SPE-180853-MS

Conceptualizing an Improved Oil Recovery Master Plan for Trinidad &

Tobago
B. Sinanan, M.O.R.E Consulting Limited; D. Evans and M. Budri, Petroleum Company of Trinidad & Tobago
Limited

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Trinidad and Tobago Section Energy Resources Conference held in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, 13–15
June 2016.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
Trinidad and Tobago has been an oil producer for over a hundred years. The land based production has
historically been the spine of the energy sector. Many changes in reservoir management philosophies, with
respect to improved oil recovery techniques (IOR), in the past, can be pegged to economic ramifications,
global market issues and technological practicality. What is for certain is that these issues will always have
a cyclical presence, but should not be a deterrent in planning the role-out of IOR projects when the market
conditions are right. During periods of low oil prices, when capital spending is usually at its lowest, is an
opportune time to reassess how to treat with IOR projects. This paper provides an insight into the planning
process which can be used as an instigating tool to create an IOR master plan for the land based acreage
of Trinidad.
Adding reserves is the ultimate objective but this can be only realized with fit-for-purpose planning and
a multidisciplinary coordination of data. The first phase, which this paper addresses, will consider a local
historical IOR review, candidate selection with reservoir and technology commentary. These activities
would form the basis to drive the first phase action items and spur a second phase of study which would
address costs, procurement, execution, KPI monitoring, safety and environment, logistics, risks, contracts,
success definitions, approvals, fiscal allowances, technology providers and team building requirements.
Conceptualizing the first phase of a master plan was conducted through data mining, report reviews,
interviews and simulation modeling. This paper answers, in brief explanations, the experiences of the past
and the methods of the future. Technology identification and application seems to be the principle guide
that the reservoir management process needs to consider in developing an IOR master plan for Trinidad’s
onshore oil fields. An onshore IOR master plan would eventually serve as a manual that strives for an
effective and structured manner of exploiting mature fields, regardless of changes in management or
management philosophies. The guidance offered within should form the basis or foundation of an eventual
master plan.
2 SPE-180853-MS

Introduction
Oil was discovered in 1876 but commercial production only began in 1908. Trinidad and Tobago has been
involved in the petroleum sector for over one hundred (100) years undertaking considerable oil and gas
exploration activity on land and in shallow water with cumulative production totaling over three (3) billion
barrels of oil as shown in Figure 1. Proven crude oil reserves in 2013 were estimated at, 728 million
barrels according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) (Ernst & Young 2013)

Figure 1—Trinidad & Tobago Oil Production Profile (Source: Ministry of Energy & Energy Industries, MOEEI)

Oil companies are focused on maximizing the recovery factor from their oilfields as well as main-
taining an economic oil rate. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to discover new oilfields. Most
of the sedimentary basins that might contain oil have already been explored and new discoveries tend to
be small. Increasing recovery factors from mature fields under primary production is therefore critical to
meet the growing energy demand. Improved oil recovery methods have been implemented to increase oil
recovery factors from known oil accumulations. IOR, or improved oil recovery, is a general term which
implies improving oil recovery by any means (Thomas 2008). IOR encompasses both secondary oil
recovery and enhanced oil recovery (EOR).
For over eighty (80) years, IOR has played a significant role in the exploitation of Trinidad & Tobago’s
oil reserves and currently it accounts for 7% of the country’s total oil production. During this period,
Trinidad & Tobago has produced approximately 320 million barrels of oil by applying conventional
secondary and enhanced oil recovery processes namely water, gas, steam, in-situ combustion, alkaline,
SPE-180853-MS 3

polymer, simultaneous water and gas, carbon dioxide, microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR), mixed
well steam drive gravity drainage (MWSDD), water alternating steam process (WASP) and downhole
electrical heaters. These processes have been predominantly applied onshore south Trinidad, where the
vast majority of the island’s oilfields exist, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2—Map of Trinidad Showing Onshore Oilfields & Applied IOR Processes. Adapted from ⴖEnergy Map of Trinidad & Tobago, 2015
Editionⴖ by Petroleum Economist, 2015

Even with the uncertainty caused by the collapse in oil prices, operators still see IOR processes as the
opportunity to arrest declining production trends. These low oil prices would trigger companies to focus
on the most effective and efficient IOR technologies. This period of low oil prices is the opportune time
to focus on the development of a master plan for the role out of IOR technologies when the economics
are more favorable. The most important aspect of a master plan is to provide a detailed road map for future
growth in the implementation of IOR projects in the land acreage.

Historical Review
In conceptualizing a master plan for IOR in Trinidad, it is important to first have an appreciation of the
various technologies that have been applied historically. As shown in Figure 3, there have been various
types of processes and technologies applied. Many of the projects attempted are no longer in existence
today but a few have remained and continue to thrive even in today’s period of low oil prices.
4 SPE-180853-MS

Figure 3—Summary of Improved Oil Recovery (IOR) Projects in Trinidad & Tobago (Source: Ministry of Energy & Energy Industries,
MOEEI)

The challenges and successes that have been derived from these experiences should serve as guidelines
in determining what processes can be appropriately applied and where they can be applied as well. A brief
historical review is presented below in an effort to develop some of these guidelines that would eventually
serve as part of a master IOR plan for Trinidad & Tobago.
Gas
In 1933, the Trinidad & Tobago Oil Company Limited (TTOC) began experimenting with the use of gas
injection in the Forest Reserve field. However, it was not until November 1945 that large scale gas
injection began.
The first recorded large scale gas injection project carried out in Trinidad & Tobago was the Upper
Cruse gas injection project at Forest Reserve. The project was able to successfully arrest the declining oil
production trend and maintain reservoir pressure.
The success of this project lead to the development of several new projects operated by the TTOC in
the Middle Cruse (1948), Forest Sands (1955), Upper Cruse (1956) and the Upper Cruse Western
Extension (1956) as well as help pique the interest of other operators at the time.
This was evident in the late 1950’s as several other gas injection projects emerged in the Fyzabad
Upper Cruse (1957), Palo Seco Forest (1957), Penal Upper Moruga (1958) as well as a gas recycling
project in a deep condensate reservoir in the Wilson field (1957).
This trend continued into the 1960’s where the total recovery from gas injection was approximately 4.5
million barrels of oil per year. The number of projects operating continued to steadily increase peaking
at thirty-two (32) active projects producing 5.4 million barrels of oil in 1969 as shown in Figure 4 below.
SPE-180853-MS 5

Figure 4 —Summary of Gas Injection Projects in Trinidad & Tobago (Source: Ministry of Energy & Energy Industries, MOEEI)

As the recovery from gas injection grew, so did the demand. As a result of this increasing demand,
many gas injection projects were eventually abandoned in the 1970’s as a readily supply of gas could not
be maintained.
Some projects were also converted to waterflooding as well as water and gas injection utilizing carbon
dioxide. All gas injection projects were eventually phased out in 1977 having produced a total of 62
million barrels of oil since it was first introduced.
Water
In November 1953, the Trinidad & Tobago Oil Company Limited introduced water injection as a means
of improved oil recovery in Trinidad & Tobago. A small pilot line drive project, targeting the steeply
dipping Gros Morne sands III, was implemented in the Guayaguayare field. Salt water from the
Guayaguayare Bay was filtered and chemically treated for injection into the project. In October 1954,
almost one (1) year since implementation, an increase in oil production was first observed. The favorable
response to water injection led to the emergence of other projects by the company.
In 1954, a pilot water injection project, using chemically treated produced water, was implemented by
the Trinidad Petroleum Development Company Limited in the Palo Seco field to determine the flood-
ability of the Upper Cruse sands. An ⬙end to end sweep method⬙ was used to create and maintain an oil
water front across the reservoir and sweep oil ahead and up dip of it to the other side of the stratigraphic
trap, in the south western region of the reservoir. A similar type project was implemented in the Quarry
field in 1960.
In 1956, owing to satisfactory response from water injection in the Guayaguayare field, the Trinidad
Oil Company Limited implemented water injection projects in the Forest Reserve field. A small 2-acre
pilot five spot pattern was implemented to target the Lower Forest sands. Water produced from wells were
chemically treated and used for re-injection. The results from the project were encouraging, producing a
6 SPE-180853-MS

cumulative of 41,000 barrels of oil at a water oil ratio (WOR) of 0.38 by 1957. It was eventually expanded
to the south west and south east by Texaco in 1960. The project was plagued by severe water channeling
caused by permeability variation and reservoir inhomogeneity as well as excessive sand production.
By 1967, these projects were eventually abandoned due to uneconomically high water cuts. In their
absence, several other projects emerged in the late 1960’s: Catshill CO 30 Sand (1967), Forest Reserve
Zone 4 and Guayaguayare Gros Morne Zone 4 (1969). The rise continued to the mid 1980’s with the
number of projects peaking at 23 and production peaking at 5.62 million barrels of oil (1981). The late
1980’s saw a reduction in the number of water injection projects. Many of the projects operating at the
time were abandoned due to high water cuts resulting in breakthroughs, inadequate water supply for
injection as well as mechanical and operational problems
The decline in water injection projects continued and presently there are four (4) active water injection
projects in onshore Trinidad & Tobago located in the Apex/Quarry, Bennett Village, Morne Diablo and
Moruga West fields. Despite the limited number of active water injection projects and historical
challenges, water injection has been an extremely successful form of improved oil recovery in Trinidad
& Tobago accounting for approximately 125 million barrels of oil since inception as shown in Figure 5

Figure 5—Summary of Water Injection Projects in Trinidad & Tobago (Source: Ministry of Energy & Energy Industries, MOEEI)

Steam
In 1962, Shell Trinidad Limited began extensive laboratory and pilot testing into the use of steam for
enhanced oil recovery in Trinidad & Tobago. They initiated the first recorded steam injection project in
the Penal field, where a small low pressure (350 psig) cyclic steam stimulation pilot project was used to
recover heavy oil from the Forest sands which were considered ⬙unproducible⬙ through conventional
production methods (Neff 1964).
SPE-180853-MS 7

Soon after, many operators were investigating the use of low and high pressure steam soak operations
as well as pilot pattern flooding in the Brighton, Forest Reserve, Fyzabad, Parrylands, Penal and Point
Fortin fields. The introduction of steam in these fields sought to help recover the heavy oil and tar sand
deposits from the Forest and Morne L’Enfer formations that were once considered ⬙unproducible⬙ using
conventional production methods because of its viscous nature (Neff 1966).
By 1965, all major operators were engaged in steam injection operations. During the early stages of
steam injection, sand entry into the wellbore was problematic and eventually was minimized by gravel
packing. The early successes of these field trials lead to the implementation of steam injection in other
areas. In 1966, British Petroleum began cyclic steam stimulation in the North Palo Seco field. The early
successes from cyclic steam stimulation led to full scale steam injection in the area. The project is
currently the largest active steam injection project in the country, having recovered more than 40% of the
original oil in place (OOIP) to date (Bainey 1995). Given the favorable response observed, similar type
projects were introduced in Guapo (1969), Central Los Bajos (1974), North Fyzabad (1978) and
Apex/Quarry (1981) (Bainey 1995).
The 1980’s saw an increase in the number of steam injection projects as well as the oil recovered. Many
of the initial cyclic steam stimulation projects conducted in the 1970’s was converted to full scale steam
injection. In 1988, steam injection peaked with injection peaking at 21.7 million barrels per annum and
oil recovery peaking at 4.9 million barrels per annum.
The decrease in oil prices in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s led a sharp decline in the number of steam
injection projects and oil production attributed to steam. Many of the existing projects were converted to
a water alternating steam process (WASP) to help reduce operation costs and improve efficiency. Some
projects were eventually reverted to steam injection and are actively producing today (Ramlal 2001).
Since then, few steam injection projects have emerged: UMLE (2004), Area ‘A’ (2010) & ‘1706’
Steamflood (2013) (M.O.R.E Consulting Limited n.d.).
Over the years, steam injection has been a major contributor to oil production in Trinidad & Tobago
and is currently the largest contributor to IOR. Since its inception in the early 1960’s steam injection has
produced over 100 million barrels of oil to date and is only second to water injection in terms of total IOR
recovery to date. At present, steam injection continues to be an important contributor to oil production in
Trinidad & Tobago, accounting for approximately 80% of total onshore IOR production. Recovery from
steam injection is projected to increase in the near future as newer areas currently under review are
developed.
8 SPE-180853-MS

Figure 6 —Summary of Steam Injection Projects in Trinidad & Tobago (Source: Ministry of Energy & Energy Industries, MOEEI)

In-Situ Combustion
In 1962, Texaco Trinidad Incorporated undertook the first experimental use of in situ combustion in
Trinidad & Tobago in Brighton. The results obtained were encouraging and in 1964 the company carried
out the first full field trial of the process. The project was aimed at exploiting the Morne L’Enfer heavy
oil sand deposits in the Vessigny, Brighton area. The project was a technical success in that ignition was
achieved, combustion was maintained and oil production was stimulated.
However, despite the promising results, the project eventually ended in 1965 owing to urgent
compressor capacity requirements elsewhere. Given the short project life and the presence of a fault which
prevented the formation of a secondary gas cap, the possibility of obtaining a higher ultimate oil recovery
and determining the true economic feasibility of the process could not be achieved (Neff 1966). However,
it did show that the recovery of heavy oil sand deposits by in-situ combustion was a viable option for the
future and it prompted further investigations in to the economic feasibility of the process.
In 1971, Texaco Trinidad Incorporated attempted another field trial of in-situ combustion aimed at
further exploiting the Morne L’Enfer heavy oil sand deposits in the Vessigny, Brighton area. Despite
successfully achieving ignition, a sustained combustion front could not be achieved because of mechanical
failures and equipment limitations and the project was eventually abandoned.
Polymer
In 1968, a pilot polymer injection project was carried out by the BP Group in the FM/UF/610/I reservoir,
Fyzabad. The project was aimed at improving the sweep efficiency of the existing waterflood project by
increasing the viscosity of the injected fluid (Ministry of Energy & Energy Industries (MOEEI) 1968).
SPE-180853-MS 9

The pilot project was promising, with reported accounts of increases in oil production in several wells.
However, due to mechanical failures and source water problems, the project was eventually abandoned in
1969 (Ministry of Energy & Energy Industries (MOEEI) 1970).
The results of the pilot polymer project showed great promise and in 1974 Trinidad Tesoro, imple-
mented another polymer flood project in the FM/UF/169/I reservoir, Fyzabad (Ministry of Energy &
Energy Industries (MOEEI) 1974). Response from the polymer injection was observed, but production
quickly declined due to a reduction in polymer injection resulting from mechanical failures and formation
plugging and was eventually abandoned.

Alkaline
In 1972, Texaco Trinidad Incorporated initiated an alkaline flood using sodium hydroxide in the FR 420
fault block, Forest Reserve to improve oil recovery from the Lower Forest sands (Ministry of Energy &
Energy Industries (MOEEI) 1972). By utilizing sodium hydroxide as an alkaline chemical agent, a
reaction would occur with the oil in place, forming surfactants to help reduce the interfacial tension
between the oil and water and hence lead to an increase in oil production. However, this did not occur and
the project was eventually abandoned.

Simultaneous Water & Gas

In 1972, Texaco Trinidad Incorporated began experimenting with the simultaneous injection of both water
and gas. Small quantities of gas and carbon dioxide were injected in Texaco’s Navette ‘007’ water
injection project in Guayaguayare and in the Lower Nariva AS-10 fault block water injection project in
Brighton (Ministry of Energy & Energy Industries (MOEEI) 1972). The injection of carbon dioxide in the
Lower Nariva AS-10 fault block water injection project had little or no impact as production continued
to decline and it was eventually phased out in 1973.
With oil production averaging 724 BOPD from the Navette ‘007’ project, Texaco were encouraged by
the results and began injecting carbon dioxide into its Upper Cruse Repressurizing Area (UCRA) and gas
into its Upper Cruse Western Extension (UCWE) water injection projects (Ministry of Energy & Energy
Industries (MOEEI) 1974). Gas and carbon dioxide injection continued into the late 1970’s but were
eventually stopped because of its limited impact on oil production as well as the increasing difficulty in
acquiring gas and carbon dioxide for re-injection.
Much of the production gained during the simultaneous injection was attributed to the water injected
and many were eventually reverted to water injection, having recovered 3.6 million barrels of oil. Figure
7 below shows a summary of the performance of the simultaneous water and gas injections projects in
Trinidad & Tobago.
10 SPE-180853-MS

Figure 7—Summary of Simultaneous Water & Gas Injection Projects in Trinidad & Tobago (Source: Ministry of Energy & Energy
Industries, MOEEI)

Carbon Dioxide
In 1972, carbon dioxide was first utilized for IOR in Trinidad & Tobago. Texaco Trinidad Incorporated
injected carbon dioxide in small quantities in its Lower Nariva AS-10 Fault Block water injection project
in Trinidad (Ministry of Energy & Energy Industries (MOEEI) 1972). The use of carbon dioxide had very
little impact on production and was phased out in 1973. In 1974, the company continued to experiment
with the use of carbon dioxide by adding small quantities in its Upper Cruse Repressurizing Area (UCRA)
water injection project (Ministry of Energy & Energy Industries (MOEEI) 1974). Very little incremental
oil production was associated to the carbon dioxide and injection was discontinued.
In 1975, the company began injecting carbon dioxide in the Upper Forest sands in the Forest Reserve
field. The project was plagued by the unavailability of a reliable source of carbon dioxide and for many
years no injection took place. Despite limited injection, response was noted in two (2) surrounding wells
but they were eventually lost due to mechanical reasons. An attempt to recover the remaining reserves by
drilling a replacement well proved unsuccessful and the project was eventually abandoned after an
incremental recovery of 7.5% was achieved (Mohammed-Singh 2004).
In 1976, Texaco expanded its carbon dioxide injection programme in Forest Reserve. Carbon dioxide
was injected intermittently in the Upper Forest formation after 17.4% of the OOIP via primary recovery,
gas injection and water injection. Despite poor injection, favorable response was noted in several offtakes
and ultimately approximately 5.8%-8.7% of the OOIP was recovered (Mohammed-Singh 2004). Given
the favorable responses observed from carbon dioxide injection, projects were initiated in 1986 in the
SPE-180853-MS 11

Upper Cruse sands in Forest Reserve and in 1990 in the AO-8 sand in Oropouche. In Forest Reserve,
approximately 2.2%-4.7% of the OOIP was recovered (Mohammed-Singh 2004). The project was
abandoned in 2004 owing to the unavailability of a reliable source of carbon dioxide for injection. In
Oropouche, carbon dioxide was injected into a secondary gas cap after 17.9% of the OOIP was recovered
through primary recovery. The project yielded approximately 3.1% OOIP before it was eventually
abandoned in 2000 as it was deemed to be technically and economically unsuccessful (Mohammed-Singh
2004).
The interest in the use of carbon dioxide to improve oil recovery was revived in 2009 by Krishna
Persad & Associates Limited. The company embarked on a small carbon dioxide huff ‘n’ puff project in
the Barrackpore farmout. The results obtained have been quite modest. Figure 8 below shows the total
performance of carbon dioxide projects in Trinidad & Tobago. The use of carbon dioxide to improve oil
recovery has not been as successful as some of the other methods, accounting for approximately 4 million
barrels of oil to date. In 2012, discussions concerning the use of carbon dioxide to improve oil recovery
were rekindled with talks of a pipeline network to transport carbon dioxide from the Point Lisas Industrial
Estate to the onshore oilfields in south Trinidad.

Figure 8 —Summary of Carbon Dioxide Projects in Trinidad & Tobago (Source: Ministry of Energy & Energy Industries, MOEEI)

Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR)

In 1989, the idea of microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR) was first introduced in Trinidad & Tobago.
Trinitoc, in collaboration with the Caribbean Industrial Research Institute (CARIRI), carried out early
experimental work into the use of indigenous microbes to enhance oil recovery from stripper wells. The
experiments focused on investigating the effects of various molasses based nutrients on the indigenous
microbes that were present in the water samples obtained from selected wells in the Barrackpore, Catshill,
12 SPE-180853-MS

Guayaguayare, Oropouche and Trinity/Inniss fields (Imbert 1992). The production of biogas, namely
carbon dioxide was identified as the primary production mechanism with small quantities of biosurfac-
tants and pH changes also present (Imbert 1992). Given the promising results, field trials were recom-
mended.
In 1997, the first of three (3) field trials was implemented by treating thirteen (13) selected stripper
wells from the Catshill, Central Los Bajos, Forest Reserve, Fyzabad, Guapo, Guayaguayare and Penal
fields, with a commercially available microbial product (Jupiter 2000). Over an eighteen (18) month
period, approximately 29,000 barrels of oil was recovered, but it was difficult to determine whether the
success was due to the commercial microbial product or the indigenous microorganisms (Jupiter 2000).
During the period 1999-2000, two (2) further field trials were attempted but the incremental oil recovered
was negligible. To date, no further field trials in MEOR have been attempted.
Water Alternating Steam Process (WASP)
In 1999, as a result of low oil prices and the relative success of the North Fyzabad Heat Scavenging Pilot
project in 1996, selected patterns in four (4) of Petrotrin’s mature steamfloods located in the Apex Quarry,
Bennett Village, Central Los Bajos and North Palo Seco fields were converted to WASP in an effort to
improve the overall business and operating efficiencies (Ramlal 2001). The patterns were selected based
on a screening criteria that considered the profitability of the steamflood in a competitive environment,
the subsurface temperature profiles of injectors and producers, water cut, steam oil ratio, cumulative steam
injected and the reservoir properties (Ramlal 2001). One (1) year after the project was implemented, an
increase in total net oil of 12% was observed, the cost to produce a barrel of oil was reduced by 33%
mainly due to the reductions in steam and workover costs (Ramlal 2001). Despite, the short term
successes, all of the projects were reverted to steamflooding except for the Apex Quarry and Bennett
Village projects.
Mixed Well Steam Drive & Drainage (MWSDD)
In 2001, New Horizon Exploration Trinidad & Tobago Limited (NHETT) in a joint venture development
with Petrotrin, attempted a mixed well steam drive and drainage (MWSDD) process in the Parrylands
Block ‘E’ area known as a ⬙Six-Pac⬙. The Six-Pac, which consisted of six (6) vertical steam injectors and
a horizontal producer located at the center, was implemented to help exploit the heavy oil deposits in the
Forest formation (Williams 2002). Despite implementing ten (10) Six-Pacs over a five (5) year period, the
results obtained from the project were far less successful than originally expected (Renwick 2013).
Plagued by frequent steam breakthroughs, caused by poor sweep efficiencies, the Six- Pac concept was
eventually abandoned as the reservoir rock and fluid properties required for success were not present in
the Forest formation (Renwick 2013).
Electrical Heating
Currently, the Petroleum Company of Trinidad & Tobago Limited (Petrotrin) is assessing the feasibility
of a pilot project utilizing downhole electrical heaters (Singh 2001). The downhole heaters, which are
based on the principles of electrical induction, are able to generate heat to reduce the viscosity of the oil
in the near wellbore region by eliminating many of the problems associated with conventional steam
injection processes such as heat losses, high water cuts, steam breakthroughs as well as any negative
environmental impacts (Madis xL Limited 2014).
Trinidad Reservoir Parameter Screening
Screening criteria has always been a contentious issue. Historically, a mixture of laboratory experiments
and worldwide field data have been used to propose ranges for parameters such as permeability, porosity,
viscosity, gravity, oil saturation, formation type, net thickness, depth and temperature. Deeper analysis of
SPE-180853-MS 13

published tables shows that many companies would have provided average values across their fields,
without specifying the sub parameters of some properties. Example: Total porosity versus Effective
porosity or which type of permeability is being quoted - Kair, Kbrine, Kabs etc. Also there is no indication
to the level of success using the bottom of the range versus the top of the range.
In Trinidad, the level of success is usually prompted by economic benchmarks. It has been found that
ranges of reservoir properties can slide along a ‘scale’ which would in turn decide favorable results or not.
In this light, it is proposed to establish a ‘Trinidad’ criterion with regards to highlighting the IOR
mechanisms to be implemented. This should be based on a plethora of field data, experience and validated
reservoir simulation.

Trinidad’s Technology Application

From the historical review of Trinidad’s IOR experiences, it is evident that some processes have been
more successful than others. Therefore, in conceptualizing a master plan for IOR in Trinidad, consider-
ation must be given to the applicability of these processes locally. Knowledge gathered through local field
experience, technical studies and implementation of IOR projects over the years have yielded vital
information as to the various IOR processes that can be applied (M.O.R.E Consulting Limited n.d.). Some
of these guidelines are presented below:

Steam
Steam injection by means of flooding or cyclic (vertical or horizontal) has been a proven means of IOR
in Trinidad’s onshore southern basin. Success has tested and proven that screening parameters in
published documents can be adjusted. Past failures that have been analyzed can be attributed to poor
operational execution, scheduling and planning which affected economic thresholds set during those
periods. More analysis must be done on steaming/hot water flooding lighter API crudes as this has
tremendous potential if other parameters as dip and permeability can offset the mobility and channeling
issues associated with sweep efficiency. SAGD (steam assisted gravity drainage) in the conventional
‘Butler’ definition/simulation approach where steam chambers are formed in very viscous crude, has no
application in Trinidad as no reservoir has been found to fit the ‘Butler’ convention. On the other hand,
thermal projects in the past and present show that oil production is assisted by gravity drainage where
formation dip above 20 degrees is apparent.

Water
Water injection has had mixed reviews in the past and today it is attracting a renewed interest. Some past
project failures were attributed to clay chemistry. Comparing the operational practices between low and
high success areas has shown that water chemistry/specification is the biggest problem. Researchers and
operators today are putting more effort into the technologies of water chemistry, filtration and pumping.
The various categories of chemical flooding, as shown in Figure 9, address the issue of mobility and hence
sweep efficiency but have always been hampered by cost and pore-volume contact. These issues are being
solved and the feasibility of modifying water to displace oil viscosities of 10 cp - 100 cp may be at the
industry’s doorstep sooner than later. A common norm, which has improved over the last 20 years, of
fracking (mostly down structure) now, accompanies waterflood operations, as forecasted production
basically depends on the volume of water that can be injected.
14 SPE-180853-MS

Figure 9 —Tree Diagram Showing IOR Methods Applicable to Trinidad & Tobago. Adapted from ⴖEnhanced Oil Recovery: An Overviewⴖ
by Thomas, S., 2008. Oil & Gas Science and Technology Rev. IFP, Vol. 63, No. 1, 9-19

Gas
The three (3) categories of gas that can be injected with success are natural gas, carbon dioxide and
nitrogen. The obvious exclusion, at this point in time, is natural gas because of its demand for power
generation and its monetary value as a feedstock in downstream operations. Carbon dioxide has been a
topic of discussion in many forums with the term ‘sequestration’ and its benefits being heavily used.
Carbon dioxide can be used through immiscible and miscible injection. It is very clear by the global results
and Trinidad’s experience that immiscible injection tallies very small incremental recovery percentage
over very long periods of time.
Many global operators find immiscible projects difficult to defend from a project economics standpoint
and an environmental point of view. However, miscible projects are the success stories, showing higher
incremental recoveries and faster paybacks. Trinidad’s issue resides in identifying the reservoirs on land
where miscibility can be controlled. This coupled with the fact that mature fields pose a leakage risk that
negates the intention of sequestration but opens the issue of pollution/contamination.
Keeping the carbon dioxide in the ground in old oil fields means wide scale old well abandonment
projects and water table studies that may put economic gain out of reach. Nitrogen is an easier option for
immiscible injection. It does not need a pipeline supply but can be extracted from the atmosphere. The
drawback is poor incremental recoveries over long periods just as carbon dioxide. Strategies in adopting
immiscible injection for improved recovery for Trinidad resides with pairing structural dips and sand
thickness along with other criteria.
Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR)
While most MEOR treatments consist solely of injecting a nutrient solution down hole, new technology
offers improved response and reliability through an additional, critical step: inoculation. Using an
innovative inoculation approach, water samples are collected from an oil reservoir and naturally occurring
microbes are screened for functional activity that will deliver the desired results. The microbe demon-
strating the greatest functionality is then selected, propagated and fermented in a live broth. The broth,
along with a customized aqueous nutrient solution, is injected into the reservoir, and the microbes begin
their work. In contrast to a nutrient-only approach, MEOR inoculation:
● Improves the odds that the desired microbial strain is being nourished by the targeted nutrients;
SPE-180853-MS 15

● Penetrates deep into the reservoir

● Ultimately results in higher recovery rates.

Enzymatic Enhanced Oil Recovery (EEOR)

EEOR has been slowly progressing as a significant IOR technique. Enzymes are a specific group of
proteins that are synthesized by living cells to work as catalysts for the many thousands of biochemical
reactions. Enzymes-proteins are introduced as an IOR method to improve inflow performance and
waterflood performance especially in oil-wet reservoirs by changing the wettability to a more water-wet
state and possibly lead to increased oil recovery. There are two (2) major considerations with regards to
the mechanism of enzyme action: substrate specificity and catalytic power. We have seen increasing
application for this technology. Petrophysical work across Trinidad fields has shown that relatively low
permeability formations (⬍100 md), with little sand control issues, tend to mimic production performance
of oil wet type reservoirs. The analysis, analogy and sub-surface application is the same elsewhere and
results have been tremendous. The basic advantages of EEOR, is it:
● Acts on wettability of rock but it is not the conventional surfactant and it is not a polymer
● Adsorbs onto grains and expels oil that is adhered to them, in effect altering capillarity and
permeability to oil
● Does not form emulsions and is insoluble with oil
● Stays active in reservoir much longer than microbes

The Concept Document

The table of contents envisioned for the Phase I conceptualization document must directly address
relevant and pertinent questions. The following is a suggested format:

Table 1:—Suggested Phase I Format for Trinidad & Tobago IOR Master Plan
16 SPE-180853-MS

Conclusions
● This paper has provided a thorough review of the IOR technologies applied to Trinidad land
reservoirs. The review showed that IOR has been a significant contributor to land oil production,
and the IOR technologies that have been successfully applied in the past.
● For Trinidad to reverse its declining land oil production, emphasis has to be placed on imple-
menting IOR onshore in a timely and cost effective manner. It is believed that IOR has the
potential of increasing its contribution of currently 7% to 15% of the total land oil production in
the near future with the implementation of new IOR projects.
● Significant technological advances have been made since many of these IOR processes were first
attempted in Trinidad. Some of the less successful processes should be re-examined with renewed
interest.
● Establishing a ‘Trinidad’ specific screening criteria is critical to the success of future projects.
Local knowledge and experiences are key inputs in creating a screening criterion to properly pair
reservoir type and IOR processes.
● Generating a concept document as discussed above, will set guidelines and direction to produce
a Phase I document. This document will identify onshore reservoirs and pair them with technology
that is relevant and practical. Completion of this document will require funding as well as the input
of local personnel specializing in the theoretical and operational aspects of IOR.
● Going forward another concept document must then be generated to support Phase II as described
in the abstract.

Nomenclature
API :American Petroleum Institute
ASP :Alkaline-Surfactant-Polymer
CAPRI :Controlled Atmospheric Pressure Resin Infusion
CARIRI :The Caribbean Industrial Research Institute
CSS :Cyclic Steam Stimulation
EEOR :Enzymatic Enhanced Oil Recovery
EIA :Energy Information Administration
EOR :Enhanced Oil Recovery
IOR :Improved Oil Recovery
JAGD :J-Well and Gravity Drainage
Kabs :Absolute Permeability
Kair :Air Permeability
Kbrine :Brine Permeability
MEOR :Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery
MOEEI :Ministry of Energy & Energy Industries
MWSDD :Mixed Well Steam Drive & Drainage
NHETT :New Horizon Exploration Trinidad & Tobago Limited
OOIP :Original Oil in Place
SAGD :Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage
SAGP :Steam and Gas Push
SW-SAGD :Single Well-Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage
THAI :Toe to Heel Air Injection
TTOC :Trinidad & Tobago Oil Company Limited
UCRA :Upper Cruse Repressurizing Area
UCWE :Upper Cruse Western Extension
SPE-180853-MS 17

VAPEX :Vapor Extraction

WASP :Water Alternating Steam Process
WOR :Water Oil Ratio
X-SAGD :Cross-Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage

Bibliography/References
Bainey, K. R., Khan, J. & Ramkhalawan, C. D. ⬙SPE 30772: Thirty (30) Years of Steamflooding: Reservoir Management
and Operational Experiences.⬙ 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Dallas, Texas: Society of
Petroleum Engineers, 1995. 739 –746.
Ernst & Young. Enhanced Oil Recovery Methods in Russia: Time is Off the Essence. UK, December 2013.
Imbert, M. P., Maharaj, U. & May, M. ⬙The Application of Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery to Trinidadian Oil Wells.⬙
in Microbial Enhancement of Oil Recovery - Proceedings of the 1992 International Conference on Microbial
Enhanced Oil Recovery, by E. T. & Woodhead, A. Premuzic, 245–263. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1992.
Jupiter, C., Maharaj, U., Mangalsingh, D., Rasool, M. G. & Singh, R. ⬙ER02: MEOR Pilot Project at Petrotrin Using
Idigenous Microorganisms.⬙ GSTT2000 SPE Conference. Port of Spain Trinidad & Tobago: Geological Society of
Trinidad & Tobago, Society of Petroleum Engineers Trinidad & Tobago, 2000.
M.O.R.E Consulting Limited. Balata Field Geotechnical Study and Field Development Plan for Tight Sands. Geoctech-
nical Study, M.O.R.E Consulting Limited, n.d.
M.O.R.E Consulting Limited. EOR Feasibility Study of the Palo Seco Acreage. Reservoir Characterization Study,
M.O.R.E Consulting Limited, n.d.
M.O.R.E Consulting Limited. EOR Simulation Study of the Oropouche Field. Reservoir Characterization Study, M.O.R.E
Consulting Limited, n.d.
M.O.R.E Consulting Limited. Moruga West EOR Simulation Study. Reservoir Characterization Study, M.O.R.E Con-
sulting Limited, n.d.
M.O.R.E Consulting Limited. Navette Field Rejuvenation and Development Project. Geotechnical Study, M.O.R.E
Consulting Limited, n.d.
M.O.R.E Consulting Limited. Petrotrin’s Forest Reserve EOR/Steamflood Simulation Study and Development Project in
the Forest andMorne L’Enfer Sands. Reservoir Characterization Study, M.O.R.E Consulting Limited, n.d.
M.O.R.E Consulting Limited. Quinam’s Shallow EOR Simulation Study. Reservoir Characterization Study, M.O.R.E
Consulting Limited, n.d.
M.O.R.E Consulting Limited. Range Resources Limited Beach Marcelle/Guayaguayare EOR Field Development and
Simulation Project. Reservoir Characterization Study, M.O.R.E Consulting Limited, n.d.
M.O.R.E Consulting Limited. Reserves Evaluation of Eight (8) Land Fields for Leasing Purposes. Reserves Report,
M.O.R.E Consulting Limited, n.d.
Madis xL Limited. ⬙Downloads: Madis xL Limited.⬙ Madis xL Limited: Enhancing Production With Induction. October
30, 2014. http://madisxl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Hand-Out-Brochure-October-30-2014.pdf.
Ministry of Energy & Energy Industries (MOEEI). Annual Administration Report for the Year 1968. Trinidad & Tobago:
Ministry of Petroleum & Mines, 1968.
Ministry of Energy & Energy Industries (MOEEI). Annual Report for the Year 1970. Trinidad & Tobago: Ministry of
Petroleum & Mines, 1970.
Ministry of Energy & Energy Industries (MOEEI). Annual Report for the Year 1972. Trinidad & Tobago: Ministry of
Petroleum & Mines, 1972.
Ministry of Energy & Energy Industries (MOEEI). Annual Report for the Year 1974. Trinidad & Tobago: Ministry of
Petroleum & Mines, 1974.
Mohammed-Singh, L. J. & Singhal, A. K. ⬙SPE 89364: Lessons From Trinidad’s CO2 Immiscible Pilot Projects
1973-2003.⬙ 2004 SPE/DOE 14th Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery. Oklahoma: Society of Petroleum Engi-
neers, 2004.
Neff, C.H. & Sass, L.C. ⬙Review of 1963 Petroleum Developments in South America and the Caribbean Area.⬙ Bulletin
of The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 1964: 1242–1298.
Neff, C.H. & Sass, L.C. ⬙Review of 1965 Petroleum Developments in South America and Caribbean Area.⬙ Bulletin of the
Amercian Association of Petroleum Geologists, 1966: 1554 –1624.
Petroleum Economist. Energy Map of Trinidad & Tobago. London, UK, 2015.
Ramlal, V. & Sono Singh, K. ⬙SPE 69905: Success of Water Alternating Steam Processe for Heavy Oil Recovery.⬙ SPE
International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium. Porlamar, Margarita Island, Venezuela: Society of
Petroleum Engineers, 2001.
18 SPE-180853-MS

Renwick, D. ⬙Land Oil Production - A Crying Shame.⬙ The Trinidad Express Newspapers, April 30, 2013.
Singh, K. ⬙SPE 69631: Evolution of Field Rejuvenation.⬙ SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2001.
Thomas, S. ⬙Enhanced Oil Recovery: An Overview.⬙ Oil & Gas Science and Technology Rev. IFP, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2008:
9 –19.
Williams, B. ⬙General Interest, Focus on Trinidad & Tobago Part Two: New Horizon Exploration Relies on Focus,
Persistence to Succeed in Innovative Trinidad Project.⬙ The Oil & Gas Journal, 2002: 24 –29.