SPE-200376-MS

EOR Screening Including Technical, Operational, Environmental and

Economic Factors Reveals Practical EOR Potential Offshore on the
Norwegian Continental Shelf

P. Craig Smalley and Ann H. Muggeridge, Imperial College London; Sølvi S. Amundrud, Mariann Dalland, Ole S.
Helvig, Eli J. Høgnesen, Per Valvatne, and Arvid Østhus, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate

Copyright 2020, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference originally scheduled to be held in Tulsa, OK, USA, 18 – 22 April 2020. Due
to COVID-19 the physical event was postponed until 31 August – 4 September 2020 and was changed to a virtual event. The official proceedings were published
online on 30 August 2020.

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
We present a novel advanced EOR screening approach, adding to an existing technical screening toolkit
powerful new practical discriminators based on: (1) Operational complexity of converting existing offshore
fields to new EOR processes; (2) Environmental acceptability of each EOR process, given current field
configuration; (3) Commercial attractiveness and competitiveness. We apply the new approach to 14 EOR
processes across 85 reservoirs from 46 oilfields and discoveries on the offshore Norwegian Continental
Shelf (NCS).
When the operational, environmental and economic thresholds were included, 45% of the technical
opportunities were screened out, and the overall potential recovery increment was ~280 MSm3 (million
standard cubic metres), the top processes being HC miscible, low salinity/polymer, low salinity, CO2
miscible, gels. Excluding environmental factors (i.e., assuming environmental issues could be solved by new
technologies), the increment is ~340 MSm3, indicating a ~60 MSm3 prize for research into environmentally
benign EOR methods. The economic thresholds used here were intentionally set low enough to eliminate
only severely commercially challenged opportunities; using higher commercially competitive thresholds
would reduce the overall volumes by a further ~40 MSm3.
The extension of EOR screening to include operational, environmental and economic criteria is not
intended as a substitute for in-depth studies of these factors, but it should help stakeholders make earlier
and better-informed decisions about selection of individual EOR opportunities for deeper study, leading to
piloting and eventual field-scale deployment. Revealing the sensitivity of each EOR process to operational,
environmental and economic factors will also help focus R&D onto the practical, as well as technical,
barriers to EOR implementation.
2 SPE-200376-MS

Introduction
While numerous studies demonstrate EOR to be technically beneficial, <5% of global oil production comes
from EOR, and even less when considering only conventional oil. This is because technically viable EOR
can be operationally complex and economically challenging to deploy, particularly offshore in mature oil
fields at low oil prices. Companies may thus be reluctant to consider deploying EOR, even though this
would enable recovery factors to progress significantly above the current global average of 35-40%.
Most organisations perform EOR screening studies before undertaking more detailed. Screening studies
generally aim to identify:

• A shortlist of candidate fields for EOR deployment within the company's portfolio (Teletzke et
al., 2005).
• The most promising EOR processes for a region (Taber et al., 1997; McCormack et al., 2014) or
a field (Warrlich et al., 2012).
• The potential incremental oil recovery for EOR in a region in order to understand and manage a
company's or nation's assets more effectively (Smalley et al., 2018).
The large body of literature on screening tools almost all focuses on the technical applicability of each
EOR process, neglecting practicality and commerciality. In the simplest tools, a list is created of all the EOR
processes being considered together with the fluid properties and reservoir characteristics that affect the
feasibility of each process. Each property is then assigned a threshold that must be exceeded for the process
to be feasible. Basic tools simply eliminate technically infeasible processes, whereas more sophisticated
tools (e.g. Al-Mayan et al., 2016; Smalley et al., 2018) estimate a ‘probability of success’ allowing EOR
opportunities to be ranked. Some tools also estimate the likely incremental oil recovery achievable for
each opportunity by comparison with incremental oil recoveries in analogue fields (Al-Mayan et al., 2016),
analytical models or a mixture of the two (Surguchev et al., 2010; Smalley et al., 2018).
Having used screening to identify the most technically promising opportunities, most companies will then
perform in-depth studies on a small number of these to determine whether they are operationally feasible and
commercially attractive. These in-depth studies can be time consuming, involving construction of numerical
reservoir models to simulate incremental recovery profiles and economic models to predict metrics such
as NPV (net present value).
In-depth studies of all technically viable EOR opportunities would often be completely impractical. For
example, evaluation of technical EOR potential in 53 reservoirs in 27 fields on the Norwegian Continental
shelf (Smalley et al. 2018) found >330 technically viable EOR applications with incremental recoveries ≥1
million Sm3. In such cases it is desirable to be able to rank the opportunities rapidly based on their operational
complexity, environmental acceptability and commercial attractiveness before having to perform in-depth
studies. Surguchev et al. (2010) appear to have implemented a screening tool including an economic
evaluation, but the details are not given; they did not consider environmental or operational criteria.
We here describe an advanced EOR screening approach that, along with technical factors, incorporates:
(1) operational complexity of converting existing fields to a new EOR process; (2) environmental
acceptability of each EOR process, given current field configuration; (3) commercial attractiveness and
competitiveness. We apply the new approach to 14 EOR processes across 85 reservoirs from 46 oilfields
on the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS). The purpose is to help stakeholders make earlier and better-
informed decisions about selection of individual EOR opportunities for deeper study.

Background and previous work

Norway is the largest national producer of oil in western Europe and in the top 15 producing countries
worldwide. Production comes solely from offshore on the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS), where
waterflooding is widespread, and processes such as miscible and immiscible hydrocarbon gas injection and
SPE-200376-MS 3

water alternating gas (WAG) injection and microbial EOR have been tested and, in some cases, deployed at
scale (Awan et al., 2008). The average recovery factor from fields on the NCS (47%) is thus high compared
to other offshore oil provinces.
Smalley et al. (2018) reported the development of a technical screening toolkit for 13 EOR processes and
its application to 53 reservoirs from 27 NCS oil fields. The results indicated an EOR technical potential of
592 million standard cubic metres (MSm3) with a range of 320-860 MSm3. The most promising processes
were low salinity/polymer, surfactant/polymer, and miscible hydrocarbon and CO2 WAG injection. The
present study extends this to more fields and EOR processes, and includes an operational, economic and
environmental screening capability.

Description of the screening tool

The screening tool described in this paper adds functionality to the technical screening tool described in
Smalley et al. (2018) so that it can also assess operational complexity, environmental acceptability and
commercial attractiveness. It was implemented in a spreadsheet-based tool that allowed all fields and
processes fields to be screened simultaneously and the results compared and evaluated.
The overall screening workflow is:
a. Data acquisition and input: The operators complete an online questionnaire for each field/reservoir
to be screened. This provides the basic technical and operational information needed to perform the
screening.
b. Technical screening: The screening process described in Smalley et al. (2018) is applied to determine
the technical viability of each process in each field and to estimate the likely incremental oil recovery.
c. Advanced screening: A feasibility factor for each process in each field is calculated based on the
individual screening scores for operational complexity, environmental acceptability and commercial
competitiveness. These use the field-specific data provided by the operators.
d. Ranking and estimation of recovery increment: The results of the screening can then be investigated
by displaying the fields/reservoirs or processes in terms of screening scores, incremental oil recovery
or other performance indicators.

Technical screening
The technical screening approach built on here was described in depth in Smalley et al. (2018). That
study included the following EOR processes: hydrocarbon and CO2 miscible and immiscible WAG,
Nitrogen immiscible WAG, alkaline, polymer, surfactant, surfactant/polymer, low salinity, low salinity/
polymer, deep-acting thermally-activated polymers (abbreviated to TAP) and "gels", (conventional near-
well treatments). In this paper we include an additional EOR process ("smart water"; Aghaeifar et al., 2018),
referring to the injection of a modified seawater major ion composition, for example by reducing sodium and
increasing sulphate (Fathi et al., 2011, 2012; Aghaeifar et al., 2018). Seawater itself has "smart" properties
in chalk fields, the only relevant rock type on the NCS.
Overall technical screening scores were calculated between 0 (not viable) and 1 (optimal) using sliding-
scales for each individual screening criterion, weighted for importance.
Incremental recoveries were estimated taking into account the existing recovery processes and remaining
oil in each field. If a process was technically optimal (score = 1), it was assigned the maximum
increment, capped by theoretical maximum recovery factors derived from theoretical/laboratory values for
displacement and sweep. If the process was technically viable, but non-optimal (score >0, <1), the expected
recovery increment was reduced concomitantly with the screening score. Obviously if the process was not
viable (score=0) then the incremental recovery was zero.
4 SPE-200376-MS

Advanced (operational, economic and environmental) screening

Important innovative steps in the current work were the identification of key operational, economic and
environmental screening criteria for the implementation of EOR offshore, along with the algorithms used
to estimate screening scores from these criteria and the input data, and the methodology to combine these
into an overall practical screening score. The process is illustrated in Figure 1 and the screening criteria in
Figure 2. Advanced screening scores are derived individually for key elements of operational complexity,
commercial competitiveness and environmental acceptability (Fig. 2). The criteria were initially defined in
a team workshop and then refined by discussion with domain experts and consideration of the data available
from operating companies. The score for each screening criterion is based on a sliding scale between a
maximum value (usually 1, indicating no issues) and a minimum value (low, but > 0) where there are
serious issues. A screening score of 0 is used only where a criterion is an absolute deal-breaker, because any
opportunity scoring 0 in any criterion is eliminated. The individual screening scores are then weighted and
combined to provide overall operational, economic and environmental screening scores and these further
combined to give a "feasibility factor" (Fig. 1). The screening scores do not affect the recovery increment,
but are used as filters to eliminate those processes that are practically infeasible and to rank the remaining
processes and fields by practicality as well as technical increment. The overall feasibility factor can be used
to scale the incremental recovery as part of a statistical analysis – it is not applied to individual opportunities.
The logic and calculations for different screening scores that are combined to calculate the screening
scores and overall feasibility factor are discussed in some detail in the following sub-sections.

Figure 1—Logic for construction of a "Feasibility Factor" (FF), which is the

product of the operational, environmental and economic screening scores.
SPE-200376-MS 5

Figure 2—Advanced screening criteria (columns) and the EOR processes they apply to, shown by a gray fill in the matrix.

Operational screening
Operational screening estimates the additional facilities and wells required to implement a new EOR
process, and how difficult it would be to meet those requirements, based on the current recovery process
being used and existing oilfield facilities and wells. They are grouped into criteria that apply to topside
facilities, the installation, the existing wells and to injectant access.
Topside Facilities criteria. The topside facilities criteria evaluate the suitability of existing injection
and processing facilities for a potential new EOR process. The criteria determine whether additional
injection or processing facilities are required and, for CO2-based processes, whether existing facilities are
sufficiently corrosion-resistant. Both injection and processing facility scores reflect the extent to which EOR
implementation would be affected by the need to modify existing equipment.
Each score is based on comparing the injection or processing equipment required for a proposed EOR
process with the equipment already in place on the platform, a function of the current recovery process.
For example, WAG processes need both gas compressors and water injection pumps. Chemical injection
processes require water injection pumps and chemical mixing, maturation and storage tanks, and low salinity
water injection requires desalination equipment. Injection equipment requirements are least complex for
processes that are well-by-well treatments (TAP, gels). Changing from one gas-based process to another, or
between different water-based processes, is much simpler than changing from water-based to gas-based or
vice versa, or, worse, changing from no injection at all to water and/or gas injection. This because some of
the necessary equipment will already be in place (Fig. 3). The need for upgraded processing facilities where
chemicals (polymer, surfactant) could be back-produced was also taken into account.
6 SPE-200376-MS

Figure 3—Construction of screening score for the Topsides Injection and Processing criteria

The Topsides Facilities scores not only consider existing oilfield facilities, but also how easy it would
be to add any new required facilities based on the space and weight constraints on the existing offshore
platforms (Fig. 3). Space and weight constraints on the production platform were judged based on a
questionnaire response from the operators relating to the ease of installing additional equipment. Generally,
there was more flexibility in the younger fields, and particularly those still under development. The
platforms in mature fields often have a long history of modifications and may already be cramped and
difficult to modify.
A maximum score (1) is achieved where little processing facility modification is needed and/or where
any modifications would not be constrained by platform space or weight limits. A minimum score (low, but
> 0) would reflect major equipment changes on a platform with no possibility to add such equipment. A
zero score was reserved for rare cases where the criterion really was a deal-breaker, recognizing that even
adverse situations could usually be overcome by additional spending and this would then be accounted for
in the economic screening.
Installation criteria. The installation criteria (Fig. 2) evaluate the remaining lifetime of the installation
compared to the expected duration of the EOR process, the impact of the installation type (fixed, floating,
FPSO, subsea or combinations) on the ease of converting a field to EOR and the location of the installation
and its proximity to relevant infrastructure.
This installation lifetime criterion (Fig. 4) reflects whether EOR implementation would be affected by
the remaining operating lifetime of the installation. This would become an issue if a field had an aging
installation that would require replacement or extensive remedial work to extend field lifetime to recover
the EOR incremental oil. The input data was the remaining field life based on field development plans. We
assumed that for most EOR processes, 20 years of production would be sufficient to yield the full expected
increment (score = maximum = 1), and that < 3 years remaining field life would be insufficient for any
significant increment (score = minimum). For gel treatments, that have rapid response times and shorter
incremental production profiles, the thresholds were 10 years and 1 year (Error! Reference source not
found.4). Scores were assigned on a linear sliding scale between these end points.
SPE-200376-MS 7

Figure 4—Logic and threshold values for calculating a screening score for remaining installation lifetime.

The installation type criterion quantifies the ability to access wells for interventions such as reperforation
or conversion from producer to injector. This depends on well head type (surface/subsea/combination)
which in turn depends, to some extent, on installation type; for example, fixed platforms generally
have surface wellheads and subsea tiebacks have subsea wellheads. The screening score was assigned,
irrespective of EOR process, based on the installation and wellhead types for each field. A maximum score
was assigned to fixed installations with surface wellheads, as these were deemed to have the least operational
complexity. The lowest score was given to floating or subsea installations with subsea wellheads, as these
were deemed to have the greatest operational complexity.
The location criterion (Fig. 5) considers where the installation is situated relative to other relevant
infrastructure. This evaluates the potential for economies of scale where a cluster of fields could be amenable
to similar EOR processes, leading to lower entry hurdles for some EOR processes where infrastructure
costs could be shared. The relative size of a cluster around each field was estimated from the remaining
recoverable oil within a 50 km radius of the field. This was derived for each field using NPD's extensive field
database available at https://factmaps.npd.no/factmaps. Screening scores were calculated from the cluster
remaining recoverable volume divided by field remaining recoverable (Figure 5). A ratio of 1 indicates no
cluster (cluster volume = field volume), achieving a minimum score. A maximum score (1) is achieved for
a ratio of ≥ 5 for gas-based processes and low salinity water injection, which have the largest potential for
sharing EOR facilities. For chemical EOR processes, where there is less commercial pressure for sharing
facilities, a ratio of ≥ 2 achieves a score of 1. TAP and gels are given a score of 1 irrespective of cluster size,
as these are essentially single well treatments that are unaffected by activities neighbouring fields.

Figure 5—Calculation of Location screening criterion. Map shows field locations; dark green field is the target field.
Remaining recoverable oil volumes for fields within 50 km of the target field (the cluster) are divided by the volume for the
target field to generate relative cluster size. This is converted to a score using a sliding scale where a minimum score is
assigned for a ratio of 1 (no cluster) and a maximum score of 1 is assigned at different ratios depending on the EOR process.
8 SPE-200376-MS

Wells criteria. These criteria quantify how many new injection points would be needed to generate the
optimal well spacing for each EOR process, how much work would be needed to ensure injection points
in the correct position for a given EOR process and, for processes using CO2, whether existing wells are
resistant to corrosion.
The well spacing criterion quantifies the operational complexity of creating sufficient injection points to
achieve an optimal well spacing for a given EOR process. This target well spacing was based on existing
offshore projects (Table 1). Optimising well spacing for EOR is as much an economic issue as a technical
one: even with well spacing that is much too wide, the technical recovery increment will probably still
be recoverable, but it will take longer and require more injectant, negatively impacting economics. Such
economic impacts are covered in the economic criteria.

Table 1—The target well spacing for different EOR processes

EOR process Target well spacing Basis

Widest successful spacing to achieve the full incremental oil volume in a

Gas based 1.7km reasonable timescale in a North Sea field (Ula field; Mellemstrand et al.,
2012)

Dalia polymer flood, offshore Angola (Morel et al., 2012), the most
Water based 1.3km
relevant field-scale example for NCS conditions

Average of the two most relevant analogues: the Ebano field (Equatorial
Guinea) TAP project (1.5 km spacing; Choudhary et al., 2014) and
TAP 1.7km
the Snorre field (North Sea) silicate injection project (2 km spacing;
Skrettingland et al., 2014)

Gels (producers) Irrelevant Single well treatments

Half of the treatments are on injectors, for which the target well spacing
Gels (injectors) 1.7km
would be the same as for TAP

The well spacing score works by

– Estimating a representative current producer-injector spacing in each reservoir.
– Estimating how many new injection points would be needed to achieve the target well spacing for
a given EOR process (Table 1).
– Comparing the demand for new injection points with the operators’ view of how difficult it would
be to drill new wells, due to slot availability etc.
The current producer-injector well spacing (L) is estimated from field area (A) and number of injectors
(Ni), including existing and planned pre-EOR wells, but excluding defunct wells, using:

(1)

This assumes wells are vertical and in a five-spot pattern; although unlikely to hold in the offshore
environment, using this assumption nevertheless places fields in the correct relative order of their producer-
injector spacing. The number of required additional injection points is then:
(2)
where T is the target well spacing.
This demand for additional injection points is converted into a numerical score using:
(3)
where Np is the existing producer count. This expression captures the overall scale of the current field
operation, because it is logical that adding, say, 5 additional wells to a field with 100 wells is not going to
SPE-200376-MS 9

be as significant as adding 5 wells to a field with 10 wells. Furthermore, the more existing wells there are,
the more likely it is that some of them could be converted from producer to injector, or from injecting one
fluid to another (e.g., from water to WAG), reducing the need for new injectors.
If no additional wells are needed (Demand = 0), the well spacing screening score is 1. If Demand >
0, then the feasibility of adding more injection points is quantified using a "Well_Index" score based on
questionnaire responses from the field operators as given in Table 2.
The overall well spacing score = Demand × Well_Index. Note that the minimum score is limited to a
value > 0 to avoid duplication with the Capex score that also incorporates well cost.

Table 2—Relation between Well_Index score and feasibility of adding new wells

Well_Index Questionnaire Response

1 Spare slots available

Insufficient slots, but manageable (e.g., by reusing slots

0.8
from poor-performing wells) or converting producers

Significant problems with adding wells that would require

0.5
considerable re-engineering to overcome (e.g., adding new slots)

Serious problems with adding wells that could only be overcome

0.3
by adding a new facility (e.g., subsea tieback, additional platform)

Severe problems with adding wells that could

0.1
require complete redevelopment to overcome

The well position criterion evaluates the position of existing perforations relative to the oil-water contact,
and whether EOR implementation would require significant remedial action to achieve injection points
in the right places (new wells, reperforations, well conversions, sidetracks). The well position score was
determined based on operators’ questionnaire response relating to the ease of adding new injection points
in the oil zone (Table 3). This scoring framework applied to all EOR processes except gels, where the score
is 1 if only producers are present, or (TAP score + 1)/2 if injectors are present.

Table 3—Relation between the well position score and the ease with which it would be possible to add injection points in the oil zone.

1 Already injectors in the oil zone

Some new injection points may need to be created by reperforating existing water zone
0.8 injectors orconverting producers (e.g., by reusing slots from poor-performing wells) or
converting producers

Would require recompleting wells currently serving a deeper reservoir, deepening wells
0.5
currently serving a shallower reservoir, sidetracking etc

0.3 Would require new wells to be drilled

0.1 Would require significant field redevelopment

Injectant access criterion. This criterion only applies to processes involving hydrocarbon (HC) gas and
CO2, assuming that HC gas would be supplied internally or from nearby fields, and CO2 by a pipeline
connected to a regional trunk line. For miscible and immiscible HC gas injection, the amount of gas
required for injection is estimated as 1.4 billion m3 injectant for each incremental million m3 of oil, a rounded
average of the published figures for Ula (1.25; Mellemstrand et al., 2010) and Statfjord Brent (1.564; Crogh
et al., 2002); the amount of gas required (Bm3) for each field is thus estimated at 1.4 × the incremental oil
volume. It was assumed that significant free gas (a gas cap) would be required to provide the amount of
injectant needed to achieve the full technical EOR increment and to maintain reservoir pressure.
10 SPE-200376-MS

The amount of gas available for injection is estimated as the in-field gas cap, plus the free gas in other
fields within the 50 km-radius cluster multiplied by a factor of 0.2 to account for the fact that accessing gas
in nearby fields will be costlier and more difficult (for example requiring agreement with numerous field
stakeholders) than the in-field gas cap. The gas volume required and gas volume available are compared
and a screening score assigned based on the gas budget:
– If available gas volume > required gas volume, a maximum score of 1 is assigned.
– If available gas volume = 0, a minimum value is assigned.
– For intermediate cases, the score varies linearly between minimum and maximum values.
For CO2 miscible and immiscible injection, the injectant access criterion assumes that a regional CO2
supply trunk line from a large onshore source is already in place; the criterion thus reflects how operationally
challenging it would be to construct a pipeline connecting the field to the trunk line as measured by the field
to trunk line distance. Notional trunkline positions were agreed with the NPD. The injectant access criterion
score was then assigned on a linear sliding scale with a maximum value (1) where the distance is ≤10 km,
and a minimum value for distances of ≥100 km.

Environmental screening criteria

The environmental screening criteria address the issue of EOR processes being denied approval for
implementation because they are perceived as environmentally unacceptable, either to operators, other
stakeholders or the general public. Various screening criteria were considered, but the three that were chosen
(injectant hazard, CO2 footprint, emissions) are those that reflect the defining challenges. Individual scores
for each criterion are weighted and combined (sumproduct of their weights and scores) to generate an overall
environmental screening score (Fig. 1).
The injectant hazard criterion reflects the perceived hazard associated with each type of injectant,
including the inherent impact of each injectant (e.g., ability to harm the environment, biodegradability), the
amount of injectant that needs to be handled and the (very low) generic probability of release of the injectant
into the environment. This criterion is applied by process only; it does not vary from field to field. Any
field-specific issues are captured in the separate emissions criterion. The screening score scale was agreed
after discussion with subject matter experts in the NPD and are summarised in Table 4.

Table 4—Scoring scheme for injectant hazard.

EOR Process Score Comments

Gas injection
1 Negligible pollution effect
Low salinity

Polymers Chemicals classified in the most serious categories for environmental

Lower score impact. Scores reflect current commonly available chemicals. New
Surfactants chemical formulations could be developed that will be more acceptable

TAP Amounts used are much less than in a full polymer flood and, they are not
Higher score
Gels back-produced, so they are unlikely to be emitted

Combined processes Score of lowest component e.g., Low salinity + polymer reverts to the polymer score.

The CO2 footprint criterion assesses the difference in CO2 emissions per volume of oil produced between
the current recovery process and the new EOR process. The screening score uses the scale:
– 1 = EOR has a positive effect; less CO2 emission per unit volume of oil produced.
– 0.8 = neutral; negligible change in CO2 emission.
– 0.5 = negative; increased CO2 emission.
SPE-200376-MS 11

– 0.2 = very negative; large increase in CO2 emission.

The main considerations are:
– Increasing CO2 emissions going from no injection to water injection to WAG are related to power
consumed by water injection pumps and gas compressors, though this is somewhat mitigated by a
temporary reduction in produced water.
– Moving from water injection to low salinity injection increases CO2 emissions due to the power
consumption of the desalination plant. Smart water will have similar energy consumption and CO2
emission to low salinity.
– CO2 emissions from CO2 WAG are mitigated by the storage of about 50% of the injected CO2
permanently within the reservoir.
– For polymers, TAP and gels, any additional power consumption related to injection is offset by the
positive effect of reduced produced water and the power needed to process it.
Based on these factors, screening scores are assigned based on the current recovery process and the new
EOR process as shown on Figure 6.

Figure 6—Screening scores for CO2 footprint based on the expected change in CO2
emissions from the existing recovery process (columns) to a new EOR process (rows).

The emissions criterion quantifies the potential for harmful species to be released to seawater or the
atmosphere. Gas or chemical emissions from gas-based processes are assumed to be negligible. For water-
based processes, the largest risk of emissions is on the production side, so the screening score is assigned
from a scoring matrix based on the type of water management used in each field, using the following
classification:
– Closed loop. Produced and injected fluids are in a totally closed loop, giving the lowest risk of
emissions, and a maximum score of 1.
12 SPE-200376-MS

– Surface water discharge. The success of this depends on the water clean-up treatment working
consistently well. This has the highest risk of emissions and attracts a minimum score.
– PWRI (Produced Water Reinjection) and subsurface water disposal (using disposal wells into
aquifers) have intermediate scores, with PWRI slightly higher as it carries marginally less leakage
risk.

Economic screening criteria

The predicted commercial competitiveness of an EOR opportunity is a key input to decision-making, and
is thus very important to incorporate into EOR screening. The metrics that were selected to represent
commerciality were:
– Net Present Value (NPV): the industry standard measure of project materiality taking into account
the time value of money.
– Internal Rate of Return (IRR): a standard measure of the average annual return on the cash investment.
A "good" IRR is one that reflects a sufficient risk-adjusted return on cash investment given the nature
of the investment.
It is not practical to perform rigorous commercial analysis on every combination of reservoir and
process (>1000 permutations). A screening approach was thus sought which provided sufficient commercial
insight and, in particular, ranking of EOR opportunities relative to each other, without resorting to complex
simulation.
NPV and IRR for each EOR opportunity were calculated from estimations of the expected incremental
revenue stream, derived from the expected incremental production profile multiplied by an assumed oil
price, and estimations of capital expenditure (Capex) and operating expenditure (Opex) profiles. The
following sections describe how these were derived.
Production profile. We assumed that all EOR process generate an incremental production profile with the
following phases (Figure 7):
– Lag. The delay, with duration tlag, from the start of an EOR project until first incremental oil.
– Build. The phase (duration = tbuild) where production builds (assumed to be linear) from zero to the
peak production rate, Qmax.
– Plateau. The phase (duration = tplateau) where incremental production is restricted by facilities or well
availability and stays constant at Qmax.
– Decline.
SPE-200376-MS 13

Figure 7—Generic shape of an incremental EOR production profile

used in modelling the revenue stream of an EOR opportunity.

Estimation of Lag duration. The Lag duration (tlag) is related to the field-specific response time of the
EOR process. This was approximated by establishing a base case tlag, modified by an adjustment factor
dependent on reservoir properties such as mobility ratio, heterogeneity, injectivity and wettability and the
target producer-injector well spacings (Table 1). The base tlag for water and gas-based processes were 1.8
years and 4.7 years respectively, based on analogue data and analysis using various simple analytical models
(e.g., Buckley-Leverett). The field-specific adjusted tlag values varied between 0.7 and 3.5 years (average
2.0) for gas-based processes and 0.3 to 4.5 years (average 2.0) for water-based processes. If no injectors are
present in a reservoir, the time taken to drill the first injector is added to the Lag.
Estimation of Build duration. The main factors that affect the duration of the Build phase are heterogeneity
of the reservoir, fluid properties and time taken to drill additional injection wells
Reservoir heterogeneity affects the rate of increase of incremental oil production as well as the
breakthrough (which controls the Lag). The more heterogeneous the reservoir, the more gradual will be the
increase in oil rate and the shorter the Lag. The factors controlling this component of the Build phase are thus
similar to those controlling the Lag. A literature survey confirmed a positive correlation between Lag and
Build (see, for example, data in Antonyadis, 2010). It was thus assumed that the duration of this component
of the Build phase was equal to the duration of the Lag phase. Drilling (or modifying, converting) additional
injectors to achieve the target well spacing may also increase the duration of the build phase, depending
upon how many wells have to be drilled.
In this evaluation we first approximated the duration of the build phase based purely upon the rock and
fluid properties of the reservoir. We then estimated the time it would take to add any additional injection
points assuming these would be added at a constant rate (based on average NCS well drilling rates) and
that wells would start to be added from the beginning of the Lag phase. Finally, we compared the duration
of the Lag plus Build phases (based purely on rock and fluid properties) with the time taken to add all the
required injection points and increased the duration of the Build phase if more time was needed to finish
adding all the required wells.
Estimation of Plateau duration. The plateau duration (of incremental EOR production) is assumed to be
zero for all EOR processes apart from TAP and Gels. In a review of dozens of published EOR incremental
production profiles, not a single case emerged with a convincing plateau. In all cases, incremental rate built
to a peak and then immediately began to decline.
The situation is different for TAP and Gels as these are implemented as well-by well treatments. If each
well is treated sequentially then treating a field with many wells could take several years. We thus assumed
14 SPE-200376-MS

this could create a plateau if wells treated initially continue producing incremental oil while new wells are
being treated. This is addressed by estimating a well treatment rate from data in Skrettingland et al. (2016)
for gels, and Roussennac & Toschi (2010) and Choudhary et al. (2014) for TAP. The number of wells to
be treated is estimated as a fixed proportion of the total producers and injectors in the field. The number
of wells to be treated are divided by the rate of treatments/year to give an overall treatment period; after
subtraction of tlag and tbuild the remainder comprises the tplateau.
Estimation of decline. The decline in incremental oil was assumed to be hyperbolic, as described by
Masoner (1998):

(4)

where Q is oil flow rate (m3/y) at time t, Qmax is the maximum oil flow rate (Figure 7), D is the decline rate
at the start of decline, and b is the hyperbolic constant. After tuning against incremental production profiles
for gas- and water-based processes, a D value of 0.3 was used; for b, 0.2 was used for HC miscible and CO2
miscible processes, and 0.3 used for all other processes.
The maximum incremental oil rate (Qmax) for each field and process was then adjusted so that the total
area under the incremental oil rate curve (Figure 7) equals the technical EOR increment determined from
the preceding technical screening. Comparison with analogues indicates the rates calculated in this way are
reasonable.
Incremental Capex and Opex profiles. An estimate of both Capex and Opex variations with time are
needed to estimate the NPV and IRR of each potential project. It was assumed that these are related to the
EOR process, the estimated incremental oil profile and also to the phase of the EOR project (Lag, Build
or Decline).
The total Capex depends upon the degree to which facilities need to be upgraded and the number of new
injection points required, both of which are determined as part of the operational screening. The facilities
component of Capex was based on an incremental cost per incremental oil volume that was estimated from
a range of published case studies and unpublished NCS data available from the NPD. This was then scaled
by the operational screening score (Figure 8) assuming that:
– An operational screening score of 1 would only be achieved when no changes to the facilities would
be required at all, and so incremental capital costs should be zero.
– An operational screening score of zero reflects the very costly (and unlikely) case where an EOR
project went ahead while requiring a complete facilities renewal, with a theoretical Capex maximum
termed MaxCapex (Figure 8).
SPE-200376-MS 15

Figure 8—Example of construction of relation between incremental facilities Capex costs per incremental oil
volume for hydrocarbon immiscible WAG. Blue data points are unpublished NCS field data available to the NPD.

Project Capex was then estimated as a linear function of the operational screening score, with MaxCapex
adjusted to match available analogue cost data (Figure 8). This was not a statistical fit, but a considered
judgement, intentionally erring on the high-cost side of the data. The wells component of the Capex was
based on an average cost per well, based on NPD data for the NCS.
It was assumed that the facilities component of the Capex was spent equally through the three years
before injection startup, and Wells Capex was spent equally through each year of the Lag and Build stages
of the production profile. This seemed reasonable, as injection facilities will need to be constructed before
injection starts, but additional Capex in new wells will probably continue to be spent up to the production
peak (Layti, 2017).
The total EOR project incremental Opex was estimated based on data for incremental Opex per
incremental oil volume derived from a combination of unpublished NCS data accessible to the NPD,
information from vendors, and a variety of published case histories (e.g., Guzman, 2014; Al-Murayri et al.,
2018; Welkenhuysen et al., 2015; Poulsen et al., 2018; Layti, 2017; Maya et al., 2014) and regional reviews
(e.g., Kemp & Stephen, 2014, 2015). An Opex profile was generated by assuming that the total Opex was
distributed equally through each operating year where injection occurs. This simplistic assumption will have
a slight negative effect in calculated economics, as it effectively brings some Opex forward in time that in
practice would come later in field life.
Calculation of NPV and IRR. The profiles for revenue (derived from an assumed oil price and the
incremental oil profile), Capex and Opex were combined to generate annual cash flows. An EOR project
was assumed to be terminated when its reducing cash flow during production decline turned negative (i.e.,
production reached the Qmin value on Figure 7). The project cash flows were used to calculate NPV and IRR.
As well as the actual NPV and IRR values, screening scores were generated for each, based on assigning
maximum scores of 1 where they have values that are high enough to be attractive and competitive, and
minimum scores where they become unattractive. An overall economic screening score is generated as a
function of the NPV and IRR scores and their relative weightings (Fig. 1).
In the analysis presented here, the main purpose was to screen out opportunities that were severely
challenged economically. Hence, relatively low thresholds were applied: NPV7% > 0 and IRR >7%.
Opportunities that fail these low thresholds would be unlikely to be commercially viable without
fundamental changes in the cost or revenue environment. However, some opportunities that pass
these thresholds will undoubtedly struggle to be economically attractive or competitive with non-EOR
opportunities. Using the current toolkit, it is possible to impose progressively more demanding economic
16 SPE-200376-MS

thresholds, which would have the effect of reducing overall incremental volumes but focusing onto the
commercially most attractive opportunities.

Results
Screening Scores
We use the term "opportunity" to indicate a potential implementation of one specific technically viable
EOR process in one specific reservoir. Table 5 shows the average screening scores, across all 85 reservoirs
screened, for each EOR process together with the overall feasibility factor. There is some variation in the
average operational and environmental scores and a wide variation in the economic scores, leading to a
very wide range of overall feasibility factors. The most feasible processes overall are gels and TAP. These
are also the top scoring processes based on their average operational and economic scores because they
require least modification to wells and facilities. Perhaps unsurprisingly, injecting CO2, either miscibly or
immiscibly, has the highest environmental acceptability score. These processes have similar operational
complexity scores to other processes (apart from gels) but are amongst the least commercially attractive.
Surfactant injection is very much the least feasible process, mainly because it has the lowest environmental
acceptability score.

Table 5—Average operational, environmental and economic screening scores across all 85 studied reservoirs
for each EOR process. The average Feasibility Factor (FF), the product of the screening scores, is also given.

AVERAGE
PROCESS AVERAGE OP SCORE AVERAGE ENVT SCORE AVERAGE FF
ECON SCORE

HC MISCIBLE GAS WAG 0.58 0.78 0.40 0.21

HC IMMISCIBLE GAS
0.61 0.79 0.27 0.16
WAG

NITROGEN AND FLUE

0.49 0.79 0.15 0.07
GAS WAG

CO2 MISCIBLE WAG 0.47 0.98 0.28 0.16

CO2 IMMISCIBLE WAG 0.55 0.97 0.18 0.11

ALKALINE 0.51 0.83 0.25 0.13

POLYMER 0.45 0.68 0.40 0.15

SURFACTANT 0.48 0.55 0.24 0.08

SURFACTANT/POLYMER 0.46 0.69 0.31 0.12

LOW SALINITY 0.57 0.86 0.48 0.28

LOW SALINITY/
0.50 0.68 0.33 0.15
POLYMER

TAP 0.72 0.85 0.57 0.38

GELS 0.87 0.83 0.86 0.63

SMART WATER 0.63 0.81 0.52 0.29

The distributions of the overall operational screening scores for all analysed EOR processes and reservoirs
are presented in Figure 9. There is a wide range of values, in contrast to the relatively narrow range in the
average values shown in Table 5, indicating that the scoring system does successfully differentiate individual
opportunities based on their operational complexity.
SPE-200376-MS 17

Figure 9—Summary of overall operational screening scores for all EOR processes and reservoirs studied. The charts show
frequencies of EOR opportunities for each screening score value range (bin size = 0.1) among the 85 studied reservoirs.

Most EOR processes have operational screening scores in the range 0.4 to 0.9 (Figure 9). Generally,
opportunities in the upper part of this range (>0.5) either require only minor changes to the facilities and
wells, or there is plenty of flexibility to add facilities to the installation and to add wells. Examples are gas
injection opportunities where gas injection is already occurring, water-based EOR opportunities in fields
where water injection is already in operation, or relatively young fields with higher remaining flexibility
in the facilities and future well locations. Opportunities with scores <0.5 are generally significantly
more complex, for example requiring major changes in facilities and/or wells (e.g., introducing water
injection where none previously existed, requiring new injection facilities and injector wells) and/or minimal
flexibility to modify facilities or add wells. A very small proportion of opportunities have very low
operational scores (<0.1). These are without exception from fields that have very little remaining production
lifetime, basically ruling out EOR implementation in those fields.
The distributions of the overall environmental screening scores are presented in Figure 10. Again, the
wide range of scores indicates that the scoring system successfully differentiates opportunities based on
their environmental acceptability. One factor that clearly, and unsurprisingly, affects the environmental
18 SPE-200376-MS

score is the use of polymers and especially surfactants. For example, low salinity opportunities have scores
>0.75, while low salinity plus polymer gives scores of 0.6-0.75. Polymer, surfactant, and surfactant/polymer
all have scores <0.75, with surfactant as low as 0.5. It might seem strange that surfactant/polymer has
higher scores than surfactant alone, even though two chemicals are involved; this is because the CO2
footprint criterion is evaluated with reference to the CO2 emitted per incremental oil volume, and surfactant/
polymer gives significantly higher incremental oil volumes. Miscible and immiscible CO2 WAG have high
environmental scores (>0.9) because they have no injectant hazard, negligible emissions and a positive
CO2 footprint. TAP and gels score >0.75 because they have a low risk of any emissions and increase oil
production for negligible increase in CO2 footprint.

Figure 10—Summary of overall environmental screening scores for all EOR processes and reservoirs studied. The charts
show frequencies of EOR opportunities for each screening score value range (bin size = 0.05) in the 85 studied reservoirs.

Some environmental scores are bimodal with peaks either side of a minimum at a score of about 0.75
(Fig. 10). This is associated with the CO2 footprint criterion. Scores >0.75 are fields currently employing
waterflood or gas injection, with little change in CO2 emitted per incremental oil volume going from the
current process to a new one involving fluid injection. Scores <0.75 are fields that currently are being
SPE-200376-MS 19

produced by depletion or natural aquifer support; for these the introduction of water pumps and gas
compressors will have a significant increase in CO2 emitted per incremental oil volume.
The distribution of the overall economic (commercial attractiveness) scores for all analysed EOR
processes and reservoirs are presented in Figure 11. Again, there is a wide range of scores, even within a
single EOR process, indicating that the scoring system successfully differentiates between the opportunities.
The distribution is somewhat similar for most of the EOR processes but with a distinct peak at <0.2,
representing opportunities that are unattractive in terms of both NPV and IRR. All opportunities with high
screening scores (>0.7) have attractive NPV and IRR. A large proportion of gel opportunities fall in this
category, due to their low up-front costs. There are also several low salinity, TAP, smart water and low
salinity/polymer opportunities in the >0.7 range. However, there are fewer HC and particularly CO2 injection
processes in this range due to their high Capex costs.

Figure 11—Summary of overall economic screening scores for all EOR processes and reservoirs studied. The charts show
frequencies of EOR opportunities for each screening score value range (bin size = 0.1) among the 85 studied reservoirs.

There are also relatively few high-scoring chemical EOR processes due to their high Capex and their
high Opex related to chemical cost.
20 SPE-200376-MS

The frequency distributions of the overall FF for the various EOR processes among the 85 reservoirs
studied are shown in Figure 12. FF varies between (almost) zero and 1, but differs between processes.
Most EOR processes have negatively skewed distributions; about ⅓ of the opportunities have FF ≤ 0.2, and
would be unlikely to be selected for implementation due to poor performance in at least one of the three
advanced screening measures. This discrimination between different EOR opportunities is precisely what
was desired from the advanced screening process. Being able to screen out ⅓ of the opportunities allows
subsequent more detailed work to be focused on the remaining ⅔, and within those remaining opportunities
the screening process allows further prioritization. For example, only a small proportion of HC gas projects
have FF >0.7 (generally fields where HC injection is already underway), and these would be the highest
priority for further investigation. Other "low-hanging fruit" would include those low salinity and smart
water opportunities that extend to FF values >0.7, plus the peak of TAP and gels opportunities that have
FF > 0.7 due to their relative operational simplicity, good economic performance and lack of significant
environmental risk.

Figure 12—Feasibility Factor (FF) frequency distributions by EOR process.

SPE-200376-MS 21

EOR Potential of the Norwegian Continental Shelf

In this section we evaluate the impact of the screening for operational complexity, environmental
acceptability and commercial attractiveness on the EOR potential on the NCS. In Smalley et al. (2018), we
applied a technical screening protocol to estimate the EOR potential on the NCS. The 27 fields included
in that analysis, yielded a technical potential of 592 MSm3 (range 322-862 MSm3). The current study has
been extended to 46 fields and for these the overall technical increment is 698 MSm3 (figure 13, left chart),
with a range of 384-1012 MSm3. This provides the reference from which to evaluate the impact of the
advanced screening. As before, it was assumed that in fields with multiple reservoirs only one process could
be implemented across each field. This was seen as operationally the least complex approach.

Figure 13—Overall NCS EOR potential incremental oil volumes, calculated on the basis of including only
the single top process per field. Pie charts, from left to right are: Technical screening only, excluding
advanced screening factors; Advanced screening using operational and economic screening only; Advanced
screening using operational, economic and environmental screening. The numbers in each sector are the
incremental volumes for each process; for the middle and right-hand charts, the volumes are multiplied
by the Feasibility Factor, which reduces the volumes to take account of the probability of implementation.

The FF of an individual opportunity is a measure of the likelihood of that opportunity being implemented.
When considering a portfolio of opportunities, the technical EOR increment of each opportunity can be
multiplied by the FF and summed to give an estimate of the expected incremental volume of the portfolio
of opportunities taking into account the probability of implementation.
Figure 13 middle and right panels show the overall increments from each EOR process when including
the effects of operational complexity and commercial attractiveness only (middle), and also including
environmental acceptability (right). As with the left chart, these only include the single top process in each
field (in terms of incremental oil), but the opportunities in the middle and right charts also pass the advanced
screening criteria and have had their increments reduced by their FF. Excluding the environmental screening,
the reduced overall EOR potential volume for the NCS would be 344 MSm3. Taking environmental
acceptability into account reduces the EOR potential to 282 MSm3. This indicates a prize of 344 - 282 = 62
MSm3 for overcoming the environmental challenges, for example by producing environmentally acceptable
surfactants and polymers. This provides a large incentive for research into this area. Note that all of the
opportunities included had to pass the minimum thresholds of operational score > 0.5; environmental score
> 0.7; NPV7% > 0 and IRR > 7%. Over half of the opportunity volume was screened out by this advanced
screening (figure 13, compare left and right panels). Note that more challenging economic thresholds would
reduce the incremental volumes further. Raising the thresholds to NPV7% > $500 million and IRR > 20%
reduces the overall incremental volume to ~240 MSm3.
The overall potential of each EOR process before and after the advanced screening is illustrated in Figure
14. In contrast to the technical-screening-only (left) pie chart in Figure 13 that contains only the highest
22 SPE-200376-MS

volume opportunity per field, Figure 14 (upper panel) shows all technically viable opportunities. This means
that the volumes in Figure 14 are higher, and in fact higher than could realistically be achieved, because
competing processes are included that cannot possibly all be implemented. Nevertheless, Figure 14 does
give the best overview of the relative importance of each EOR process for the NCS.

Figure 14—The summed incremental volumes of all opportunities (all technically viable processes in all
reservoirs) ranked in order of incremental volume. Upper panel: based on technical screening alone. Lower
panel: based on advanced screening including operational, environmental and economic criteria. The
opportunities are competitive with each other and cannot all be implemented, so the volumes are not additive.

Comparison of the upper panel of Figure 14 (technical screening only) with the lower panel (including
advanced screening criteria of operational score > 0.5; environmental score > 0.7; NPV7% > 0 and IRR >
7%; but not reducing the increments by the FF) demonstrates, as expected, that the EOR incremental oil
volume reduces with application of the advanced screening.
The process with the largest technical potential is HC miscible WAG. This process is technically viable
in 74 of the 85 studied reservoirs with a gross technical potential of 495 MSm3 although it is the top process
in only 28 of them (totalling to the 131 MSm3 in Figure 13 left chart). When extended screening is applied,
SPE-200376-MS 23

HC miscible WAG is still the process with the largest overall practically feasible potential, with a reduced
increment of 451 MSm3. Considering only the largest opportunity in each reservoir and applying the FF
multiplication factor (Fig. 13, right panel), this volume would further reduce to 100 MSm3.
Other processes suffer more from the advanced screening. Low salinity/polymer has the second largest
technical potential of 353 MSm3 (Figure 14), but this reduces to 196 MSm3 and slips to 6th place
after advanced screening because of adverse environmental and economic scores (figure 10, Figure 11).
Surfactant, in 6th place based on technical-only screening, is screened out altogether after advanced screening
due to its low environmental acceptability scores (figure 14, Figure 10). Similarly, surfactant/polymer drops
from 8th to 13th place.
The processes that appear relatively more attractive after advanced screening are those that have large
parts of the required infrastructure in place, or have few requirements of large infrastructure. HC miscible/
immiscible WAG and CO2 miscible/immiscible WAG fall into the former category (in fields where gas
injection of some form is already occurring) along with low salinity, smart water and alkaline (in fields
where water injection is already occurring). Where relevant facilities are already in place, this will benefit
both the operational and economic screening criteria. TAP and gels fall into the latter category, as they
require little infrastructure. They are promoted from 14th to 10th place and from 12th to 7th place respectively
by the advanced screening (Figure 14).
CO2 miscible/immiscible WAG processes both increase by one rank place after advanced screening,
mainly due to their high environmental scores because some of the CO2 is permanently stored in the
subsurface.
The lower panel of Figure 14 gives a good indicator of the priority that should be given to the various EOR
processes in progressing the opportunities towards pilots and eventual implementation, with the proviso
that the chemical processes could become much more attractive if environmentally acceptable alternative
surfactant and polymer formulations could be found.

Conclusions
This study demonstrates that it is possible to incorporate the key practical factors affecting the potential
attractiveness of EOR projects, along with technical factors, into a single screening tool. We have identified
the relevant operational, environmental and economic factors in an offshore setting, and quantified these
into a screening framework to generate advanced screening scores. An integrated toolkit has been created
incorporating technical screening (with expected technical EOR volume increments) along with advanced
operational, environmental and economic screening (including practically feasible volume increments).
This toolkit was used to screen 14 EOR processes across 85 reservoirs on the NCS as a batch, yielding a
rich set of results that can be analysed in various ways. The analysis indicates that operational, environmental
and economic factors all have a significant impact on the EOR feasibility. In particular, processes that
require large infrastructure modifications are down-ranked by the operational and economic screening,
while processes involving surfactants and polymers are down-ranked by the environmental screening. CO2
injection is up-ranked by the environmental screening.
The new advanced screening capability provides a more rigorous platform from which to plan more
detailed technical studies on the most promising processes and opportunities, leading to piloting and
eventually full-scale implementation.

Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate for permission to publish, and to the NCS field
operators for providing field specific input data.
24 SPE-200376-MS

References
Aghaeifar, Z., Strand, S., Puntervold, T., Austad, T. & Sajjad, F.M. (2018) Smart Water injection strategies for optimized
EOR in a high temperature offshore oil reservoir. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 165, 743–751.
Al-Bahar, M.A., Merrill, R., Peake, W. Jumaa, M. & Oskui, R. (2004) Evaluation of IOR potential within Kuwait. SPE
paper 88716, presented at the 11th ADIPEC, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 10-13 October 2004.
Al-Mayan, H., Winkler, M., Kamal, D., AlMahrooqi, S., & AlMaraghi, E. (2016) Integrated EOR Screening of Major
Kuwait Oil Fields Using Qualitative, Quantitative and Risk Screening Criteria. SPE paper 179751 presented at the
SPE EOR Conference, Muscat, Oman, March 2016.
Al-Murayri, M.T., Al-Mayyan, H.E., Moudi, K., Al-Ajmi, F., Pitts, D., Wyatt, M.J., French, K., Surtek, J. & Dean, E.
(2018). Chemical EOR economic evaluation in a low price environment: Sabriyah Lower Burgan reservoir case study.
SPE paper 190337, presented at the SPE EOR Conference, Muscat, Oman, March 2018.
Alvarado, V. & Manrique, E. (2010) Enhanced Oil Recovery: Field Planning and Development Strategies. Elsevier, 158pp.
Antonyadis, P. (2010). Decision Support for Enhanced Oil Recovery Projects. MSc thesis, University of Texas at Austin,
405pp.
Awan, A.R., Teigland, R. and Kleppe, J. (2008) A survey of North Sea Enhanced-Oil-Recovery projects initiated during
the years 1975 to 2005. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, June 2008, p497–512.
Choudhary, M., Parekh, B., Solis, H., Meyer, B., Shepstone, K., DeZabala, E., Prostebby, C., Manrique, E., Izadi, M. &
Laersen, D. (2014). Reservoir in-depth waterflood conformance: an offshore pilot implementation. SPE paper 169132
presented at the SPE IOR conference, Tulsa, April 2014.
Crogh, N.A., Eide, K. & Morterud, S.E. (2002). WAG injection at the Statfjord field, a success story. SPE paper 78348,
presented at the 13th EUROPEC, Aberdeen, UK, 29-31 October 2002.
Dickson, J.J., Leahy-Dios, A., & Wylie, P (2010) Development of improved hydrocarbon recovery screening
methodologies. SPE paper 129768, presented at the 2010 SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, USA,
24-28 April 2010.
Fathi, S.J., Austad, T. & Strang, S. (2011). Water-Based Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) by "Smart Water": Optimal Ionic
Composition for EOR in Carbonates. Energy & Fuels, 25, 5173–5179.
Fathi, S.J., Austad, T. & Strang, S. (2012). Water-based enhanced oil recovery (EOR) by "Smart Water" in carbonate
reservoirs. SPE paper 154570, presented at the SPE EOR conference, Muscat, Oman, April 2012.
Guzman, S.P. (2014). Review of a forgotten technology with high potential – the World's largest nitrogen based IOR project
in the supergiant field Cantarell, Mexico. SPE paper 171239, presented at the SPE Russian Oil and Gas Exploration
and Production Technical Conference, Moscow, October 2014.
Hite, J.R., Avasthi, S.M. & Bondor, P.L. (2004) Planning EOR projects. SPE paper 92006, presented at the 2004 SPE
IPC, Pueblo, Mexico, 8-9 November 2004.
Kang, P.S., Lim, J.S & Huh, C. (2016) Screening Criteria and Considerations of Offshore Enhanced Oil Recovery. Energies
2016, 9, 44; doi:10.3390/en9010044.
Kemp, A.G. & Stephen, L. (2014). The Economics of Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) in the UKCS and the Tax Review.
North Sea Study Occasional Paper No. 129, Aberdeen Centre for Research in Energy Economics and Finance, 46pp.
Kemp, A.G. & Stephen, L. (2015). The economics of EOR schemes in the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS). SPE paper
175470, Presented at SPE Offshore Europe, Aberdeen, UK, September 2015.
Layti, F. (2017). Profitability of Enhanced Oil Recovery. Economic Potential of LoSal EOR at the Clair Ridge Field, UK.
MSc thesis, University of Stavanger.
Masoner, L. O. (1998). Decline Analysis’ Relationship to Relative Permeability in Secondary and Tertiary Oil Recovery.
SPE-39928-MS. Presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium and
Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA.
McCormack, M.P., Thomas, J.M and Mackie, J. (2014) Maximising Enhanced Oil Recovery opportunities in UKCS
through collaboration. SPE paper 172017, presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and
Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 10–13 November 2014.
Maya, G., Castro, R., Sandoval, J., Pachon, Z., Jimenez, R., Pinto, K., Diaz, V., Zapata, J., Perdomo, L. & Munoz, S.
(2014). Successful polymer gel application in a highly channelled peripheral injection well: Tello Field pilot. SPE
paper 169478, presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Maracaibo,
Venezuela, May 2014.
Mellemstrand, S., Espe, E., van Gestel, B., Haajizadeh, M., Thomas, S. & Øxnevad, I.E.I. (2010). Building & Expanding
the Ula WAG. IEA EOR conference presentation. http://iea-eor.ptrc.ca/2010/assets/F7_Slides.pdf
Morel, D., Vert, M., Jouenne, S., Gauchet, R. & Bouger, Y. (2012). First polymer injection in deep offshore field Angola:
Recent advances in the Dalia/Camelia field case. SPE paper 135735. SPE Oil and Gas Facilities, April 2012, 43–52.
Poulsen, A. et al. (2018). Results of the UK Captain Field interwell EOR pilot. SPE paper 190175, presented at the SPE
IOR conference, Tulsa, April 2018.
SPE-200376-MS 25

Robbana, E., Young, N., Buikema, T.A., Mair, C., Williams, D., Mercer, D., Webb, K.J., Hewson, A. & Reddick, C.E.A
(2012) LoSal® EOR into the Clair Ridge Project. DEVEX 2012 presentation, http://www.devex-conference.org/pdf/
Presentations_2012/ClairRidgeLoSalEORv2_Robbana.pdf
Roussennac, B. & Toschi, C. (2010). Brightwater ® trial in Salema field (Campos Basin, Brazil). SPE paper 131299,
presented at SPE EUROPEC, Barcelona, June 2010.
Skrettingland, K. et al. (2014). Snorre in-depth water diversion using sodium silicate – Large scale interwell field pilot.
SPE paper 169727, presented at the SPE EOR conference, Oman, March 2014.
Skrettingland, K. et al. (2016). Snorre in-depth water diversion – New operational concept for large scale chemical
injection from a shuttle tanker. SPE paper 179602, presented at the SPR IOR conference, Tulsa, April 2016.
Smalley, P.C., Muggeridge, A.H., Dalland, M., Helvig, O.S., Høgnesen, E.J., Hetland, M., Østhus, A. (2018). Screening
for EOR and estimating potential incremental oil recovery on the Norwegian Continental Shelf. SPE paper 190230,
presented at the SPE Improved Recovery Conference, Tulsa OK, 14-18 April 2018.
Surguchev, L. M., Reich, E.-M., Berenblyum, R., & Shchipanov, A. (2010) Improved Oil Recovery Methods: Applicability
Screening and Potential Evaluation. SPE paper 134742 presented at the SPE Russian Oil & Gas Technical Conference
& Exhibition, Moscow, October 2010.
Taber, J.J. and Martin, F.D. (1983) Technical Screening Guides for the Enhanced Recovery of Oil. SPE 12069, presented
at the 58th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Francisco, CA, October 5-8, 1983.
Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D. & Seright, R.S. (1997) EOR Screening Criteria Revisited—Part 1: Introduction to Screening
Criteria and Enhanced Recovery Field Projects. SPEReservoir Engineering, August 1997, p189–198. SPE paper
35385.
Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D. & Seright, R.S. (1997b) EOR Screening Criteria Revisited—Part 2: Applications and impact of
oil price. SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1997, p199–205. SPE paper 39234.
Teletzke, G. F., Patel, P. D., & Chen, A. (2005) Methodology for Miscible Gas Injection EOR Screening. SPE paper 97650,
presented at the SPE International IOR conference, Kuala Lumpur, December 2005.
Warrlich, G., Al-Waili, I., Said, D., Diri, M., Al-Busushi, N., Strauss, J., Al-Kindi, M., Al-Hadhrami, F., van Heel, T., van
Wunnik, J., de Zwart, B-H.., Blom, C., Al-Mjeni, R., Boerrigter, P. (2012) PDOs EOR Screening Methodology for
heavy-Oil Fractured Carbonate Fields – a Case Study. SPE paper 155546, presented at the SPE EOR Conference at
Oil and Gas West Asia, held in Muscat, Oman, 16-18 April 2012
Welkenhuysen, K., Meyvis, B. & Piessens, K. (2015). Techno-economic evaluation of CO2-EOR in the North Sea. Report
by SCCS for the Scottish Government. https://www.sccs.org.uk/images/expertise/misc/SCCS-CO2-EOR-JIP-Techno-
Economic-Evaluation.pdf