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 tion, and simulation work may be undertaken after pilot testing to
Enhanced-oil-recovery (EOR) implementation is complex, and resolve uncertainties further, as indicated by the feedback loop in
successful applications need to be tailored to each specific reser- Fig. 1. If the technical and commercial outlook is still positive, this
voir. Therefore, a systematic staged evaluation and development is then followed by commercial-scale implementation. Stakeholder
process is required to screen, evaluate, pilot test, and apply EOR reviews, indicated by stars, are held after each stage of this process.
processes for particular applications. Pilot testing can play a key Additional detail on the staged evaluation process, as applied to
role in this process. Before field testing, pilot objectives need to polymer flooding, is provided by Kaminski et al. (2007).
be clearly defined and well spacing, pattern configuration, and
injectant volumes determined. Pilot Objectives
This paper outlines a staged approach to EOR evaluation and Defining clear pilot objectives is the first step in designing and
focuses specifically on pilot testing best practices. These best executing a successful pilot. Pilots are conducted to address key
practices were derived from ExxonMobil’s extensive piloting technical and business uncertainties and risks associated with
experience, which includes more than 50 field pilot tests cover- applying an EOR technology in a specific field. The benefits of
ing the full range of EOR processes. Topics covered include: (1) piloting, however, need to be weighed against the time and expense
determining whether a pilot is needed and defining pilot objec- of piloting and against other available alternatives. Conducting a
tives, (2) considerations for successful pilot design, (3) types pilot is one of several options for reducing risk that might include
of pilots and their advantages and disadvantages, (4) tools and additional data gathering/appraisal or phased development. If there
techniques for assessment of key reservoir mechanisms, and (5) are better alternatives to address uncertainty and risk, then a pilot
minimizing uncertainty in pilot interpretation. Key issues that are may not be required. Clearly stating the key uncertainties and pilot
often addressed by pilots are discussed, including areal sweep objectives early in the evaluation process helps determine if a pilot
and conformance, gravity override, viscous fingering, and loss of is the best approach for addressing these risks and helps guide pilot
mobility control. Also included are aspects of instrumentation and design and execution.
measurements in pilot injection, production, and monitoring wells. Care should be taken when developing pilot objectives to ensure
Several ExxonMobil piloting examples are used to illustrate the that the pilot is appropriately used as a component of an overall
best practices, including a single-well injectivity test, an uncon- long-term field-development strategy. Pilots should not be a “trial-
fined pilot with observation wells, a small-scale confined pilot, and and-error” test of various field recovery processes; rather they are
a large-scale multipattern pilot. selectively applied to field test recovery processes that have been
technically and economically evaluated beforehand. Additionally, the
Staged Process for EOR Project Evaluation recovery process to be field tested should be optimized through both
and Development laboratory and reservoir-simulation studies in order to maximize oil
The complexity and cost of EOR requires a disciplined work recovery at the lowest possible cost. Before field testing, the most
process for project evaluation, design, and implementation. To put appropriate well spacing, pattern configuration, length and orienta-
pilot testing best practices in perspective, Fig. 1 outlines a staged tion of wells, injectant, and injection strategy [e.g, continuous gas
workflow that ExxonMobil has used for evaluation and design of injection, water-alternating gas (WAG), simultaneous water and gas
EOR projects. The role of field tests and pilots in this process is (SWAG)] should be defined. Pilots are not run simply to gain experi-
highlighted in the yellow box. ence with application of technology, although training of operators
EOR evaluation starts with screening-level data collection, may be an important component of the pilot testing program.
candidate process selection, injectant source identification, and With these comments in mind, specific piloting objectives may
screening economics. If these are favorable, design and imple- include the following:
mentation of an EOR project then requires in-depth analysis of • Evaluate the EOR process recovery efficiency in the field
the most promising processes. In addition to standard laboratory of interest.
tests, specialized fluid characterization and reservoir-conditions • Assess effects of reservoir geology on process performance,
coreflood tests using in-situ fluids and a range of injectants are particularly sweep efficiency.
performed to customize a process for each reservoir. Reservoir • Improve field-production forecasts to reduce technical and
characterization studies are conducted concurrently to identify economic risk.
the key geologic controls on field-scale sweep efficiency. The • Obtain data to calibrate reservoir-simulation models for full-
laboratory experiments and reservoir characterization studies are field predictions.
then used as input to geologic and dynamic reservoir-simulation • Identify operational issues and concerns for full-field devel-
modeling of the process at various scales to evaluate options, define opment.
a preferred process design, and provide input to screening-level • Assess the effect of development options on recovery (e.g.,
development and facilities planning. If anticipated rates, recover- well spacing, processing rate, and completion strategy).
ies, and economics are favorable, pilot testing in the target field is • Guide improvements in current operating strategy to improve
often undertaken to resolve uncertainties and fine tune operational economics/recovery.
and execution details. Additional laboratory, reservoir characteriza-
Considerations for Successful Pilot Design
Once pilot objectives have been defined clearly, sufficient time
Copyright © 2010 Society of Petroleum Engineers
and effort need to be expended in designing a pilot to ensure
This paper (SPE 118055) was accepted for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International that the pilot objectives can be achieved. Time spent up front in
Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 3–6 November 2008, and revised
for publication. Original manuscript received for review 9 September 2008. Revised
pilot design and optimization usually leads to earlier full-field
manuscript received for review 3 April 2009. Paper peer approved 9 April 2009. implementation. Poorly designed pilots could potentially lead to

February 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 143

 Staged Process for
EOR Project Evaluation and Development
Reservoir Characterization
Screen Candidate Processes
• EOR process identification Lab Data
• Injectant sources
• Screening economics

Evaluate Most Promising Processes In Depth

• Fluid and rock property data collection/laboratory studies Reservoir Simulation
• Reservoir characterization studies
• Mechanistic/fine-scale modeling Pilot Testing
• 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
Flood Management

Commercial Project Plan

• Field-wide project design and costs Surveillance
• Full-field or multiple segment models
• Field-wide development/depletion plan and economics

Implementation, Surveillance, and Operations Stakeholder review/approvals

Fig. 1—Staged process for EOR project evaluation and development.

the wrong conclusion or even to no conclusions at all. A poorly results are needed to facilitate full-field investment and operating
designed and executed pilot may lead to condemning an appropri- decisions and (2) when are results needed?
ate EOR process incorrectly or promoting an inappropriate EOR • The pilot should be designed and operated to meet the objec-
process, incorrectly; both of which will result in suboptimal field tives, aided by a predictive reservoir-simulation model. The pilot
development. should be able to distinguish between local reservoir/well effects
By their nature, pilots are a scaled down version of the full and general process mechanisms.
commercial implementation of an EOR process. This scaling • Available reservoir characterization information should be
down is brought about to reduce key uncertainties for decision reviewed to define key geologic factors that may affect injectivity
making in a manner that is as timely and cost-effective as possible. and sweep efficiency and to identify a pilot site having represen-
When designing a pilot, care should be taken to both understand tative geology. Additional geologic studies may be required in
and minimize the impact of the scaled down nature of the pilot. advance of the pilot to define the reservoir description to a suf-
Reduced well spacing, judicious placement of observation wells, ficient level of accuracy.
and elevated injection rates are techniques that have been used to • A surveillance and monitoring plan should be developed that
provide information on process-recovery performance in a reason- ensures that data are of high quality and that all needed data are
able time frame. However, it is important that the pilot be designed obtained on a timely schedule. Data should be gathered on opera-
to be scalable to the conditions for full-field application. Pattern tional factors such as downtime and backpressure.
configuration, well design, the chosen injectant, and process • The pilot should be designed and operated to ensure that it
operations should allow for confidence in scale up to the field-wide is interpretable. It is important that surrounding operations do not
implementaton of the process. Finally, the pilot location should be affect pilot results. In addition, high-integrity well completions
chosen to ensure as much as possible that it can be well character- are essential to understand and control sweep efficiency in the
ized and is representative of the broader EOR target. reservoir. Finally, a reliable injectant supply is required.
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 Types of Pilots and Their Advantages and
interpreting pilot performance and translating that performance to Disadvantages
field-scale predictions. A properly designed pilot should ensure Before discussing the types of pilots, it is important to clarify the
that the pilot area is sufficiently characterized and sufficient pilot distinction between data gathering, pilot, and phased implementa-
data are collected to underpin reservoir modeling. Without proper tion. The following is offered as a simple distinction:
pilot design, however, reliable data for history matching field per- • Data gathering: The primary purpose of data gathering is to
formance will not be gathered, and, therefore, confident assessment collect field data to address specific key uncertainties that could
of field-scale performance will be at risk. have a significant impact on a business decision. Example: If injec-
EOR pilots should typically be designed to provide insight on tivity is a key uncertainty in assessing feasibility of a waterflood,
both the local displacement efficiency of the injectant at the pore then conduct a field test(s) to measure injectivity under a defined
scale and the volumetric sweep efficiency at the reservoir scale. A set of conditions.
frequent challenge is to obtain a volumetric sweep efficiency that • Pilot: The primary purpose is to validate the performance of
adequately captures the improved local displacement efficiency a particular EOR process in the field. Example: Laboratory tests
observed in the laboratory. and simulation studies indicate that a CO2 WAG project is likely to
With these comments in mind, the following are the require- yield the highest recovery and best overall economic value among
ments for a successful pilot test: recovery processes considered. Before making a huge investment
• Pilot objectives should be clearly defined in advance. The required for a large-scale application, a pilot is conducted at a well
key questions to be answered before doing a pilot are: (1) What spacing scalable to that expected for full-scale application.

144 February 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 Pilot Size Should be Consistent with
Process/Reservoir Knowledge, Available Time, and Risk

Process Well Understood* Process Untested

Reservoir Well Understood** Reservoir Complex

or not Well Understood
Low Economic/
Injectant Supply Risk Significant Economic/
Injectant Supply Risk

Small-Scale Pilot

Large Demonstration Pilot

Commercial Application 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 Nonproducing Pilots. The simplest design is a single-well injectiv-
uncertainty by implementing a project in phases, with appropriate ity test to determine the ease at which gas can be injected into the
adjustments in scope and optimization of design between phases. formation and to evaluate injectivity losses resulting from WAG
Example: A new reservoir development with limited injectant processes. By adding an observation well, the vertical sweep and the
supply planned as phased development, with the scope of the local displacement efficiency of the gas at the observer location can
second phase (i.e., wells, facilities, recovery process) adjusted to be determined. Addition of a second observer permits the assessment
incorporate learnings from the first phase. of the vertical sweep over the distance separating the two observers.
With these definitions in mind, the types of pilots can be The locations of the observation wells will need to account for both
grouped into four configurations: reservoir heterogeneities and near-well pressure gradients (drift) that
1. Nonproducing pilot. may result in the injected fluids moving away from rather than toward
2. Small-scale unconfined pilot. the observation wells. Because gas injectants are frequently less dense
3. Small-scale confined pilot. than the in situ oil, observation wells will provide valuable information
4. Multipattern producing pilot. on gravity override that may lead to poor sweep efficiency.
While each pilot configuration has its place and purpose, it is One key to successful gasflooding processes is achieving high
generally true that a more complex, and therefore, more costly, volumetric sweep efficiency. Placement of multiple observers
configuration will yield more data and be easier to scale up to com- around the injector permits an assessment of not only the vertical
mercial conditions. Therefore, a balance must be struck between sweep efficiency at the injectors but also the areal sweep efficiency.
the risks of a commercial project and the cost of ensurance pro- The product of the vertical and areal sweep efficiencies gives an
vided by data from a pilot. estimate of the volumetric sweep efficiency for the pattern.
Fig. 2 illustrates factors that should be considered when selecting Fig. 4 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of nonpro-
pilot type and scale. Two extreme cases are shown. In the first case, ducing pilots. This type of pilot may be useful for providing quick
the recovery process is well understood because it has been proved and inexpensive estimates of injectivity and vertical sweep effi-
commercially in other fields, the reservoir is well understood because ciency, but it does not provide quantitative data on overall volumet-
there is a nearby analog or existing application in the same field, and ric sweep efficiency and ultimate recovery efficiency. In addition,
there is low economic and injectant supply risk. In this case, commer- it provides no operational experience with handling and recycling
cial application without pilot testing may be considered, with some produced fluids and is extremely sensitive to fluid drift.
additional data gathering or phased implementation to manage risk, as
discussed earlier in this section. In the second case, the recovery pro- Producing Pilots. Pilots that incorporate production wells, other-
cess is untested, the reservoir is complex or not understood, and there wise known as “oil-in-the-tank” pilots, provide the most direct data
is significant economic and injectant supply risk. In this case, small- on oil recovery, fluid transport through the reservoir, and pressure
scale pilots, followed by a larger commercial demonstration pilot, are drop between injectors and producers. Important factors to con-
frequently used to manage risk before commercial application. Clearly, sider when designing and interpreting producing pilots include:
a range of alternatives between the two extreme cases is possible. • Drift: Is the pattern acting as a truly confined flow system?
The following is a discussion of pilot designs that have been • Balance: Are the relative rates of injectors and producers
used to gather the necessary performance data to make commer- allocated to maximize areal sweep efficiency in the pilot area?
cial-scale implementation decisions, particularly for gas injection • Isolation: Is the zone taking injection the only zone that is
and WAG processes. Both producing and nonproducing pilot producing?
designs have been used successfully. Fig. 3 summarizes the non- The cost of running a pilot that is truly confined, balanced,
producing configurations. and isolated may be considerable because offset production may

February 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 145

 Pilot Types: Non-Producing

Single Well Injectivity Test Injector Offset with Static Observer

Determine: Injectivity Determine: Injectivity

Vertical sweep at observer
Displacement efficiency at observer
Reservoir description between injection
and observation well
Injector Offset with Multiple Injector Offset with Multiple
In-Line Observers Areal Observers

Determine: Injectivity Determine: Injectivity

Vertical sweep at observers Vertical sweep at observer
Displacement efficiency at observers Displacement efficiency at observers
Vertical sweep vs. distance Areal sweep
Reservoir description between Reservoir description between
injection and observation wells injection and observation wells

Fig. 3—Nonproducing pilot designs.

need to be curtailed. This is especially important in systems with fluid mobilities can be gained from observation wells. Methods for
gas or light oil in which pressure gradients across the pilot site data acquisition from observation wells typically include logging,
may result in significant fluid flux that will compromise pilot sampling, and pressure measurements.
interpretation. A compromise may have to be struck between the Fig. 5 summarizes some representative producing pilot con-
best possible data and a situation that can be simulated later with figurations. Producing pilots provide not only an understanding of
reasonable confidence. the injectivity of fluids into the formation, but more importantly,
Another opportunity provided by a producing pilot is the some quantitative data on the production potential of the recovery
experience with separation and handling of produced fluids. Small- process, and subsequently a rough estimate of oil recovery. Single,
scale facilities can be constructed, and easily modified, to gain inverted five-spot patterns are often used to provide such informa-
experience with separation and recycling of fluids. If the pilot tion. Observation wells are often included to evaluate the vertical
is successful, then the experience gained with facilities design sweep and displacement efficiency at the observers, vertical and
will translate into cost savings associated with construction of the areal sweep at a distance, fluid mobilities within the formation,
commercial facilities. and to estimate oil recovery.
Observation wells provide a means of monitoring fluid movement As indicated in Fig. 6, although unconfined producing pilots
at various points intermediate to the injector and producer. Valuable can provide some production experience rapidly and at relatively
information on conformance, fluid transport in the reservoir, and low cost, the swept volume can be difficult to evaluate and perfor-

Non-Producing Pilots

Advantages Disadvantages
• Low cost • No oil in tank
• Quick estimate of oil mobilization vs. • No operational experience with
distance production
• Estimate of vertical conformance • No confirmation of swept volume
• No production facilities required • Limited data on mobility control,
• Estimate of injectivity overall conformance, chemical
retention
• Fast results
• Extremely sensitive to fluid drift

Fig. 4—Advantages and disadvantages of nonproducing pilots.

146 February 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 Pilot Types: Producing

Single Inverted 5-Spot Single Normal 5-Spot

Determine: Injectivity and productivity Determine: Injectivity and productivity

Approximate estimate of oil recovery Improved estimate of oil recovery
Single Inverted 5-Spot Repeated Inverted 5-Spot
With Observers

Determine: Injectivity and productivity

Estimate of oil recovery
Vertical sweep at observers
Determine: Injectivity and productivity
Displacement efficiency at observers
Oil recovery from multiple
Vertical sweep vs. distance
confined patterns
Areal sweep

Fig. 5—Examples of producing pilots.

mance may not be representative of a repeated pattern and may be not sample representative heterogeneities, reflect the balance of a
difficult to scale. In addition, they are sensitive to fluid drift and repeated pattern flood, scale to wider well spacings, or indicate
can take as long to run as a true pattern flood. long-term problems.
Better recovery estimates can be obtained by using a single, For improved confidence in scaling pilot results to potential
normal five-spot pattern. In this design, water or gas is injected at full-field applications, repeated inverted five-spot patterns have
the four corners of the pattern to provide confinement of the oil sometimes been used. This arrangement provides the best estimates
within the pattern and, therefore, improved estimates of recovery of oil recovery and sweep efficiency, the best data for calibrating
compared to an unconfined pattern. To reduce pilot duration, con- simulation models, and the most direct scaleup to commercial
fined pilots are typically run at a closer well spacing than planned operations. However, this type of pilot will have the longest
for commercial application. Advantages and disadvantages of such duration and will require extensive evaluation time. Naturally,
small-scale confined pilots are summarized in Fig. 7. This type of piloting costs increase with the number of patterns placed on test.
pilot can provide good estimates of oil displacement and, when Advantages and disadvantages of large-scale, multipattern pilots
coupled with the use of observation wells, vertical sweep efficiency are summarized in Fig. 8.
as a function of distance from the injection well at modest cost.
In addition, detailed data on pressure gradients, fluid mobilities, Assessment of Key Reservoir Mechanisms
and fluid transport can be obtained that enable rigorous calibration The specific tools used to assess key reservoir mechanisms will
of simulation models. However, the small size of the pattern may depend on the EOR process being pilot tested. For illustrative

Unconfined Producing Pilots

Advantages Disadvantages
• Estimate of injectivity • Swept volume difficult to evaluate
• Low cost • Streamlines, pressure gradients, oil
• Rough estimates of mobility control, recovery not representative of
oil mobilization, chemical retention repeated pattern
• Some production experience • Performance difficult to scale
• Fast results • Sensitive to fluid drift
• Takes as long to run as a pattern
flood

Fig. 6—Advantages and disadvantages of unconfined producing pilots.

February 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 147

 Small-Scale Confined Pilots

Advantages Disadvantages
• Good estimate of oil displacement, • May not sample representative
and vertical conformance vs. heterogeneities
distance • May not reflect pattern balance of
• Detailed data on mobility control, repeated pattern flood
pressure gradients, and chemical • May not scale to wider well spacings
transport
• May not indicate long-term problems
• 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 A second problem is that gas can channel through high-per-
associated with gas injection EOR. Fig. 9 summarizes three sig- meability “thief” zones, leading to poorer-than-expected sweep
nificant problems that can arise in horizontal gas injection and efficiency. Channeling is controlled by permeability distribution.
WAG EOR projects (Healy et al. 1994). This figure focuses on Gas channeling can be evaluated in the design phase by conducting
problems associated with horizontal floods because these make thorough geological and reservoir description studies along with
up the majority of gas injection EOR pilots that have been con- small-scale reservoir simulation studies that properly account for
ducted to date. the governing geologic heterogeneities. Also, the sweep experi-
First, in some situations, it may not be possible to inject water enced in a prior waterflood will provide a strong indication of
and gas at the desired rates. Reservoir variables that control injec- the degree of channeling to be expected in a gas injection project.
tivity are effective permeabilities and near-wellbore damage. Water Thus, an accurate reservoir description combined with history
injectivity has been a problem in some floods, especially in low- matching prior waterflood performance can help evaluate the
permeability reservoirs. If injectivity is a potential problem, it can potential for channeling in the gasflood.
be evaluated in the design phase through careful laboratory measure- The final potential problem is that gas, which is usually less
ments, and by conducting pilot injectivity tests. dense than oil or water, can gravity override or flow to the top of

Large-Scale, Multipattern Pilot

Advantages Disadvantages
• Best estimate of oil recovery and • Very expensive
sweep efficiency • Extensive evaluation time
• 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 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 outlines the data needed for interpretation of each mechanism and
occurs, it will sweep only the very top portion of the zone. Gas monitoring tools and techniques that can be used to acquire the
override is highly sensitive to vertical permeability and to the lateral required data.
extent of barriers to vertical flow. Again, geological and reservoir Understanding injectivity changes requires measurement of not
description studies and perhaps pilot tests can help to identify only the injectivity index, but also the permeability distribution and
conformance problems and thus avoid a surprise. Because grav- fluid mobilities near the injection well. Frequent measurements of
ity override is sensitive to the viscous-to-gravity ratio (VGR), it is injection rates and bottomhole pressures are used to provide high-
important to operate a gas injection or WAG pilot at water and gas resolution injectivity data. Flow profiles, fall-off tests, and step-rate
throughput rates and well spacing that result in a VGR comparable tests have been used to characterize the near-well permeability
to that which could be achieved in a commercial-scale project (Stone distribution and fluid mobilities. Permanent downhole monitoring
1982; Jenkins 1984). tools are now being used routinely to obtain high-resolution real-
In summary, the key mechanisms to be assessed during pilot time temperature and pressure data.
testing of gas injection processes include injectivity, gravity over- To assess gravity override properly, the change in oil saturation
ride, channeling, viscous fingering, and areal sweep. Table 1 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- tion changes, and incremental oil production. Experience indicates
lapse logging, coring behind the flood front, and either vertical that the volume of EOR fluid injected needs to be at least 20%
or cross-layer pulse tests have been used to provide this informa- of the pattern hydrocarbon pore volume before the pilot can be
tion. Cased-hole logging tools used for time-lapse logging include interpreted adequately.
nuclear logs (steel and nonmetallic casing) for gas saturation and • The original pilot operating and monitoring plan should be
total porosity and induction logs (nonmetallic casing) for water continued until sufficient data are acquired to validate simulation
saturation. Fitz and Ganapathy (1993) provide an example of quan- models; do not attempt to optimize on the basis of early results.
titative monitoring of fluid saturation changes during a gas injection Assessing incremental oil recovery over waterflood should be a
EOR project. Post-flood core wells have been used to measure verti- key objective of a pilot. This can be accomplished in several ways,
cal conformance and remaining oil saturation. In some cases, spot each of which has advantages and disadvantages:
fluid samples for composition have been collected at observation • In cases where the waterflood is very mature (>90% water
wells, but usually after critical log data have been obtained. cut), an increase in oil cut can provide a direct measure of improved
Channeling and loss of mobility control or viscous fingering are recovery. A disadvantage is that this may delay the pilot, or the
the other key mechanisms affecting sweep efficiency. In addition waterflood may contact only part of the target zone.
to assessing the change in oil saturation behind the flood front, • In cases in which the waterflood is less mature, the baseline
the gas/oil ratio and water-cut behavior of producers over time, waterflood recovery can be estimated by using a reservoir simu-
interwell tracers (radioactive or chemical) and pressure surveys are lation model to history match the pilot area and extrapolate the
commonly used to estimate the degree of channeling and viscous prepilot waterflood production trend. This requires an adequate
fingering. Careful and regular sampling of produced fluids, flowing prepilot waterflood period to reduce uncertainty in the history
and static bottomhole pressure surveys, and time-lapse logging are match and extrapolation.
available techniques for acquiring such data.
Finally, flood conformance or areal sweep is needed to comple- Pilot Examples
ment the channeling and gravity override data and determine the The best practices described in the preceding text were derived
volumetric sweep efficiency within the pattern. Swept pore volume from ExxonMobil’s extensive piloting experience, which includes
can be determined by carefully tracking the movement and break- more than 50 field pilot tests covering the full range of EOR pro-
through of tracers at production wells and keeping accurate records cesses. Table 2 is a list of representative ExxonMobil pilot tests
of oil, water, and gas production 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)
Pilot Interpretation
tools and techniques for assessment of key reservoir mechanisms,
Successful pilot interpretation requires advance planning. It is and (4) integrated interpretation of pilot data aided by reservoir
essential that a detailed reservoir simulation model of the pilot simulation.
area (with appropriate boundary conditions) be built in advance to
optimize the pilot design and monitoring program, anticipate data Single-Well Injectivity Test. This example is a low permeability
needed for history matching the pilot, enable timely interpretation sandstone reservoir located in Wyoming, USA. Average reservoir
of pilot, and assess the need for selective use of additional observa- permeability is 6.6 md, average formation thickness is 50 ft, and
tion wells and post-flood coring. The geology of the pilot area and the reservoir is being waterflooded on a vertical well spacing of
a good understanding of the target oil distribution are critical inputs 80 acres. The concern was that injectivity would be low during
to the simulation model. Pilot wells should be cored and logged, miscible CO2 WAG injection. Therefore, an injectivity test was
if at all possible. Core, log, and pressure transient data should be performed to determine injectivity before, during, and after CO2
integrated into a consistent reservoir description. injection and to estimate field-scale injectivity to assist prediction
The following pilot design and operational best practices help of miscible process performance.
to minimize uncertainties in test interpretation and facilitate history The test consisted of 3 months of baseline water injection fol-
matching of pilot results: lowed by 2 months of CO2 injection before returning the well to
• Production facilities, well completions, tubulars, and artificial water injection. The radius of investigation of the test was approxi-
lift should be representative of the anticipated commercial-scale mately 100 ft. Bottomhole injection pressures and surface injection
development. rates were monitored continuously during the test to determine
• Several good baseline logs and possibly a single-well tracer injectivity index changes during injection of water and CO2. Pres-
test should be run in wells before the pilot begins and at regular sure fall-off tests were conducted and injection flow profiles were
time intervals to verify reproducibility of the log measurements and measured during both the baseline water injection and CO2 injec-
ensure accurate determination of saturation changes during time- tion to characterize the permeability distribution and changes in
lapse logging at observation wells. Having logging tools dedicated fluid mobilities in the near-well region. Step-rate tests were also
to the project also helps to ensure reproducibility. conducted to confirm that the formation was not fractured.
• An adequate period of steady baseline injection and produc- The results of the test were used to calibrate a radial simulation
tion should be achieved before initiating the EOR process. This model of the near-well region. Results of the radial model were
will reduce uncertainty in interpretation of injectivity, saturation used to guide the construction of a full-field simulation model,
changes, and incremental oil production. which was then used to evaluate WAG injection process options.
• Fluid drift should be minimized so that the pilot area acts as
a truly confined system. This can be accomplished by regulating Unconfined Pilot With Observation Wells. Evidence of grav-
rates in the surrounding patterns or locating the pilot in an area ity segregation between water and an enriched hydrocarbon gas
without strong pressure gradients. was observed in a tertiary horizontal miscible WAG flood at the
• The relative rates of injectors and producers should be Judy Creek Beaverhill Lake ‘A’ Pool. The gas override resulted in
allocated to maintain pattern balance and maximize areal sweep bypassing of potential miscible reserves and decreased ultimate
efficiency in the pilot area. oil recovery. An unconfined producing pilot was undertaken by
• Steady and uninterrupted injection and production rates Imperial Oil Resources, a majority indirectly owned affiliate of
should be maintained. This is important to maintain the desired ExxonMobil, to verify the existence and extent of gravity override,
VGR, maintain pattern balance, and minimize the effects of exter- quantify the factors affecting vertical sweep efficiency, identify
nal influences. optimum well spacing and pattern size, and determine residual oil
• Injection and production zones should be isolated so that only saturations to water and enriched hydrocarbon gas (Pritchard et
the targeted production zone is taking injection. al. 1990). Results of the pilot were used to calibrate a mechanistic
• An adequate volume of EOR fluid should be injected to reservoir simulation model, which was subsequently used to guide
reduce uncertainty in interpretation of sweep efficiency, satura- optimization of pattern configuration and WAG operating strate-

150 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 well (Georgi et al. 1991). The observation well was placed within
reservoir located approximately 200 km northwest of Edmonton, the expected WAG commingled zone on the basis of prepilot reser-
Alberta, Canada. Its average horizontal permeability is 43 md and voir simulation modeling. The location was chosen to confirm the
average thickness is 68 ft. Gravity override was a concern because expected size and shape of the WAG commingled zone (Fig. 11).
the reservoir has good vertical permeability. The pilot was situated • Production and injection profile logs for monitoring changes
in a location that (1) was representative of the reef margin facies in fluid production rates and fluid entry horizons. These consisted
that was the primary target of the hydrocarbon miscible flood, (2) of a suite of spinner, density, capacitance, and temperature tools.
would ensure an interpretable pilot, and (3) would be an economic • Water and solvent tracer for defining the areal distribution of
venture on its own by accessing unswept reservoir. injected water and gas. A gas-phase tracer (sulfur hexafluoride)
The pilot pattern configuration is shown in Fig. 10. The test and liquid phase tracer (tritiated toluene) were used to monitor
consisted of 6 months of baseline water injection followed by 1 year fluid movement.
of WAG injection with enriched hydrocarbon gas at a volumetric Conclusions of the pilot, on the basis of an integrated interpreta-
WAG ratio of 1.0. This WAG ratio was accomplished by 1 week of tion of the monitoring data, were that (1) a definite oil bank was
enriched hydrocarbon gas injection at an average rate of 2000 res formed by the miscible process, (2) gravity override was consistent
m3/d followed by 3 weeks of water injection at an average rate of with the simulation model predictions, and (3) a reduction in pat-
660 res m3/d. These rates were chosen to achieve the same VGR as tern size would improve sweep efficiency and ultimate oil recovery.
the planned commercial operation. The gas was injected at a higher The calibrated simulation model was used to define an optimized
rate than the water to maximize vertical sweep at the injector and injection strategy comprising (1) injection of an initial high-rate
be representative of the vertical injection profile of a commercial bank of the enriched gas before WAG injection, (2) tapering the
operation. A lower water injection rate was used to reduce the total WAG ratio, (3) proper timing of lean chase gas injection, and (4)
average fluid rate and, thus, achieve the target VGR. tailoring of WAG cycle length and bank size to pattern geology.
The monitoring program included:
• Induction resistivity and neutron logging to determine oil, Small-Scale Confined Pilot. The initial pilot of the solids-sta-
water, and gas saturation changes at a fiberglass-cased observation 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, modeling, and reservoir simulation. Initial reservoir modeling stud-
Canada. The SSE process involves the generation and injection of ies were conducted before the pilot to confirm that the chosen well
solids-stabilized water-in-oil emulsion to more favorably displace spacing and 3-year piloting period would be sufficient to gather nec-
viscous oils (Kaminsky and Wattenbarger 2008). After several essary injection, production, and observation-well data to meet pilot
years of laboratory and theoretical development, the SSE recovery objectives. Falloff tests were conducted periodically to characterize
process was deemed ready for piloting in the field. The objectives the pilot area further and to evaluate changes in well injectivity.
of the pilot were (1) to gain operational experience with the SSE The reservoir surveillance program included: close monitor-
process, (2) to confirm the ability to generate and inject a solids- ing of injection and production rates, continuous measurement
stabilized emulsion in the field, (3) to confirm the in situ stability of of bottomhole pressures and temperatures, producer sampling
the injectant, and (4) to confirm improved reservoir displacement. and analysis, tracers, and observation well logging. Fiber-optic
After review of several potential pilot locations, the Celtic field was sensors were placed in each of the observation wells to measure
chosen because its reservoir characteristics matched the desirable pressure response. Temperature logs were run in the observation
target characteristics for the SSE process, it had existing infrastruc- wells on a routine basis to help detect the arrival of the slightly
ture, and it was well characterized with historic performance data. heated injected fluid. Carbon/oxygen and induction logs were run
The Celtic SSE pilot was designed as an isolated five-spot pat- less frequently to detect changes in fluid saturation. Water-phase
tern with four corner injection wells, a central producing well, and and injector-specific oil-phase tracers were added to the injected
three observation wells (see Fig. 12). Use of a full, isolated pattern fluid to help track the movement of the injected fluids and to aid
minimized interference with existing operations and ensured that oil in the determination of in situ stability. Regular sampling and an
recovery during the pilot came from within the pilot pattern. Initial in-line viscometer were used to control the quality of the injectant.
characterization of the pilot included logging, coring, extensive These quality controls were helpful in identifying and correcting
coreflood analysis, a new method to measure steady-state relative initial startup problems with injectant preparation. At the end of
permeabilities for heavy oil systems, fluid characterization, geologic 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
Observation in the pilot. Integrated analysis of the post-flood core-well results
Injector well 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
0.5
675 10 1 0.45

Bitumen Rates (m 3/d)

12 15 6

600 0.4
20 11

525 20
0.35

Cycle OSR
450 0.3
375 0.25
300 0.2
225 0.15
150 0.1
75 Cycle 6 Cycle 7 0.05
0 0

-0
0 00 01 01 02 02 03 03 04 04
ar ug- eb- ug- eb- ug- eb- ug- eb- ug-
M A F A F 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 (2) calibrate reservoir simulation models for full-field predictions;
were found to be consistent with prior laboratory corefloods and (3) improve field production forecasts; (4) reduce technical and
performance estimates. economic risk; and (5) guide improvements in current operating
strategy to improve economics/recovery.
Large-Scale Multipattern Pilot. The first pilot of the liquid- Several ExxonMobil pilot tests were used to illustrate the best
assisted steam enhanced recovery (LASER) process was conducted practices and the role of pilots in the staged EOR development
in the H22 pad of the Cold Lake field in Alberta, Canada (Leaute planning process. The case histories included a single-well injec-
2002; Leaute and Carey 2005). The LASER process, developed by tivity test, an unconfined pilot with observation wells, a small-scale
Imperial Oil, involves the addition of an intermediate hydrocarbon confined pilot, and a large-scale multipattern pilot.
solvent to steam injected in later cycles of a cyclic steam stimu-
lation (CSS) operation. Laboratory physical models, theoretical Acknowledgments
analysis, and reservoir simulations provided the confidence to test The authors would like to thank ExxonMobil management for
this novel recovery concept in the field. their support and permission to publish this paper. In addition,
The primary objectives of the LASER pilot were to validate the authors would like to thank the many current and former
the improvement in cycle bitumen recovery over the base CSS employees of ExxonMobil and its affiliates who have contributed
process and to determine the amount of solvent recovery. Because to the development of the pilot testing best practices described in
of the variability in CSS well performance, both between wells this paper.
and in individual wells over time, a large-scale multipattern pilot Exxon Mobil Corporation has numerous subsidiaries, many
design was chosen. In this design, LASER was applied to several with names that include ExxonMobil, Exxon, Esso, and Mobil.
wells in the H22 pad and its performance was compared to that of For convenience and simplicity in this paper, the parent company
a neighboring control pad (H21), where CSS was applied without and its subsidiaries may be referenced separately or collectively
the addition of solvent. The H22 and H21 pads were chosen for as “ExxonMobil.” Abbreviated references describing global or
the pilot and control, respectively, because they had nearly iden- regional operational organizations and global or regional business
tical pad-level performance through the first six cycles of CSS lines are also sometimes used for convenience and simplicity.
and because their performance and reservoir characteristics were Nothing in this paper is intended to override the corporate sep-
representative of future LASER targets (see Fig. 13). arateness of these separate legal entities. Working relationships
Starting in 2000, solvent was introduced in the seventh and discussed in this paper do not necessarily represent a reporting
eighth cycles into eight wells of the H22 pad, with extensive connection, but may reflect a functional guidance, stewardship, or
well-level and pad-level analysis of injection and production data. service relationship.
Frequent sampling, in-line measurement, and analysis of produced
well streams allowed for accurate determination of the solvent References
production. A key element of the sampling protocol was to measure Bragg, J.R., Gale, W.W., and Canning, J.W. 1983. Loudon Surfactant Flood
the solvent in both the produced liquid and the produced vapor Pilot—Overview and Update. Paper SPE 11505 presented at the Middle
streams. Statistical analysis along with reservoir simulation and East Oil Technical Conference and Exhibition, Bahrain, 14–17 March.
history-matching, was used to estimate improvements in cycle bitu- doi: 10.2118/11505-MS.
men recovery, confirm understanding of the process, and estimate Bragg, J.R., Gale, W.W., McElhannon, W.A. Jr., Davenport, O.W., Petri-
performance in future cycles and in commercial application. chuk, M.D., and Ashcraft, T.L. 1982. Loudon Surfactant Flood Pilot
Test. Paper SPE 10862 presented at the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery
Summary Symposium, Tulsa, 4–7 April. doi: 10.2118/10862-MS.
A staged approach to EOR development focusing specifically on Buckles, R.S. 1979. Steam Stimulation Heavy Oil Recovery at Cold Lake,
pilot testing best practices has been outlined. Topics covered include Alberta. Paper SPE 7994 presented at SPE California Regional Meet-
(1) factors to consider when determining whether a pilot is needed ing, Ventura, California, USA, 18–20 April. doi: 10.2118/7994-MS.
and defining pilot objectives, (2) requirements for a successful pilot, Choquette, S.P., Sampath, K., Northrop, P.S., Edwards, J.T., Laali, H.,
(3) types of pilots and their advantages and disadvantages, (4) tools Rowland, B., and Morrow, D. 1991. Esperson Dome Oxygen Combus-
and techniques for assessment of key reservoir mechanisms, and (5) tion Pilot Test: Postburn Coring Results. SPE Res Eng 8 (2): 85–93.
minimizing uncertainty in pilot interpretation. SPE-21774-PA. doi: 10.2118/21774-PA.
Application of these best practices enables the acquisition of Djabbarah, N.F., Weber, S.L., Freeman, D.C., Muscatello, J.A., Ashbaugh,
accurate and definitive test data to (1) assess effects of reservoir J.P., and Covington, T.E. 1990. Laboratory Design and Field Demon-
geology on process performance, particularly sweep efficiency; stration of Steam Diversion With Foam. Paper SPE 20067 presented at

February 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 153

 the SPE California Regional Meeting, Ventura, California, USA, 4–6 Saltuklaroglu, M., Wright, G.N., Conrad, P.R., Conrad, J.R., and Manches-
April. doi: 10.2118/20067-MS. ter, G.J. 2000. Mobil’s SAGD experience at Celtic, Saskatchewan. J.
Djabbarah, N.F., Weber, S.L., Skaufel, R.M., and Macfadyen, R.L. 1997. Cdn Pet Tech 39 (4): 45.
Field Applications of Steamfoam Technology at Mobil. Paper presented Stiles, L.H., Chiquito, R.M., George, C.J., and Long, L.D. 1983. Design
at the Reserve Foam Mini-Workshop, Tromso, Norway, 12–13 June. and Operation of a CO2 Tertiary Pilot: Means San Andres Unit. Paper
Fitz, D.E. and Ganapathy, N. 1993. Quantitative Monitoring of Fluid SPE 11987 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Saturation Changes Using Cased-Hole Logs. Paper XX presented at the Exhibition, San Francisco, 5–8 October. doi: 10.2118/11987-MS.
SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, Calgary, 13–16 June. Stone, H.L. 1982. Vertical Conformance in an Alternating Water-Miscible
Georgi, D.T., Pritchard, D.W., and Hemingson, P.A. 1991. Wireline Log Gas Flood. Paper SPE 11130 presented at the SPE Annual Techni-
Contributions to the Evaluation to the Judy Creek Hydrocarbon Misci- cal Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 26–29 September. doi:
ble Flood Pilot. Trans., SPWLA Annual Logging Conference, Midland, 10.2118/11130-MS.
Texas, USA, June, Paper RR. Tweidt, L.I., Chase, W.D., Holowatuk, C.R., Lane, R.H., and Mitchell,
Healy, R.N., Holstein, E.D., and Batycky, J.P. 1994. Status of Miscible C.M. 1997. Improving Sweep Efficiency in the Norman Wells Naturally
Flooding Technology. Proc., World Petroleum Congress, Stavanger, Fractured Reservoir through the use of Polymer Gels: A Field Case
29 May–1 June. 407–416. History. Paper SPE 38901 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Hoefner, M.L., Evans, E.M., Buckles, J.J., and Jones, T.A. 1995. CO2 Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 5–8 October.
Foam: Results from Four Developmental Field Trials. SPE Res Eng 10 doi: 10.2118/38901-MS.
(4): 273–282. SPE-27787-PA. doi: 10.2118/27787-PA. Wood, K.N., Lai, F.S., and Heacock, D.W. 1993. Water Tracing Enhances
Huh, C., Landis, L.H., Maer, N.K. Jr., McKinney, P.H., and Dougherty, Miscible Pilot. SPE Form Eval 8 (1): 65–70. SPE-19642-PA. doi:
N.A.1990. Simulation to Support Interpretation of the Loudon Surfac- 10.2118/19642-PA.
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 SI Metric Conversion Factors
Texas. Paper SPE 93631 presented at SPE Middle East Oil Show and °API 141.5 / (131.5 + °API) = g/cm3
Conference, Bahrain, 12–15 March. doi: 10.2118/93631-MS.
cal × 4.184* E+00 = J
Jenkins, M.K. 1984. An Analytical Model for Water/Gas Miscible Dis-
cp × 1.0* E−03 = Pa·s
placements. Paper SPE 12632 presented at the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil
Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 15–18 April. doi: 10.2118/12632-MS. °F (°F − 32) / 1.8 = °C
Kaminsky R.D. and Wattenbarger, R.C. 2008. Solids-Stabilized Emul- psi × 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
sions—A Novel Heavy Oil Recovery Technology. Keynote paper scf × 2.831 685 E−02 = m3
presented at the First ISOPE Frontier Energy Resources (FER-2008) STB × 1.589 873 E−01 = m3
Symposium, Vancouver, Canada, 6–11 July, Session 16.
*Conversion factor is exact.
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.
Gary F. Teletzke currently is team lead for CO2 storage research
Leaute, R.P. 2002. Liquid Addition to Steam for Enhancing Recovery
at ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company. He holds a BS
(LASER) of Bitumen with CSS: Evolution of Technology From degree from Northwestern U. and a PhD degree from the U.
Research Concept to a Field Pilot at Cold Lake. Paper SPE 79011 of Minnesota, both in chemical engineering. Teletzke’s past
presented at the SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil work has included development of surfactant-based EOR pro-
Symposium and International Horizontal Well Technology Conference, cesses, development of foam processes for gasflood sweep
Calgary, 4–7 November. doi: 10.2118/79011-MS. improvement, laboratory and simulation studies to evaluate
Leaute, R.P. and Carey, B.S. 2005. Liquid addition to steam for enhancing EOR process applications, and leadership of compositional
recovery (LASER) of bitumen with CSS: Results from the first pilot simulation and gas injection processes research. He has par-
cycle. Paper 2005-161 presented at the Canadian International Petro- ticipated in design and interpretation of six field pilot tests and
has led projects to evaluate EOR opportunities in the United
leum Conference (CIPC), Calgary, 7–9 June.
States, Europe, Malaysia, and Middle East. Teletzke currently
Murer, A.S., McClennen, K.L., Ellison, T.K., Larson, D.C., Timmer, R.S., is an Associate Editor of SPE Res Eval & Eng and has received
Thomson, M.A., and Wolcott, K.D. 2000. Steam Injection Project in commendation as an outstanding Technical Editor and
Heavy-Oil Diatomite. SPE Res Eval & Eng 3 (1): 2–12. SPE-60853-PA. Associate Editor. R. Chick Wattenbarger currently leads the
doi: 10.2118/60853-PA. heavy-oil recovery research team for ExxonMobil Upstream
Pritchard, D.W.L. and Neiman, R.E. 1992. Improving Oil Recovery Through Research, which works to develop and apply heavy-oil recov-
WAG Cycle Optimization in a Gravity-Override-Dominated Miscible ery technologies. He holds a BS degree from the U. of Texas
Flood. Paper SPE 24181 presented at the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil at Austin, a MS degree from Texas A&M U., and a PhD degree
Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 22–24 April. doi: 10.2118/24181-MS. from Stanford U., all in petroleum engineering. Before join-
ing ExxonMobil, Wattenbarger worked for Shell Development
Pritchard, D.W.L., Georgi, D.T., Hemingson, P., and Okazawa, T. 1990.
Company. His past work has included developing methods for
Reservoir Surveillance Impacts Management of the Judy Creek Hydro- modeling and characterizing deepwater reservoirs, develop-
carbon Miscible Flood. Paper SPE 20228 presented at the SPE/ ing methods for evaluating reservoir performance uncertainty,
DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 22–25 April. doi: evaluating offshore technologies, and performing integrated
10.2118/20228-MS. field studies. John R. Wilkinson is currently a senior engineering
Pursley, S.A. and Graham, H.L. 1975. Borregos Field Surfactant Pilot Test. consultant for ExxonMobil Upstream Research. He holds a
J. Pet Tech 27 (6): 695–700. SPE-4084-PA. doi: 10.2118/4084-PA. Bachelor’s degree in geological engineering from the U. of
Pursley, S.A., Healy, R.N., and Sandvik, E.I. 1973. A Field Test of Sur- British Columbia, Canada. After working summers doing miner-
factant Flooding, Loudon, Illinois, USA. J. Pet Tech 25 (7): 793–802. als exploration, Wilkinson’s oil and gas career started with tech-
nical positions in petrophysics, drilling, subsurface engineering,
SPE-3805-PA. doi: 10.2118/3805-PA.
and reservoir engineering. He has recently lead an upstream
Reppert, T.R., Bragg, J.R., Wilkinson, J.R., Snow, T.M., Maer, N.K. Jr., and team on next generation improved hydrocarbon recovery
Gale, W.W. 1990. Second Ripley Surfactant Flood Pilot Test. Paper SPE (IHR) for ExxonMobil and also represents the company in sev-
20219 presented at the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, eral industry and governmental carbon capture and seques-
Tulsa, 22–25 April. doi: 10.2118/20219-MS. tration (CCS) forums.

154 February 2010 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering