Fig. 18 Size and MER at different k factors for electrofacies, lithofacies, and HFUs at SCFU. More

Figure 4 Proposed MER Determination Chart. More

Figure 8 Tornado Chart of the Sensitivity Analysis of the MER to rock and fluid properties, and non-Darcy skin. More

Figure 3 Average years need to complete key career stage in E&P job roles. ( Mercer, 2014 ) More

Figure 7 Typical Maximising Economic Recovery (MER) benefits More

Figure 18 Size and MER at different k factors for electrofacies, lithofacies, and HFU at SCFU. More

Figure 5 MER calculations Note: grey boxes indicate no log data was available to calculate MER ratio More

Figure 4 Three dimensional histogram (waterfall plot) of pore throat radius from mercury injection capillary pressure data show the poorly sorted nature of the pore throat distributions and the need for additional pore network information to assist rock typing. More

Figure 3 El Furrial field. Pressure – Production profile. A: Water Injection MER FUL 1, B: Water Injection SJN FUL 2, C: Water Injection SAT FUL 4, D: Gas Injection MER FUL 1 More

Figure 18 DNA Similarity plot between Lower and Upper Meramec landed wells. Upper Meramec and Lower Meramec are primarily differentiated by vertical spacing along PC1, and to a lesser extent, horizontal spacing along PC2 More

Figure 2 Interpretation of the permeability-porosity plot based on R35 values of mercury injection using Windland's method. Retrieved from Lafage (2008) More