SPE 129768

Development of Improved Hydrocarbon Recovery Screening Methodologies

Jasper L. Dickson, Alana Leahy-Dios, SPE, ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company; and Philip L. Wylie, SPE,
Mobil Producing Nigeria

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2010 SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 2428 April 2010.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
This paper describes a novel improved hydrocarbon recovery (IHR) screening methodology capable of (1) screening and
prioritizing a large number of reservoirs for various IHR processes and (2) generating preliminary flowstreams through
generic sector modeling and proxy simulation. This methodology enables quick screening for a variety of EOR techniques
using reservoir rock/fluid properties and technical/economic screening criteria, and quantitatively ranks the EOR options. It
also provides the means to complete a first-pass estimate of reservoir performance by applying case-specific performance
curves to run facility level simulations. It has been thoroughly tested for various fields where different EOR strategies were
or are being implemented, and the results are in good agreement with published data. This methodology helps identify
potential IHR opportunities, enabling operators to quickly test the validity and relative merits of IHR for any field or
reservoir.
1. Introduction
With the maturity of conventional oil resources increasing and limited volumes of new conventional oil discoveries to replace
production, improved hydrocarbon recovery (IHR) will play a key role in any oil companys ability to grow its reserves base.
Therefore, it is vital to develop the necessary tools and methodologies required to effectively screen and prioritize assets for
IHR opportunities. In addition to merely identifying the most appropriate IHR process, it is of equal importance to be able to
predict reservoir performance of an IHR project. IHR encompasses both improved oil recovery (IOR-waterflooding and
immiscible hydrocarbon gas injection), and enhanced oil recovery (EOR-miscible gas, chemical, and thermal processes).
The IHR evaluation workflow used by ExxonMobil is presented in Fig. 1 (Selamat et al. 2008). The first step is to identify
the most promising injection type and processes for a given reservoir and to complete preliminary screening economics to
ensure feasibility. This initial screening step is followed by a more in-depth investigation (i.e. laboratory studies, mechanistic
simulations, additional data gathering, etc.) into the most promising processes. When a proposed project demonstrates
potential for field implementation, pilot tests may be conducted to resolve any key uncertainties. Additional simulations or
laboratory studies may be required after pilot test completion, as indicated by the feedback loop in Fig. 1. The final steps
consist of developing the commercial project plan and implementing the necessary surveillance program. This work presents
a complete methodology to satisfy the first step of the process described in Fig. 1.
Numerous EOR screening studies have been published with scopes varying from compiling screening criteria for EOR
processes to completing a comprehensive prioritization of a countrys EOR potential. Over the past two decades, many
researchers have used laboratory and field data to develop detailed economic and technical screening criteria for different
EOR processes (Taber et al. 1997; Strycker et al. 1999; Henson et al. 2002). These criteria have been used in the development
of qualitative screening methods of varying complexities, ranging from simple binary pass/fail tests (Al-Bahar et al. 2004;
Yee et al. 2007) to more sophisticated logic algorithms which incorporate uncertainty and risk management (Goodyear and
Gregory 1994). In recent years, there has been progress made from merely identifying the most appropriate EOR processes to
quantifying its potential through the use of fractional-flow based simulation models (Al-Bahar et al. 2004).

SPE 129768

Screen Candidate Processes

EOR screening and prioritization
Sector modeling and type curve generation
Screening economics (flow stream generation)

Evaluate Promising Processes In Depth

EOR Screening
and Prioritization

Field Tests and Pilots to Resolve Uncertainties

Sector Modeling and

Type Curve Generation

Proxy Simulation and

Flow Stream Generation

Scenario 3
r

Commercial Project Plan

Scenario 2

Identification of
Most Promising EOR
Process

Scenario 1

Implementation, Surveillance, and Operations

Fig 2IHR screening workflow.

Stakeholder review / approvals

Fig 1ExxonMobils IHR evaluation workflow

(adapted from Selamat et al. 2008).

The objective of this work is to develop a flexible workflow capable of identifying the most appropriate IHR options as well
as predicting key reservoir performance. The approach offers various advantages over previous work in both aspects. In terms
of IHR screening, analog generation capabilities have been developed which allow for both existing assets as well as new
opportunities to be screened. Also, unlike previous pass/fail screening methodologies, the current approach generates a
relative-score ranking of all considered IHR options. In terms of IHR potential assessment, the workflow addresses the
impact of various geologic variables and development strategies through the use of sector models and proxy simulation.
Fig. 2 presents the entire workflow, which consists of the following steps: (1) IHR screening and prioritization, (2) sector
modeling and type curve generation, and (3) proxy simulation and flow-stream generation. Each step is described in detail in
the subsequent sections of this paper.
2. Screening and Prioritization
Screening Algorithm
The automated algorithm compares key properties for a given reservoir to screening criteria for various processes and
generates a list of most recommended to least recommended process based on a point allocation system for each screened
property. The approach is illustrated in Fig. 3. Any number of reservoirs can be screened simultaneously. It takes
approximately 5 minutes to screen for 500 reservoirs using a 3.2GHz processor, including the iterative minimum miscibility
pressure (MMP) calculations for 3 different gas compositions.
Collect reservoir and fluid data
Compare data to screening criteria
Perform pass/fail test on a given property
Assign points in line with pass/fail results
Weigh points in line with property relevance

Properties considered in screening

- Reservoir Pressure - Reservoir Temperature
- Formation Salinity
- In-situ Viscosity
- Reservoir Depth
- Payzone Thickness
- API Gravity
- Average Permeability
- Oil Saturation
- Reservoir Dip

Add and normalize points

Test for show-stoppers
Compare score

Fig 3Schematic of prioritization algorithm performed during preliminary screening.

Collect reservoir and fluid data: Reservoir and fluid data for the reservoirs of interest are collected in a database. Analog
data is used in the screening tool when specific reservoir data is not available. The basis for analog generation is the data
provided by the C&C Reservoir and IHS commercial databases. For most properties, analog values are obtained from proven
and probable (PP) weighted averages based on a user-defined region, basin, sub-basin, reservoir, zone, period, or epoch.
Reservoir temperature and pressure are determined from temperature and pressure vs. depth curves for analog fields. Average
permeability is estimated from the PP weighted average in conjunction with minimum and maximum average permeability
information (usually reported by IHS). If needed, average live-oil molecular weight and live-oil viscosity are calculated from
API gravity and GOR using literature correlations (McCain 1990).

SPE 129768

Compare data to screening criteria: Each of the ten reservoir properties and screening criteria are plotted and compared
against each other. The ten properties used are listed in Fig. 3. The screening criteria ranges are plotted as horizontal bars, and
the reservoir property is plotted as a vertical line. The screening criteria used for each EOR process are discussed later. Fig. 4
shows an example of this step for viscosity.
Perform pass/fail test: A process passes the screening test (represented by a green bar in Fig. 4) when its horizontal bar
crosses the vertical line for the given reservoir. Processes that do not pass the screening test for each property are plotted as
red bars.
Horz. Misc. CO2
Horz. Misc. HC
Horz. Misc. N2
Vert. Misc. CO2

EOR Processes

Vert. Misc. HC
Vert. Misc. N2
Vert. Immisc. CO2
Vert. Immisc. HC
Vert. Immisc. N2
Steamflood
CSS
SAGD
Polymer
ASP
Hot Water
-1

10

10

10 10 10 10
Viscosity Range (cp)

10

Fig. 4Viscosity screening example. Green/red bars represent successful/failing screening. Vertical line indicates reservoir data.

Assign a score according to pass/fail test result: A process that passes the screening test receives 10 points regardless 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 criteria and reservoir property. The greatest difference between
reservoir property and screening criteria for all failing processes is calculated as max (in Fig. 4, max is the difference between
the viscosity criteria for SAGD and the reservoir viscosity; in this case, SAGD scores 10). A process with a screening
criterion infinitesimally close to the reservoir property would receive a score of zero; linear interpolation is used to calculate
the score for all other failing processes.
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.
Table 1 indicates which properties are given greater weight for the different IHR processes. Each class of IHR process has 3
properties with increased weighting. Therefore, the overall number of points is the same for all processes.
Add and normalize score: The last four steps described above are repeated for each of the ten properties considered in the
screening (see Fig. 3). The score of each process is summed up to a final value, which is then normalized between +1 and
1. A process that passes all screening tests obtains a score of +1, whereas a process that fails all screening tests obtains a
score of 1; intermediate scores are calculated based on a linear interpolation of the extremes.
Test for Show-Stoppers: For most EOR processes, specific screening criteria must be met for technical feasibility; for
example, miscible gas injection requires that the reservoir pressure be greater than MMP to achieve miscibility. Such criteria
are implemented in the tool as show-stoppers. When a process fails a show-stopper its normalized score automatically
becomes 1, and it will be considered a failing process regardless of the value of any other properties. Table 1 provides
show-stopper properties for each process.
TABLE 1: IMPORTANT RESERVOIR PROPERTIES ( DENOTES SHOW-STOPPER CRITERIA;
DENOTES INCREASED WEIGHTING)
EOR Process
Kh So Depth Pressure Thick. Salinity Temp.

Gas Injection (miscible/immiscible)

/

Chemical
/

Thermal (steam-related)
/

Hot water
/

SPE 129768

Compare Score: The final normalized scores for all EOR options are compared and ranked as follows: recommended if
>0.8, marginally recommended if >0.6 and <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, chemical and thermal processes have been compiled
and are presented below. These criteria, a combination of literature values (Clancy 1985; Singhal 1998; Taber et al. 1997;
Strycker et al. 1999; and Thomas 2006) and internal ExxonMobil experience, can be easily 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. Tables 2 and 3 provide the screening criteria for gas injection processes. Literature
correlations (Lange 1998 and Teletzke et al. 2005) are used in the screening tool to predict MMP.
TABLE 2: SCREENING CRITERIA FOR GAS PROCESSES
Property
Vertical Immisc.
Horizontal Misc.
Oil Gravity (API)
>10
See Table 3
In-situ Oil Viscosity (cP)
<600
See Table 3
Reservoir Depth (ft)
<2,500
See Table 3
Average Vert. Perm. (mD)
>100
<100
Reservoir Pressure (psia)
<MMP
>MMP
Reservoir Temperature (F)
affects MMP
affects MMP
Oil saturation (%)
>35
See Table 3
Dip Angle ()
>10
<10

Vertical Misc.
See Table 3
See Table 3
See Table 3
>100
>MMP
affects MMP
See Table 3
>10

TABLE 3: SCREENING CRITERIA FOR HYDROCARBON (HC), CO2 AND N2

MISCIBLE GAS INJECTION PROCESSES
Property
HC gas
CO2 gas
N2/flue gas
Oil Gravity (API)
>3040
>22
>40
In-situ Oil Viscosity (cP)
<3
<10
<0.4
Reservoir Depth (ft)
4,00016,000
>2,500
>10,000
Oil Saturation (%)
>30
>20
>40

Thermal Methods. Thermal processes are best suited for heavy oil reservoirs that cannot be efficiently produced with
cold flow. Table 4 provides screening criteria for the thermal processes included in the screening (cyclic steam stimulation,
CSS; steamflooding; steam-assisted gravity drainage, SAGD; and hot water injection).
TABLE 4: SCREENING CRITERIA FOR THERMAL METHODS
Property
CSS
Steamflooding
SAGD
Oil Gravity (API)
835
820
712
3
6
3
4
6
In-situ Oil Viscosity (cP)
10 10
10 10
4,00010
Reservoir Depth (ft)
4003,000
4004,500
2503,000
Pay Thickness(ft)
>20150
15150
50100
Average Horz. Perm. (mD)
>250
>250
>5,000
Reservoir Pressure (psia)
4001,500
<1,500
High
Oil Saturation (%)
>50
>40
>50

Hot Water Inj.

1035
3
4
10 10
<3,000
>20
>35
>2,000
>50

Chemical Methods. Chemical processes 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-polymer (ASP) flooding are
included as chemical EOR options; their screening criteria are provided in Table 5.
TABLE 5: SCREENING CRITERIA FOR CHEMICAL EOR
Property
Oil Density (API)
In-situ oil Viscosity (cP)
Reservoir Depth (ft)
Average Horz. Perm. (mD)

Polymer Flooding
>15
101,000
8009,000
2
2
>10 if (10<<10 cp)
3
2
3
>10 if (10 <<10 cp)
Reservoir Temperature (F)
<170
Oil Saturation (%)
>30
2
<3,000 if (10<<10 cp)
Formation Salinity (ppm)
2
3
<1,000 if (10 <<10 cp)

ASP
>20
<35
5009,000
>100
<200
>45
<200k if (T< 140F)
<50k if (T> 140F)

Field Validation
The screening tool has been validated against various fields that have been developed under different processes. Table 6
provides reservoir and fluid properties for four example fields: Jay (USA), Judy Creek (Canada), Cold Lake (Canada), and
Marmul (Oman). Data are from C&C Reservoirs, unless stated otherwise. Although not used explicitly in the screening,

SPE 129768

Kv/Kh is used to calculate Kv from the more commonly quoted Kh (used in screening gas injection) and GOR is used in the
live-oil viscosity and molecular weight correlations.
TABLE 6: RESERVOIR AND FLUID PROPERTIES FOR FIELDS
USED IN VALIDATION EOR SCREENING TOOL
Property
Jay
Judy Creek
Cold Lake
Oil Gravity (API)
51
41
12
In-situ Oil Viscosity (cP)
0.18
N/A
150,000
Reservoir Depth (ft)
15,400
5,100
1,000
Pay Thickness (ft)
95
90
100
Average Horz. Perm. (mD)
35.4
45
500-5,000
Kv/Kh (assumed)
0.1
1
1
Reservoir Pressure (psia)
7850
3500
400
Reservoir Temperature (F)
285
206
50
Oil saturation (%)
87.3
84
78
Dip Angle ()
7
0.5
0.7
Water Salinity (ppm)
320,000
80,000
16,000
GOR (scf/stb)
1806
728
55

Marmul
28
80
3150
67
15
1
1160
115
30
10
3000
100

Fig. 5 shows the preferred option based on final ranking score for the Jay, Judy Creek, Cold Lake, and Marmul fields. As
shown in Fig. 5, the screening tool indicates that the preferred option for the Jay Field is miscible gas (CO2, N2 or
hydrocarbon) injection. The field has been under miscible nitrogen injection since 1981 (Christian et al. 1981; Lawrence et
al. 2002). Data used was obtained from Christian et al. (1981), except for formation salinity and reservoir dip (C&C
Reservoirs).
The tool ranked miscible hydrocarbon and CO2 injection as the most promising EOR techniques in Judy Creek; in fact,
both gases were used in different parts of the reservoir in the 1980s (Wu et al. 1989; Delaney and Fish 1980; Pritchard et al.
1990). Live oil molecular weight and injectant composition used in the screening were obtained from Wu et al. (1989).
For Cold Lake, thermal EOR is identified as the preferred option. According to the Oil and Gas bi-annual survey (Moritis
2008), steam processes have been applied in Cold Lake since 1964.
The screening tool identified polymer flooding as the most appropriate EOR option in Marmul. Polymer flooding was
successfully tested in the 1980s (Koning et al. 1988). Reservoir and fluid data for Marmul are provided by Koning et al
(1988), except for dip angle and GOR (C&C Reservoirs).
Jay

Judy Creek

Cold Lake

Marmul

Horz. Misc. CO2

Horz. Misc. HC
Horz. Misc. N2

Horz. Misc. CO2

Horz. Misc. HC
Vert. Misc. CO2

CSS
Steamflood
SAGD

Polymer
Vert. Immisc. CO2
Vert. Immisc. HC

Vert. Misc. CO2

Vert. Misc. HC
Vert. Misc. N2

Vert. Misc. HC
Vert. Immisc. N2
ASP

Hot Water
ASP
Vert. Immisc. CO2

Vert. Immisc. N2
ASP
Horz. Misc. CO2

Vert. Immisc. CO2

Vert. Immisc. HC
Vert. Immisc. N2

Vert. Immisc. HC
Vert. Immisc. CO2
Polymer

Vert. Immisc. HC
Vert. Immisc. N2
Polymer

Vert. Misc. CO2

Steamflood
CSS

Steamflood
CSS
SAGD

Horz. Misc. N2
Vert. Misc. N2
Steamflood

Horz. Misc. CO2

Horz. Misc. HC
Horz. Misc. N2

Hot Water
SAGD
Horz. Misc. HC

Polymer
ASP
Hot Water

CSS
SAGD
Hot Water

Vert. Misc. CO2

Vert. Misc. HC
Vert. Misc. N2

Horz. Misc. N2
Vert. Misc. HC
Vert. Misc. N2

-1

-0.5

0
Final Ranking

0.5

-1

-0.5

0
Final Ranking

0.5

-1

-0.5

0.5

Final Ranking

-1

-0.5

0.5

Final Ranking

Fig. 5EOR screening results for Jay Field, Judy Creek, Cold Lake and Marmul.

3. Sector Modeling and Type Curve Generation

While most screening tools stop after identifying the most promising process(es), the developed methodology allows for
the preliminary prediction of key reservoir performance. This is accomplished through the use of case-specific type curves
(also referred to as dimensionless performance curves) and a proxy simulator to generate production flowstreams. Over the
years, various approaches have been employed to forecast future production profiles. The most common of these approaches
include decline curve analysis (Arps 1945), detailed reservoir simulation (Skinner et al. 2004; Selamat et al. 2008), and the
use of dimensionless scaling factors (Simmons et al. 2005). However, these approaches require specific data, such as
historical production data and/or a detailed simulation model. Data requirement severely limits their application as a
screening tool in situations in which no data is available. Another limitation in the use of decline curve analysis as a
screening tool is that the generated decline curves are only truly applicable to the field for which they were generated and
should not be universally applied to other fields, especially those with greatly differing reservoir properties or depletion
plans. For example type curves generated for a CO2 flood in West Texas, USA may not be suitable to predict the performance
of a CO2 flood in a Middle East reservoir.
To overcome the limitations associated with traditional decline curve analysis, a methodology has been developed that
uses generic sector models to generate type curves on a case-by-case basis which are then used in a proxy simulator. The type

SPE 129768

curves are generated by running an appropriate sector model for a given reservoir description and a specified development
strategy. The use of small sector models allows for a set of type curves to be quickly generated to cover the desired range of
geologic variables (i.e., depositional environment, vertical/horizontal continuity, permeability distribution, rock
compressibility, etc.) and development strategies (well orientation, well spacing, injection/production constraints, injectant
properties, etc.). By varying the physical properties of the sector model to match those of an actual field or an appropriate
analog field, the type curves are able to capture the expected impact of reservoir geology on flood performance. When using
type curves for simulation, the general assumption is that the reservoir is to 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 injection using
vertical wells with a two-km well-spacing, then the type curves should be generated using the sector model operating under
the same strategy. Sector models are run in the absence of any facility-level constraints (i.e., water-cut or GOR limits) to
increase the flexibility of the type curves generated.
4. Flowstream Generation
Once generated, the type curves may be used in a proxy simulator to develop preliminary production flowstreams for
fields in which no historical data and/or detailed full-field simulation models exist. The proxy simulator used in this study is
Profile Generator (Yang et al. 2009) which is contained within ExxonMobils simulator EMpower. Fig. 6 shows an example
facility network diagram of a Profile Generator model. Profile Generator is a table-lookup simulator in which the reservoir is
represented as a tank with a specified reservoir volume and the performance of each well is controlled by the pre-generated
type curves. Since it is a table-lookup simulator, thirty or more simulation years may be completed in minutes. One of the key
strengths of Profile Generator is that it is completely integrated with EMpower, thereby allowing the user to utilize EMpowers
well management and optimization capabilities.
While classical decline curves express the flow rate as a function of time (Arps 1945), Profile Generator 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 cumulative oil produced at any given time divided by the total EUR. Profile
Generator also requires that a separate type curve be supplied describing the performance of each phase (i.e. oil, gas, and
water). In this work, the oil, gas, and water performance are expressed as oil rate (stb/day), gas-oil-ratio (GOR, scf/stb), and
water-cut (WC, stb/stb) vs. EUR fraction. Once generated, the type curves are entered into Profile Generators spreadsheetlike interface, as illustrated in Fig. 6. At any simulation timestep tn, the fraction of oil recovered (FR_oil), GOR, and watercut
are determined from cumulative production and user-supplied type curves.

FR_oil (t n ) =
GOR(t n ) =

cum _oil (t n )
EUR oil

cum _ gas (t n ) cum _ gas (t n1 )

cum _ oil (t n ) cum _ oil (t n1 )

WCUT (t n ) =

cum _ water (t n ) cum _ water (t n1 )

cum _ oil (t n ) + cum _ water (t n ) cum _ oil (t n1 ) cum _ water (t n1 )

(1)

(2)

(3)

Fig. 6Profile Generator facility network and spreadsheet interface.

5. Case Study
Results of a carbonate field study are used to demonstrate the entire methodology: (1) generation of appropriate analog
data for a carbonate reservoir and identification of most appropriate process(es), (2) generation of type curves using an analog
sector model, and (3) generation of flowstreams using Profile Generator for various geologic scenarios.

SPE 129768

Analog Property Generation and EOR Screening Results

Reservoir and fluid properties for the representative field were obtained using the analog generation scheme discussed in
Section 2. Table 7 provides the analog properties used in the screening, based on C&C Reservoirs data for the light-oil fields
in the Middle East region. As shown in Fig. 7, the preferred option for this case study is horizontal miscible CO2 injection;
secondary options are horizontal miscible hydrocarbon and vertical miscible CO2 injection.
Horz. Misc. CO2
Horz. Misc. HC
Vert. Misc. CO2
Vert. Immisc. HC
Vert. Immisc. N2
EOR Processes

TABLE 7: PROPERTIES FOR

CARBONATE FIELD
Property
Value
Depth
7991 ft
Temperature
245 F
Pressure
4077 psi
Live-oil viscosity
1 cP
API
39.8
GOR
957 scf/bbl
Salinity
182,000 ppm
Kh
31 mD
Kv/Kh
1
Thickness
194 ft
Dip
1.8
So
88.8%

Vert. Misc. HC
Vert. Immisc. CO2
ASP
Horz. Misc. N2
Vert. Misc. N2
Steamflood
CSS
SAGD
Polymer
Hot Water
-1

-0.5

0
Final Ranking

0.5

Fig. 7EOR screening results for

Carbonate Field.

Sector Modeling and Type Curve Generation

The sector model used in this exercise, illustrated in Fig. 8, represents a carbonate ramp reservoir. The two km two km
sector model is gridded using hexagonal grids with an average length of 247 feet. Reservoir geology is characterized by a
high permeability zone at the top of the reservoir and a low permeability zone at the bottom of the reservoir. For this
example, two key geologic uncertainties were identified as having a potential impact on sweep efficiency and overall
recovery: (1) the permeability contrast between the upper and lower zones and (2) the vertical continuity of the reservoir. To
account for these uncertainties, the properties of the sector model were systematically varied to cover a realistic range for
permeability contrast and Kv/Kh. A total of six sector models were built and run; their average values are provided in Table 8.

TABLE 8: AVERAGE PERMEABILITY, PERMEABILITY CONTRAST

AND RATIO FOR SECTOR MODELS
Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
Low Permeability Region Kh (mD)
Min-Max
0.24-88 0.24-88 0.24-88 0.24-88 0.24-88 0.24-88
Average
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
High Permeability Region Kh (mD)
Min-Max
1-125 1-125 2.6-312 2.6-312 5.3-624 5.3-624
Average
14.4
14.4
36
36
72
72
Perm. Contrast
2x
2x
5x
5x
10x
10x
Kv/Kh
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
1

Perm X
Fig. 8Sector model of representative carbonate reservoir.

For this example, the proposed development strategy consists of continuous CO2 injection using a horizontal line drive
pattern with injectors and producers located in the lower permeability zone of the reservoir with a one km well-spacing.
Additional type curves would need to be generated if different well spacings, orientation (vertical, deviated, etc.), or injection
strategies (waterflood, water-alternating-gas, etc.) were to be considered. The six sets of type curves generated are plotted as
a function of EUR fraction in Fig. 9. The type curves clearly indicate the impact of the permeability contrast and Kv/Kh on oil
rate, gas breakthrough, and GOR for any given producer. For all cases examined the water-cut remained essentially zero and
is therefore not plotted in Fig. 9. As expected, Case 6 (permeability contrast of 10x with Kv/Kh = 1) resulted in the earliest gas
breakthrough and poorest sweep. In this situation, a dramatic increase in GOR was observed after producing only 10% of the
EUR. The large permeability contrast and high Kv/Kh allowed for the lower density gas to quickly rise to the top of the

SPE 129768

reservoir through gravity segregation, thereby bypassing all of the oil in the lower region. Scenarios with a lower
permeability contrast and/or a lower Kv/Kh resulted in better overall sweep and delayed gas breakthrough.
It is important to note that no artificial injection or production constraints were placed on the wells during the sector
model step. The injectors were allowed to inject at the estimated fracture pressure, and the producers operated at a bottomhole pressure slightly above bubble point. The appropriate facility constraints are applied within Profile Generator.
4.5

5
Case 1: 2x, kv/kh=0.1
Case 2: 2x, kv/kh=1

Case 3: 5x, kv/kh=0.1

Case 4: 5x, kv/kh=1

2.5

Case 5: 10x, kv/kh=0.1

Case 6: 10x, kv/kh=1

1.5
1

GOR, 104 scf/stb

Oil Rate, 104 stb/day

4
3.5

0.5
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
0.6
EUR Fraction

0.7

0.8

0.9

0
1

Fig. 9Oil rate and GOR per well as a function of EUR fraction for the six scenarios investigated.

Proxy Simulation and Flowstream Generation

Profile Generator was used along with the type curves from Fig. 9 to examine the impact of the various geologic
uncertainties on the production profiles and well count. As previously mentioned, one of the key strengths of Profile
Generator is that it is completely integrated within EMpower and may therefore make use of EMpowers well management
capabilities. The overall field/well constraints included in the developed well management are provided in Table 9.
TABLE 9: FIELD/WELL TARGET AND CONSTRAINTS
Target / Constraint
Value
Field Oil Production Target
500,000 stb/day
Max Well Liquid Prod Rate
10,000 stb/day
Max Well GOR
25,000 scf/stb
Max Well Water-Cut
0.9 stb/stb
# of Drilling Rigs Available
1
Time Required to Drill a Well
60 days
Max # of Injector/Producer Pairs
100
Expected Field Lease
30 years

Preliminary field production streams were generated given the well/field targets and constraints and the available type
curves shown in Fig. 9. Fig. 10 shows the generated field production rates and cumulative oil and gas production over a 30
year period. For the range of permeability contrast and Kv/Kh considered, these parameters have only a minor impact on the
overall field oil production. However, there is a dramatic impact on the field gas production rate and cumulative gas
production, which is important for the design of gas handling facilities. The decrease in gas production rates (starting around
year 20 for Case 6, and later for all other cases) is due to the shutting-in of high GOR wells and the drilling of new wells to
maintain the overall field oil production target.
Oil Rate, 105 stb/day

6
4
2
0
3

Cum Gas, 1013 scf

Case 2: 2x, kv/kh=1

Case 3: 5x, kv/kh=0.1

Case 4: 5x, kv/kh=1

0
0

Case 5: 10x, kv/kh=0.1

Case 6: 10x, kv/kh=1

10

20
Time, years

0
6

Case 1: 2x, kv/kh=0.1

Cum Oil, 109 stb

Gas Rate, 109 scf/day

30

0
0

10

20

30

Time, years

Fig. 10Gas and oil production rates and cumulative production for the six scenarios investigated.

SPE 129768

When examining the economics of a proposed project, factors other than oil and gas production rates must be considered.
Among these factors are well and drilling costs. Using Profile Generator, the number of required wells and the drilling
schedule can be estimated, and the results for the six cases examined are plotted in Fig. 11. Examination of Fig. 11 provides
insight into the potential impact of two geologic properties on the overall economics of the CO2 flood that cannot be gained
from Fig. 10 alone. As illustrated in Fig. 11, twice the number of injector/producer pairs ultimately is necessary to satisfy the
desired oil production rate for Case 6 relative to Case 1. For a permeability contrast of 10, a reduction of Kv/Kh from 1 to
0.1 reduces the total number of required injector/producer pairs by nearly 30% and delays time for additional drilling by
approximately six years. Interestingly, Fig. 11 illustrates that at the end of 30 years, the same number of injector/producer
pairs would be required for Cases 2 and 3. However, the timing for drilling the wells is different between the cases. Such a
result would not be intuitively obvious simply by examining type curves, overall field production profiles or estimated
recovery factors.

Number of Injector/Producer Pairs

120
Case 1: 2x, kv/kh=0.1

100

Case 2: 2x, kv/kh=1

Case 3: 5x, kv/kh=0.1

80

Case 4: 5x, kv/kh=1

Case 5: 10x, kv/kh=0.1

60

Case 6: 10x, kv/kh=1

40
20
0
0

10

15
Time, years

20

25

30

Fig. 11Injector/producer pair count for the six tested scenarios.

6. Conclusions
The first stage of IHR evaluation and implementation consists of identifying the most appropriate processes for a given field.
The screening tool proposed here was developed to facilitate this stage and is capable of screening any number of reservoirs
for various processes and predicting key reservoir performance. The methodology consists of three major steps: (1) screening
and prioritization, (2) sector modeling and type curve generation, and (3) proxy simulation and flowstream generation. The
tool is equipped with analog generation capabilities which allows for screening of both existing assets as well as new
opportunities. Also, unlike previous pass/fail screening methodologies, the current approach generates a quantitative ranking
of all considered options. This IHR screening tool has been thoroughly tested for various fields where projects were or are
being implemented. Results are in very good agreement with published data. In terms of improved recovery potential
assessment, the methodology uses sector models to generate type curves which cover a wide range of uncertainties around
both reservoir geology and development strategies. These type curves are then used with Profile Generator to generate
preliminary field flowstreams and drilling schedules. Each stage of the workflow is accomplished much faster than using
alternative methods, thereby allowing more efficient progression from the screening phase into the second, in-depth
assessment phase of the IHR evaluation workflow.
Acknowledgements
We thank Chad Harris, Robert Szafranski, Gary Teletzke, and John Wilkinson for providing helpful feedback, and
ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company for permission to release this paper.
References
M.A. Al-Bahar, R. Merrill, W. Peake, M. Jumaa, R. Oskui. Evaluation of IOR Potential within Kuwait. SPE 88716,
presented at the 11th Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 2004.
J.J. Arps. Analysis of Decline Curves, Trans., AIME, 1945, 160, 228-247.
C&C Reservoir, Inc., http://www.ccreservoirs.com/
L. D. Christian, J. A. Shirer, E. L. Kimbel, R. J. Blackwell. Planning a Tertiary Oil-Recovery Project for Jay/LEC Field
Units. Journal of Petroleum Technology, August 1981, 1535-1544.
J. P. Clancy, R. E. Gilchrist, L. H. K. Cheng, D. R. Bywater. Analysis of Nitrogen-Injection Projects to Develop
Screening Guides and Offshore Design Criteria. SPE 11902, J. Petroleum Technology (June 1985), 1097-1104.
R. P. Delaney, R. M. Fish. Judy Creek CO2 Flood Performance Predictions, PETSOC 1980-023, presented at the 31st
Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM, Calgary, May 1980.

10

SPE 129768

S. G. Goodyear, A. T. Gregory. Risk Assessment and Management in IOR Projects. SPE 28844, presented at the
European Petroleum Conference, London, 1994.
R. Henson, A. Todd, P. Corbett. Geologically Based Screening Criteria for Improved Oil Recovery Projects. SPE
75148, presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 2002.
E. J. L. Koning, E. Mentzer, J. Heemskerk. Evaluation of a Pilot Polymer Floor in the Marmul Field, Oman. SPE
18092, presented at the 63rd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 1988.
E. A. Lange. Correlation and Prediction of Residual Oil Saturation for Gas Injection Enhanced Oil Recovery Processes.
SPEREE (1998), April issue, 127-133.
J. J. Lawrence, N. K. Maer, D. Stern, L. W. Corwin, W. K. Idol. Jay Nitrogen Recovery Study: Managing a Mature
Field. SPE 78527, presented at the 10th Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, 2002.
W. D. McCain Jr. The Properties of Petroleum Fluids. PennWell Publishing Company, Tulsa, 1990.
G. Moritis. SPECIAL REPORT: More US EOR projects start but EOR production continues decline. Oil and Gas
Journal, April 12, 2008.
D. W. L. Pritchard, D. T. Georgi, P. Hemingson, T. Okazawa. Reservoir Suirvaillance Impacts Management of the Judy
Creek Hydrocarbon Flood. SPE/DOE 20288, presented at the 7th Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 1990.
S. Selamat, G. F. Teletzke, P. D. Patel, N. Darman, M. A. Suhaimi. EOR: The New Frontier in the Malay Basin
Development. IPTC 12805, presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
2008.
J.F. Simmons, A.H. Falls. The Use of Dimensionless Scaling Methods To Predict Field-Scale Tertiary EOR Project
Performance. SPE 96469, presented at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 2005.
A. K. Singhal, Y. Ito, M. M. Kasraie. Screening and Design Criteria for Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD)
Projects, SPE 50410 (1998), presented at the International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, Canada.
R.C. Skinner, G.R. Jerauld, M.D. Bush. Simulation-Based EOR Evaluation of a North Sea Field. SPE 90307, presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 2004.
A. Strycker, P. Sarathi, S. Wang. Evaluation on in Situ Combustion for Schrader Bluff, DOE Topical Report (1999),
Report No. TRWPT/CRADA-002-1.
J. J. Taber, F. D. Martin, R. S. Seright. EOR Screening Criteria Revisited Part 1. Introduction to Screening Criteria and
Enhanced Recovery Field Projects, SPE 35385, SPE Reservoir Engineering (Aug 1997), 189-198.
G. F. Teletzke, P. D. Patel, A. L. Chen. Methodology for Miscible Gas Injection EOR Screening. SPE 94650, presented
at the 2005 SPE International Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia Pacific, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
S. Thomas. Chemical EOR The Past, Does it Have a Future? SPE 108828, Distinguished Lecture Series (2006).
R. S. Wu, R. M. Fish, J. P. Batycky. Judy Creek Miscible Flood Produced Fluids Monitoring, PETSOC 1989-001,
presented at the 40th Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of CIM, Banff, May 1989.
Y. Yang, J. Davidson, D. Fenter, O. Ozen, B. Boyett. Reservoir Development Modeling Using Full Physics and Proxy
Simulation. IPTC 13536, presented at the 2009 International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar, 2009.
H.V. Yee, N.I. Kechut, W.N.A.W. Razak. Enhanced-Oil-Recovery Potential of Heavy-Oil Fields in Africa. SPE
108513, presented at the 2007 International Oil Conference and Exhibition, Veracruz, Mexico, 2007.