Next Article in Journal
Sizing Procedure for System Hybridization Based on Experimental Source Modeling in Grid Application
Previous Article in Journal
Compact Modeling of a 3.3 kV SiC MOSFET Power Module for Detailed Circuit-Level Electrothermal Simulations Including Parasitics
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Exploiting Microbes in the Petroleum Field: Analyzing the Credibility of Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR)

1
Amity Institute of Biotechnology, Amity University, Mumbai 410206, India
2
Department of Biological Engineering, College of Engineering, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Korea
3
Institute for Ubiquitous Information Technology and Application, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Korea
4
Department of Life Sciences, School of Basic Sciences and Research, Sharda University, Greater Noida 201306, India
5
Department of Chemical Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology and Science Pilani, Goa Campus, Goa 403726, India
6
Department of Biotechnology, University of Engineering & Management, Kolkata 700156, India
7
Gujarat Pollution Control Board, Gandhinagar 382010, India
8
Department of Chemistry, Umeå University, 90187 Umeå, Sweden
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2021, 14(15), 4684; https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154684
Submission received: 11 July 2021 / Revised: 26 July 2021 / Accepted: 27 July 2021 / Published: 2 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Topic Enhanced Oil Recovery Technologies)

Abstract

:
Crude oil is a major energy source that is exploited globally to achieve economic growth. To meet the growing demands for oil, in an environment of stringent environmental regulations and economic and technical pressure, industries have been required to develop novel oil salvaging techniques. The remaining ~70% of the world’s conventional oil (one-third of the available total petroleum) is trapped in depleted and marginal reservoirs, and could thus be potentially recovered and used. The only means of extracting this oil is via microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR). This tertiary oil recovery method employs indigenous microorganisms and their metabolic products to enhance oil mobilization. Although a significant amount of research has been undertaken on MEOR, the absence of convincing evidence has contributed to the petroleum industry’s low interest, as evidenced by the issuance of 400+ patents on MEOR that have not been accepted by this sector. The majority of the world’s MEOR field trials are briefly described in this review. However, the presented research fails to provide valid verification that the microbial system has the potential to address the identified constraints. Rather than promising certainty, MEOR will persist as an unverified concept unless further research and investigations are carried out.

1. Introduction

The global demand for energy is expected to escalate in the coming years due to steady increases in the population, urbanization, industrialization, and economic development. The financial situation of most nations is based on crude oil and its products [1]. For example, India is a large consumer of energy, and in 2019 its consumption was around 806.1 million tonnes of oil equivalent (of which crude oil was 254.39 million metric tonnes), accounting for 5.8% of the world’s primary energy consumption. As of 31 March 2020, India had 603.36 million metric tonnes (mmt) of crude oil reserves, and its production contributed about 32.17 mmt [2]. To meet the energy demands and overcome the constraints on its resources, oil operators (or companies) will be required to exploit considerably more complex reservoirs. However, for this purpose, highly advanced technologies will be required. Therefore, oil reserves, whether they are undeveloped, mature, or yet to be discovered, require Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) techniques for the extraction of the trapped oil. Conventional primary and secondary techniques cannot successfully extract the remaining oil from capillary rock pores, particularly those with a diameter <10 nm. The reduced pressure in oil reservoirs after a certain period of oil production, the high viscosity of crude oil, and the reduced flow rates make the recovery of oil difficult [3,4,5,6,7,8].
The primary objective of all petroleum refineries is to extract the residual oil that remains following the use of conventional techniques, which amounts to approximately 5 trillion barrels, i.e., 70% of the total oil reserves [9]. A large number of companies that cannot afford to recover residual oil are currently pursuing profitable and efficient equipment for salvaging conventional oil. About 35% to 55% of the residual crude oil in reservoirs is left behind after conventional recoveries; hence, EOR or tertiary methods are used to enhance the crude oil recovery production [10,11].
These applications are converted into projects only if they best suit the economic constraints of the current oil market, thereby extending the life span of the wells. Moreover, they are eco-friendly and an effective alternative to other EOR methods. The microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR) method combines microbial characteristics with petroleum engineering oil recovery methods to form a new bioengineering technology. This approach eventually maximizes the recovered oil reserves, extends the life of fields, and increases the well’s recovery factor [5,6]. MEOR promotes microbial activity, allowing the microbes to release their metabolic products, such as biosurfactants, biopolymers, biogases, biomass, bioacids, and biosolvents [12]. Each of these metabolic products contributes to the microbial system differently and individually improves the recovery of oil. The ability of these microbes to intensify the oil’s mobility by minimizing its viscosity is considered beneficial. This property is highly exploited by providing the microbes with adequate nutrients to produce a sufficient quantity of metabolic by-products and by extending the well’s life [13,14].
Microorganisms may produce useful, biodegradable, and less toxic products with the help of low-cost substrates or raw materials. The establishment of MEOR as a viable alternative to chemically enhanced oil recovery (CEOR), which is mostly considered to be cost-intensive technology that is not eco-sustainable. In MEOR, particular microbial strains are used to synthesize compounds analogous to those used in common extravagant CEOR processes, to escalate the recovery of oil from depleted and marginal reservoirs. Microbial technologies are becoming ratified universally as lucrative and eco-sustainable methods for improving oil production [6,15,16].
This review article provides a holistic overview of the oil recovery stages, focusing mainly on the microbial technique due to the versatile benefits of its secreted metabolic by-products, particularly biosurfactants. Various studies assessing biosurfactants’ MEOR potential and economics are summarized. The authors also elaborate on basic MEOR fundamentals, in addition to its promising applications and the challenges faced. Furthermore, the paper deals with the history and current scenario of MEOR, in addition to its dynamics, and provides a brief outline of the mechanism of hydrocarbon-degrading microbes. Through the examination of case studies throughout the world involving laboratory and field trials, we assess past performances and the potential of MEOR. The recent trends and ventures related to MEOR are addressed briefly. This paper also presents potential future opportunities for the development and utilization of MEOR, in addition to highlighting the importance of an integrated approach towards numerical modelling and simulation.

2. Phases of Oil Recovery

Oil recovery is usually separated into a trio of phases, namely, the primary, secondary, and tertiary stages. Conventional primary and secondary methods of oil extraction quickly exhaust between a fraction of a quarter and half of a well’s oil reserve. This high level of extraction is addressed with the aid of a tertiary technique, Enhanced Oil Recovery, or EOR (Figure 1) [17].

2.1. Primary Recovery Stage

This process of extracting oil occurs either naturally or via artificial lift devices such as pump jacks. The oil in the reserves occurs in the small pores, thin crevices, and gaps within the reservoir rocks below the surface of the Earth. In this stage, the pressure of the reservoir plays a vital role because it causes the proper flow of oil towards the surface. This pressure depends on the internal energy and properties of the hydrocarbon fluids [9]. This natural force includes the driving energy of water from a large aquifer (a natural underground water flow), i.e., aquifer drive, dissolved gas drive, gas cap drive, and expansion by rock and fluid. Because this technique solely targets the oil and its susceptibility or accessibility, it has limited extraction potential [6,18].
In the dissolved gas drive, volatile fluids are released to form tiny effervescences of gas in the reservoir. These bubbles are trapped in the pore and when they expand, cause oil displacement. Subsequently, when the pressure drops, the gas bubbles merge to form a continuous rapid gas flow towards the upper portion of the reservoir, leading to the formation of a gas cap. The more the pressure decreases, the greater the displacement of the oil, i.e., gas cap drive [6,18]. Artificial lifting is preferred when the natural drive energy of the reservoir is weak and fails to thrust the oil to the surface. In this case, the pump jacks are submersed and used to lift the oil, whereas the gas lift technique injects compressed gas into the well to restore the same pressure [19].

2.2. Secondary Recovery Stage

This stage involves the injection of water or gas into the reservoir to restore the pressure or to maintain the movement of oil in the reservoir. This is undertaken when the pressure decreases due to the gradual production of oil in the reservoir, and the low pressure is no longer able to push the oil to the surface. At this stage, a critical point is reached when external energy is needed for the recovery of oil. Gas injection is mainly used with a gas cap to displace the oil in reservoirs. The pores of the rocks are prevented from clogging via the use of dissolved gases in the water used for flooding. At this point, the viscosity of the oil is minimized, consistent with thermodynamics. In this situation, a maximum quantity of oil is displaced under a specifically maintained gradient of pressure. At subsequent stages, when the quantity of oil relative to the water increases, it is no longer economical to continue the process, and the oil reserve should be abandoned [18,20,21]. Around 50% to 70% of the world’s unrecoverable crude oil remains in reserves that have been exhausted by conventional methods [22,23,24]. Hence, in this paper, we focus on tertiary methods where the trapped oil is extracted for use from the existing and abandoned reserves.

2.3. Tertiary Recovery Stage (Enhanced Oil Recovery)

The only objective of this stage is to maximize the utilization of the crude oil that cannot be recovered during the previous oil recovery stages. This includes both residual oil and the remaining oil. The former refers to the immobile crude oil residue in the reservoir pores, whereas the latter refers to un-swept crude oil (which is stuck due to the formation of heterogeneity). This step is used in fields that are characterized by poor permeability, heavy oil, or irregular faultlines; it either alters the reservoir fluid properties or the rock’s characteristics, to make the reservoir more conducive to extraction. The economics of this method must be valid. Therefore, to determine which type of EOR will suit the reservoir, each field must be precisely evaluated by screening, reservoir characterization, scoping, and reservoir modelling, in addition to simulation. This stage aids in improving the crude oil’s mobility, the properties of the oil-water interface, and the microscopic and macroscopic sweep efficiency. Further extensive literature and laboratory research is required on the fluid, the reservoir rocks, and the individual processes of this stage [6,9,25].
In this stage, oil can be recovered using several thermal methods, such as steam flooding [26,27,28,29,30] and in situ combustion or fire flooding [12,28]; chemical methods using alkaline displacement, surfactants, and polymers [28,31,32,33,34,35]; miscible displacement methods using CO2, N2, flue gases, kerosene, gasoline, benzene, etc. [28,36]; and via the microbial method. A study by Alvarado and Manrique [37] showed that these methods are recurrently used in sandstone reservoirs rather than in other lithologies such as turbiditic and carbonate formations. Figure 2 depicts the number of EOR projects applied to the respective lithologies and highlights that gas injection has not been heavily applied to the respective lithologies compared to chemical and thermal methods. However, implementing these techniques (with the exception of MEOR) requires massive energy consumption for the generation of steam, the use of costly chemicals, a huge quantity of fresh water, and expensive equipment for their groundworks, which increases the oil price and the associated ecological risks [38]. Modern technologies, such as seismic [39] or sonic stimulations [40], and electromagnetic methods [41], are also currently being implemented. These methods are discussed in detail elsewhere, and this article focuses only on the microbial method.

2.3.1. Microbial Method (MEOR)

MEOR is a vital tool for organizations searching for a novel means to increase their returns on older investments. Unfortunately, not all indigenous microbes can ensure the recovery of oil. The application of microbial knowledge to oil reserves through reservoir engineering designs is often considered to be uncertain due to the lack of understanding of the mechanism of microbial activity. Although a large amount of theoretical data is available on MEOR, the lack of standardized field results, the shortage of post-trial investigation, the lack of understanding of the mechanism (ecophysiology), and the shortage of structured research that presents promising evidence of this process contributes to the current low acceptance of MEOR [42]. Due to its remarkably low operating costs, MEOR has the potential to be implemented [9]. Extremophiles such as halophilic (Salicolamarasensis sp. and Halobacterium sp.), piezophilic (Shewanella sp., Thermococcus barophilus, and Photobacterium sp.), alkaliphilic (Natronococcus occultus), and thermophilic (Pyrolobus fumarii and Thermus aquaticus) bacteria and polyextremophiles (Halonatronum saccharophilum and Natranaerobius thermophilus) are the only microbes that are sufficiently small in size, can survive harsh environments (pH, temperature, salinity, pressure), and are capable of producing vital metabolic products [43,44,45,46]. For better adaptation to the surrounding oil environment, these hydrocarbon-consuming, non-virulent, and naturally occurring microbes are preferred and have attracted the attention of the researchers of MEOR [47,48,49].
A synopsis of the MEOR process is depicted in Figure 3. As shown, after the subsequent application of conventional techniques, oil remains in the reservoir substratum. Several microbes that come into contact with the trapped oil release metabolic products to alter the Interfacial Tension (IFT) and rock/sand grain wettability conditions that contribute to emulsion formation and mobility enhancement. The highly permeable zones allow water to flow to the thief areas via a preferential path. These areas are then plugged by microbes (selective plugging) that disturb the channel flow and drive the water to areas with low permeability. This water flows laterally to increase the sweeping efficiency of the crude oil (reducing the residual oil saturation), and help to manage excess water production. The microbial consortium clusters can disappear and displace during water flooding, causing a dynamic stimulation of new flow channels [50,51,52].
The strategy of this stage is to characterize microbial communities and to understand their cultivation methods. This overall biological MEOR method, therefore, depends on parameters such as depth, the viscosity of oil, permeability, pH, temperature, pressure, water reduction, the specific gravity of crude oil, brine salinity, porosity, residual oil saturation, wax content, and the microbial species involved [22,28,53].
The two main justifications for the use of the MEOR technique are oil advancement and upgrading [10]. In the former technique, the oil films are displaced through the porous permeable capillaries, creating oil-water IFT where microbial activities alter the oil fluidity by viscosity reduction, increasing the sweep efficiency, and restoring the reservoir pressure [54,55]. In the latter technique, the heavy oil present in the reservoir is degraded to lighter oil due to microbial activity, helping in the removal of heavy metals and sulphur [56]. In the 21st century, the oil and gas industry considers MEOR to be among the promising future research areas, and as a technology that is capable of exploiting 377 billion barrels of hidden oil that could potentially be recovered [10,57].
MEOR has been a popular research subject in recent years and has long been expected to offer an economic approach to refining retrieval [58]. Field studies have shown that an ideal projected oil production phase-down curve can be reversed by MEOR because microbial growth and the produced metabolites can have varying results on different characteristics of both the reservoir rock and the crude oil [4]. MEOR from unconventional petroleum deposits, such as oil sands, tar sands, and bituminous sands, are in the ongoing research phase due to the originality and specific ecological problems of these sources, such as water scarcity and high hydrocarbon concentrations [59].
Microbial by-products have an effect that is consistent with the consequence of the previously used chemicals, or those considered for use in an EOR, except for biomass. Therefore, in principle, MEOR is not an innovative novel oil recovery process, indicating that MEOR only differs from EOR in terms of the addition of chemicals into the reservoirs. To be significantly more efficient than EOR, MEOR is usually performed on-site to reduce logistical costs [12,60].

2.3.2. Microbial Metabolic Products Involved

A variety of microbes produces six chief metabolites (biosurfactants, biopolymers, biogas, biomass, bioacids, and biosolvents) that perform a dynamic role in the oil recovery process. These mechanisms include the reduction of oil viscosity, wettability modification, microbial plugging, reducing IFT, long hydrocarbon chain breakdown, and release of acids [14,17], as shown in Table 1. Azarhava et al. [61] reported that when Bacillus licheniformis LMG 7559 was injected into the oil-saturated heterogeneous porous medium, it secreted extracellular Poly gamma—(glutamic acid), which enabled oil recovery of up to 31.45% using biopolymer flooding. Another study by Ashish and Debnath [62] stated that, when used in a sand-packed method, Candida tropicalis MTCC230 secretes a biosurfactant, namely, lipopeptide surfactin, leading to oil recovery of 39.80%. Many of these case examples can be observed in the review paper by Saravanan et al. [28].

Biomass

Microbes multiply to form clusters of colonies, which act beneficially due to their plugging effect. This biomass comprises 27% of microbial biofilms and their extracellular products, water channels, and void space (constituting from 73% to 98% in total). A bacterial cell multiplies every 20–30 min and is reported to proliferate as quickly as 20 times under aerobic conditions. This mechanism encompasses high permeability zonal selective plugging to ensure the growth of microbial cells in the reservoir. This limits the undesirable water flow through the pore throats, ultimately helping the penetrating water to move through the small pores under pressure, and thus recover the trapped oil from the wells. Furthermore, it reduces the viscosity and pour point of the crude oil, and also contributes to oil desulfurization and emulsification, thus making MEOR strategies more favourable. Some studies have attempted to starve the microbes to minimize their size and enhance their penetration depth into the reservoir, and subsequently provide them with nutrients to form biofilms of biomass [23,64].

Biosurfactants

Chemical surfactants have been used for a long period. However, due to the low toxicity and eco-sustainability of biosurfactants, the research on these biomolecules has increased significantly. Biosurfactants are amphipathic compounds [65,66] that ease IFT and surface tension [67], in addition to enabling O/W or W/O emulsion stabilization, thus increasing the mobility of insoluble organic compounds [68,69]. They further alter the wettability of the well-bore rocks to displace more oil films from the rock pores. Because biosurfactants reduce the interfacial activity and improve the oil recovery proficiency compared to other by-products, they have gained prominence in MEOR processes [24]. The recent growth of environmental concerns has led to the development of cost-effective, biodegradable, and low toxicity biosurfactants for use in tolerable conditions, such as temperature, salinity, and pH (especially during tertiary oil recovery). Due to the superiority of these properties compared to those of chemically synthesized surfactants, biosurfactants are a high-value product in applications such as cleaning oil tankers, conveying heavy crude oil through pipelines, use as an anti-corrosive agent, extracting bitumen from tar sand, use as a demulsifying agent, and recovering oil from reservoir sludge in the oil enhancement industry. These applications of biosurfactants, in addition to their use in MEOR, are being recognized and are expected to expand within the petroleum industry [68,70,71,72]. Many firms have commercialized products containing biosurfactants, and have further developed strategies to improve the economics of biosurfactant production [73,74].
Microbial contamination should be seriously considered to prevent oil pollution from oil spills, oil tanker accidents during transport, and anthropogenic activities [75]. The categories of biosurfactants produced by various microbes are lipopeptides, phospholipids, glycolipids, and polymeric fatty acids. The most common are glycolipids (comprising sophorolipids, rhamnolipids, trehalolipids, etc.), whereas lipopeptides (surfactin, syringomycin, viscosin, polymyxin, etc.), phospholipids, and polymeric fatty acids (emulsan, liposan, alasan, etc.) are complex structures [28,76,77]. At present, the most favourable biosurfactants are glycolipids, sophorolipids secreted by Candida yeasts, and rhamnolipids produced by Pseudomonas. A study was conducted by Renard et al. [78] in which his team analyzed cloud water and found 42% of biosurfactants secreted microbes (from 480 strains). Of these, the most prominent were Pseudomonas syringae PDD-32b-74 and Xanthomonas campestris PDD-32b-52, which secreted linear lipopeptides called syringafactin; and Pseudomonas sp. PDD-14b-2, which secreted viscosin, cyclic lipopeptides, and massetolide E. Despite the industrial interest in these compounds, numerous problems persist [7,79,80].
Critical Micelle Concentration (CMC) determines the efficiency of a biosurfactant. The biosurfactant activity depends on its concentration until CMC is reached because, above this limit, bilayers, micelles, and vesicles are formed. This formation aids in the reduction of IFT, and further increases the solubility and the bioavailability of hydrophobic organic compounds, resulting in a linear function for oil recovery [81]. For more detailed properties of various species’ strains, see Table 2.
The quality and quantity of the produced biosurfactants depend on the nutrient medium supplied to the microbial consortia and the carbon substrate [113]. Their activity is also affected by the concentration of NaCl and pH (optimum range is between 4 and 10). The sodium ions form sodium acetate with the oil molecules, thus making the oil wetter, which is detrimental to the recovery process. In contrast to these ions, magnesium ions alter the surface of calcite by making the oil less sticky, enhancing the process [57,114]. The total biomass produced is directly proportional to the O/W emulsion formed; the more the quantity increases, the better the quality. Therefore, a generic microbial technique cannot be applied to all oil reservoirs [115].

Biopolymers

Several microbial strains secrete polysaccharides in self-defence during short-term desiccation, predation, and adhesion to surfaces. This mechanism involves selective plugging of the high permeability zone to modify the permeability of the oil reservoir to the floodwater, to effectively reach the oil-rich pores. The viscosity of the penetrating water is further increased using a mobility control agent to improve the oil sweep efficiency and the mobility stoichiometry by equalizing the permeability across the reservoir. The global capital market for biopolymers is anticipated to increase 17% and reach USD 10 billion by 2021 [116,117,118].
The most prominent bacterial commercial biopolymer is Xanthan gum [119], produced by Xanthomonas sp. and sold at USD 12 kg−1. It is thermally stable, has sheer resistance, and is salt tolerant, making it a potential candidate for EOR [120]. Other biopolymers include scleroglucan (USD 50 kg−1) produced by the fungus Sclerotium sp., and levan produced by the bacterial Bacillus species. The former exhibits high potential for commercialization, is water-soluble, has viscosifying ability, reduces IFT, and is stable under a variety of abiotic stresses [117,121,122], whereas the latter exhibits strong adhesivity, high solubility in oil and water, low intrinsic viscosity, and non-gelling, biocompatibility, and film-forming properties. As a result, these are promising candidates for EOR [123,124].
The impressive stability of schizophyllan, which is secreted by the fungus Schizophyllum commune, under high temperature and high salinity, renders its potential in enhancing the recovery of crude oil. Cellulose (USD 4 kg−1), curdlan (Agrobacterium sp.), pullulan (Aureobasidium pullulans, Pullularia pullulans), guar gum (USD 2 kg−1), polyglutamic acid (Bacillus licheniformis, Bacillus subtilis), dextran (Leuconostoc mesenteroides), poly-βhydroxybutyrate (Azotobacter vinelandii, Bacillus spp., Alcaligenes eutrophus), and chitin or chitosan (USD 220 kg−1) are other examples of biopolymers [64,117,125]. Bi et al. [16], showed that the polymer-secreting bacteria Enterobacter cloacae FY-07, in addition to the surfactant-secreting bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa WJ-1, successfully reduced surface tension and increased crude oil recovery. Another successful case was reported in the Fuyu oilfield, China, in which a biopolymer was used as a plugging agent. This MEOR field trial used the strain, Enterobacter sp. CJF-002 secreted insoluble jelly-like biopolymers, aiding in recovering twice the oil by minimizing the channelling effect and regulating the water flow across the reservoir [126].

Biogases

During the fermentation of carbohydrates, the bacterial strains release CO2, N2, H2, H2S, and CH4, which are then also rapidly consumed for other microbial activity. In addition to methanogens, which uptake H2 for reducing CO2 to CH4, sulphate-reducing bacteria reduce sulphate to sulphide, and nitrate-reducing bacteria reduce nitrate to nitrite, and then to N2. These gases help to repress the oil reservoir by altering IFT and the pH of the formation water and lower the heavy oil viscosity by dissolving the gases in crude oil. These gases build up in the pressure-depleted areas of the reservoir, aiding the mobility of the oil, and acting as an ideal alternative to conventional gas flooding. Thus, gas-producing microbes such as Clostridium sp., Pseudomonas sp., and Methanogens are the preferred products. Methanogens produce about three-fifths CH4 and two-fifths CO2, from which the methane separates the oil and gas phases, whereas the carbon dioxide separates the water phases. Furthermore, they are responsible for changing the pour point of oil and for plugging in the form of inorganic mineral (CaCO3) precipitates [15,20,52,64,127,128].
Enterobacter sp., Vibrio sp., Staphylococcus sp., Clostridium strains, Bacillus polymyxa, and Streptococcus sp. are the few microbes that have been shown to release biogases and can be used for MEOR. Because methane is a cheap gas, methanogenesis is a facile method to salvage the trapped crude oil. When the gas is sufficiently swollen in the reservoir, the secretion of biogases may stop, aiding in the production of more valuable substances. Therefore, to hinder methanogenesis, inhibitors (methyl fluoride and 2-bromoethanesulfonic acid) can be used. It should be noted that harvesting energy in the gaseous form from heavy oils and tar sand, rather than as hydrocarbons, is economically feasible and a sustainable approach [64].

Bioacids and Biosolvents

Lactic, acetic, and butyric acids are the most common bacterial acids used to improve absolute permeability and porosity by dissolving minerals in carbonate rock. They usually occur in carbonate reservoirs or under specific nutrients during sandstone formation. The capillary forces contributing to oil retention continue to be reduced [129,130]. For example, during the anaerobic process, Clostridium sp. produces 0.0034 moles of acid (acetic and butyric) per kg of molasses [131,132].
Other microbes such as Lactobacillus sp., Clostridium, Dsulfovibrio, Pediococcus sp., mixed Acidogens, and Bacillus secrete bioacids including carboxylic acids of multiple molecular weights, butyric acid, formic acid, propionic acid, and low molecular weight fatty acids. Moreover, biogases such as carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide dissociate into the water to yield bioacids. Various studies further propose that aerobic hydrocarbon degraders secrete a blend of biosolvents and bioacids, which can then be converted to CH4 via methanogenic microbial consortia [20].
Although it may be considered that solvents cannot be produced by microbes, they sometimes secrete solvents such as ethanol, acetone, and butanol. The microbes partially oxidize the hydrocarbons to biosolvents including alcohols, aldehydes, and fatty acids. They help relax oil viscosity and IFT, further acting as a surfactant. Moreover, they can moderately dissolve the carbonate rocks, enhancing the reservoir permeability and the porosity. They can also dissolve asphaltene and other heavy components present in the oil or from the pore throats of the reservoir, further reducing viscosity and aiding in the migration of oil.
The most common MEOR candidates are usually volatile fatty acids, lower water-soluble alcohols, and ketones (butanone and acetone). For instance, Bacillus spp. secretes ethanol and 2,3-butanediol; Clostridium spp. secretes ethanol, butanol, and acetone; and Lactobacillus sp. releases carbon dioxide, in addition to biosolvents. Other microbes include Klebsiella, Arthrobacter, and Zymomonas mobilis. Rather than producing biosolvents in large volumes in a laboratory, indigenous microbes with the capability to secrete bio-solvents should be used as a green alternative [20,64,129,133].

3. MEOR Dynamics

The global use of MEOR depends on various physical parameters. Moreover, its use is growing due to the gradual decrease in the development of novel fields and diminishing mature reserves. The success of MEOR is determined by multiple variables that affect the microbes, including:
  • Chemical factors such as electrolyte composition, redox potential, and nutrient composition;
  • Physical factors such as pore geometry, salinity, temperature, porosity, pore size, pressure, dissolved solids, lithology, and permeability;
  • Biological factors such as the type of microbe and extracellular product cytotoxicity.
Large-scale laboratory tests are essential to allow field applications to choose the appropriate micro-organisms and to understand the need for growth and production. Improved understanding of the MEOR method and its mechanisms from an engineering perspective is vital to improve the processes’ productivity, in addition to the methodical estimation of the principal dynamics affecting this method, such as the characteristics of the reservoir and the microbial syndicates. Finally, several toxicity tests of the microbes to be handled in the area should be undertaken to ensure that they are safe to use and pose no risks for people or the environment. In addition to the dynamics or factors mentioned below, other dynamics affecting MEOR that should be studied carefully are the additional oil saturation of the remaining oil, the evaluation and the composition of the fluid, core laboratory tests, and the economic aspects of the procedure [4,12,14,53,64,73,134].

3.1. Selecting the Reservoir

Following the identification of the problem, a decision can be easily made about the species or microbial processes that provide the suitable resolution. For instance, for mobilizing the trapped oil from the porous media, or when facing paraffin problems or scaling, biosurfactant secreting microbes should be utilized. In the mature field, the residual oil is recovered through in situ MEOR following primary production and secondary recovery techniques. The parameters for the selection of an appropriate reservoir are –
  • StructuralAnalysis: The regions of permeability and the area penetrated by oil can only be determined by this analysis for the plugging of specific pore throats to enhance the efficiency of sweeping. The depth of the oil well, the spatial distribution of oil films, and water saturation of water are included. This also comes with a high risk of drilling uncertainties. If the oil reservoir is not properly analyzed, the microbes will begin to destroy the method.
  • Geological Complexity: This plays a crucial role in the injections of microbes due to the function they perform, and therefore needs to be carefully studied. The alteration in any of the different geological elements of salinity, porosity, wettability, or permeability leads to dysfunctional microbes or their absence.
  • Well Pattern to be Drilled: This parameter is used when economic factors are to be considered. The pattern, i.e., a horizontal, directional, or extended range drill, determines the injectors and producers to be used.
  • Permeability Analysis: This is critical for choosing the appropriate bacterial strain and the reservoir composition that are suited to the microbe’s survival and feeding pattern. This factor should be reduced to be beneficial, as microbial consortium clogging will occur if the MEOR is not designed or implemented properly. In this case, the microbial metabolites themselves reduce the permeability by favouring plugging of thief zones as observed in Figure 3.
  • Temperature: This is one of the key drivers for both the bacterial species variation and the oil reservoir’s hydrocarbon development. Only extremophiles can survive extreme conditions, making them critical for the reservoir. Among these, Pseudomonas (predominantly), Arcobacter, Marinobacter, Halomonas, and Caldicoprobacter are found in the oil pits at high temperatures.

3.2. Selecting the Potential Microbes

Microbes should be capable of fulfilling the vital criteria of adapting to high temperature, pressure, salinity, and other reservoir parameters, and producing the desired by-products under aerobic conditions, thus ultimately degrading hydrocarbons (called hydrocarbon-o-clastic). The preferred microbes are usually thermophilic bacteria such as Thermoanaerobacter and Thermotoga; hyperthermophilic archaea such as Thermococcus and Thermofilum; methanogenic archaea (both hydrogenotrophic and acetotrophic) such as Methanobacterium, Methanoregula, Methanosarcina, and Methanoculleus; and mesophilic bacteria such as Pseudomonas, Geobacter, and Desulfuromonas. In addition to having high penetration permeability, these microbes are also dormant and resistant to endospores, thus helping them cope with stressful conditions [15,67,135]. They produce metabolites that help in the development of stable O/W emulsions, mobilize residual oil, and avert injection fluids via wet areas of the reservoir by clogging regions of high permeability. These factors act as a natural step towards reducing residual oil permeation [136].

3.3. Selecting the Right Nutrients

A variety of nutrients are injected into the wells, ranging from fermentable carbohydrates to inorganic electron acceptors that enable the micro-organisms to propagate using oil as the major carbon source. The by-products to be produced by microbes require a food source (in addition to trace minerals and suitable pH) for their survival, and therefore the nutrients act as a vital component. An ample quantity of suitable nutrients is required for microbes to colonize. When nutrients fail to perform this job, the microbes reduce their metabolic activity until the conditions become suitable to revitalize them. Nutrient deficiency causes severe damage to the catabolic activity of microbes in hydrocarbon-rich environments [1,16].

3.4. Pilot Testing

This stage determines the fate of MEOR and involves conducting the projects in phases with laboratory tests and analysis to identify the vital concerns. The combination of microbe–nutrient is checked for its compatibility, ability to grow in porous media, and competitiveness. Overall, the entire reservoir undergoes screening to optimize MEOR under strict assessment. It should be noted that many MEOR patents are solely centred on laboratory studies.

4. Microbial Metabolic Pathways Involved

The metabolic pathways associated with hydrocarbon-degrading microorganisms are either aerobic, i.e., they use O2 as an electron acceptor, or anaerobic, i.e., they use alternative electron acceptors such as nitrate or sulphate. All metabolic pathways are mediated by specific enzymes, viz. monooxygenase, dioxygenase, peroxidase, reductase, hydroxylase, and dehydrogenase. Under aerobic conditions, the fastest biodegradation of organic hydrocarbons occurs and is, therefore, thought to be better than anaerobic degradation because it requires less free energy expenditure, in addition to a lower energy yield per reaction. Initially, it pursues the oxidative attack route and triggers the incorporation of active oxygen to be catalysed by peroxidase and oxygenase. Subsequently, the hydrocarbons are converted into intermediate metabolites (as in the Citric Acid Cycle).
Pseudomonas putida comprising Pp alkB genes on OCT plasmid degrades aliphatic alkanes using the enzyme alkane hydroxylase consisting of membrane-bound oxygenase, rubredoxin, and rubredoxin reductase (these cofactors help transfer electrons from Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide Phosphate (NADPH) to hydrocarbon substrates); and yields alkanols, which are degraded by alcohol dehydrogenase into alkanals, which are finally transformed into fatty acids by aldehyde dehydrogenase and then to acetyl CoA by its synthetase, as observed in Figure 4. Similar to this oxygenase’s di-nuclear iron cluster, at the centre are methane monooxygenase and ribonucleotide reductase; for example, n-alkane by Dietzia sp. and Marinobacter falvimaris; octane by Arthrobacter sp.; decane by Bacillus sp. strain DHT; hexadecane by Haloarculavallismortis; and pristane by Marinobacter aquaeolei. Not all bacterial species can synthesize the same enzyme. The bacteria secrete specific enzymes, some of which can metabolize specific alkanes, whereas the others cleave aromatic hydrocarbons [137,138,139]. Enzymes associated with alkane degradation include monooxygenase, cyclohexanol-dehydrogenase, alcohol dehydrogenase, cyclohexanone 1, 2 monooxygenase, and methane monooxygenase [140].
Alkenes lead to secondary alcohols, followed by ketones, then esters, and eventually fatty acids by monooxygenase. Bacteria often cleave cyclic rings by forming cis-dihydrodiols with the aid of oxygenase and dioxygenase, e.g., phenol by Halomonas sp.; benzoate by Haloferax sp. D1227; gentisate by Rhodococcus sp.; cinnamic acid and ferulic acid by Halomonasorganivorans; benzene by Halococcus sp.; toluene by Arhodomonas sp.; and xylene by Marinobacter hydrocarbonoclasticus [137,143]. Biodegradation of any petroleum hydrocarbon depends solely upon the microbial consortia used. Enzymes involved in naphthalene degradation are cis-2,3-dihydrobiphenyl-2,3-diol dehydrogenase, naphthalene 1,2-dioxygenase ferredoxin reductase, and salicylaldehyde dehydrogenase, whereas those related to other petroleum hydrocarbon degradation are toluene dioxygenase and ethylbenzene dioxygenase [140,144].
Cytochrome P450 hydroxylases are frequently used for the aerobic bacterial activation of medium chain length alkanes. In addition, P450-monooxygenase is associated with the activation of aromatic hydrocarbons in mammals and filamentous fungi, suggesting the mechanism is CoA thioesterification. Hybrid pathways would be truly beneficial for microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbon, permitting flexibility and swift adaptation to inconsistent O2 availability, because both oxic and anoxic conditions require CoA thioester substrates [145]. Multiple reactions, specifically oxidation, reduction, dehydrogenation, and hydroxylation, are common in both anaerobic and aerobic metabolic pathways. Under anaerobic conditions, aromatic compounds are initially oxidized to organic acids or phenol and then distorted into long-chain unstable fatty acids, which are eventually metabolized to CO2 and CH4 [142]. Carboxylation and the addition of fumarate are the initially preferred biochemical mechanisms for the activation of alkanes [146,147]. The most common activation mechanism of microbial flora is the addition of fumarate to hydrocarbon aromatics via the enzyme benzyl-succinate synthase [141]. The mechanisms are summarized as a flow chart for enhanced understanding, see Figure 5.
Evidence exists that links the growth of D. alkenivorans strain AK-01 (sulphate-reducing microbe) to anaerobic oxidation of n-hexadecane and n-pentadecane. An analysis of its metabolites revealed that C-odd and C-even cellular fatty acids were moulded from C-even and C-odd n-alkanes, respectively. This similarity was also seen in strain Pnd3 and Desulfatibacillum aliphaticivorans CV2803T. Furthermore, the latter strain and strain AK-01 secrete 2- to 8- branched ethyl branched fatty acids, in addition to 1-methylalkyl (succinates) having a chain length that is correlated with those of the parent substrates when catalysed by glycyl radical enzymes (n-alkanes: alkyl succinate synthase and cycloalkanes: succinate synthetase), thus signifying that n-alkanes are activated anaerobically by fumarate addition at the sub-terminal C-atom. Then, the metabolite undergoes a rearrangement of its carbon skeleton, which produces intermediates on undergoing β-oxidation, and is eventually transformed into acetyl CoA (benzoyl-CoA in the case of aromatic hydrocarbon), which is oxidized to CO2. This whole fumarate addition reaction is exergonic, signifying that it does not need exogenous energy to function. The cyclic alkanes are completely activated through fumarate addition for additional degradation under anoxic conditions [145,146,147].
The next mechanism of activation is carboxylation, which, in previous research, was achieved by the growth pattern of the sulfidogenic strain Hxd3. Based on the study, Hxd3 growth in the presence of H13CO3 with varying chain lengths showed the formation of fatty acids that were one C-atom shorter than the parent alkane. It is also known that the carboxyl group consists of 13 C-atoms, which means that n-alkane is metabolized into fatty acid intermediates by carboxylation, with the consequent removal of two sub-terminal C-atoms from the alkane chain and the simultaneous inclusion of carbon at the third position. Subject to the selective environment, anaerobic degradation may be advanced through alternative activation mechanisms. As in the case of Pseudomonas chloritidismutans AW-1T, this can produce O2 via chlorate respiration [145,146,147].
The critical anaerobic pathways associated with microbial oil reservoir consortia are the sulphate-reducing pathway (SRP), nitrate-reducing pathway (NRP), and methanogenic pathway [8,12]. SRP involves SRB such as Desulfovibrionales, Desulfuromonadales, and Desulfobacterales [128], which consume sulphate and sulphite, together with hydrocarbons and fatty acids in the form of terminal electron acceptors (TEA), to reduce them to H2S gas, and thus leading to crude oil saturation and corrosion in the reservoir [52,75].
When sulphate is present, SRPs outperform methanogens due to their high affinity for substrates, and they avert electron flow from methanogenesis to sulfidogenesis. When sulphate acts as a restraint, some SRPs survive by cooperating with syntrophic bacteria and methanogens [128]. For example, archaeal members of the genus Archaeoglobus and the order Thermococcales usually thrive in hydrothermal and thermophilic environments [64,146]. To rectify this souring, nitrate, which is a powerful metabolic inhibitor, is injected. Nitrate-reducing bacteria (NRB) then reduce it to nitrite at a temperature range >45 °C and <65 °C, and to dinitrogen in temperatures up to 45 °C [148,149].
Past research has shown that aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons can only be biodegraded under anoxic conditions in which nitrate, sulphate, and metal ions function because TEA further helps to convert hydrocarbons into CH4 and CO2 in a process called methanogenic crude oil biodegradation. This process needs at least two dissimilar microbes (syntrophic bacteria and methanogenic archaea) due to thermodynamic constrictions [128]. Compared to other forms of anaerobic respiration, this is the least energetically demanding process [146]. The methanogenic pathway converts substrates such as H2, CO2, and CH3COO into CH4 [128]. The methanogens eradicate the inhibitory effect of the end metabolic biological products, thereby smoothing metabolic pathways and increasing oil displacement [150]. Via this pathway, the microbes degrade the crude oil to heavy oil deposits that settle at the bottom of the reservoir. To obtain clear reservoir zones, incessant injection of sulphate-containing, nitrate treated water is added. This restricts NRB to the wellbore and SRB to deeper regions [148].

5. Concept of Mathematical Modelling in MEOR

Various oil recovery techniques can be evaluated based on their variables (physical, chemical, and biological) and their practical field relationship through mathematical modelling. This need for improved and detailed models for MEOR is a highly time-consuming task [151,152]. Numerical calculations help enhance the yield of oil and minimize the cost of the technique. However, this is not straightforward, because the calculations involve microbial activities that are subject to strict geo-environmental restrictions [55,153].
The variables in the model are τres, the bacterial residue time in a cylindrical reaction zone [153] of radius rm, depth h, and porosity ϕ. They are related as:
τ res = [ π   r m . 2 h   ϕ   (   1   S or ) ] Q
where Sor is the residual oil saturation and Q is the volumetric flow rate to yield the required concentration creq by time τres [128].
Sor is determined via the capillary number Ncap, which can be demarcated as the ratio of viscous force to capillary force:
N cap = viscous   force capillary   force = υ   μ σ   cos θ
where υ and μ refer to the velocities of the displacing fluid, σ is the IFT between the forces, and θ is the contact angle. Because the MEOR mechanism is intricate, mostly due to a variety of microbial strains and their by-products, as shown in Table 1, S or is inversely proportional to Ncap [55,154].
First-order kinetics includes a description of the reaction’s complexity. A balanced equation can be applied for the formation of metabolic products but its rate of production can only be found via experimentation. The multidimensional velocity flow of oil-water multiphase fluid in porous media, and adsorption and diffusion of by-products, microbes, and nutrients, are included in the modelling [155]. The model is divided into three portions: the law of conservation, transport properties, and biofilm clogging. The law of conservation lies at the heart of computational hydrology and the imitation of oil wells. The wettability alteration, permeability and porosity alteration, IFT relaxation between oil and water in porous media, and microbial clogging mechanism increase production of incremental oil and its sweep efficiency [134]. Three-dimensional modelling, including these parameters and additional assumptions, has helped in simulating a model for a hypothetical reservoir with the provided experimental data [21,53,134,150,153,155,156].
The mathematical model can be simulated and modified as per commercial feasibility and field requirements [157]. Different numerical calculations are based on various compositions and displacement mechanisms, and values of diffusion, focus point, adsorption, residual oil saturation, and fluid viscosity. For instance, Wang used a 1-D two-phase, five-component mathematical model to mimic the biopolymer flooding process in porous media [158]. Sugai and his colleagues [159] developed a numerical simulator to estimate souring induced by SRBs due to the injection of brine water into an oil reservoir. By comparison, Sivasankar and Govindarajan [160] used a mathematical model to mimic reservoir temperature and nutrient impact on biosurfactant production; and Hong and colleagues [152] constructed a model based on a coupled non-isothermal multiphase model and biokinetics to assess the potential of cold water MEOR in regions of high temperature.

6. A Vast Chronicle of MEOR History and Case Studies

Recent advances in petroleum microbiology have motivated refineries to be more transparent in assessing and enhancing microbial production. As per the microbe’s compliance with the reservoir, they are used for injecting and in situ oil recovery [161]. Usually, bacterial strains are preferred due to their capacity to release trapped oil from mineral rocks, in addition to several other superior characteristics [162]. This mixture of anaerobic bacteria is recruited to effectively and efficiently produce metabolic bioproducts [11]. An oil reservoir may undergo either a single well treatment or a full field treatment [13,128].
MEOR methods originate from laboratory-based studies. A timeline depicting the long chronicle of MEOR history can be seen in Figure 6 [10,13,15,20,60,64,129,161,163].
Oman is a country known for its leading technologies in EOR and has sought to extend the limits of the existing technology to establish new methods [25,164]. To date, several field tests and laboratory tests have been carried out globally [165], and several successful applications and their biological systems were identified by Nikolova and Gutierrez [12]. Five commercially important projects that showed significant incremental oil production were located in the USA (two projects), Argentina (one project), and the Republic of China (two projects). These case studies were then analyzed based on their production rate or yield efficiency, incremental recovery, reduced water consumption, treatment design, reservoir frequency, and effect of microbes on oil viscosity [4]. Table 3 shows various project characteristics and compares them based on their screening criteria parameters (oil viscosity, permeability, temperature, porosity, salinity, and water cut) and oil production (treatment, shut-in period, well spacing, oil production rate, etc.). The data show that recent reservoir studies indicate that ranges in temperature of 80–120 °C, the salinity of >10,000 to 350,000 ppm, and permeability of 10 to 50 mD have expanded the horizon of MEOR parameters [166]. The main reason for oil being left behind (OIP) is the lack of funds. Theoretically, displaceable oil cannot be retrieved even if there is a route and ample energy, due to the laws relating to fluid displacement in porous media [167]; however, Liu and his team [168] showed a 19.58% increase in the oil recovery rate using biosurfactants produced by Bacillus licheniformis L20.
As observed in Table 3, the Xinjiang project has the highest viscosity that creates surplus space for microbial colonization; the lowest temperature, which favours microbial growth; and the highest porosity and sandstone lithology. From this information, it can be argued that the Xinjiang Project is the leading example in the consideration of oil production. All of these projects had a high water-cut percentage, which, following the application of MEOR, either decreased or remained constant [4,37]. Table 4 portrays multiple projects in powerful nations such as India, the U.S., and China [3,13,58,166].
Oil production has collapsed in many reserve regions around the world as a result of oil field development; the best example is the North Sea Field [25,31]. Another important factor is the challenge to identify novel oil wells as a substitute for previously exploited, abandoned oil wells. Of the fossil fuels, 80% to 90% of the world’s current energy generation is based on oil and gas [59]. In recent years, the majority of the oil remaining in reservoirs, particularly in peripheral and developed reserves, has been due to the lack of a low-cost operating method [170]. Research is underway in this field, with the results from both novel and longstanding approaches being carefully assessed [171]. Contemporarily, the oil sector has reached its peak; improving marginal and abandoned reserves will not only activate these wells for production but will also help operators to maximize their profit [59]. There are numerous benefits of employing MEOR compared to EOR [11,15,55,96,129,157,171]. Despite the positive results of field testing, MEOR has not received the attention of the petroleum refineries due to technical bottlenecks. In addition, a negative perception exists regarding the use of microbes, although the tests carried out by laboratories have proven these to be safe [60,156]. Numerous other factors are currently contributing to the lack of attention being paid to this approach [11,12,22,36,42,51,55,64,74,154,163]. Its limitation and benefits are listed in Figure 7.

7. Trends and Ventures in MEOR

Genetically engineered microbial enhanced oil recovery (GEMEOR) and enzyme enhanced oil recovery (EEOR) are emerging areas of industrial interest. The former uses genetic engineering techniques, including recombination technology, protoplast fusion, and mutagenesis, to extract desirable features from multiple organisms and create more efficient strains, thereby enhancing oil recovery and making the process economically feasible. This approach has not yet been extensively applied to the fields, and it has been predominantly investigated in laboratories and pilot-scale testing. Enzymes with EOR potential are Greenzyme, the Zonase group, and the Novozyme group. The latter uses enzymes in consortium with other enzymes or surfactants to enhance oil recovery by altering IFT, wettability, mobility, and capillary action, leading to easy oil recoverability. The development of novel metagenomics approaches can also be observed as a growing trend [3,20,64].
Another practical strategy for the development of MEOR is switching its application direction from microbial processes to bioproduct utilization. Metabolic products, especially biosurfactants and biopolymers, have been extensively developed. Researchers have successfully produced these bio-based formulas for Selective Plugging Recovery (SPR), Flooding Recovery (MFR), Cycle Microbial Recovery (CMR), and Wax Removal (MWR). These technologies are all based on the contributions of microbes and their metabolic products [13,58].
Globally, several public and private sector ventures are currently underway concerning MEOR. Public sector ventures include Durham University (Durham, England, United Kingdom); Sultan Qaboos University (Muscat, Oman); Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Dhahran, Saudi Arabia); CSIRO—Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Canberra, Australia); Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) and The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)–ONGC TERI Biotech Limited (New Delhi, India); United States Department of Energy; Equinor ASA (Stavanger, Norway); RIPI—Research Institute of Petroleum Industry (Tehran, Iran); DuPont Sustainable Solutions (Virginia Beach, VA, United States); Royal Dutch Shell (The Hague, The Netherlands); Pemex (Mexico City, Mexico); BP p.l.c. (London, England, United Kingdom); and Norwegian University of Science and Technology (Trondheim, Norway). Private sector examples include ONGC IRS—Institute of Reservoir Studies (Gujarat, India); Glori Energy Inc. (Houston, TX, United States); ZFA Technologies Co. Ltd. (Jiangsu, China); Titan Oil Recovery, Inc. (Beverly Hills, CA, United States); Yara International ASA (Oslo, Norway); Oppenheimer Biotechnology, Inc. (Austin, TX, United States); Salym Petroleum Development (Moscow, Russia); Delft Inversion (Delft, The Netherlands); and Rawwater Engineering Company Ltd. (Warrington, England, United Kingdom). These are only a few of the well-known organizations or institutions that are currently working on or with MEOR [42].

8. Conclusions

  • MEOR is undoubtedly a visionary approach to the field of oil recovery, although concerns have previously been raised about the Industrial Proposal Standards required to implement field microbial processes.
  • A number of challenges and complications must be addressed before MEOR can be used. Although progress has been made, past approaches should also be scrutinized.
  • It is argued that MEOR is cost-effective, eco-friendly, and most suitable for mature oil wells with a high water cut and that it is a feasible alternative to conventional methods.
  • New biological trends such as GEMEOR and EEOR may be the innovative strategies required to produce the desired breakthroughs. These advances may tilt the global energy balance towards cheaper prices and encourage domestic production.
  • An aspiring advancement program of studies would thus be required to verify the feasibility of MEOR. Integrated research and cross-disciplinary collaboration between the fields of petroleum engineering, economics, geology, bioengineering, and microbiology are highly recommended for better results.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.Q. and S.P.; methodology, M.Q., S.K.B., D.L., P.K.G., and S.V.; formal analysis, V.R. and S.M.; investigation, S.K.B. and Y.-H.Y.; data curation, S.P.; writing—original draft preparation, M.Q.; writing—review and editing, M.Q.; visualization, M.Q.; supervision, S.K.B.; funding acquisition, S.P. and S.K.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT [grant number 2021R1F1A1050325]. This study was also performed with the support of the R&D Program of MOTIE/KEIT [grant number 20014350 and 20009508].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the KU Research Professor Program of Konkuk University, Seoul, South Korea. The authors would like to acknowledge the Sharda University Seed grant for research, India.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sarkar, J.; Kazy, S.K.; Gupta, A.; Dutta, A.; Mohapatra, B.; Roy, A.; Bera, P.; Mitra, A.; Sar, P. Biostimulation of indigenous microbial community for bioremediation of petroleum refinery sludge. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas. Indian PNG Statistics 2019–2020; Government of India: New Delhi, India, 2020.
  3. Patel, J.; Borgohain, S.; Kumar, M.; Rangarajan, V.; Somasundaran, P.; Sen, R. Recent developments in microbial enhanced oil recovery. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 52, 1539–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Nnaemeka, O.; Franklin, N.; Stanley, O. A Review of Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery Applications Projects. Oil Gas Res. 2018, 4, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cheng, M.; Yu, L.; Gao, J.; Lei, G.; Zhang, Z. Isolating, identifying and evaluating of oil degradation strains for the air-assisted microbial enhanced oil recovery process. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0243976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yuan, B.; Wood, D.A. Overview of Formation Damage During Improved and Enhanced Oil Recovery. In Formation Damage during Improved Oil Recovery: Fundamentals and Applications; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  7. Câmara, J.M.D.A.; Sousa, M.A.S.B.; Barros Neto, E.L.; Oliveira, M.C.A. Application of rhamnolipid biosurfactant produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa in microbial-enhanced oil recovery (MEOR). J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. 2019, 9, 2333–2341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Singh, N.K.; Choudhary, S. Bacterial and archaeal diversity in oil fields and reservoirs and their potential role in hydrocarbon recovery and bioprospecting. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 2021, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhang, J.; Gao, H.; Xue, Q. Potential applications of microbial enhanced oil recovery to heavy oil. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2020, 40, 459–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Shibulal, B.; Al-Bahry, S.N.; Al-Wahaibi, Y.M.; Elshafie, A.E.; Al-Bemani, A.S.; Joshi, S.J. Microbial enhanced heavy oil recovery by the aid of inhabitant spore-forming bacteria: An insight review. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Safdel, M.; Anbaz, M.A.; Daryasafar, A.; Jamialahmadi, M. Microbial enhanced oil recovery, a critical review on worldwide implemented field trials in different countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 74, 159–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nikolova, C.; Gutierrez, T. Use of Microorganisms in the Recovery of Oil From Recalcitrant Oil Reservoirs: Current State of Knowledge, Technological Advances and Future Perspectives. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 2996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. She, H.; Kong, D.; Li, Y.; Hu, Z.; Guo, H. Recent Advance of Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR) in China. Geofluids 2019, 2019, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Rivera, M.A.H.; Vasconcellos, J.M.; Morales, M.E.O. Factors Affecting Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR). In Proceedings of the 25th Pan-American Conference of Naval Engineering—COPINAVAL; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 375–384. [Google Scholar]
  15. Romero-Zeron, L. Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery (cEOR)—A Practical Overview; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bi, Y.; Xiu, J.; Ma, T. Application potential analysis of enhanced oil recovery by biopolymer-producing bacteria and biosurfactant-producing bacteria compound flooding. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 5119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Haq, B. The Role of Microbial Products in Green Enhanced Oil Recovery: Acetone and Butanone. Polymer 2021, 13, 1946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Alagorni, A.H.; Yaacob, Z.B.; Nour, A.H. An Overview of Oil Production Stages: Enhanced Oil Recovery Techniques and Nitrogen Injection. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev. 2015, 6, 693–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Ganat, T. Pumping System of Heavy Oil Production. Process. Heavy Crude Oils Chall. Oppor. 2019, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Anuka, A.; Falode, O.; Ogunshe, A.; Udie, C. An Overview of Microbial Enhanced oil Recovery in Nigeria. In Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers—SPE Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition 2020, Online, 11–13 August 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Romero-Zerón, L. Introduction to Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Processes and Bioremediation of Oil-Contaminated Sites; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Oliveira, X.; Sn, S. The Challenge of the Use the Microorganisms in Enhance Oil Recover. Recent Adv. Petrochem. Sci. 2017, 1, 0034–0036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cui, K.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Sun, S.; Li, H.; Fu, P. Stimulation of indigenous microbes by optimizing the water cut in low permeability reservoirs for green and enhanced oil recovery. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ali, N.; Wang, F.; Xu, B.; Safdar, B.; Ullah, A.; Naveed, M.; Wang, C.; Rashid, M.T. Production and application of biosurfactant produced by bacillus licheniformis Ali5 in enhanced oil recovery and motor oil removal from contaminated sand. Molecules 2019, 24, 4448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Muggeridge, A.; Cockin, A.; Webb, K.; Frampton, H.; Collins, I.; Moulds, T.; Salino, P. Recovery rates, enhanced oil recovery and technological limits. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2014, 372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Mokheimer, E.M.A.; Hamdy, M.; Abubakar, Z.; Shakeel, M.R.; Habib, M.A.; Mahmoud, M. A comprehensive review of thermal enhanced oil recovery: Techniques evaluation. J. Energy Resour. Technol. Trans. ASME 2019, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Huang, S.; Cao, M.; Cheng, L. Experimental study on the mechanism of enhanced oil recovery by multi-thermal fluid in offshore heavy oil. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2018, 122, 1074–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Saravanan, A.; Kumar, P.S.; Vardhan, K.H.; Jeevanantham, S.; Karishma, S.B.; Yaashikaa, P.R.; Vellaichamy, P. A review on systematic approach for microbial enhanced oil recovery technologies: Opportunities and challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pang, Z.; Liu, H.; Zhu, L. A laboratory study of enhancing heavy oil recovery with steam flooding by adding nitrogen foams. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2015, 128, 184–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kirmani, F.U.D.; Raza, A.; Gholami, R.; Haidar, M.Z.; Fareed, C.S. Analyzing the effect of steam quality and injection temperature on the performance of steam flooding. Energy Geosci. 2021, 2, 83–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gbadamosi, A.O.; Kiwalabye, J.; Junin, R.; Augustine, A. A review of gas enhanced oil recovery schemes used in the North Sea. J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. 2018, 8, 1373–1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Sheng, J.J. A comprehensive review of alkaline-surfactant-polymer (ASP) flooding. Asia Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2014, 9, 471–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mandal, A. Chemical flood enhanced oil recovery: A review. Int. J. Oil Gas Coal Technol. 2015, 9, 241–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kokal, S.; Al-Kaabi, A. Enhanced oil recovery: Challenges & opportunities. World Pet. Counc. Off. Publ. 2010, 64, 64–69. [Google Scholar]
  35. Sun, C.; Guo, H.; Guo, H.; Guo, H.; Li, Y.; Jiang, G.; Ma, R. Alkali Effect on Alkali-Surfactant-Polymer (ASP) Flooding Enhanced Oil Recovery Performance: Two Large-Scale Field Tests’ Evidence. J. Chem. 2020, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Alamooti, A.M.; Malekabadi, F.K. An Introduction to Enhanced Oil Recovery. In Fundamentals of Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery from Conventional and Unconventional Reservoirs; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 1–40. [Google Scholar]
  37. Alvarado, V.; Manrique, E. Enhanced oil recovery: An update review. Energies 2010, 3, 1529–1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Nazina, T.; Sokolova, D.; Grouzdev, D.; Semenova, E.; Babich, T.; Bidzhieva, S.; Serdukov, D.; Volkov, D.; Bugaev, K.; Ershov, A.; et al. The potential application of microorganisms for sustainable petroleum recovery from heavy oil reservoirs. Sustainability 2020, 12, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Wooden, B. Seismic Stimulation: An Eco-Friendly, Effective EOR Alternative. Available online: https://jpt.spe.org/seismic-stimulation-eco-friendly-effective-eor-alternative (accessed on 19 June 2021).
  40. Rezaei Dehshibi, R.; Mohebbi, A.; Riazi, M.; Niakousari, M. Experimental investigation on the effect of ultrasonic waves on reducing asphaltene deposition and improving oil recovery under temperature control. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2018, 45, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Shafiai, S.H.; Gohari, A. Conventional and electrical EOR review: The development trend of ultrasonic application in EOR. J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. 2020, 10, 2923–2945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Saikia, U.; Bharanidharan, R.; Vendhan, E.; Kumar Yadav, S.; Siva Shankar, S. A brief review on the science, mechanism and environmental constraints of microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR). Int. J. Chem. Techol. Res. 2013, 5, 1205–1212. [Google Scholar]
  43. Parihar, J.; Bagaria, A. The Extremes of Life and Extremozymes. Divers Perspect. 2020, 3, 2581–3226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Moreno, M.D.L.; Pérez, D.; García, M.T.; Mellado, E. Halophilic Bacteria as a Source of Novel Hydrolytic Enzymes. Life 2013, 3, 38–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Irwin, J.A. Overview of extremophiles and their food and medical applications. Physiol. Biotechnol. Asp. Extrem. 2020, 65–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Varjani, S.; Upasani, V.N. Evaluation of rhamnolipid production by a halotolerant novel strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 288, 121577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Volk, H.; Hendry, P. 3° Oil Recovery: Fundamental Approaches and Principles of Microbially Enhanced Oil Recovery. In Handbook of Hydrocarbon and Lipid Microbiology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 2727–2738. [Google Scholar]
  48. Yi, L.N.; Li, Z.P.; Liu, L.; Bi, Y.Q.; Wang, X.T.; Yi, J.P. Functional microbial stimulation for oil recovery enhancement based on microbial community analysis. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2018, 32, 1468–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Shibulal, B.; Al-Bahry, S.N.; Al-Wahaibi, Y.M.; Elshafie, A.E.; Al-Bemani, A.S.; Joshi, S.J. Microbial-Enhanced Heavy Oil Recovery under Laboratory Conditions by Bacillus firmus BG4 and Bacillus halodurans BG5 Isolated from Heavy Oil Fields. Colloids Interfaces 2018, 2, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Goudarzi, A.; Almohsin, A.; Varavei, A.; Delshad, M.; Bai, B.; Sepehrnoori, K. New Experiments and Models for Conformance Control Microgels. In Proceedings of the Conference Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, USA, 12–16 April 2014; pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  51. Wood, D.A. Microbial improved and enhanced oil recovery (Mieor): Review of a set of technologies diversifying their applications. Adv. Geo Energy Res. 2019, 3, 122–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kögler, F.; Dopffel, N.; Mahler, E.; Hartmann, F.S.F.; Schulze-Makuch, D.; Visser, F.; Frommherz, B.; Herold, A.; Alkan, H. Influence of surface mineralogy on the activity of Halanaerobium sp. during microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR). Fuel 2021, 290, 119973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gaol, C.L.; Ganzer, L.; Mukherjee, S.; Alkan, H. Parameters govern microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR) performance in real-structure micromodels. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2021, 205, 108814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Joshi, S.; Bharucha, C.; Jha, S.; Yadav, S.; Nerurkar, A.; Desai, A.J. Biosurfactant production using molasses and whey under thermophilic conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 195–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Niu, J.; Liu, Q.; Lv, J.; Peng, B. Review on microbial enhanced oil recovery: Mechanisms, modeling and field trials. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2020, 192, 107350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Glagoleva, O.F.; Kapustin, V.M. Physicochemical aspects of primary oil processing technology (Review). Pet. Chem. 2018, 58, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Prabhakar, S.; Melnik, R. Wettability alteration of calcite oil wells: Influence of smart water ions. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Lee, K.S.; Kwon, T.-H.; Park, T.; Jeong, M.S. Introduction. In Theory and Practice in Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  59. Miller, R.G.; Sorrell, S.R. The future of oil supply. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2014, 372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Song, W.; Ma, D.; Wu, K.; Wei, X.; Xu, Y. A review Study: Development of Microbial Enhancing oil Recovery Technology. In Proceedings of the 2016 5th International Conference on Environment, Materials, Chemistry and Power Electronics, Zhengzhou, China, 11–12 April 2016; pp. 619–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Azarhava, H.; Bajestani, M.I.; Jafari, A.; Vakilchap, F.; Mousavi, S.M. Production and physicochemical characterization of bacterial poly gamma- (glutamic acid) to investigate its performance on enhanced oil recovery. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 147, 1204–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ashish Debnath, M. Application of biosurfactant produced by an adaptive strain of C.tropicalis MTCC230 in microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR) and removal of motor oil from contaminated sand and water. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2018, 170, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Fenibo, E.O.; Ijoma, G.N.; Selvarajan, R.; Chikere, C.B. Microbial surfactants: The next generation multifunctional biomolecules for applications in the petroleum industry and its associated environmental remediation. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Tatar, A. Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery: Microbiology and Fundamentals. In Fundamentals of Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery from Conventional and Unconventional Reservoirs; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 291–508. [Google Scholar]
  65. Kubicki, S.; Bollinger, A.; Katzke, N.; Jaeger, K.E.; Loeschcke, A.; Thies, S. Marine biosurfactants: Biosynthesis, structural diversity and biotechnological applications. Mar. Drugs 2019, 17, 408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Płaza, G.; Achal, V. Biosurfactants: Eco-friendly and innovative biocides against biocorrosion. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 2152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Putra, W.; Hakiki, F. Microbial enhanced oil recovery: Interfacial tension and biosurfactant-bacteria growth. J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. 2019, 9, 2353–2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Pereira, J.F.B.; Gudiña, E.J.; Costa, R.; Vitorino, R.; Teixeira, J.A.; Coutinho, J.A.P.; Rodrigues, L.R. Optimization and characterization of biosurfactant production by Bacillus subtilis isolates towards microbial enhanced oil recovery applications. Fuel 2013, 111, 259–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Kryachko, Y. Novel approaches to microbial enhancement of oil recovery. J. Biotechnol. 2018, 266, 118–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. De Almeida, D.G.; Soares Da Silva, R.D.C.F.; Luna, J.M.; Rufino, R.D.; Santos, V.A.; Banat, I.M.; Sarubbo, L.A. Biosurfactants: Promising molecules for petroleum biotechnology advances. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Karlapudi, A.P.; Venkateswarulu, T.C.; Tammineedi, J.; Kanumuri, L.; Ravuru, B.K.; RAMU Dirisala, V.; Kodali, V.P. Role of biosurfactants in bioremediation of oil pollution-a review. Petroleum 2018, 4, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Geetha, S.J.; Banat, I.M.; Joshi, S.J. Biosurfactants: Production and potential applications in microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR). Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2018, 14, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Randhawa, K.K.S.; Rahman, P.K.S.M. Rhamnolipid biosurfactants-past, present, and future scenario of global market. Front. Microbiol. 2014, 5, 454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Albokari, M.; Mashhour, I.; Alshehri, M.; Boothman, C.; Al-Enezi, M. Characterization of microbial communities in heavy crude oil from Saudi Arabia. Ann. Microbiol. 2015, 65, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Pacwa-Płociniczak, M.; Płaza, G.A.; Piotrowska-Seget, Z.; Cameotra, S.S. Environmental applications of biosurfactants: Recent advances. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2011, 12, 633–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Varjani, S.; Rakholiya, P.; Yong Ng, H.; Taherzadeh, M.J.; Hao Ngo, H.; Chang, J.S.; Wong, J.W.C.; You, S.; Teixeira, J.A.; Bui, X.T. Bio-based rhamnolipids production and recovery from waste streams: Status and perspectives. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 319, 124213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Renard, P.; Canet, I.; Sancelme, M.; Matulova, M.; Uhliarikova, I.; Eyheraguibel, B.; Nauton, L.; Devemy, J.; Traïkia, M.; Malfreyt, P.; et al. Cloud Microorganisms, an Interesting Source of Biosurfactants. In Surfactants and Detergents; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Twigg, M.S.; Baccile, N.; Banat, I.M.; Déziel, E.; Marchant, R.; Roelants, S.; Van Bogaert, I.N.A. Microbial biosurfactant research: Time to improve the rigour in the reporting of synthesis, functional characterization and process development. Microb. Biotechnol. 2021, 14, 147–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Li, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Lin, J.; Wang, W.; Li, S. High-Yield Di-Rhamnolipid Production by Pseudomonas aeruginosa YM4 and its Potential Application in MEOR. Molecules 2019, 24, 1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  80. Eruke, O.; Udoh, A. Potentials for Biosurfactant Enhanced Bioremediation of Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil and Water–A Review. Adv. Res. 2015, 4, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Martínez-Toledo, A.; Rodríguez-Vázquez, R. Response surface methodology (Box-Behnken) to improve a liquid media formulation to produce biosurfactant and phenanthrene removal by Pseudomonas putida. Ann. Microbiol. 2011, 61, 605–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Onwosi, C.O.; Odibo, F.J.C. Effects of carbon and nitrogen sources on rhamnolipid biosurfactant production by Pseudomonas nitroreducens isolated from soil. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2012, 28, 937–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Singh, P.; Tiwary, B.N. Isolation and characterization of glycolipid biosurfactant produced by a Pseudomonas otitidis strain isolated from Chirimiri coal mines, India. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 2016, 3, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Shreve, G.S.; Makula, R. Characterization of a new rhamnolipid biosurfactant complex from pseudomonas isolate DYNA270. Biomolecules 2019, 9, 885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. Haloi, S.; Sarmah, S.; Gogoi, S.B.; Medhi, T. Characterization of Pseudomonas sp. TMB2 produced rhamnolipids for ex-situ microbial enhanced oil recovery. 3 Biotech 2020, 10, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Nejad, Y.S.; Jaafarzadeh, N.; Ahmadi, M.; Abtahi, M.; Ghafari, S.; Jorfi, S. Remediation of oily sludge wastes using biosurfactant produced by bacterial isolate Pseudomonas balearica strain Z8. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 2020, 18, 531–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Bharal, P.; Konwar, B.K. Production and physico-chemical characterization of a biosurfactant produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa OBP1 isolated from petroleum sludge. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2011, 164, 1444–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Xia, W.J.; Luo, Z.B.; Dong, H.P.; Yu, L.; Cui, Q.F.; Bi, Y.Q. Synthesis, characterization, and oil recovery application of biosurfactant produced by indigenous Pseudomonas aeruginosa WJ-1 using waste vegetable oils. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2012, 166, 1148–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Amani, H.; Müller, M.M.; Syldatk, C.; Hausmann, R. Production of microbial rhamnolipid by Pseudomonas aeruginosa MM1011 for Ex situ enhanced oil recovery. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2013, 170, 1080–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Bharali, P.; Singh, S.P.; Dutta, N.; Gogoi, S.; Bora, L.C.; Debnath, P.; Konwar, B.K. Biodiesel derived waste glycerol as an economic substrate for biosurfactant production using indigenous Pseudomonas aeruginosa. RSC Adv. 2014, 4, 38698–38706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Moussa, T.A.A.; Mohamed, M.S.; Samak, N. Production and characterization of di-rhamnolipid produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa TMN. Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 2014, 31, 867–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Deepika, K.V.; Kalam, S.; Ramu Sridhar, P.; Podile, A.R.; Bramhachari, P.V. Optimization of rhamnolipid biosurfactant production by mangrove sediment bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa KVD-HR42 using response surface methodology. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2016, 5, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Rodrigues, M.S.; Moreira, F.S.; Cardoso, V.L.; de Resende, M.M. Soy molasses as a fermentation substrate for the production of biosurfactant using Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 10145. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 18699–18709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Chen, C.; Sun, N.; Li, D.; Long, S.; Tang, X.; Xiao, G.; Wang, L. Optimization and characterization of biosurfactant production from kitchen waste oil using Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 14934–14943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Liu, W.J.; Duan, X.D.; Wu, L.P.; Masakorala, K. Biosurfactant Production by Pseudomonas aeruginosa SNP0614 and its Effect on Biodegradation of Petroleum. Appl. Biochem. Microbiol. 2018, 54, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Sharma, R.; Singh, J.; Verma, N. Optimization of rhamnolipid production from Pseudomonas aeruginosa PBS towards application for microbial enhanced oil recovery. 3 Biotech 2018, 8, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Zhao, F.; Li, P.; Guo, C.; Shi, R.J.; Zhang, Y. Bioaugmentation of oil reservoir indigenous Pseudomonas aeruginosa to enhance oil recovery through in-situ biosurfactant production without air injection. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 251, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Khademolhosseini, R.; Jafari, A.; Mousavi, S.M.; Hajfarajollah, H.; Noghabi, K.A.; Manteghian, M. Physicochemical characterization and optimization of glycolipid biosurfactant production by a native strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa HAK01 and its performance evaluation for the MEOR process. RSC Adv. 2019, 9, 7932–7947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Zhou, J.; Xue, R.; Liu, S.; Xu, N.; Xin, F.; Zhang, W.; Jiang, M.; Dong, W. High Di-rhamnolipid Production Using Pseudomonas aeruginosa KT1115, Separation of Mono/Di-rhamnolipids, and Evaluation of Their Properties. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2019, 7, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Zhao, F.; Han, S.; Zhang, Y. Comparative studies on the structural composition, surface/interface activity and application potential of rhamnolipids produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa using hydrophobic or hydrophilic substrates. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 295, 122269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Perfumo, A.; Rancich, I.; Banat, I.M. Possibilities and challenges for biosurfactants use in petroleum industry. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2010, 672, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Qazi, M.A.; Subhan, M.; Fatima, N.; Ali, M.I.; Ahmed, S. Role of Biosurfactant Produced By Fusarium sp. BS-8 in Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Through Sand Pack Column. Int. J. Biosci. Biochem. Bioinform. 2013, 3, 598–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Dadrasnia, A.; Ismail, S. Biosurfactant production by Bacillus salmalaya for lubricating oil solubilization and biodegradation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 9848–9863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Nayarisseri, A.; Singh, P.; Singh, S.K. Screening, isolation and characterization of biosurfactant producing Bacillus subtilis strain ANSKLAB03. Bioinformation 2018, 14, 304–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Santos, A.P.P.; Silva, M.D.S.; Costa, E.V.L.; Rufino, R.D.; Santos, V.A.; Ramos, C.S.; Sarubbo, L.A.; Porto, A.L.F. Production and characterization of a biosurfactant produced by Streptomyces sp. DPUA 1559 isolated from lichens of the Amazon region. Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res. 2018, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Araújo, H.W.C.; Andrade, R.F.S.; Montero-Rodríguez, D.; Rubio-Ribeaux, D.; Alves Da Silva, C.A.; Campos-Takaki, G.M. Sustainable biosurfactant produced by Serratia marcescens UCP 1549 and its suitability for agricultural and marine bioremediation applications. Microb. Cell Fact. 2019, 18, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Prado, A.A.O.S.; Santos, B.L.P.; Vieira, I.M.M.; Ramos, L.C.; de Souza, R.R.; Silva, D.P.; Ruzene, D.S. Evaluation of a new strategy in the elaboration of culture media to produce surfactin from hemicellulosic corncob liquor. Biotechnol. Rep. 2019, 24, e00364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Purwasena, I.A.; Astuti, D.I.; Syukron, M.; Amaniyah, M.; Sugai, Y. Stability test of biosurfactant produced by Bacillus licheniformis DS1 using experimental design and its application for MEOR. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2019, 183, 106383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Hu, X.; Qiao, Y.; Chen, L.Q.; Du, J.F.; Fu, Y.Y.; Wu, S.; Huang, L. Enhancement of solubilization and biodegradation of petroleum by biosurfactant from Rhodococcus erythropolis HX-2. Geomicrobiol. J. 2020, 37, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Ribeiro, B.G.; Guerra, J.M.C.; Sarubbo, L.A. Potential Food Application of a Biosurfactant Produced by Saccharomyces cerevisiae URM 6670. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Silva, I.A.; Veras, B.O.; Ribeiro, B.G.; Aguiar, J.S.; Campos Guerra, J.M.; Luna, J.M.; Sarubbo, L.A. Production of cupcake-like dessert containing microbial biosurfactant as an emulsifier. PeerJ 2020, 2020, e9064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Purwasena, I.A.; Sugai, Y.; Sasaki, K. Estimation of the potential of an anaerobic thermophilic oil-degrading bacterium as a candidate for MEOR. J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. 2014, 4, 189–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Godwin Jacob, C. The Effect of Salt Concentration on Microbes during Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 2014, 4, 244–247. [Google Scholar]
  114. Bachmann, R.T.; Johnson, A.C.; Edyvean, R.G.J. Biotechnology in the petroleum industry: An overview. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2014, 86, 225–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Cui, Q.F.; Sun, S.S.; Luo, Y.J.; Yu, L.; Zhang, Z.Z. Comparison of in-situ and ex-situ microbial enhanced oil recovery by strain Pseudomonas aeruginosa WJ-1 in laboratory sand-pack columns. Pet. Sci. Technol. 2017, 35, 2044–2050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Gao, G.; Ji, K.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, X.; Dai, X.; Zhi, B.; Cao, Y.; Liu, D.; Wu, M.; Li, G.; et al. Microbial enhanced oil recovery through deep profile control using a conditional bacterial cellulose-producing strain derived from Enterobacter sp. FY-07. Microb. Cell Fact. 2020, 19, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Xia, S.; Zhang, L.; Davletshin, A.; Li, Z.; You, J.; Tan, S. Application of polysaccharide biopolymer in petroleum recovery. Polymers 2020, 12, 1860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Soldo, A.; Miletić, M.; Auad, M.L. Biopolymers as a sustainable solution for the enhancement of soil mechanical properties. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  119. Rayung, M.; Aung, M.M.; Azhar, S.C.; Abdullah, L.C.; Su’ait, M.S.; Ahmad, A.; Jamil, S.N.A.M. Bio-based polymer electrolytes for electrochemical devices: Insight into the ionic conductivity performance. Materials 2020, 13, 838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  120. Castillo, N.A.; Valdez, A.L.; Fariña, J.I. Microbial production of scleroglucan and downstream processing. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Bai, T.; Wang, T.; Li, Y.; Gao, N.L.; Zhang, L.; Chen, W.H.; Yin, X. Optimization of scleroglucan production by Sclerotium rolfsii by lowering pH during fermentation via oxalate metabolic pathway manipulation using CRISPR/Cas9. Fungal Biol. Biotechnol. 2021, 8, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Tomulescu, C.; Stoica, R.; Sevcenco, C.; Căşărică, A.; Moscovici, M.; Vamanu, A. Levan-A Mini Review. Sci. Bull. Ser. F. Biotechnol. 2016, 20, 309–317. [Google Scholar]
  123. Ağçeli, G.K.; Cihangir, N. Synthesis, characterization and antimicrobial performance of novel nanostructured biopolymer film based on levan/clay/LL-37 antimicrobial peptide. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2020, 23, 101421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Jeong, M.S.; Lee, Y.W.; Lee, H.S.; Lee, K.S. Simulation-Based Optimization of Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery with a Model Integrating Temperature, Pressure, and Salinity Effects. Energies 2021, 14, 1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Jinfang, W.; Zhengmao, W.; Jun, T.; Chengfang, S.; Jian, G. An Evaluation of Microbial Flooding for Enhanced Oil Recovery, Fuyu Oilfield, China. In Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers—SPE Annual Caspian Technical Conference and Exhibition, Baku, Azerbaijan, 1–3 November 2017. [Google Scholar]
  126. Phetcharat, T.; Dawkrajai, P.; Chitov, T.; Wongpornchai, P.; Saenton, S.; Mhuantong, W.; Kanokratana, P.; Champreda, V.; Bovonsombut, S. Effect of inorganic nutrients on bacterial community composition in oil-bearing sandstones from the subsurface strata of an onshore oil reservoir and its potential use in Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0198050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Ma, T.T.; Liu, L.Y.; Rui, J.P.; Yuan, Q.; Feng, D.S.; Zhou, Z.; Dai, L.R.; Zeng, W.Q.; Zhang, H.; Cheng, L. Coexistence and competition of sulfate-reducing and methanogenic populations in an anaerobic hexadecane-degrading culture. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2017, 10, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Omoniyi, O. A review of microbial enhanced oil recovery: Current development and future prospects. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2015, 6, 1378–1389. [Google Scholar]
  129. Jahanbani Veshareh, M.; Ayatollahi, S. Microorganisms’ effect on the wettability of carbonate oil-wet surfaces: Implications for MEOR, smart water injection and reservoir souring mitigation strategies. J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. 2020, 10, 1539–1550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Li, T.; Zhang, C.; Yang, K.L.; He, J. Unique genetic cassettes in a thermoanaerobacterium contribute to simultaneous conversion of cellulose and monosugars into butanol. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, e1701475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  131. Liberato, V.; Benevenuti, C.; Coelho, F.; Botelho, A.; Amaral, P.; Pereira, N.; Ferreira, T. Clostridium sp. as Bio-Catalyst for Fuels and Chemicals Production in a Biorefinery Context. Catalysts 2019, 9, 962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  132. Rosales-Calderon, O.; Arantes, V. A review on commercial-scale high-value products that can be produced alongside cellulosic ethanol. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2019, 12, 1–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  133. Nazina, T.N.; Sokolova, D.S.; Babich, T.L.; Semenova, E.M.; Ershov, A.P.; Bidzhieva, S.K.; Borzenkov, I.A.; Poltaraus, A.B.; Khisametdinov, M.R.; Tourova, T.P. Microorganisms of low-temperature heavy oil reservoirs (Russia) and their possible application for enhanced oil recovery. Microbiology 2017, 86, 773–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Youssef, N.; Elshahed, M.S.; McInerney, M.J. Microbial Processes in Oil Fields. Culprits, Problems, and Opportunities. Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 2009, 66, 141–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Siegert, M.; Sitte, J.; Galushko, A.; Krüger, M. Starting up microbial enhanced oil recovery. Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotechnol. 2014, 142, 1–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Olajire, A.A.; Essien, J.P. Aerobic Degradation of Petroleum Components by Microbial Consortia. J Pet Env. Biotechnol 2014, 5, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Chaudhary, D.K.; Kim, J. New insights into bioremediation strategies for oil-contaminated soil in cold environments. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2019, 142, 58–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Rohrbacher, F.; St-Arnaud, M. Root Exudation: The Ecological Driver of Hydrocarbon Rhizoremediation. Agronomy 2016, 6, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Bacosa, H.P.; Erdner, D.L.; Rosenheim, B.E.; Shetty, P.; Seitz, K.W.; Baker, B.J.; Liu, Z. Hydrocarbon degradation and response of seafloor sediment bacterial community in the northern Gulf of Mexico to light Louisiana sweet crude oil. ISME J. 2018, 12, 2532–2543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Sierra-García, I.N.; Alvarez, J.C.; De Vasconcellos, S.P.; De Souza, A.P.; Dos Santos Neto, E.V.; De Oliveira, V.M. New hydrocarbon degradation pathways in the microbial metagenome from brazilian petroleum reservoirs. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, 90087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  141. Varjani, S.J. Microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbons. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 223, 277–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Xu, X.; Liu, W.; Tian, S.; Wang, W.; Qi, Q.; Jiang, P.; Gao, X.; Li, F.; Li, H.; Yu, H. Petroleum Hydrocarbon-Degrading Bacteria for the Remediation of Oil Pollution Under Aerobic Conditions: A Perspective Analysis. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 2885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Varjani, S.J.; Gnansounou, E. Microbial dynamics in petroleum oilfields and their relationship with physiological properties of petroleum oil reservoirs. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 245, 1258–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Natalia, I.; de Oliveir, V.M. Microbial Hydrocarbon Degradation: Efforts to Understand Biodegradation in Petroleum Reservoirs. In Biodegradation—Engineering and Technology; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  145. Mbadinga, S.M.; Wang, L.Y.; Zhou, L.; Liu, J.F.; Gu, J.D.; Mu, B.Z. Microbial communities involved in anaerobic degradation of alkanes. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2011, 65, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Truskewycz, A.; Gundry, T.D.; Khudur, L.S.; Kolobaric, A.; Taha, M.; Aburto-Medina, A.; Ball, A.S.; Shahsavari, E. Petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in terrestrial ecosystems—fate and microbial responses. Molecules 2019, 24, 3400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  147. Okpala, G.N.; Voordouw, G. Comparison of nitrate and perchlorate in controlling sulfidogenesis in heavy oil-containing bioreactors. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 2423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  148. Voordouw, G.; Agrawal, A.; Park, H.S.; Gieg, L.M.; Jack, T.R.; Cavallaro, A.; Granli, T.; Miner, K. Souring Treatment with Nitrate in Fields from Which Oil is Produced by Produced Water Reinjection. In Proceedings of the Proceedings—SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, The Woodlands, TX, USA, 11–13 April 2011; Volume 2, pp. 651–653. [Google Scholar]
  149. Lin, J.; Hao, B.; Cao, G.; Wang, J.; Feng, Y.; Tan, X.; Wang, W. A study on the microbial community structure in oil reservoirs developed by water flooding. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2014, 122, 354–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  150. Alkan, H.K.; Gutierrez, I.; Bültemeier, H.; Mahler, E. Design and Performance Prediction of an MEOR Field Pilot by Numerical Methods. In Proceedings of the IOR 2015—18th European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Dresden, Germany, 14–16 April 2015; p. cp-445. [Google Scholar]
  151. Jeong, M.S.; Lee, J.H.; Lee, K.S. Critical review on the numerical modeling of in-situ microbial enhanced oil recovery processes. Biochem. Eng. J. 2019, 150, 107294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Hong, E.; Jeong, M.S.; Kim, T.H.; Lee, J.H.; Cho, J.H.; Lee, K.S. Development of coupled biokinetic and thermal model to optimize cold-water microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR) in homogenous reservoir. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. Gang, H.Z.; Liu, M.T.; Mu, B.Z. Modeling of microorganisms transport in a cylindrical pore. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2008, 35, 495–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Li, J.; Liu, J.; Trefry, M.G.; Park, J.; Liu, K.; Haq, B.; Johnston, C.D.; Volk, H. Interactions of Microbial-Enhanced Oil Recovery Processes. Transp. Porous Media 2011, 87, 77–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Sivasankar, P.; Kumar, G.S. Numerical modelling of enhanced oil recovery by microbial flooding under non-isothermal conditions. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2014, 124, 161–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Al-Sulaimani, H.; Joshi, S.; Al-Wahaibi, Y.; Al-Bahry, S.; Elshafie, A.; Al-Bemani, A. Microbial biotechnology for enhancing oil recovery: Current developments and future prospects. Invit. Rev. Biotechnol. Bioinf. Bioeng. 2011, 1, 147–158. [Google Scholar]
  157. Ansah, E.O.; Sugai, Y.; Nguele, R.; Sasaki, K. Integrated microbial enhanced oil recovery (MEOR) simulation: Main influencing parameters and uncertainty assessment. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2018, 171, 784–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Wang, T.; Yu, L.; Xiu, J.; Ma, Y.; Lin, W.; Ma, T.; Wang, X.; Wang, L. A mathematical model for microbial enhanced oil recovery using biopolymer-producing microorganism. Fuel 2018, 216, 589–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Sugai, Y.; Owaki, Y.; Sasaki, K. Simulation study on reservoir souring induced by injection of reservoir brine containing sulfate-reducing bacteria. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Sivasankar, P.; Govindarajan, S.K. Modelling the Coupled Effects of Temperature, Injection Rate and Microbial Kinetic Parameters on Oil Recovery by Microbial Flooding. In Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers—SPE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition, Dammam, Saudi Arabia, 25–28 April 2016. [Google Scholar]
  161. De Souza, P.M.; Goulart, F.R.D.V.; Marques, J.M.; Bizzo, H.R.; Blank, A.F.; Groposo, C.; De Sousa, M.P.; Vólaro, V.; Alviano, C.S.; Moreno, D.S.A.; et al. Growth inhibition of sulfate-reducing bacteria in produced water from the petroleum industry using essential oils. Molecules 2017, 22, 648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  162. Xu, H.; Wang, H.; Jia, W.; Ren, S.; Wang, J. Application of Bacillus subtilis strain for microbial-enhanced oil recovery. Int. J. Green Energy 2019, 16, 530–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Nielsen, S.M.; Nesterov, I.; Shapiro, A.A. Microbial enhanced oil recovery—A modeling study of the potential of spore-forming bacteria. Comput. Geosci. 2016, 20, 567–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  164. Henni, A. Oman Champions EOR in the Middle East. J. Pet. Technol. 2014, 66, 86–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Volk, H.; Liu, K. 3° Oil Recovery: Experiences and Economics of Microbially Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR). In Handbook of Hydrocarbon and Lipid Microbiology; Timmis, K.N., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 2739–2751. [Google Scholar]
  166. Guo, H.; Li, Y.; Yiran, Z.; Wang, F.; Wang, Y.; Yu, Z.; Haicheng, S.; Yuanyuan, G.; Chuyi, J.; Xian, G. Progress of Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery in China. In Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers—SPE Asia Pacific Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 11–13 August 2015; pp. 1422–1437. [Google Scholar]
  167. Speight, J.; El-Gendy, N.S. Introduction to Petroleum Biotechnology. In Introduction to Petroleum Biotechnology, 1st ed.; Speight, J.G., El-Gendy, N.S., Eds.; Gulf Professional Publishing: Houston, TX, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  168. Liu, Q.; Niu, J.; Yu, Y.; Wang, C.; Lu, S.; Zhang, S.; Lv, J.; Peng, B. Production, characterization and application of biosurfactant produced by Bacillus licheniformis L20 for microbial enhanced oil recovery. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 307, 127193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Ansah, E.O.; Vo Thanh, H.; Sugai, Y.; Nguele, R.; Sasaki, K. Microbe-induced fluid viscosity variation: Field-scale simulation, sensitivity and geological uncertainty. J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. 2020, 10, 1983–2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  170. Liu, K.; Wei, X. Oil Recovery: Experiences and Economics of Microbially Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR). In Consequences of Microbial Interactions with Hydrocarbons, Oils, and Lipids: Production of Fuels and Chemicals; Lee, S.Y., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  171. Astuti, D.I.; Purwasena, I.A.; Putri, R.E.; Amaniyah, M.; Sugai, Y. Screening and characterization of biosurfactant produced by Pseudoxanthomonas sp. G3 and its applicability for enhanced oil recovery. J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. 2019, 9, 2279–2289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Schematics on the classification of the oil recovery phases.
Figure 1. Schematics on the classification of the oil recovery phases.
Energies 14 04684 g001
Figure 2. Lithology-based implementation of tertiary EOR methods. Adapted from [37].
Figure 2. Lithology-based implementation of tertiary EOR methods. Adapted from [37].
Energies 14 04684 g002
Figure 3. Diagrammatic illustration of a synopsis of the MEOR process.
Figure 3. Diagrammatic illustration of a synopsis of the MEOR process.
Energies 14 04684 g003
Figure 4. The principle behind aerobic hydrocarbon degradation by microbes [139,141,142].
Figure 4. The principle behind aerobic hydrocarbon degradation by microbes [139,141,142].
Energies 14 04684 g004
Figure 5. The principle behind anaerobic hydrocarbon degradation by microbes. The arrows represent different degradation reactions [139,141,142].
Figure 5. The principle behind anaerobic hydrocarbon degradation by microbes. The arrows represent different degradation reactions [139,141,142].
Energies 14 04684 g005
Figure 6. Timeline depicting the long chronicle of MEOR history.
Figure 6. Timeline depicting the long chronicle of MEOR history.
Energies 14 04684 g006
Figure 7. List of benefits and limitations of employing MEOR.
Figure 7. List of benefits and limitations of employing MEOR.
Energies 14 04684 g007
Table 1. Various microbial metabolic products and their uses [28,55,63].
Table 1. Various microbial metabolic products and their uses [28,55,63].
Metabolic BioproductsPreferred
Reservoir Type
MicrobesRole in Oil Recovery
Cell biomassStratified
reservoir
swith different
permeable zones
Bacillus licheniformis,
Leuconostoc mesenteroides,
Xanthomonas campestris
Selective and as non-selective plugging, viscosity relaxation, wettability alteration, oil degradation, and emulsification.
BiosurfactantsMature water flooded
reservoirs, sandstone or
carbonate
reservoirs with
less than 50 °C
(moderate
temperatures)
Acinetobacter calcoacetiens,
Arthrobacter paraffeninues,
Bacillus sp.,
Clostridium sp.,
Pseudomonas sp.
Emulsification, IFT reduction, viscosity relaxation, and wettability alteration.
BiopolymersStratified
reservoirs
with different
permeable zones
Bacillus polymyxa,
Brevibacterium viscogenes,
Leuconostoc mesenteroides
Xanthomonas campestris
Injectivity profile and viscosity modification, mobility checking, and decrease in permeability in water-swept regions.
BiosolventsHighly oil-wet,
water flooded
reservoirs
Clostridium sp.,
Enterobacter aerogens,
Klebsiella sp.,
Zymomonas mobilis
Increase in permeability and oil viscosity relaxation with long-chain hydrocarbon removal from pore throats.
BiogasesHeavy oil
reservoirs
Clostridium sp.,
Enterobacter aerogens,
Methanobacterium sp.
Oil swelling, IFT, and viscosity relaxation increase pressure and permeability.
BioacidsCarbonate or
Carbonaceous
reservoirs
Clostridium sp.,
Enterobacter sp.,
Mixed acidogens
Permeability increases, emulsification, CO2 production, and dissolves minerals present in the reservoirs.
Table 2. Properties of biosurfactants produced by various microorganisms of several strains. Abbreviations—BS: Biosurfactant, ST: Surface tension, CMC: Critical Micelle Concentration, AOR: Additional oil recovery, E24: Emulsification Index (mostly against kerosene, diesel, or sunflower oil), Temp: Temperature, P: Pressure, API G: American Petroleum Institute Gravity, OV: Oil Viscosity, Por: Porosity, PV: Pore volume, Sub: Substrate, FR: Flow Rate, d: diesel, k: kerosene and HCCL: Hemi-cellulosic Corncob Liquor.
Table 2. Properties of biosurfactants produced by various microorganisms of several strains. Abbreviations—BS: Biosurfactant, ST: Surface tension, CMC: Critical Micelle Concentration, AOR: Additional oil recovery, E24: Emulsification Index (mostly against kerosene, diesel, or sunflower oil), Temp: Temperature, P: Pressure, API G: American Petroleum Institute Gravity, OV: Oil Viscosity, Por: Porosity, PV: Pore volume, Sub: Substrate, FR: Flow Rate, d: diesel, k: kerosene and HCCL: Hemi-cellulosic Corncob Liquor.
MicrobeBS TypeST (mN/m)CMC (mg/L)AOR (%)E24 (%)IFT (mN/m)Temp (°C)P (atm)API G (°)OV (cP)PorPVSubFR (ml/min)BS YieldReference
(a) Various Pseudomonas species
Pseudomonas putida CB-100Rhamnolipid47.5
±
1.32
430-20-37
± 2.0
-----Phenanthrene0.827[82]
Pseudomonas
nitroreducens
Rhamnolipid3728---30-----Glucose-5.46[83]
Pseudomonas otitidis P4Glycolipid33.440-68.7-40-----2% Sodium acetate1002.75 ± 0.07[84]
Pseudomonas DYNA270Rhamnolipid2220--0.0051201.22----4% Mannitol-5.32[85]
Pseudomonas sp. TMB2Rhamnolipid33.412016.778.60.83040.734.212.4322,
21.3
19.7
21.5,
20.81,
19.25
2% Glucose0.82.8[86]
Pseudomonas balearica Z8Rhamnolipid4190-44-40-----Oily sludge waste1-[87]
(b) Various Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa
OBP1
Rhamnolipid31.145-821.525 ± 1-----2% n-hexadecane0.44.57[88]
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa WJ-1
Rhamnolipid24.51423.0295-37---36.77-5% Waste Sun
flower oil
-50.2[89]
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa MM1011
Rhamnolipid26120-802250.0519-2312.6Sun
flower oil
0.140.7[90]
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa JBK1
Rhamnolipid33.754010.8624.7 (d)
3.4 (k)
90-----3% Raw Bio-glycerol0.53.9[91]
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa TMN
Rhamnolipid3418.75-46-25 to 37-----40 g/L Glucose
or
Glycerol
-0.30.25[92]
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa KVD-HR42
Rhamnolipid30.1483--10037-----23.85 g/L Karanja oil-5.90 ± 2.1[93]
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa ATCC-10145
Rhamnolipid31.980-97.4-25 to 30-----Soy molasses0.511.70[94]
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa
Rhamnolipid-55.87-58.43 ± 0.31.17 ± 0.0155-----Kitchen waste oil0.52.47 ± 0.03[95]
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa SNP0614
Lipopeptide25.445-90-37-----Crude oil--[96]
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa PBS
Rhamnolipid23.76-56.18 ± 1.5950 to 60-100----29.83 ±0.32.17% Sodium citrate0.42.65[97]
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa DQ3
Rhamnolipid33.8-5.2258-42--1015.2693-0.2-[98]
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa
Rhamnolipid-9.25 ± 0.2735.266912730-21.9-20.49
±
0.69
-125 g/L Glycerol10.877[7]
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa HAK01
Rhamnolipid28.112043602.5240 to 121119.51.8-0.420 g/L Sun
flower oil
-2.07[99]
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa YM4
Di-Rhamnolipid2850,
60
-61,
57
<125-----Glycerol
Soybean Oil
-79.7 ± 4.083.5 ± 4.6[80]
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa KT1115
Rhamnolipid
(Mono as well as di)
28167,
8
-41.4,
52.1
<120 to 80-----Rapeseed oil-44.39[100]
Pseudomonas
aeruginosa SG
Rhamnolipid28.160-76.12.094 to 100--118.9--Soybean oil0.610.32[101]
(c) Other bacterial strains
Bacillus
mojavensis
JF-2
Lipopeptide-10 to 4014-1.037-326.016.729DNA with medium E0.515-[102]
Fusarium sp.
BS-8
Glycolipid32-4671-30----4009%
Sucrose
365.25[103]
Bacillus
salmalaya
139SI
Cyclic lipopeptide275%-65 ± 1.1-36----10 to 111% Sun
flower oil
-1.9[104]
Candida
tropicalis MTCC230
Lipopeptide, Surfactin3232.539.8062-30 to 90----310.5% Glucose + 1.5% Petrol1-[62]
Bacillus subtilis ANSKLAB03Surfactin380.01-82-40-----2% Sucrose-0.324[105]
Bacillus atrophaeus
L193
Fengycin,
Surfactin,
Bacillomycin
Iturin
339.38-51.53 ± 1.39-28-----1% Colloidal chitin-2.04[94]
Streptomyces sp. DPUA1559Glycoproteic Surfactant25.3410,000-41,
95
-4 to 80-----1% Residual frying soybean oil,
Residual motor oil
-1.74[106]
Serratia
marcescens
UCP 1549
Polymeric
compounds
25.921.5%---28-----0.2% Lactose
5% Corn oil
--[107]
Bacillus subtilis ICF-PCSurfactin27100-65.74-30 to 45-----HCCL + Glucose-3.95[108]
Bacillus licheniformis DS1Lipopeptide-157.55.465.1912.0401--12.8414.842% Crude
oil
0.2-[109]
Rhodococcus
Erythropolis
HX-2
NK28.89100-90-20 to 100-----2% Petroleum-5.0[110]
Saccharomyces cerevisiae
URM 6670
Glycolipid26.64 ± 0.06---9.12 ± 0.0440 to 400-----1% Waste Soybean oil505.84 ± 0.17[111]
Candida
bombicola
URM 3718
Sophorolipid30.79 ± 0.040.5-66.77 ± 0.150.73 ± 0.0528 to 501------2 ± 1.02[112]
Table 3. Comparison of different project characteristics based on their screening parameters and oil production ability. Abbreviations—OP: Oil Production, BL: Baseline, IP: Incremental Production, OIP: Oil in place, WF: Water flooding, ROS: Residual Oil Saturation [4,128,169].
Table 3. Comparison of different project characteristics based on their screening parameters and oil production ability. Abbreviations—OP: Oil Production, BL: Baseline, IP: Incremental Production, OIP: Oil in place, WF: Water flooding, ROS: Residual Oil Saturation [4,128,169].
ParametersSan
Andres
Queen
Sand
Tupungato-RefugioHuabeiXinjiang
Location and discoveryHockley County, Texas, USA (in 1945)Ector County, Texas, USA (in 1984)Tupungato County, Medoza, Argentina (in 1930)No. 3 plant, Renqiu, China (in 1987)No. 1 plant, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous
Region, China (in 1991)
Comprises30 producer and 15 injection wells18 producer and 18 injector wellsThree producer wells (Victor Oscuro formation)Seven producer wells10 producer wells
LithologyFractured dolomitePorous grey sandstone and siltstone interbedded with anhydrite and saltFractured sandstoneSandstoneSandstone
Depth (ft.)47454450570069004900
Porosity (fraction)0.0790.1820.180.2320.30
Permeability [Range] (mD)1.7
[0.10–10.0]
13.0
[0.6–300]
300
[150–1500]
240
[20–640]
70
[0.2–440]
Temperature (°F)115110160180110
Oil Density (API)2930282829.6
Viscosity (cp)4.51191450
Pressure (psi)1000-50732-
Water cut (%)917463.5 to 626064 to 54
Drive MechanismSolution Gas
(After 1967 water flooding was initiated)
Solution Gas replaced by water flooding in 1984Gas drive, water flooding and water drive combinationScattered water floodingDispersed water flooding
Treatment19 months of
microbe treating
24 months of
Microbe treating
14 months of
microbe treating
12 months of
microbe treating (each well thrice)
6 months of
microbe treating (each well thrice)
Shut-in period3 days then overnight shut-in for 3 months3 days; later, batch treating took 6 to 12 h48 h on two wells and 24 h on the nextNot shutNot shut
Spacing25 acres30 acres42 acres--
Avg. OP per well14 bpd42 bpd90 bpd--
% Decline
(%/year)
Initially 6.5, after MEOR, it flattened to 0.6Initially 39, after MEOR, it flattened for a few months then resumed at 31Initially 7.1, after MEOR, it inclined to 7.3Inclined and flattened at 150 bpdSustained a rate of about 300 bpd
OP RateIncreased by 10% (40 bpd)Increased by 47%Increased by 29% (60
bpd)
Increased by 552%Increased by 36% (80 bpd)
BL ProductionOP of 440 bpd is 10% over BLOP of 1000 bpd is 43% over BLOP of 270 bpd is
29% over BL
OP of 150 bpd is 552% above BLOP of 300 bpd is 36% over BL
IP17,000 bbl, i.e., 7% over the BL240,000 bbl, i.e., 34% above BL19,000 bbl, i.e., 19% above BL41,000 bbl, i.e., 216% over BL14,000 bbl, i.e., 43% over BL
OIP after WF and MEOR (bbl/ac-ft.)205 and 199691 and 660509 and 442Due to short duration of the microbe treatment, no samples were available for the field treated oil.Due to the short duration of the microbe treatment, no samples were available for the field treated oil.
ROS under WFDrops from 35% to 34.1%Falls from 51.4% to 49.1%Drops from 38.3% to 33.3%
Improvement with MEOR (%)2.54.513
Table 4. Some vital screening criteria parameters of recent projects in powerful nations—India, U.S. and China.
Table 4. Some vital screening criteria parameters of recent projects in powerful nations—India, U.S. and China.
ParametersInstitute of Reservoir StudiesU.S. Department of EnergyChina National Petroleum Company
LocationAhmedabad, IndiaWashington, DC, U.S.Beijing, China
LithologySandstoneSandstoneSandstone
Depth (ft.)800010,000-
Porosity (fraction)--0.17 to 0.25
Permeability (mD)Less than 50Less than 100More than 150
Temperature (°F)19416086 to 140
Oil Density (API)2018 to 40-
Brine Salinity (g/L)More than 10More than 10More than 100
pH6 to 9--
Viscosity (cp)20-30 to 150
Residual Oil Saturation (%)Less than 25Less than 25-
Pressure (psi)Less than 4267--
Water cut (%)30 to 90-60 to 85
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Quraishi, M.; Bhatia, S.K.; Pandit, S.; Gupta, P.K.; Rangarajan, V.; Lahiri, D.; Varjani, S.; Mehariya, S.; Yang, Y.-H. Exploiting Microbes in the Petroleum Field: Analyzing the Credibility of Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR). Energies 2021, 14, 4684. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154684

AMA Style

Quraishi M, Bhatia SK, Pandit S, Gupta PK, Rangarajan V, Lahiri D, Varjani S, Mehariya S, Yang Y-H. Exploiting Microbes in the Petroleum Field: Analyzing the Credibility of Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR). Energies. 2021; 14(15):4684. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154684

Chicago/Turabian Style

Quraishi, Marzuqa, Shashi Kant Bhatia, Soumya Pandit, Piyush Kumar Gupta, Vivek Rangarajan, Dibyajit Lahiri, Sunita Varjani, Sanjeet Mehariya, and Yung-Hun Yang. 2021. "Exploiting Microbes in the Petroleum Field: Analyzing the Credibility of Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR)" Energies 14, no. 15: 4684. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154684

APA Style

Quraishi, M., Bhatia, S. K., Pandit, S., Gupta, P. K., Rangarajan, V., Lahiri, D., Varjani, S., Mehariya, S., & Yang, Y. -H. (2021). Exploiting Microbes in the Petroleum Field: Analyzing the Credibility of Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery (MEOR). Energies, 14(15), 4684. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154684

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop