Head Energy (Norway)

The decision-making procedure to develop and manage a production strategy is challenging because it requires a high investment and is performed under uncertainty. Heavy-oil reservoirs present low mobility and a high production of water under waterflooding. However, intelligent wells with ICVs (inflow control valves) and polymer flooding can improve the field’s performance. This work proposes a decision analysis to select the best strategy for the development of a heavy-oil field, evaluating and comparing the feasibility of waterflooding, polymers, and ICVs. We complement the nominal optimization accomplished for the base case in previous works by considering a probabilistic procedure with uncertainties, which includes the following: the generation of uncertain scenarios, the initial risk evaluation, the optimization of production strategies, a risk curve analysis, and the selection of the best strategy. A model-based reservoir simulation is used to perform the procedure, with the Expected Monetary Value (EMV) quantifying the economic returns. The case study is a sandstone heavy-oil reservoir (13° API) that represents a real Brazilian offshore field. Based on the EMV, we selected the polymer flooding strategy for this case study. However, since better water management was achieved with small differences to the polymer strategy, the option of using the ICVs in combination with polymer could be attractive depending on the various objectives of an oil field.

Abstract The feasibility of different options to reduce the risks of climate change has engaged scholars for decades. Yet there is no agreement on how to define and assess feasibility. We define feasible as “do‐able under realistic assumptions.” A sound feasibility assessment is based on causal reasoning; enables comparison of feasibility across climate options, contexts, and implementation levels; and reflexively considers the agency of its audience. Global climate scenarios are a good starting point for assessing the feasibility of climate options since they represent causal pathways, quantify implementation levels, and consider policy choices. Yet, scenario developers face difficulties to represent all relevant causalities, assess the realism of assumptions, assign likelihood to potential outcomes, and evaluate the agency of their users, which calls for external feasibility assessments. Existing approaches to feasibility assessment mirror the “inside” and the “outside” view coined by Kahneman and co‐authors. The inside view considers climate change as a unique challenge and seeks to identify barriers that should be overcome by political choice, commitment, and skill. The outside view assesses feasibility through examining historical analogies (reference cases) to the given climate option. Recent studies seek to bridge the inside and the outside views through “feasibility spaces,” by identifying reference cases for a climate option, measuring their outcomes and relevant characteristics, and mapping them together with the expected outcomes and characteristics of the climate option. Feasibility spaces are a promising method to prioritize climate options, realistically assess the achievability of climate goals, and construct scenarios with empirically‐grounded assumptions.This article is categorized under: Climate, History, Society, Culture > Disciplinary Perspectives Assessing Impacts of Climate Change > Representing Uncertainty The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Decarbonizing Energy and/or Reducing Demand

ABSTRACT How shall we craft an energy future that is less dependent on petroleum? And what role will oil and gas play in that scenario? In spite of an impressive 150 year track record of increasing hydrocarbon production to meet exponential growth in demand, constraints have emerged. There will be a pinch in production rates relative to growing demand, necessitating the development and deployment of alternative energy technologies from more sustainable resources. As of yet there is no consensus on how to transition to alternative fuels, despite a great deal of talk about the need to do so. Nor is adequate consideration being paid to the pivotal role that oil and gas will continue to play well into the transition. This paper addresses global energy planning at all organizational levels, as well as within energy producing corporations. Since future energy services will draw from an evolving mix of production sources and technologies, we propose a way for energy regulators and energy companies to optimize energy mixes, by evaluating the value added over time of each resource and applicable technology. This paper maintains that oil and gas will continue to be important components in any energy mix for the foreseeable future. Alternative fuels will be hard-pressed to provide comparable net values either in terms of work from energy produced or in terms of environmental impact. As petroleum engineers, it is imperative that we make clear the character of the coming petroleum peak and the necessary role that petroleum must play in the coming transition period. It is essential to characterize clearly the energy value provided by our current resources and the value that will be demanded from alternatives as they do take up larger market shares.