Executive Editors of SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
alternate writing the Executive Summary. This issue's summary is by Behrooz
In this issue, I want to report on the progress on several fronts regarding
the peer review process and this journal. In October 2006, when I started my
term as the journal’s Reservoir Engineering Executive Editor, I inherited a
list of approximately 120 technical reviewers. In attempting to update the
list, it quickly became obvious that only approximately 75 people on the list
were active participants.
In mid-July 2007, I sent letters to approximately 4,000 SPE members who, on
their membership profile, had marked Reservoir Description and Dynamics as
their principal area of experience and had indicated a willingness to review
technical papers, and I invited them to participate in the peer-review process
as volunteer technical reviewers. I requested that they complete a short form
and attach their resumes. More than 1,000 applications came back, and I
reviewed them all. I am happy to report that I have been able to recruit 240
new technical editors for the Reservoir Engineering side of the journal, and
route more than 200 applications to Executive Editor Alan Johnson for him to
consider as additional technical editors on the Reservoir Evaluation side. The
newly-recruited technical editors are highly qualified engineers and scientists
who come from academia as well as small and large operating companies. Fig.
1, which is limited to the reservoir engineering side, shows how the
available technical review expertise has increased as a result of this
|Fig. 1—Increase in Available Reservoir
I believe that the addition of new technical reviewers will provide better
quality recommendations because of the lighter load on each reviewer, as
well as enabling each paper to be reviewed by three experts instead of the
current system of two reviews. In addition to teams of technical editors (each
team reporting to a Review Chair), I am in the process of creating a team of
highly regarded special experts on several topics who will assist me in
reviewing appeals by authors and discussions submitted on papers as well as
providing opinions on narrow and specialized subjects.
As SPE evolves, it recently reorganized its publications group. Under the
reorganization/process optimization plan, the publications process is also
under review by a consultant and this should contribute to a more effective
peer review process.
With a team of highly qualified experts and an expanded coverage for special
topics, my next goal is to establish a lean and disciplined process. This will
entail adhering to the deadlines identified in the review process. An effective
and quick paper-tracking system is needed and will be implemented to help the
team monitor the process. Eventually, I want to address our journal’s ranking
among similar publications. I am planning to form a small task force to
identify the issues and recommend ways to improve our ranking.
Since SPE is a volunteer-driven organization, our success in improving the
process of peer review will depend on the dedication of our technical
reviewers. I am grateful for their devotion and commitment to this process.
This issue of the journal brings you 13 excellent papers:
• The first paper, by Zhang, Youn, and Doan, presents the results of the
utility of 4D-seismic and crosswell seismic imaging at Christina Lake, Alberta,
Canada, in understanding steam-chamber growth and the impact of reservoir
architecture on steam movement. As a result, bypassed oil in several areas
within the reservoir was identified.
• In the second paper, by Kumar, Ramanan, and Narasimham, the authors
examine the use of horizontal and multilateral wells in redeveloping Mumbai
High, a mature and multilayered oil field. As a result, the declining oil
production was arrested and an increasing trend was established.
• In the third paper, Moridis, Kowalsky, and Pruess investigate the
application of conventional technology in depressurization-induced gas
production from Class 1 hydrate deposits. They show that capillary pressure
effects play an important part in gas production from hydrates through the
emergence of banded structures of alternating high-gas-saturation channels.
• The fourth paper, by Jessen and Stenby, presents a detailed analysis of
the quality of two different fluid characterization procedures for miscible EOR
and CO2 sequestration. The research shows that swelling tests in some gas/oil
systems do not contribute to more accurate estimation of multicontact
• The subject of the fifth paper, by Ghorayeb and Holmes, is black-oil
delumping. The authors present a comprehensive black-oil delumping method to
overcome the limitation of black-oil-simulation models in providing detailed
compositional information for the purpose of surface process modeling.
• The sixth paper, by Coats, Thomas, and Pierson, discusses two methods for
the simulation of first-contact miscible, multicontact miscible, and vaporizing
gas drive. Both methods allow bypassed oil to be implicitly calculated as a
function of pressure and composition during the simulation.
• In the seventh paper, Satik, Kumar, DeFrancisco, Hoang, and Basham conduct
a numerical simulation study to investigate important modeling parameters for
more accurately predicting steamflood performance. The results show that the
status of surrounding patterns has a significant effect on
calculated-production-rate decline of the target pattern. The authors recommend
that the influence of boundary patterns must be properly accounted for in
• The eighth paper of this issue is authored by Chen and Horne. Conducting
experiments, the authors study phase transformation effects on relative
permeabilities in fractures. The results suggest that relative permeabilities
accounting for phase transformation effects have to be used in the simulation
modeling of geothermal and solution gas reservoirs.
• The ninth paper, by Svirsky, van Dijke, and Sorbie, presents the results
of a study that confirms the ability of a simple network model anchored to
experimental data to predict three-phase relative permeabilities with
reasonable accuracy. The authors also discuss the limitations of the network
model, such as reproduction of the imbibition behavior of the two-phase oil
relative permeabilities for highly permeable systems.
• In the 10th paper, authors Alhuthali, Oyerinde, and Datta-Gupta propose an
approach for computing optimal injection and production rates to maximize sweep
efficiency. They present 2D-synthetic and 3D-field examples to support the
robustness of their proposed approach. The approach can be applied using both
finite-difference and streamline simulators.
• The 11th paper of this issue, by Terrado, Yudono, and Thakur, illustrates
how practical application of surveillance principles can be critical to
understanding reservoir performance leading to improved recovery. The paper
outlines a practical guideline to consistently evaluate the reservoir
performance from field to block to pattern to well level.
• The subject of the 12th paper, by Cozzi, Ruvo, Scaglioni, and Lyne, is
improving permeability log estimation by core-plug data preprocessing. The
authors investigate the application of two techniques on turbidite reservoirs
and identify the strength and weaknesses of both approaches.
• The 13th paper of this issue, by Behrend, Chugh, and McKishnie, discusses
the development of the Strasshof Tief sour-gas field and whether acid gas
injection could be a viable alternative to a sulfur plant. Compositional
simulation modeling was conducted to investigate the viability of the injection
and to optimize the placement of the injectors as well as the timing and
duration of the injection.