Research and Development Technical Section

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

Dear Sir,

Echo your thoughts. Obviously, there is no definite boundaries for using the terms IOR/EOR and professionals use it as per there convenience and whosoever are in good doubt, they would use both the abbreviations together. I was told by some SME to use as below:

IOR (Mostly Secondary Recovery) = For any changes or methodologies used to increase recovery which does not change any chemical or mechanical properties of the reservoir to be considered as IOR (Use of Any artificial lift, advance completion technologies (ICDs, FCVs, AICVs, Multi laterals, Horizontals, matrix acidization, sand control, sand agglomeration, deep connect perforations, sand screens, TCPs etc.)

EOR (Mostly Tertiary Recovery) = For any recovery method which goes beyond the well bore and deep in the reservoir and chiefly concerned with changing the physical or chemical characteristics of the reservoir (Permeability, porosity, wettability, temperature, etc). I think that way Hydraulic fracturing is an EOR (Tertiary) method, CO2 flooding, In-Situ Combustion, SAGD, CSS, Cyclic Gas injection etc.)

Not sure if I have clarified you increase doubts more.

Regards,

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

George

Thank you for your post.  As I noted in my response to Mr. Dutta.  The Secondary and Tertiary terms are a bit antiquated, so I would agree with you that these terms should be avoided if possible.  These came about back in the day when almost every initial effort in pressure maintenance and fluid displacement support was waterflooding.  There was some early gas cap pressure support projects with N2 or Air injection, but as you can imagine many (but not all) of those had significant problems.  If nothing else, they reduced the value of the gas in the gas cap. As you indicate thermal methods can be a grey area since the displacing fluid is water based, but the addition of energy (heat) changes the oil properties and thus causes a reduction in the Sor that would occur with water at reservoir temperatures.  So, I would consider these to be EOR processes.  Think of it this way, the addition of energy in the form of heat is different than the addition of energy in the form of pressure.   I hope that makes sense. 

Thank you for these very insightful and discriminating comments.  I believe these are very helpful in allowing us to refine these terms.     

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

David, when we teach our streamline course, one of the first slides addresses exactly the point you are making. In this case,  keeping things simple helps. Consider the "classic" recovery equation:

Cumulative oil produced  = volumetric efficiency x displacement efficiency x OOIP.

IOR: you are trying to principally affect the first term: volumetric efficiency, meaning you want to contact as much oil volume as possible.

EOR: you are principally going after the second term: displacement efficiency, meaning you want to displace the oil that you do contact as efficiently as possible.

Polymer flooding, for example, can be both an IOR and EOR method under this paradigm, since driving the mobility ratio down will improve the volumetric displacement efficiency as well as the displacement efficiency, although your are not targeting Sor. CO2 flooding, on the other hand, is principally an EOR method, as you are really going after the residual oil. But you can additionally add a volumetric efficiency (IOR) component in you design through proper well placements and operations.

To me the two terms represent the two terms in the recovery equations--if one efficiency dominates over the other then you can choose which acronym to use, but in reality you need and should pay attention to both. The base reference case is water flooding, and that is an IOR method.

Hope this helps.

-Marco Thiele

------------------------------
Marco R. Thiele
President and CEO
Streamsim Technologies, Inc.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2023 11:47 AM
From: David Smith
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

Hello Marco,

Isn't the reference case primary depletion?

David, when we teach our streamline course, one of the first slides addresses exactly the point you are making. In this case,  keeping things simple helps. Consider the "classic" recovery equation:

Cumulative oil produced  = volumetric efficiency x displacement efficiency x OOIP.

IOR: you are trying to principally affect the first term: volumetric efficiency, meaning you want to contact as much oil volume as possible.

EOR: you are principally going after the second term: displacement efficiency, meaning you want to displace the oil that you do contact as efficiently as possible.

Polymer flooding, for example, can be both an IOR and EOR method under this paradigm, since driving the mobility ratio down will improve the volumetric displacement efficiency as well as the displacement efficiency, although your are not targeting Sor. CO2 flooding, on the other hand, is principally an EOR method, as you are really going after the residual oil. But you can additionally add a volumetric efficiency (IOR) component in you design through proper well placements and operations.

To me the two terms represent the two terms in the recovery equations--if one efficiency dominates over the other then you can choose which acronym to use, but in reality you need and should pay attention to both. The base reference case is water flooding, and that is an IOR method.

Hope this helps.

-Marco Thiele

------------------------------
Marco R. Thiele
President and CEO
Streamsim Technologies, Inc.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2023 11:47 AM
From: David Smith
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

David, I will add one more detail.

In reality, the splitting of the overall displacement efficiency into two (E = ED x EV) or even three (E=ED x EA x EVR), where

E=overall displacement efficiency

ED=displacement efficiency (think 1D here)

EV=volumetric efficiency

EA=areal efficiency

EVR=vertical displacement efficiency

...is incorrect. The overall displacement efficiency cannot be broken up into two or three independent terms as it is a highly nonlinear term, and each one influences the other. But it was done in 70's because it was a "nice" and "simple" way to break-up the the complexity that is hidden in the overall displacement efficiency, E. And that was a time when we relied on analytical solutions for pattern floods. It may have made sense then. It does not make sense today.

So even my suggestion to associate IOR with the volumetric efficiency, EV, and EOR with the displacement efficiency, ED, is buying into the ability to set E=EDxEV, which is not correct. The goal of ANY flood management is to maximize E. It helps to frame that effort into two main components: make sure to contact as much oil as possible (type, number, completions, and rates of wells) with as high of a displacement efficiency as possible (PVT and relative permeability properties). In other words, try to sweep as much of the oil (IOR) and displace as much of the swept oil as possible towards producing wells (EOR).

------------------------------
Marco R. Thiele
President and CEO
Streamsim Technologies, Inc.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2023 11:47 AM
From: David Smith
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

Marco

Thanks for those additional insights.  I also struggle with the use of polymers in a flood as an EOR process as I also do with foamers that are used in steam or gas displacement projects to influence the mobility ratio and create diversion of the primary displacing fluid.  However, I am willing to concede these two items and anything similar that is continually added to the injection fluid as part of an EOR process.  What I don't agree with is the use of the term EOR to single or a discreet set of treatments that are designed solely to redirect the displacing fluid, and which often do not displace any oil themselves because the interval they are treating is completely swept.   

There have been several discussions in both the production and reservoir technical communities that continue to elaborate on what technologies should be included in EOR and what is in IOR.  I understand there will be some techniques that could be in both.  But a separate issue is should EOR be a subset of IOR.  I prefer to keep them separate for one simple reason.  If you use the term IOR and it is separate from EOR then you don't have to wonder if the discussion includes EOR.   When I want to discuss the entire group of products that can increase recovery then I simply include both as IOR/EOR.  This has been my utilization for almost all of my career and it has helped me when I am communicating with others.  

I do agree that the equation method add a lot to the clarification of IOR separate from EOR so thanks for that insight.  
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-21-2023 05:17 AM
From: Marco Thiele
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

David, I will add one more detail.

In reality, the splitting of the overall displacement efficiency into two (E = ED x EV) or even three (E=ED x EA x EVR), where

E=overall displacement efficiency

ED=displacement efficiency (think 1D here)

EV=volumetric efficiency

EA=areal efficiency

EVR=vertical displacement efficiency

...is incorrect. The overall displacement efficiency cannot be broken up into two or three independent terms as it is a highly nonlinear term, and each one influences the other. But it was done in 70's because it was a "nice" and "simple" way to break-up the the complexity that is hidden in the overall displacement efficiency, E. And that was a time when we relied on analytical solutions for pattern floods. It may have made sense then. It does not make sense today.

So even my suggestion to associate IOR with the volumetric efficiency, EV, and EOR with the displacement efficiency, ED, is buying into the ability to set E=EDxEV, which is not correct. The goal of ANY flood management is to maximize E. It helps to frame that effort into two main components: make sure to contact as much oil as possible (type, number, completions, and rates of wells) with as high of a displacement efficiency as possible (PVT and relative permeability properties). In other words, try to sweep as much of the oil (IOR) and displace as much of the swept oil as possible towards producing wells (EOR).

------------------------------
Marco R. Thiele
President and CEO
Streamsim Technologies, Inc.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2023 11:47 AM
From: David Smith
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

David,

You propose to keep IOR and EOR as separate processes. Then, why to include EOR in the SPE IOR Conference?

Marco

Thanks for those additional insights.  I also struggle with the use of polymers in a flood as an EOR process as I also do with foamers that are used in steam or gas displacement projects to influence the mobility ratio and create diversion of the primary displacing fluid.  However, I am willing to concede these two items and anything similar that is continually added to the injection fluid as part of an EOR process.  What I don't agree with is the use of the term EOR to single or a discreet set of treatments that are designed solely to redirect the displacing fluid, and which often do not displace any oil themselves because the interval they are treating is completely swept.   

There have been several discussions in both the production and reservoir technical communities that continue to elaborate on what technologies should be included in EOR and what is in IOR.  I understand there will be some techniques that could be in both.  But a separate issue is should EOR be a subset of IOR.  I prefer to keep them separate for one simple reason.  If you use the term IOR and it is separate from EOR then you don't have to wonder if the discussion includes EOR.   When I want to discuss the entire group of products that can increase recovery then I simply include both as IOR/EOR.  This has been my utilization for almost all of my career and it has helped me when I am communicating with others.  

I do agree that the equation method add a lot to the clarification of IOR separate from EOR so thanks for that insight.  
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-21-2023 05:17 AM
From: Marco Thiele
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

David, I will add one more detail.

In reality, the splitting of the overall displacement efficiency into two (E = ED x EV) or even three (E=ED x EA x EVR), where

E=overall displacement efficiency

ED=displacement efficiency (think 1D here)

EV=volumetric efficiency

EA=areal efficiency

EVR=vertical displacement efficiency

...is incorrect. The overall displacement efficiency cannot be broken up into two or three independent terms as it is a highly nonlinear term, and each one influences the other. But it was done in 70's because it was a "nice" and "simple" way to break-up the the complexity that is hidden in the overall displacement efficiency, E. And that was a time when we relied on analytical solutions for pattern floods. It may have made sense then. It does not make sense today.

So even my suggestion to associate IOR with the volumetric efficiency, EV, and EOR with the displacement efficiency, ED, is buying into the ability to set E=EDxEV, which is not correct. The goal of ANY flood management is to maximize E. It helps to frame that effort into two main components: make sure to contact as much oil as possible (type, number, completions, and rates of wells) with as high of a displacement efficiency as possible (PVT and relative permeability properties). In other words, try to sweep as much of the oil (IOR) and displace as much of the swept oil as possible towards producing wells (EOR).

------------------------------
Marco R. Thiele
President and CEO
Streamsim Technologies, Inc.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2023 11:47 AM
From: David Smith
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

Marco

Thanks for those additional insights.  I also struggle with the use of polymers in a flood as an EOR process as I also do with foamers that are used in steam or gas displacement projects to influence the mobility ratio and create diversion of the primary displacing fluid.  However, I am willing to concede these two items and anything similar that is continually added to the injection fluid as part of an EOR process.  What I don't agree with is the use of the term EOR to single or a discreet set of treatments that are designed solely to redirect the displacing fluid, and which often do not displace any oil themselves because the interval they are treating is completely swept.   

There have been several discussions in both the production and reservoir technical communities that continue to elaborate on what technologies should be included in EOR and what is in IOR.  I understand there will be some techniques that could be in both.  But a separate issue is should EOR be a subset of IOR.  I prefer to keep them separate for one simple reason.  If you use the term IOR and it is separate from EOR then you don't have to wonder if the discussion includes EOR.   When I want to discuss the entire group of products that can increase recovery then I simply include both as IOR/EOR.  This has been my utilization for almost all of my career and it has helped me when I am communicating with others.  

I do agree that the equation method add a lot to the clarification of IOR separate from EOR so thanks for that insight.  
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-21-2023 05:17 AM
From: Marco Thiele
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

David, I will add one more detail.

In reality, the splitting of the overall displacement efficiency into two (E = ED x EV) or even three (E=ED x EA x EVR), where

E=overall displacement efficiency

ED=displacement efficiency (think 1D here)

EV=volumetric efficiency

EA=areal efficiency

EVR=vertical displacement efficiency

...is incorrect. The overall displacement efficiency cannot be broken up into two or three independent terms as it is a highly nonlinear term, and each one influences the other. But it was done in 70's because it was a "nice" and "simple" way to break-up the the complexity that is hidden in the overall displacement efficiency, E. And that was a time when we relied on analytical solutions for pattern floods. It may have made sense then. It does not make sense today.

So even my suggestion to associate IOR with the volumetric efficiency, EV, and EOR with the displacement efficiency, ED, is buying into the ability to set E=EDxEV, which is not correct. The goal of ANY flood management is to maximize E. It helps to frame that effort into two main components: make sure to contact as much oil as possible (type, number, completions, and rates of wells) with as high of a displacement efficiency as possible (PVT and relative permeability properties). In other words, try to sweep as much of the oil (IOR) and displace as much of the swept oil as possible towards producing wells (EOR).

------------------------------
Marco R. Thiele
President and CEO
Streamsim Technologies, Inc.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2023 11:47 AM
From: David Smith
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

David, all good points.

I do like the idea of separating any methodology that tries to go after the swept volume as it principle objective vs. methodologies that are primarily targeting low/residual oil saturations. It is not a perfect classification for sure, but a relatively easy roadmap to remember. That said, the problem is that such a classification tends to imply that a process is either IOR or EOR, whereas really the most effective recovery methodologies do both, which I think we do need to underscore.

Marco

Thanks for those additional insights.  I also struggle with the use of polymers in a flood as an EOR process as I also do with foamers that are used in steam or gas displacement projects to influence the mobility ratio and create diversion of the primary displacing fluid.  However, I am willing to concede these two items and anything similar that is continually added to the injection fluid as part of an EOR process.  What I don't agree with is the use of the term EOR to single or a discreet set of treatments that are designed solely to redirect the displacing fluid, and which often do not displace any oil themselves because the interval they are treating is completely swept.   

There have been several discussions in both the production and reservoir technical communities that continue to elaborate on what technologies should be included in EOR and what is in IOR.  I understand there will be some techniques that could be in both.  But a separate issue is should EOR be a subset of IOR.  I prefer to keep them separate for one simple reason.  If you use the term IOR and it is separate from EOR then you don't have to wonder if the discussion includes EOR.   When I want to discuss the entire group of products that can increase recovery then I simply include both as IOR/EOR.  This has been my utilization for almost all of my career and it has helped me when I am communicating with others.  

I do agree that the equation method add a lot to the clarification of IOR separate from EOR so thanks for that insight.  
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-21-2023 05:17 AM
From: Marco Thiele
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

David, I will add one more detail.

In reality, the splitting of the overall displacement efficiency into two (E = ED x EV) or even three (E=ED x EA x EVR), where

E=overall displacement efficiency

ED=displacement efficiency (think 1D here)

EV=volumetric efficiency

EA=areal efficiency

EVR=vertical displacement efficiency

...is incorrect. The overall displacement efficiency cannot be broken up into two or three independent terms as it is a highly nonlinear term, and each one influences the other. But it was done in 70's because it was a "nice" and "simple" way to break-up the the complexity that is hidden in the overall displacement efficiency, E. And that was a time when we relied on analytical solutions for pattern floods. It may have made sense then. It does not make sense today.

So even my suggestion to associate IOR with the volumetric efficiency, EV, and EOR with the displacement efficiency, ED, is buying into the ability to set E=EDxEV, which is not correct. The goal of ANY flood management is to maximize E. It helps to frame that effort into two main components: make sure to contact as much oil as possible (type, number, completions, and rates of wells) with as high of a displacement efficiency as possible (PVT and relative permeability properties). In other words, try to sweep as much of the oil (IOR) and displace as much of the swept oil as possible towards producing wells (EOR).

------------------------------
Marco R. Thiele
President and CEO
Streamsim Technologies, Inc.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2023 11:47 AM
From: David Smith
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

David, I will add one more detail.

In reality, the splitting of the overall displacement efficiency into two (E = ED x EV) or even three (E=ED x EA x EVR), where

E=overall displacement efficiency

ED=displacement efficiency (think 1D here)

EV=volumetric efficiency

EA=areal efficiency

EVR=vertical displacement efficiency

...is incorrect. The overall displacement efficiency cannot be broken up into two or three independent terms as it is a highly nonlinear term, and each one influences the other. But it was done in 70's because it was a "nice" and "simple" way to break-up the the complexity that is hidden in the overall displacement efficiency, E. And that was a time when we relied on analytical solutions for pattern floods. It may have made sense then. It does not make sense today.

So even my suggestion to associate IOR with the volumetric efficiency, EV, and EOR with the displacement efficiency, ED, is buying into the ability to set E=EDxEV, which is not correct. The goal of ANY flood management is to maximize E. It helps to frame that effort into two main components: make sure to contact as much oil as possible (type, number, completions, and rates of wells) with as high of a displacement efficiency as possible (PVT and relative permeability properties). In other words, try to sweep as much of the oil (IOR) and displace as much of the swept oil as possible towards producing wells (EOR).

------------------------------
Marco R. Thiele
President and CEO
Streamsim Technologies, Inc.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2023 11:47 AM
From: David Smith
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

Marco, totally agree that the very simplistic approach of using different components to evaluate the overall displacement efficiency is dated. As you mentioned, it worked as a simplification when technology didn't allow to do better. Some years ago, I conducted a study while in Oxy getting to that same conclusion. 

David, I will add one more detail.

In reality, the splitting of the overall displacement efficiency into two (E = ED x EV) or even three (E=ED x EA x EVR), where

E=overall displacement efficiency

ED=displacement efficiency (think 1D here)

EV=volumetric efficiency

EA=areal efficiency

EVR=vertical displacement efficiency

...is incorrect. The overall displacement efficiency cannot be broken up into two or three independent terms as it is a highly nonlinear term, and each one influences the other. But it was done in 70's because it was a "nice" and "simple" way to break-up the the complexity that is hidden in the overall displacement efficiency, E. And that was a time when we relied on analytical solutions for pattern floods. It may have made sense then. It does not make sense today.

So even my suggestion to associate IOR with the volumetric efficiency, EV, and EOR with the displacement efficiency, ED, is buying into the ability to set E=EDxEV, which is not correct. The goal of ANY flood management is to maximize E. It helps to frame that effort into two main components: make sure to contact as much oil as possible (type, number, completions, and rates of wells) with as high of a displacement efficiency as possible (PVT and relative permeability properties). In other words, try to sweep as much of the oil (IOR) and displace as much of the swept oil as possible towards producing wells (EOR).

------------------------------
Marco R. Thiele
President and CEO
Streamsim Technologies, Inc.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2023 11:47 AM
From: David Smith
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

Patricia, Marcos and Community

I just found the following article.  SPE 84908 -The Alphabet Soup of IOR, EOR and AOR: Effective Communication Requires a Definition of Terms - published in 2003.  It provides the best historical perspective I have seen on the use of these terms.  They discuss briefly the IOR/EOR approach.

However, what I really found interesting is that the authors provided the following suggestion, but to my knowledge this was never completed.  

"The best way to gain consensus around these definitions would be to form an industry committee, perhaps under the auspices of the SPE or the World Petroleum Congress. We would like to recommend the formation of such a committee."

If anyone knows if this was ever attempted or completed, please post any knowledge you might have about this effort.

If this was never done maybe we can resurrect this idea and get an SPE - Technical Director to sponsor such a committee. 

Thanks

David Smith

------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-21-2023 10:58 AM
From: Patricia Carreras
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

Marco, totally agree that the very simplistic approach of using different components to evaluate the overall displacement efficiency is dated. As you mentioned, it worked as a simplification when technology didn't allow to do better. Some years ago, I conducted a study while in Oxy getting to that same conclusion. 

------------------------------
Patricia E. Carreras
Reservoir Engineering Consultant
Houston

Original Message:
Sent: 09-21-2023 05:17 AM
From: Marco Thiele
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

David, I will add one more detail.

In reality, the splitting of the overall displacement efficiency into two (E = ED x EV) or even three (E=ED x EA x EVR), where

E=overall displacement efficiency

ED=displacement efficiency (think 1D here)

EV=volumetric efficiency

EA=areal efficiency

EVR=vertical displacement efficiency

...is incorrect. The overall displacement efficiency cannot be broken up into two or three independent terms as it is a highly nonlinear term, and each one influences the other. But it was done in 70's because it was a "nice" and "simple" way to break-up the the complexity that is hidden in the overall displacement efficiency, E. And that was a time when we relied on analytical solutions for pattern floods. It may have made sense then. It does not make sense today.

So even my suggestion to associate IOR with the volumetric efficiency, EV, and EOR with the displacement efficiency, ED, is buying into the ability to set E=EDxEV, which is not correct. The goal of ANY flood management is to maximize E. It helps to frame that effort into two main components: make sure to contact as much oil as possible (type, number, completions, and rates of wells) with as high of a displacement efficiency as possible (PVT and relative permeability properties). In other words, try to sweep as much of the oil (IOR) and displace as much of the swept oil as possible towards producing wells (EOR).

------------------------------
Marco R. Thiele
President and CEO
Streamsim Technologies, Inc.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2023 11:47 AM
From: David Smith
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

Marco, totally agree that the very simplistic approach of using different components to evaluate the overall displacement efficiency is dated. As you mentioned, it worked as a simplification when technology didn't allow to do better. Some years ago, I conducted a study while in Oxy getting to that same conclusion. 

David, I will add one more detail.

In reality, the splitting of the overall displacement efficiency into two (E = ED x EV) or even three (E=ED x EA x EVR), where

E=overall displacement efficiency

ED=displacement efficiency (think 1D here)

EV=volumetric efficiency

EA=areal efficiency

EVR=vertical displacement efficiency

...is incorrect. The overall displacement efficiency cannot be broken up into two or three independent terms as it is a highly nonlinear term, and each one influences the other. But it was done in 70's because it was a "nice" and "simple" way to break-up the the complexity that is hidden in the overall displacement efficiency, E. And that was a time when we relied on analytical solutions for pattern floods. It may have made sense then. It does not make sense today.

So even my suggestion to associate IOR with the volumetric efficiency, EV, and EOR with the displacement efficiency, ED, is buying into the ability to set E=EDxEV, which is not correct. The goal of ANY flood management is to maximize E. It helps to frame that effort into two main components: make sure to contact as much oil as possible (type, number, completions, and rates of wells) with as high of a displacement efficiency as possible (PVT and relative permeability properties). In other words, try to sweep as much of the oil (IOR) and displace as much of the swept oil as possible towards producing wells (EOR).

------------------------------
Marco R. Thiele
President and CEO
Streamsim Technologies, Inc.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2023 11:47 AM
From: David Smith
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

What is surprising how some of the old and dated thinking keeps resurfacing at conferences and even universities. The one that irritates me the most is expressing the volumetric displacement efficiency as a product of an areal and vertical  displacement efficiency. And yet, you still see it being presented and used today.

Marco, totally agree that the very simplistic approach of using different components to evaluate the overall displacement efficiency is dated. As you mentioned, it worked as a simplification when technology didn't allow to do better. Some years ago, I conducted a study while in Oxy getting to that same conclusion. 

David, I will add one more detail.

In reality, the splitting of the overall displacement efficiency into two (E = ED x EV) or even three (E=ED x EA x EVR), where

E=overall displacement efficiency

ED=displacement efficiency (think 1D here)

EV=volumetric efficiency

EA=areal efficiency

EVR=vertical displacement efficiency

...is incorrect. The overall displacement efficiency cannot be broken up into two or three independent terms as it is a highly nonlinear term, and each one influences the other. But it was done in 70's because it was a "nice" and "simple" way to break-up the the complexity that is hidden in the overall displacement efficiency, E. And that was a time when we relied on analytical solutions for pattern floods. It may have made sense then. It does not make sense today.

So even my suggestion to associate IOR with the volumetric efficiency, EV, and EOR with the displacement efficiency, ED, is buying into the ability to set E=EDxEV, which is not correct. The goal of ANY flood management is to maximize E. It helps to frame that effort into two main components: make sure to contact as much oil as possible (type, number, completions, and rates of wells) with as high of a displacement efficiency as possible (PVT and relative permeability properties). In other words, try to sweep as much of the oil (IOR) and displace as much of the swept oil as possible towards producing wells (EOR).

------------------------------
Marco R. Thiele
President and CEO
Streamsim Technologies, Inc.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2023 11:47 AM
From: David Smith
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

Marco

Thanks again for your insights.  I have some additional news to share.

I would like everyone to know that we have caught the eye of Terry Palisch our future SPE President and he supports creating a team or panel to try and resolve these definitions and issues.  Stay posted as I am sure more will come as this team is commissioned by the TD of Reservoir (Rodolfo Camacho) the TD or Production (Hamad Marri).

David

What is surprising how some of the old and dated thinking keeps resurfacing at conferences and even universities. The one that irritates me the most is expressing the volumetric displacement efficiency as a product of an areal and vertical  displacement efficiency. And yet, you still see it being presented and used today.

Marco, totally agree that the very simplistic approach of using different components to evaluate the overall displacement efficiency is dated. As you mentioned, it worked as a simplification when technology didn't allow to do better. Some years ago, I conducted a study while in Oxy getting to that same conclusion. 

David, I will add one more detail.

In reality, the splitting of the overall displacement efficiency into two (E = ED x EV) or even three (E=ED x EA x EVR), where

E=overall displacement efficiency

ED=displacement efficiency (think 1D here)

EV=volumetric efficiency

EA=areal efficiency

EVR=vertical displacement efficiency

...is incorrect. The overall displacement efficiency cannot be broken up into two or three independent terms as it is a highly nonlinear term, and each one influences the other. But it was done in 70's because it was a "nice" and "simple" way to break-up the the complexity that is hidden in the overall displacement efficiency, E. And that was a time when we relied on analytical solutions for pattern floods. It may have made sense then. It does not make sense today.

So even my suggestion to associate IOR with the volumetric efficiency, EV, and EOR with the displacement efficiency, ED, is buying into the ability to set E=EDxEV, which is not correct. The goal of ANY flood management is to maximize E. It helps to frame that effort into two main components: make sure to contact as much oil as possible (type, number, completions, and rates of wells) with as high of a displacement efficiency as possible (PVT and relative permeability properties). In other words, try to sweep as much of the oil (IOR) and displace as much of the swept oil as possible towards producing wells (EOR).

------------------------------
Marco R. Thiele
President and CEO
Streamsim Technologies, Inc.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2023 11:47 AM
From: David Smith
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

What is surprising how some of the old and dated thinking keeps resurfacing at conferences and even universities. The one that irritates me the most is expressing the volumetric displacement efficiency as a product of an areal and vertical  displacement efficiency. And yet, you still see it being presented and used today.

Marco, totally agree that the very simplistic approach of using different components to evaluate the overall displacement efficiency is dated. As you mentioned, it worked as a simplification when technology didn't allow to do better. Some years ago, I conducted a study while in Oxy getting to that same conclusion. 

David, I will add one more detail.

In reality, the splitting of the overall displacement efficiency into two (E = ED x EV) or even three (E=ED x EA x EVR), where

E=overall displacement efficiency

ED=displacement efficiency (think 1D here)

EV=volumetric efficiency

EA=areal efficiency

EVR=vertical displacement efficiency

...is incorrect. The overall displacement efficiency cannot be broken up into two or three independent terms as it is a highly nonlinear term, and each one influences the other. But it was done in 70's because it was a "nice" and "simple" way to break-up the the complexity that is hidden in the overall displacement efficiency, E. And that was a time when we relied on analytical solutions for pattern floods. It may have made sense then. It does not make sense today.

So even my suggestion to associate IOR with the volumetric efficiency, EV, and EOR with the displacement efficiency, ED, is buying into the ability to set E=EDxEV, which is not correct. The goal of ANY flood management is to maximize E. It helps to frame that effort into two main components: make sure to contact as much oil as possible (type, number, completions, and rates of wells) with as high of a displacement efficiency as possible (PVT and relative permeability properties). In other words, try to sweep as much of the oil (IOR) and displace as much of the swept oil as possible towards producing wells (EOR).

------------------------------
Marco R. Thiele
President and CEO
Streamsim Technologies, Inc.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2023 11:47 AM
From: David Smith
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

Agree, Marco. We cannot get stuck with concepts that worked 50 years ago! An engineer is, by definition, an innovator. So, it is difficult for me to understand some comments in this thread that mentioned the preference to use concepts that were taught many decades ago. I respect everyone's opinion, but innovation means that we need to be open minded and embrace change and we also need to set a good example for the young generation.

What is surprising how some of the old and dated thinking keeps resurfacing at conferences and even universities. The one that irritates me the most is expressing the volumetric displacement efficiency as a product of an areal and vertical  displacement efficiency. And yet, you still see it being presented and used today.

Marco, totally agree that the very simplistic approach of using different components to evaluate the overall displacement efficiency is dated. As you mentioned, it worked as a simplification when technology didn't allow to do better. Some years ago, I conducted a study while in Oxy getting to that same conclusion. 

David, I will add one more detail.

In reality, the splitting of the overall displacement efficiency into two (E = ED x EV) or even three (E=ED x EA x EVR), where

E=overall displacement efficiency

ED=displacement efficiency (think 1D here)

EV=volumetric efficiency

EA=areal efficiency

EVR=vertical displacement efficiency

...is incorrect. The overall displacement efficiency cannot be broken up into two or three independent terms as it is a highly nonlinear term, and each one influences the other. But it was done in 70's because it was a "nice" and "simple" way to break-up the the complexity that is hidden in the overall displacement efficiency, E. And that was a time when we relied on analytical solutions for pattern floods. It may have made sense then. It does not make sense today.

So even my suggestion to associate IOR with the volumetric efficiency, EV, and EOR with the displacement efficiency, ED, is buying into the ability to set E=EDxEV, which is not correct. The goal of ANY flood management is to maximize E. It helps to frame that effort into two main components: make sure to contact as much oil as possible (type, number, completions, and rates of wells) with as high of a displacement efficiency as possible (PVT and relative permeability properties). In other words, try to sweep as much of the oil (IOR) and displace as much of the swept oil as possible towards producing wells (EOR).

------------------------------
Marco R. Thiele
President and CEO
Streamsim Technologies, Inc.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2023 11:47 AM
From: David Smith
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

Hi everyone. 
May I air a view that as far as I can see hasn't been presented in the discussion so far? I hope I'm not adding confusion or throwing a spanner in the works. 

Twenty-five odd years ago the IOR/EOR distinction was a popular topic in Statoil, when our big oil fields in the N Sea neared their economic end of life with only water and gas injection.

Firstly, the use of various well solutions, including deviated, horizontal, multilateral, hydraulically or acid fractured wells in themselves are not considered part of the IOR/EOR discussion, but are well-to-reservoir connection techniques to help optimising the reservoir recovery mechanisms being employed.

We considered IOR as injection, optimised for macroscopic sweep efficiency, of fluid that was initially produced the reservoir. Produced water & gas re-injection satisfy this criteria. These may be termed as primary injectants. The ubiquitous seawater injection in the N Sea fields should, if being consistent, be considered as EOR, but was removed from the discussion for simplicity and defined as a primary injectant also.

WAG and SWAG are then considered as IOR processes, if only produced water & gas or seawater are used. Based on this definition, dry gas recycling in a retrograde condensate reservoir is also be IOR, even if the injected gas has a different composition than the in-situ vapour, since all the injected gas came from the reservoir. 

To be considered EOR, a recovery process had to introduce chemistry or process conditions to the reservoir that wasn't there before, e.g. as in most cases applies to thermal processes, injection of N2, CO2, solvents and surfactants. The resulting additional recovery can be due to either or both reduced Sor (microscopic sweep) and in-situ conformance control (macroscopic sweep), beyond what can be practically achieved with well types, placement and primary injectants only. That means that e.g. foam and polymer flooding are considered EOR, even if they don't reduce Sor.

I doubt that a universally accepted clear definition of IOR and EOR is achievable, but (as few as possible) regional ones would certainly improve clarity. 

Best of luck to those that are willing to try!

Thanks and best regards,

Hafsteinn Agustsson (retired). 

Agree, Marco. We cannot get stuck with concepts that worked 50 years ago! An engineer is, by definition, an innovator. So, it is difficult for me to understand some comments in this thread that mentioned the preference to use concepts that were taught many decades ago. I respect everyone's opinion, but innovation means that we need to be open minded and embrace change and we also need to set a good example for the young generation.

What is surprising how some of the old and dated thinking keeps resurfacing at conferences and even universities. The one that irritates me the most is expressing the volumetric displacement efficiency as a product of an areal and vertical  displacement efficiency. And yet, you still see it being presented and used today.

Marco, totally agree that the very simplistic approach of using different components to evaluate the overall displacement efficiency is dated. As you mentioned, it worked as a simplification when technology didn't allow to do better. Some years ago, I conducted a study while in Oxy getting to that same conclusion. 

David, I will add one more detail.

In reality, the splitting of the overall displacement efficiency into two (E = ED x EV) or even three (E=ED x EA x EVR), where

E=overall displacement efficiency

ED=displacement efficiency (think 1D here)

EV=volumetric efficiency

EA=areal efficiency

EVR=vertical displacement efficiency

...is incorrect. The overall displacement efficiency cannot be broken up into two or three independent terms as it is a highly nonlinear term, and each one influences the other. But it was done in 70's because it was a "nice" and "simple" way to break-up the the complexity that is hidden in the overall displacement efficiency, E. And that was a time when we relied on analytical solutions for pattern floods. It may have made sense then. It does not make sense today.

So even my suggestion to associate IOR with the volumetric efficiency, EV, and EOR with the displacement efficiency, ED, is buying into the ability to set E=EDxEV, which is not correct. The goal of ANY flood management is to maximize E. It helps to frame that effort into two main components: make sure to contact as much oil as possible (type, number, completions, and rates of wells) with as high of a displacement efficiency as possible (PVT and relative permeability properties). In other words, try to sweep as much of the oil (IOR) and displace as much of the swept oil as possible towards producing wells (EOR).

------------------------------
Marco R. Thiele
President and CEO
Streamsim Technologies, Inc.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2023 11:47 AM
From: David Smith
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------

SPE - Production and Reservoir Technical Communities and R&D Technical Section

Please note ~10 days ago we had several discussions within both the Production and Reservoir Communities that I have now had a few hours to review.  (Sorry, I didn't review earlier.  I was out on Vacation) In these discussions there were definitions provided from ISO standards, and a few of the comments in the Reservoir Technical Community and would like to offer some insights.

First, I tried to execute a more comprehensive search within the ISO website and the OBP (online browsing platform}.  I was unable to get to the references provided.  I was not able to get the ISO search or OBP to find anything for 3250:2021(en), 3.1.17.  I tried several variations.  IOR and EOR also yielded several pages of uses, most of which were not related to oil production.  Thus, I had to use only the information Mr. Alhanati provided in the Production Community.  Unfortunately, the definitions don't really provide a complete picture of the use of either IOR or EOR, or maybe it does and that is the intent to keep it limited.  Bob Merrill commented in the Reservoir Connection section responds to the ISO definitions as: "Candidly, the ISO definition seems to be "OK", if overly broad (because it includes things like infill drilling as IOR).". 

I think that is a key point we can be very broad with our definitions as it appears the ISO has done and allow flexibility, or we can try to refine the definitions so that every form of effort to increase recovery of hydrocarbons can be properly categorized.  Although I include infill drilling, sidetracks, horizontal and multilateral wells in the IOR category others may not.   I also include artificial lift, hydraulic fracturing, acidizing, conformance, pattern fluid rebalancing, etc. etc. in IOR.  Thus, I prefer to use IOR as a catch-all for anything that improves recovery but does not involve EOR or the direct displacement of hydrocarbons.  Although the ISO standard for IOR Note2 discusses secondary recovery as "mostly for maintaining reservoir pressure" through the injection of water and gas.  I have never been involved in a gas injection or water injection effort (good example- Prudhoe Bay) that did not also have a principal function of displacing the hydrocarbon, which is a key element of EOR.   The EOR definition defines the "reservoir process involving the injection or materials not normally present in the reservoir".  One could argue that any water that is not connate water from the reservoir in question is material not normally present in the reservoir.  A good example is LoSal.  Gas would be a little more difficult as you might want to define free flowing gas vs solution gas.  My point is that these details do matter.  Or how about N2 injection?  N2 is a gas sometimes used for "pressure maintenance", but not normally present in the reservoir in large quantities.  Is this EOR?

Bottomline, I contend that we still need a more comprehensive review of the definitions, but mainly for defining how to categorize each individual effort to increase recovery.  There will be a future discussion with the Technical Directors of the Reservoir and Production sections to determine the value of a committee to provide more clarity.  We will keep you updated.

Now for the big elephant in the discussion.  How about the inclusion of EOR within the definition of IOR.  As from the ISO's definition of IOR - "process used to improve the overall recovery from a reservoir, including but not limited to enhanced oil recovery".  At this point I think the survey is very clear that this is not the preference of the SPE members in general.  We currently have 145 survey responses, and the breakdown is as follows:  Option 1 – IOR and EOR are separate: 2/3 or 66.67%; Option 2 – EOR as a subset of IOR: 28.6%, <1/3rd; Option 3 – IOR and EOR completely interchangeable: 4.1%; and 1 person voted for Other.

There is still time to place your preference on a broad perspective of the IOR and EOR terms.  The survey will remain open until Oct 15^th.  Here is a link to the survey in case you missed it.  Survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT

Or QR Code:

------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-26-2023 10:32 AM
From: Hafsteinn Agustsson
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

Hi everyone. 
May I air a view that as far as I can see hasn't been presented in the discussion so far? I hope I'm not adding confusion or throwing a spanner in the works. 

Twenty-five odd years ago the IOR/EOR distinction was a popular topic in Statoil, when our big oil fields in the N Sea neared their economic end of life with only water and gas injection.

Firstly, the use of various well solutions, including deviated, horizontal, multilateral, hydraulically or acid fractured wells in themselves are not considered part of the IOR/EOR discussion, but are well-to-reservoir connection techniques to help optimising the reservoir recovery mechanisms being employed.

We considered IOR as injection, optimised for macroscopic sweep efficiency, of fluid that was initially produced the reservoir. Produced water & gas re-injection satisfy this criteria. These may be termed as primary injectants. The ubiquitous seawater injection in the N Sea fields should, if being consistent, be considered as EOR, but was removed from the discussion for simplicity and defined as a primary injectant also.

WAG and SWAG are then considered as IOR processes, if only produced water & gas or seawater are used. Based on this definition, dry gas recycling in a retrograde condensate reservoir is also be IOR, even if the injected gas has a different composition than the in-situ vapour, since all the injected gas came from the reservoir. 

To be considered EOR, a recovery process had to introduce chemistry or process conditions to the reservoir that wasn't there before, e.g. as in most cases applies to thermal processes, injection of N2, CO2, solvents and surfactants. The resulting additional recovery can be due to either or both reduced Sor (microscopic sweep) and in-situ conformance control (macroscopic sweep), beyond what can be practically achieved with well types, placement and primary injectants only. That means that e.g. foam and polymer flooding are considered EOR, even if they don't reduce Sor.

I doubt that a universally accepted clear definition of IOR and EOR is achievable, but (as few as possible) regional ones would certainly improve clarity. 

Best of luck to those that are willing to try!

Thanks and best regards,

Hafsteinn Agustsson (retired). 

Agree, Marco. We cannot get stuck with concepts that worked 50 years ago! An engineer is, by definition, an innovator. So, it is difficult for me to understand some comments in this thread that mentioned the preference to use concepts that were taught many decades ago. I respect everyone's opinion, but innovation means that we need to be open minded and embrace change and we also need to set a good example for the young generation.

What is surprising how some of the old and dated thinking keeps resurfacing at conferences and even universities. The one that irritates me the most is expressing the volumetric displacement efficiency as a product of an areal and vertical  displacement efficiency. And yet, you still see it being presented and used today.

Marco, totally agree that the very simplistic approach of using different components to evaluate the overall displacement efficiency is dated. As you mentioned, it worked as a simplification when technology didn't allow to do better. Some years ago, I conducted a study while in Oxy getting to that same conclusion. 

David, I will add one more detail.

In reality, the splitting of the overall displacement efficiency into two (E = ED x EV) or even three (E=ED x EA x EVR), where

E=overall displacement efficiency

ED=displacement efficiency (think 1D here)

EV=volumetric efficiency

EA=areal efficiency

EVR=vertical displacement efficiency

...is incorrect. The overall displacement efficiency cannot be broken up into two or three independent terms as it is a highly nonlinear term, and each one influences the other. But it was done in 70's because it was a "nice" and "simple" way to break-up the the complexity that is hidden in the overall displacement efficiency, E. And that was a time when we relied on analytical solutions for pattern floods. It may have made sense then. It does not make sense today.

So even my suggestion to associate IOR with the volumetric efficiency, EV, and EOR with the displacement efficiency, ED, is buying into the ability to set E=EDxEV, which is not correct. The goal of ANY flood management is to maximize E. It helps to frame that effort into two main components: make sure to contact as much oil as possible (type, number, completions, and rates of wells) with as high of a displacement efficiency as possible (PVT and relative permeability properties). In other words, try to sweep as much of the oil (IOR) and displace as much of the swept oil as possible towards producing wells (EOR).

------------------------------
Marco R. Thiele
President and CEO
Streamsim Technologies, Inc.

Original Message:
Sent: 09-16-2023 11:47 AM
From: David Smith
Subject: The use of terms IOR and EOR

I was recently reminded that the terms IOR and EOR are not always used the same by everyone in our Industry.  As a past Co-Chair of the EOR/IOR TIG (Technical Interest Group) in the late 90' and early 2000's, I was reminded that during that period we did an unofficial and brief survey on how these terms were used.  I am posting a graphic representing the three most prominent uses of these terms at this time.  Option's 1, 2, and 3.  The results of this earlier survey showed that most SME's in this technology preferred to used Option 1 (~50% to 60%), but some used Option 2 (~ 30% +/- ), and a few used Option 3 (10% +/-).  The variation came from different groups that were polled.  Please review the PowerPoint Graphic to see Options1, 2 and 3.     

Dr. Ramey and Dr. Brigham taught me Option 1, so that is my preference.  However, since I believe that our society should try to be clear as possible in our communication, I would like to re-Poll or community.   I will post this on the Reservoir, Production and Research and Development communities.  I will do my best to collect the responses and provide a summary toward the end of October or if possible before ATCE.   

I have created a simple three question survey here is a link:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/F2N3MCT
------------------------------
David D. Smith

Adjunct Professor --- Petroleum Engineering -- University of Missouri Science and Technology

President and Principal Advisor --- Oilfield Conformance Consulting LLC.
------------------------------