Assessment of Economic Viability of Various Field Development Strategies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract This paper presents a comprehensive perspective for comparing field development strategies (i.e. setting up oil field for production) by outlining a simple approach to help the integrated asset team in making decision on which method would be most appropriate. The field development options considered were natural depletion, water injection, gas injection, and water alternate gas (WAG). UBED field was discovered in 1974, water depth is 130 m with initial reservoir pressure of 446 bars and 35,681,991 m3 estimated oil initially in-place (OIIP). Preliminary assessment using the material balance indicated about 25% ultimate recovery. Each scenario was optimized for maximum hydrocarbon recovery at the lowest cost per barrel by optimizing of wells, and critical gas saturation (i.e. 0% and 10% respectively). Economic analysis was performed using NPV, profitability index, payback period, and IRR on the cases. For each scenario, a plateau rate of 15% is maintained per year at a production rate of 3500 m3/d as benchmark. The various economic impacts on the project were determined and the results are presented. Results shows that estimated ultimate recoveries (EUR) were 30.9%, 53%, 37.2% and 53.5% for natural depletion, water injection, gas injection, and water alternate gas injection schemes respectively. The best production option for UBED reservoir lies between water injection and WAG injection. The comparison between the two scenarios shows that WAG is less costly and to develop the reserves while recovery, and profits are very high. Production plateau can also be sustained economically for longer period with shorter pay back on investment. In addition, WAG shows better EUR, a shorter production plateau of about 4% increases in over the water injection. This increase was not offset by profit indices, and payback. In this scenario, a gas compressor was installed which resulted in an increased capital expenditure (CAPEX). The revenues, expenses, and profits from each scenario are compared for the various development options at the end of the section and a proposed plan is selected based on economic parameters. The comparative economic assessment of the UBED field case in this study adequately addresses critical cost parameters relevant to field development studies, and integrated comparison of profitability indicators from which reliable economic decision can be reached.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».