Comparative Analysis of Enhanced Oil Recovery Techniques in Conventional and Unconventional Reservoirs
Table Of Contents
Chapter ONE
INTRODUCTION
- 1.1Introduction to Enhanced Oil Recovery in Conventional and Unconventional Reservoirs
- 1.2Background of Enhanced Oil Recovery Techniques and Reservoir Types
- 1.3Statement of the Challenges in EOR Application across Reservoir Types
- 1.4Aim and Objectives of Comparative Analysis of EOR in Different Reservoirs
- 1.5Research Questions Addressing EOR Efficacy in Reservoir Types
- 1.6Research Hypotheses on the Performance of EOR Techniques
- 1.7Significance of Comparative EOR Evaluation for Effective Resource Management
- 1.8Scope and Delimitations of Analyzing Conventional Versus Unconventional Reservoirs
- 1.9Limitations Encountered in Data Collection and Analysis
- 1.10Organisation and Structure of the Thesis
- 1.11Operational Definitions of Key Terms: Conventional, Unconventional Reservoirs, EOR Techniques, Recovery Efficiency
Chapter TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
- 2.1Conceptual Framework of Oil Recovery Methods
- 2.2Classification and Characteristics of Conventional Reservoirs
- 2.3Characteristics and Challenges of Unconventional Reservoirs
- 2.4Overview of Common Enhanced Oil Recovery Techniques
- 2.5Theoretical Framework: Darcy’s Law and Thermodynamic Principles in EOR
- 2.6Theoretical Framework: Reservoir Heterogeneity and Multiphase Flow Models
- 2.7Empirical Review: Case Studies of EOR in Conventional Reservoirs
- 2.8Empirical Review: Case Studies of EOR in Unconventional Reservoirs
- 2.9Identified Gaps in EOR Technologies for Different Reservoir Types
- 2.10Comparative Analyses in Previous Literature and Their Limitations
- 2.11Conceptual Model Illustrating EOR Performance in Different Reservoirs
- 2.12Summary of Literature Review and Research Gap Identification
Chapter THREE
SYSTEM DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
- 3.1Research Design: Comparative Cross-sectional Approach
- 3.2Philosophical Paradigm Underpinning the Study: Pragmatism
- 3.3Population of the Study: Oil Fields with Both Reservoir Types
- 3.4Sample Size Determination and Sampling Technique
- 3.5Data Collection Sources: Field Data, Laboratory Results, and Secondary Data
- 3.6Data Collection Instruments: EOR Performance Metrics and Reservoir Data Sheets
- 3.7Validity and Reliability of Data Collection Instruments
- 3.8Data Analysis Methods: Quantitative Statistical Techniques and Comparative Metrics
- 3.9Analytical Framework: Multivariate Regression and Productivity Indices
- 3.10Ethical Considerations in Data Handling and Confidentiality
Chapter FOUR
SYSTEM TESTING AND EVALUATION
- ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
- 4.1Presentation of Primary and Secondary Data Collected
- 4.2Descriptive Analysis of Reservoir and EOR Performance Parameters
- 4.3Hypotheses Testing: Efficiency Differences between Reservoir Types
- 4.4Interpretation of EOR Technique Effectiveness in Conventional Reservoirs
- 4.5Interpretation of EOR Technique Effectiveness in Unconventional Reservoirs
- 4.6Comparative Analysis of Recovery Factors Derived from Data
- 4.7Discussion of Findings in Context of Existing Literature
- 4.8Implications for EOR Technology Selection in Different Reservoir Types
Chapter FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- 5.1Summary of Key Findings on EOR Performance in Different Reservoirs
- 5.2Conclusions Derived from Comparative Analysis
- 5.3Contributions to Petroleum Engineering Knowledge and Practice
- 5.4Recommendations for Improving EOR Application in Residual and Marginal Reservoirs
- 5.5Suggestions for Future Research in EOR Technologies and Reservoir Characterization
Thesis Abstract
This study addresses the critical need for optimizing oil recovery processes within the context of evolving reservoir complexities by conducting a comparative analysis of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques in conventional and unconventional reservoirs. The persistent decline in global oil reserves and increasing operational challenges necessitate the identification of more effective and tailored EOR methods that maximize recovery efficiency while minimizing economic and environmental costs. The primary aim of this research is to evaluate and compare the performance, efficiency, and suitability of various EOR techniques—namely chemical flooding, thermal methods, gas injection, and microbial EOR—in both conventional reservoirs, characterized by porous sandstone and carbonate formations, and unconventional reservoirs, notably shale and tight sandstone formations. Specific objectives include (1) to examine the mechanisms and efficiency of selected EOR methods in different reservoir types, (2) to assess the influence of reservoir properties such as porosity, permeability, and wettability on EOR performance, (3) to develop a comparative framework for evaluating economic and environmental impacts associated with each technique, and (4) to identify optimal EOR strategies tailored to each reservoir type based on performance metrics. The methodology adopted involves a mixed-methods research design integrating quantitative and qualitative analytical approaches. The study population comprises data from 20 oil fields—10 conventional and 10 unconventional—selected through stratified random sampling from a regional oil basin with comprehensive operational data available from industry partners. Data collection instruments include laboratory core flooding experiments, field operational data obtained through collaboration with oil companies, and semi-structured interviews with reservoir engineers and geoscientists. Data from laboratory tests will be analyzed using multivariate regression analysis to establish correlations between reservoir properties and EOR efficiency, while field data will be subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) to delineate significant differences in recovery factors between reservoir types and techniques. Thematic analysis will be employed to interpret qualitative insights from interviews, providing contextual understanding of operational challenges and innovative practices. The study also proposes a comparative framework based on the Theory of Enhanced Oil Recovery Optimization and the Reservoir Engineering Equilibrium Model to interpret the interaction of physical, chemical, and biological processes influencing EOR performance. Advanced analytical tools such as the Response Surface Methodology (RSM) will be utilized to optimize injection parameters for different techniques, and cost-benefit analysis will assess economic viability. Expected findings include a delineation of the differential effectiveness of EOR techniques across conventional and unconventional reservoirs, with chemical flooding and thermal methods demonstrating higher efficiencies in conventional formations, while microbial and gas injection techniques show potential in unconventional settings. The study also anticipates revealing critical reservoir properties that influence EOR success, aiding in the development of tailored recovery strategies. The results will contribute to existing literature by providing empirical evidence and a decision-making framework for selecting suitable EOR methods based on reservoir characteristics. The main conclusion underscores that effective EOR implementation requires a nuanced understanding of reservoir-specific factors and the operational synergy of technique properties. Recommendations include adopting hybrid EOR approaches in complex formations, integrating reservoir diagnostics with real-time monitoring, and developing tailored operational guidelines. Future research directions suggested include the application of machine learning algorithms for predictive modeling and the exploration of environmentally sustainable EOR fluids. Overall, this research aims to bridge the knowledge gap in EOR applicability to unconventional reservoirs, thereby advancing recovery technology, optimizing resource utilization, and promoting sustainable oil production practices in the evolving upstream oil industry.
Thesis Overview
This research focuses on comparing different methods used to increase the amount of oil extracted from both conventional and unconventional reservoirs. Conventional reservoirs are the traditional underground oil fields that are easier to extract from, while unconventional reservoirs include shale oil and tight formations, which are more challenging due to their low permeability. The study aims to evaluate which enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques are most effective in each type of reservoir, helping operators improve recovery rates and extend the productive life of oil fields.
Why this work matters is because implementing the right EOR methods can significantly boost oil production, reduce economic losses, and improve energy resource management. Currently, there is limited comprehensive comparison of how these techniques perform in different types of reservoirs, especially considering the technological and geological differences. Filling this gap can guide industry practices and policy decisions.
The researcher will undertake a step-by-step process. First, they will review existing literature on EOR techniques such as chemical flooding, gas injection, and thermal recovery. Then, they will select sample data from case studies or field projects—targeting a sample size of about 20 reservoirs, split evenly between conventional and unconventional types. Data collection will involve accessing technical reports, production records, and lab results. Next, the data will be analyzed using statistical methods like regression and analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine the effectiveness of each technique in different reservoir types.
The expected contribution of the study is a clearer understanding of which EOR methods work best in each context, thus filling a knowledge gap in reservoir engineering. It will provide practical recommendations for selecting EOR techniques based on reservoir type and geological conditions, ultimately assisting engineers and decision-makers. The main outcome is an evidence-based framework that compares the performance of various EOR approaches and offers guidance on optimizing oil recovery in both conventional and unconventional settings.