See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315890262

Optimum design of CO 2 storage and oil recovery under geological uncertainty

Article  in  Applied Energy · June 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.017

CITATIONS READS

27 184

7 authors, including:

William Ampomah Martha E. Cather

New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
40 PUBLICATIONS   385 CITATIONS    43 PUBLICATIONS   234 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dhiraj Gunda Zhenxue Dai

New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Jilin University/Los Alamos National Lab
5 PUBLICATIONS   48 CITATIONS    157 PUBLICATIONS   2,601 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

GSCO2 Project View project

Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration (SWP) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zhenxue Dai on 28 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Applied Energy 195 (2017) 80–92

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Optimum design of CO2 storage and oil recovery under geological

uncertainty
W. Ampomah a,⇑, R.S. Balch a, M. Cather a, R. Will b, D. Gunda a, Z. Dai c,d, M.R. Soltanian e
a
Petroleum Recovery Research Center, New Mexico Tech, Socorro, NM 87801, USA
b
Schlumberger Carbon Service, Denver, CO 80202, USA
c
Earth and Environmental Sciences Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA
d
College of Construction Engineering, Jilin University, Changchun 130021, China
e
The Ohio State University, School of Earth Sciences, Columbus, OH, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

Co-optimization of CO2–EOR process under geological uncertainty is presented.

Multi-objective function is developed for CO2-EOR Co-optimization process.

Polynomial response surface model optimized using a neural network optimizer.

Operational control variables are optimized to increase CO2 storage and oil recovery.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents an integrated numerical framework to co-optimize EOR and CO2 storage performance
Received 26 December 2016 under uncertainty in the Farnsworth Unit (FWU) oil field in Ochiltree County, Texas. The framework
Received in revised form 11 February 2017 includes a field-scale compositional reservoir multiphase flow model, an uncertainty quantification
Accepted 2 March 2017
model and a neural network optimization process. The reservoir flow model has been constructed based
on the field geophysical, geological, and engineering data. Equation of state parameters were tuned to
achieve field measured fluid properties and subsequently used to predict the minimum miscible pressure
Keywords:
(MMP).
Enhance oil recovery
Co-optimization
A history match of primary and secondary recovery processes was conducted to estimate the reservoir
Uncertainty and multiphase flow parameters as the base case for analyzing the effect of recycling produced gas, infill
CO2 storage drilling and water alternating gas (WAG) cycles on oil recovery and CO2 storage. A multi-objective opti-
Response surface method mization model was defined for maximizing both oil recovery and CO2 storage. The uncertainty quantifi-
Neural network cation model comprising the Latin Hypercube sampling, Monte Carlo simulation, and sensitivity analysis,
was used to study the effects of uncertain variables on the defined objective functions. Uncertain vari-
ables include bottom hole injection pressure, WAG cycle, injection and production group rates, and
gas-oil ratio. The most significant variables were chosen as control variables to be used for the optimiza-
tion process. A neural network optimization algorithm was utilized to optimize the objective function
both with and without geological uncertainty. The vertical permeability anisotropy (Kv/Kh) was selected
as one of the uncertain parameters in the optimization process.
The simulation results were compared to a scenario baseline case that predicted CO2 storage of 74%.
The results showed an improved approach for optimizing oil recovery and CO2 storage in the FWU.
The optimization model predicted that about 94% of CO2 would be stored and most importantly, that this
increased storage could result in about 25% of incremental oil recovery. The sensitivity analysis reduced
the number of control variables to decrease computational time. A risk aversion factor was used to rep-
resent results at various confidence levels to assist management in the decision-making process. The
defined objective functions were shown to be a robust approach to co-optimize oil recovery and CO2
storage.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wampomah04@gmail.com (W. Ampomah).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.017
0306-2619/Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 W. Ampomah et al. / Applied Energy 195 (2017) 80–92
1. Introduction
CO2 enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is a long proven technology for
improving production from mature oil fields. In recent years, there
has been an increasing global demand for the mitigation of atmo-
spheric greenhouse gases such as CO2 [1–10]. The CO2-EOR process
has the potential of both improving oil recovery and sequestering
large volumes of injected CO2 thereby reducing greenhouse gas
emissions [11–13]. Using anthropogenic CO2 captured from other
industrial process can decrease the amount of CO2 taken from nat-
urally occurring reservoirs for EOR processes [14]. This type of pro-
ject is often referred to as CCUS, or Carbon Capture, Utilization, and
Storage. The Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestra-
tion (SWP) is one of seven US Department of Energy sponsored
regional partnerships charged with helping to develop technolo-
gies to implement large scale CO2 storage. SWP is currently partic-
ipating in a project in partnership with Chaparral Energy LLC to
study a relatively recent commercial-scale CO2 EOR project at
Farnsworth Unit, Texas. Overall project goals include monitoring
and verifying injection and storage of 1,000,000 metric tonnes of
CO2 during a 5-year injection period and subsequent 3 year post-
injection period.
In CCUS projects, there are two objectives that must be bal-
anced; flood performance to enhance the profitability of the EOR
project, and storage performance to optimize the long term reduc-
tion of CO2 emissions [15,16]. Numerical simulation results are
valuable tools for evaluating the performance of CO2-EOR. How-
ever, static parameter (e.g. porosity and permeability) and dynamic
parameter (e.g. relative permeability and capillary pressure curves)
uncertainties strongly affect the simulation results.
Uncertainties in static parameters can be reduced by history
matching, however the sensitivity of operational parameters should
be incorporated into reservoir performance modelling. Slight
changes in flood design parameters can cause dramatic changes in
predicted oil recovery and overall project net present value (NPV).
To decrease these uncertainties, finding optimized numerical results
using production optimization could be an effective way [17].
EOR Optimization process under uncertainty has been used in
several studies [18–20]. Recent studies have mainly used EOR
optimization based on Markovitz’ classical theory [21]. Other
optimization approaches have also been presented in literature
[22–24]. Al-Sofi and Blunt [25] used a parallel methodology to
optimize polymer floods under uncertainty. Gharbi [26] presented
an EOR expert approach to optimize reservoir management and CO2
floods in carbonate reservoirs. Several studies have focused on
optimizing NPV of EOR projects under uncertainty [27–29]. These
studies only focused on optimizing oil recovery rather than CO2
storage.
There have been a number of studies addressing co-
optimization of oil recovery and CO2 sequestration [30–33]. Some
of these studies used limited data and simple cases. Most of them
used a sector model to present their methodology. Forooghi et al.
[32] used numerical modelling on a sector model to co-optimize
CO2-EOR and sequestration. The study focused on sensitivity anal-
ysis of operational parameters and how their interactions affected
the co-optimization process. Several studies in the petroleum
industry have focused on the use of neural network (NN) concept
in optimization processes [34–39]. This approach is based on trial
and error. Mathematical details and the robustness of NN opti-
mization technology were discussed in the literature [23,37].
Few numerical simulation studies of CO2-EOR performance
have focused on the use of purchased vs. recycled CO2 in their
simulations. Ampomah et al. [16] presented a compositional
scenario-based prediction model of the CO2-EOR process which
incorporated the effects of CO2 purchase, CO2 recycling and the
81
addition of new patterns and/or infill drilling on oil recovery and
carbon sequestration. The study illustrated the significance of dif-
ferent injection strategies in achieving higher oil recovery and
CO2 storage, but examined a case with fixed well bottomhole pres-
sures and WAG cycles. The model was scenario-based; it did not
include uncertainty in operational parameters that might have sig-
nificant effect on both oil recovery and CO2 storage.
This paper presents a full field numerical based optimization
model under geological uncertainty with a multi-objective func-
tion to improve oil recovery and CO2 storage within FWU. Fluid
analysis, an initial history matched model, and developmental
strategies adapted from the SWP improved dynamic model are
used in this study [16,40,41]. Initial sensitivity simulation runs
delineate between more and less sensitive control variables within
several CO2-EOR operational parameters prior to optimization. A
design of experiment approach using a Latin hypercube sampling
algorithm is used to construct a surrogate model to reduce compu-
tational time. A quadratic polynomial reduced order model is opti-
mized under geological uncertainty using the NN optimizer. The
novel approach presented in this paper illustrates the quantifica-
tion of incremental oil recovery and CO2 storage in the presence
of uncertainty.
2. Methodology
In this paper a numerical experiment is performed to co-
optimize operational variables and maximize incremental oil
recovery and CO2 storage volume. The operational variables exam-
ined include WAG cycles, WAG ratio, injector and producer bot-
tomhole pressures, and CO2 compressor capacity. Some geologic
uncertainty is also included. The geologic model was described
previously by Ampomah et al. [42].
The objective function is defined to maximize both oil recovery
and CO2 storage. The oil production vector is defined as cumulative
oil production (Eq. (1)). The CO2 storage is defined as the amount of
CO2 purchased minus the amount of CO2 produced plus the
amount of CO2 recycled (Eq. (2)). In this work, an equal unit weight
was assigned to both vectors. A total of 37 possible uncertain vari-
ables were initially selected and assigned upper and lower bounds.
Variables included operational parameters such as WAG cycle, bot-
tomhole pressure, gas-oil ratio, and production rate target. Sensi-
tivity analysis with a Latin-hypercube sampling technique was
conducted to study the uncertain variables’ effects on the objective
function. Each variable was sampled three times (111 simulations
in total) in order to reduce the number of control variables to 12
(including the geological uncertainty) and to ensure the optimum
solution with fewer simulation runs. The outcomes were ranked
and eleven control variables were selected for proxy modelling
and/or the optimization process. The distribution ranges for
selected control variables were adjusted based on sensitivity anal-
ysis outcomes. A quadratic response surface (proxy or surrogate)
model was constructed based on the training data from numerical
simulations. The resulting response surface is a second-order poly-
nomial model determined by a least-square fit between the poly-
nomial response and training data. A typical quadratic response
surface is shown in Eq. (3). The quadratic model requires a mini-
mum of (N + 1) (N + 2)/2 training data where N represents the
number of independent variables. A total of 92 training samples
were selected using the Latin hypercube sampling technique. Ten
additional runs were simulated to validate the constructed proxy
model. Once a valid proxy model was accepted, it was subse-
quently simulated in lieu of full reservoir simulations for the opti-
mization process.
The neural network (NN) optimizer algorithm was used to
optimize the objective function with uncertainty. NN is a parallel
82 W. Ampomah et al. / Applied Energy 195 (2017) 80–92

Fig. 1. Multilayer feedforward network.

network of interconnected neurons within which each accepts a
set of inputs from other neurons and computes an output that is
propagated to the output nodes. This is known as a multilayer
feedforward network, wherein processors are connected in a way
suggestive of connections between neurons (Fig. 1). The neural
network is initially trained against N + 1 (where N is the number
of control variables) simulation outputs and once a satisfactory
outcome is realized, the NN objective function proxy is optimized
and compared with the original objective. An adaptive procedure
is used where new control variables and/or objective functions
are added to the initial training set to fit the NN system whenever
there is a mismatch. The error is minimized by adjusting the
weights associated with various interconnections.
For the optimization with geological uncertainty, vertical per-
meability anisotropy ratio was selected as an uncertain parameter.
A history matched study of the FWU suggested that combinations
of Kv/Kh values resulted in a successful calibration. Vertical aniso-
tropy ratios (Kv/Kh) of 0.1 and 0.5 were used to construct individ-
ual geological realizations. Note that all other grid properties were
kept the same (Fig. 2). There were two realizations within each
loop in the optimization run. A maximum of 1200 realizations
were run with the proxy model for each risk factor and a combined
objective function approach introduced by Couet et al. [22] was
used. The Couet et al. [17] method incorporates a risk aversion fac-
tor (k) illustrating the level of confidence in optimization outcomes
as shown in Eq. (4). For example, a risk aversion factor of k = 0
implies that there is 50% probability that the computed objective
function is greater than the mean, and a k = 2 represents a 98%
probability that the computed objective function is higher than
the vector mean within a loop. These confidence levels assume

Fig. 2. Two possible vertical permeability scenarios for stochastic reservoir modelling with uncertainty. Left represents a vertical permeability distribution with Kv/Kh = 0.5;
right represents vertical permeability with Kv/Kh = 0.1.
 W. Ampomah et al. / Applied Energy 195 (2017) 80–92 83

The field was discovered in 1955 with initial oil in place estimated
Base Model (History Match) at 120 MMStb [42,43]. The field was unitized in 1963 with Unocal
as operator. Water injection for secondary recovery started in
Define Objective Function (OF) 1964. Chaparral Energy, LLC (CELLC) acquired FWU in November
2009 and tertiary CO2 enhanced oil recovery began in December
2010. CO2 for the project is 100% anthropogenically-sourced, and
Select Risk aversion factor (λ)
is purchased from the Arkalon ethanol plant in Liberal, Kansas
and the Agrium fertilizer plant in Borger, Texas [14]. Fig. 4 shows
Select initial control variables the location of FWU, CO2 sources and Chaparral’s pipelines. The
geological description of the field is presented in prior studies
Conduct Sensitivity analysis [43–49]. The target reservoir is Morrow B sandstone at a depth
of 7550–7950 ft with an average dip of less than one degree. The
Update control variables productive limit of the FWU extends laterally to about 8300 acres.
The maximum net pay thickness is 54 ft with an average of 22 ft.
There are no recorded gas-oil and/or oil-water contacts. FWU
Proxy Modeling
reservoir initial pressure prior to commencement of production
was 2203 psi with a bubble point of 2059 psi and temperature of
Select Uncertain Cases (N=am)
168°F measured at a depth of about 7900 ft [16]. The initial oil sat-
uration was 69% and the formation volume factor was 1.192 RB/
Run N simulations and STB. The reservoir was slightly undersaturated with an initial
Compute N# of “OF” gas-oil ratio of 345 Scf/stb.
Ampomah et al. [45] presented the initial SWP geological static
Compute Combined OF(F) No model for FWU in 2015. The static model has been used by various
Optimizer researchers to study flow and transport simulation in different
routine context (e.g., hydrogeology, reactive transport, and risk assessment
Is F optimal? of the project) [50–55]. This previous model did not include newly
interpreted faults which was previously unknown. A geostatistical
Yes tools were used in populating reservoir properties without much
constraints. An improved FWU static model subsequently incorpo-
Stop rated a more accurate interpretation of reservoir structure and
stratigraphy using 3-D seismic data integrated with well log and
Fig. 3. Flow chart showing the detailed procedure for optimization under uncer- core data [42,44,47]. Interpretation of 3D seismic data collected
tainty with proxy modelling. for this project identified several previously unknown faults that
were included in the second-generation model. This model also
incorporates results from a hydraulic flow unit (HFU) study to
outcomes to be normally distributed. A flow chart summarizing
describe and characterize the heterogeneity within the target
the optimization under uncertainty procedure is shown in Fig. 3.
reservoir [44]. Eight distinct flow units were identified (Fig. 5)
There are two main constraints that guide the optimization defini-
within the reservoir. The porosity and permeability relationships
tion. In order for a solution to be classified as optimum, it has to
seen in the HFU study were related back to depositional and diage-
meet these two criteria including: (i) reservoir pressure, P has to
netic features noted in core, log and thin section data and descrip-
be more than 3700 psia and less than 5600 psia
tions [42,43,46,47] and a constructed facies model was used to
(3700 < P < 5600), and (ii) the injection target (recycled CO2 vol-
condition and propagate porosity and permeability as a function
ume plus purchased CO2) at any time must be no greater than
of HFU [44].
20,000 MScf/d, the maximum compressor capacity.
An upscaled model extracted from the west half of SWP’s FWU
Objective function ðFÞ ¼ w1  Cumulative Oil Production model has a grid size of 176  163  8 with block dimensions of
100 ft  100 ft. The total number of cells within the model is
þ w2  CO2 Storage ð1Þ
229,504. The Morrow B is the primary reservoir sand and is subdi-
where vided into four (4) layers. The sand is overlain and underlain by
low permeable Morrowan shales. The Morrow shale above the
CO2 storage ¼ CO2 purchased  CO2 produced þ Recycle ð2Þ Morrow B sand is overlain by Thirteen Finger Limestone. Together,
X XX X these form an excellent caprock to prevent upward CO2 migration
yðxÞ ¼ b0 þ bi xi þ bij xi xj þ bii x2i ð3Þ [56]. Some preliminary caprock analysis studies indicate that these
i i j i sealing formations are excellent seals capable of providing storage
of supercritical CO2 up to a column height of 10,000 ft. A type log
where y is the output response, b is the regression coefficients, and x
for FWU is shown in Fig. 5. Porosity distribution in the reservoir
is a vector of N inputs. Note that the first, second, and third term
has a range of 9.2–24% with a mean of 14.6%. Permeability ranges
represents linear, interaction and quadratic terms respectively.
from 0.01 mD to 181 mD with an average value of 58 mD.
Combined Objective Function ðCFÞ ¼ l  k  r ð4Þ Gunda et al. [40] provided a comprehensive reservoir fluid anal-
ysis on a FWU oil sample which has been used in various SWP
k is the risk aversion factor, r is the standard deviation, and l is the reservoir simulation models such as Ampomah et al. [16]. Reser-
mean. voir fluid was tuned to Peng Robinson EOS [57] with a Peneloux
volume correction [58]. The Lohrenz-Bray-Clark (LBC) correlation
3. Model description was used for the calculations of viscosities [59]. After tuning PVT
properties, a slim tube simulation experiment conducted on FWU
Farnsworth Unit field (FWU), located in Ochiltree County Texas, fluids resulted in a minimum miscible pressure (MMP) of about
is a mature hydrocarbon reservoir undergoing tertiary production. 4009 psia compared to experimental value of 4200 psia, represent-
84 W. Ampomah et al. / Applied Energy 195 (2017) 80–92

Fig. 4. Shows location of FWU as well two anthropogenic CO2 sources and various pipelines for transportation.

Fig. 5. (Left) Porosity-permeability relationships constructed for property modelling as a function of eight (8) distinct hydraulic flow units. (Right) Type log of FWU depicting
reservoir and caprock that were used in constructing structural model used in this study.

ing an error of 5% [40]. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to
study the effect of using recycled CO2 with or without impurities
on MMP predictions [40]. These analyses enabled modelling of
CO2-EOR performance incorporating the real world use of both
purchased and recycled CO2.
The current dynamic history matched model used in this work
is based on the improved static model that incorporates faults and
reservoir heterogeneity. It includes more primary production wells
within the field than were used in the initial history matched
model for FWU [16], as well as three of the main faults. A Sperrevik
model was used to model fault transmissibilities which is based on
shale gouge computations [60]. Results indicate that most of the
interpreted faults within the reservoir are open to flow; however,
they are closed within the Shale layers.
The primary and secondary recovery processes lasted for
55 years, from 1955 until December 2010. The simulated tertiary
CO2 flood was performed between December 2010 and July 2016.
From the simulation results, nearly 6 MMstb of oil was produced
during primary depletion. A total of 25.65 MMstb of cumulative
oil was produced by the end of secondary recovery from the west
half of FWU, representing nearly 40% of OOIP. Various waterflood
patterns swept the reservoir to a residual oil saturation of about
27% which could be considered as a successful flood. These results
are not unexpected given that there is enough mobility ratio (1.6)
between water and oil, and high injection throughout of at least 1.7
 W. Ampomah et al. / Applied Energy 195 (2017) 80–92
displaceable pore volumes. Model parameters (mainly permeabil-
ity) were adjusted to history matched primary and secondary
recovery processes within an error margin of less than 10%. During
the CO2 flood history match, initial preliminary analysis showed a
good calibration of simulation results to historical data until CO2
breakthrough when there was misfit between simulated and his-
torical results. This could result from a potential alteration in wet-
tability and changes in fluid interfacial tension due to CO2
injection. Therefore, it was necessary to adjust Corey parameters
[61]. Additional 2.6 MMstb of oil has been recovered since tertiary
stage at FWU.
The most important aspect of work from the SWP’s perspective
is the amount of CO2 stored within the Morrow B reservoir. A total
of 30 BScf of CO2 was injected, including both purchased and recy-
cled gas. About 93% of the purchased CO2 was stored as of July
2016. These results suggest that CO2 sequestration (one of the pri-
mary SWP objective) is increased by optimization of the WAG
process.
4. Results
This section presents results for the baseline model, sensitivity
analysis, and optimization under uncertainty.
4.1. Baseline model
At FWU, there are plans to convert seven extant water injector
wells and an additional six wells to water alternating gas (WAG)
wells. A constant CO2 purchase of about 10,000 Mscf/d from two
locations is likely to continue, and there is a compressor facility
to recycle produced gas, which is a mix of predominately CO2 with
some methane and nitrogen. As of late 2016, produced gas from
the field has a purity of greater than 90% CO2.
Ampomah et al. [16] developed a user-defined function to use
purchased and recycled CO2 to optimize a development strategy
for both oil recovery and storage of CO2. An improved development
strategy applied to this best scenario-based prediction was used as
the baseline simulation model for the current study. Proposed new
WAG injectors were queued to come on stream based on CO2 avail-
ability and/or project anticipated schedule. A total of 25 WAG wells
and 35 producers were introduced into the model by the end of
2020. The WAG wells were divided into four groups with similar
operational constraints.
The strategy involves continuous injection of 10,000 Mscf/d
purchased CO2 in addition to injection of recycled gas until the
end of 2021. At year 2022, purchased CO2 decreases to 8000
Mscf/d representing a 20% reduction and is subsequently reduced
annually by 1000 Mscf/d until 2030. After 2030, no CO2 is pur-
chased, and only recycled gas is injected until January of 2036.
Fig. 6 illustrates the CO2 purchased, available CO2 volume for injec-
tion, and actual injection profiles. Additional operational con-
straints include a maintaining a constant bottomhole pressure
(BHP) of 2000 and 5000 psia to producer wells and injector wells
respectively, and use of a constant WAG cycle of 3:1. The available
CO2 volume as shown in Fig. 6 illustrates that potential total gas for
injection cannot at any time exceed compressor capacity of 20,000
Mscf/d in the operational strategy.
Simulation results show a potential of storing about 74% of pur-
chased CO2 after 20 years of simulation as illustrated in Table 1. An
additional 15 MMstb of oil beyond primary and secondary recov-
ery could be produced. From the results, it is likely that CO2 storage
and/or oil recovery could be improved by using advanced opti-
mization tools. Operational parameters such as BHP and WAG
cycles could be optimized to achieve a given set of objectives.
85
4.2. Sensitivity analysis and reduced order modelling
Sensitivity analysis is used to better understand the effect of
each parameter on the objective function and reduce the number
of control variables in the optimization process. The main uncer-
tain variables in this work include: gas-oil ratio constraints
(GOR), group production target rates, bottomhole pressures for
producer and injector wells, and WAG cycles. A tornado plot show-
ing the top twelve sensitive uncertain parameters including verti-
cal permeability anisotropy is shown in Fig. 6. Important control
variables are listed and defined in Table 2.
4.2.1. Gas–oil ratio (GOR)
GOR is an important parameter in CO2 flood predictions because
CO2 has higher mobility than oil at reservoir condition. The com-
pressor recycling capacity for any field study must be considered
in setting GOR constraints. The sampling space limits were selected
based on compressor capacity. Sensitivity analysis shows that GOR
prior to year 2020 was the least important parameter because of
lower gas production during the earlier years of a simulation run.
GOR after year 2020 also had no significant effect on cumulative
oil production. Simulation results show an overall GOR less than
30 Mscf/Stb thus GOR was not influential enough to be selected
as control variable.
4.2.2. Production well constraints
Production well constraints such as bottomhole pressure con-
trol the rate of draw down within the reservoir. In miscible flood-
ing, an optimum bottomhole pressure is required to maintain
reservoir pressure above the minimum miscibility pressure
(MMP) needed for EOR. BHP prior to year 2020 had a slight effect
on cumulative oil production, but did not have significant influence
on the overall objective function. Oil sweep efficiency was not
adversely affected by higher CO2 mobility at the earlier stages of
prediction. However, during the latter part of simulation, BHP_P2
(production well bottomhole pressure, 2020–2036) becomes very
important in maintaining targeted oil production without compro-
mising reservoir pressure, as shown on the tornado plot (Fig. 7).
Optimum PROD_30 (Production Group Rate Target after 2030)
and BHP_P2 are important operational parameters that are doubled
to ensure higher oil production and contribute to maintaining
reservoir pressure above MMP in the CO2 flood design. At FWU,
there is a high possibility of the initial estimated MMP gradually
reducing with time, especially when all lighter components have
been produced. The equation of state used in the reservoir simula-
tion automatically computes a MMP within which its effect is
highly felt when gas production increases significantly. The most
important parameter in ensuring reservoir pressure stays above
MMP is injection well bottomhole pressure. From the tornado plot,
BHP_PI (bottomhole injection pressure) is very critical in maintain-
ing reservoir pressure above MMP to improve sweep efficiency.
Additionally, an optimum BHP_I is very essential to prevent oper-
ating above fracture pressure. Ampomah et al. [56] predicted a
fracture pressure of the Morrow B reservoir at FWU between
5400 psia and 5600 psia using mercury porosimetry data. These
pressures were used as constraints to avoid operating above the
fracture pressure.
4.2.3. WAG cycle
WAG cycle is one of the most sensitive operational parameters
in any field scale CO2 injection. The WAG procedure is used to con-
trol mobility of CO2 and ensure higher oil sweep efficiency. How-
ever, continuously injecting CO2 results in higher amount of CO2
injected into the reservoir, thereby increasing storage. The goal of
the CO2 flood project, whether oil recovery or carbon storage or
both, will significantly affect decisions on allocating WAG schedule
86 W. Ampomah et al. / Applied Energy 195 (2017) 80–92

Fig. 6. Shows CO2 volume profile for the baseline case. It is evident that not all available CO2 was injected. This could be due to failure to fully optimize control variables. The
gas injection rate is approximately the same as the CO2 injection rate.

Table 1 and are hence omitted as control variables in optimization process.

Summary of CO2 volume and oil recovery performance for baseline model. The implication is that changes in WAG strategy before year 2020
Results Units Baseline case would not affect the overall objective function.
CO2 Purchased Bscf 61.47
The top twelve (12) sensitive parameters mainly WAG cycles,
CO2 Production Cumulative Bscf 86.68 production target and BHP for injector and producer wells were
CO2 Injection Cumulative Bscf 132.36 included in the optimization procedure. The selected parameter
CO2 Recycled Volume Bscf 70.89 values are shown in Table 2. The co-optimization experiment
Total Storage Bscf 45.68
was designed using fast proxy models that approximated the full
% Storage % 74.31
Incremental oil Recovery MMStb 15 simulations in order to reduce computational cost. A total of 92
% Incremental Oil Recovery % 21 simulations were run during the training process to construct the
surrogate model. Additional 10 simulations were run to validate
the polynomial response surface model. The Latin hypercube algo-
Table 2 rithm was used for training, validation, and evaluation sampling.
Sensitive control variables used in the proxy and optimization processes.
Kv/Kh was included as the geological uncertain parameter to be
Control Variables Units Minimum Maximum used in the optimization process. Fig. 8 shows cross plots of
Gas cycle Well Group 1(GD1) months 2 10 responses such as oil, water and CO2 production volumes as well
(2020–2036) as amount of CO2 stored within the reservoir formation measured
Gas cycle Well Group 2 (GD2) months 2 10 at last time step (January 1, 2036) from the polynomial reduce
(2020–2036)
order model. The clustering of training and validation response
Gas cycle Well Group 3 (GD3) months 2 10
(2020–2036) around the equiline (trend line) shows accuracy of surrogate
Gas cycle Well Group 4 (GD4) months 2 10 model.
(2020–2036)
Water Cycle Well Group 1 (WD1) months 0 3
(2020–2036) 4.3. Optimization under uncertainty
Water Cycle Well Group 2 (WD2) months 0 3
(2020–2036)
Water Cycle Well Group 3 (WD3) months 0 3 Once the surrogate model was accepted, it was used in place of
(2020–2036) the computationally expensive finite difference simulation model.
Water Cycle Well Group 4 (WD4) months 0 3 The NN optimizer algorithm was used to co-optimize the objective
(2020–2036) function under uncertainty. A total of 1100 maximum iteration
Production Group Rate Target (PROD_30) stb 500 3500
(2020–2036)
was specified. However, the optimization process converged at
Well Bottomhole Injection Pressure psia 4700 5000 approximately iteration 334 depending on the risk aversion factor.
(BHP_I) Optimum values for gas cycles depending on the group ranges
Well Bottomhole Production Pressure psia 1500 2500 between 7 and 9 whereas water cycles was 0.1 to 2.5. The best
(BHP_P2) (2020–2036)
value for BHP_I is approximately 5000 psia. The BHP_P2 and
PROD_30 was 1600 psia and 2200 stb respectively.
Permeability anisotropy (Kv/Kh) was one of the prominent
for each pattern. The goal in this work is to co-optimize oil recov- parameters considered as uncertain during the history matching
ery and CO2 sequestration; therefore, an optimum WAG strategy is process. Values of 0.1 and 0.5 were successfully used to calibrate
important. Fig. 7 shows that WAG cycle parameters after 2020 the model to historical data. Two geological realizations with
have the highest impact on the objective function. In contrast, unique Kv/Kh values were constructed to conduct the uncertainty
WAG parameters prior to year 2020 do not have much influence analysis. It was necessary to use a stochastic optimization
 W. Ampomah et al. / Applied Energy 195 (2017) 80–92 87

Fig. 7. Tornado plot ranking of twelve control parameters including vertical permeability anisotropy (Kv) from the response surface model as a function of cumulative gas
injection and oil production volume. The x represents uncertain parameters and y represents cumulative gas injection volume.

Fig. 8. Cross plot of simulated/trained experiments in addition to validation points for various responses such as oil production volume (upper left), water production volume
(upper right), amount of CO2 stored within the reservoir (lower left) and CO2 production volume (lower right). The R2 values for all experiments are 1. The clustering of the
points around the equiline (trend line) signifies proxy accuracy.
88 W. Ampomah et al. / Applied Energy 195 (2017) 80–92
approach with different risk factors to estimate confidence levels of
CO2 storage and cumulative oil production. The confidence levels
assumed a normal distribution for all output vectors including
the multi-objective function. The objective function computed for
each case within a loop was combined into a single representative
outcome based on the risk aversion factor. It was evident that for
each risk aversion factor the mean objective function for Kv/
Kh = 0.5 always has a greater value when compared to Kv/Kh = 0.1.
Results from the optimized case predict a 50% chance that
incremental oil recovery at end of 20 years could be 17.40 MMStb
or higher as shown in Table 3. The 25% incremental oil recovery
shows about 4% increase over the baseline simulation model. There
is a 98% chance of recovering an additional 15 MMstb of oil beyond
primary and secondary recovery process irrespective of the
changes in the vertical permeability anisotropy. This increment
shows a slight gain of 0.13% over the baseline case. Fig. 9 shows
two realizations of oil production rate profiles from the optimized
case. The uncertainty associated with the oil production forecast
was very low until 2030. The effect of vertical permeability aniso-
tropy on oil recovery is more predominant after 2030. Fig. 10
shows cumulative oil production for the two optimum loops. The
amount of CO2 production in the Kv/Kh = 0.5 case increased to
the maximum compressor capacity of 20,000 MScf/d. This was
due to the increase in cross flow between layers in the simulation
model. Conversely, because of the lowered vertical permeability in
the Kv/Kh = 0.1 case, there was a suppression in the amount of CO2
production which reduced the amount of available CO2 for injec-
tion. The later phenomenon resulted in lower oil production com-
pared to Kv/Kh = 0.5 case. Fig. 11 illustrates oil saturation at the
last time step of the optimization process (January 1, 2036). The
left figure showing the case with higher vertical permeability
shows an improved sweep efficiency over the right figure (Kv/
Kh = 0.1) within the active CO2 pattern area. Within the active
flood area, the left figure shows extremely low oil saturation com-
pared to the right figure. Potential fluid flow across some faults is
seen in this figure. The higher saturation areas show extended
boundaries away from the active flood vicinity. These extended
areas contributed to the estimated higher oil in place which subse-
quently lowered percentage of recovery compared to other predic-
tion studies conducted at FWU. One of the important constraints
utilized in this study was average reservoir pressure. An optimum
case has to meet the pressure criteria which must always be above
the experimental MMP 3700 psia to improve oil recovery as well
as been below the maximum fracture pressure of 5600 psia.
Fig. 12 shows the pressure profile for both optimized cases. The
lower pressure profile for loop Kv/Kh = 0.5 beyond year 2030 was
expected due to the increase in oil production from this period.
However, the least pressure of 4100 psia was above the
pre-defined constraint. The pressure was nearly constant for loop
Kv/Kh = 0.1 case.
CO2 storage is an important objective of the SWP Phase III pro-
ject. The scenario-based model, that served as a baseline model
predicted that 74% of purchased CO2 could be stored. Table 4
shows detailed decisions at various confidence levels. The confi-
dence levels can guide management in weighing risk associated
with each operational strategy to ensure co-optimization of
oil recovery and CO2 storage. From the table, there is a 50–84%
Table 3
Summary of uncertainty associated with oil production at different confidence levels compared to baseline case.
Risk Factor, k Confidence level
0 50
1 84
2 98
probability of storing more than 93% of purchased CO2 within
the reservoir. This is more than the 19% storage that is predicted
by the manual scenario-based model. There is a 98% certainty that
more than 81% of purchased CO2 would be sequestered within the
reservoir during the 20 years of the prediction. The CO2 storage
potential in both loops was identical since beyond year 2030 all
CO2 injected is recycled CO2. Fig. 13 shows mole fractions of CO2
component within the reservoir at the end of CO2 history matching
(August 31, 2016) and distribution at the last time step of numer-
ical simulation (January 1, 2036). At the end of the optimization
process, the CO2 pattern flood area was saturated with a high per-
centage of CO2 in each grid block.
5. Discussion
In the future, oilfield operators may receive incentives for their
storage of CO2 within reservoir while using principles of miscibility
to improve oil recovery. There is certainly a trade-off between
maximizing oil recovery and CO2 storage. Incorporating risk into
predictions gives management more informed options to use when
making decisions about CO2 field operations. Manual optimization
is computationally expensive and tedious, making the process of
limited value in optimization of multiple parameters. It is difficult
to forecast performance when there are so many uncertain opera-
tional variables that are almost impossible to consider in manual
engineering designs. Manual optimization usually results in
assigning constant operating parameters for the duration of the
prediction, as demonstrated in the baseline case described in this
paper. In the current work, a state-of-the-art NN optimization
algorithm was utilized to improve forecasting performance of a
CO2–EOR field-scale project.
In this work, numerical simulations were used to predict co-
optimization of recovery and sequestration by constructing a
unique multi-objective function for each prospective scenario. A
surrogate model using experimental design methodology was con-
structed to reduce computational time. The proxy model as com-
pared to full confirmation simulation run using optimum control
variables resulted in an error less than 2%. This confirms the valid-
ity of the proxy modelling approach used in this work. A statistical
approach assuming a normal distribution of a risk aversion factor
was used to compute a combined objective function. Important
vectors such as cumulative oil production and CO2 storage were
derived from the best optimum solution, also assuming a normal
distribution.
An initial sensitivity analysis required a total of 111 simula-
tions. A single realization required about 1.5 h in a PC having a
CPU of 3.7 GHz. There are limitations in using fewer sampling
points within a sample space. A typical Monte Carlo simulation
run requires hundreds to thousands of simulations to accurately
compute effects on objective functions. For a full field-scale run
there must be a compromise between accuracy and runtime. The
Monte Carlo with Latin hypercube sampler sampled three times
within the ranges of operationally uncertain variables to ascertain
their effect on overall objective function. This process can intro-
duce some errors in selecting highly uncertain parameters as con-
trol variables for optimization design. Experience gained from
previous manual optimization designs gave some insights in
Combined Vector, MMSTB Incremental Recovery, % Gains %
17.40 24.51 3.51
17.06 24.03 3.03
15.00 21.13 0.13
 W. Ampomah et al. / Applied Energy 195 (2017) 80–92 89

Fig. 9. Oil production profile for two realizations based on optimum solution with different vertical anisotropic permeability.

Fig. 10. Oil production volume profile for two realizations based on optimum solution with different vertical permeability anisotropy.

Fig. 11. Left figure shows oil saturation distribution at the end of 20 years of the numerical simulation for loop Kv/Kh = 0.5. The figure shows internal area which constitutes
the flood pattern locations has been swept to the minimum oil saturation. This complements the high sweep efficiency and increased production recorded for this case. Right
figure shows oil production for loop Kv/Kh = 0.1. The interior flood area had a slight lower sweep efficiency compared to left figure.
90 W. Ampomah et al. / Applied Energy 195 (2017) 80–92

Fig. 12. Pressure profile for two realizations based on optimum solution with different vertical permeability anisotropy. The pressure profile depicts a high response from the
WAG cycles as well as production.

Table 4
Summary of uncertainty associated with CO2 storage at different confidence levels compared to baseline case.

Risk factor, k Confidence level Combined vector, BScf CO2 Stored, % Gains %
0 50 57.63 93.76 19.45
1 84 54.5 88.65 14.34
2 98 49.84 81.09 6.78

Fig. 13. Left figure shows distribution of CO2 fractions within the Morrow B sandstone reservoir at the end of CO2-WAG history match. This was part of data used to initialize
the optimization process. The red regions with the highest concentration of CO2 are near the location of CO2 injection wells during the history matching efforts. Right figure
shows the CO2 mole fraction distribution at the last time step of optimization process. This plot was identical for both loops.

understanding the potential effects of each parameter on the
objective. This procedure helped us in choosing possible ranges
of each uncertain parameter to reduce errors in the sensitivity
study. The control variables were reduced to twelve to make com-
putational cost feasible and to insure convergence.
During the optimization design, it is imperative to consider the
source of uncertainty in order not to invalidate a history matched
model. A large number of uncertain variables can reduce the accu-
racy of prediction models and may require a long computational
time for solutions to converge. The possible ranges for chosen
uncertain parameters also are critical. Uncertain parameters
should be chosen with experience derived from a history matching
process to avoid inconsistencies. In this work, knowledge from the
history matching process was used in selecting Kv/Kh as the uncer-
tain parameter. In order to reduce expensive computational time,
two geological realizations were used. Each of the chosen points
was initially tested during a history-matching process, resulting
in successful calibration of the simulation model. The objective
function changes approximated a linear behavior within the neigh-
borhood of the uncertain parameter’s mean. The optimization out-
come yielded optimum operational constraints to ensure a high
percentage of oil recovery without compromising on CO2 storage.
One important aspect of a successful CO2-EOR project is the
maintenance of reservoir pressure above MMP and below the
reservoir fracture pressure. It is therefore necessary to keep track
of pressure changes to always operate within this target range.
At the early stages of prediction one will argue for increasing the
oil production group target, however, this should not be done at
 W. Ampomah et al. / Applied Energy 195 (2017) 80–92
the expense of maintaining MMP. This requires attention to opti-
mizing BHP and production rate. An additional aspect of CCUS pro-
jects is maximizing available CO2 usage to ensure both a high
percentage of CO2 storage and optimal oil recovery. This work
showed that incorporating new patterns, reducing CO2 purchase
over time and increasing the recycled CO2 percentage and above
all optimizing a few key operational variables resulted in more
than 94% CO2 storage and 25% incremental oil recovery beyond
waterflood period at FWU.
The work applied a framework to co-optimize CO2 storage and
oil recovery using the multi objective function. This methodology
can be adapted and used to improve CO2 storage within other large
scale field projects without compromising on oil recovery. The
approach can also be used in different facets of EOR projects and
as well as with other engineering and/or science disciplines.
6. Conclusions
The reservoir optimization approach presented in this paper
demonstrates a method to optimize CO2 storage without compro-
mising on oil recovery in a CO2-EOR project. The sensitivity analy-
sis using a Monte Carlo sampler assisted in reducing the number of
control variables needed for the optimization run. The sensitivity
analysis also aided in assigning possible ranges and initial guesses
to improve convergence and achieve optimum solutions with min-
imum simulation runtime. A multi objective function geared
toward optimizing both oil recovery and CO2 storage was devel-
oped and used for the optimization process. Optimization with
uncertainty using risk aversion factors assisted in computing oil
recovery and CO2 storage at various confidence levels which is of
significance to decision makers. The use of reduced order models
reduced expensive computational time. The approach can be used
for multiple uncertainty scenarios but must be based on experi-
ence and knowledge of the specific problem to avoid inconsisten-
cies in optimization outcomes. In CO2-EOR optimization projects
it is important to monitor reservoir pressure to operate within mis-
cibility to avoid excessive CO2 production which would decrease
storage.
The optimization results demonstrate that there is 50% proba-
bility of sequestering more than 94% of purchased CO2, and pro-
ducing more than 25% incremental oil recovery beyond
waterflood period from the Morrow B reservoir within FWU. This
work used two unique constraints to develop the optimization
methodology. The pressure constraint was introduced to ensure
operation above the MMP at all times to increase oil recovery.
The compressor capacity constraint controlled the amount of CO2
and/or gas production as well as the CO2 purchase volume to
mimic the actual field operational strategy, enhancing the applica-
bility of this work to the operator without much difficulty. This
work illustrated a unique framework of incorporating geological
uncertainty into a numerical optimization forecast to assist with
decision-making.
Disclaimer
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an
agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States
Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal lia-
bility or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or useful-
ness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed,
or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned
rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, pro-
cess, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or other-
wise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
91
recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government
or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors
expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the
United States Government or any agency thereof.
Unit conversions
1 Mscf = 2.635 lb-mol.
1 lb-mol = 1.977E-05 Metric tonnes.
1 psi = 6894.76 Pa.
1 scf = 0.0283168 m3.
1 bbl = 0.1589873 m3.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this project is provided by the U.S. Department of
Energy’s (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL
through the Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestra-
tion (SWP) under Award No. DE-FC26-05NT42591. Additional sup-
port has been provided by site operator Chaparral Energy, L.L.C.
and Schlumberger Carbon Services.
References
[1] Soltanian MR, Amooie MA, Dai Z, Cole D, Moortgat J. Critical dynamics of
gravito-convective mixing in geological carbon sequestration. Sci Rep 2016;6.
[2] Gershenzon NI, Ritzi RW, Dominic DF, Soltanian M, Mehnert E, Okwen RT.
Influence of small-scale fluvial architecture on CO2 trapping processes in deep
brine reservoirs. Water Resour Res 2015;51(10):8240–56.
[3] Sharma SS. Determinants of carbon dioxide emissions: empirical evidence
from 69 countries. Appl Energy 2011;88(1):376–82.
[4] Jiang X. A review of physical modelling and numerical simulation of long-term
geological storage of CO2. Appl Energy 2011;88(11):3557–66.
[5] Gunter WD, Wong S, Cheel DB, Sjostrom G. Large CO2 sinks: their role in the
mitigation of greenhouse gases from an international, national (Canadian) and
provincial (Alberta) perspective. Appl Energy 1998;61(4):209–27.
[6] Wang Z, Wang J, Lan C, He I, Ko V, Ryan D, et al. A study on the impact of SO2 on
CO2 injectivity for CO2 storage in a Canadian saline aquifer. Appl Energy
2016;184:329–36.
[7] Zhou W, Wang T, Yu Y, Chen D, Zhu B. Scenario analysis of CO2 emissions from
China’s civil aviation industry through 2030. Appl Energy 2016;175:100–8.
[8] Nimana B, Canter C, Kumar A. Energy consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions in the recovery and extraction of crude bitumen from Canada’s oil
sands. Appl Energy 2015;143:189–99.
[9] Viebahn P, Vallentin D, Höller S. Prospects of carbon capture and storage (CCS)
in India’s power sector–an integrated assessment. Appl Energy
2014;117:62–75.
[10] Soltanian MR, Amooie MA, Cole DR, Graham DE, Hosseini SA, Hovorka S, et al.
Simulating the Cranfield geological carbon sequestration project with high-
resolution static models and an accurate equation of state. Int J Greenhouse
Gas Control 2016;54:282–96.
[11] Faltinson John E, Gunter Bill. Net CO2 stored in North American EOR projects. J
Can Pet Technol 2013;50(7):55–60.
[12] Han J, Lee M, Lee W, Lee Y, Sung W. Effect of gravity segregation on CO2
sequestration and oil production during CO2 flooding. Appl Energy
2016;161:85–91.
[13] Tapia JFD, Lee JY, Ooi RE, Foo DC, Tan RR. Optimal CO2 allocation and
scheduling in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations. Appl Energy
2016;184:337–45.
[14] Enick RM, Olsen DK. Mobility and conformance control for carbon dioxide
enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) via thickeners, foams, and gels – a detailed
literature review of 40 years of research. National Energy Technology
Laboratory, DOE/NETL-2012/1540, Activity 4003.200.01; 2012. 267p.
[15] Balch R, McPherson B. Integrating enhanced oil recovery and carbon capture
and storage projects: a case study at Farnsworth field, Texas. In: SP E western
regional meeting. Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2016.
[16] Ampomah W, Balch RS, Grigg RB, Will R, White MD. Farnsworth field CO2-EOR
project: performance case history. Paper SPE-179528-MS at SPE improved oil
recovery conference held in Tulsa, OK, USA. April 11–13 2016; 2016a. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/179528-MS.
[17] Sibaweihi N, Awotunde AA, Sultan AS, Al-Yousef HY. Sensitivity studies and
stochastic optimization of CO2 foam flooding. Comput Geosci 2015;19
(1):31–47.
[18] Couët B, Burridge R, Wilkinson DW. Optimization under reservoir and financial
uncertainty. In: Proc. European conference on the mathematics of oil recovery
(ECMOR), Baveno, Italy, 5–8 September.
92 W. Ampomah et al. / Applied Energy 195 (2017) 80–92
[19] Raghuraman B, Couët B, Savundararaj S, et al. Valuation of technology and
infor-mation for reservoir risk management. SPE Res Eval Eng 2003;6
(5):307–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/86568-PA. SPE 86568-PA.
[20] Welkenhuysen K, Rupert J, Compernolle T, Ramirez A, Swennen R, Piessens K.
Considering economic and geological uncertainty in the simulation of realistic
investment decisions for CO2-EOR projects in the North Sea. Appl Energy
2017;185:745–61.
[21] Markowitz HM. Portfolio selection. J Finance 1952;7(1):77–91. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1952.tb01525.x. This work was later refined by H.M.
Markowitz in Portfolio Selection: Efficient Diversification of Investments, New
York: John Wiley & Sons; 1959.
[22] Couët B, Bailey WJ, Wilkinson D. Reservoir optimization tool for risk and
decision analysis. In: Proceedings of the 9th European conference on the
mathematics of oil recovery, Cannes, France, August 30 – September 2.
[23] Couët B, Djikpesse H, Tonkin T, Wilkinson D. Production enhancement t
hrough integrated asset modeling optimization. In: SPE production and
operations conference and exhibition, Tunis, Tunisia (June).
[24] Bailey WJ, Couët B, Wilkinson D. Framework for field optimization to
maximize asset value, SPE 87026-PA. SPE Reservoir Eng J 2005;8(1):7–21.
[25] Al-Sofi AM, Blunt MJ. The design and optimization of polymer flooding under
uncertainty. In: SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, (July). p. 1–12. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/145110-MS.
[26] Gharbi RB. Economic optimization of EOR processes using knowledge-based
system: case studies. Pet Sci Technol 2001;19(7&8):797–823. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1081/LFT-100106901.
[27] Guevara JL, Ortega A, Canelón JI, Nava E, Queipo NV. Model-based adaptive-
predictive control and optimization of SAGD under uncertainty. In: SPE Latin
America and caribbean petroleum engineering conference, Quito, Ecaudor,
November 18–20.
[28] Alhuthali AH. Optimal waterflood management under geologic uncertainty
using rate control: theory and field applications. In: SPE Annual technical
conference and exhibition, (May). http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/129511-stu.
[29] Chugunov N, Ramakrishnan TS, Lukyanov A, Bailey WJ, Wilkinson D. Method
for adaptive optimization of EOR performance under uncertainty optimization
under uncertainty and global sensitivity analysis. In: SPE reservoir simulation
symposium, 23–25 February, Houston, Texas, USA.
[30] Van t Veld K, Mason CF, Leach A. The economics of CO2 sequestration through
Enhanced Oil recovery. Energy Procedia 2013;37:6909–19.
[31] Leach A, Mason CF, Van’t Veld K. Co-optimization of enhanced oil recovery and
Carbon sequestration. Resource Energy Econ 2011;33:893–912. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.rese- neeco.2010.11.002.
[32] Forooghi A, Hamouda A, Eilertsen T. Co-optimization of CO2 EOR and
sequestration in a North Sea chalk reservoir. Paper SPE 125550 presented at
the 2009 SPE/EAGE reservoir characterization and simulation conference, Abu
Dhabi, UAE, 19–21 October; 2009. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/125550-MS.
[33] Ettehadtavakkol A, Lake LW, Bryant SL. CO2-EOR and storage design
optimization. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2014;25:79–92. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.i- jggc.2014.04.006.
[34] Kim Y, Jang H, Kim J, Lee J. Prediction of storage efficiency on CO2 sequestration
in deep saline aquifers using artificial neural network. Appl Energy
2017;185:916–28.
[35] Priezzhev I, Scollard A, Lu Z. Regional production prediction technology based
on gravity and magnetic data from the Eagle Ford Formation, Texas, USA: 84th
Annual international meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts. p. 1354–58. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1190/segam2014-0289.1.
[36] Bishop CM. Improving the generalization properties of radial basis function
neural networks. Neural Comput 1991;3(4):579–88. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1162/neco.1991.3.4.579.
[37] Kobrunov A, State U, Priezzhev I. Stable nonlinear predictive operator based on
neural network, genetic algorithm and controlled gradient method, no. 1;
2015. p. 2941–46.
[38] Dai Z, Stauffer PH, Carey JW, Middleton RS, Lu Z, Jacobs JF, et al. Pre-site
characterization risk analysis for commercial-scale carbon sequestration.
Environ Sci Technol 2014;48:3908–15.
[39] Dai Z, Middleton R, Viswanathan H, Fessenden-Rahn J, Bauman J, Pawar R, et al.
An integrated framework for optimizing CO2 sequestration and enhanced oil
recovery. Environ Sci Technol Lett 2014;1:49–54.
[40] Gunda D, Ampomah W, Grigg RB, Balch RS. Reservoir fluid characterization for
miscible enhanced oil recovery. In: Carbon Management Technology
Conference November 16-19 2015, Sugarland, Houston-Texas USA. http://dx.
doi.org/10.7122/440176-MS.
View publication stats
[41] White MD, McPherson BJ, Grigg RB, Ampomah W, Appold MS. Numerical
simulation of carbon dioxide injection in the western section of the
Farnsworth unit. Energy Procedia 2014;63:7891–912.
[42] Ampomah W, Balch RS, Ross-Coss D, Hutton A, Will R. An Integrated Approach
for characterizing a sandstone reservoir in the anadarko basin. Paper OTC-
26952-MS presented at offshore technology conference held in Houston-Texas
USA, May 2–5 2016; 2016b. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/180375-MS.
[43] Munson T. Depositional, diagenetic, and production history of the Upper
Morrowan Buckhaults sandstone, Farnsworth Field, Ochiltree County, Texas
unpub. MS thesis. Canyon, TX: West Texas State University; 1988. 354. pp.
[44] Rose-Coss D, Ampomah W, Cather M, Balch RS, Mozley P. An improved
approach for sandstone reservoir characterization. Paper SPE-180375-MS
presented at SPE Western Regional Meeting held in Anchorage, Alaska, May
23–26; 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/180375-MS.
[45] Ampomah W, Balch R, Grigg R. Analysis of upscaling algorithms in
heterogeneous reservoirs with different recovery processes. Paper SPE-
173588-MS presented at the SPE production operations symposium held in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, March 1–5; 2015a. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
173588-MS.
[46] Ampomah W, Balch RS, Grigg RB, Dai Z, Pan F. Compositional simulation of CO2
storage capacity in depleted oil reservoirs. Paper CMTC-439476-MS presented
at carbon management technology conference held in Sugarland, Houston-
Texas USA, November 16–19 2015; 2015b. http://dx.doi.org/10.7122/439476-
MS.
[47] Hutton A. Geophysical Modeling and Structural Interpretation of A 3D
Reflection Seismic Survey in Farnsworth Unit, TX M.S. Thesis. Socorro NM,
USA: New Mexico Tech; 2015.
[48] Gallagher SR. Depositional and diagenetic controls on reservoir heterogeneity:
Upper Morrow Sandstone, Farnsworth Unit, Ochiltree County, Texas M.S.
Thesis. Socorro NM, USA: New Mexico Tech; 2014.
[49] Czoski P. Geologic characterization of the Morrow B reservoir in Farnsworth
Unit, TX using 3D VSP seismic, seismic attributes, and well logs M.S.
Thesis. New Mexico Tech; 2014.
[50] Ahmmed B, Appold MS, Fan T, McPherson BJ, Grigg RB, White MD. Chemical
effects of carbon dioxide sequestration in the Upper Morrow Sandstone in the
Farnsworth, Texas, hydrocarbon unit. Environ Geosci 2016;23(2):81–93.
[51] Dai Z, Viswanathan H, Middleton R, Pan F, Ampomah W, Yang C, et al. CO2
Accounting and risk analysis for CO2 sequestration at enhanced oil recovery
sites. Environ Sci Technol 2016;50(14):7546–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/
acs.est.6b01744.
[52] Dai Z, Viswanathan H, Fessenden-Rahn J, Middleton R, Pan F, Jia W, et al.
Uncertainty quantification for CO2 sequestration and enhanced oil recovery.
Energy Procedia 2014;63:7685–93.
[53] Pan F, McPherson BJ, Dai Z, Jia W, Lee SY, Ampomah W, et al. Uncertainty
analysis of carbon sequestration in an active CO2-EOR field. Int J Greenh Gas
Control 2016;51:18–28.
[54] Pan F, McPherson BJ, Esser R, Xiao T, Appold MS, Jia W, et al. Forecasting
evolution of formation water chemistry and long-term mineral alteration for
GCS in a typical clastic reservoir of the Southwestern United States. Int J
Greenhouse Gas Control 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.07.035.
[55] Ampomah W, Balch RS, Grigg RB, McPherson B, Will RA, Lee S-Y, et al. Co-
optimization of CO2-EOR and storage processes in mature oil reservoirs.
Greenhouse Gas Sci Technol 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ghg.1618.
[56] Ampomah W, Balch R, Cather M, Rose-Coss D, Dai Z, Heath J, et al. Evaluation
of CO2 storage mechanisms in CO2 enhanced oil recovery sites: application to
morrow sandstone reservoir. Energy Fuels Article ASAP 2016. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01888.
[57] Peng DY, Robinson DB. A new two-constant equation of state. Ind Eng Chem
1976.
[58] Peneloux A, Rauzy E, Freze R. A consistent correction for redlich-kwong-soave
volumes. Fluid Phase Equilib 1982.
[59] Lohrenz J, Bray BG, Clark CR. Calculating Viscosities of Reservoir Fluids from
their compositions SPE Paper 915. J Petrol Technol 1964:1171–6.
[60] Sperrevik S, Gillespie PA, Fisher QJ, Halverson T, Knipe RJ. Empirical estimation
of fault rock properties. In: Koestler AG, Hunsdale R, editors. Hydrocarbon seal
quantification: papers presented at the norwegian petroleum society
conference, 16–18 October 2000, vol. 11. Stavanger, Norway: Elsevier, Norsk
Petroleumsforening Special Publication; 2002. p. 109–25.
[61] Corey AT, Rathjens CH, Henderson JH, Wyllie MRJ. Three-phase relative
permeability. J Petrol Technol 1956;8(11):63–5.