Does retained surfactant fit the screening budget?
Interactive screening tool
Appearance
Live readoutPASS
Cret
—
RFinc
—
Total UTCUTC
—
Net margin
—
Gate margin Bmax − Cret
—
Screening variables — primary
0.155 mg/g
1.60 USD/lb
0.55
Surfactant EOR · HTHS carbonates
Does retained surfactant fit the screening budget?
This page screens a surfactant flood in a high-temperature, high-salinity carbonate on one question:
does the cost of the surfactant left on the rock fit the budget a field project can carry? Laboratory
recovery Rlab is scaled to field incremental recovery RFinc through the maturity
ratio and the volumetric sweep. The retained surfactant mass is then priced per incremental barrel as the
retention cost Cret, tested against the retention budget Bmax, and carried into the
unit technical cost stack against the screening oil price. Every input is a SAMPLE value, and the
0.11 mg·g−1 target retention is a SAMPLE screening target. At the scenario specified in
Section 2 the transform returns RFinc = — and a retention
cost Cret = —, which — the
Bmax = — screening ceiling, against a total unit
technical cost of — and a net margin of
—.
SAMPLE Computed in the browser from the SAMPLE inputs in Section 2
—
Retention cost Cret · USD/inc. bbl
—
RFinc · % OOIP
—
Total UTC · USD/inc. bbl
—
Gate margin Bmax − Cret
This page is a general screening tool that runs on SAMPLE inputs. Manuscript prepared; pending review. Interactive materials and supporting files are not currently offered for public access.
Scenario record
Scroll across to inspect every column.
Prepared by
Imad A. Adel
Subject
Surfactant EOR · HTHS carbonates
Basis
SAMPLE inputs · general screening tool
Scenario status
BASE CASE
Summary of results — current scenariobase case
Retention cost Cret
—
Gate margin
—
RFinc
—
Retained mass Mloss
—
lb per inc. bbl
Total UTC
—
Net margin
—
HOW TO USE
What this is
This page is a general screening tool that runs on SAMPLE inputs. The page opens on a SAMPLE base case — Γ = 0.155 mg/g-rock,
Ps = 1.60 USD/lb, Ev = 0.55, Rlab = 84.0 % of Sorw — and the
status field reads BASE CASE until an input changes.
Parameters
Every input lives in Section 2. Retention Γ, surfactant price Ps and sweep efficiency
Ev carry sliders at the top of that section; the recovery basis, the economic frame and the
four base unit-technical-cost rows are entered numerically.
Live model
Sections 7 to 10 recompute from Section 2 on every edit: the recovery transform, the retention-cost
gate, the unit technical cost stack, and the two Cret maps.
Figures are interactive
Hover for exact values, drag to zoom, double-click to reset the axes, and use the camera icon to
download a PNG.
Export and reset
Export scenario downloads a text file of all inputs and computed outputs at full precision. Reset
base case restores the SAMPLE base case.
Where things are
Screening method, governing equations and SAMPLE calibration anchors in Section 1, parameters in
Section 2, screening outputs in Sections 7 to 10, assumptions and limitations in Section 11.
Section 01 · Basis and screening method
Basis and screening method
The screening turns a laboratory displacement result into a field-scale test of what the retained
surfactant costs. Stage A scales recovery to an OOIP basis; Stage B prices the surfactant left on the
rock per incremental barrel; Stage C holds that price against a budget and carries it into the unit
technical cost stack. Every input on this page is a SAMPLE value.
Prepared by Imad A. Adel
Stage A — Volumetric upscaling
Laboratory tertiary recovery is reported as a fraction of Sorw. Field screening requires
incremental recovery on an OOIP basis, so Rlab is scaled by the maturity ratio
Sorw/Soi and the volumetric sweep efficiency Ev, and capped at the
technical limit RFtech.
Stage B — Retention pricing
Cret prices the surfactant mass retained on rock after the post-flush material balance, per
incremental barrel. It excludes mobile surfactant in the produced stream, polymer and alkali costs, water
handling, and facilities.
Stage C — Gate and cost stack
The retention budget Bmax gates field translation, and the inversion of the retention-cost
relation returns the maximum allowable retention Γmax for a given budget. Cret then
enters the unit technical cost stack against the screening oil price. At the current scenario
Cret = — and Γmax at Bmax is
—.
Governing equations — screening relations
SAMPLE calibration anchors (not editable). K = 12.5 is the lumped constant in Cret = K · Γ ·
Ps / Ev. Γr,max = 0.165 mg/g-rock, Cret,base = 5.64 USD per
incremental bbl, Ps,base = 1.60 USD/lb, RFinc,base = 22.2 % OOIP and
Mloss = 3.52 lb per incremental bbl are the SAMPLE calibration anchors of the two
Γmax forms. Each is computed from K and the SAMPLE base case, not entered.
Displayed values carry one decimal (Γmax three); the scenario export carries full precision.
Section 02 · Scenario parameters
Scenario parameters
The specification below opens at a SAMPLE base case. Every field is
editable, and Sections 7 to 10 recompute from these values. Retention Γ, surfactant price Ps and
volumetric sweep Ev are the screening variables and carry sliders; the remaining fields are
entered numerically. Temperature, salinity and permeability are not model inputs;
they act only through the values entered for recovery, retention and sweep.
Prepared by Imad A. Adel
Screening variables — primary
0.155 mg/g
0.10SAMPLE target 0.110.28
1.60 USD/lb
0.75markers 1.25 · 1.60 · 2.002.50
0.55
0.40polymer-assisted sweep assumption0.80
2.1 · Screening variables
Scroll across to inspect every column.
Parameter
Value ✎
Unit
mg/g-rock
USD/lb
fraction
2.2 · Recovery basis
Scroll across to inspect every column.
Parameter
Value ✎
Unit
% of Sorw
fraction
% OOIP
2.3 · Economic frame
Scroll across to inspect every column.
Parameter
Value ✎
Unit
USD/inc. bbl
USD/inc. bbl
USD/bbl
2.4 · Unit technical cost — base rows
Scroll across to inspect every column.
Cost element
Value ✎
Unit
USD/inc. bbl
USD/inc. bbl
USD/inc. bbl
USD/inc. bbl
Retained mass Mloss = K · Γ / Ev = — lb per incremental bbl
· Cret = — USD per incremental bbl ·
RFinc = — % OOIP · base rows sum — USD per
incremental bbl. The four base rows above are SAMPLE screening
assumptions; the retention row is computed, never entered.
Section 07 · Recovery transform · live
Recovery transform
Field screening requires incremental recovery on an OOIP basis. Sorw/Soi is the
maturity ratio linking remaining oil after waterflooding to initial oil saturation, and Ev is the
field volumetric sweep efficiency, treated as a conditional input dependent on polymer-assisted sweep rather
than a laboratory result. At Rlab =
— % of Sorw, Sorw/Soi =
— and Ev = —, the
transform returns RFinc = — % OOIP against a volumetric
ceiling of — % OOIP even at Rlab = 100 %. Near that limit
RFinc is sensitive to Ev: at the SAMPLE Sorw/Soi = 0.48 and
Rlab = 84.0 %, RFinc falls from 22.2 % OOIP at Ev = 0.55 to 16.1 % OOIP at
Ev = 0.40.
Prepared by Imad A. Adel
Fig. 6
Fig. 6 — Incremental recovery factor over the sweep–recovery plane.
RFinc = min(Rlab · Sorw/Soi · Ev,
RFtech) in % OOIP, contoured over Ev = 0.40–0.80 and Rlab = 50–100 % of
Sorw on a 120 × 100 grid; the flat upper region is the volumetric ceiling RFtech.
The dashed curve is the isoline at the current RFinc, the
amber star is the SAMPLE base case at (0.55, 84.0), and the open marker is the current scenario.
Recomputes from Section 2.
Section 08 · Retention-cost gate · live
Retention-cost gate
A retention budget B in USD per incremental bbl sets the economic limit for retention-controlled
screening. The SAMPLE base case uses Bmax = 6 USD per incremental bbl as the upper-limit gate on the
retention penalty and Bperf = 4 USD per incremental bbl as the preferred early screen. Inverting the
retention-cost relation converts the budget into a maximum allowable retention Γmax. At the
current scenario Γmax = — at Bmax, against an
operating retention of —.
Prepared by Imad A. Adel
Fig. 7
Fig. 7 — Maximum allowable retention satisfying the retention-cost budget.
(a) Γmax (mg/g-rock) contoured over surfactant price Ps = 0.75–2.50 USD/lb and
budget B = 2–8 USD per incremental bbl at fixed RFinc,base = 22.2 % OOIP; the diverging scale is
centred on Γr,max = 0.165 mg/g-rock, the dashed line is that isoline, the dash-dot horizontal is
the current Bmax, the dotted verticals are the price markers 1.25, 1.60 and 2.00 USD/lb, and the
amber star is the SAMPLE base case at (1.60, 5.64), its retention cost at the base price. (b) Γmax against RFinc in % OOIP for
B = current Bmax (solid), Bperf (dashed) and 8 USD per incremental bbl (long dash-dot); the
petrol fill is the region satisfying Bmax, the grey band lies beyond the technical limit
RFtech, and the open marker is the current scenario. The contours and curves use the anchored
Γmax form (0.1755 mg/g-rock at the SAMPLE base case and Bmax), while the meta line above
the figure shows the readout form (0.165 mg/g-rock); Section 11 states the difference. Recomputes from Section 2.
Gate verdict
At Γ = — and Ps = —,
the retention cost is Cret = — against Bmax =
—. —
RETENTION-COST GATE NOT SATISFIED
Cret = — USD per incremental bbl exceeds the budget
Bmax = — USD per incremental bbl. The retained-surfactant
penalty is outside the screening budget at this combination of retention, price and sweep.
Section 09 · Unit technical cost · live
Unit technical cost
Retention Γ drives Cret linearly, so retention is the primary optimisation parameter for widening
screening margin and lowering unit technical cost. The stack below decomposes the per-incremental-bbl cost
into facilities CAPEX, OPEX, non-surfactant chemical spend, effective surfactant, and the retained-mass
penalty carried in Cret. Lowering retention to the SAMPLE target Γ = 0.11 mg·g−1 at base price and sweep
reduces Cret to 4.00 USD/bbl, freeing 1.64 USD/bbl inside the retention budget. At the current
scenario the total unit technical cost is — against a screening oil
price of —, leaving a net margin of
—.
Prepared by Imad A. Adel
Fig. 8
Fig. 8 — Unit technical cost stack at the screening oil price, USD per
incremental bbl. The four petrol bars are the base cost rows entered in Section 2, stacked; the red bar is
the computed retention cost Cret; the ink bar is the total unit technical cost and the closing
bar is the net margin against the dashed oil-price line. Bar labels carry one decimal. Recomputes from
Section 2.
Section 10 · Retention-cost maps · live
Retention-cost maps
The retention-cost screening links two coupled parameters: Γ sets Cret at fixed Ps,
while Ev sets RFinc and shifts the iso-cost contours. The maps below evaluate
Cret = K · Γ · Ps / Ev in the sweep–retention and price–retention planes,
with the Bmax and Bperf iso-cost boundaries drawn on both. The SAMPLE base case lies 0.36 USD per incremental bbl inside the
Bmax boundary: at base price and sweep, a retention increase of 0.010 mg/g-rock closes the gate. Strategies that reduce Γ widen the margin without
requiring higher Ev.
Prepared by Imad A. Adel
Fig. 9
Fig. 9 — Retention-cost maps, Cret in USD per incremental bbl.
(a) Cret over sweep efficiency Ev = 0.45–0.75 and retention Γ = 0.10–0.275
mg/g-rock at the current surfactant price. (b) Cret over Ps = 0.75–2.50 USD/lb and
the same retention range at the current sweep efficiency; dotted verticals are the price markers. The
diverging scale is centred on the current Bmax, petrol below the gate and red above it; the
solid line is the Bmax iso-cost boundary and the dashed line is Bperf. The amber star
is the SAMPLE base case at Γ = 0.155 mg/g-rock, the red star is the 0.11 mg/g-rock SAMPLE retention target,
and the open marker is the current scenario. Recomputes from Section 2.
Section 11 · Assumptions and limitations
Assumptions and limitations
Prepared by Imad A. Adel
Assumptions and limitations
How this was computed
Every number on this page is computed in the browser from the SAMPLE inputs in Section 2. Incremental recovery is the laboratory recovery scaled by the maturity ratio and the sweep efficiency and capped at the technical limit. The retention cost is Cret = K · Γ · Ps / Ev with the SAMPLE constant K = 12.5; the gate compares it with the budget Bmax, and inverting it gives the maximum allowable retention at a budget. The unit technical cost adds Cret to the four SAMPLE base cost rows and is read against the screening oil price.
The calibration anchors printed in Section 1 are computed from K and the SAMPLE base case. The page carries no experimental record; every default is a SAMPLE value, and any value a reader enters replaces it.
Screening under the stated assumptions. Cret prices retained surfactant mass only; it is not a project NPV model.