Effective EOR Decision Strategies With Limited Data: Field Cases Demonstration
- Eduardo J. Manrique (Norwest-Questa Engineering) | Mehdi Izadi (Norwest-Questa Engineering) | Curtis D. Kitchen (Norwest-Questa Engineering) | Vladimir Alvarado (University of Wyoming)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
- Publication Date
- August 2009
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 551 - 561
- 2009. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 7 in the last 30 days
- 1,908 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 12.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
Enhanced-oil-recovery (EOR) evaluations focused on asset acquisition or rejuvenation involve a combination of complex decisions using different data sources. EOR projects traditionally have been associated with high capital and operational expenditures (CAPEX and OPEX, respectively) as well as high financial risk, which tend to limit the number of EOR projects launched. We propose a workflow for EOR evaluations that accounts for different volumes and quality of information. This flexible workflow has been applied successfully to oil-property evaluations and EOR-feasibility studies in many oil reservoirs. The method associated with the workflow relies on traditional (e.g., look-up tables, x-y correlations) and more-advanced (data mining for analog-reservoir search and geology indicators) screening methods, emphasizing identification of analogs to support decision making. The screening phase is combined with analytical or simplified numerical simulations to estimate full-field performance with reservoir-data-driven segmentation procedures. This paper illustrates the EOR decision-making workflow by use of field case examples from Asia, Canada, Mexico, South America, and the United States. The assets evaluated include reservoir types ranging from oil sands to condensate reservoirs. Different stages of development and information availability are discussed. Results show the advantage of a flexible decision-making workflow that can be adapted to the volume and quality of information by formulating the correct decision problem and concentrating on projects and/or properties with the highest expected economic merit. An interesting aspect of this approach is the combination of geologic and engineering data, minimizing experts' bias and combining technical and financial figures of merit. The proposed method has proved useful to screen and evaluate projects/properties very rapidly, identifying when upside potential exists.
|File Size||738 KB||Number of Pages||11|
1998 Worldwide EOR Survey. 1998. Oil & Gas Journal96 (16): 59.
2000 Worldwide EOR Survey. 2000. Oil & Gas Journal98 (12): 45.
Al-Bahar, M.A., Merrill, R., Peake, W., Jumaa, M., and Oskui, R. 2004. Evaluation of IOR Potential WithinKuwait. Paper SPE 88716 presented at the Abu Dhabi International Conferenceand Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 10-13 October. doi: 10.2118/88716-MS.
Alvarado, V., Manrique, E., Vasquez, Y., and Noreide, M. 2003. An approachfor full-field EOR simulations based on fast evaluation tools. Paper presentedat the Annual Workshop and Symposium for the IEA Collaborative Project onEnhanced Oil Recovery, Regina, Canada, 7-10 September.
Alvarado, V., Ranson, A., Hernandez, K., Manrique, E., Matheus, J., Liscano,T., and Prosperi, N. 2002. Selection of EOR/IOR OpportunitiesBased on Machine Learning. Paper SPE 78332 presented at the EuropeanPetroleum Conference, Aberdeen, 29-31 October. doi: 10.2118/78332-MS.
Begg, S.H., Bratvold, R.B., and Campbell, J.M. 2003. Shrinks Or Quants: Who Will ImproveDecision-Making. Paper SPE 84238 presented at the SPE Annual TechnicalConference and Exhibition, Denver, 5-8 October. doi: 10.2118/84238-MS.
Bickel, J.E. and Bratvold, R.B. 2007. Decision Making in the Oil and GasIndustry: From Blissful Ignorance to Uncertainty-Induced Confusion. PaperSPE 109610 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,Anaheim, California, USA, 11-14 November. doi: 10.2118/109610-MS.
Bos, C.F.M. 2005. A Frameworkfor Uncertainty Quantification and Technical-to Business Integration forImproved Investment Decision Making. Paper SPE 94109 presented at the SPEEuropec/EAGE Annual Conference, Madrid, Spain, 13-16 June. doi:10.2118/94109-MS.
Butler, R.M. 1991. Thermal Recovery of Oil and Bitumen. EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
da Cruz, P.S., Horne, R.N., and Deutsch, C.V. 2004. The Quality Map: A Tool for ReservoirUncertainty Quantification and Decision Making. SPE Res Eval &Eng 7 (1): 6-14. SPE-87642-PA. doi: 10.2118/87642-PA.
Dinnie, N.C., Fletcher, A.J.P., and Finch, J.H. 2002. Strategic Decision Making in theUpstream Oil and Gas Industry: Exploring Intuition and Analysis. Paper SPE77910 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,Melbourne, Australia, 8-10 October. doi: 10.2118/77910-MS.
Goodyear, S.G. and Gregory, A.T. 1994. Risk Assessment and Management in IORProjects. Paper SPE 28844 presented at the European Petroleum Conference,London, 25-27 October. doi: 10.2118/28844-MS.
Guan, L., McVay, D.A., Jensen, J.L., and Voneiff, G.W. 2002. Evaluation of a Statistical InfillCandidate Selection Technique. Paper SPE 75718 presented at the SPE GasTechnology Symposium, Calgary, 30 April-2 May. doi: 10.2118/75718-MS.
Guerillot, D.R. 1998. EORScreening With an Expert System. Paper SPE 17791 presented at the PetroleumComputer Conference, San Jose, California, USA, 27-29 June. doi:10.2118/17791-MS.
Henson, R., Todd, A., and Corbett, P. 2002. Geologically Based Screening Criteriafor Improved Oil Recovery Projects. Paper SPE 75148 presented at theSPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 13-17 April. doi:10.2118/75148-MS.
Hudson, J.W., Jochen, J.E., and Jochen, V.A. 2000. Practical Technique to IdentifyInfill Potential in Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs Applied to the Milk RiverFormation in Canada. Paper SPE 59779 presented at the SPE/CERI GasTechnology Symposium, Calgary, 3-5 April. doi: 10.2118/59779-MS.
Hudson, J.W., Jochen, J.E., and Spivey, J.P. 2001. Potential Methods to High-GradeInfill Opportunities Applied to the Mesaverde, Morrow and Cotton ValleyFormations. Paper SPE 68598 presented at the SPE Hydrocarbon Economics andEvaluation Symposium, 2-3 April, Dallas, 2001. doi: 10.2118/68598-MS.
Ibatullin, R.R., Ibragimov, N.G., Khisamov, R.S., Podymov, E.D., and Shutov,A.A. 2002. Application and MethodBased on Artificial Intelligence for Selection of Structures and Screening ofTechnologies for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Paper SPE 75175 presented at theSPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 13-17 April. doi:10.2118/75175-MS.
Mackie, S.I. and Welsh, M.B. 2006. An Oil and Gas Decision-MakingTaxonomy. Paper SPE 100699 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and GasConference and Exhibition, Adelaide, Australia, 11-13 September. doi:10.2118/100699-MS.
Manrique, E., Ranson, A., and Alvarado, V. 2003. Perspectives of CO2injection in Venezuela. Paper presented at the Annual Workshop and Symposiumfor the IEA Collaborative Project on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Regina, Canada,7-10 September.
Manrique, E.J. and Pereira, C.A. 2007. Identifying Viable EOR ThermalProcesses in Canadian Tar Sands. 2007. Paper 2007-176 presented at thePetroleum Society of Canada's International Petroleum Conference, Calgary,12-14 June.
Palmgren, C. and Renard, G. 1995. Screening Criteria for the Application ofSteam Injection and Horizontal Wells. Paper presented at the European Symposiumon Improved Oil Recovery, Vienna, Austria, 15-17 May.
Pedersen, F.B., Hanssen, T.H., and Aasheim, T.I. 2006. How Far Can a State-of-the-Art NPVModel Take You in Decision Making? Paper SPE 99627 presented at the SPEEuropec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria, 12-15 June.doi: 10.2118/99627-MS.
PRIze™ 3.1 Manual. 2006. Calgary: Alberta Research Council (ARC).
Skinner, D.C. 1999. Introduction to Decision Analysis: A Practitioner'sGuide to Improving Decision Quality, second edition. Gainesville, Florida:Probabilistic Publishing.
SWORD Analytical Tool Manual, Version 2.1. 2007. Stavanger: InternationalResearch Institute of Stavanger (IRIS).
Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D., and Seright, R.S. 1997. EOR Screening CriteriaRevisited--Part 1: Introduction to Screening Criteria and Enhanced RecoveryField Projects. SPE Res Eng 12 (3): 189-198.SPE-35385-PA. doi: 10.2118/35385-PA.
Tyler, N. and Finley, R.J. 1991. Architectural controls on the recovery ofhydrocarbons from sandstone reservoirs. In The Three-Dimensional FaciesArchitecture of Terrigenous Clastic Sediments and Its Implications forHydrocarbon Discovery and Recovery, ed. A.D. Miall and N. Tyler, Vol. 3,3-7. Tulsa: Concepts in Sedimentology and Paleontology, Society of EconomicPaleontologists and Mineralogists (SEPM).
Velasquez, D., Rey, O., and Manrique, E. 2006. An overview of carbon dioxidesequestration in depleted oil and gas reservoirs in Florida, USGS PetroleumProvince 50. Paper presented at the LACCEI International Latin American andCaribbean Conference for Engineering and Technology (LACCEI 2006), Mayagüez,Puerto Rico, 21-23 June.
Voneiff, G.W. and Cipolla, C. 1996. A New Approach to large-Scale InfillEvaluations Applied to the OZONA (Canyon) Gas. Paper SPE 35203 presented atthe Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, USA, 27-29March. doi: 10.2118/35203-MS.
Welsh, M.B. and Begg, S.H. 2007. Modeling the Economic Impact ofCognitive Biases on Oil and Gas Decisions. Paper SPE 110765 presented atthe SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, USA,11-14 November. doi: 10.2118/110765-MS.
Welsh, M.B., Bratvold, R.B., and Begg, S.H. 2005. Cognitive Biases in the PetroleumIndustry: Impact and Remediation. Paper SPE 96423 presented at the SPEAnnual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 9-12 October. doi:10.2118/96423-MS.
Wozinak, D.A., Wing, J.L., and Schrider, L.A. 1997. Infill Reserve Growth Resulting FromGas Huff-n-Puff and Infill Drilling--A Case History. Paper SPE 39214presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Lexington, Kentucky, USA, 22-24October. doi: 10.2118/39214-MS.