SPE/DOE 27763

Comparison of Actual Results of EOR Field Projects to Calculated

Results of EOR Predictive Models
J.F. Pautz and R.A. Welch, BDM-Oklahoma lnc./NlPER, and C.M. Nautiyal, U.S. DOE
SPE Members

TM, p.p.r w prepared for presen!.!iw at the. S.PEmOE NIIIh symposium:. !mpr:ved 01 Rem..V h.ld r. TUIS.. Okl,h.m~ U.S.A.. 17-= APrjl 19W

This wet was selected @r pmsentalm by an WE Promm C.mmnme following ravlew of [nfon’mfl.n contained 1.. w AL4mct s.bmmed bY m. ~th.r(,). @.t.*s .f @ P.Per.
m presented, have ..[ bean revl?vied by me society of Paro!e.um tis[neers and are s.bled t. ..r:.ab. W fh. .ufhti,). Th. mqflala F Wnl~, w, M ~-rY ~.fr..!
MY FOWM.1 ow s.ci.w..f p.~.!..m W.,.-, It, Om_@-~. .r m.mb.m. W.,. pr-..d.d at sQE m-tl.s, ~ ~bi=t ~ PUb~C.tIO. r.v,ew by ~tor[.l Cmmit$eos 01 ‘e ‘ocia~
01 Pewleum Eng!.eaffi, ?erml~ton to COPY!! restrb!ed !. m abaraaof ..1 more IhaP ?~w.rde. lllus~!?ns may .oth. mpl~d. ~. *mm?h..ld ‘w~.in COWPICUOUS..m~ledEm.nt
d tier. and by whom the pa!aer 1s p!ese.ted. Wile tib.~~-a., SpG P~. B?. 83sw6, ~.hard,:.., F 75~33a33. U.S.A., TM~ 16=45 Sp~T

ABSTRACT accuracy of the total aggregate oil production for a group of

The 1984 National Petroleum Council (NPC),:rrhanced oil
recovery (EOR) study used five co.mputerizo+EOR process
predictive models to estimate tie potential for EOR. These
models were reviewed by industry representatives and
determined to be accurate when used With r$prcsentative
rcservoi.r data. ,These models haye COn@J:d. @ b! .:
primary tool to assist the Dep&ment of Energy (DOE) and
other agencies of the federal government to assess policy
alternatives for tax Tefoimi” environmental regulations,
petroleum research, and others mess. It is believed the
estimates. made by the rn.odels are representative for the
United States petioleum resource. nltho.ugh they may not be
accurate for any ~one specific project or reservoir. Until
recently, there has not been a data sOmce that. can
statistically verify that belief..,.
The DOE encouraged EORprojccts by starting the Tertiary
Incentive Program (TIP) ift 1978. Details of proposeil
projects were subrnltted, and the proj-tits were”certified as
qualifying proj:ttk.” Production and fluid injection data
from those projects have beeri”voluntarily submitted to the
DOE since 1982. .This program has produced historical
data on more than 100. EOR projecfi with sufficient data
for comparison’ with simulations using the predictive
models.
In thk work, the predictive” models were run using the
average wellhead crude oil price for each year from 1980 to
1991 to cxtimati tbe potential production of the projects.
The calculated production from..!he rnodek W c!mP~~
with the reported actuzl production until the project was
terminated or no more production was reported. The results
showed that steam production estimates were reasonable
with a 50C% confidence: level for individual projects,
whereas aggregate oil production for a group of projects
compared more favora%ly. A “rough estimate of the
... -s?..
projects was +20%.. .at the 75% confidence level.
.Avajla~lhy of data for otierproccs;~ yew insufficient for
cnmplete statistical analysis. Results for miscible gas
projects showed that the carbon dioxide predictive model
makes conservative e+timates of tertiary oil production but
optimistic pridlctions when the total oil target “is
con.sjdered. ~e_su@~ant_option of the chemical flood
model and tie in-situ combtistitin modJ made reasonable
oil production predictions. The polymer model made oil
production estimates much higher than that reported for
polymer augmented watcrfloods.
The measured accuracy is for the combination of the
models and the data. The results indicated that first
uPg~ding fie data and then the models ,would be desirable.
AIthongh this study indicates reasonable results for a group
of reservoirs or projects, “there was low confidence in
prcdktcd oil production for individual projects.
INTRODUCTION
The first attempt to systematically estimate the United
States potential for EOR was made by the National
Petroleum Council (NPC) ii” 1976.1 The methodology
used consisted of (1) screening a data base of 245 known
reservoirs in California, Texas, and Lonisiana (with
remaining oil-in-place representing 35 to 40~o “of that in
known fields in the U.S.) to determine the most suitable
EOR process”to be applied (2) estimating recovery based
on prior field experience and expert consensus on.residual
oil saturation, and displacement and sweep efflcienciw, (3)
performing cost estimation on each recovery proccxs; and
(4) determining the economics of..each project. Beginning
in 1978, the U. S..Department of Energy (DOE) had .EOR
computer models developed that could make reasonable
estimates of oil recovery and, with sufficient operating
iriforriiatitii, estimate the economics for reservoir-wide
projects. These computer models were complex enough to
estimate sensitivities to reservoir parameters and changing
.W - -.,7. .=

Rcferencesat end of paper. ‘“==~”ap~troleu&” ~c~nom”;c~b~j~~~~p~’erio~gh to be run on a

291

2 COMPARISONOF ACTUAL_&&WLTSOF EOR FIELD PROJECTSTO SPE 27763
CALCULATEDRESULTSOF EOR PREDICTIVEMODELS
“Super MM’ computer in a few tilnutek per project
(reservoir).
The 1984 NPC study (1982-1984)2 included may industxy
experts organized in EOR process specific committei%
These committees tested and dined the computer predklive
models (steam drive, micellar-polymer, and COZ miscible)
and the rerervoir data they were provided to estimate the
domestic E.OR potential. Additional predctive models for
polymer, alkaline, and in-situ combustion were developed
by the NPC committees: Project development strategies,
cost functions, expected recoveries, and the logic of the
models were developed, thoroughly reviewed, and tested by
leachng EOR .indmtry experts. The results oft@ “effort
were a suite of EOR. predictive models and a larger
integrated system using reservoir dats and preprocessor
programs with tbcse models to analyze the domestic oil
resource. The lager system has become the DOE TORIS
~nalY~i~ ~Y~tern,3 The” “iiidividual simplified EOR
predictive models were subsequently documented and
published by DOE in 19T6.4-8
Model refinements and testing have continued Assessing
the relistility and accurncy of individual predictive models
by compa@g the predicted qesglts to..tield project rcsuhs
and”finite difference” shiudation has shown Mat the. models
are less th~ prefect but make fair to good estimates of oil
~r0du~tion,9 Unfortunately, results of prior studk have
been qualitative and have not estimated a cotildence limit
for the models because of limited information on EOR
projects, ~
Another DOE program that was initiated about the same
time the TORfS analysis system” was conceived was the
Terdmy Incentive Program (TIT) of 1978. Thk progmm
promoted the development of EOR projects and piIots
through certification ‘ti]th the .DOE which. allowed
operators to receive world oil prices for their oil. Projects
were certified based on OMB No, 38-ROW initial report
forim submitted to the DOE. Each year after 1980, TIP
operators have been requested to return a completed
“Annual Report for Enhanced Oil Recovery Incentive
Program; form FE-748. This annual update mquesta the
operator to tabulate monthly fluid injection and production
rates and indicate changes in key reservoir parameters used
to describe a project. The information from these snnunl
reports is maintained in the Enhanced !X1Recovery Project
Datnbase at the DOE Bartlesville Project Office (BPO).10
Since completing form FE-748 is volunt.a.~, numerous
operators stopped reporting after the initial certification.
The number of completed reports continues to decrease
because many of the original projects have been terminated,
completed, changed, were never started, or are not
reporting. .Approximately 50 projects have provided 10
years of production data, and roughly another 100-have
provided more than 3 ycam of data.
SCOPE OF THIS..STUDY
The objective “of this ‘study was to use tie data on TIP
projects to assess the accuracy of the DOE predictive
292
.
models. Therefore, the study concentrated on comparing
the-oil production reported to DOE for TIP projtits to the
production predicted by the predictive models using the
reservoir aad project psmmetera that were reported to DOE.
The accuracy of all of the EOR process models was
considered: Steam (SFPM), Miscible Gas (CQ2PM),
Polymer (PFPM), In-s@ Combustion (ICPM), and
Chemical (CFPM) (for both surfactant and alkaline
processes). TIP projects that had 3 or more years of
production information and reservoir parameters that were
reasonable and internally consistent were used in the stady.
For those processes with sufficient number of projects and
reasonable precision, statistics for accuracy were esdmated
at a reasonable confidence level. The predictive models
were modified to use the average wellhead oil prices for the
period 1980 to 1991. The preprocessor programs of the
TORIS analysis system and defaults built into the DOE
predictive models were used for missing data.
LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
Although thk study had a significant amount of data on
projects, the quality of the data was a concern. Efforts were
made to screen obvious errors and the information was
accepted unless inconsistencies could not be resolved using
engineering judgment and other information sources.
Some of the project areas planned at the beginning of the
TIP progr.m were not fully developed, and conversely,
some developed areas were greater than that planned or
ind]cated by the annual reports. Unfortunately, without
@ect correspondence with a knowledgeable representative
of the operator, these errors might not have been detected
and therefore might be included in this study. Additional
work is planned to identify errors and expand the project
data
Although significant amounts of data were available, they
were not sufilcient to fully assess the accuracy of the
predictive models except for the SFPM. The data is also
weighted toward the early production years of the project.
The statistical remdta iadicate the combhd accurncy of the
TIP data arrd the predictive models. Refinements of the
project data will likely result in lager improvements in the
measured accuracy than a refinement of the models.
To generate the data input sets for the predictive models,
the pre-processcr portions of the TOR3S Analysia System
were used. These pro~ams assisted in validating the
internal consistency of the data, assigned missing data from
correlations, and prepared the input tiles to the predictive
models. TIis simplified the data preparation, but it also
included assumptions on the development of the project
that may not have been consistent with historical
development. Specific steps were taken to rectify this
possible problem in one case for each process with mixed
results.
The models themselves are simple and often have built-in
assumptions that do not allow key characteristics of “a
projec; to be simulated. For example, a 5-spot well pattern
is assumed for the SFPM which is rarely used in practice. ,
. .

SPE 27763 JAMES F. PAUTZ, ROBERT A. WELCH AND CHANDRA M. NAUTIYAL 3

The use of a single value for key reservoir par~eters is
another limitation add potential source of error-choosing
one permeab@ value for a large field project has obvious
problems.
DEVELOPMENT OF METHODS FOR
COMPARISON
Tbe basic approach of this comparative study was to apply
increasing levels of engiij+.ring judgment to improve upon
the project descriptions-taken from the databsse and fie
inputs defaulted by the preprocessor progcams. The fmt
priority wss to model the appropriate target oil volumes.
Second, inject~on ‘well counts were “rnodlfied to
approximate actual Conditions. Third, the model was
prowded with actual fluid injection rates ralher than
accepting default rates determined by the models
themselves. A general approach was developed with a
subset of steam projects “itndthen applied to the full set of
stenm projects and the other process=.
Most of the data descr~bing the TIP projects originated
from the OIvfB No.. 38-R0445 ifiti.al report forms. The
forms were submitted to the DO.E, and the information was
entered into the DOE project database. In many cases, the
yearly up&te forms, FE-748, coritained dlffeient andlor
contradictory information from that found in the initial
reports. During preparation of the-project description, the
FE-748 data were considered current and generally more
sccurate when the data input file was being prepared. The
data retrieved from the DOE EOR Project Database were
checked during the review process for accuracy, and upon
dkcovery of emois, Corr?.ktiorisw“efern”adeto “tie input data
sets. used in this study. The corrections included
omissions, data that could not be substantiated, and
common errors that were either transcription or
typographical in nature. The changes were made to basic
reservoir properties amdtorepmted production and injection
data. (A common and easily detected error in the
production and injection dTta was that the. operators
submitted monthly totsl: instead of an average mnnthly
rste.)
The model results were compared to gross oil production
reported by the TLP project operators. It was assumed that
all produced oil for the steam projects was the result of
steaming operations although s. few operators reported
incremental oil production lower than the gross. oil
production. The chemical floodlng, in-situ tnmbustion,
and polymer projects were compared to prcdcted gross oif
production. The miscible projects required developing an
iddkional factor to account for mobile oif to model gross
oil production. Tertiary production from the miscible
model was also anafyzed.
Selected .$teamj’food Projects
The comparative study began with 14 steamflood TIP
projects of which 13 were in California and one in
Wyoming. These projects were selected becnuse they
appe~d to have the most complete project descriptions.
In addition, a small group of projects was initially chosen
because of the ease of handling in determining the
methodology that would be applied to evaluate the
predictive models. The study began with thermal projects
because steamffooding probably has the greatest short-term
futnre potential, and the model has been debugged and used
extensively. The 14 steamflood projects chosen are shown
in Table 1.
SFPM Development Runs
The approach employed in his compsmtive study wss to
provide the model with the best project descriptions
possible. Fhe cases were constructed, each hopefully more
accurate than the previous, and each employing @eater
engineering judgment. The subsequent model results were
then compared to the reported production andlor injection
data. Case I used an approach similar to that used by NPC
(rcf.ning to the 1984 National Petroleum Council Study).

Table 1
Steam Projects Used To Develop Methodology
. ..
Project No. FieId Formation Operator
SF019 Midway Sunset “” – Potter ““uNow
SF1322 .Cnspei’Creek South Tenslecp UNOCAL
SF026 .Midway Sunset Tularc Sand UNOCAL
SF030 Ouadshqre Sisquoc UNOCAL
SF091 Cat Canyon Sisquoc Chevron
SFIOO Midway Sunset Monarch Chevron
SF107 Midway Sunset Webster Chevron
SF158 NRdway Sunset Upper Miocene Snnta Fe
SF186 Midway Sunset Reef Ridge Ssnta Fe
SF242 McKittrick Tubwe Sand Chevron
SF345 Midway Sunset POttcr Sun/ARCCl
SF407 M]dway Sunset 7A Sand Santa Fe
SF414 Peso Creek Etchegoin Elf Aquitairie
SF.422 ~ Kern River Kcm River Chevron

293
4 COMPARISONOF ACTUAL RESULTS OF EOR FIELD PROJECTSTO SPE 277(T?”
CALCULATEDRESULTSOF EOR PREDICTIVEMODELS
That is, changes in the input data were made only to
achieve a reasonable original-oil-in-place (OOIP) match and
then rnn through the preprocessors. Normally, once the
preprocessor results were accepted, no changes were made
to the data. Casea II -“V required deliberate and manual
intervention to “cha”ge the data either before or after the
preprocessor programs to.systematically apply engineering
judgment to improve the project description. ” The
assumptions used in the five caies are described aa followx
Cise I: Revise any Ybhunetric parameter, either a
reported value or a value supplied by the
pRPKXeSSOr programs, within reason .[normally
*IO%) to generate 00~ volumes that agree witiln
i3% of the reported OOIP values. If a reasonable
change could not produce the desired effect, it was
assumed that the reported 00IP volume was an error
and the calculated value based on volumetric was
substituted. Remaining-oil-in-place (KOJ.P) or the
target oil was develgped by deductions from the
OOIP.
Case II: Revise the calculated ROIP, if necessary,
by making whatever reasonable changes necessary to
the volumetric parameters to achieve agreement
within +370 of the reported values. Generally,
porosity, net thickness, and oil saturation were
changed. ROIP is the same @ue as the Initial.-.Oil-
In-Place (IOIP) used in the .SWM—the volume of
oil-in-place at the start of the project.
Case IIT Revise the calculated ROIP, if necessai’y,
by ch~ging only. the drg@.a.geWea. to. achieve
agreement wit.tin i3c% of the reported values. Thk
case assumed that the drainage area was the
volumetric vnriable most likely to be inaccurate-all
other volumetic pmameters were assumed to be
correct.
Case IV: Same as Case III except refine pattern
size, number of patteins,-imd pattern development
timing “to improve ‘the match of injection and
production wells.
Case V Same is Case fl except provide the model
with actual steam injection rates rather than
allowing the model to determine the rates. The fust
yeaI average steam injection values_ were used .~
wherever possible.
After several preliminary ruiis w“ith tbe project data, it
became appnri?ntthat some of the volumetic parameter data
and .00IWROP” vdumm reported for the projects were riot
internally consistent. For most projects, there was
insufficient inf6”rmati6n in the files to determine whether
the volumetric parameters, the hydrocarbon volumes, or
both, were incorrect. Besides estimates of” OOIP,
comparing reported ROIP by reducing the OOIP by the
cumulative production identified additional inconsistencies
of tbe data in many casea.. These types of problems
hecnme commonplace and repetitive throughout thk study,
294
and resolving them became one of the most important
is.aueain the project descriptions.
C?S&I
Case I represented the run based on project d+criptiom
tnrgeted toward resolving O@P inconsistencies.. The
aggregate calculated O“OIP volume was 2’/3 IyffvfFjlj
compmed to 396 MMBbl reported by the project operators.
A. closer match could only be obtained if reservoir
parameters were ignored. The resulting aggregate ROIP
calculated by SFPM was 243 MMBbl compared to a
reported 339 MMBbl. The calculated volumes were 69”aid
72% of the reported values for OOIP and ROIP,
respectively, Some of the projects did not report an OOIP
or ROIP, and the total calculatedheported (c/r) ratios reflect
only those projects with complete data... Frve of the
projects, after revisions wire made to tbeir”input data, still
had calculatedkeported O_OIPkranging..fmm 52 to 115%.
Table 2 summarizes the results for ezch project..
The execution of thk group of projects by ..the SF!’M
showed that their predicted oil recovery ranged from 27 to
492% of that reported. The aggregate predicted oil
production of the 14 projects is 71% of the reported
production which is consistent “withthe under represented
ROIP.
=.. ... . .
The target oil (IOIP or ROIP) volume was more important
to the SFPM than the OOIP, therefore, it waa critical to
obtain a good match between the reported ROLP and the
calculated IOW. In Case If, volumetric parameters were
modified to obtain an ROIP rn”atchthat was M 7. of the
reported value. Thk assumed that the reported ROIP was
more accurate than .t!rerock and fluid property data. Whh
reasonable changes to the input data, a total c/r ratio of
99.%for the ROIP of the projects wna obtained. The model
generated an aggregate oil production p/r ratio of 99% and
the individual project ratios ranged from 23 to. 609%.
Total water production and steam injection plr ratios for the
projects were 40 and 9690, respectively. The total ratios
for oil production and steam injection were excellent, but
once again the individual projects exhibited a large
variance. The total water production plr ratio is not good
but this parameter is typically one of the most difficult
production values to report with any accuracy. The
predicted and repOfi!d Oil recOve~, and the Oil and water
production and steam injection p/r ratios for each project,
are presented in Table 3. The projects were sorted by oil
production plr ratio. The shaded rows were those projects
whose oil production plr ratios were tiOY. of a perfect
match (p/r=l.O or IOU%).
Cases JII &IV
Case Itf matches the ROIY but assumes that all volumetric
data were correct except the drainage area. There were two
exceptions, SF022 and SF026. There was sufficient
information in the project files to modify the pattern size
and number of patterns when the data was reviewed. The
resulting aggregats ROIP ch ratio for all projects W*
SPE 27763 JAMES F. PAUTZ, ROBERT A. WELCH AND CHANDRA M. NAUTIYAL 5

Table 2
Summary of OOIP and ROIP Revisions
.,
-“””””’’OOIP”””””
‘“ ‘“’”””:“ ““ “ROIP
c/rl cfrl
Calc Reported ratio Calc Reported ratio
-. .: ~,g9g ..: .. .. ~2,41
SF019 ~ “_.1626 ... ...16.40 ,,.11:60 “ :“: ‘ 1.070
SF022 ..-”4L102 ,58:00 0.690 33.73 55.00 0.613
SF026 ““14..64 14.70 0.996 ., 14.26 13.98 1.020
SF0312 3.9.08.. .. 62.40 0.625 ..,38.26 50.00 0.765
SF091 8.43 11,00 ._ 0.766:. ~ 6.69 10.26 0:652 .. .
sF*oo .. ..-
12.30 12.30.. -.= 1.000 11.80. io.oo 1.180
SF1137 36.45. 37.00 ., 0.985 .35.11 33,60 ‘1.045 :’
SF158 . ..5.55 .,.7.,20 0.771 4.70 7.05 0.666””. .’ .”” ““.
SF186 -:.. 1.30 .-.. ..1.31. ~ 0.992 . -1.11 da da
SF242 8.02 =8.00. ....1.003 7.29 ....7.00 < 1.041
SF345 ,82.3~ Ii/az . . !@ 72.65 nlaz nla2
SF407 4.10”. .4.15 ~Q.988 4.00 .= 3.s4 1.131.
sb4i4 4.47 3.90, . . 1.146 ...4.$8 3.80 .1.152
SF422 8236”.” ..160:00 0..516 70.56 .133.00 0531

total (all)3= “ 355-~6- : .daa 316.93 niaz ~

totald = 273.28 396.36 : 243.18 338.83 ,.
~689 . . . . ;.
ch= 0.718
. ..=.,..”. .
1 calculatedkeporte.i 2 not avaiIabIe”or not applicable
3 total of all values 4 totil of those projects with reported values

“Table 3
Case” 11 Predicted Production and Injection for 14 Projects
““”
Fiedi&ediRk~Ortad (plr)
Oil Production, MBbl Production Injection
ModeI Reported Oil Water Steam “‘
.706..
SF414 164 “-0232 ‘0..173 0.366. “ .“- .“ ““”””” : ~
SF030 “ .3,227 7,167 0.450 “0:641 1.168
SF242 1,557 2,934. 0.531 0.159. 0.485
SFO19 1,010 1,541 0.655 1.696 2.423

SF186 .
SF407 1,433 701. ., 2.044 5.929 9.744
SF158 1,752 . 736; 2.381 1.756. 0.966
SF026 2,131 433 4.921 2.471 4.527
,,689. --,...
SF022 ., .8,741 5.175 0.312 4.552
SF091 1,263”. “___“207 :.: 6.093 1.9~i 1.662
total =. ---. --.70,168.. ,. 70,951
P/r = 0.989
mean = . . ..2: ,.-. .:=. ._ .=....,,1.946 1.363 2.222
,..
Shaded ama is + 307. of a perfect match. “-””

295
6 COMPARISON.OF ACTUAL RESULTS OF EOR FIELDPROJECTS TO SPE27763
CALCULATEDRESULTSOF”EORPREDICTIVEMODELS

107%, and the aggregate oil production p/r ratio was 79%,
indicating that on the whole, modifying only the dm.inage
area Cld not improve the results.
For Case “IV, the project description andlor pattern
development timing for seven projects wis changed.
Projects SF022 and SF026, which were modified in Case
IR by changing the pattern size and the number of patterns,
were further modified. SF022 wai fully developed in the
first 2 “yeah of operation and SF026 in tbe filst year.
Projects SF030,” S“F158, &d SF407. were changed to
develop all their patterns in the first year. These changes
were made because the yearly well count dam for these
projects in~icated.they were fully developed early in their
project life and their well counts remained constant over
time. SF414S development occurred over the fust 3 years.
SF107 was. unique in that its formatirki dip angle was 530..
The ~ea was adjusted from 104 surface acres to 173 acres
to compensate for the formation dlp angle. The resulting
aggregate ROIF c/r ratio for. Case ~ titer .rnaking these
changes ww 102~R, and the aggregate oil production p/r
ratio was 917.. These changes had little effect on tbe
agg~gate results, and in many instances hurt the accuracy
of individual projects.
C&S&Y
This case was a refinement of CaSe If by supplying the
model with actual steam injection rites rather than letting
the model determine them. In most cases, the average
(bcwepd, barrels of cold water equivalent per day) frst year
steam rates. were used. Several of the projectr did not have
Table 4
Case V Predicted Production and Injection for 14 Projects
Oil Production, MBbl
Model Reported
SF407 20 701
SF019 .123 1,541
SF030. ~ ..- 2,439 ““.. 7,167
SF414 36.6 ~ ‘=706
SF345 13.741 23.067
SF026 ’288 “’”433
complete data for the fust year, so the best average of early
injedmdata war used. The aggregate total production p/r
ratio decreased from 99..to 837., and Ore range of the
individual project p/r ratios, 3 to 338%, was an
improvement when compared to Case II (23-”609%)...Stezun
injection p/r ratios for all projects also decreased, from 222
to 110%, and once again, the range improved from Case
II’s 37-974~o to 87-218%.. ..Mean water. production was
81% of “thereported volume which is comparable to Case
II. The individual project values are presented in Table 4.
The best re.$uftsilom all five cases revealed seven projects
whose oil production p/r ratio agreed within zE3070of a
perfect match. Three projects, SF107, SE345, and SF422
appead in fOU of”the five cases. Based on ROfP volume,
these projects ranked lst, 2nd, and 5th in terms of size
Based on thimean p/r vhes, the SFPM overpredlcted oil
production (105-1!34’%)and steam injection (110-288%) f6r
every sensitivity case perfotied. Mean water recovery was
overpredlcted for Case I-IV (136-178%) and only
underpred]cted in Case V (81 To). This compares to
underpredicting the aggregated total oil production in all
CIWS(79-99%). No other trends emerg~, when the model
results were ““sorted ag”~nit any key reservoir property.
Major project description changes, based on re-
interpretation of the data, helped some projects and hurt
others. Most of the projects did not differentiate between
total and incremental oil production or no incremental
production was cited. For those projects that dld report
separate incremental production, very little was gained
when the model results were compared to the incremental
-.
Predicted/Reported (p/r)
Production Injection
Oil Water Steam
0.029. 0.894 1..297.
0.080 0.676 0.869
0.340 0.581 1.022:
0-518 0.291 1.001
0.596 0.745 1.185..
0.665 ““”0.535 .0.922
. ..”.

SF186 494 275 1.793 1.200 ‘.. .“. 2.178

SF091 543 .207 2.620 1.151 0.889
SF158 . ..2.487 736 3.380.. 2.292 1.294
total = ~~ 58,609 70,951
pir = ..... 0;826
mean. 1.050 ,:.. 0.806 ... ::1.104 > ..=

Shaded area is+ 30% of a perfect match.

296
,.
.
SPE 27763 JAMES F. PAUTZ, ROBERT A. WELCH
.-
AND CHANDRA M. NAUTIYAL
production.
Ten of the projects wete expansions .or continuations of
previous. or ongoing tertiary operations. Existing well
counts changed through intill drilling, converting producers
to injectors or vice-~ersa, rep[acing wells, or repairing
wells. Four projects that could be identified as new, i.e.,
apparent undeveloped acreage with no prior tertiary
operations, dld not fare any b?tter than the tOt?l PrOj~t
group as a whole. Two of those projects (SFO19 and
SF1OO) agreed fairly wet[, and the other two (SF091 and
SF407) did not.
Case I had the most defaulted or program assigned data
input vahms. It was a starting point and the model results
were consistent with poor project description and reffccted
the low hydrocmbon-ia-plice numbers.
Cases II - V were designed to improve the modelk
predictive ability. The input data were changed after the
preprocessor programs to” provide the best project
descriptions” possible to the SFPM. W@ fiOugh a!
excellent match to ROIP was obtained in “CaseII and the
aggregate Oil recoy?m. P/F was 9990. the l~ge v~~ces in
project level iasults were not much better &an those of
Case I. This suggested that the pcoductim data provided by
the operators were inaccurate or the props data were not
supplied to adequately describe the projects or the model is
very inaccurate. Further “subjective improvements” to
selected project descriptions in Case$ ~ and ~ did nOt
help. Case_.V. improved on the variance range of the
individual projects for oil production and steam injection
rate. Although the aggregate totals for both parameters
suffered somewhat in Case V, the results were a respectable
839. for oil production. Water production and steam
injection mem”ratios “werereasonable.
case V generated the best overall rcmdts even though Case
II reported a 999. p/r ratio of total production. The
aggregated oil production p/r of 839o was good, ROIP was
almost a perfect match, and the mean p/r ratio for oil of
10590.was vefy good for Case V. Basdon tbcse results,
Case II and Case V are considered for quantifying the
accuracy in estimating oil production which was the
principal goal of the study.
Statistical Approach
The statistical analysis is based Qn.an evalu~On O! the
ratio of the predicted oil production to reported oil
production (p/r). The approach generally follows standard
methods for estimating confidence levels with one
exception. This exception relates to the skewed
distribution ofp/r data. It is not”riornml-values ofp/r are
not equally distributed on each side of the mean value. The
lowest value for p/r was 0.06 tihlle the highest value was
over d--many multiples of the mean. Since an underlying
assumption to estimating q@idence levels from z-tables
and t-tables i: that t$e data me nor@ly ~ls~bu!d diimt
anal ysis of the data was not appropriate. To solve this
problem, an index or non-pamrnetic method can be used.
297
7
Altbough an index can distort results, an index is
recommended over non-pammetic methods if a suitable
index can be found.l 1
The Cbi-sqmued goodness-of-fit test was used to determine
how well the plr distribution compares to the normal bell
curve. L.evonel 2 suggests that a Cbi-squared value above
0.2 indicates a good tit. The Cbi squared valuer for the
unindexed plr results were near or below 0.2. After
evaluating a number of potential indexes, the natural
Iogmithmic function, ln, was selected because it caused the
least distortion of the da~. Using In (p/r) for the statistical
analysis and then reverting the results back to p/r allows
estimating the confidence in the accuracy of the modeIs.
Chi-squared was calctdatcd for the distribution of In(p/r) for
the confidence ranges repartcd in this study. They were all
significantly above the 0.2 rcconunended by Levone.
The tci-m confidence for the purposes Of ffds study me!?!
the range of.valgw @t. tie ac~al Oil prOductiOn ~11 fall
between. The confidence limit is the degree or leveI of
confidence. So a 5090 confidence limit of 70 to 1309.
indicates that the actual production has a 50% !h~ce Of
falling between 70 and 130% of the production &stimated
by the model. A plr ratio of .1007. wouId be a. Pe*ect
match.
The rexults, presented in Table 5, along with other key
pammetcrs, show a 50% confidence that actual production
is approximately one-half to one and threequarters of the
estimated producdon for a specific project.
This methodology is appropriate for assessing the accuracy
of the model as it relates to sw in~lvidual prOject. The
dynamics of the data indicates. a bias tow=d better
production prediction of larger pr6jects. This may be a
bias toward better re~orting of the data or the built-in
&Iibrwion of the Gom.aa..model13 tO selected C~!gOfrila
projects (the one project in Wyoming is reasonably
simulated while some of the projects in Kern County. area
used to develop the Gomaa modeI are not). The. effect is
evident in the reasonable accuracy .of the aggregate tOtals
for oil production. To estimate the accuracy of aggregated
production, random selections of 20 projects were made to
develop a statistical base of p/r for variance analysis. A
base of at Ieast 40 proje~ is nccsssary for this method to
be censidercd.
ACCURACY OF THE MODELS & DATA I
Steamflood (SFPM) Displacement Process
The selected snbset of steam projects was used to test
possible approaches to systematically using the project data
in the predictive models, To obtain the bc.st statistical”
measure of the accuracy, tie largest possible number of
projects was necessary. Forty-six projects (includlng the
14 project subset), taken from a total of 151 known TIP
steam projects, represented the remaining stenm projects
that met the criteria for thk comparison study. The other
105 projects were excluded because they dld not have a
 . .

8 COMPARISONOF ACTUAL RESULTS OF EOR FJELD PRWCTS To SPE 277@

CALCULATEDRESULTSOF EOR PREDICTIVF”MODELS

Table 5
Confidence Limits for Cases I-V for 14 Projects
~.-
. . . ... .
Percent of total Percent of Mean sI)~o Confidence Level
Case Reported Volume Total reported oil Proj. Prod. FaRs between
. OOIP, ROIP, Production, Production, LIrnlts of Predicted, %
% % plr, % plr
....+..... . .. .
1 69 _.” 12 71 ““. ” 1,50. 52t0174 ““”
99 . .. .. .99
II n/a 1.95 -. 41 to 162
m ““”””n/a 107 79 1.37 57 to 172
Iv n/a 102 91. 1.83 43 to 132
v n/a 99 83 .1.05 65 to 381
.. ..—

mini–mum of 3 years production, insufficient data for a
project description w-ere”avaiiable, the project was never
implemented, or tlere were uncorrectable inconsistencies ii
the data.
Based on the previous results, only “two model runs were
performed cm this larger group. They are analogous to
C&i II “imidV, matching ROfF and supplying actual steam
injection rates, respective y. The results of Case I were
included to report the OOIP and ROIP volume ratios after
attempting to match the OOIP. The results are
summarized in Table 6.
Comparing the small sample results in Table 5 .m. the
larger sample i: Table 6 after ROIP consistency was
addressed, the Case E results show a significant reduction
in the total p/r (81 from “9970),but the mean oil production
ratio ““im”prFved(127 from 195%). ‘The SO% confidence
inteival increased sli~htly, and the limits each shifted about
30 pciints higher. N.ormaIly, tb: confidence internal
narrows when more elements (projects) are added, but the
14 project subset was evidently a high-graded sainple.
Case V, where actaal first year average jiearn ratea were
input to the model, also generated worse statistics
compared to the smaller group, when comparing the total
production ratio and the aggregated total oil production.
These trends are. consistent. with the method used for
selecting the initial 14 projects. Case V for both sample
groups was an attempt to tine tune the project descriptions,
so the poorer total or aggregated oil production was
unexpected as was the broader confidence interval when
compared to Caae II. The confidence interval improved 6’%
for Case V with the addition of 32 projextta. The mesn oil
production p/r of 90 to 1277. for the 46 project sample
indicates that the SFPM slightly overpredicts oil
production if the default steam injectiori”rates are used and
slightly underpredicta if steai injection rates ze used with
the model on average. Using the combined statistics of
1.27 p/r overprdlction and a range of 69 to 208% at 50%
confidence, the results indicate that we are 5070 confident
that the actual til production is between 54 and 163Y. of
the predktad oil production for a specific project. When
tictud steam injection rates we used, we are 5070 confident
that the actual oil production is between 89 and 419% Of
the predicted oil production for a specific project. The
under-prediction causes thk second confidence Iimita to
sound significantly worse than the frost, but in application
they are only slightly worse.
The designers of the predictive models have indicated that
the aggregate oil production is more accurate than the
prediction for a specific project. The accuracy of the
aggWg~e Oilproduction (9990 for Case D and 83’%for Caae
V) for ~e initial 14 projects was excellent, but tbe

Table 6
Confidence .Llmits on 46 Steam Projects
Percent of Totaf Percent of” Mean 50% Confidence Level
Case jkfrOrted volume Total Reported Oil Prod. Falls Between
OOIP, ROIP, Production, Production, Limits of Predicted, %
% % plr, % plr
85 .:: ..-. da
I 90 nia n/a
g da “99 “ 81 1.27 69 to 208
v n(a .99. ,67 0.90 ..:. .80 to 377
Aggregat+ nJa II/a da 0.78 10> to 160 at 75% Confidence

298
.,,
SPE 27763 JAMES F. PAUTZ>ROBERTA. “~LCH AND CHANDRA M. NAUTIYAL
accuracy decreaaed signitieantly with the larger 46 project
sample (81 90 for Case II”and 679. for @se V). This
variation between the two samples indicates that a
statistical” analysis go.uld be made On Me +ggregate using
different selected samples. .
Twenty randomly selected groups of 20”projects were made
from the 46 projects and confidence level estimates were
made. The results were better tha! that fOr in~lvidu~
projects and a reasonable intend at the 75% cOgfid!nce
level was estimated. The mean p/r was 78% w~ch
indicates that SFPM underprcdicts aggregate oi~production
based on the 46 projects in the data set. The statistics “’
indicate that we are 7570 coifid.ent that actual oil
production would fall. betwgen 105 and 160% Of the
predicted aggregate production. If the predicted aggregate
production is kdjusted up by 28% suggested by these
statistics, the oil production is roughly predlctcd til 7. for
a lage statistically significant “(greater than 18) number of
projects. Because of the. c?ncems !po~t t!:. ~!ta, t~~e
extrapolations” nre a qualitative indication of the model
accuracy.
Miscible Gas (c02PM) Displacement Process
The Miscible Gas Predictive.. MOdel (C.Q2pM) wa!
evaluated with 34 TIP projects from a possible total of
119. Fifty-siX of the projects had less than.? yeas Of
production data. Another 28 piojects had miscellaneous
problems such. as nO.._COZ injectiofi, unWVE!!f!l P!Oj@s
due to terti?ry injectimi moving OUFof !OnG PrQjec~ @
were never implemented, etc. ..-Only 34 prOj=ts had
reasonable data suffi@ZfOXth? $tudy ?!!! Q!fl!?se,. ~s
reported incremental oil production.
Building on the experience from th? S~M ~ns. rhe fi~t
priority was to match the reported project .ROIP to the
ROIP calculated by the rnoc!$l.,(gr!0.%) f!Om me rePO~ed.
volumetric data and ensure internal consistency. .~e. Rop
was calculated from the ,oleic phase saturation in the
C02PM which is baaed on the ,residu.aI Oil ?aturgtiOn tO
water (Sorw).” However,” the Project D:taba.se contains
minimal information on Sorw, and the predictive model
used the default value of 0.2 pore volume. (The NPC
study used 0.38 pore ?blume for carbonates mrd 0.2S pore
volume for sandstone.) This cons.emative vahIe for SOW
yielded a total ROfP of 1,457 I@fBbl, which represented
33% of the ‘4.4.64 MMBbl” cilc!l?ted frOrn.t~! C~PO~e~
volumetric data. Another important use of Sorw, along
with connate water saturatiori (Sew), was to set the relative
permeability saturation eiidpoints.
The rnnge of cument.od satu@ons:@oned fO{.@ pr!jew
WaS 0.32 tO ,0.77. ...obliously. .I!!y.;of. $pe~e.p~pje~ts
possessed mobile ofl.from .inco.rnpleteprimary or smond~
process. The .C02?M nl!owed rno~!le Oil.tO.b~.!!c!ude! in
the form of “anoil cut (fo) parameter, bht neither the project
data nor the preprocessor programs supplied information for
fo. The Project Database dld not :ont+n.d~t~ ono~. W
parameters so there were two .Koblem?: no fesid@ oil
299
9
Current Oil Saturation (SJ
F@re 1. Estimation of apparent fo.
saturations from which to base the tertiary target and no
project level information on the mobile oil saturation
above the Sorw. Updating the SOW would be sufficient to
._ aPPMfimate the tertiary ~get oil, but a metlod was needed
to include mobile oil in the description. For “thepurpose
of this study, a pseudo oil cut curve was constructed to
estimate” apparent til cuts to account for “the mobile oil.
This technique was applied to all of the projects. .
Producing oil cuts were calculated for each project from
their first year fluid production dats. These values were
input fo the model, and their corraspondhg oil saturations
“were determined by the C02PM. A pseudo oil cut vs. oil
saturation plot, based on the 34 projects, was constructed
by plotting the producing f. against the model derived S0
After curve fitting the data points (figdre 1), apparent fo
v-dues were calculated from each project’s actual So. The
<PParent fcI values were substituted for the producing f.
values in the input data sets. The resulting model runs
produced o“ilsaturations”iind ROIP’s much closer to those
initially reported—a total ROIP of 4,084 MMBbl, or 92%
of”the reported value from volumetric.
Case 1, which used ~e default SO,w of 0.2, produced only
27% of the aggegated tertiary oil production repo~ ~d a
mean “of 28% ph for individual projects. The results. fw
this caai and other gti”ciseS”ire shown in Table 7. The
impact of actual Sorw values on the modeI results piqued
our curiosity and a search of public sector information14-
23 wns undertaken to acquire SON data for these projects.
These datn were obtained outside the Project Database. Oil
s.atumtion“datnwere found on 29 of the 34 projects, but in
many cases the distinction between Sorw and current 011
saturation was not clew the other five pfojects retained the
default value. Case V used these oil saturations to refine
the estimates of the tertiary production from Case “I.
Al~ough an improvement was made, the results suggested
ti.at the .C02PM, running in a tertiary process mode,
10 COMPARISONOF ACTUAL RESULTS OF EOR FIELDPROJECTSTO SPE 27763
CALCULATEDRESULTSOF EORPREDICTIVEMODELS
Table 7
Confidence Limits for Case I-V for Gas Displacement
Percent of Total Percent of
Case Reported Volume Total Reported
ROIP, Production,
% plr, %
Tertiarytarget
:- .. . .
-92
III 92
N 92
v Tefi”@-target
underpredicts tertiary oil production both for individual
projects (677.) and in aggregate (42%). The range of p/r
for Case I was 0“.t0”151% and 1.5 to 300%. for Csse V
indicating that precision was lost with thk refinement in
the data while accuracy was gained.
Case II, which also used tbe default value of Sorw but
adjusted fo’to allow for mobile oil, generated 180% of the
aggregated reported production and 219% mean oil
production for individual projects. The predicted to reported
(p/r) ratios of production for the individual projects ranged
from 12 to 754% for Case If and the actual production falls
between 33”aad 138% of the predictti production. Case III
improved upon Case If by adjusting the iIIjector_well CO.~nt
to closely match the actual injection well count., in the
project description. Taken directly from the Project
Database with only minor changes, @e If projected 3,320
injection wells, or 39% of the total 8,466 injetion wells
for all projects. from 19S 1 to 1992. With manual
intervention to the input data set, the Case III model nm
projected 9,021, “or 107% .of the actual injection well
count. The effect’ on oil production, however, was
minimal. (This was an unexpected result bul the model
optimizes iirjection rates so that predicted productions are
similar from a given area and relatively insensitive to
changes in pattern size and well counts unless the inject
rate is specified.) Total predicted oil production was 182’%
of the total reported, and the range of plr was 12 to 7567..
TMs Fetinernent dld not have an significant affect on either
a precision or accuracy: Oni final refinement to the project
descriptions, Case IV, provided actual COZ injection fitcs.
Actm4 average f@t year carbon dioxide injectkui rat& W.me
supplied to the model, and thk impmved the total produced
oil pfr ratio to 14570. Unfortunately, the match for
individual projects dld not improve as reflected in the
increase in the confidence band compared to Case II and HI.
A summary of the results is presented in Table 7.
The SFPM production was compared to gross oil
production because all production was assumed to have
been a d]rect result of steaming operations; i.e; the oil was
unproducible without steam. The miscible flood model
runs have been compxed to reported incremental teI’d~
300
Projects
Mean 50% Confidence Level
oil Prod. Falls Between
Production, Limits of Predicted, q.
plr
27 0.287 294t0 1,818 “““’
180 2.188 33 to 138
182 2.303 32 to 131
~9.m 368.
145 1.947
42 0.669 , 212 to 1,493
production and to the reported gross oil production when f.
information was generated. When compting incremental
tertiary production, the model results mrderpredlct
aggW+@d oil projection by 73% when the CC?2.PMdefault
Sorw Is us~ ~d 58~0 when literature values are used for
SOrw. The mean p/r tertiary production for Case If at 69%
relative to the aggregate implies that smaller projects are
more accurately predicted than large projects. For Cases II,
III, and IV, each employing mobile oil, the total aggregated
oil production p/r ratio was 180, 182, and 145%,
respectively. The result again indicate a slight bias toward
a better project match for larger projects for gross oil
production.
polymer Flood., (PFPM) Displacement Process
The Polymer Flood study began with 48 potential projects
identified from the DOE Project files. Twenty-seven of
these were in the Project Database, and 17 of those projects
had stilciint resefi6ii Ziid/orproduction data to be included
in thk study. One project, SF270, was eliminated because
of problems with &ta input accuracy leaving a total of 16.
The quality of the OOIP and ROIP raw data for” the
polymer projectr was quite good and required much less
modification “than the thermal or miscible project data.
Since there was Iittfe”tertiary production information, only
the polymer augmented waterflood option was analyzed.
With only minor changes to the project descriptions, the
volumetric ROIP total volume of 429 MMBbl, which
represented 13.of the 16 project$; was 105.% of the total
reported ROIP. The injection well count bafance was also
quite good. The TfP operators reported 1,383 ictive
injectors for all projects from 1981 to 19.92as compared to
the models projected 1,187 injectors. Surprisingly, with
this favorable matching, the total oil production predcted
by the model was 75 MMBbl or 3639.” of aggregated oil
production reported (Case II).. The range of predictedto
reported (@) production was also large varying .frOm9. to
1,035%.
Rk.finihg the project descriptions by using actual
pOlymer/water injection rates. from .fiist yew”.ive.rages
resulted in ameven greater overprediction of oil production
.,.
SPE 27763 JAMES F. PAUTZ, ROBERT A. WELCH AND CHANDRA M. NAUTIYAL
Table 8
Results for Polymer Flood, Chemical and In-situ Combustion Projects
Number Percent of Percent of
Case of Reported Volume Total Reported
Projects ROIP, Production,
% plr, %
Polymern. . 16 ..,. ~ ,io5...=.- . , 363. ,
Polymer V .16. 105..
SUrfacmnt 8 lofl
Alkaline 100
1;. .
In-sitn 100
combustion
—.
(Case V). Total production was 91 MhfBbl or 442% of
actual. The individutiprojects p7rratios ranged from 86 t~
1,077%. This was the tirat instance where every project
except one was overpredicted by tie model. The Polymer
flood res.uks axe.summwized @ Table !,. .Fecau!e Of the
extremeIy high ,oveq@icii& of pr6ductiori by the PFPM,
addkiona.1statistical anqysjs WaS!Ot ?PPrOPri*.
Chemical Flood (CFPM) Displacement Process
The CFPM study included bojh sgqfactag and. alkaline
flooding processes... Thirty-seven projects were initially
identified from the DOE Proj&t database but only 19
projecB were @ually used—8 were s@ict~t andl l~ere.
alkaline. Of the 18 projects “that were excluded from
consideration, ,9 had no CepOfled prOducti~n. ~ Others
indica@ that their production was conuninglcd waterflood
and EOR response, 1 project wa.$ a combination
micellar/miscible gas project, 3 projects had not injected
alkaline reagents, 2 did not inject any fluid, and 2 projects
with identical project descriptions and commingled
production were combined. I. general, calculated ROWS
agreyd fairly_well _yith repo~ed ~alues. The 19 chemic~
projectr repr&rtrd 244 IvfMEbl of target oil, 19 MMRbI
for surfactant @d 226 MMBbl for alkaline.
The CFPM. ass.urn_es.waterfloodlng has reduced the oil
saturation in the reservoir to residual and therefore only acta
on the oil in a tertiary manner. Just as in the case of the
miscible flood projects, residual oiI saturation data were not
collected as pnrt of “the project EOR database, so Tor the
chemical processes the current oil sahwation reported by the
TfP operators was assume&to he the same.as tie residu?l
valuq therefore the target and remaining oil volumes are
the sme value, .Surfactant and alkaline sIug cOpcenGatiOns
were matched to reported values wherever possible, and the
model’s default value was accepted for al other cases. The
model was insensitive to chemical slug concentrations for
the range of values reported by the TIP operators. A Case
H scenario was separately run for sidactant and afkaline
flood projects. Although two projects were eliminated
because the operator admitted that the reported production
was both secondary @d tertinry, .-he aggregate production
results indicate that many o~er project operators failed to
sepamte andlor allocate their oil production as well.
301
11
Mean Range of Mean
Oil OiI Production
Production, pfr, %
plr
3.191 9 to 1,03s ‘“ ‘“
442 4.347 86 to 1,077
117 ‘1.627 71 to 294
1.171 3 to 894
:= .1.273 15t0402 .“”
,. ..-
Surf@ant
A Case If type analysis was made on the 8 surfactarit
projects. The mean oil production plr ratio (163%) is
slightly high, hut Orersnge of production plr ratios (71 to
294%) is nanow comparedto the general trendof the other
processes. Six of eight projects overpredicted oil
production. A statistical analysis indicates that the model
is reasonably precise for individual projects with 507:”
confidence that plr fall between 100 and 204’% plr or tbst
the actual production is roughly 759W25% of the predicted
production. Although 8.projects are less than the lower
limit for meaningful statistical analysis, the results indicak
a reasonable basis for reliance on the results of the model.
The 117% p/r for the aggregate total oil production
indkates that the aggregated oil production is more
accurately predicted dmn production for individual project?..
The results are shown in TabIe 8.
Alkaline
Eight of the 11 alkaline projects underpredlcted oil
production. The aggregate production p/r for the alkaline
projects was 15% which reflects the general trend of
undeqrrdlcting. One project was 9 times overpredlcted
which skews the mean oil production p/r to 11770. The
poor performance of thk portion of the CFPM (or the poor
quality of project data) shows in the broad range of oil
production p/r (3 to 894%). Tbk rangeOf p/r’s did nOt
aIIQw meaningful statistical anaIysis. A summary of
results =e shown in Table 8.
In-situ Combustion (ICPM) Displacement
Process
The ICPM was run against 8 TIP moiects. Seventeen
projects were origin~lly identified from the Project
Database, but only 9 met the minimum production
requirement of 3 years of data and reasonable description of
the project. The results for a Case II scenario we shown in
Table 8. The aggregate oil production was 50% .Of
repomd somewhat consermtive and underpredictiig more
than the steamflood model. The model predcted 3.9
MMBbl of production to the projects’ actual repo.fied
production of 7.7”MMBbl. These recoveries were generated
from 6 billion Bbl of oil-in-place. The production plr for
individual projects ranged from 15 to 4-02~owith a mean
12 COMPARISONOF ACTUAL RESULTS OF EOR FIELD PROJECTSTO SPE 27763
CALCULATEDRESULTSOF EOR PREDICTIVEMODELS
p/r of 127%. The limited results indicate that the
aggregated prcdcted oil production is .conservativi and. that
the ICPM is not as imprecise ai the rdkaline, C02PM, or
PFPM. The range of acc~acy at ~: 50% cOnfidegse @+
was 28 to 149% foi p/r or the actual production is 70 to
360’?~6ftie predicted production. Although the number of
samples was less than the lower limit for meaningful
statistical analysis, the results indicate a reasonable basis
for reliance on the results of the model.
CONCLUSIOfiS
The project “descriptions and production data in the DOE
EOR Floject database is exte.nsl.ve, but there is no!
sufficient data to do complete statistics on most of the
predictive niodels. In addition, there is concern that the
project described at the beginning of “TIP doe: not match
the project actually implemented. Although numerous
inaccuracies were screened from the data, there continues to
be a need to refine project data.
Given tbe lirn~tations. of the data, the statisilc~l
conclusions area measure of the combined accuracy of the
TIP project data and the predictive models. The results of,
tfrk study indicate the DOE steamflood model does a good
job of predicting iggiegated oil ‘production for a random
selection of projtiia-in “the range of “80% of the actual oil
production titb 75% confidence that the r&ulta are HO%.
For an individual steam project, the mean predicted oil
prodrrction varied sigriifkairtly ranging from 90 to 127% of
the actual oil production. with the. application of reasonable
engineering”judgment m the project desaiption. The range
of the 50.% confidence limit is roughly 70 to 2109. of the
calculated oil production. These statistics can be used with
steamflood model results to indicate the accuracy of tbe
estimated oil production for an individual project.
Tbe miscible gas model underpredlcta production in the
tertiary mode when the C02PM default values for are used
aa well as when literature values are used for SOW when
mobile oil is included in the project description, the mean
oil production is roughly twice the actual production.
There is a 50% confidence that the actual production falls
between 3.0 to 140% “of the. pretictezl gross oil productiim
when default valuer are used for COZ injection rates.’Tbe
use of reported or actual gas injection rates dld npt help the
predictions made b.y._Lhe .miscib!e ._gas model.
Unfortunately, there ue”” not .enougb TfP project: to
estimate the accuracy of “the aggregate total oil production
or tertiary production for a group of miscible projects.
The polymer model grossly ove~redicted oil production for
ti polymer augmented waterflood project. The mean
predicted oil production for the sample of TfP projicts was
3 to 4.5”times the reported oil production. The aggregated
production for 16 projects wa.”rorighly over’predicted by the
same level as the mean. The large vwiance did not allow
confidence levels to be estimated,
302
The chemical model showed mixed results. The simulation
of surfactant baaed projects had reasonable agreement with
reported results. A rough estimate shows a mean
production of 160% of aitual and a 50% confidence tfratthe
actual production falls between the predicted production and
half the predicted production. Aggregated oil production
for 8 srrrfactant projects w= slightly optimistic at 117%
indicating a reasonably accurate model for surfactafit
projects. Simulation of alkaline-based injectant projects
showed that this portion of the chemical model is overly
conservative for ag~egate. total oil production. EMrer the
data on a couple of projects are wrong or the model is
imprecise.
The in-situ combustion simulations showed reasonable
results. The mean p~r waa 1277. for eight projects. A
rough estimate of the precision is that actual production is
between 66 imd 350% of the predicted production at .50%
confidence.
All the Yesults..are just” indications 6f “the quality of the
predictive models because the project description and
production data were collected and submitted over a number
of years by numerous people and very likely contain errors.
WMch projects= improperly described and which projects
are poorly simulated can not be determined without
significant amorrrita“ofadditional work.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The completeness and quality of the informatiori ori”the
TfY prnjecta is reflected in the lack of mandatory reporting
requirements in”this program. A base line oil production
projection would make it easier to determine what
production is enhanced and would be desired as part of the
project description.
Improving and expanding on this study has already begun
by refining the project descriptions.””Information has been
sent to selected operators to ccmfirm project description aid
production information. A review of literature to expand
beyond the TIP project portion of the DOE project database
is also being explored. Outside information was used in
the miscible gas sensitivity ran. using published residual
oil saturations. Additional information on projects fight
confirm or refute the limitations of the data.
The trend of results indicate that some of the predlcfive
“modelsare definitely inaccurate. The Polymer model and
the alkaline portion of the CFPM need to be reviewed,
Because the gas displacement process is such an important
process, thk model and project data should be given special
consideration.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was spmrsored by the U. S. Department” of
Energy under cooperative agreement DE-FC22-83FE601.49
as part of the BE2 project. The authors thank Raymond J.
Heemstra and Rex D. Thomas (consultants) for their
assistance in modifying Znd running the computer modelx
Carolyn A. Sellers of NIPER for extracting the
.!,

SPE 27763 JAMES F. PAUTZ, ROBERT A. WELCHAND CHANDRA M. NAUTIYAL 13

inforniatitiri from tle DOE Project Databas.q Associated Symposium on Enhanced 0,1 Recovery, April 15-18,
Western Universities” Intern David A. Terhune for 1984.
conducting the statistical analysis; and Brian Keltch, Bill 17. Fox, M.J., Simlote, V.N., Stark, K.L., and Brinlee,
Llnville, and Min K, Tham of BDM Oklahoma and R. L.D., Raview of COZ Flood Springer “A” Sand, NE
Mike Ray of the DOE Bartlesville Project OffIce for their Purdy Unit, Gamin County, Oklahoma, Paper
critical reviews.
SPE/DOE 14938 .presented attbe SPE/DOE Fifth
.—..
.. . ., ., . ‘Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, April 20-23,
1986.
REFERENCES 18. Moore, J.S. and C1ark, G.C., History Match of the
Maljamar C02Pilot Performance, Paper SPEiD0E :“ -“:”
1. National Petroleum Council, Enhanced Oil RecoveW
17323 presented at the SPWJ)OE Sixth Enhanced 011
December, 1976.
Recovery Symposium April 17-20, 1988.
2. National Petroleum Council, Enhanced Oil Recovery,
19. Flanders, W. A., Stanbeny, W.A., and Martinez, M.,
December, 1984. Review of C02 P.erforqnce. of the Hansford
3. Interstat5–O”il Compact Commission’ Project on
k4armaton Unit, Paper SPEiJ30E 17327 presented at
Advanced (Xl Recovery and the States. An Eva(@on.
the SPE/DOE” Sixth Enhanced Oil Recovery
of the Known Remaining Oil Resource. in the Stat@
Symposium April 17-20, 1988T
of Texas, November 1989.
20.. Brock, W.R. and Bryan, L.A., Summary Results of
4. Supporting Technology for Enhanced Oil Recovery - COZ EOR Field Tests, 1972-1987, Paper SPE 18977”
Stcwmflood Predictive Model, DOE Report DOEiBC-
presented at the SPE Joint Rocky Mountain
86/6/SP, December, 1986.
Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs Sympoiium
5. Supporting Technology fo!.Enhancgd 0!! Recove~ -
and ExhMtion,M~ch6-8, 1989.
CL22 Miscible Flood Predictive MOd@ DOERepOfi
21. Pittaway, K.R. and Rosato, R.J., The Ford Gerafdine
DOWBC-86(12LSP, December, 1986. Unit COZ Hood.’ Update 1990, Paper W% 20118
6. Supporting Technology for Enhanced Oil Recovery -
presented at the 1990 Pernrian Basin 011 and Gas ‘
Polymer Flood Predictive ModeL QOE Report
Recovery Conference, March 8-9,1990.
DOE/BC.86/l.Q/SP, December, 1986.
22. Lee, K.H. and E1-Saleh, M.M., A Full Field
7. Supporting Technology for EnhancedOil Recovery -
Numerical Modeling Study for the Ford Geraldine
In-Situ Combustion Predictive Modil, DOE Repoti Unit COZ Flood, Paper SPE 20227 presented at the
DOEIBC.861.7LSP,December, 1986.
“SPJYDOE Seventh Symposium on Enhanced Oil
8. Supporting Technology for Enhanced Oil Recovec$ -
RecoveV, April 22-25, 1990.
Chemical Flood Predictive. Model, DOE Report
23. Enhanced Recovery Week: EOR Project Sourcebook,
DOE/BC-~6/11/SP, December, 198.6.
Pasha Publications Inc., Arlington, VA., 1986.
9. Thomas, R.D., EOR ProcessPredictive Screening
k40dek, DOE Report NlPER-47, Ma.rch 18,1985.
10. Pautz, J.F.,. Sellers, C.A, Nautical, C., and Allison,
E. Enhanced Oil Recover yProject Database. DOE
Report NIPER-583, March, 1992.
11. H1ll, M, and Vang, E., SYSTAT for the Macintosh,
Version 5.2, SYSTAT, Inc., Evanston, JL, 1992.
12. Levone, R.L., Statistics@r Management,: Fourth
Edition, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1987.
13. Gom.aa, E. E., Correlations. for Predicting 011
Recovery of Steamflood, J. PeLTech., (Feb. 1980),
pp 325-332- ... . . ...-==. . .. : .. =
14. Botiigoyne, Jr., A.T.,” K]mbrell, C., and Goa, W.,
Pilot Oil Atlas for Louisi&z’ Final Report, JuIY,
1992, DOE Grant DE-FG07-891D12842.
15. Kumar, R. and E1beck, J., COZ F~~odi~.g a
Waterflooded Shallow Pennsylvanian Sand in
Oklahoma: ACase History, Paper SPEMOE 12668
presented at the SPE/DC)E,Fourth Symposium on
Enhanced CMRecovery, April 15-18, 1984.
16. Bolline. J.D.. A Full Field Model of the East Velrrm
West ‘Block” Sims Sand.–Uni.i liwrvoi.r, Paper
SPE/DOE 12720 preiinted attbe SPE/DOEFourtb

303