small quantities but were
adsorbed on the rock surface.
Their concentrations were too small to be measured.
No effort was made to measure them.
Adsorption is a critical problem in surfactant enhanced
tertiary recovery. It is reservoir and chemical specific52. High
salinity also adversely affected the ability of microbes to
produce bio-surfactants, acids, gases and alcohols but not
their ability to grow51. If that is true then it may explain why
reservoir plugging experiments in highly saline systems were
successful but bio-products were not measured in the
produced fluid streams.
Sufficient economic data to support the low cost advantage of
was missing from most tests. Analysis of a few examples
showed that a price between 2.3 US $ and 6.6 US $ per
incremental barrel of oil and this can be reduced if the scale
of operation is larger. These rates are comparable to
conventional recovery costs in the industry today. Cost per
barrel of incremental oil is important for MEOR because
investors use it for investments. It is difficult to convince
investors if one does not know how much it cost to recover
oil.
A lack of standardization in reporting results was clearly
apparent in most tests. At times no explanation was provided
about calculating results. Contradictory opinions were
offered to explain results. This was another reason for
skepticism about MEOR for tertiary recovery in the oil
industry.
None of the tests reported in this study mentioned well
damage or field damage. An obvious reason would be to
avoid negative publicity. Another could be the lack of
awareness of the harmful affects of injecting material into the
reservoir. Modern day studies clearly show the problems that
occur when unfiltered water is injected into wells during

waterflooding. Treatments can be so expensive that they are

factored into overall costs.
Recommendations. In the previous section, the unpredictable
behavior of microbes and field and analytical practices were
identified as reasons for the failure of MEOR to become widely
acceptable by the oil industry. Marketing MEOR to the
appropriate customer is another important aspect that has to be
looked at. Here, some recommendations to help MEOR gain
greater acceptability in the oil industry are presented.
Development of MEOR techniques should start with detailed
laboratory experiments using oil field cores as they are the most
effective and simplest method to understand microbial behavior.
Subsequently, results from laboratory studies can be applied in
field trials where the microbial process is tested under reservoir
conditions. The recommendations are:
1. MEOR research should focus on developing effective low
cost procedures because those who can gain the most from
successful MEOR are field operators who run waterfloods in
reservoirs with high trapped oil saturation but low oil
flowrates and high water oil ratios53. Most of these field
operators are small businesses that cannot afford large capital
investments and want a cheap and effective process. A small
increase in oil recovery and flowrate as shown by MEOR
field trial results can substantially increase profits for them.
Low cost will make MEOR an attractive method for such
operations. At the same time, research should also look at
minimizing formation damage when applying MEOR
because a failure can hurt these operators more severely than
a relatively large oil company.
2. It is recommended that economic analysis including cost and
earnings of each trial be reported irrespective of the outcome.
Presenting outcomes in terms of volumetric flowrate changes
or cumulative produced oil without economic data is
insufficient to convince people. Further support for field
implementation is provided when economic benefits of
MEOR are observed and economic data provides this
information.
3. Permeability profile modification should be developed for
application because it has shown a high percentage of
successes during field trials. Indigenous bacteria should be
preferred because they have a greater probability of thriving
under reservoir conditions unlike exogenous bacteria that
maybe unable to adapt to reservoir conditions. Indigenous
bacteria also make the process less costly since only nutrients
are needed. Genetic modifications to develop bacterial strains
that have characteristics useful for oil recovery at surface
conditions but cannot function efficiently under subsurface
reservoir conditions is a possibility.
4. It is recommended that Clostridia and Bacillus bacteria
should be tested further because of their reported successes
during field trials. The results showed the prevalence of
successful field trials when the bacteria were Bacillus,
Clostridia. This species have a physiology that is suited to
survive and multiply under reservoir conditions- the
important parameters in MEOR. Clostridia are a good
candidate for carbonate reservoirs because they generate
acids that dissolve carbonates. In the case of Bacillus
bacteria, because no test has confirmed the presence of biosurfactants or any other metabolic product, their application

SPE 106978

5.

6.

1.

2.

3.

4.

7.

1.

2.

should start with single well tests before moving on to field

scale waterflood trials.
Development of a relatively accurate numerical model to
simulate microbial recovery is recommended because
existing models are not sufficiently accurate .54,55 The model
should simulate mobility control56, salinity effects and
changes in product properties with reservoir temperatures.
The model can be used to screen reservoir candidates for
microbial treatments faster and help design a suitable
recovery process.
Reservoir screening. Candidate reservoir permeability,
porosity, lithology, oil saturation, temperature and salinity
should be estimated before any other steps.
A maximum salinity of 100,000 ppm and temperature less
than 2000 F are good criteria to identify test candidates.
Reservoir salinity and bottomhole temperature can be
obtained from drilling reports or water analysis from the site.
Water analysis is recommended for both injected and
produced samples to get water properties that are close to the
field average.
A minimum permeability of 75 md for MEOR test reservoir
is recommended. Studies show it to be the minimum
permeability that allows microbes to pass through pore
openings. This is also supported by the survey data that
showed that almost all MEOR trials were conducted in
reservoirs with permeability greater than 75 md. Core data,
drilling reports and/or neighboring wells can provide this
information.
Oil saturation between 45-70% is recommended for test
reservoirs because it would be easier to mobilize such oil by
tertiary recovery methods. . Most target reservoirs in the
continental United States have between 30-70% oil
remaining. Such systems are ideal for MEOR. Reservoirs
depleted to the theoretical maximum should not be selected
because even other tertiary recovery techniques will be
unable to recover additional oil. Well logs and core studies of
similar reservoirs can provide information regarding
lithology and mobile oil saturations.
Pressure transient analysis to measure average permeability
and tracer studies to calculate oil saturations is recommended
to screen candidate reservoirs and compare with post
treatment results.
Laboratory studies of reservoir cores or analogous cores are
recommended prior to every trial. Test conditions should be
as close as possible to reservoir conditions to provide a
template of expected results and may explain deviations from
expected behavior. During reporting of laboratory studies,
data including laboratory conditions and reservoir conditions
and other test data should be methodically listed and noted.
Bacteria must be tested for mobility across cores if they are
being injected into the reservoir. The possibility of using
bacteria spores must be investigated because they travel
easily through rocks55. Microbes and their nutrients must also
travel and saturate cores in times practical for field
application.
Microbial growth and generation of products must be tested.
Things to look for are the microbes ability to compete with
indigenous microbes in the reservoir for nutrients; identifying
nutrient limiting factors and ensuring a proper composition
and amount of nutrients. Material balance calculation of

laboratory reactions is necessary to estimate the amount of

products produced during trials and explains oil recovery in
the field.
3. Langmuir adsorption isotherms for by-products and nutrients
should be created if possible to predict adsorption losses to
calculate the amount of products that will be required to
mobilize oil. But these experiments are time consuming and
expensive and should be undertaken only if necessary.
4. For bio-surfactants, ternary diagrams between oil, brine and
surfactant should be created if possible. This is difficult and
expensive because of low concentrations of bio-surfactants. It
gets further complicated if the concentrations of components
are small.
8. Recommendations for conducting tests.
1. Emphasis should be on waterfloods instead of single well
studies. Single well trials are suited to study microbial
growth and bio-chemical generation in reservoir conditions.
But it is easier to verify if tertiary oil is mobilized in a
waterflood because the mechanics and biology of MEOR are
tested in conditions that MEOR is designed for- displacement
of tertiary oil when metabolic products flow from one well to
another.
2. Focus of MEOR trials should be on one or two recovery
mechanisms at a time. It simplifies the process, reduces the
number of reservoir constraints and makes analysis better.
More can be learned from such tests. Other benefits of this is
a larger pool of candidate reservoirs, efficient consumption of
nutrients fewer bio-products are produced and this improves
the probability of success.
3. Establish experimental controls as good experimental
practice. Parts of the reservoir similar to the test area can
serve as a control. In the control area, inoculum with a
critical component missing can be injected and the results
compared to the test area results to find out if the component
was necessary for microbial activity or not.
9. Post treatment recommendations.
1. Extracted cores from the treated reservoir if possible for post
treatment analysis to find out if oil was mobilized and
displaced. Comparison of post treatment and pre treatment
data from extracted cores is a very reliable method to confirm
if the microbial treatment mobilized oil in the reservoir.
2. Conduct tracer analysis to measure oil saturations and
pressure transient tests to verify change in average
permeability if cores are not available. These tests take time
but provide accurate results if done properly.
10. Standardize reporting of results and post trial analysis for easy
readability and analysis of trial results. Contradictory
interpretations of results will be then avoided because it is
easier to understand the causes for success and failures
resulting in greater credibility for MEOR. So if a test is
conducted in China, it should follow a similar system of
reporting, analysis and verification as a test in Argentina or
the United States. Professional organizations can set a
standard procedure to tertiary recovery tests to report and
compare results. The following critical components of
reporting should be standardized:
1. Economic analysis. Reports should clearly show the cost
incurred for raw materials, labor, electricity and equipment
costs and earnings through extra oil produced. This relates to
relatively accurate method to measure incremental oil.

2.
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

3.

SPE 106978

Post treatment verification.

Core analysis. This is an accurate method to verify test
results but expensive for a small field operator. But if
possible, inspection of cores can accurately verify if the
microbial treatment worked or not.
Pressure transient analysis. This can be done easily and
results are generally accurate especially when verifying
altered permeabilities.
Produced fluid analysis. This is a simple and accurate method
to verify microbial growth and bio-product generation.
Calibration of instruments to measure the low concentrations
of bio-products must be done carefully. Oil flow rates and
water oil ratios are an accurate indicator of tertiary recovery.
This data can be easily measured.
Well logs. Well logs can provide near wellbore oil saturation.
Temperature logs can identify zones water breakthrough
intervals. This is useful in the case of permeability
modification trials to identify altered flow profiles.
Decline curve analysis. In single well tests, it is unclear if the
improvement is due to stimulation or oil mobilization. In the
case of well to well tests, decline curves can identify
improved oil recovery.
It is recommended that MEOR test outcome should reported
quantitative data should be presented in absolute terms
instead of percentages or in qualitative terms. It is easier to
compare test performance if oil production rates, cumulative
recovery and/or water oil ratios are presented in absolute
terms instead of relative improvements. If this data is data
cannot be obtained then qualitative data such as whether the
treatment worked and the kinds of products generated can be
presented.
Recovery mechanism, microbes used and nutrient
composition should be reported. The difficulty is in
identifying the recovery mechanisms given the versatility of
microbes in a MEOR processes. But the dominant recovery
mechanism can be identified from laboratory experiments.

operating cost fields with high trapped oil saturation and produce
little oil at high water cuts. Typical examples are relatively
shallow reservoirs in the continental United States with oil
saturations between 40% and 70% under moderate conditions of
temperature and pressure. This is an enormous target for MEOR.
A simple, cheap and standardized process that leads to even a
small improvement in oil rates and recovery can translate into a
large increase in profits to their operators. Care should also be
taken to minimize any formation damage. This will most
definitely result in loss of any future support.
A collaborative effort between state or government
agencies, engineers, biologists and private enterprise is the best
way to create an economical and effective MEOR processes. A
consortium or industry study group with shared costs can also be
formed by oil companies to share costs and test results. Engineers
and microbiologists have to identify important variables to make
the process practical and easily implemented. We believe that a
two step process where MEOR technology is first tested in well
designed small scale field trials and then scaled to larger fields
where returns are big enough to attract attention is be the way to
go about this task. Systematic studies and well designed tests are
the only way to convince critics that MEOR can become
economically viable for tertiary recovery.
References.

Green, D.W. and Willhite, G.P.: Enhanced Oil Recovery, SPE

Text Book Series Volume 6, pp 38-76.
2. Green, D.W. and Willhite, G.P.: Enhanced Oil Recovery, SPE
Text Book Series Volume 6, pp 1-11
3. ZoBell, C.E.: Bacterial release of oil from oil bearing materials,
Part I, World Oil, 126(13), pp 1-11.
4.
4. ZoBell, C.E.: Bacterial release of oil from oil bearing materials,
Part II, World Oil, 127(1), pp 1-11,239-187.
5. Developments in Petroleum Science, Microbial Enhanced Oil
Recovery, edited by Donaldson, E.C., Chilingarian, G.V. and Yen,
T.F., Elsevier Publications, 1989, pp 1-14.
6. Strappa, L.A., De Lucia, J.P., Maure, M.A. and Llopiz, M.L.L.: A
novel and successful MEOR pilot project in a strong water drive
Conclusions. The lack of systematic and standardized post
reservoir, Vizcacheras Field, Argentina, SPE 89456, presented at
treatment analysis after most trials leads to different and
the 2004 SPE/DOE Fourteenth Symposium on Improved Oil
sometimes contradictory interpretations. Microbial tertiary
Recovery held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 17-21 April, 2004.
recovery is a process with multiple mechanisms occurring 7. Bryant, S.L. and Lockhart, T.P.: Reservoir engineering analysis of
simultaneously that depend on many factors. Substantial oil
microbial enhanced oil recovery, SPE 63229, presented at the 2000
recovery in laboratory experiments but little improvements in the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas,
field are due to the unpredictable nature of microbes. This also
TX, 1-4 October 2000.
explains why some trials succeed and others fail with the same 8. Chisholm, J.L, Kashikar, S.V., Knapp, R.M., McInerney, M.J.,
Menzies, D.E. and Silfanus, N.J.: Microbial enhanced oil recoverymicrobe. The survey results and subsequent discussions have
Interfacial tension and gas relative permeability induced effects,
shown that systematic analyses of field trials when MEOR was in
SPE 20481, presented at the 65th Annual Technical Conference and
its nascent stage of development and its presentation in simplified
Exhibition of Society of Petroleum Engineers, held in New Orleans,
terms to people unfamiliar with it were both absent; leading to
LA, USA, September 23-26, 1990.
skepticism in the petroleum industry who are unfamiliar with oil 9. Jenneman, G.E., Knapp, R.M., McInerney, M.J., Menzie, D.E. and
field microbiology and its limitations.
Revus, D.E: Experimental Studies of In-situ Microbial Enhanced
To bring a fresh perspective to MEOR the initial few trials
Oil Recovery, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., 24 91984) 33-37.
will be expensive if all the recommendations are followed. But 10. Moore, T.F. and Slobod, R.C.: The effect of viscosity and
capillarity on the displacement of oil by water, Producers Monthly
the benefit of conducting a few well designed tests will bring
(Aug. 1956), 20-30.
credibility to MEOR that outweighs the costs. If optimization can
11.
Lazar, I: MEOR Field trials carried out over the world during the
be achieved in terms of reservoir selection, recovery mechanisms,
last
35 years, Microbial Enhancement of Oil Recovery- Recent
microbes and nutrient packages, costs can be reduced
Advances, Elsevier Science Publishers, edited by E.C.Donaldson,
significantly and the probability of success improved.
pp 485-530.

Those who will gain the most from MEOR are the small
operators and independent companies who profit through low

1.

SPE 106978

12. Yarbrough, H.F. and Coty, V.F.: Microbially Enhanced Oil

Recovery from the upper Cretaceous Nacatoch formation, union
County, Arkansas, proceedings from the 1982 International
Conference on Microbial Enhancement of Oil Recovery, held in
Shangri-la, Afton, Oklahoma, May 16-21, 1982. pp 149-153.
13. Knapp, R.M., McInerney, M.J., Menzie, D.E., Coates, J.D. and
Chisholm, J.L.: Microbial field pilot study, Report No.
DOE/BC/14246-11, May, 1993.
14. Knapp, R.M., McInerney, M.J, Coates, J.D., Chisholm, J.L.,
Menzie, D.E. and Bhupatiraju, V.K.: Design and implementation
of microbially enhanced oil recovery field pilot, Payne County,
Oklahoma, SPE 24818, presented at the 67th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the SPE held in Washington D.C,
October 4-7, 1992.
15. Brown, L.R. and Vladie, A.A.: Slowing production decline and
extending the economic life of an oil field: New MEOR
technology, SPE 75355 presented at the 2000 SPE/DPE Improved
Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 3-5 April, 2000.
16. Jenneman, G.E., Moffit, P.D. and Young, G.R.: Application of a
microbial Selective plugging process at the North Burbank Unit:
Prepilot tests SPE 27827 presented at the 1994 SPE/DOE
Symposium of Improved Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, OK, April 1720, 1994.
17. Bryant, R.S.
and Burchfield, T.E.: Microbial enhanced
waterflooding: A pilot study, Microbial Enhancement of Oil
Recovery- Recent Advances, edited by E.C. Donaldson, Elsevier
Science Publishers, pp 319-419.
18. Bryant, R.S., Stepp, A.K., Bertus, K.M. and Burchfield, T.E.:
Microbial enhanced waterflooding field tests, SPE 27751
presented at the SPE/DOE Ninth Symposium on Improved Oil
recovery held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 17-20 April, 1994.
19. Davidson, W.S and Russell, H.H.: A MEOR test pilot in the Loco
field, Proceedings of Symposium on Applications of
microorganisms to petroleum technology, Bartlesville, Oklahoma,
August 12-13, 1987, pp. VIII 1-12.
20. Lazar, I: Microbial enhancement of oil recovery in Romania,
proceedings of the 1982 International Conference on Microbial
Enhancement of Oil Recovery held in Shangri La, Afton, Oklahoma
May 16-21, 1982, pp 140-148.
21. Lazar, I.I., Dobrata, S., Stefanescu, M., Sandelescu, L.,
Constantinescu, C., Morosanu, C., Botea, N. and Iliescu, O.:
Preliminary results of some recent MEOR field trials in Romania,
proceedings of the 1990 International Conference on Microbial
Enhancement of oil Recovery, Elsevier Publications, 1991,
Amsterdam.
22. Lazar, I.I., Stefansecu, M.M. and Dobrata, S.C.: MEOR, the
suitable bacterial inoculum according to the kind of technology
used: Results from Romanias last 20 years experience, SPE/DOE
24207, presented the SPE/DOE Eight Symposium on Enhanced Oil
Recovery held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 22-24, 1992.
23. Wagner, M.: Microbial Enhancement of oil recovery from
carbonate reservoirs with complex formation characteristics,
Microbial Enhancement of Oil Recovery-Recent Advances, edited
by E.C. Donaldson, Elsevier Science Publishers, pp 387-398.
24. Matz, A.A, Borisov, Y.G. and Ibatulin, R.R.: Commercial (pilot)
test of microbial enhanced oil recovery methods, SPE/DOE 24208,
presented at the SPE/DOE Eight Symposium on Enhanced oil
Recovery held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 22-24, 1992.
25. Arinbasarov, M.U., Murygina, V.P. and Mats, A.A.: Chemical and
biological monitoring of MIOR on the pilot area of Vyngapour oil
field, West Siberia, Russia, proceedings from the 5th International
Conference on Microbial Enhanced oil Recovery and Related
Biotechnology for Solving Environmental Problems, 1995, pp 365375.
26. Wagner, M., Lungerhausen, D, Murtada, H. and Rosenthal, G.:
Development and application of a new biotechnology of the

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

molasses in-situ method; Detailed evaluation for selected wells in

the Romashkino carbonate reservoir, proceedings from the 5th
International Conference on Microbial Enhanced oil Recovery and
Related Biotechnology for Solving Environmental Problems, 1995,
pp 153-175.
Maure, A, Dietrich, F., Gomez, U., Vallesi, J., Irusta, M.:
Waterflooding optimization using biotechnology: 2 year field test ,
La Ventana Field, Argentina, SPE 69652 presented at the SPE
Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference
held in Buenos Aires, 25-28 March 2001.
Dietrich, F.L., Brown, F.G., Zhou, Z.H. and Maure, M.A.:
Microbial EOR technology advancement: Case studies of
successful projects, SPE 36746, presented at the 1996 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado,
USA, 6-9 October, 1996.
Jack, T.R., Stehmeier, L.G., Islam, M.R. and Ferris, F.G.:
Microbial selective plugging to control water channeling,
Microbial Enhancement of Oil Recovery- Recent Advances, edited
by E.C. Donaldson, Elsevier Science Publishers, pp 433-440.
Lazar, I.: MEOR Field trials carried out over the world during the
last 35 years, CH.A-1, Microbial Enhancement of Oil RecoveryRecent Advances, proceedings of the 1990 International Conference
on Microbial Enhancement of Oil Recovery, pp 485-530.
Nagase, K., Zhang, H.T., Asami, H., Yazawa, N., Fujiwara, K.,
Enomoto, K., Hong, C.X. and Liang, C.X.: A successful field test
of microbial EOR in Fuyu field, China, SPE 75238, presented at
the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, held in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, USA, 13-17 April, 2002.
Zhang, Y., Xu, Z., Ji, P. and Hou, W.: Microbial EOR laboratory
studies and application results in Daqing oilfield, SPE 54332,
presented at the 1999 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 20-22 April, 1999.
Zhang, C.Y. and Zhang, J.C.: A pilot test of EOR by In-situ
microorganism fermentation in the Daqing oilfield, proceedings
from the 1992 International Conference on Microbial Enhanced Oil
Recovery, Elsevier Publications, Amsterdam, pp 231-244.
Deng, D., Li, C., Ju, Q., Wu, P., Dietrich, F.L. and Zhou, Z.H.:
Systematic extensive laboratory studies of microbial EOR
mechanisms and microbial EOR application results in Changqing
oilfield, SPE 54380, presented at the 1999 SPE Asia Pacific Oil
and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 2022 April, 1999.
Yusuf, A., Kadarwati, S., Nurkamelia and Sumaryana: Field test of
the indigenous microbes for oil recovery, Ledok field, Central
Java, SPE 57309 presented at the 1999 SPE Asia Pacific Improved
Oil Recovery Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 25-26
October, 1999.
Sheehy, A.J.: Field studies of microbial EOR, SPE/DOE 20254,
presented at the SPE/DOE Seventh Symposium on Enhanced oil
Recovery held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 22-25, 1990.
Hitzman, D.O., Dennis, M. and Hitzman, D.C.: Recent successes:
MEOR using synergistic H2S prevention and increased oil, SPE
89453, presented at the 2004 SPE/DOE Fourteenth Symposium on
Improved Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA., 17-21
April 2004.
Hitzman, D.O.: Review of microbial enhanced oil recovery field
tests, proceedings of Symposium on Applications of
Microorganisms to Petroleum Technology, Bartlesville, Oklahoma,
Aug-12-13, 1987, pp VI 24-VI 26.
Oppenheimer, C.H. and Heibert, F.K. : Microbial enhanced oil
production field tests in Texas, proceedings of Symposium on
Applications of Microorganisms to Petroleum Technology,
Bartlesville, Oklahoma, Aug-12-13, 1987, pp XII 1- XII 16.
Bryant, R.S. and Lindsey, P.R.: Worldwide applications of
microbial technology for improving oil recovery, SPE/DOE 35356,

10

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.
54.

55.

SPE 106978

presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 56. Zhang, X.: Mathematical Simulation of Transport and Growth of
Tulsa, OK, 21-24 April, 1996.
Microorganisms in porous Media and Impacts of Microbial
Portwood, J.T.: A commercial microbial enhanced oil recovery
Activities on Enhanced Oil Recovery, PhD. Dissertation,
technology: Evaluation of 322 projects, SPE 29518 presented at the
University of Oklahoma (1994).
Production Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City, OK, 57. Maudgalya, S., Knapp, R.M., McInerney, M.J., Nagle, D.P. and
USA, 2-4 April 1995.
Folmsbee, M.J.: Development of bio-surfactant based microbial
Moses, V., Brown, M.J., Burton, C.C., Gralla, D.S. and Cornelius,
enhanced oil recovery procedure, SPE 89473, presented at the
C.: Microbial acid fracturing, proceedings from the 1992
2004 SPE/DOE Fourteenth Symposium on Improved Oil recovery
International Conference on Microbial Enhanced oil Recovery,
held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 17-21 April, 2004.
Elsevier Publications, Amsterdam, pp 207-229.
58. Hitzman, D.O.: Petroleum microbiology and the history of its role
Trebbau, G.L., Nunez, G.J., Caira, R.L., Molina, N.Y., Entzeroth,
in enhanced oil recovery, proceedings from the 1982 International
L.C. and Schneider, D.R.: Microbial stimulation of Lake
Conference on Microbial Enhancement of oil recovery, held at
Maracaibo oil wells, SPE 56503, presented at the 1999 Annual
Shangri-La, Afton, Oklahoma, May 16-21, 1982, pp162-218.
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE held in Houston,
TX 3-6 October, 1999.
Buciak, J., Vasquez, A., Frydman, R., Mediavilla, J. and Bryant,
Tables
R.S.: Enhanced oil recovery by means of microorganisms: Pilot
test, SPE 27031, SPE Advanced Technology Series, Vol. 4, No. 1.
Total
Sandstone
Carbonate
Portwood, J.T and Hiebert, J.K.: Mixed culture microbial enhanced
407
(reported
waterflood: Tertiary MEOR case study, SPE 24820, presented at
in literature)
314
89
the 67th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE
*4 had no
held in Washington D.C, October 4-7, 1992.
information
Abd. Karim, M.G., Salim, M.A.H., Zain, Z.M. and Talib, N.N. et
al.: Microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR) technology in Bokor
Table 1. Classification of field trial according to lithology
field, Sarawak, SPE 72125 presented at the 2001 SPE Asia Pacific
Improved Oil Recovery Conference held in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 8-9 October, 2001.
Type of field
Tanner, R.S., Udegbunam, E.O., Adkins, J.P., McInerney, M.J. and
test
Sandstone
Carbonate
Knapp, R.M.: The potential for MEOR from carbonate reservoirs:
Success
Failure
Success
Failure
Literature review and recent research, proceedings of the 1992
Well
International Conference on Microbial Enhanced oil Recovery,
248
0
84
1
stimulation
Microbial Enhancement of Oil recovery- Recent advances, edited by
Single well
35
9
1
0
Premuzic, E. and Woodhead, A., published by Elsevier, 1993, pp
test
391-396.
Waterflood
17
5
3
0
Marsh, T.L., Zhang, X., McInerney, M.J., Sharma, P.K. and
Jackson, B.E.: Mechanisms of microbial oil recovery by
Table 2. Classification according to type of field trial.
Clostridium acetobutylicum and Bacillus strain JF-2, proceedings
from the 5th International Conference on Microbial Enhanced oil
Recovery and Related Biotechnology for Solving Environmental
Problems, 1995, pp 593-610.
Type of primary
No. of
Success Failure
recovery mechanism
trials
Developments in Petroleum Science, Microbial Enhanced Oil
Permeability profile
Recovery, edited by Donaldson, E.C., Chilingarian, G.V. and Yen,
10
7
3
modification
T.F., Elsevier Publications, 1989, pp 113-123.
CO2 Gas production
10
9
1
Kianipey, S.A. and Donaldson, E.C.: Mechanism of oil
Bio-surfactant, alcohols,
displacement by microorganisms, SPE 15601, presented at the 61st
26
20
6
bio-polymers, acid
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE held in
Oil
bio-degradation
34
29
5
New Orleans, LA, October 5-8, 1986.
Developments in Petroleum Science: Microbial Enhanced Oil
Recovery, edited by Donaldson, E.C., Chilingarian, G.V. and Yen,
Table 3. Classification of field trials according to primary
T.F., Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 1989, pp 75-97.
recovery mechanism
Developments in Petroleum Science, Microbial Enhanced Oil
Recovery, edited by Donaldson, E.C., Chilingarian, G.V. and Yen,
Type of microorganism
No. of Waterflood Single
T.F., Elsevier Publications, 1989, pp 37-74.
Tests
well
Surfactants and Interfacial Phenomena, Rosen, M.J., John Wiley
Bacillus species.
and Sons Inc., New York City (1978).
Use- Bio-surfactant
11
10
1
Moses, V.: MEOR in the field: Why so little?, proceedings from
Clostridium species.
Use- Gas and acid
37
13
24
the 1990 International Conference on Microbial Enhancement of oil
Pseudomonas
Recovery, reprinted from: Microbial Enhancement of Oil RecoveryUse- microbial growth and
Recent Advances, edited by E.C. Donaldson, Elsevier Science
PPM
14
7
7
Publishers, 1991, pp 21-28.
Nitrate reducing bacteria.
Sarkar, A.K., Sharma, M.M. and Georgiou, G.: Compositional
Use- permeability profile
3
2
1
numerical simulation of MEOR processes, Paper No. R-21,
modification
Presented at the International Conference on Microbial Enhanced
Sulfate reducing bacteria
Oil Recovery, Norman, OK, May 27- June 1, 1990, Developments
Use- Oil bio-degradation
15
2
13
in Petroleum Science, Edited, E.C. Donaldson, Vol., 31, (1991) 331Unknown and Proprietary
343.
bacteria.
39
11
28

SPE 106978

11

Figures.
Table 4. Classification according to microorganism used
35

Type of nutrient

No. of trials

Molasses and N and P fertilizer

27

Only molasses

23

In situ hydrocarbon

17

Others

Sandstone

Number of experiments

Table 5. Classification according to nutrients.

Permeability
(md)

1. Perm eability profile

m odification.
2. Gas genration to low er oil
viscosity
3. Bio-surfactants, bio-polym er
and alcohols
4. Oil degradation to low er
viscosity.

30
25
20
15

Success

Failure

Success

Failure

10 75

75 -1000

41

12

1000 -10000

10

10

2 Mechanism 3

10
5

Carbonates

1- 10

34

26

0
4

Figure 1. Histogram showing the use of different recovery

mechanisms

Table 6. Distribution of tests according to lithology and

outcome with reservoir permeability
Success

Failure

50-200

48

18

Greater than 200

Table 7. Distribution of test outcome as a function of

reservoir temperature.

Salinity (ppm)

Success

75-1000
d

50
45

Failure

Less than 1000 ppm

1000 ppm to 100000 ppm

13

Greater than 100000 ppm

Table 8. Distribution of test outcome as a function of

reservoir salinity

N u m b e r o f tria ls

Temperature
(Fahrenheit)

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

1000-10000 md
10-75 md
1-10 md

1
Successful-SS

2
Failure-SS

3
Carbonate-Success

4
Carbonate-Failure

Figure 2. Histogram showing the distribution of test outcomes as a

function of reservoir permeability