PILOT EOR Work Group Brochure

PILOT EOR Work Group
April 2014
Report summarising 2012 - 2013 Activities

Report summarising 2012 - 2013 Activities
Page 1
April 2014
Industry Sponsor Trevor Garlick, BP
Members Jonathan Thomas, DECC

Derek Cowie, DECC
Andy Leonard, Oil & Gas UK
Martin McCormack / Jeff Parke, BP
Participating Operators BP, CNR, EnQuest, Fairfield Energy, Nexen,

Talisman, TAQA
Index
1. Executive Summary
i. Context, Prize and Challenges
ii. Summary of Deliverables achieved to date
iii. Planned activities for 2014 and link to Sir Ian Wood Report recommendations
2. Introduction
i. The Recovery Factor equation
ii. North Sea Recovery Factors
iii. PILOT EOR Work Group: Context, Terms of Reference & Methodology
3. Status of PILOT EOR Work Group Activities

i. Estimating the UKCS EOR Prize
ii. Low Salinity Water-flooding
iii. Chemical EOR
iv. Miscible Gas floods
Page 2
v. Waterflood Performance Review
4. Future Programme of Work
5. Summary
6. List of Appendices
i. PILOT EOR Work Group Terms of Reference
ii. Details of DECC’s EOR Screening Tool
iii. Low Salinity EOR Core Testing Procedures Protocol
iv. List of PILOT EOR Work Group Deliverables & Reports
1 Executive Summary
i. Context, Prize and Challenges
The UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) is one of the most mature offshore basins in the world.
Achieving optimal recovery from the basin is demanding, but with the average UKCS recovery factor from oil fields
projected to be approximately 47% at end of field life, there is still a significant prize to be gained by optimising
recovery from the existing oil fields.
PILOT, a partnership between the UK Oil and Gas industry and UK Government, has been re-focussing its efforts on
increasing North Sea recovery over the past two years. A number of technical and commercial work groups were
established to tackle the challenge, the PILOT EOR Work Group being one.
Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques are used to recover incremental oil beyond that which can be extracted
from the more conventional depletion and waterflood recovery mechanisms.
There are just two EOR schemes currently in operation in the UK North Sea basin, although additional projects
are now either in execution, such as the world’s first offshore Low Salinity scheme, or are at pre-sanction stages of
evaluation. The principal barriers to implementing EOR projects are believed to be:
• Incomplete subsurface understanding, particularly at the pore-scale displacement level. This is perhaps the
Page 3
most important hurdle, as operators will not commit resources to pursue EOR opportunities unless there is
confidence in the subsurface prize.
• Supply of secure, low cost injectants, in particular for miscible gas EOR.
• The facilities challenge of implementing EOR retrospectively on a brownfield site, for instance retrofitting low
salinity facilities onto a platform.
• Concerns over project economics – the return on an EOR scheme is very different to other Improved Oil
Recovery (IOR) activities that the North Sea has historically relied upon to maintain production, for instance
infill drilling or well-work.
Acknowledging these challenges, the PILOT EOR Work Group was set up in early 2012 to co-ordinate industry
and government attempts to assess the potential to expand the number of EOR schemes in the UK. A three phase
programme was identified to:
1. Systematically screen the UKCS fields for EOR potential in a consistent manner.
2. Engage industry and look for synergies by geography / geology / EOR type and collaborative opportunities
to progress EOR understanding.
3. Where possible, initiate EOR projects with operators and / or suppliers.
The UKCS EOR screening exercise, performed by DECC in early 2012, confirmed that there is still a significant
prize to be gained if further EOR schemes could be implemented on existing and new fields. The DECC estimate,
validated by operator companies, is that the theoretical maximum (unrisked) total EOR potential of the UKCS is
estimated to be approximately 6 billion barrels of oil equivalent, which assumes that the optimal EOR project will be
carried out on each field where it is applicable. The PILOT EOR work group’s view is that the economic (or risked)
EOR potential is between 10 to 20% of this maximum amount, in the range 0.6 to 1.2 billion barrels of oil
equivalent, which nonetheless equates to a significant resource potential. For instance, the economic (achievable)
EOR potential for the top 20 fields alone equates to 0.5 billion barrels, which is comparable in size to the top 20
new projects that have had their Field Development Plans approved by DECC over the last 5 years (see Figure 1).
With the scale of the prize known, the second phase of the PILOT EOR programme was focussed at tackling the
technical and commercial challenges inherent in implementing EOR projects, particularly in an offshore ‘brownfield’
environment.
Page 4
Figure 1: comparison of EOR opportunities versus size of New Field Developments

ii. Summary of Deliverables achieved to date
The EOR PILOT Work Group targeted its activities on three EOR techniques, high graded on the basis of their prize
and a preliminary view on do-ability in an offshore environment:
• Low Salinity water-flooding;

• Chemical EOR (polymer & surfactant); and
• Miscible Gas (hydrocarbon and CO2) Injection.
In addition, an assessment of waterflood performance was also carried out across the UKCS, as having an efficient
waterflood scheme in place is a pre-requisite for deploying EOR schemes. Four industry workshops were held during
2012 and 2013 to assess waterflood performance and the potential for implementing each EOR type in the North
Sea. Prioritised programmes of work were identified and, in most instances, completed following each workshop.
A summary of the overall delivery via the PILOT EOR Work Group versus the initial objectives, as set out in the PILOT
EOR Work Group Terms of Reference (refer to Appendix i for details), is provided below:
Page 5
Table 1: PILOT EOR Work Group Deliverables - as set out in Terms of Reference
Specific examples of deliverables include:
• Low salinity water-flooding:

i. Generation of a low salinity coreflood protocol to ensure that laboratory studies assessing t he potential
benefits from low salinity water-flooding are performed in a consistent manner. A s a result, one operator
has repeated their low salinity EOR screening after the protocol was published, having realised that
their earlier coreflood tests had not used a low enough salinity for t he test. The earlier tests had indicated
no measurable low salinity effect, whereas the preliminary results from the new tests show drops in
residual oil saturation of up to 10 percentage units;
ii. Development of Northern North Sea (NNS) and Moray Firth “clusters” where operators are sharing their
plans for screening their fields for low salinity potential;
iii. Initiation of a Joint Industry Project (JIP) involving the operators in the NNS cluster and the University of
Liverpool to look at the petrography of the Brent Sands to better understand the low salinity response
observed in one of the fields in the NNS cluster;
iv. An ITF industry call for proposed facilities solutions for implementing low salinity on brownfield platforms is
on-going. Six proposals from industry out of a total of eleven received are still being considered.
• Chemical EOR: identification and introduction of an industry resource to support UKCS operators with
planning and potential implementation of their polymer EOR opportunities: the Chemical EOR Alliance,
(www.ceor-alliance.com). Seven fields that DECC believed would benefit from polymer EOR were screened
by the Chemical EOR Alliance and the results shared with the operators of these fields at a workshop held in
Aberdeen in December 2013.
• Miscible Gas EOR: a programme of work to identify a candidate field for independent pre-FEED study to
assess economic feasibility of CO2 EOR has been agreed between DECC, the Office of Carbon Capture
Storage (OCCS) and an operator.
• Waterflood Performance Review: an in-depth study of the top 20 water-flooded fields was completed
and the lessons learned were shared at a Waterflood Performance ShareFair event held in August 2013, with
12 operators attending.
This initial programme of work is coming to an end and so an update on the status of each EOR focus area is
provided in later sections of this report.
iii. Planned activities for 2014 and link to Sir Ian Wood Report
As has been acknowledged by Sir Ian Wood in the UKCS Maximising Recovery Review Final Report, awareness
of EOR potential has increased considerably and momentum has been generated within industry. However, further
work is still required:
Page 6
“Insufficient uptake of Improved Oil Recovery (IOR) and Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) will have a significantly
adverse effect on maximising economic recovery for the UK. It is acknowledged that some EOR schemes are
costly and complex to operate, but Industry must be encouraged to invest more in these schemes to avoid
leaving significant value behind.”
The proposed way forward for PILOT EOR activities is summarised by Action 21 in the Wood report:
“The technology challenges should be rapidly validated and technology sub groups set-up for each comprising
the key companies with the prime interest in finding a solution, with the Regulator. As an example, the PILOT
EOR programme should be processed as a priority. This programme has seen a limited number of companies
come together with strong leadership, working closely with DECC, to actively promote the use of EOR techniques
across the UKCS. Their work programme for 2014/15 proposes DECC and industry jointly conducts a series of
structured reviews promoting EOR on the most suitable fields (14 identified to date) – the expectation is that all
these fields should actively be assessed for suitability to deploy EOR techniques. The reviews may be voluntary
but if necessary could be mandated. The work group also proposes a structured programme of collaboration
on EOR to sustain the progress and deploy the technology on test sites offshore.”
Although it is the intent that the PILOT EOR Work Group will continue to provide technical support to DECC during
2014, the EOR field reviews will be conducted by a team of EOR experts working directly for DECC. A letter inviting
operators to participate in the 2014 EOR Review programme was sent out by Simon Toole, DECC’s Director of
Licensing, Exploration & Development in early April, with the first EOR field review scheduled to be performed later
in 2Q 2014.
2 Introduction
The UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) is one of the most mature offshore oil & gas basins in the world, having
produced approximately 42 billion barrels of oil equivalent (boe), with an estimated 12 to 24 billion boe reserves
remaining. Whilst current investment levels are high, with a raft of new projects under development, the basin is
facing significant challenges, with production efficiency declining and exploration success stalling. As a result of
these challenges, the Oil and Gas Industry and UK Government have been working together closely to ensure that
overall hydrocarbon recovery is maximised. One way to achieve this is to ensure that operators focus their efforts
on reviewing all ways of maximising recovery from their existing oil fields.
i. The Recovery Factor equation
The Recovery Factor of a field can be increased by making improvements across four levers:
Page 7
Figure 2: The Recovery Factor Equation
Enhanced Oil Recovery Mechanisms

Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) involves injecting a fluid/gas into an oil reservoir thereby increasing oil recovery over
that which would be achieved from just pressure maintenance alone.
• Pore scale displacement – This describes the fraction of oil displaced from the pores by the injected
water or gas, in other words the ability of whatever you inject to displace (or strip out) oil that is bound to
the reservoir rock. Low Salinity water, miscible gas injection and surfactants are all examples of injectants
that can improve pore scale displacement.
• Sweep - the proportion of the connected reservoir volume that is swept by the injected fluids. This is
principally affected by heterogeneity in rock permeability and by gravitational segregation of the fluids.
The efficiency of this process can be improved by incorporating chemicals such as polymers for water-
floods or foams for gas injection.
Improved Oil Recovery Factors

Improved Oil Recovery (IOR) applies to improvements in oil recovery achieved via better reservoir understanding
and overall field management. For example, identifying volumes of oil that have been bypassed during water
injection using seismic surveying and then drilling new wells to access those oil reserves.
• Drainage - the proportion of the total reservoir volume connected to wells. This takes into account the
fact that sealing faults or other low permeability barriers may result in compartments of oil that are not in
pressure communication with the rest of the reservoir.
• Time - the physical & commercial constraints affecting end of field life.
The overall recovery factor for a field is calculated by multiplying these four fractions together. Increasing recovery
factors significantly requires one or more of these factors to be increased to as close to 1 as possible. In effect,
maximising recovery in a field requires optimisation of all four levers in the equation.
ii. North Sea Recovery Factors
On current plans the anticipated average expected ultimate recovery factor for oil fields in the UKCS is expected to
be about 47% of oil initially in place. This is very similar to the overall recovery factor expected for the Norwegian
oil fields. These are relatively high recovery factors compared to other oil provinces around the world, but it does
mean that over half of the oil we have discovered is expected to be left behind by cessation of production (COP).
This oil comprises a mixture of bypassed oil left behind by waterflood and true residual oil which can only be
Page 8
accessed by EOR.
North Sea* Recovery Factor (%)
* Source: DECC Reserves Data for CNS and NNS (as of end 2012)
Figure 3: Average Recovery Factor in the UKCS
The challenge that industry faces, and one that the PILOT EOR group was set up to focus on, is to try and raise
average recovery factors to over 50%, so that we “take more oil out of the North Sea than we leave behind”.
However, certain fields should be striving for recovery factors in excess of 50% and recovery factors of 60 to 70%
is technically achievable in some fields.
Increasing the deployment of EOR in the North Sea will help achieve the overall goal of increasing average
recovery factors in the UKCS to over 50%.
iii. PILOT EOR Work Group: Context, Terms of Reference & Methodology
Context
EOR is not a new concept to the Oil & Gas industry, but its application has been at best patchy. Figure 4 provides
a summary of the number of EOR schemes in operation in conventional oil reservoirs around the globe. It does not
include Thermal EOR, which is a dominant EOR technique in very heavy oil fields, but is not relevant to the North
Sea. There are approximately 140 conventional oil EOR schemes operating around the world.
Data source: Visiongain report, ‘The 20 Leading Companies in EOR 2013: A Competitive Analysis’.
Visiongain data has been cross-checked against the Oil and Gas Journal EOR Review 2012, reports and peer-reviewed publications.
Page 9
BP data used in this analysis is from BP’s internal review. Also includes EOR values from Brightwater treatments.
Figure 4: Summary of Conventional EOR Projects by Operator
Whilst the overall number of projects is small, the global production contribution from conventional EOR is significant,
delivering approximately 1 million barrels of oil / day (Figure 5).
Data source: Visiongain report, ‘The 20 Leading Companies in EOR 2013: A Competitive Analysis’.
Visiongain data has been cross-checked against the Oil and Gas Journal EOR Review 2012, reports and peer-reviewed publications.
BP data used in this analysis is from BP’s internal review. Also includes EOR values from Brightwater treatments.
Figure 5: Summary of Production from Conventional EOR Projects by Operator

There are very few (about 12) offshore EOR schemes, worldwide, either operating as full developments or in pilot
phase. The UK North Sea accounts for one quarter of these schemes, demonstrating that EOR can be successfully
applied in the North Sea:
• Magnus Water Alternating Gas (WAG) flood – in operation since 2002;

• Captain Chemical EOR – polymer pilot in operation since 2011;
• Clair Ridge Low Salinity EOR – the world’s first offshore Low Salinity facilities, with injection of Low
Salinity water into the Clair reservoir scheduled to begin in 2017.
Terms of Reference
The intent of the PILOT EOR Work Group is to encourage cooperation between interested operators to help overcome
the barriers that are impeding EOR deployment. To achieve this purpose, Terms of Reference, for the Work Group
were agreed in early 2012, see Appendix (i) for details. The Work Group was made up of:
• An Industry Sponsor – Trevor Garlick, BP North Sea;

• A core technical working group comprising of staff from DECC, Oil & Gas UK and BP;
• Participants from a number of operators who are actively looking for EOR opportunities within their portfolios.
Methodology
The methodology used by the PILOT EOR Work Group can be summarised as follows:
STEP 1 - Identify the EOR “Size-of-the-Prize” - DECC have comprehensively mapped the distribution of
Page 10
the remaining EOR potential across the North Sea on a consistent basis that has been validated with North Sea
operators. This provides the basic dataset for identifying promising areas of the North Sea where EOR development
could benefit from increased oil company cooperation.
STEP 2 – Identify the Most promising EOR Technologies for the North Sea - The results from the
DECC basin-wide screening and analysis of experience from EOR projects around the world indicated there were
three key EOR technologies with significant North Sea potential:
1. Low Salinity Waterflood

2. Chemical EOR (surfactant & polymer flooding)
3. Miscible Gas Flood (for both hydrocarbon gas and CO2)
STEP 3 – Develop a Collaborative Industry Work Programme for each EOR Technology –
Distinct work programmes have been developed for Low Salinity waterflood EOR, Chemical EOR and Miscible Gas
Floods to promote increased cooperation between operators in looking for viable EOR projects.
3 Status of PILOT EOR Work Group Activities

i. Estimating the UKCS EOR “Prize”
Key deliverables to date: a consistent view of EOR potential across all fields
in the UKCS has been developed – an estimated 0.6 to 1.2 billion barrel prize is
achievable. In 2012 DECC provided written reports of the EOR potential per field to
all operators. The screening study has identified three key EOR processes that are
of interest to the North Sea: Low Salinity, Chemical EOR and Miscible Gas.
The remaining EOR potential in the North Sea has been mapped on a field-by-field basis using a spreadsheet
based EOR screening tool (SENEOR) developed by Senergy for all oil fields with reserves >20 million barrels
(see Appendix ii for further details). Over 100 North Sea fields were screened as part of this exercise, which was
commissioned by DECC in early 2012.
The outputs from SENEOR have been reality-checked with the respective operators and their comments have been
incorporated into a refined output where necessary.
As a result of this screening exercise, the UK now has a validated estimate of EOR potential on a UKCS wide basis,
Page 11
with the overall theoretical EOR “size-of-the-prize” estimated to be approximately 6 billion barrels of oil equivalent:
EOR Process Estimated EOR Potential (mmstb)
Miscible Hydrocarbon flood 5400
Miscible CO2 Injection 5700
Surfactant/Polymer (Chemical EOR) 4800
Polymer (on its own) 2100
Low Salinity Waterflood 2000
Figure 6 – Total UK EOR Prize by EOR Technology
Note: the EOR potential figures shown in Figure 6 are not additive, as different EOR techniques can be
considered as viable options for the same reservoir.
In mid-2012, DECC provided each North Sea operator with an individual report on the SENEOR screening results
for each of the fields within their portfolio: see example field report in Figure 7.
Page 12
Figure 7: Example DECC EOR Field Report

The individual field EOR estimates and the ”grand totals” for each EOR technique for the North Sea as generated by
DECC and shown in Figure 6 need to be treated with caution as they represent the theoretical maximum (unrisked)
EOR potential. Experience shows that one fifth of the theoretical maximum is probably more realistic to account for
the other factors at play in the recovery factor equation, as the graphic below demonstrates:
EOR choke model for 1 bn barrel field
Figure 8: Graphic demonstrating the impact of other factors on Pore Scale EOR benefits
The theoretical maximum (unrisked) total EOR potential of the UKCS is estimated to be approximately 6 billion barrels
Page 13
of oil equivalent, which assumes that the optimal EOR project will be carried out on each field where it is applicable.
The realistic economic EOR (or risked) potential is believed to be in the range of 0.6 to 1.2 billion barrels oil
equivalent, which still equates to a very significant potential prize.
The screening exercise highlighted the fields with the greatest EOR potential in the North Sea (figures 9 & 10):
Figure 9: The top 20 EOR opportunities in UKCS (risked).

During 2014, the individual field EOR estimates will be used to focus more detailed discussions between DECC and
the respective field operators about EOR scope, both at the initial field development plan stage (new developments)
and via the proposed EOR field reviews (existing assets). If the screening exercise has identified a significant EOR
prize in a particular oil field then this should either be progressed by the operators, or good reasons provided why
this is not feasible. See Section 4 for further details.
Page 14
Figure 10: An example “Bubble-Map” of the Distribution of EOR Potential in the Central North Sea
(the diameter of each circle is proportional to EOR potential)
The bubble-maps have helped identify “EOR clusters” of nearby fields where there is scope for cooperation between
operators to potentially reduce project development costs. Examples of this could include sharing of offshore facilities
between more than one EOR project, or by agreement to share data from laboratory testing of EOR potential, which
has occurred amongst operators in the Moray Firth Low Salinity “cluster” – see Section 3 ii) for details.
The results of the EOR screening process identified three EOR processes that were felt to have good potential, in
particular if a cooperative approach to EOR development in the North Sea was undertaken:
• Low Salinity Waterflood

• Chemical EOR (polymer & surfactant flooding)
• Miscible Gas Injection (both hydrocarbon gas and carbon dioxide)
There are currently good North Sea exemplars of existing or planned EOR projects for all three technologies (low
salinity EOR – Clair Ridge; polymer EOR – Captain; miscible gas – Magnus) which provided confidence
that further successful projects could be delivered.
ii. Low Salinity Water-flooding
Key deliverables to date: Low Salinity clusters are in place enabling operators to
work collaboratively to progress their low salinity opportunities, including the launch of
one JIP. A coreflood protocol has been developed to allow operators to accurately
measure the potential for their fields and has already had a positive effect. An ITF
industry call for proposed facilities solutions for implementing low salinity
on brownfield platforms is also on-going. A JIP to study Brent petrography has been
established.
Low salinity waterflood was the EOR process that attracted most interest from operators initially due to a relatively
low implementation cost (compared to other EOR techniques).
UKCS Low Salinity “Size of the Prize”
The top twenty low salinity EOR opportunities as identified by the SENEOR screening tool are listed in Figure 11.
Field names can be identified either by referring to the DECC reports that were sent to operators in 2012 or by
contacting DECC directly (Jonathan.Thomas@decc.gsi.gov.uk).
Page 15
Figure 11: UKCS Low Salinity Prize by Field (million boe, technical limit)
The “bubble-map” output from SENEOR was used, together with the results of an earlier DECC “Low Salinity
Questionnaire”, to high-grade potential clusters of fields with good low salinity EOR potential. This initial cluster list
was presented at a PILOT Low Salinity EOR workshop held for key operators in September 2012. Ahead of the
workshop, Senergy provided a detailed report on the current world wide status of low salinity EOR applications to
help frame the workshop discussions.
This workshop provided a good discussion of the key uncertainties relating to low salinity EOR and proposed ways
forward to address these uncertainties. The status of the two main actions arising is provided below:
Figure 12: Actions arising from Low Salinity EOR workshop, September 2012
• Protocol for Low Salinity Coreflood
DECC was requested to lead a group to develop shared recommendations for coreflood test procedures for
laboratory screening of low salinity EOR potential. Getting a positive low salinity EOR effect in reservoir core is
seen as an essential pre-requisite before moving to a pilot or field-scale project. It became apparent that there was a
lack of readily available information on how to best design a coreflood test to maximise the chances of a successful
outcome.
Page 16
A separate PILOT EOR workshop on low salinity coreflood testing procedures was held in December 2012 which
brought in expertise from the best universities around the world and also from leading operators. The main outcome
from this workshop was an agreed list of recommendations (protocol) for designing low salinity coreflood tests (see
Appendix iii), which was distributed to the attendees at the workshop and all the companies in the PILOT Low
Salinity EOR cluster groups.
• Low Salinity Clusters
Three low salinity field cluster development areas (figure 13) were initially identified, each led by a key operator
within the cluster area. The cluster groups were asked to assess low salinity EOR development opportunities within
Cluster Name Lead Operator Fields (in no specific

order)
NNS Cluster TAQA Pelican

North Cormorant
DECC Estimated Cluster South Cormorant
EOR Potential Penguins
Ninian
= ~350 MMSTB
Dunbar
Darwin
CNS Tertiary Cluster BP Mungo
Pierce
DECC Estimated Cluster Nelson
EOR Potential Forties
= ~120 MMSTB
Moray Firth Cluster Nexen Clyde

Piper
DECC Estimated Cluster Buzzard
EOR Potential Scott
Golden Eagle
= ~270 MMSTB
Figure 13: The Low Salinity EOR “Clusters”

The three low salinity EOR field cluster groups

• Northern North Sea Cluster – led by TAQA;
• Moray Firth Cluster – led by Nexen;
• Central North Sea Cluster – led by BP.
have subsequently met for discussions within the sub-groups. Two of the three clusters are progressing, although there
was insufficient potential to maintain a Central North Sea cluster, so no further activity has taken place. The key
conclusion from discussions with the two other clusters is that there is an appetite for more cooperation on low salinity
coreflood testing in particular as this is currently the step that most operators are held back by.
After the initial separate cluster meetings, a follow-up PILOT EOR workshop to discuss the cluster group conclusions
was hosted by Oil & Gas UK in April 2013. In this meeting the current status of the UKCS “pyramid of proof” for
Low Salinity was developed:
Low Salinity:
North Sea “Pyramid of Proof”
Page 17
Figure 14: UKCS “Pyramid of Proof” for Low Salinity
The theme of the workshop was to identify how working collaboratively could allow operators to progress more
rapidly up the “pyramid of proof”, for instance by bypassing the need for single well chemical tracer tests. The
proposed programme of work for PILOT EOR for 2013 was reviewed and the cluster groups were asked to advise
where further collaborative effort would be most beneficial. Two new collaborative programmes of work were
agreed upon:
1. Brent Sands Petrography Review
Following on from this meeting the Northern North Sea cluster group agreed that developing a proposal for a Brent
Sand petrography study would help better understand the disappointing coreflood test results from the Brent sands
to date. Two universities were approached to provide quotes to perform this work. The proposal from Liverpool
University was selected and four operators from within the NNS cluster (TAQA, CNR, EnQuest and Fairfield Energy)
are funding the Joint Industry Programme. The JIP was initiated in 1Q 2014 and is expected to take six to nine
months to complete.
2. Developing facilities for implementing Low Salinity EOR on Brownfields
In an attempt to “fast-track” the ability to implement Low Salinity EOR scheme offshore, a work programme for
developing facilities solutions for brownfield applications was required.
In July 2013 the Industry Technology Facilitator (ITF) were contracted by PILOT EOR to develop a Call for Proposals
to allow industry to present their ideas about how low salinity projects could potentially be delivered on offshore
brownfield projects. The Call was issued to industry in August 2013 and eleven responses from eight developers
were submitted. In November 2013 a workshop was held by ITF to review the proposals and four operators
attended. At this workshop it was agreed to continue to progress six options.
However, at this same meeting it was stated by the operators in attendance that they would not be able to
make any funding commitment for any of the proposals until the results of their low salinity coreflood studies were
known. During January 2014 DECC formally requested an update on coreflood timings from all operators who are
currently progressing low salinity opportunities. From analysis of this feedback, the programme for reviewing the
final proposals for the four options was delayed until end 3Q 2014 to allow operators to complete their coreflood
programmes.
As a result of increased awareness of the ITF call in industry, a further three operators have expressed an interest
in potentially supporting one or more of the proposals. There are currently ten operators who have expressed an
interest in this Call.
Current Low Salinity Water-Flooding Status (as of March 31st 2014):

Page 18
• Six fields undergoing low salinity coreflood studies – all results should be known by end 3Q 2014.
• Northern North Sea Brent Petrography and Diagenesis study JIP ongoing with Liverpool University –
to be completed by 4Q 2014.
• Four proposals from industry for potential solutions for Brownfield facilities are currently being
progressed via the ITF Call – plan to re-engage with operators to assess their interest in forming a
JIP to develop one or more of these proposals in early 4Q 2014.
iii. Chemical EOR
Key deliverables to date: held initial Chemical EOR workshop which concluded
that the current perception was that chemical EOR would not work in the North Sea
due to high temperatures and complex water chemistries. PILOT EOR Work Group has
confirmed this is no longer the case and has introduced Chemical EOR expertise
into the basin to support operators who are pursuing chemical EOR opportunities.
DECC have recently joined a JIP looking into impact of polymers on oil/water separation
and PWRI quality.
The SENEOR screening study identified that Chemical EOR (polymer only or polymer with surfactant) has significant
potential in the UKCS. A workshop was held in October 2012 to bring operators together to assess whether this
potential could be materialised.
UKCS Chemical EOR “Size of the Prize”
The top twenty chemical EOR opportunities as identified by the SENEOR screening tool are listed in Figure 15.
Field names can be identified either by referring to DECC reports sent to operators in 2012 or by contacting DECC
directly (Jonathan.Thomas@decc.gsi.gov.uk).
Page 19
Figure 15: UKCS Chemical EOR Prize by Field (million boe, technical limit)
The key actions arising from the initial Chemical EOR workshop in October 2012 are listed below:
Figure 16: Actions arising from Chemical EOR workshop, October 2012
Page 20
At the October 2012 workshop it was felt that the high reservoir temperatures and difficult water chemistries made
it difficult to implement chemical EOR in the North Sea. Subsequent to the workshop this view has been challenged
by meetings with SNF Floerger (hosted by DECC) and also by attendance at EOR conferences, such as EAGE in
St Petersburg in April 2013. As a result, a follow-up action was initiated in 2013 to look again at Chemical EOR
feasibility in the North Sea.
• Chemical EOR Alliance review of UKCS Chemical EOR candidate fields
The PILOT EOR workgroup has become aware of a chemical EOR capability based out of Paris called the
Chemical EOR Alliance (www.ceor-alliance.com). Screening data for seven UKCS fields where chemical EOR
could be beneficial was provided to CEOR Alliance. The PILOT EOR work group visited the Chemical EOR Alliance
laboratories in September 2013 to assess their capabilities and to review their response to the screening study for
the seven UKCS fields. This visit was a success and, as a result, the Chemical EOR Alliance was invited by PILOT
EOR work group to a follow-up workshop, which was attended by nine operators. The workshop was well received,
as most operators were unaware of the existence of the Chemical EOR Alliance and their capabilities. The results
of the Chemical EOR Alliance’s screening were subsequently shared with the operators whose fields had been
reviewed.
One additional benefit from the visit to the Chemical EOR Alliance was that the PILOT EOR Work Group became
aware of the ongoing Dolphin JIP whose “main objective is to identify the key issues and hurdles and to define
guidelines and recommendations on what needs to be carefully studied when considering a chemical EOR
project”. Following a review of the technical content of this JIP, DECC formally joined the JIP to better assess the
development plans and the associated challenges facing operators in the UK North Sea.
Current Chemical EOR Status (as of March 31st 2014):
• No further PILOT EOR activities are currently planned.

iv. Miscible Gas Injection (hydrocarbon gas and carbon dioxide)
Key deliverables to date: Miscible Gas EOR workshop was held on 1st October
2013. To support this, an advanced EOR screening tool has been designed to screen for
miscible gas opportunities. It was proposed to perform an independent pre-FEED
engineering / commercial study on one field to assess CO2 EOR feasibility.
Miscible gas injection EOR potential in the North Sea is high and there is an established track record of success
in projects like Magnus and Ula (Norway). On the negative side, miscible gas projects generally have a relatively
high CAPEX requirement (particularly for CO2 EOR) and it is usually very difficult to identify a supply of cheap and
readily available miscible injection gas.
A more advanced EOR screening tool, specifically designed to screen for miscible gas opportunities, was developed
by Senergy and all the major oil fields were screened for both hydrocarbon gas miscible injection and for CO2
injection. The new miscible gas screening tool provides a much more reliable estimate of EOR potential than the
previous “SENEOR” screening tool.
The CO2 EOR screening also takes into account the distance from likely CO2 storage hubs (developed under the UK
Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) Programme) as DECC believes that CO2 EOR projects are much more likely to
develop by exploiting existing CO2 storage hubs than by developing stand-alone CO2 EOR schemes.
Page 21
Figure 17: CCS Projects (such as Goldeneye ) may provide CO2 supply hubs for CO2 EOR schemes.
A PILOT EOR workshop on miscible gas was held on October 1st 2013. It was very well attended, with 38
attendees, including nine operators, several government bodies (DECC, The Crown Estate, OCCS) and existing
organisations who are looking into making Carbon Capture and Storage viable (Carbon Capture Storage
Association and Scottish Carbon Capture Storage).
The purpose of the workshop was to review the potential for miscible gas EOR (for both hydrocarbon gas & CO2
injection) in the North Sea and the linkage between CO2 EOR opportunities and the UK’s Carbon Capture &
Storage policy.
The main conclusions from the workshop were:
• Validated a large potential prize, but it requires access to low cost and reliable sources of gas at scale:
- Lean gas: top 16 fields could produce additional 0.5 billion boe by injecting 1.5 TCF gas;
- CO2: top 15 fields could produce additional 0.6 billion boe with 336 mT CO2.
• No CO2 infrastructure exists currently, but there is potential for one to be created if CCS pilot schemes are
successful:
- Drax scheduled to provide 2.5mT / year to Block 5/42.
- Peterhead scheduled to provide 1mT / year to Goldeneye.
The status of the one main actions arising is provided below:

Page 22
Current Miscible Gas EOR Status (as of March 31st 2014):
• DECC, OCCS and an operator in discussion about kicking off CO2 EOR study.
v. Waterflood Performance Review
Key deliverables to date: Waterflood Performance interviews carried out on

19 fields in UKCS, involving 11 operators. A best practice “ShareFair” event was
held in August 2013 to allow operators to learn more about how water-floods are being
managed at the current time. Twelve operators attended.
In order to support assessment of potential EOR schemes it was believed to be beneficial to investigate performance
of the North Sea’s ‘base’ waterflood operations. The aim was to identify best practice and common challenges that
if shared or addressed respectively, might in themselves yield opportunities for incremental recovery.
North Sea Waterflood Performance Questionnaire

In 2013 a Waterflood Performance questionnaire was developed by the PILOT EOR Work Group and Dundas
Consultants were engaged to gather responses to it from twenty specified field teams. A series of interviews were
conducted, attended by subsurface and facilities engineering personnel from each team.
The principal themes that emerged are as follows:
Vertical Conformance
Continued cycling of injection water through established reservoir pathways is recognised as leading to
unsatisfactory sweep, particularly where stacked flow units of varying reservoir quality exist in conjunction with
commingled wells (i.e. wells completed simultaneously across all flow units). Interest in through-tubing treatments and
Page 23
selective completion technology was expressed, along with sharing of operational experience to build confidence
in prospective deployments.
Reservoir Surveillance
Restricted access to facilities and wells, combined with low confidence in ability to effect corrective action, tempers
the extent of planned downhole data gathering activity. A sense was expressed that opportunities might be missed,
and that novel/ alternative methods of acquiring reservoir surveillance information in a cost effective manner might
unlock additional recovery.
Operational Efficiency
Many of the surveyed fields are in late life, and face varying degrees of operational downtime due to integrity
issues, mechanical failure of equipment or unreliable power supply. The choice between repair or replacement is
often finely balanced, with risk of repeated failure offset by uncertainty in the business case for further investment.
North Sea Waterflood Best Practice “ShareFair”

A Best Practice “ShareFair” workshop was held in August 2013 to allow operators to receive feedback from
the questionnaire and to learn more about how waterfloods are being managed at the current time. Following
discussion, six areas for potential future collaboration were identified:
• Progress technical solutions to manage Conformance / Sweep Efficiency.

• Mature Field Surveillance (for very high water-cuts);
• Water Injection Facilities and Trials;
• Well Integrity;
• Mature Field Waterflood Management – Knowledge, Capability Building and Data Sharing;
• Produced Water Reinjection.
Current Waterflood Performance Status (as of March 31st 2014):
• Prioritise & progress (if appropriate) a subset of collaboration themes identified at the Waterflood Best
Practice workshop in August 2013.
4 Future Programme of Work

The PILOT EOR work group has assessed what is required to progress this work to the next stage. Having reviewed
various options, it has proposed a two pronged “blended” approach for EOR:
EOR Reviews for top priority fields (New Scope)
• This will focus on the fields identified via the DECC screening process to have the largest EOR prize potential.
• DECC will initiate the process by writing to the Operator, indicating requirement for EOR field reviews to be
carried out during 2014 - 2015.
• The PILOT EOR workgroup will co-ordinate the scheduling of the EOR assists with Asset Operator teams with
the largest potential EOR prize – initially this will be on a “voluntary” basis, but it is anticipated that these
reviews will be mandated if required.
• The EOR assist team will be made up of:
a. Reputable Facilitator – either from O&GUK or DECC (or secondee to DECC);
b. EOR expert(s) (subsurface – geoscience and reservoir engineering) – initially consultants to support
existing DECC capability;
c. EOR expert (facilities) – initially a consultant;
d. Commercial Advisor – potentially sourced via O&GUK;
Page 24
e. UK perspective (DECC) – from the current PILOT EOR workgroup.

• The EOR assists are likely to be performed via a 1 to 2 day workshop and 4 to 5 reviews will be carried out
in 2014. These EOR reviews will be scheduled and delivered by DECC.
Facilitate EOR Collaboration (Complete Existing Scope)
• The PILOT EOR work group will continue to progress EOR collaboration opportunities across Operators
identified during 2013 through to completion.
For example:
a. Low Salinity brownfield facilities call via ITF, including developing an understanding of the status of
low salinity coreflood studies currently being performed;
b. NNS Low Salinity Petrography study;
c. Progress prioritised action from miscible gas workshop, likely to be an independent pre-FEED study
into the feasibility of CO2 miscible gas EOR on the Buzzard field;
d. Prioritise & progress (if appropriate) a subset of collaboration themes identified at the Waterflood Best
Practice workshop held in August 2013;
e. Maintain visibility / communication on PILOT EOR activities;
f. Write and issue PILOT EOR report.
5 Summary
The PILOT EOR Work Group was set up in early 2012 to co-ordinate industry and government attempts to assess the
potential to expand the number of EOR schemes in the UK. A three phase programme was identified to:
1. Systematically screen the UKCS fields for EOR potential in a consistent manner.
2. Engage industry and look for synergies by geography / geology / EOR type and collaborative opportunities
to progress EOR understanding.
3. Where possible, initiate EOR projects with operators and / or suppliers.
The UKCS EOR screening exercise, performed by DECC in early 2012, confirmed that there is still a significant
prize to be gained if further EOR schemes could be implemented on existing and new fields. The DECC estimate,
validated by operator companies, is that the theoretical maximum (unrisked) total EOR potential of the UKCS is
estimated to be approximately 6 billion barrels of oil equivalent, which assumes that the optimal EOR project will be
carried out on each field where it is applicable. The PILOT EOR work group’s view is that the economic (or risked)
EOR potential is between 10 to 20% of this maximum amount, in the range 0.6 to 1.2 billion barrels of oil
equivalent, which nonetheless equates to a significant resource potential.
The EOR PILOT Work Group targeted its activities on three EOR techniques, high graded on the basis of their prize
and a preliminary view on do-ability in an offshore environment:
Page 25
• Low Salinity water-flooding;
• Chemical EOR (polymer & surfactant); and
• Miscible Gas (hydrocarbon and CO2) Injection.
In addition, an assessment of waterflood performance was carried out across the UKCS. Having an efficient
waterflood scheme in place is a pre-requisite for deploying EOR schemes. Four industry workshops were held
during 2012 and 2013 to assess waterflood performance and the potential for implementing each EOR type in the
North Sea and prioritised programmes of work were identified and, in most instances, completed following each
workshop.
A summary of the overall delivery via the PILOT EOR Work Group versus the initial objectives, as set out in the PILOT
EOR Work Group Terms of Reference is provided below:
Figure 18: PILOT EOR Work Group Deliverables - as set out in Terms of Reference.
6 List of Appendices
i. PILOT EOR Work Group Terms of Reference
ii. Details of DECC’s EOR Screening Tool
iii. Low Salinity EOR Core Testing Procedures Protocol
iv. List of PILOT EOR Work Group Deliverables & Reports

Page 26
Appendix i – PILOT EOR Work Group Terms of Reference
UKCS North Sea EOR Initiative - Terms of Reference

January 2012
Executive Summary
The economic viability and/or practical feasibility of deploying Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) techniques in the
North Sea, has always been challenged. This is due to a number of factors, including:
• a lack of real understanding of the size of the potential recovery prize

• concerns around the magnitude of the capital investment required to put the EOR hardware and infrastructure
in place.
• the perceived risk of producing a long, relatively low production profile (with resultant impact on project
return and payback period)
• the physical constraints of the existing North Sea pipeline and platform infrastructure for EOR hardware retrofit.
• the availability and cost of suitable fluid injectant
To be successful, commercial EOR schemes are generally triggered by opportunities of sufficient scale, combined
Page 27
with access to, and the cost of, a suitable injectant. This requires a good understanding of both the most appropriate
EOR mechanism for individual fields and also the subsequent geographic distribution of the common potential EOR
opportunities.
The objective of this PILOT EOR initiative is to create a clear view of the EOR prize in the UKCS, to identify
candidate EOR projects, and to begin to scope potential development solutions including identifying collaboration
opportunities between field groups. There are clear synergies with the parallel infrastructure and IOR PILOT projects
in that in most cases, successful EOR schemes will likely require both long life of facilities and more wells.
There is resurgent interest in both the UK and Norwegian sectors of the North Sea. Statoil is currently running
offshore pilots, BP and partners have sanctioned a Low Salinity development in Clair Phase 2. Polymer is being used
in Chevron’s Captain field and a polymer scheme has been sanctioned for the Schiehallion redevelopment. This
progress is driven both by a better understanding of the technology and also the higher oil price.
Through the leadership of the Pilot initiative we propose to adopt a three phased programme.
1. Engagement of industry and screening of UKCS fields for EOR potential

2. Scoping synergies between fields by geography and EOR technology
3. Initiate major options with operators, suppliers
To be successful the project must engage operators early in 2012. It is envisaged that screening and scoping
feedback will be in 4Q 2012, moving to a more focussed project stage in 2013. The second stage should
therefore be able to link to the infrastructure and wells PILOT initiatives.
The Challenge
The life of existing North Sea oil fields is being extended as a result of infrastructure investment and high oil price.
This environment should also encourage the development of beneficial EOR processes, but there are a number of
significant barriers to deployment, not least of which is relatively short remaining time to cessation of production for
many of these assets.
Only a small number of operators have involvement in EOR projects planned to be on-stream today or in the
near future, and there is limited experience of these technologies in the North Sea. It has been recognised that
progression is best achieved through a common approach to identifying candidate reservoirs, as well as an industry
wide shared understanding of both the technical and operational challenges.
DECC believe there is a significant resource prize to be accessed by EOR techniques and that shared lessons and
understanding will lead to a better description of the potential prize, as well as unlocking this potential through the
creation of collaborative projects.
The Size of the Prize
As shown in Figure 1 there is a wide range of uncertainty in the estimate of remaining EOR resource. This figure
compares the EOR volume to the whole remaining prize in the UKCS.
Page 28
Data from a DECC review in 2006 indicates approximately 1bn boe while other studies indicate potential up to
3bn boe.
The PILOT project will create a more valid statement of the prize to enable a focussed assessment of the barriers to
EOR delivery.
Objectives
• To develop a sense of urgency and energise activity in EOR/IOR projects in the UK oil industry and create a
forum for the dissemination of knowledge and experience to other operators and third parties.
• To pinpoint candidate EOR/IOR projects in a timely manner.
• To identify collaboration opportunities and synergies in the industry, both in subsurface, and in facilities.
• To identify specific barriers to EOR/IOR implementation on these candidate EOR/IOR projects
• To generate solutions to the challenges associated with retrofitting a tertiary EOR/IOR scheme, and initiate
the necessary developments in subsurface and facilities technology.
Deliverables
Short Term:
• A basin wide analysis of the potential resource prize for EOR/IOR technology, incorporating:
• Geographical location and description of reservoir to identify candidate clusters.
• Define Infrastructure & Facility challenges
- Potential facility modifications by technology, integrating weight, space and power requirements.
- Remaining life of facilities & what is useable for new long life projects
• Injectant supply: potential sources, volumes and costs
Long Term
• Generate a number of collaborative projects on UKCS, and aim to progress 4.
• Share understanding of technology between major EOR operators.
• Identify opportunities to increase EOR attractiveness by modifying the fiscal regime.
Inputs
Study will be initiated based on data and knowledge already available within DECC and the Pilot work group.
DECC have access to a field database, and LoSal screening survey, as well as on input from experienced operators,
universities and research groups.
Page 29
Access to skilled resource is a key requirement, and will be led by the PILOT EOR group.
Project Timeline
The challenge with this project is to engage the relevant parties (operators and industry) early on. Operators in
particular need to have some ownership of the scope of the project to help create ownership of the results. Therefore
the initial phase of the project will focus on engagement while at the same time doing some data analysis to provide
the incentive for operators and industry to get involved.
The second phase of the project is aimed at a more focussed review of the higher potential areas and EOR types.
Again early engagement with potential stakeholders is important. Norwegian operator participation should also be
considered to help transfer understanding and to identify synergies in technology development and in shared facility
or infrastructure outcomes.
The third phase of the project is aimed at handover of the results and creating an ongoing environment for
development of EOR potential.
Risks
Several risks to delivery have been identified:
Access to data and resource - Detailed screening requires an appropriate level of information about the UKCS
reservoirs. This information is held by many different operators, and lack of access will impair the delivery of a
valuable product. This risk has been mitigated by a DECC request for information to operators which was issued
and completed in 2011. Analysis of the responses is due to commence in early 2012. Resource within Senergy has
been identified to progress this analysis.
UK Operator commitment and alignment - Lack of engagement of key stakeholders will limit the ability of the project
to identify and progress EOR opportunities. Results of early screening should be used to demonstrate potentially
valuable opportunities to operators, and secure commitment to the screening project. In addition, timely engagement
meetings with key stakeholders will allow them to provide input early in the project helping to secure alignment.
Changing Scope - As other UK operators become engaged with the project, they may bring different perspectives
and requirements. It will be important to provide an appropriate balance between the value of changing the project
scope in order to gain alignment, and the risk that changing the scope will bring to project delivery.
Page 30
Appendix ii – Details of DECC’s EOR Screening Tool
MEMORANDUM
TO: DECC
FOR: Jonathan Thomas
FROM: Phil Sutcliffe (Senergy)
SUBJECT: SENEOR Screening Tool
DATE: 6th February 2012
This note summarises the development behind the SENEOR screening tool that is routinely used to screen the best
potential candidate EOR processes for consideration in a particular field. The tool is based on the screening criteria
used by Larry Lake and colleagues at the Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering at the University of
Texas in Austin and uses many of the same ranges. It has then been extended to devise additional criteria for the
“newer” EOR processes. The EOR processes are screened against the following parameters:-
• Depth
• Pressure
• Permeability
Page 31
• Oil viscosity
• Temperature
• Acid number
• Wettability
• Fraction of clays
• Heterogeneity factor
• Injection water salinity
For the first four parameters the screening follows quite closely the University of Texas criteria. This has then been
extended to include the other parameters, though these are not routinely applied to all the processes; they are only
applied to the relevant processes (e.g. wettability is only applied to low salinity water injection). These additional
criteria have been devised for the “newer” EOR processes based on judgement and experience. One example is
the heterogeneity factor, which assumes a zero for a completely uniform system and a 1 for a highly heterogeneous
system. This has been applied just to the polymer and bright water processes, where a high order of permeability
contrast is required for the processes to work. The way this is implemented in the tool at the moment, a subjective
judgement is required as to where on the scale between 0 and 1 is most valid for a particular reservoir description.
The screening tool makes use of a “traffic light” system. The value of each parameter is scored red, amber or green
for each process in the particular reservoir. The scores for the individual parameters are then aggregated to give an
overall red, amber or green score for each process in the particular reservoir. An overall green score is achieved for
green parameter scores and possibly a single amber score. Green scores and more than one amber score results
in an overall amber score and a single red score for any parameter results in an overall red score.
The scoring system makes use of four discrete values – lower limit, minimum value, maximum value and upper limit.
A user entered value which lies between the minimum and maximum values will score green. A user entered value
that lies outside the min/max range but still lies within the lower / upper limits will result in an amber score. A user
entered value that lies out with the lower and upper limits will result in a red score.
The first ten columns relate to rock and fluid parameters that govern the effectiveness of any given EOR process and
are given an overall score, as represented by the “traffic light system”. The final three columns relate to field maturity
and are an attempt to gauge how worthwhile is an EOR project at this point in the field life cycle. The first column
is the recovery factor to date, the second column is an estimate of the ultimate recovery factor and the final column
is simply the former divided by the latter giving an overall “field maturity” score. The “traffic light” system is applied
to both the ultimate recovery factor and also the field maturity score to produce an overall aggregate score.
An overall green light is given if the ultimate recovery factor is less than 0.7 AND the field maturity index is between
0.2 and 0.7. The rationale for this being that it is best to have some baseline recovery (either primary or secondary
recovery) against which to benchmark the tertiary recovery, though it is also best not to leave it too late or else EOR
potential will be minimised. In addition, an oil field that has an estimated final recovery factor greater than 70%,
by primary or secondary recovery, is doubtful to have much remaining EOR potential.
An example of the screening matrix is shown below.

Page 32
Appendix iii - The Low Salinity EOR Core Testing Procedures Protocol
Low Salinity Core Flooding:

Key requirements for reliable measurement
Objective:
The following key issues to be addressed when designing a core flood to evaluate low salinity flooding have been
developed from observations reported in the open literature and from cumulative experience. Mostly these are what
might be considered to be good practice to ensure core is representative of the reservoir state and hence, the low
salinity increment that can be characterised as a wettability change will also be representative.
There are exceptions where these suggestions may not be necessary but they are important for most of the laboratory
tests carried out.
Core sample preparation:
• The EOR increment is only seen in cores containing active clays.

• Core samples should be prepared in such a way as to minimise disruption to any clays. Drying the core or
soxhlet cleaning which can dry cores prior to core flooding should be avoided.
Page 33
• Using preserved and/or restored cores to obtain a representative wetting state both have merits and potential
drawbacks. These options would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis but it is important to avoid
obtaining an initial unrepresentative strongly wetting state.
Initial water saturation:
• Representative connate water saturation with the correct composition needs to be uniformly distributed in the
core.
• The EOR increment is dependent on the injectant divalent cation composition being less that the “resident”
brine and if no Swi is in place early tests showed that no low salinity EOR increment was observed.
Use of representative reservoir oil:
• If core floods are carried out with refined oil containing no polar compounds, no incremental oil is seen.
• Therefore, reservoir crude oil should be used. Using dead crude oil tends to “smear” out oil production over
time and, could, if EOR increment is low, result in no oil bank formation;
• Ideally, live reservoir oil in equilibrium with the water should be used. Using live reservoir oil would also help
to ensure the correct pH is obtained during ageing and flooding.
Injection water:
• The EOR increment is dependent on the injectant salinity being below a threshold value AND on the divalent
cation concentration being less that the “resident” brine.
• The EOR increment increases as salinity is reduced so maximum benefit will be obtained with the lowest
salinity possible without impairing permeability.
• The “operating range” should be determined by measuring permeability change with varying water
composition (swelling tests). These tests and the core test to define EOR benefit should be carried out using
combinations of the potential source waters that might be blended to obtain the low salinity water.
• Measuring single phase permeability of the core sample after the core flood is useful to confirm any
permeability change under more reservoir realistic conditions than estimated from the swelling tests.
• There is no convincing evidence that the differences in sea water and common North Sea reservoir brines
will significantly affect the relative permeability in the secondary flood. However, given that the low
salinity effect is dependent on the change in brine composition during flooding, using representative water for
the secondary flood prior to a tertiary low salinity flood is preferable.
Core flood injection rate:
• Unrepresentative flow rates should be avoided. For tertiary tests, during the high salinity this might result in an
unrealistic low remaining oil saturation and hence a low EOR benefit. The details of experimental
methodology and test interpretation would result in an inaccurate estimate of the low salinity EOR benefit but
if these the key requirements are not met, any measurement will almost certainly be incorrect.
Page 34
• Pairing a secondary and tertiary low salinity core flood provides data that can be a good consistency check.
Appendix iv - A List of the main PILOT EOR Workstream Deliverables
The SENEOR EOR Screening Process (these products are DECC Confidential)
1. The SENEOR EOR screening tool (this is an EXCEL Spreadsheet)

2. Technical Note - Estimating the EOR “Size of the Prize”, Senergy, Oct 2012
3. SENEOR Output Reports for individual oil fields (supplied to field operators by DECC)
4. Detailed Maps of EOR Potential across the North Sea and West-of-Shetland (EOR “Bubble-Maps”) for each
EOR Technology
The PILOT Low Salinity EOR Workstream
1. Pilot Low Salinity EOR Workshop Meeting Summary, 12th September 2012
2. Low Salinity EOR “State of Play” Review, Senergy, September 2012
3. Low Salinity Core Flooding Workshop, 26th November 2012 – Meeting Report
4. Low Salinity Coreflooding Protocol: Key requirements for reliable measurement, November 2012
5. Brent Group Reservoirs Petrography-Diagenesis Review in Support of Low Salinity EOR - Draft proposal,
Oil & gas UK, May 2013
6. Water Hub for Offshore Oil Platform Clusters – Presentation by Water Standard , 21 May 2013
Page 35
7. Floating Desalination Plant – Feasibility for UKCS – Report for DECC, Genesis, December 2010
8. ITF Low Salinity Facilities for Brownfields - Call for proposals, August 2013
9. ITF Low Salinity Facilities for Brownfields, 25th November 2013 – Meeting Report
The PILOT Chemical EOR Workstream
1. Pilot Chemical EOR Workshop Meeting Summary, 10th December 2012

2. Chemical EOR “State of Play” Review, Senergy, December 2012
3. Chemical EOR Alliance Workshop material, December 2013
The PILOT Miscible Gas EOR Workstream
1. Review of UKCS Miscible Flooding and Appraisal of Potential, Senergy, September 2013
2. PILOT Miscible Gas EOR Workshop, 1st October 2013 – Meeting Report
The PILOT Waterflood Performance Workstream
1. PILOT Waterflood Survey Summary of Responses, Dundas Consultants, August 2013

2. PILOT Waterflood Performance ShareFair event, 29th August 2013 – Meeting Report
Public Presentations on the PILOT EOR Workstream
1. PILOT EOR Workstream Update, Derek Cowie, DECC, presented at DEVEX 2013
2. Maximising Enhanced Oil Recovery – Time to Commit, Trevor Garlick, BP, presented at Oil & Gas UK
Business Breakfast, December 2013
Page 36
All PILOT EOR documents and reports are available by contacting Jonathan Thomas of DECC:
(Jonathan.Thomas@decc.gsi.gov.uk)
May 2014, GR-20140545-NE

PILOT EOR Work Group Brochure

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PILOT EOR Work Group Brochure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PILOT EOR Work Group

PILOT EOR Work Group

Industry Sponsor Trevor Garlick, BP

Members Jonathan Thomas, DECC

Participating Operators BP, CNR, EnQuest, Fairfield Energy, Nexen,

3. Status of PILOT EOR Work Group Activities

v. Waterflood Performance Review

4. Future Programme of Work

Figure 1: comparison of EOR opportunities versus size of New Field Developments

ii. Summary of Deliverables achieved to date

• Low Salinity water-flooding;

Specific examples of deliverables include:

• Low salinity water-flooding:

i. The Recovery Factor equation

Enhanced Oil Recovery Mechanisms

Improved Oil Recovery Factors

ii. North Sea Recovery Factors

North Sea* Recovery Factor (%)

Figure 3: Average Recovery Factor in the UKCS

Figure 4: Summary of Conventional EOR Projects by Operator

Figure 5: Summary of Production from Conventional EOR Projects by Operator

• Magnus Water Alternating Gas (WAG) flood – in operation since 2002;

• An Industry Sponsor – Trevor Garlick, BP North Sea;

1. Low Salinity Waterflood

3 Status of PILOT EOR Work Group Activities

EOR Process Estimated EOR Potential (mmstb)

Miscible Hydrocarbon flood 5400

Miscible CO2 Injection 5700

Surfactant/Polymer (Chemical EOR) 4800

Polymer (on its own) 2100

Low Salinity Waterflood 2000

Figure 6 – Total UK EOR Prize by EOR Technology

Figure 7: Example DECC EOR Field Report

EOR choke model for 1 bn barrel field

Figure 9: The top 20 EOR opportunities in UKCS (risked).

• Low Salinity Waterflood

ii. Low Salinity Water-flooding

UKCS Low Salinity “Size of the Prize”

• Protocol for Low Salinity Coreflood

• Low Salinity Clusters

Cluster Name Lead Operator Fields (in no specific

NNS Cluster TAQA Pelican

Moray Firth Cluster Nexen Clyde

Figure 13: The Low Salinity EOR “Clusters”

The three low salinity EOR field cluster groups

Figure 14: UKCS “Pyramid of Proof” for Low Salinity

1. Brent Sands Petrography Review

2. Developing facilities for implementing Low Salinity EOR on Brownfields

Current Low Salinity Water-Flooding Status (as of March 31st 2014):

iii. Chemical EOR

UKCS Chemical EOR “Size of the Prize”

• Chemical EOR Alliance review of UKCS Chemical EOR candidate fields

Current Chemical EOR Status (as of March 31st 2014):

• No further PILOT EOR activities are currently planned.

iv. Miscible Gas Injection (hydrocarbon gas and carbon dioxide)

The main conclusions from the workshop were:

The status of the one main actions arising is provided below:

Current Miscible Gas EOR Status (as of March 31st 2014):

v. Waterflood Performance Review

Key deliverables to date: Waterflood Performance interviews carried out on

North Sea Waterflood Performance Questionnaire

The principal themes that emerged are as follows:

North Sea Waterflood Best Practice “ShareFair”

• Progress technical solutions to manage Conformance / Sweep Efficiency.