EOR PERFORMANCE AND MODELING
Development of Improved-Hydrocarbon-
Recovery-Screening Methods
An improved-hydrocarbon-recovery
(IHR) -screening method was developed
that can screen and prioritize a large
number of reservoirs for various IHR pro-
cesses and then generate preliminary
flow-stream forecasts by use of generic-
sector modeling and proxy simulation.
This process enables quick screening for
a variety of enhanced-oil-recovery (EOR)
techniques by use of reservoir-rock/
-fluid properties and technical-/econom-
ic-screening criteria, and then ranks the
EOR options quantitatively.
Introduction
With the increasing maturity of con-
ventional oil resources and limited vol-
umes of discoveries of new conven-
tional resources to replace production,
IHR can be key in an oil company’s
reserves-base growth. Therefore, effec-
tive tools and methodologies must
be developed to screen and prioritize
assets for IHR opportunities. In addi-
tion to identifying the most appropri-
ate IHR process, it is equally important
to predict the reservoir performance.
IHR encompasses both improved-oil-
recovery (IOR) (e.g., waterflooding and
immiscible-hydrocarbon-gas injection)
and EOR (e.g., miscible gas, chemical,
and thermal) processes.
This IHR-evaluation workflow is
shown in Fig. 1. The first step is to
identify the most promising injection
This article, written by Senior Technology
Editor Dennis Denney, contains highlights
of paper SPE 129768, “Development
of Improved-Hydrocarbon-Recovery-
Screening Methodologies,” by Jasper
L. Dickson, SPE, and Alana Leahy-
Dios, SPE, ExxonMobil Upstream
Research, and Philip L. Wylie, SPE,
Mobil Producing Nigeria, prepared for
the 2010 SPE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, 24–28 April. The
paper has not been peer reviewed.
For a limited time, the full-length paper is available free to SPE members at www.spe.org/jpt.
JPT • JANUARY 2011
type and processes for a given reservoir
and to complete preliminary screen-
ing economics to ensure feasibility.
This initial-screening step is followed
by a more-in-depth investigation (e.g.,
laboratory studies, mechanistic simula-
tions, and additional data gathering) of
the most-promising processes. When
a proposed project shows potential for
field implementation, pilot tests may be
conducted to resolve key uncertainties.
Additional simulations or laboratory
studies may be required after pilot-test
completion, as indicated by the feed-
back loop in Fig. 1. The final steps
consist of developing the commercial-
project plan and implementing the nec-
essary surveillance program.
Fig. 2 summarizes the entire work-
flow: IHR screening and prioritization,
sector modeling and type-curve genera-
tion, and proxy simulation and flow-
stream generation. Each step is detailed
in the full-length paper.
Screening and Prioritization
Screening Algorithm. The automated
algorithm compares key properties of a
given reservoir to screening criteria of
various processes. Then, it generates a
list of most- to least-recommended pro-
cesses on the basis of a point-allocation
system for each screened property. Any
number of reservoirs can be screened
simultaneously.
Collect Reservoir and Fluid Data.
Reservoir and fluid data for the res-
ervoirs of interest are collected in a
database. Analog data are used in the
screening tool when specific reservoir
data are not available. For most proper-
ties, analog values are obtained from
proved and probable weighted averages
on the basis of a user-defined region,
basin, subbasin, reservoir, zone, period,
or epoch.
Compare Data to Screening Criteria.
Each of the 10 reservoir properties and
Screen Candidate Processes
• EOR screening and prioritization
• Sector modeling and type-curve
generation
• Screening economics (flow-stream
generation)
Evaluate Promising Processes in Depth
Field Tests and Pilots To
Resolve Uncertainties
Commercial Project Plan
Implementation, Surveillance,
and Operations
Stakeholder Review/Approvals
Fig. 1—IHR-evaluation workflow.
screening criteria is plotted and com-
pared against the others. The screen-
ing-criteria ranges are plotted as hori-
zontal bars, and the reservoir property
is plotted as a vertical line.
Perform Pass/Fail Test. A process
passes the screening test when its hori-
zontal bar crosses the vertical line for
the given reservoir.
Assign a Score According to Pass/Fail
Test Result. A process that passes the
screening test receives 10 points regard-
less of how close it is to the screening-
criteria extremes. A process that fails
the test receives a score varying between
zero and −10, calculated according to
the difference between screening crite-
ria and reservoir property.
Weigh Score According to Property
Importance. The score of each process
is weighted according to the importance
of that specific property to the process.
For example, salinity is much more
important than dip angle for chemical
flooding. Each class of IHR process has
three properties with increased weight-
43
 Sector Modeling
EOR Screening and Type-Curve
and Prioritization
Generation
Fig. 2—IHR-screening workflow.
ing. Therefore, the overall number of
points is the same for all processes.
Add and Normalize Score. The pre-
ceding four steps are repeated for each
of the ten properties considered in the
screening. The score of each process is
summed to a final value, which then
is normalized between +1 and −1. A
process that passes all screening tests
obtains a score of +1, whereas a pro-
cess that fails all screening tests obtains
a score of −1. Intermediate scores
are calculated by linear interpolation
between the extremes.
Test for “Show Stoppers.” For most
EOR processes, specific screening cri-
teria must be met for technical feasibil-
ity. For example, miscible-gas injection
requires that the reservoir pressure be
greater than minimum miscibility pres-
sure to achieve miscibility. Such criteria
are implemented in the tool as show
stoppers. When a process fails a show
stopper, its normalized score automati-
cally becomes −1 and it will be consid-
ered a failing process regardless of the
value of any other properties.
Compare Score. The final normal-
ized scores for all EOR options are
compared and ranked as follows:
Recommended if >0.8, marginally
recommended if >0.6 but <0.8, and
not recommended if <0.6. These cut-
off values are based on comparison
between prioritized ranking and actual
EOR projects implemented.
EOR-Screening Criteria. Screening
criteria for various gas-injection, ther-
mal, and chemical processes were com-
piled. These criteria can be modified by
the user.
Gas Injection. Gas injection is the
most technically feasible EOR option
at low permeabilities, and is the most
widely applied process for light-oil
recovery.
Thermal Methods. Thermal pro-
cesses are best suited for heavy-oil
reservoirs that cannot be produced effi-
ciently with cold flow.
44
Proxy Simulation
and Flow-Stream
Generation
Identification of
Scenario 3
Most-Promising
Scenario 2 EOR Process
Scenario 1
Chemical Methods. Chemical pro-
cesses are used for oils that are more
viscous than those recovered by gas
injection and less viscous than those
recovered by thermal processes.
Polymer and alkaline/surfactant/poly-
mer flooding are included as chemical
EOR options.
Sector Modeling and
Type-Curve Generation
While most screening tools stop after
identifying the most-promising pro-
cesses, this method allows preliminary
prediction of key reservoir perfor-
mance. This prediction is accomplished
through the use of case-specific type
curves (i.e., dimensionless performance
curves) and a proxy simulator to gener-
ate production flow streams.
To overcome limitations associated
with traditional decline-curve analysis,
a method was developed that uses
generic-sector models to generate type
curves on a case-by-case basis, which
then are used in a proxy simulator.
The type curves are generated by run-
ning an appropriate sector model for a
given reservoir description and a speci-
fied development strategy. The use of
small-sector models enables generating
a set of type curves quickly to cover
the desired range of geologic variables
(e.g., depositional environment, verti-
cal/horizontal continuity, permeability
distribution, and rock compressibility)
and development strategies (e.g., well
orientation, well spacing, injection/
production constraints, or injectant
properties). By varying the physical
properties of the sector model to match
those of an actual field or an appropri-
ate analog field, the type curves are
able to capture the expected effect
of reservoir geology on flood perfor-
mance. When using type curves for
simulation, the general assumption is
that the reservoir will be operated
in a manner similar to the case from
which the type curve was generated.
Therefore, if the desired development
strategy involves continuous gas injec-
tion using vertical wells with a 2-km
well spacing, then the type curves
should be generated using the sector
model operating under the same strat-
egy. Sector models are run without
facility-level constraints (i.e., water cut
or gas/oil-ratio limits) to increase the
flexibility of the type curves generated.
Flow-Stream Generation
Once generated, the type curves may
be used in a proxy simulator to develop
preliminary production flow streams
for fields in which no historical data
exist and/or no detailed full-field simu-
lation models exist. The proxy simu-
lator used in this study is part of the
operator’s in-house simulator.
While classical decline curves
express the flow rate as a function of
time, this proxy simulator requires
that the type-curve data be expressed
as a function of the time-independent
variable estimated-ultimate-recovery
(EUR) fraction. Mathematically, the
EUR fraction represents the cumula-
tive oil produced at any given time
divided by the total EUR. The proxy
simulator also requires that a separate
type curve be supplied describing the
performance of each phase (i.e., oil,
gas, and water). At any simulation
timestep, the fraction of oil recovered,
gas/oil ratio, and water cut are deter-
mined from cumulative production
and user-supplied type curves.
Conclusions
Unlike previous pass/fail screening
methodologies, this approach gener-
ates a quantitative ranking of all con-
sidered options. This IHR-screening
tool has been tested for various fields in
which projects were or are being imple-
mented. Results are in very good agree-
ment with published data. In terms
of improved-recovery-potential assess-
ment, this method uses sector models
to generate type curves that cover a
wide range of uncertainties around
reservoir geology and development
strategies. Then, these type curves are
used with a proxy simulator to gener-
ate preliminary field flow streams and
drilling schedules. Each stage of the
workflow is accomplished much faster
than by use of alternative methods,
thereby allowing more-efficient pro-
gression from the screening phase into
the second, in-depth-assessment phase
of the IHR-evaluation workflow. JPT
JPT • JANUARY 2011