ADNOC · ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY

CRM interwell analytics

Capacitance-resistance model on a simulated injector–producer pattern.

Demonstration · simulated wells

Wells, rates and response are generated. The treated injector I1 uses an uplift you set (default 26.8 % = peak uplift in the ChemEOR illustrative pilot). Replace with real well rates when available.

Why this matters for a field-trial decision

What the lab proves

Corefloods show a water can release more oil from rock under controlled conditions (e.g. CO₂ nanobubbles +12.4 % OOIP in the reference summary). They cannot say how a real well pattern will respond.

What CRM adds

Using only routine injection and production rates, CRM maps which injector feeds which producer, and how fast. That tells you where to run a pilot so the effect can actually be seen.

Fair baseline

CRM fitted before treatment predicts what the wells would have produced anyway. Incremental oil = measured − baseline, instead of “before vs after”, which is confused by decline and rate changes.

Decision value

Together: lab evidence justifies the trial, CRM picks the pattern, sets the success threshold, and measures the result. Approval remains a human decision by the review board.

P1 · observed vs CRM baseline

Baseline fitted on pre-treatment months only

Incremental after treatment: 2,768 rate·months · fit R² 0.985 · τ 2.75 months

Fitted connectivity fᵢⱼ

Share of each injector's water reaching each producer

Producer	I1	I2	I3	τ	R²
P1	0.43	0.11	0.05	2.75	0.985
P2	0.29	0.46	0.01	4.25	0.978
P3	0.09	0.39	0.32	2.75	0.981
P4	0.00	0.17	0.45	5.5	0.969

Strongest I1 link: P1 — the producer to watch in a pilot at I1. Total incremental across pattern: 4,991 rate·months.

Laboratory evidence, not field prediction.

High-pressure nanobubble diameter is not measured. Demonstration data is synthetic and cannot qualify evidence. The field and final test matrix remain unconfirmed; no validated proprietary Qualitization method is supplied.