SPE 84867
Further Evaluation of Microbial Treatment Technology for Improved Oil Production in
Bokor Field, Sarawak
Bangkong Sabut and Mat Ali Hj Salim, Petronas Carigali Sdn. Bhd., Ahmad Sharby A. Hamid and S.F. Khor, Petronas
Research & Scientific Services Sdn. Bhd.
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Improved Oil Recovery
Conference in Asia Pacific held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20–21 October 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper depicts the laboratory results as well as the well
production performances of five oil wells that were treated
with microbial technology using ‘huff & puff’ method. It is
the second microbial stimulation project in Bokor field after
the pilot project implemented in July 20001.
However, in this project the wells selected for the treatment
were not very much depleted as compared to the three pilot
wells, which were very much depleted in their production.
Several types of laboratory analyses conducted on the crude
oil samples showed encouraging results in favour of this
technology whereby there is an improvement in crude oil flow
characteristic. This is due to the degradation of heavy
molecular weight into lighter hydrocarbons upon reaction with
the microbes. Crude oil rheological study conducted on post-
treatment samples concluded an enhancement in crude oil
mobility in a majority of the wells treated. A reduction in the
emulsion stability of the crude was also observed
after treatment.
Post treatment production performance monitoring for all the
five wells have shown positive response to treatment with
better oil gained per well. Collectively, the five wells
produced an average of 111 bopd per well of incremental oil,
compared to 90 bopd per well incremental in the pilot project
over five months post treatment monitoring period.
Nonetheless, these favourable results were largely
overshadowed by the high variability between good
responding wells and the poor responding wells. Detail
explanations to describe the well responses due to treatment
were provided based on laboratory analyses results and well
production performances.
Introduction
In July 2000, the pilot project of microbial treatment was
implemented in Bokor field, Sarawak. Three strings namely,
B-1, B-2 and B-3 were treated with microbial cultured
products using ‘hulf and puff’ method. The field description,
reservoir fluid characteristics and results of the project are
well documented in the previous paper2.
In the pilot project, the average oil gain of 270 bbl/day (47%
incremental) was reported over the 5 (five) months post
microbial treatment. Analysis on produced fluids after
treatment showed that the crude oil quality was enhanced with
reduced viscosity and emulsion stability. Hydrocarbon
compositional analysis indicated that there was an increase in
the solubilisation of heavy components and breakdown of high
molecular weight into low molecular weight components.
Bacteria analysis conducted on produced water showed
negligible SRB activity in the reservoir.
The encouraging results of the pilot project has then justified
for a spin-off project and an additional 5 (five) wells from the
same reservoir in Bokor were then identified and selected for
similar treatment. However, in this project, the wells selected
for microbial treatment were not very much depleted as
compared to those 3 (three) pilot wells, where productions
have been depleted at the time of treatment.
Field Description
The Bokor field is located in the Baram Delta Area which is
about 40 kilometers offshore Lutong (Miri) at a water depth of
67 meters below msl. Stacked and laterally continuous sand-
shale sequences characterize the field stratigraphy and are
deposited in a coastal plain to fluviomarine environment.
Based on core measurements, porosities range between 15%
and 32%, while permeabilities range from 50 mD to 4000 mD.
Oil gravities range from 19o API to 22o API in the shallower
reservoirs (1500 Ft.Ss - 3000 Ft.Ss) to 37o API at the deeper
reservoir (6300 Ft. Ss). The reservoirs in the Bokor field can
be divided into two main groups, i.e. the main reservoirs (A-F)
and the deep reservoirs (H-L). In this project, the treatment
was focused on the A reservoir, which is the major reservoir of
the field.
2 SPE 84867
Feasibility Evaluation and Project Implementation
Prior to the project implementation, feasibility evaluation was
conducted in the laboratory on the crude oil samples from
Bokor field and have shown positive alteration in crude oil
characteristics due to microbial activity3,4.
Following the successful implementation of the pilot project,
the same treatment procedure was adopted for this project5.
Microbial products were injected into the 5 wells using huff
and puff method. The treatment program was designed based
upon well characteristics and treatment procedures. The type
and concentration of the microbial treatment fluid used was
similar to that applied in the previous pilot project at 60000
ppm. After treatment, the wells were shut-in for 7 days to
soak-up and allow the microbes to colonize the reservoir and
perform the desire activity to boost oil production. Since the
microbes used are all natural and non-hazardous, no special
precautions were needed during injection and handling the
produced fluids when the wells were returned to production.
Pre- Treatment
Before the treatment, FBUs were conducted to establish a
baseline for Pr, Pwf and skin. It is used as a control measures
to check the effect of microbe after treatment.
Post-treatment Performance Monitoring and Analysis
After 7 days of shut-in period the individual well production
performances were closely monitored for 6 months to evaluate
the effectiveness of the treatment. In doing so, the following
monitoring parameters were established and measured: -
Production well tests (gross rate, oil rate, watercut,
FGOR, etc.)
Tubing and casing head pressures
Sand production
Pressure gradient surveys
In order to further understand and validate the individual well
production response after treatment, a series of laboratory tests
were conducted on post-treatment wellhead crude samples
from each well. The laboratory results were then compared to
those of pre-treatment samples to identify the effects and
changes on crude oil characteristics upon treatment. Those
laboratory analyses conducted were: -
Geochemical analysis
Rhelogical analysis
Emulsion separation test
Treatment Results
Wellhead Samples Analysis Results
In this project, 3 sets of wellhead crude oil samples from each
of the treated wells were collected for laboratory analysis. The
pre-treatment samples were collected 6 weeks before injection
whereas the post-treatment samples were taken after 2 weeks
(1st post-treatment) and 24 weeks (2nd post-treatment) after
treatment respectively.
(1) Geochemical Analysis
The objective of the analysis is to determine the characteristics
of the crude oil in terms of changes in the hydrocarbon
composition and distribution after undergoing microbial
treatment. The bulk properties used to monitor the crude oil
characteristics due to treatment were API gravity and
kinematic viscosity.
Results on the API gravity analysis shown in Figure 1 revealed
that the crude oils did undergo some minor alteration after
microbial treatment. In this case, there is slight increase in the
API gravities for B-4, B-5 and B-8. However the reduction is
small, varying from 0.11 to 0.54 API. This observation is
agreed to be due to the biodegration of the crude oil in the
reservoir as reported in the feasibility studies2. In this case, the
already biodegraded crude oils were left with no light
hydrocarbons, therefore the microbes reacted with the
remaining, more resistant, higher molecular
weight hydrocarbons.
The kinematic viscosity results of the post-treatment crude oil
samples are shown in Figure 2. Significant reduction in
viscosity, particularly in B-4 was observed in 1st post-
treatment sample. The reduced viscosity is believed to be the
result of in-situ microbial activities to generate bio-solvents
and gases that are able to react and mix with the crude oil to
reduce its viscosity. Here the bio-enzymes and metabolites
produced by the microbes are able to breakdown the
hydrocarbon molecules and this has further reduced the oil
viscosity. The viscosity appeared to fall back to its original
pre-treatment level after 24 weeks of treatment. This
observation suggested that the microbial activities had
probably slowed-down and deteriorated after a certain period
of time and thereafter no longer effective in producing the
beneficial by-products.
Results of whole oil GC analysis indicated that there is a
relative increase in the lower molecular weight compounds,
particularly for samples B-4 and B-5 as depicted in Figure 3
and Figure 4 respectively. Similar results were also observed
in the crude oil samples in pilot project indicating the
breakdown of high molecular weight components by the
microbes. Nevertheless only slight changes took place in the
crude oil compositional distribution as observed in B-6 , B-7
and B-8 (results not shown).
(2) Rhelogical Analysis
Rhelogical study was conducted on crude oil samples to
investigate the flow behavior of the crude oil before and after
microbial treatment. Prior to the test, the wellhead fluid
samples were treated with demulsifier to separate the crude oil
and the water portion. The crude oil portion was then
analyzed to determine the viscosity profile as a function
of temperature.
In general, the rhelogical analysis indicated that the microbes
had improved the fluid quality and/or flow behavior of the
crude oils. However the magnitude of reduction varies for
each well. As illustrated in Figure 5, 1st post-treatment sample
of the well B-4 experienced significant reduction in dynamic
viscosity after treatment as compared to pre-treatment sample.
SPE 84867
The reduction fell in the range of 4.9 cP at 48°C (reservoir
temperature) and 17.7 cP when the temperature was gradually
reduced to 25°C (room temperature). Viscosity changes can
also can be observed for the wells B-5, B-7 and B-8 with
higher reduction observed at room temperature than at
elevated temperature. However, there is no viscosity change
observed for the well B-6 (results not shown).
(3) Emulsion Separation Test
The crude oil from the treated reservoir in Bokor field is
produced in the form of stable emulsion. With microbial
treatment, it is believed that the produced bio-surfactants can
reduce the interfacial tension and destabilize the emulsions,
hence improve oil mobility and restore emulsion induced skin
damage by removing the emulsion blockage in the reservoir.
Under controlled conditions in the laboratory, the crude
samples were allowed to separate for 7 days at both room and
reservoir temperatures. The volume of emulsion, oil and
formation water were monitored and measured against time.
Monitoring results for all the samples are summarized in Table
1. Prior to microbial treatment, the emulsion separated
partially into its phases in about 7 days and a stable emulsion
portion was still observed then after. However, the post-
treatment samples showed that the emulsified crude breakout
almost completely into oil and water in a much shorter period.
This has enhanced the fluid flowability as the separated crude
oil is less viscous as compared to the emulsified crude.
Well Production Performance
To investigate how the treated wells have respond to the
microbial treatment, the production performances in all the
treated wells were closely monitored. Based on the well tests
on production rate monitored for 6 months, an average oil gain
of 506 bpd was reported and these gains are mainly
contributed by the wells B-4 and B-5. The following is the
summary of the individual well production performances
monitored over the 6 months period.
Well B-4
Production rate and water cut trends in Figure 6 indicate a
rapid reduction in water cut in Dec 2001 before returning to
pre-treatment level at 60%. At the same time, the gross liquid
production rate increased and peak production was recorded at
2500 bpd in mid Jan 2002 before falling back to 2000 bpd
after 6-month production period. Consequently, the net oil also
increased with the increase in the gross liquid production. The
average net oil gain from the well was 346 bpd, representing
68% gain of the total oil gain.
Well B-5
Figure 7 shows that the gross liquid production remained flat
but water cut trend slightly reduced from 15% to less than
10% after treatment. Consequently, average net oil gain of 190
bpd was achieved, representing about 38% of the total gain of
the project.
3
Well B-6
The water trend was observed to increase from about 25% to
55% after treatment as shown in Figure 8. However, the gross
liquid production, apart from the initial spike after the well
resumed production, responded positively. The recorded
average net oil gain was 36 bpd, representing about 7% of the
total gain on the project.
Well-B7
Figure 9 shows that both the gross liquid and watercut trends
remained unchanged after treatment. The well was shut-in for
couples of days during its initial production time after
resuming production due to high sand production (> 300 pptb).
The well was then reopened and production resumed.
However sand out is a familiar phenomenon for this well as
the sanding issue has been reported in the past, especially
after any well treatment job. Consequently, the net oil rate
decreases below the projected baseline with an average oil
reduction of 64 bpd was recorded.
Well B-8
Figure 10 shows that both the gross liquid and watercut trends
remained unchanged with the average rate maintained at about
620 bopd after microbial treatment.
Project Evaluation – Performance Review
Collectively, the post treatment production performances
showed that the treated wells have responded positively to the
microbial treatment with overall incremental oil obtained per
well. Also, many of the parameters monitored such as oil
quality analyses have shown beneficial changes as a result of
the treatments. Based on these observations, this project can
be considered to have achieved the primary success criteria set
upon. However, the overall positive results obtained were
largely overshadowed by high variability between the good
responding wells (B-4, B-5 and B-6) and the poor responding
wells (B-7 and B-8).
Based on the post treatment well performances, the reasons for
the mixed results are hardly explained. Production gains from
some of the wells have been very substantial, and indicate that
microbial treatments were effective to boost the oil production
in some wells that are producing oil at a rate below their
potential. In other wells, the treatments had shown little effect,
if any, on oil production rate. There does not appear to be any
strong parameter that stands out as being the obvious reason
for the mixed results.
Many attempts have been made to understand and explain the
variations of well responds using microbial stimulation. It
began with identifying the quality of the microbes used during
treatment. Laboratory results of post-treatment samples were
then been diagnosed and correlated to individual well
production performance.
Before the laboratory results could be used to explain the well
responds, it is very important to ensure the microbes
performed consistently in all the wells during injection. As a
quality control, microbe samples were collected during each
well injection and analyzed for their presence and activity. The
4 SPE 84867
results of laboratory quality control analyses showed that in
terms of the microbe quality used, they have been consistent.
In fact, quality control samples taken during the treatment of
the wells B-7 and B-8 (poor responding wells) scored
approximately the same as samples taken for the treatment of
the wells B-4 and B-5 (good responding wells).
Metabolic activity of the microbes in the treated formation are
known to cause several changes in fluid properties such as
decreased emulsion stability, decreased oil viscosity and
increased API gravity. These observations were based on the
wellhead samples collected and analyzed before and after
treatment. Essentially, the results in Table 2 show that
microbial activity has occurred and caused changes in the fluid
properties in all the wells. Although the level of fluid
properties change varies for all the samples, the data indicated
that the microbes have to a certain degree altered the crude oil
properties in all the wells.
Primary mechanisms by which the microbial activity
stimulates oil production include6: -
Remove or reduce skin damage in the near-wellbore
area. This can include near-wellbore formation
damage caused by paraffin or asphaltene deposition,
emulsion blocks, or wetttability (relative
permeability) problems.
Improve flow properties (mobility) of the oil. This
improvement can include reducing oil viscosity and
lowering capillary forces. Oil in the formation also
may form an emulsion during the process of its
retrieval from the production zone where the agitation
and shearing forces are profound. Emulsion has
significantly higher viscosity than the oil. Reducing
the stability of such emulsion can in effect reduce
fluid viscosity and improves flow properties.
In the case of skin damage, only one datum point for each well
is available. Unfortunately, only pressure gradient analyses
were conducted after treatment and hence no representative
skin values were established for the wells. Nevertheless, the
plot of oil gain as a function of pre-treatment skin for all the
wells indicates a good correlation between the well responses
and skin values for good responding wells (Figure 11). This
observation was further supported by the pressure gradient
analyses that had shown significant drawdown improvement
for the good responding wells. On the other hand, the wells B-
7 and B-8 did not respond with significant increase in the oil
production rate although these two wells also have very high
skin factors, similar to those of good responding wells.
It is known that emulsion blocks can also contribute to skin
factor. Based on the emulsion stability results as shown in
Table 1, data indicates that emulsion became less stable after
treatment in all wells. This would suggest that emulsion
problems would have been mitigated to some extend.
However, there is remained unclear whether the skin has been
reduced or not completed evolved after treatment until the
post-treatment skin data becomes available.
Flowability of fluid is very much related to its viscosity. A
plot of oil gain as a function of the observed decrease in
kinematic viscosity is shown in Figure 12. As with the skin
damage, the decrease in kinematic viscosity correlates strongly
with the oil gain for the three wells that responded with
positive oil gains. These wells appeared to be good candidate
wells and they responded favorably to treatment.
Based on the above observations, the analyses that have been
conducted thus far indicated that good responding wells
correlate closely with pre-treatment skin values and observed
improvements in crude oil quality. Quick review of the sand
production history of the well B-7 showed that the well had
observed to produce sand in the past especially after well
treatment exercises. The transient sand production was again
observed instantaneously but temporary in this project when
the well resumed production after treatment. Therefore it is
believed that the fine or sand particle is the cause that
responsible for the high skin developed at the near-wellbore
area. And it is well known that such inorganic induced damage
is impossible to be removed by microbial treatment. The
reasons for the poor response of the well B-8 to microbial
treatment are not entirely clear.
Lastly, the production response of individual well after
treatment was reviewed. In the pilot project reported earlier,
the 3 treated wells responded with an average oil production
rate increase of 47% after 5 months port-treatment monitoring
period. Although the average percentage increase from the 5
treated wells in this project over the same monitoring period
was less, only 18%, more incremental oil was actually
produced. Collectively the treated 5 wells produced an average
of 111 bopd per well incremental oil, compared to 90 bopd per
well incremental oil in the pilot project.
Production profile of the treated wells in the pilot project
suggests that the wells were substantially depleted and
producing at very low rates compared to historical rates, i.e.
10 – 30% of the maximum production rate at around 900 –
1000 bopd. In such cases, response to microbial treatments
was strong, however, because of the low baseline the response
in terms of percentage was very large. After treatment,
production rates increase were around 15 – 35% of the
historical production rates.
On the other hand, the wells treated in this project are not very
much depleted at the time of treatment. These wells were
produced historically at the maximum rates similar to those
pilot wells. At the time of treatment, baseline production of
these wells was still up around 60 – 80% of the maximum rate
that these wells had historically produced. Response to the
microbial treatment in 3 of the wells was strong, with
substantial increases in oil production. Production rates after
treatment in those positively responding wells was 70 – 90%
of the historical production rates. However, because of the
higher baseline applied, the percentage gain was less
compared to the pilot wells.
SPE 84867 5

Conclusions Proceedings of the SPE Asia Pacific Improved Oil

Generally, the overall success rate for the microbial treatments Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 8-9
is favorable, based on the positive changes in oil properties October 2001.
causing an increased oil production in a majority of the wells 3. PRSS, “Feasibility Studies of Microbial EOR
treated. For more detail information and results are (MEOR) Mechanisms and Potential Pilot Application
documented in the report listed in Reference 7. In conclusion, in Bokor Field, Sarawak, Phase 1: Well/Reservoir
the salient points gathered during this project can be Data Gathering”, Report no.: PRSS-TCS-06-99-02,
summarized as follows; Nov 1999.
4. PRSS, “Feasibility Studies of Microbial EOR
Production Performance Results Mechanisms and Potential Pilot Application in Bokor
Production increase observed is mainly due to high Field, Sarawak”, Report no.: PRSS-TCS06-00-03,
gross production, reduced water cut and probably Aug 2000.
reduction in skin values. 5. PRSS, “Operational Report on Microbial Stimulation
(II) in Bokor Field, Sarawak”, Report no.: PRSS-L2-
Although the wells treated in this project are not very 02-03, Jan 2002.
much depleted at the time of treatment, most of the 6. Bryant, R.S.: “Biotechnology for Heavy Oil
wells responded positively to microbial treatment. In Recovery”, 7th UNITAR International Conference on
fact, an average of 111 bopd per well incremental oil Heavy Crude and Tar Sands, Oct 1998.
was gained from these wells, compared to 90 bopd 7. PCSB & PRSS, “Microbial Treatment of Wells in
per well incremental oil in the pilot project. Bokor Field (Final Report)”, Report no.: PRSS-L2-
02-08, Nov 2002.
Laboratory Analyses Results
Quality control of microbes showed that the activity
of the microbes were consistent during well injections
Geochemical analyses revealed that there is an
improvement in crude oil quality in B-4 and B-5 due
to degradation of heavy molecular weight into lighter
hydrocarbons by microbial activities.
Crude rheological study for post-treatment samples
showed that crude oil mobility has been enhanced for
all the crude except for samples B-6.
Emulsion separation test conducted on the wellhead
crude oil samples has shown that the emulsion
stability of the crude has been reduced after microbial
treatment.

Project Economics
The total project costs are US$ 0.94 Million.
At 505 bopd @ 6 months, P18 NPV @ 15% is
US$ 0.045 Million.
At 505 bopd @ P18, project break even after
5.5 months.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the management of
PETRONAS, PCSB, and PRSS for their kind support and
permission to submit this paper. Special thanks to all project
team members from PCSB and PRSS for their full
commitment during the implementation of the project. Lastly
many thanks to Dr. Scott Bailey of Micro-Bac Inc for his kind
effort for providing detail explanation of the well responses
after treatment.

References
1. PCSB & PRSS, “Pilot Project Microbial Enhanced Oil
Recovery (MEOR) Bokor Field, Sarawak (Final Report)”,
February 2001.
2. Karim, M.G.M, Salim, M.A.H., Zain, Z..M. and Talib,
N.N.: “Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR)
Technology in Bokor Field, Sarawak”, SPE 72125,
6 SPE 84867

Table 1: Time (day) required for the wellhead fluid samples to

separate and stabilize without using demulsifier The Well B-4: % Area normalised vs Carbon # distribution (C9 to C33)
9
Pre-treatment 1st post 2nd post
Observed days for fluids to 8

7
Wellhead fluid samples separate and stabilize

% area Normalised
6

B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8 5

4
Pre-treatment 3 1 7 1 1
3

Post-treatment 1 <1 2 <1 <1 2

0
C10 C12 C14 C16 C18 C20 C22 C24 C26 C28 C30 C32
Table 2: Summary of oil properties changes after microbial Carbon Number
treatment (1st post-treatment wellhead crude oil samples)

B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8 Figure 3: Relative carbon distribution of wellhead crude oil
Emulsion Less Stable Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes samples before and after microbial treatment (B-4)
API Gravity Reduction Yes Yes No No No
The Well B-5: % Area normalised vs Carbon # distribution (C9 to C33)
Viscosity Reduction Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9
Pre-treatment 1st post 2nd post
8

7
% area Normalised

5
API Gravity of Wellhead Crude Oil Samples
4

20.0 3

2
19.0
API Gravity

18.0 0

C10 C12 C14 C16 C18 C20 C22 C24 C26 C28 C30 C32

17.0 Carbon Number

16.0
B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8
Well Figure 4: Relative carbon distribution of wellhead crude oil
pre-treatment 1st post 2nd post
samples before and after microbial treatment (B-5)

Figure 1: API Gravity of Wellhead Crude Oil Samples before Viscosity vs. Temperature for B-4
and after microbial treatment 90

80 Pre-treatment

70
2nd post
Viscosity (cP)

Kinematic Viscosity of Wellhead Crude Oil Samples

60
22.0
21.0
50
Kinematic Viscosity

20.0 40 1st post

19.0
18.0 30
17.0 20
16.0
15.0 10
14.0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50
B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8 Temperature (C)
Well

Pre-treatment 1st post 2nd post Figure 5: Viscosity profile of wellhead crude oil samples
before and after microbial treatment (B-4)
Figure 2: Kinematic viscosity of wellhead crude oil samples
before and after microbial treatment
 bpd bpd bpd

1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000

0
500
0
500

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
SPE 84867

24-Jan-00 22-Jan-00 25-Apr-00

10-Mar-00 25-Jan-00 10-May-00
10-Apr-00 17-Apr-00
16-Jun-00
03-May-00 15-Jun-00
13-Oct-00 20-Jun-00
08-May-00
01-Mar-01 20-Feb-01
22-Jun-00 01-Mar-01 08-Mar-01

Oil Rate
Oil Rate
Oil Rate
13-Oct-00 13-Apr-01

Gross Rate
Gross Rate
Gross Rate
03-May-01
14-Mar-01 06-May-01
07-Apr-01 05-Sep-01 04-Jun-01
08-May-01 23-Sep-01 01-Jul-01

Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment
Pre-treatment

26-Sep-01 25-Sep-01
25-Jul-01
27-Sep-01
20-Sep-01 02-Oct-01
28-Sep-01
26-Sep-01 25-Oct-01 15-Oct-01
10-Oct-01 27-Oct-01 17-Oct-01
12-Oct-01 05-Dec-01 27-Nov-01
13-Oct-01 05-Dec-01
10-Dec-01
29-Nov-01 05-Dec-01
11-Dec-01 04-Jan-02
12-Dec-01
19-Jan-02 16-Jan-02
15-Jan-02
B-4 : Production Performance

26-Jan-02

B-6 : Production Performance

26-Jan-02

B-5 : Production Performance

15-Jan-02 05-Feb-02
20-Jan-02 24-Mar-02 07-Feb-02
04-Feb-02 02-Apr-02 08-Mar-02
26-Mar-02 12-Apr-02 01-Apr-02
28-Mar-02 06-May-02 05-Apr-02

Post-treatment
Post-treatment
Post-treatment

10-May-02
12-Apr-02 02-May-02
07-Jun-02
03-May-02 08-Jul-02 02-Jun-02
04-Aug-02 01-Jul-02

Figure 8: Production Performances for the well B-6 at pre & post microbial treatment
Figure 7: Production Performances for the well B-5 at pre & post microbial treatment
Figure 6: Production Performances for the well B-4 at pre & post microbial treatment
7
8 SPE 84867

B-7 : Production Performance

3000
Pre-treatment Post-treatment
2500

2000
bpd

1500

1000 Gross Rate

500
Oil Rate
0
11-May-01
23-Apr-01

24-Oct-01
27-Oct-01
15-Mar-01
13-May-00

08-Sep-01
18-Sep-01
19-Sep-01

09-Dec-01
12-Dec-01

27-May-02
13-Apr-00

24-Apr-02

31-Aug-02
15-Jun-01

11-Mar-02
26-Mar-02
07-Jul-01
13-Jan-00

19-Jan-02
25-Jun-00
13-Nov-00

15-Jun-02
Figure 9: Production Performances for the well B-7 at pre & post microbial treatment

B-8 : Production Performance

3000
Pre-treatment Post-treatment
2500

2000
bpd

1500

1000 Gross Rate

500
Oil Rate
0
12-May-01
15-Apr-01

06-Oct-01
16-Mar-01
09-May-00
22-May-00

11-Sep-01
22-Sep-01
23-Sep-01

10-Dec-01
14-Dec-01

15-May-02
14-Apr-00

16-Apr-02

10-Aug-02
03-Oct-00

13-Mar-02
06-Jul-01

14-Nov-01
17-Jan-00

13-Jan-02
14-Jan-02
20-Jan-02
14-Feb-00

20-Jun-00

08-Nov-00

11-Feb-02

15-Jun-02
18-Jul-02

Figure 10: Production Performances for the well B-8 at pre & post microbial treatment

60 60
B-4
40 40 B-4
O il G a in (% )

O il G a in ( % )

B-5

20 20 B-5

B-6 B-8 B-6

B-8
0 0
B-7
0 5 10 B-7 15 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-20 -20
Skin Decrease Kinematic Viscosity (%)

Figure 12: Oil gain as a function of decreased

Figure 11: Oil gain as a function of pre-treatment skin values kinematic viscosity