Concept Selection for Hydrocarbon Field Development Planning


Two methodologies to rank exploitation scenarios for hydrocarbon fields during screening and concept selection stages are described and compared. First a selection based on net present value valuation is introduced and an explanation on its limitations for field planning are given thus, a second selection based on a multiattribute decision model where other technical factors not directly associated to economics such as operability and reliability are considered. A comparison of net present value and the multiattribute decision model on a concept selection study case shows differences on the scenario selection for exploitation. Sources of the different outcomes between the two methodologies are identified. A stochastic analysis for the multiattribute decision model is performed to have a complete view of the possible outcomes since the factors in the multiattribute decision model are measured qualitatively and their values can vary depending on experts’ knowledge and experience. Recommendations obtained from the methodologies studied for screening and concept selection are given.

Share and Cite:

J. Rodriguez-Sanchez, J. Godoy-Alcantar and I. Ramirez-Antonio, "Concept Selection for Hydrocarbon Field Development Planning," Engineering, Vol. 4 No. 11, 2012, pp. 794-808. doi: 10.4236/eng.2012.411102.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] R. D’Souza and S. Basu, “Field Development Panning and Platform Concept Selection for Global Deepwater Developments,” Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 2-5 May 2011, pp. 1-7. doi:10.4043/21583-MS
[2] AACE International, “Cost Estimate Classification System: As Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and Construction for the Process Industries,” AACE International Recommended Practice No. 18R-97, 2005.
[3] “2011 Deepwater Solutions & Records for Concept Selection,” Offshore Magazine, 2011.
[4] T. L. Saaty, “The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation,” McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
[5] T. L. Saaty and L. G. Vargas, “Prediction, Projection, and Forecasting: Applications of the Analytical Hierarchy Process in Economics, Finance, Politics, Games, and Sports,” Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1991.
[6] J. A. Alonso and M. T. Lamata, “Consistency in the Analytic Hierarchy Process: A New Approach,” International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2006, pp. 445-459. doi:10.1142/S0218488506004114
[7] US Minerals Management Service, “Steel Catenary Riser Integrity Management,” Joint Industry Project, Summary of JIP. No. 4-4-5-010/TN08, Rev.1, 2008.
[8] A. B. Chakraborty, “Holistic Approach to HSE Performance Asset, Monitoring and Management in an Integrated Upstream Oil/Gas Corporation,” SPE International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Calgary, 29-31 March 2004, Document ID: 86744
[9] Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo, “Internal Report on Concept Selection,” 2008.
[10] L. Virine and D. Murphy, “Analysis of Multicriteria Decision-Making Methodologies for the Petroleum Industry,” International Petroleum Technology Conference, Dubai, 4-6 December 2007, Document ID: 11765.

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.