3

Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery

Hamid Rashedi1,2, Fatemeh Yazdian3,2 and Simin Naghizadeh1,2
1Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
University of Tehran, Tehran,
2Research Center for New Technologies in Life Science Engineering,

University of Tehran, Tehran,

3Department of Life Science Engineering, Faculty of Interdisciplinary New Sciences and

Technologies, University of Tehran, Tehran,

Iran

1. Introduction
Nowadays the majority of the world's energy comes from crude oil. A large proportion of
this valuable and non-renewable resource is left behind in the ground after the application
of conventional oil extraction methods. Moreover, there is a dire need to produce more
crude oil to meet the worldwide rising energy demand which illustrates the necessity of
progressing Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) processes. These methods try to overcome the
main obstacles in the way of efficient oil recovery such as the low permeability of some
reservoirs, the high viscosity of the crude oil, and high oil-water interfacial tensions that
may result in high capillary forces retaining the oil in the reservoir rock (Bubela, 1987).
Microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR) is one of the EOR techniques where bacteria and
their by-products are utilized for oil mobilization in a reservoir. In principle, MEOR is a
process that increases oil recovery through inoculation of microorganisms in a reservoir,
aiming that bacteria and their by-products cause some beneficial effects such as the
formation of stable oil-water emulsions, mobilization of residual oil as a result of reduced
interfacial tension, and diverting of injection fluids through upswept areas of the reservoir
by clogging high permeable zones. Microbial technologies are becoming accepted
worldwide as cost- effective and environmentally friendly approaches to improve oil
production (Sarker et al., 1989). This chapter provides an inclusive review on MEOR
mechanisms, its advantages over conventional EOR methods, its operational problems and
engineering challenges. Furthermore the mathematical modeling of MEOR process is also
presented.

2. Primary production
Oil exists in the small pores and in the narrow fissures and interstices within the body of the
reservoir rocks underneath the surface of the earth. The natural pressure of the reservoir
causes the oil to flow up to the surface and provide the so-called primary production, which
depends upon the internal energy and the characteristics of the reservoir rock and the
properties of the hydrocarbon fluids. In some reservoirs, which are the part of a much larger

www.intechopen.com
 Introduction to Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
72 Processes and Bioremediation of Oil-Contaminated Sites

aquifer system, a natural flow of underground waters may be the drive force (aquifer drive)
to push and displace oil. The initial reservoir pressure is usually high enough to lift the oil
up to surface; however as oil production progresses, the reservoir pressure is continually
depleted to a point in which artificial lift or pumping is required to maintain an economical
oil production rate. In other reservoirs, there may be other recovery mechanisms, such as the
expansion of dissolved gas during the pressure decline. As the reservoir pressure falls below
the bubble point during production, some of the more volatile components are released and
come out of solution to form small gas bubbles. Initially the bubbles are trapped in the pores
and then their expansion causes oil displacement (dissolved gas drive). Furthermore in
some reservoirs, as the pressure fall, gas bubbles increase in size and eventually coalesce
forming a continuous gas phase that flows towards the upper part of the reservoir forming a
gas cap. The gas cap constantly expands as the reservoir pressure continually decreases
displacing more oil (gas cap drive) to the production wells.

3. Secondary production
As the reservoir pressure declines during primary production, a critical point is reached
when it is necessary to provide external energy for the reservoir to achieve additional oil
recovery, which is termed secondary recovery. The extra energy can be introduced by
injecting gas (gas injection) and/or water (water flooding).
Gas injection is usually only applied to reservoirs which have a gas cap where gas drive
would be an efficient displacement mechanism. In Water flooding, which nowadays is one
of the most common methods of oil recovery, keeps the reservoir pressure around the
bubble point, thus preventing the pores to be blocked by dissolved gases. Also, according to
the hydrocarbon thermodynamics, at the bubble point, the oil will have its lowest viscosity.
So that, for a specific pressure gradient, the maximum amount of the oil will be displaced
under this condition. After some years of operation in a field, due to the reservoir
heterogeneity, the injected fluids (water or gas) flow preferentially along high permeable
layers that cause these fluids to by-pass oil saturated areas in the reservoir. Therefore, an
increasingly large quantity of water (or gas) rises with the oil, and by decreasing the ratio of
oil to water, eventually it becomes uneconomic to continue the process and the field must be
abandoned. In this situation, due to the low proportion of the oil production in both primary
and secondary stages (about 30%), attention will be focused on the third stage of the oil
recovery, so-called tertiary production or Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) for recovering more
oil from the existing and abandoned oil fields (Singer & Finnerty, 1984).

4. Tertiary production or Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)

Generally, tertiary or enhanced oil recovery involves the extraction of residual oil after the
primary and secondary phases of production. At this stage, modern and technically
advanced methods are employed to either modify the properties of reservoir fluids or the
reservoir rock characteristics, with the aim of gaining recovery efficiencies more than those
obtained by conventional recovery methods (primary and secondary recovery stages). This
can be achieved based on different mechanisms such as reducing the interfacial tension
between oil and water, reducing oil viscosity (thermal methods), creating miscible
displacement and increasing viscosity of the displacing fluid to be more viscous than the oil.
The applied EOR method for each reservoir depends on its specifications, and requires a

www.intechopen.com
Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery 73

great deal of rocks and fluids sampling and also laboratory investigations. In general, EOR
processes can be classified into four main categories as thermal methods, chemical methods,
miscible or solvent injection, and microbial methods.

4.1 Thermal processes

The general principle of thermal processes which are mostly used for recovery of heavy or
viscous oils is to supply the reservoir with heat energy in order to increase the oil
temperature and reduce its viscosity increasing the mobility of the oil towards production
wells. Thermal processes can be conducted by two different methods: steam flooding and
in-situ combustion. In steam flooding, steam at about 80% quality is injected into an oil
reservoir, in which by condensing the steam, its heat energy transfers to reservoir rocks and
fluids. This leads to the thermal expansion of the oil and the consequently reduction in its
viscosity, and the release of dissolved gases. Steam flooding is the most widely used EOR
method and probably the most profitable from an economic standpoint. In the in-situ
combustion method (fire flood), which is theoretically more efficient than steam flood,
burning some of the reservoir oil results in heating the reservoir and displacement of the
remaining oil to the producing wells. But generally, due to the complex operational
problems of this method, it is not widely applied.

4.2 Chemical methods

Chemical methods (chemical flooding) are claimed to have significant potential based on
successful laboratory testing, but the results in field trials have not been encouraging.
Furthermore, these methods are not yet profitable. In these processes, chemicals such as
surfactants, alkaline solutions, and polymers are added to the displacing water in order to
change the physicochemical properties of the water and the contacted oil making the
displacement process more effective. In surfactant flooding, by reducing the interfacial
tension between the oil and the displacing water and also the interfacial tension between the
oil and the rock interfaces, residual oil can be displaced and recovered. Moreover, in caustic
flooding, the reaction of the alkaline compounds with the organic acids in the oil forms in-
situ natural surfactants that lower the oil-water interfacial tension. In addition to surfactant
and alkaline flooding, polymers are used to increase the viscosity of the displacing water to
improve the oil swept efficiency.

4.3 Miscible displacement processes

The underlying principle behind miscible displacement processes is to reduce the interfacial
tension between the displacing and displaced fluids to near zero that leads to the total
miscibility of the solvent (gas) and the oil, forming a single homogeneous moving phase.
The displacing fluid (injected solvent or gas) could be carbon dioxide, nitrogen, exhaust
gases, hydrocarbon solvents, or even certain alcohols.

4.4 Microbial processes (MEOR)

Another tertiary method of oil recovery is microbial enhanced oil recovery, commonly
known as MEOR, which nowadays is becoming an important and a rapidly developed
tertiary production technology, which uses microorganisms or their metabolites to enhance
the recovery of residual oil (Banat, 1995; Xu et al., 2009).

www.intechopen.com
 Introduction to Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
74 Processes and Bioremediation of Oil-Contaminated Sites

In this method, nutrients and suitable bacteria, which can grow under the anaerobic
reservoir conditions, are injected into the reservoir. The microbial metabolic products that
include biosurfactants, biopolymers, acids, solvents, gases, and also enzymes modify the
properties of the oil and the interactions between oil, water, and the porous media, which
increase the mobility of the oil and consequently the recovery of oil especially from depleted
and marginal reservoirs; thus extending the producing life of the wells (Lazar et al., 2007;
Belyaev et al. 2004; Van et al. 2003). In MEOR process, different kinds of nutrients are
injected to the reservoirs. In some processes, a fermentable carbohydrate including molasses
is utilized as nutrient (Bass & Lappin-Scott, 1997). Some other reservoirs require inorganic
nutrients as substrates for cellular growth or as alternative electron acceptors instead of
oxygen. In another method, water containing a source of vitamins, phosphates, and electron
acceptors such as nitrate, is injected into the reservoir, so that anaerobic bacteria can grow
by using oil as the main carbon source (Sen, 2008). The microorganisms used in MEOR
methods are mostly anaerobic extremophiles, including halophiles, barophiles, and
thermophiles for their better adaptation to the oil reservoir conditions (Brown, 1992; Khire &
Khan, 1994; Bryant & Lindsey, 1996; Tango & Islam, 2002). These bacteria are usually
hydrocarbon-utilizing, non-pathogenic, and are naturally occurring in petroleum reservoirs
(Almeida et al. 2004). In the past, the microbes selected for use, had to have a maximum
growth rate at temperatures below 80ºC, however it is known that some microorganisms
can actually grow at temperatures up to 121ºC (Kashefi & Lovley, 2003). Bacillus strains
grown on glucose mineral salts medium are one of the most utilized bacteria in MEOR
technologies, specifically when oil viscosity reduction is not the primary aim of the
operation (Sen, 2008).

5. History of MEOR
MEOR was first described by Beckman in 1926. Few studies were conducted on this topic,
between 1926 and 1940 (Lazar et al., 2007). In 1944, ZoBell patented a MEOR method and
continued researching on this subject. In 1947, ZoBell initiated a new era of investigation in
petroleum microbiology with applications for oil recovery. ZoBell explained that the major
MEOR mechanisms which are responsible for oil release from porous media, involve
processes such as dissolution of inorganic carbonates by bacterial metabolites; production of
bacterial gases, which reduces the oil viscosity supporting its flow; production of surface-
active substances or wetting agents, and the high affinity of bacteria for solids (Lazar et al.,
2007). The first MEOR field test was conducted in the Lisbon field, Union County, AR, in
1954 (Yarbrough and Coty, 1983). The improvement of MEOR in field trials was based on
the injection of mixed anaerobic or facultative anaerobic bacteria such as Clostridium,
Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Arthrobacterium, Micrococcus, Peptococcus, and Mycobacterium among
others; selected on their ability to generate high quantities of gases, acids, solvents,
polymers, surfactants, and cell-biomass. More details on bacteria’s specific abilities were
reviewed by Lazar (Lazar, 1991, 1996 to 1998).
The application of MEOR as a tertiary recovery technique and a natural step to decrease
residual oil saturation has been reported (Behesht et al. 2008). A complete review (692
references) of the microbiology of petroleum was published by Van Hamme et al. (2003),
which covered a literature review up to 2002. This publication is mainly focused on the
description of the molecular-biological characteristics of the aerobic and anaerobic
hydrocarbon exploitation, with some citations on the application of the microbial action on

www.intechopen.com
Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery 75

petroleum waste, microbial oil recovery, and biosensors. The aspect of petroleum
microbiology that is perhaps the most important for MEOR is the ability of microbes to use
hydrocarbons as the carbon and energy source. Biotechnology research has improved,
which has influenced the oil industry to be more open to the evaluation of microorganisms
to enhance oil production. Both indigenous and injected microorganisms are used
depending on their adaptability to the specific reservoirs. In microbial enhanced oil recovery
(MEOR), bacteria are regularly used because they show several practical features (Nielsen et
al., 2010). Several publications state that oil recovery through microbial action takes place
due to several mechanisms as follows (Jenneman et al. 1984; Bryant et al. 1989; Chisholm et
al. 1990; Sarkar et al. 1994; Desouky et al. 1996; Delshad et al. 2002; Feng et al. 2002; Gray et
al. 2008; Nielsen et al., 2010):
Reduction of oil/water interfacial tension and modification of porous media wettability
by surfactant production and bacterial action.
Selective plugging of porous media by microorganisms and their metabolites.
Oil viscosity reduction caused by gas solution in the oil due to bacterial gas production
or degradation of long-chain saturated hydrocarbons.
Production of acids that dissolve rock improving porous media permeability.
Particularly, the two first mechanisms are believed to have the greatest effect on improving
oil recovery (Jenneman et al., 1984; Bryant et al., 1989; Chisholm et al., 1990; Sarkar et al.,
1994; Desouky et al., 1996; Delshad et al., 2002; Feng et al., 2002; Gray et al., 2008; Nielsen et
al., 2010).

6. MEOR mechanisms
Improvement of oil recovery through microbial actions can be performed through several
mechanisms such as reduction of oil-water interfacial tension and alteration of wettability
by surfactant production and bacterial presence, selective plugging by microorganisms and
their metabolites, oil viscosity reduction by gas production or degradation of long-chain
saturated hydrocarbons, and production of acids which improves absolute permeability by
dissolving minerals in the rock, however, the two first mechanisms are believed to have the
greatest impact on oil recovery (Nielsen et al., 2010). So that, microorganisms can produce
many of the same types of compounds that are used in conventional EOR processes to
mobilize oil trapped in reservoirs and the only difference between EOR and some of the
MEOR methods probably is the means by which the substances are introduced into the
reservoir (Bryant & Lockhart, 2000). Table 1 summarizes different microbial consortia, their
related metabolites and applications in MEOR (Sen, 2008).

6.1 Biosurfactant application

Chemical surfactants are hazardous and costly compounds which are not biodegradable
and can be toxic to the environment (Bordoloi et al., 2008; Suthar et al., 2008). In recent years,
the increase concern regarding environment protection has caused the development of cost-
effective bioprocesses for biosurfactant production (Morita et al., 2007; Fax & Bala, 2000;
Abalos et al., 2001). Biosurfactants are high value products that due to their superior
characteristics, such as low toxicity, ease of application, high biodegradability and tolerance
even under extreme conditions of pH, temperature, and salinity, are efficient alternatives to

www.intechopen.com
 Introduction to Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
76 Processes and Bioremediation of Oil-Contaminated Sites

Microbial
Example microbes Application in MEOR
product
Biomass Bacillus, Leuconostoc, Selective plugging and wettability
Biomass
Xanthomonas alteration
Acinetobacter, Arthrobacter, Emulsification and de-emulsification
Surfactants
Bacillus, Pseudomonas through reduction of IFT
Bacillus, Brevibacterium, Injectivity profile and viscosity
Polymers
Leuconostoc, Xanthomonas modification, selective plugging
Rock dissolution for better permeability,
Solvents Clostridium, Zymomonas, Klebsiella
oil viscosity reduction
Clostridium, Enterobacter, Mixed
Acids Permeability increase, emulsification
acidogens
Clostridium, Enterobacter Increased pressure, oil swelling, IFT and
Gases
Methanobacterium viscosity reduction
Table 1. Microorganism, their metabolites and applications in MEOR.

chemically synthesized surface-active agents with potential applications in the petroleum

industry (Banat et al., 2000; Cameotra & Makkar, 2004; Desai & Banat, 1997). Generally,
there are three major strategies for the application of biosurfactants in oil recovery (Banat,
1995): (i) injection of biosurfactant producing microorganisms into the reservoir through the
well, with subsequent multiplication of microorganisms in-situ through the reservoir rocks,
(ii) injection of selected nutrients into a reservoir, thus stimulating the growth of indigenous
biosurfactant producing microorganisms, (iii) production of biosurfactants ex-situ and their
subsequent injection into the reservoir.
Biourfactants can contribute positively to improve oil recovery by dramatically reducing
interfacial tension and also by altering the wettability of reservoir rock to displace more oil
from the capillary network. When the interfacial tension at the oil–rock interface is lowered,
the capillary forces that prevent oil from moving through rock pores are reduced. Therefore,
the detachment of oil films from rocks can occur (Dyke, 1991; Li, 2002). Although a
reduction in interfacial tension will help to mobilize the oil, a change in wettability of the
pore surfaces to a more water-wet state, will release more oil from the surfaces and
consequently can improve oil recovery. It has been estimated (Lake, 1989) that the interfacial
tension must be lowered in the range from 0.01 to 0.001 mN/m to achieve significant oil
recovery. Biosurfactants, produced anaerobically which are capable of reducing IFT to such
low values, have been reported (Brown et al. 1986).

6.2 Application of gases and solvents

Some strains of anaerobic bacteria such as clostridia can produce hydrogen, carbon dioxide,
methane, acetate, and butyrate by carbohydrates fermentation during the initial growth
phase of the fermentation process. Additional products of this microbial process are some
kinds of solvents including acetone, butanol, ethanol, isopropanol, and other solvents in
lesser amounts, produced during the stationary growth phase. In an oil reservoir, these
gaseous and liquid metabolites, which are produced in-situ, are dissolved in the crude oil
resulting in lower oil viscosity and reduction of the capillary forces contributing to oil
retention. Moreover microbes increase the pressure in the reservoir by producing gases in

www.intechopen.com
Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery 77

the pore spaces that would have been normally bypassed with conventional gas flooding
operations (Bryant & Douglas, 1988). Both gases and solvents can dissolve the carbonate
rock, thereby increasing its permeability and porosity (Bordoloi & Konwar 2008).

6.3 Clogging mechanism

One method of microbial improving oil recovery is by modifying the fluid flow through the
reservoir by shifting fluid flow from the high permeability zones in a reservoir to the
moderate or low permeability zones thus increasing the sweep efficiency by forcing the
injected water to pass through previously by-passed oil zones of the reservoir (Bryant et al.,
1998). The changes in flow pattern can be achieved by an increase in microbial cell mass
within the reservoir. Stimulating either indigenous microbial populations or injecting
microorganisms together with nutrients produce biomass and hence microbial plugging.
The injected nutrient and microbes preferentially flow into the high permeability zones of
the reservoir and as a result of cell growth, the biomass selectively plugs these zones to a
greater extent than the moderate or low permeability zones (Crawford, 1961 & 1962).
Experiments using brine-saturated sandstone cores showed that injecting nutrients and
viable bacterial cells resulted in clogging of 60-80% of the pore space (Jenneman et al., 1984).

6.4 Biopolymers application

Some water insoluble biopolymers produced by certain bacteria can increase the oil
recovery by the same mechanism of plugging by cell growth (Jack & Diblasio, 1985). In
water-flooding operations, in which water is pumped into injection wells in the reservoir in
order to force the oil up to the surface, biopolymers plug high-permeability zones to redirect
the water-flood to oil-rich zones in the reservoir and the sweep efficiency increases by
equalizing the permeability across the reservoir (Casellas et al., 1997; Yakinov et al., 1995;
Abu- Ruwaida et al., 1991)

7. MEOR advantages
The most outstanding advantages of MEOR over other EOR technologies are listed below
(Lazar, 2007):
1. The injected bacteria and nutrient are inexpensive and easy to obtain and handle in the
field.
2. MEOR processes are economically attractive for marginally producing oil fields and are
suitable alternatives before the abandonment of marginal wells.
3. Microbial cell factories need little input of energy to produce the MEOR agents.
4. Compared to other EOR technologies, less modification of the existing field
characteristics are required to implement the recovery process by MEOR technologies,
which are more cost-effective to install and more easily applied.
5. Since the injected fluids are not petrochemicals, their costs are not dependent on the
global crude oil price.
6. MEOR processes are particularly suited for carbonate oil reservoirs where some EOR
technologies cannot be applied efficiently.
7. The effects of bacterial activity within the reservoir are improved by their growth with
time, while in EOR technologies the effects of the additives tend to decrease with time
and distance from the injection well.

www.intechopen.com
 Introduction to Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
78 Processes and Bioremediation of Oil-Contaminated Sites

8. MEOR products are all biodegradable and will not be accumulated in the environment,
therefore are environmentally compatible.
9. As the substances used in chemical EOR methods are petrochemicals obtained from
petroleum feedstock after downstream processing, MEOR methods in comparison with
conventional chemical EOR methods, in which finished commercial products are
utilized for the recovery of raw materials, are more economically attractive.

8. Field trials
Microbial enhanced oil recovery methods were developed from laboratory-based studies in
the early 1980s to field applications in the 1990s (Ramkrishna, 2008). In 2010, various
countries allocated one-third of their oil recovery plans toward MEOR techniques. Although
it has been constantly observed that the effects of MEOR projects applied to one well had
positively affected oil recovery in neighboring wells, it has been recognized that several
MEOR process variables must be optimized before it develops into a practical method for
common field applications. These variables include a better description of the candidate
reservoirs, better knowledge of the biochemical and physiological characteristics of the
microbial consortia, a better handle of the controlling mechanisms, and an unambiguous
estimation of the process economics. Most of the MEOR processes leading to field trials
have been completed in the last two decades and now the knowledge has advanced from a
laboratory-based assessment of microbial processes, to field applications globally
(Ramkrishna, 2008). Portwood (1995) reported an analysis of the data based on the
information gathered from 322 MEOR projects, led the evaluation of the technical efficiency
and economics of MEOR, which is useful for forecasting treatments outcome in any given
reservoir. A collection of significant information from field trials in the USA and Romania
was considered as well in the analysis reported. Likewise, several reports discussing in-situ
uses of MEOR in field trials with analysis of the results are published elsewhere (Portwood,
1995; Clark et al., 1981; Jenneman et al., 1984; Dennis, 1998; Kleppe, 2001; Youssef et al.,
2007). For example, in an MEOR field trial in the Southeast Vassar Vertz Sand Unit salt-
containing reservoir in Oklahoma, nutrient injection motivated the growth of the indigenous
microbial populations, which reduced the effective permeability by 33% (Jenneman et al.,
1996). A biosurfactant flooding process using a very low concentration of biosurfactant,
which was produced by the Bacillus mojavensis strain JF-2, was reported to be very effective
in recovering residual oil from Berea sandstone cores (Bailey et al., 2001). Also, a new model
for enhanced oil production was developed for using ultra microbacteria generated from
indigenous reservoir microbiota through nutrient treatment (Lazar et al., 2007). The external
cell layers of such ultra microbacteria had surface-active properties. Such a microbial
scheme was successfully verified in increasing oil production in the Alton oil field in
Queensland, Australia (Sheehy, 1991 and 1992).
The activity of MEOR field experiments after 1990 is based on the foundation that successful
MEOR applications must be conducted on water floods, where a continuous water phase
facilitates the application of well stimulation procedures and the low cost of MEOR makes it
a preferable option. At the same time, specific microbial applications such as microbial
paraffin removal, microbial skin damage removal, microbial control souring and clogging,
and those based on using ultra microbacteria are potential technologies for the additional
growth of MEOR (Lazar et al., 2007). Worldwide experience in MEOR field trials during the
last 40 years has been discussed by Lazar et al., (2007).

www.intechopen.com
Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery 79

9. MEOR problems
MEOR techniques face some common problems that are outlined as follows (Lazar, 2007):
1. Injectivity lost due to microbial plugging of the wellbore—to avoid wellbore plugging,
some actions must be taken such as filtration before injection, avoid biopolymers
production, and minimize microbial adsorption to rock surface by using dormant cell
forms, spores, or ultra-micro-bacteria.
2. Dispersion or transportation of all necessary components to the target zone.
3. Optimization of the desired in-situ metabolic activity due to the effect of variables such
as pH, temperature, salinity, and pressure for any in-situ MEOR operation.
4. Isolation of microbial strains, adaptable to the extreme reservoir conditions of pH,
temperatures, pressure and salinity (Sen, 2008).
5. Low in-situ concentration of bacterial metabolites; the solution to this problem might be
the application of genetic engineering techniques (Xu & Lu, 2011).

10. Mathematical modeling

The current need of maximizing oil recovery from reservoirs has prompted the evaluation of
various Improved Oil Recovery (IOR) methods and EOR techniques, including the use of
microbial processes. MEOR is a driving force behind the efforts to come up with different
and cost-efficient recovery processes (Kianipey and Donaldson, 1986). Bryant and Lockhart,
(2002) examined the quantitative correlations between microbial activity, reservoir features,
and operating conditions such as injection rates, well spacing, and residual oil saturation
(Bryant and Lockhart, 2002). Marshall (2008) stated that a mathematical model could be
used to recognize the most important parameters and their practical relationships for the
application of MEOR.
Improvement of detailed mathematical models for MEOR is an exceptionally demanding
task, not only as a consequence of the natural difficulty of the microbes, but also because of
the diversity of physical and chemical variables that control their activities in subsurface
porous media. Specific or general aims can be foreseen for modeling by researchers. In
specific cases, it is desired to employ the models to maximize the yield and minimize the
costs of the MEOR procedure. Main physical insights of the process can be obtained from
quite simple analytical models; whereas the exact models regularly require thorough
numerical computation. The important point claimed by researchers is that modeling of
microbial reactions still faces strict limitations. Models are based on the relation between the
residence time ( res) of the bacteria in a cylindrical reaction zone of radius rm, depth h, and
porosity φ, which is:

r2h 1
res (1)
m S or
Q

Where Q is the volumetric flow rate and Sor is the residual oil saturation, and the time ┬rsd
required for the microbial reaction to produce a desired concentration creq of some metabolite.
To estimate the reaction time, Marshall (2008) posed the following assumptions: isothermal
plug flow through the reactor, nutrient consumption is first order and irreversible, and that
nutrients initial concentration is n0.

www.intechopen.com
 Introduction to Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
80 Processes and Bioremediation of Oil-Contaminated Sites

The physical model on which the above argument is based is very basic, but the analysis
draws interest to the important issue of reaction kinetics that has to be addressed by more
complex treatments. It is possible to write a balanced chemical equation for the production
of a given metabolite, but the rate of production can only be determined experimentally,
and must be given by actual bacterial growth velocities (Marshall, 2008).
Several mathematical models were developed to simulate MEOR processes. The models
usually included multidimensional flow of the multiphase fluid consisting of water and oil
in porous media along with specific equations for adsorption and diffusion of metabolites,
microorganisms, and nutrients (Islam, 1990; Behesht et al., 2008). The main
multidimensional transport equations were combined with equations of different microbial
features such as growth, death, and nutrient consumption.
The majority of the published mathematical models for performance of bacteria and viruses
in porous media were initially stimulated by problems arising in water filtration and
wastewater treatment (Corapcioglu and Haridas, 1984; Stevik et al., 2004). Such models have
three major parts: Transport Properties, Conservation Law (Local Equilibrium, Breakdown
of Filtration Theory, and Physical Straining), Biofilm Clogging and Related Phenomena such
as the theoretical description of the biological clogging of pores. The clogging agent is
coupled nonlinearly not only to the growth of the bacteria, but moreover to the flux of
nutrients transported by the fluid. The origin of the earliest approaches to the development
of models of this phenomenon is the idea that medium can be characterized as a bundle of
independent capillary tubes (Marshall, 2008).
The first is an approximate of the transport properties of the bacteria in the fluid. In the
treatment given by Corapcioglu and Haridas (1984), bacteria diffusivity was achieved by
function of the Stokes-Einstein equation, which effectively treats the microbe as if it were a
particle that is undergoing Brownian movement.
The second is conservation law. If chemotaxis is neglected, the concentration of bacteria in
the fluid phase of a small constituent of the porous medium is defined by a partial
differential equation expressing the rate of change of the concentration as the sum of
terms resulting from diffusion (or dispersion), advection, and transfer between the fluid
phase and the surface of the solid grains. Numerical solution of systems of equations of
this general type is at the heart of computational hydrology and simulation of oil wells.
The other parts of the model that must be considered are biofilm clogging and related
phenomena.
For analysis of MEOR, it is interesting to present the characteristics of the water phase
saturation profiles and the corresponding oil recovery curves. A mathematical model for
MEOR was considered by Islam (1990), where bacterial growth resulted in plugging,
decrease of oil viscosity, reduction of interfacial tension between oil and water, and gas
production. In the model, interfacial tension was correlated with bacteria concentration to
avoid adding another variable to account for surfactant production. In this model, it was
clear that the reduction of surface tension between water and oil was the most important
factor on the improvement of oil recovery (Islam, 1990).

www.intechopen.com
Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery 81

Chang et al., (1991) improved a mathematical model depicting adsorption, growth and
decomposition of microorganisms, consumption of nutrients, and other physical
procedures. Due to microorganisms’ organic build up, porosity and permeability were
altered. Moreover, the model showed that the oil recovery increased by microbial plugging
(Chang et al., 1991). Additional development of MEOR mathematical models is essential
because none of the present models account for all of the variables involved in microbial
growth. For instance, wettability modification and changes in interfacial tension (IFT) are
two vital variables of microbial growth which are ignored in previous models. Moreover,
some important physico-chemical features such as surfactant and polymer adsorption, and
the effects of salinity and polymer viscosity on the mobility of the aqueous phase are
ignored in these models. Finally, all of them are limited to transport in porous media.
Simulation efforts to consider the effect of various parameters on the efficiency of MEOR
using the current deficient models may not lead to successful results in the field (Behesht et
al, 2008).

Surfactant production and adsorption, salinity effects, adsorption of microorganisms,

reduction of interfacial tension, and wettability changes were taken into account in a MEOR
model presented by Behesht et al. (2008). In this work, polymer was also injected in order to
reduce permeability of the porous media and to increase the viscosity of the displacing
water. The use of these two techniques resulted in an increase of oil recovery. Behesht et al.,
(2008) developed a three-dimensional multi-component transport model in a two-phase oil-
water system. The model accounted for the effects of dispersion, convection, injection,
growth and death of microbes, and accumulation of microbial debris. For the first time,
effects of both porous media wettability modification from oil wet to water wet and the
reduction of interfacial tension (IFT) on the relative permeability and capillary pressure
curves were included in a MEOR simulation model. Transport equations were considered
for the bacteria, nutrients, and metabolite in the matrix, reduced interfacial tension on phase
trapping, surfactant and polymer adsorption, and the effect of polymer viscosity on mobility
of the aqueous phase. The model was used to simulate the effects of parameters such as:
flooding time schedules, washing water flow rate, substrate concentration, permeability,
polymer and salinity concentration on the recovery of original oil in place (OOIP) in a
hypothetical reservoir (Behesht et al., 2008).

Several methods were used to model relative permeability changes as a function of

interfacial tension. Nielsen et al. (2010) used a correlation between surfactant concentration
and interfacial tension (Nielsen et al., 2010). Usually, a reduction of interfacial tension
decreases residual oil saturation affecting the relative permeability curve endpoints, but it
also straightens the relative permeability curves approaching full miscibility (Coats, 1980;
Al-Wahaibi et al., 2006). Nielsen et al. (2010) investigated three methods: (1) capillary
number and normalized residual oil saturation correlations; (2) Coats interpolation between
relative permeability curves; and (3) interpolation of factors of Corey type relative
permeability curves (Coats, 1980; Green and Willhite, 1998). They recommend the third
method, in which more parameters can be estimated in order to obtain a better fit with
experimental data. Moreover, different distributions of surfactant between phases, the effect
of bacterial growth rate, and the effect of injection concentrations of substrate and bacteria
were considered as well. The saturation curves with specific MEOR characteristics were

www.intechopen.com
 Introduction to Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
82 Processes and Bioremediation of Oil-Contaminated Sites

stated mutually with the oil recovery curves. Nielsen et al. (2010) developed a mathematical
model describing the process of microbial enhanced oil recovery. The one-dimensional
isothermal model comprised dislocation of oil by water containing bacteria and substrate as
energy source. The bioproducts were both bacteria and metabolites. In the situation of
MEOR modeling, a novel approach was partitioning of metabolites between the oil and the
water phases. The partitioning was considered by a distribution coefficient. The portion of
metabolite transferred to the oil phase was termed as vanishing so that the total amount of
metabolite in the water phase was reduced. The metabolite produced was biosurfactant that
reduced the oil–water interfacial tension, which resulted in oil mobilization. Different
methods of incorporating surfactant-induced reduction of interfacial tension into models
were also investigated. Reactive transport models were used to describe convection,
bacterial growth, substrate consumption, and metabolite production, where the metabolite
was a surfactant. The model was based on two-phase flow comprising five components; oil,
water, bacteria, substrate, and metabolite/surfactant. The water phase comprised water,
bacteria, substrate, and metabolite. The following assumptions were used in this model
(Nielsen et al. 2010):

Fluid flow was one-dimensional.

The microorganisms were anaerobic bacteria, and they were injected into the reservoir.
It was assumed that there was no local microorganism in the reservoir.
Bacterial growth rate could be explained by Monod-kinetics being independent of
temperature, pressure, pH, and salinity (Nielsen et al. 2003).
The major metabolite was surfactant and other possible metabolites were considered
insignificant.
Surfactant could be distributed between both phases (water and oil). Surfactant sharing
was instantaneous and the distribution kinetics was neglected.
Adsorption of any component was neglected
No substrate and metabolite adsorption on pore walls.
Partial flow function was exploited, because capillary pressure was considered
negligible.
Negligible diffusion and chemotaxis.
Isothermal method with incompressible flow.
No volume change on mixing.
Therefore, the transport equation for each component was given as (Nielsen et al. 2010):
np
np
wij . j .s j v wij . j . f j qi (2)
t j 1 x j 1

where j is the phase, i is the component, np is the number of phases, ωij are component mass
fractions in phase j, v is the linear velocity, ρj is the phase density, fj is the fractional flow
function of phase j, x is the length variable, t is the time, φ is the porosity, and qi is the source
expression for component i also comprising the reaction terms.
Growth rate expressions for microorganisms are regularly the Monod- expression based on
the Michaelis–Menton enzyme kinetics and Langmuir expressions for heterogeneous
catalysis (Islam, 1990; Chang et al., 1991; Nielsen et al., 2003).

www.intechopen.com
Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery 83

The relative permeability curves for oil kro and water krw, and the Corey correlations were
used (Lake, 1989). Moreover, the capillary number Nca (ratio of viscous to capillary forces)
are applied, which depend on changes in interfacial tension ┫.

11. Challenges in MEOR

In spite of the various advantages of MEOR over other EOR methods, MEOR has not gained
credibility in the oil industry because the value of MEOR can only be determined by the
results of field trials. MEOR literature is mainly based on laboratory data and a shortage of
field trials can be seen in this field. Also, because of reservoir heterogeneity, it is so difficult
to extrapolate laboratory results into what is to be expected in the field or predict what will
happen in a new field based on the results obtained from another field. Furthermore, few of
the tests explain the mechanisms of oil recovery or offer a reasonable analysis of the
application outcome. In addition, as Moses (1991) pointed out, the follow-up time of most
field trials was not long enough to determine the long-term effects of the process. Finally,
the precise mechanisms of in-situ MEOR operations are still unclear. Thus more research is
required in this field (Xu & Lu, 2011).

12. Conclusion
MEOR is a cost effective and eco-friendly process that shows several advantages over other
EOR processes. MEOR has great potential to become a viable alternative to the traditional
EOR chemical methods. Although MEOR is a highly attractive method in the field of oil
recovery, there are still uncertainties in meeting the engineering design criteria required by
the application of microbial processes in the field, which has led to its current low
acceptance by the oil industry. Therefore, a better understanding of the MEOR processes
and its mechanisms from an engineering standpoint are required; as well as the systematic
evaluation of the major factors affecting this process such as reservoir characteristics and
microbial consortia, to improve the process efficiency.

13. References
Abalos, A., Pinazo, A., Infante, M.R., Casals, M., García, F., & Manresa, A. (2001).
Physicochemical and antimicrobial properties of new rhamnolipids produced by
Pseudomonas aeruginosa AT10 from soybean oil refinery wastes. Langmuir, Vol. 17,
pp. (1367–1371).
Abu-Ruwaida, A.S., Banat, I.M., Haditirto, S., Salem, A., & Kadri, M. (1991). Isolation of
biosurfactant producing bacteria. Product characterization and evaluation. Acta
Biotechnol., Vol. 11, pp. (315–324)
Almeida, P.F., Moreira, R.S., Almeida, R.C.C., Guimaraes, A.K., Carvalho, A.S., & Quintella,
C. (2004). Selection and application of microorganisms to improve oil recovery.
Eng. Life Sci., Vol. 4, pp. (319–325).
Al-Wahaibi, Y.M., Grattoni, C.A., & Muggeridge, A.H. (2006). Drainage and imbibition
relative permeabilities at near miscible conditions. J. Petroleum Sci. Eng., Vol. 53, pp.
(239–253).

www.intechopen.com
 Introduction to Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
84 Processes and Bioremediation of Oil-Contaminated Sites

Bailey, SA., Kenney, TM., & Schneider D. (2001). Microbial enhanced oil recovery: diverse
successful applications of biotechnology in the oil field. SPE J., Paper no. 72129.
Banat, I.M. (1995). Biosurfactants production and possible uses in microbial enhanced oil
recovery and oil pollution remediation: a review. Biores. Technol., Vol. 51, pp. (1-12)
Banat, I.M., Makkar, R.S., & Cameotra, S.S., (2000). Potential commercial applications of
microbial surfactants. Appl. Environ. Microb., Vol. 53, pp. (495–508).
Bass, C., & Lappin-Scott, H. (1997). The bad guys and the good guys in petroleum
microbiology. Oilfield Rev., pp. (17–25).
Behesht, M., Roostaazad, R., Farhadpour, F., & Pishvaei M.R. (2008). Model development for
meor process in conventional non-fractured reservoirs and investigation of
physico-chemical parameter effects. Chem. Eng. Technol., Vol. 7, pp. (953–963).
Belyaev, S.S., Borzenkov, I.A., Nazina, T.N., Rozanova, E.P., Glumov, I.F., & Ibatullin, R.R.
(2004). Use of microorganisms in the biotechnology for the enhancement of oil
recovery. Microbiol (Maik Nauka Interperiodica), Vol. 73, pp. (590–598).
Bordoloi, N.K., & Konwar, B.K. (2008). Microbial surfactant-enhanced mineral oil recovery
under laboratory conditions. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, Vol. 63, pp. (73–
82).
Brown, F.G., (1992). Microbes: the practical and environmental safe solution to production
problems enhanced production and EOR. SPE J, Paper No. 23955.
Brown, M.J., Moses, V., Robinson, J.P., & Springham, D.G. (1986). Microbial enhanced oil
recovery: Progress and Prospects. Critical Rev. Biotechnol., Vol. 3, pp. (159-197).
Bryant, R., Burchfield, T., Chase, K., Bertus, K., & Stepp A. (1989). Optimization of oil
mobilization, transport of microbes and metabolites, and effects of additives. In:
SPE 19686 presented in 64th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers held in San Antonio, TX, pp. (567–578).
Bryant, S.L., & Lockhart, T.P. (2002). Reservoir engineering analysis of microbial enhanced
recovery [Paper SPE 79179]. SPE Reservoir Engineering and Evaluation, pp. (365-
374).
Bryant, R.S., & Douglas, J. (1988). Evaluation of Microbial Systems in Porous Media for EOR.
Res. Eng., pp. (489–495).
Bryant, R.S., Bailey, S.A., Stepp, A.K., Evans, D.B., Parli, J.A., & Kolhatkar, A.R. (1998).
Biotechnology for Heavy Oil Recovery. BDM Petroleum Technology, Bartlesville,
Oklahoma, USA, No. 110.
Bryant, S., & Lockhart, T.P., (2000). Reservoir engineering analysis of microbial enhanced oil
recovery. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, TX.
Bryant, S.R., & Lindsey, R.P. (1996). World-wide applications of microbial technology for
improving oil recovery. SPE J, Paper No. 35356.
Bubela, B. (1987). A comparison of strategies for enhanced oil recovery using in situ and ex
situ produced biosurfactants, Surfact. Sci. Ser., Vol. 25, pp. (143–161).
Cameotra, S.S., & Makkar R.S., (2004). Recent applications of biosurfactants as biological and
immunological molecules. Curr. Opin. Microbiol., Vol. 7, pp. (262–266).

www.intechopen.com
Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery 85

Casellas, M., Grifoll, M., Bayona, J.M., & Solanas, A.M. (1997). New metabolites in the
degradation of fluorene by Arthrobacter sp. strain F101. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.,
Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. (819–826).
Chang, M.M., Chung, F., Bryant, R., Gao, H., & Burchfield T. (1991). Modelling and
laboratory investigation of microbial transport phenomena in porous media. In:
SPE 22845 presented at 66thAnnual Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE in
Dallas Texas.
Chisholm, J., Kashikar, S., Knapp, R., McInerney, M., & Menzie D. (1990). Microbial
enhanced oil recovery: Interfacial tension and gas-induced relative permeability
effects. In: 65th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers on September 23–26, New Orleans, LA.
Clark, JB., Munnecke, DM., & Jenneman, GE. (1981). In situ microbial enhancement of oil
production. Dev. Ind. Microbiol., Vol. 22, pp. (695–701).
Coats, K.H. (1980). An equation of state compositional model. Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Vol. 20, pp.
(363–376).
Corapcioglu, M. Y., & Haridas A. (1984). Transport and fate of microorganisms in porous
media: a theoretical investigation. J. Hydrology, 72, pp. (149-169).
Crawford, P.B. (1961). Possible Bacterial Collection of Stratification Problems. Producer's
Monthly, Vol. 25, pp. (10–11).
Crawford, P.B. (1962). Water Technology: Continual Changes in Bacterial Stratification
Rectification. Producer's Monthly, Vol. 26, pp. (12–14).
Delshad, M., Asakawa, K., Pope, G.A., & Sepehrnoori, K. (2002). Simulations of chemical
and microbial enhanced oil recovery methods. In: SPE 75237 at SPE/DOE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Dennis, DM. (1998). Microbial production stimulation. Rocky mountain oilfield testing
center project test results. DOE: Website: /http://www.rmotc.com/pdfs/
97pt25.pdfS.
Desai, J.D., & Banat, I.M., (1997). Microbial production of surfactants and their commercial
potential. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev., Vol. 61, pp. (47–64).
Desouky, S.M., Abdel-Daim, M.M., Sayyouh, M.H., & Dahab A.S. (1996). Modeling and
laboratory investigation of microbial enhanced oil recovery. J. Petroleum Sci. Eng.,
Vol. 15, pp. (309–320).
Dyke, M.I., Lee, H., & Trevors, J.T. (1991), Applications of microbial surfactants. Biotech.
Adv., Vol. 9, pp. (241–252).
Feng, Q., Zhou, J., Chen, Z., Wang, X., Ni, F., & Yang, H. (2002). Study on EOR mechanisms
by microbial flooding. In: 26th Annual SPE International Technical Conference and
Exhibition on Abuja, Nigeria.
Fox, S.L., & Bala, G.A. (2000). Production of surfactant from Bacillus subtilis ATCC 21332
using potato substrates. Bioresour. Technol., Vol. 75, pp. (235–240).
Gray, M.R., Yeung, A., Foght, J.M., & Yarranton, H.W. (2008). Potential microbial enhanced
oil recovery processes: a critical analysis. In: SPE 114676 at the 2008 Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA.
Green, D.W., & Willhite, G.P. (1998). Enhanced Oil Recovery. 6. SPE Textbook Series.

www.intechopen.com
 Introduction to Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
86 Processes and Bioremediation of Oil-Contaminated Sites

Islam, M. (1990). Mathematical modeling of microbial enhanced oil recovery. In: 65th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers
on September 23–26, New Orleans, LA.
Jack, T.R., & Diblasio, E. (1985). Selective Plugging for Heavy Oil Recovery. Int. Biores. J.,
Vol. 1, pp. (205–212).
Jenneman, G., Knapp, R., McInerney, M., Menzie, D., & Revus D. (1984). Experimental
studies of in-situ microbial enhanced recovery. Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Vol. 24, pp. (33–38).
Jenneman, GE., Moffitt, PD., & Young, GR. (1996). Application of a microbial selective
plugging process at the North Burbank Unit: Prepilot tests. SPE Prod Facil., pp.
(11–17).
Jenneman, G.E., Knapp, R.M., Mclnerney, M.J., Menzie, D.E., & Revus, D.E. (1984).
Experimental studies of in situ microbial enhanced oil recovery, Soc. Petr. Engin. J.,
pp. (33-37).
Kashefi, K., & Lovley, D.R. (2003). Extending the upper temperature limit for life. Science,
pp. (301-934).
Khire, J.M., & Khan, M.I. (1994). Microbially enhanced oil recovery (MEOR) Part 2: Microbes
and subsurface environment for MEOR. Enz. Microb. Technol., Vol. 16, pp. (258–
259).
Kianipey, S.A., & Donaldson E C. (1986). 61st Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, LA.
Kleppe, TS. (2001). Enhanced oil recovery—an analysis of the potential for EOR from known
fields in the United States 1976–2000. USA: National Petroleum Council Report.
Lake, L.W. (1989). Enhanced Oil Recovery. Prentice-Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.
Lake, L.W. (1989). Enhanced oil recovery. Peactice Hall, Englewood cliffs, New jerky,
Lazar, I. (1991). MEOR field trials carried out over the world during the past 35 years. In:
Microbial Enhancement of Oil Recovery. Recent Adv., Donaldson, E. C. (Ed.).
Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, pp. (485–530).
Lazar, I. (1996). Microbial systems for enhancement of oil recovery used in Romanian oil
fields. In: Mineral Proc. Extractive Metal. Rev., Vol. 19, pp. (379–393).
Lazar, I. (1997). International and Romanian experience in using the suitable microbial
systems for residual oil release from porous media. Annual Sci. Session Institute Bio.,
Bucharest, pp. (225–234).
Lazar, I. (1998). International MEOR applications for marginal wells. Pakistan J. Hydrocarbon
Res., Vol. 10, pp. (11–30).
Lazar, I., Petrisor, I.G., & Yen, T.F. (2007). Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR). Petrol.
SciTechnol., Vol. 25, No. 11, pp. (1353-1366).
Li, Q., Kanga, C., Wang, H., Liu, Ch., & Zhang, Ch. (2002). Application of microbial
enhanced oil recovery technique to Daqing Oilfield. Biochem. Eng. J., Vol. 11, pp.
(197–199).
Marshall, S.L. (2008). Fundamental aspects of microbial enhanced oil recovery: A Literature
Survey, CSIRO Land and Water Floreat, Western Australia, pp. (1-42).
Morita, T., Konishi, M., Fukuoka, T., Imura, T., & Kitamoto T. (2007). Microbial conversion
of glycerol into glycolipid biosurfactants, mannosylerythritol lipids, by a

www.intechopen.com
Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery 87

basidiomycete yeast Pseudozyma antarctica JCM 10317. J. Biosci. Bioeng., Vol. 104, pp. (78–
81).
Moses, V. (1991). MEOR in the field: why so little? Microbial Enhancement of Oil Recovery.
Recent Adv., pp. (21–28).
Nielsen, S.M., Shapiro, A.A., Michelsen, M.L., & Stenby, E.H. (2010). 1D Simulations for
Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery with Metabolite Partitioning. Transp. Porous
Med., Vol. 85, pp. (785–802).
Portwood, JT. (1995). A commercial microbial enhanced oil recovery technology: evaluation
of 322 projects. SPE J., Paper no. 29518.
Ramkrishna S. (2008). Biotechnology in petroleum recovery: The microbial EOR. Prog.
Energy Comb. Sci., Vol. 34, pp. (714– 724).
Sarkar, A., Georgiou, G., & Sharma M. (1994). Transport of bacteria in porous media: II. A
model for convective transport and growth. Biotechnol. Bioeng., Vol. 44, pp. (499–
508).
Sarker, A.K., Goursaud, J.C., Sharma, M.M., & Georgiou, G. (1989). A critical evaluation of
MEOR processes. In Situ 13, pp. (207–238)
Sheehy, A. J. (1991). Microbial physiology and enhancement of oil recovery recent advances.
In: Develop. Petrol. Sci., 31, Donaldson, E. C. (Ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. (37–
44).
Sheehy, J. A. (1992). Recovery of Oil from Oil Reservoirs. U.S. Patent No. 5.083.610.
Singer, M.E., & Finnerty, W.R. (1984). Microbial metabolism of straight and branched
alkanes. Petrol. Microbiol., ecl. R. Atlas., Collier MacMillan, New York, pp. (1-59).
Stevik, Tor K., Aa, K., Ausland, G. & Fredrik, H.J. (2004). Retention and removal of
pathogenic bacteria in wastewater percolating through porous media: a review.
Water Res., Vol. 38, pp. (1355-1367).
Suthar, H., Hingurao, K., Desai, A., & Nerurkar, A. (2008). Evaluation of bioemulsifier
mediated Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery using sand pack column. J. Microbiol.
Methods, Vol. 75, pp. (225–230).
Tango, M.S.A., & Islam, M.R. (2002). Potential of extremophiles for biotechnological and
petroleum applications. Energy Sources, Vol. 24, pp. (543–59).
Van, H.J.D., Singh, A., & Ward, O.P. (2003). Recent advances in petroleum microbiology.
Microbiol Mol Biol Rev., Vol. 67, No. 4, pp. (503–549).
Xu, T., Chen, Ch., Liu, Ch., Zhang, Sh., Wu, Y., & Zhang, P. (2009). A novel way to enhance
the oil recovery ratio by Streptococcus sp. BT-003. J. Basic Microbiol., Vol. 49, pp.
(477-481).
Xu, Y., & Lu, M. (2011). Microbially enhanced oil recovery at simulated reservoir conditions
by use of engineered bacteria. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng., Vol. 78, pp. (233–238).
Yakinov, M.M., Timmis, K.N. Wray, V., & Fredrickson, H.L. (1995). Characterization of a
new lipopeptide surfactant produced by thermo tolerant and halotolerant
subsurface Bacillus licheniformis BA50. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.,Vol. 61, pp. (1706–
1713).
Yarbrough, H. F., & Coty, F. V. (1983). Microbially enhancement oil recovery from the
Upper Cretaceous Nacafoch formation Union County, Arkansas. Proceedings of

www.intechopen.com
 Introduction to Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
88 Processes and Bioremediation of Oil-Contaminated Sites

1982 InternationalConference on MEOR, Donaldson, E. C. and Benett Clark, J. B.

(Eds.), Afton, Oklahoma, pp. (149–153).
Youssef, N., Simpson, DR., Duncan, KE., McInerney, MJ., Folmsbee, M., & Fincher T. (2007).
In situ biosurfactant production by Bacillus strains injected into a limestone
petroleum reservoir. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., Vol. 73, pp. (1239–1247).
Zobell, C.E. (1947). Bacterial release of oil from sedimentary materials. Oil Gas J., Vol. 2: pp.
(62–65).

www.intechopen.com
 Introduction to Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Processes and
Bioremediation of Oil-Contaminated Sites
Edited by Dr. Laura Romero-Zerón

ISBN 978-953-51-0629-6
Hard cover, 318 pages
Publisher InTech
Published online 23, May, 2012
Published in print edition May, 2012

This book offers practical concepts of EOR processes and summarizes the fundamentals of bioremediation of
oil-contaminated sites. The first section presents a simplified description of EOR processes to boost the
recovery of oil or to displace and produce the significant amounts of oil left behind in the reservoir during or
after the course of any primary and secondary recovery process; it highlights the emerging EOR technological
trends and the areas that need research and development; while the second section focuses on the use of
biotechnology to remediate the inevitable environmental footprint of crude oil production; such is the case of
accidental oil spills in marine, river, and land environments. The readers will gain useful and practical insights
in these fields.

How to reference
In order to correctly reference this scholarly work, feel free to copy and paste the following:

Hamid Rashedi, Fatemeh Yazdian and Simin Naghizadeh (2012). Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery,
Introduction to Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Processes and Bioremediation of Oil-Contaminated Sites, Dr.
Laura Romero-Zerón (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51-0629-6, InTech, Available from:
http://www.intechopen.com/books/introduction-to-enhanced-oil-recovery-eor-processes-and-bioremediation- of-
oil-contaminated-sites/microbial-enhanced-oil-recovery

InTech Europe InTech China

University Campus STeP Ri Unit 405, Office Block, Hotel Equatorial Shanghai
Slavka Krautzeka 83/A No.65, Yan An Road (West), Shanghai, 200040, China
51000 Rijeka, Croatia
Phone: +385 (51) 770 447 Phone: +86-21-62489820
Fax: +385 (51) 686 166 Fax: +86-21-62489821
www.intechopen.com