SPE 84908
The Alphabet Soup of IOR, EOR and AOR: Effective Communication Requires a
Definition of Terms
George J. Stosur, SPE, Petroleum Consultant; J. Roger Hite, SPE, Business Fundamentals Group; Norman F. Carnahan,
SPE, Carnahan Corporation; Karl Miller, SPE, Consultant
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Improved Oil Recovery
Conference in Asia Pacific held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20–21 October 2003.
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, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to call attention to the need
to establish a mutually acceptable definition of the terms
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) and Improved Oil
Recovery (IOR). It is hoped that the SPE will take note of
the need to define the terms and use them as guidelines
in reviewing of manuscripts for publications and
presentations at its worldwide SPE meetings. A
workable definition of the terms is necessary not just for
improved communication, but also for recoverable
reserves, contract negotiations, Government incentives,
taxation purposes, and regulatory authorities when
looking at fiscal issues. To get the discussion started,
the authors propose workable definitions of the IOR and
EOR terms based largely on an informal survey within
the SPE EOR/IOR Technical Interest Group (EOIO TIG).
Historical Use of the EOR and the IOR Terms
Historically, there was reasonable consensus about the
meaning of the EOR term. It was believed to denote
tertiary oil recovery processes, such as chemical,
thermal and gas miscible processes, among others. The
IOR term followed, but without definition and was
frequently used interchangeably with EOR.
The two terms have been used in a very casual way in
many different languages since the 1950's, often as
synonyms. All the early symposia organized by the SPE
and the Department of Energy used the term EOR and
were meant to cover the new and, at that time exciting
methods such as steam flooding, carbon dioxide flooding
and, the then emerging chemical recovery processes.
The EOR term became tarnished when some projects
failed due to technical or economic reasons. Conference
and symposia organizers then started to use the term
IOR with the vague notion that, expanding the domain of
EOR would attract more attention and more participants
at their conferences. A case in point is the biennial
SPE/DOE Conference in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The change
from EOR to IOR in the early 1990’s was prompted by
the belief that broadening the domain of the conference
to something over and above the original scope of EOR
would attract more attendees. From then on, most
conferences and symposia used the IOR, or the
IOR/EOR term. Only the venerable Oil and Gas Journal,
known for its biennial coverage of the “Worldwide EOR
Activity” held steadfastly with the original EOR
term (Ref.1).
Definition of Terms: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary
Further discussion will be well served by a brief review of
the “primary”, “secondary” and “tertiary” terms. These
terms are generally understood and accepted (although
a formal definition of these terms does not exist, either).
They reflect and describe the natural progression of oil
production from its inception to the point where
economic production is no longer feasible. The
concepts are well illustrated by the Oil and Gas Journal
(Fig.1), in its biennially published Worldwide Survey of
EOR Activities.
Primary recovery (first crop of oil): Production depends
on the natural energy of the reservoir itself. The natural
energy varies from pressure decline and the
accompanying evolution of dissolved gas, to the
expansion of gas cap, or the influx of water. The key
element forces are “natural”.
Secondary recovery (second crop of oil): When natural
drive energy is depleted, or too small for economic oil
recovery, energy must be added to the reservoir to
2 SPE 84908
permit additional oil recovery. That additional energy is
usually in the form of injected water or gas. The process
depends mainly on physical displacement to recover
additional oil. It can be said that it mimics the natural
process of water influx or gas expansion. The key
element forces are not natural; rather they are physical,
as opposed to thermal, chemical, solvent, interfacial
tension, etc. One could think of these as being a
physical augmentation of the natural drive mechanism.
Tertiary recovery (third crop of oil): When secondary
recovery is no longer economic, supplemental energy of
a different kind permits additional oil recovery. A critical
distinction that should be noted is that this energy(ies) is
(are) in addition to, or in lieu of the natural or physical
displacement mechanisms of the primary or secondary
methods. Enhanced fluid flow conditions within the
reservoir are usually induced by addition of heat,
chemical interaction between the injected fluid and the
reservoir oil, mass transfer, and/or changing of oil
properties in such a way that the process facilitates oil
movement through the reservoir. Tertiary recovery
processes generally include thermal, chemical, gas
miscible and microbial. They are also often referred to
as enhanced oil recovery (EOR) processes.
Discussion of the Terminology by the SPE Members
in the Technical Interest Group (TIG)
TIGs are SPE’s electronic forums for sharing experience
and knowledge with others in the upstream community.
They were formed in order to facilitate the transfer of
technology among groups of petroleum professionals
interested in a specific technical discipline. Those SPE
members who signed up to IOR/EOR technical forum did
so because of their professional interest, therefore their
comments and answers to the question on the definition
of terms seem particularly poignant.
This informal survey (Ref.2), revealed a wide range of
views regarding the terms EOR and IOR. Some felt the
terms were synonymous. Some felt that IOR covered
just about anything, including infill drilling and reservoir
characterization. There was a range of other views in
between. Perhaps the best characterization of the whole
discussion was made by a member who wrote: “The
most commonly used term is EOR, ... but that may
depend upon what the meaning of “is” is [grin]”.
Most TIG participants had an understanding of EOR
being akin to tertiary oil recovery, which is beyond
primary and secondary recovery, with the notion that if
secondary application (e.g. waterflooding) is skipped, it
would still be EOR. Likewise, most participants were of
the opinion that EOR is a subset of IOR. But significant
differences arose about what exactly comprises IOR,
other than the addition of secondary processes, such as
waterflooding or gas pressure maintenance. Should IOR
include some, or all of the following: Infill drilling?
Horizontal wells? Pumping? Reservoir characterization?
Fracturing? Down-hole fluid separation? High-tech well
completions? Simulation? Improved
reservoir management?
The Alphabet Soup
We propose disposing of the “AOR” acronym –
representing Advanced Oil Recovery. This term was
coined in the early 1990’s and used within the U.S.
Department of Energy documents and its publications.
Least descriptive of all, the term was invented to start a
new program and to justify increased research budget.
Fortunately, its use did not take hold and the term should
not be revived.
There is no simple, clear and logical way of neatly
defining the terms EOR and IOR, but two different
approaches have been identified:
1. Arguably, all secondary and tertiary oil recovery
methods depend on the introduction of
additional recovery/displacement energy to the
reservoir, usually through liquid or gas injection.
Such injection may include surfactants, steam,
air, microbes or nano-machine pore-throat-
scrubbers of any kind. The key point is the
addition of energy to the reservoir system.
Such effects as infill drilling or reservoir
characterization are independent of the recovery
process itself and should not be considered
when analyzing the technical and economic
results of both the EOR and IOR. If this is done,
the definitions are much simplified. EOR is
tantamount to tertiary recovery processes and
IOR comprises all but primary recovery
technologies. Items such as well density
become extraneous to the EOR or IOR
process itself.
2. In practice, such items as infill drilling, horizontal
wells, reservoir characterization or simulation
(which are nearly always part and parcel of any
advanced recovery concept) are included in
planning, execution, and analyzing the technical
and economic results. Arguably, such
supporting activities could also be included
within the definitions of EOR and IOR, but this
approach would complicate the definitions
considerably. Whether it is drilling, stimulation,
hardware, or software – all these elements are
essential to the three classes of oil recovery,
primary, secondary or tertiary.
Proposed Definitions
With this much confusion around the EOR and IOR
terms in common usage, some agreement on the
definitions would be helpful and would clarify
communications. The best way to gain consensus
around these definitions would be to form an industry
committee, perhaps under the auspices of the SPE or
SPE 84908 3

the World Petroleum Congress. We would like to SPE and the Definitions
recommend the formation of such a committee. SPE and the World Petroleum Congress have already
made important contribution to worldwide
To get the discussion started, we would also like to standardization of terms for reserves and resources.
propose the following definitions: The matter of EOR and IOR definitions is easier by
comparison, and is just as much within the mandate of
1. Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) should refer to the Society.
reservoir processes that recover oil not
produced by secondary processes. Primary Workable definitions of the terms EOR and IOR will
recovery uses the natural energy of the reservoir improve the following: written and oral communication,
to produce oil or gas. Secondary recovery uses accounting of recoverable reserves, contract
injectants to re-pressurize the reservoir and to negotiations, Government incentives and taxation, and
displace oil to producers. The main secondary consistency and clarity of papers to be presented and
recovery process is waterflooding, although gas published at SPE meetings worldwide.
re-injection for pressure maintenance is also
included. Enhanced oil recovery processes Recommendation
target what’s left. These processes focus on the We strongly recommend an industry effort be
rock/oil/injectant system and on the interplay of commissioned to resolve the uncertainties in the
capillary and viscous forces. definition of these terms, and would value the opinions of
SPE members (Ref.3).
2. EOR is also sometimes referred to as “tertiary”
recovery. In the case of thermal applications
this has often been a source of confusion. References
Steam processes are at times used as the first 1. Moritis, G.: “EOR Weathers Low Oil Prices”,
or second process at a given field rather than as OGJ Special, (March 20, 2000) page 44.
a tertiary process after waterflooding. In our
opinion “tertiary” is best thought of as referring to 2. SPE web site “SPE.org”, Archives of
the third round of recovery processes to be EOIO@SPELIST.SPE.ORG, EOR/IOR Methods
developed by the industry (after primary and TIG List, (December 2002 and January 2003).
waterflooding), rather than as the order in which
recovery processes are applied to a given field. 3. Hite, R., Stosur, G., Carnahan, N. and Miller, K.:
Letter to the Editor of JPT, “IOR and EOR:
3. Improved oil recovery (IOR) refers to any Effective Communication Requires a Definition
practice used to increase oil recovery. This can of Terms,” JPT (July 2003)
include EOR and secondary recovery processes
such as waterflooding and gas pressure
maintenance, as well as practices to increase
sweep such as infill drilling, horizontal wells and
Primary recovery
polymers for mobility control or improved
conformance. Natural flow
Artificial lift

Secondary Pump gas lift etc.

recovery
In practice, such items as reservoir
characterization or simulation (which are nearly
Improved Oil Recovery (IOR)

Pressure maintenance
always part and parcel of any recovery concept) Waterflood

Tertiary Water Dry hydrocarbon

are included in planning, execution and in recovery gas injection

analyzing the technical and economic results.

Although it is possible to include such de facto
Recovery (EOR)
Enhanced Oil

Gas miscible / Chemical &

supporting activities within the definitions of Thermal
immiscible other

EOR and IOR, this approach complicates the Combustion

Steam soak/cyclic
CO2
Nitrogen
Alkaline
Micellar-Polymer

definitions considerably and we recommend Huff-and-puff

Steam drive/flood
Flue gas
Hydrocarbon
Microbial/foam

Hot water drive

they not be included. Electromagnetic Source: Modified from Oil & Gas Journal, March 20, 2000

4. The term “exotic” recovery has also been used

at times. We recommend this be dropped. The Fig. 1. Proposed definitions of the EOR and IOR terms (Diagram
modified after the Oil and Gas Journal)
connotation is impractical or quixotic. We
should focus on what’s economical and
practical, and drop the use of the term “exotic”.