Problems Caused by Microbes and Treatment Strategies: Monitoring Microbial Responses to Biocides; Bioassays – A Concept to Test the Effect of Biocides on both Archaea and Bacteria in Oilfield Systems

  • Lars Holmkvist
  • Uffe Sognstrup Thomsen
  • Jan Larsen
  • Michael Jensen
  • Torben Lund Skovhus
Conference paper


The oil and gas industry seeks to reduce the costs of oil and gas production and to minimise the risks of the operation, i.e. to have a high degree of safety for the personnel and protection of the environment. This imposes considerable demands on corrosion inhibition technologies and chemical management. The oil industry has traditionally used cultivation-based methods for microbiological surveillance of oil production facilities to monitor microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) risk (Sooknah et al., 2007). However, studies show that it is only possible to cultivate less than 10% of all viable microorganisms and that the population characteristics in a sample may change during the cultivation steps (Maxwell et al., 2004). Therefore, it is obvious that alternative methods are needed that can detect all the microorganisms related to MIC in a sample independent of the cultivation method.


Log10 Unit Sulphate Reduction Rate Microbiologically Influence Corrosion Microbiologically Influence Corrosion Anaerobic Bottle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Laboratory experiments and field monitoring were sponsored by DUC Partners (A.P. Møller-Mærsk, Shell and Chevron).


  1. Beeder J, Nilsen RK, Rosnes JT, Torsvik T, Lien T (1994) Archaeoglobus fulgidus isolated from hot North Sea oil field waters. Appl Environ Microbiol 60:1227–1231Google Scholar
  2. Brock TD, Madigan MT, Martinko JM, Parker J (1994) Biology of microorganisms, 7th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  3. Davies M, Scott PJB (2006) Oilfield water technology. NACE Press, Houston, p 219Google Scholar
  4. Fossing H, Jørgensen BB (1989) Measurement of bacterial sulfate reduction in sediments: evaluation of a single-step chromium reduction method. Biogeochemistry 8:205–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hansen LH, Larsen J, Jensen M, Thomsen US, Sørensen K, Lundgaard T, Skovhus TL (2009) The application of bioassays for evaluating in-situ biocide efficiency in offshore oil production in the North Sea. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE, 121656Google Scholar
  6. Jørgensen BB (1978) A comparison of methods for the quantification of bacterial sulfate reduction in coastal marine sediments. 1. Measurement with radiotracer technique. Geomicrobiol J 1(1):1–28Google Scholar
  7. Larsen J, Sanders PF, Yalbot RE (2000) Experience with the use of TetrakisHydroxyMethylPhosphonium Sulphate (THPS) for the control of downhole hydrogen sulphide (Corrosion 2000, Paper 00123). (Houston, TX: NACE International, 2000)Google Scholar
  8. Larsen J, Skovhus TL, Saunders AM, Højris B, Agerbæk M (2008) Molecular identification of MIC bacteria from scale and produced water: similarities and differences (Corrosion 2008, Paper 08652). (Houston, TX: NACE International, 2008)Google Scholar
  9. Larsen J, Sørensen KB, Højris B, Skovhus TL (2009) Significance of troublesome sulphate-reducing prokaryotes (SRP) in oil field systems (Corrosion 2009, Paper 09389). (Houston, TX: NACE International, 2009)Google Scholar
  10. Maxwell S, Devine C, Rooney F, Spark I (2004) Monitoring and control of bacterial biofilms in oilfield water handling systems (Corrosion, Paper 04752). (Houston, TX: NACE International, 2004)Google Scholar
  11. Nilsen RK, Torsvik T (1996) Methanococcus thermolithotrophicus isolated from North Sea oil field reservoir water. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:728–731Google Scholar
  12. Oates SW, Gregg MR, Mulak KJ, Walsh GG, Dickinson A (2006) A novel approach to managing a seawater injection biocide program reduces risk, improves biological control, and reduces capital and opex costs on an offshore platform (Corrosion 2006, Paper 06665). (Houston, TX: NACE International, 2006)Google Scholar
  13. Rozanova EP, Borzenkov IA, Tarasov AL, Suntsova LA, Dong ChL, Belyaev SS, Ivanov MV (2001) Microbiological processes in a high-temperature oil field. Microbiology 70:118–127Google Scholar
  14. Skovhus TL, Højris B, Saunders AM, Thomsen TR, Agerbæk M, Larsen J (2009) Practical use of new microbiology tools in oil production. SPE Production & Operations 24:180–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sooknah R, Papavinasam S, Revie RW (2007) Monitoring microbiologically influenced corrosion: a review of techniques (Corrosion, Paper 07517). (Houston, TX: NACE International, 2007)Google Scholar
  16. Stetter KO, Lauerer G, Thomm M, Neuner A (1987) Isolation of extremely thermophilic sulphate reducers: evidence for a novel branch of archaebacteria. Science 236:822–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Vorholt JA, Marx CJ, Lidstrom ME, Thauer RK (2000) Novel formaldehyde-activating enzyme in Methylobacterium extorquens Am1 required for growth on methanol. J Bacteriol 182:6645–6650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zeikus JG, Dawson MA, Thompson TE, Ingvorsen K, Hatchikian EC (1983) Microbial ecology of volcanic sulphidogenesis: isolation and characterization of Thermodesulfobacterium commune gen. nov. and sp. nov. J Gen Microbiol 129:1159–1169Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lars Holmkvist
    • 1
  • Uffe Sognstrup Thomsen
    • 1
  • Jan Larsen
    • 2
  • Michael Jensen
    • 2
  • Torben Lund Skovhus
    • 1
  1. 1.Danish Technological Institute, DTI Oil & GasAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.Maersk Oil and Gas ASCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations