The Enhanced Oil Recovery Petrophysics Training Course by Institute For Oil & Gas Training develops the technical expertise required for effective EOR Screening, reservoir characterisation, and the evaluation of enhanced oil recovery opportunities across mature and developing oilfields. Designed for professionals in the Oil & Gas Petrophysics specialisation, the course connects petrophysical interpretation with reservoir engineering decisions to improve recovery planning, reduce technical uncertainty, and support more informed investment in enhanced recovery projects.
As conventional production declines and operators seek to maximise the value of existing assets, understanding reservoir properties becomes increasingly important. Enhanced oil recovery programmes depend on an accurate assessment of porosity, permeability, fluid saturation, pore structure, formation heterogeneity, and hydrocarbon mobility. These properties influence the suitability of a reservoir for thermal recovery, gas injection, chemical flooding, and other recovery processes. Inadequate petrophysical characterisation creates uncertainty in recovery forecasts, injection strategies, production performance, and project economics.
Institute For Oil & Gas Training addresses this operational challenge by providing a structured approach to evaluating reservoir properties for enhanced oil recovery applications. The course examines how well logs, core analysis, fluid properties, saturation interpretation, and reservoir quality indicators contribute to screening decisions. Participants develop a practical understanding of how petrophysical evidence supports the selection of appropriate recovery mechanisms and identifies the geological and fluid-related limitations that influence project performance.
EOR Screening requires more than identifying reservoirs with remaining hydrocarbons. Technical teams must establish whether the oil is accessible, whether the formation supports the intended injection process, and whether the expected recovery mechanism aligns with the reservoir's physical characteristics. Porosity and permeability alone do not establish project suitability. Engineers must also consider permeability variation, pore-throat characteristics, wettability, residual oil saturation, fluid viscosity, pressure conditions, and the distribution of remaining hydrocarbons.
The course places these considerations within an integrated asset management context. Participants examine how petrophysical data supports preliminary screening, candidate ranking, injectivity assessment, and the identification of additional data requirements. The emphasis remains on using available evidence to distinguish technically attractive candidates from reservoirs that require further investigation before an enhanced recovery investment proceeds.
Thermal recovery receives particular attention because its effectiveness depends on the interaction between crude oil properties, reservoir temperature, formation architecture, fluid saturation, and the capacity to distribute heat and fluids throughout the target interval. Participants explore the petrophysical indicators associated with thermal processes and consider how reservoir heterogeneity, shale distribution, vertical permeability barriers, and fluid mobility influence recovery potential.
The programme also addresses gas-based and chemical recovery concepts from a petrophysical perspective. Participants evaluate how reservoir connectivity, permeability distribution, saturation characteristics, and pore structure influence injection performance and displacement efficiency. These assessments help distinguish between properties that support favourable recovery conditions and limitations that require additional reservoir modelling, laboratory investigation, or operational controls.
Another central theme is the relationship between data quality and technical decision-making. Petrophysical evaluations draw on multiple information sources, including open-hole logs, core measurements, production records, pressure data, and fluid analyses. Differences in measurement conditions, sampling coverage, and interpretation methods affect the reliability of the resulting reservoir model. Participants learn to recognise these limitations, document assumptions, and establish a defensible basis for comparing candidate reservoirs.
Institute For Oil & Gas Training presents the subject through practical petroleum industry applications rather than isolated theoretical concepts. The programme connects petrophysical interpretation to field development planning, reservoir management, production optimisation, and capital allocation. It equips professionals to communicate technical findings clearly to reservoir engineers, production teams, asset managers, and decision-makers responsible for recovery project evaluation.
By the end of the course, participants understand how petrophysical evidence supports EOR Screening, how reservoir quality influences recovery mechanisms, and how injectivity assessment contributes to evaluating operational feasibility. They also develop a more systematic approach to identifying uncertainty, comparing candidate formations, and prioritising further technical work. These capabilities support more consistent screening decisions and a stronger connection between subsurface analysis and business objectives.
Explain the role of petrophysical evaluation in EOR Screening and enhanced recovery planning.
Interpret porosity, permeability, saturation, and reservoir continuity in the context of remaining hydrocarbon potential.
Assess reservoir quality using integrated well-log, core-analysis, and supporting reservoir data.
Evaluate permeability variation and heterogeneity when identifying potential restrictions to fluid movement.
Understand how hydrocarbon mobility, oil viscosity, wettability, and residual oil saturation influence recovery potential.
Compare petrophysical considerations relevant to thermal recovery, gas injection, and chemical recovery processes.
Apply systematic screening criteria to identify and rank candidate reservoirs for further technical evaluation.
Assess the principal petrophysical inputs required for an initial injectivity assessment.
Identify data limitations, interpretation uncertainties, and inconsistencies that affect candidate selection.
Integrate petrophysical evidence with reservoir engineering and production information to strengthen screening recommendations.
Recognise the need for laboratory testing, reservoir simulation, and additional field data before final project approval.
Communicate screening results, technical risks, and recommended next steps to multidisciplinary stakeholders.
Support better prioritisation of enhanced recovery studies, technical resources, and capital expenditure.
Institute For Oil & Gas Training uses an applied, industry-focused methodology that combines technical presentations, reservoir case studies, interpretation exercises, structured discussions, and scenario-based assessments. The delivery approach reflects the multidisciplinary nature of enhanced oil recovery, where petrophysical evidence must be interpreted alongside reservoir engineering requirements, production objectives, and project economics.
Technical sessions establish the principles behind reservoir evaluation and enhanced recovery screening. Participants examine the relationships between porosity, permeability, fluid saturation, pore structure, wettability, and hydrocarbon mobility. Each topic is linked to decisions made during candidate identification, recovery mechanism selection, and preliminary project evaluation.
The presentations also explain the limitations of individual petrophysical indicators. Participants learn why a high porosity value does not automatically indicate strong injectivity, why average permeability can conceal important flow restrictions, and why saturation measurements require careful interpretation when estimating remaining oil. This approach develops a more balanced understanding of reservoir suitability.
Case studies illustrate how operators evaluate candidate reservoirs with different geological and fluid characteristics. Participants compare formations with contrasting permeability distributions, fluid viscosities, saturation profiles, and degrees of heterogeneity. They assess how these differences influence recovery potential and identify the information required to support a reliable recommendation.
The case studies also demonstrate the importance of integrating petrophysical findings with pressure behaviour, production history, core analysis, and reservoir simulation outputs. Participants learn to distinguish between evidence that supports preliminary screening and evidence that requires confirmation through additional studies.
Practical exercises focus on reading and comparing representative well-log and core-analysis information. Participants investigate porosity trends, shale content, water saturation, permeability indicators, and reservoir continuity. They examine how these properties affect estimates of remaining hydrocarbon distribution and the interpretation of flow capacity.
Exercises also address data consistency and uncertainty. Participants identify incomplete measurements, inconsistent depth references, differences between core and log-derived properties, and assumptions that influence reservoir interpretation. The objective is to strengthen the reliability of the evidence used for EOR Screening.
Scenario-based activities examine the interaction between reservoir characteristics and injection requirements. Participants assess how permeability variation, formation continuity, fluid viscosity, and pressure conditions influence injectivity assessment. They consider the technical implications of restricted flow, uneven injection distribution, and potential fluid movement through preferential pathways.
Thermal recovery scenarios explore the relevance of oil viscosity, reservoir architecture, fluid distribution, and formation properties to the screening process. Other scenarios consider gas and chemical injection requirements, with attention to reservoir connectivity, displacement behaviour, and the need for additional compatibility testing.
Group activities encourage participants to compare interpretations, challenge assumptions, and explain their recommendations using available evidence. Teams assess candidate reservoirs, identify screening criteria, and rank technical risks according to their potential effect on recovery performance.
These discussions reflect the collaboration required between petrophysicists, reservoir engineers, production specialists, and asset managers. Participants practise translating detailed subsurface findings into clear recommendations that support operational planning and investment decisions.
Participants bring the learning together by developing a structured approach to candidate evaluation. They identify relevant petrophysical inputs, establish screening criteria, record uncertainty, and determine where further testing or modelling is necessary. The exercise reinforces the difference between preliminary candidate screening and a complete feasibility assessment.
This methodology helps participants apply the course concepts to their professional responsibilities. It also encourages consistent documentation, transparent decision-making, and more effective communication between subsurface disciplines.
Enhanced oil recovery decisions influence production strategy, asset value, operating expenditure, and long-term field performance. A structured understanding of petrophysical screening enables organisations to assess candidate reservoirs more consistently and direct technical resources towards opportunities supported by credible subsurface evidence.
A consistent EOR Screening process helps operators compare reservoirs using defined geological, petrophysical, and fluid-related criteria. Teams gain a clearer basis for evaluating remaining hydrocarbon potential, formation continuity, permeability distribution, and the suitability of different recovery mechanisms.
This approach supports more transparent candidate ranking and reduces dependence on isolated indicators or unsupported assumptions. It also helps organisations identify unsuitable candidates earlier, before committing extensive resources to detailed engineering studies.
Injection performance depends on formation characteristics, fluid properties, pressure conditions, and the distribution of flow pathways. Better petrophysical interpretation helps teams identify potential barriers, permeability contrasts, and intervals that require further investigation.
These insights strengthen preliminary injection planning and support decisions about additional pressure analysis, core testing, formation evaluation, and reservoir modelling. They also help technical teams distinguish between favourable reservoir properties and conditions that require mitigation or further validation.
Different enhanced recovery processes require different reservoir conditions. Thermal recovery, gas injection, and chemical methods respond differently to viscosity, saturation, formation connectivity, permeability variation, and other subsurface characteristics.
Improved petrophysical understanding enables organisations to align candidate selection with the physical requirements of the intended process. This strengthens the technical basis for recovery strategy selection and reduces the risk of advancing a project without sufficient evidence of reservoir suitability.
Screening provides an early decision point between identifying a potential opportunity and authorising more detailed evaluation. By establishing clear criteria and documenting uncertainty, organisations can prioritise laboratory testing, simulation studies, pilot design, and engineering resources according to the quality of the available evidence.
The resulting benefits include more disciplined study prioritisation, clearer technical decision gates, and improved visibility of the assumptions underlying investment proposals. Actual financial results remain dependent on reservoir conditions, project design, execution, and market factors.
Enhanced recovery planning benefits from an integrated understanding of geological architecture, remaining oil distribution, and flow behaviour. Stronger petrophysical interpretation supports more informed discussions about reservoir connectivity, unswept intervals, production decline, and opportunities to improve recovery from existing assets.
The course also strengthens communication between petrophysics, reservoir engineering, production operations, and asset management teams. This improves the consistency of technical recommendations and helps decision-makers understand the evidence supporting proposed interventions.
Documented screening criteria and transparent assumptions improve the traceability of technical decisions. Organisations gain a clearer record of the properties evaluated, data limitations identified, uncertainties considered, and further investigations recommended.
This discipline supports internal technical assurance, peer review, and more consistent reporting across assets. It also helps teams distinguish preliminary screening conclusions from detailed engineering approvals and final investment decisions.
Understanding reservoir heterogeneity, flow restrictions, and potential injection challenges strengthens early identification of technical risks. Teams become better equipped to flag conditions requiring additional evaluation before implementation.
This supports more informed planning around injection performance, reservoir response, and the operational implications of the selected recovery method. The course complements existing process safety, well integrity, and operational risk management systems rather than replacing their requirements.
Participants strengthen their ability to interpret reservoir properties in relation to enhanced oil recovery objectives. They develop a clearer understanding of how porosity, permeability, saturation, wettability, and reservoir continuity affect the distribution and movement of hydrocarbons.
This enables professionals to move beyond describing formation properties and explain their significance for recovery screening and candidate selection.
Participants gain a structured approach to comparing candidate reservoirs and documenting the basis for their recommendations. They learn to distinguish between favourable screening indicators, unresolved uncertainties, and evidence that requires further technical investigation.
This improves their ability to contribute to screening reviews, reservoir studies, and recovery planning meetings.
The course expands participants' knowledge of the petrophysical considerations associated with thermal recovery, gas injection, and chemical recovery. They develop a stronger appreciation of how fluid properties, permeability variation, and reservoir architecture influence the suitability of different recovery processes.
This knowledge improves communication with reservoir engineers and specialists responsible for evaluating recovery options.
Practical exercises develop a more systematic approach to reviewing subsurface data, recognising inconsistencies, and assessing uncertainty. Participants become better prepared to identify gaps in the available evidence and recommend the additional measurements or studies needed to resolve them.
These capabilities support more defensible technical conclusions and reduce the likelihood of overlooking important reservoir limitations.
Participants learn to explain technical findings in terms relevant to engineering, production, and asset management teams. They strengthen their ability to connect petrophysical observations with operational implications, project requirements, and investment considerations.
This is particularly valuable for professionals working across multidisciplinary asset teams or presenting recommendations to senior technical and commercial stakeholders.
The course supports the development of professionals seeking greater responsibility in reservoir evaluation, petrophysical interpretation, field development, and enhanced recovery planning. It broadens their understanding of how subsurface data contributes to asset optimisation and long-term production strategy.
Participants return to their organisations with a more structured approach to technical evaluation and a stronger foundation for contributing to integrated recovery studies.
Petrophysicists: Strengthen the application of log interpretation and core-analysis results to EOR Screening and reservoir suitability assessment.
Reservoir Engineers: Improve the integration of petrophysical properties into recovery mechanism selection, reservoir modelling, and candidate evaluation.
Senior Reservoir Engineers: Apply structured screening criteria when reviewing development opportunities and prioritising enhanced recovery studies.
Geologists and Reservoir Geologists: Evaluate how geological architecture, heterogeneity, and reservoir continuity influence recovery potential.
Production Engineers: Understand how reservoir properties and hydrocarbon mobility affect production performance and injection-related decisions.
Enhanced Oil Recovery Specialists: Develop a stronger petrophysical basis for comparing thermal, gas, and chemical recovery opportunities.
Well and Formation Evaluation Specialists: Improve the use of well logs and formation data in screening and injectivity-related assessments.
Field Development Planners: Integrate reservoir quality and uncertainty considerations into field development strategies.
Asset Managers: Improve the interpretation of technical screening recommendations when prioritising reservoir studies and investment proposals.
Subsurface Team Leaders: Establish more consistent approaches to candidate ranking, technical review, and multidisciplinary decision-making.
Technical Consultants: Strengthen the evaluation of reservoir characteristics and the documentation of recommendations for enhanced recovery projects.
Oil and Gas Project Managers: Improve understanding of the subsurface evidence, technical dependencies, and evaluation stages that underpin EOR project proposals.
Petroleum Engineering Managers: Support better coordination between petrophysical analysis, reservoir engineering, production planning, and asset optimisation.
Experienced Petroleum Engineers: Expand their capability to assess reservoir properties and contribute to integrated enhanced recovery evaluations.
Effective EOR Screening begins with identifying reservoirs that contain remaining hydrocarbon potential and possess properties compatible with an enhanced recovery process. This module examines the relationship between reservoir characteristics, production history, fluid properties, and recovery objectives. Participants learn to distinguish initial screening indicators from the more detailed evidence required to establish technical feasibility.
The module also addresses candidate ranking, screening criteria, and data quality. Participants consider how reservoir quality, remaining oil distribution, fluid viscosity, and formation continuity contribute to preliminary decisions. The focus is on establishing a consistent evaluation process that supports asset prioritisation without treating preliminary screening as final project approval.
The Petroleum Resources Management System, developed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and collaborating professional organisations, provides a framework for classifying petroleum resources and evaluating project maturity.
It supports consistent communication of resource estimates, commercial considerations, and the status of petroleum development projects.
Participants examine how screening findings contribute to project evaluation and how technical uncertainty differs from resource classification.
The framework helps distinguish the identification of a potential recovery opportunity from the evidence required to support subsequent project decisions.
Explain the role of EOR Screening in reservoir management and field development.
Identify the principal geological, petrophysical, and fluid-related factors influencing candidate selection.
Establish screening criteria that reflect the objectives and requirements of the proposed recovery process.
Distinguish between preliminary candidate ranking and detailed technical feasibility assessment.
Recognise the importance of data quality, documented assumptions, and uncertainty in screening recommendations.
Explain how screening results support technical prioritisation and subsequent evaluation activities.
Reservoir quality determines how effectively a formation stores and transmits hydrocarbons. This module examines porosity, permeability, shale distribution, pore structure, and reservoir continuity as indicators of potential recovery performance. Participants explore how well-log interpretation and core measurements provide complementary evidence for understanding reservoir properties and identifying intervals with favourable characteristics.
Particular attention is given to permeability variation and geological heterogeneity. Reservoir averages often conceal differences between layers, zones, and individual flow units. Participants examine how these variations influence connectivity, fluid distribution, injection performance, and the reliability of reservoir-scale interpretations. The module also addresses the limitations of extrapolating measurements from individual wells across a wider field.
API Recommended Practice 40, Recommended Practices for Core Analysis, provides established guidance for obtaining and evaluating core-analysis measurements.
Core measurements support the assessment of porosity, permeability, and other properties used in reservoir characterisation.
Participants examine the importance of representative sampling, measurement conditions, and data quality when comparing laboratory results with log-derived properties.
The practice provides a technical reference for understanding core-analysis evidence and its role in reservoir evaluation.
Interpret key petrophysical indicators used to evaluate reservoir quality.
Explain the relationship between porosity, permeability, pore structure, and fluid transmission.
Assess permeability variation across reservoir intervals and identify potential flow restrictions.
Integrate core-analysis findings with well-log interpretations to develop a more representative reservoir assessment.
Recognise the effects of heterogeneity on reservoir connectivity and potential recovery performance.
Identify data limitations that affect the reliability of reservoir property estimates.
An accurate assessment of remaining hydrocarbons requires an understanding of fluid distribution, saturation, and the conditions governing movement through the pore system. This module examines water saturation, hydrocarbon saturation, residual oil, wettability, relative permeability, and fluid viscosity in the context of enhanced recovery. Participants explore how these properties influence the amount of potentially recoverable oil and the limitations associated with interpreting saturation measurements in heterogeneous formations.
The module also examines hydrocarbon mobility as a factor in recovery mechanism selection. Oil viscosity, pore connectivity, fluid-rock interactions, and relative permeability influence how hydrocarbons respond to pressure gradients and injected fluids. Participants consider the importance of distinguishing oil present in a formation from oil that is accessible to a particular recovery process, and they evaluate where additional laboratory or reservoir studies are necessary.
API Recommended Practice 44, Recommended Practice for Sampling Petroleum Reservoir Fluids, addresses the collection of representative reservoir-fluid samples.
Representative samples support reliable fluid-property measurements and reduce the risk of interpreting data affected by inappropriate sampling or handling.
Participants examine why dependable fluid information is important when relating viscosity and other fluid properties to reservoir behaviour.
The practice provides a reference for understanding the quality requirements associated with reservoir-fluid sampling and subsequent analysis.
Interpret fluid saturation indicators in the context of remaining hydrocarbon potential.
Explain the relationship between hydrocarbon mobility, viscosity, relative permeability, and reservoir flow behaviour.
Identify factors that influence the accessibility of residual and bypassed oil.
Evaluate how wettability and pore structure affect fluid distribution and displacement.
Recognise the limitations of saturation estimates when screening heterogeneous reservoirs.
Identify when representative fluid sampling, laboratory analysis, or additional reservoir modelling is necessary.
Selecting a recovery mechanism requires an understanding of the interaction between reservoir properties, fluid behaviour, and the operating requirements of the proposed process. This module evaluates the petrophysical considerations associated with thermal recovery, including oil viscosity, formation continuity, permeability distribution, fluid saturation, and reservoir architecture. Participants examine how these characteristics influence the assessment of thermal recovery candidates and the interpretation of potential operational limitations.
The module also considers gas injection and chemical recovery from a reservoir evaluation perspective. Participants compare the properties relevant to different recovery mechanisms and examine how formation connectivity, permeability contrasts, fluid compatibility, and displacement behaviour influence preliminary screening. The emphasis is on identifying a technically plausible recovery option and documenting the additional evidence required before detailed design or investment approval.
ISO 27916 addresses carbon dioxide storage using enhanced oil recovery, providing a recognised standard for relevant CO2-EOR storage activities.
It provides a reference for understanding the relationship between enhanced oil recovery operations and the management and accounting of carbon dioxide stored through those operations.
Participants consider the importance of defining project boundaries, evaluating relevant operational evidence, and distinguishing recovery objectives from storage-related considerations.
Its application is particularly relevant when assessing CO2-based recovery projects; it does not establish universal screening criteria for thermal or chemical EOR.
Explain the petrophysical factors relevant to thermal recovery candidate selection.
Assess how viscosity, permeability distribution, and reservoir continuity influence thermal recovery considerations.
Compare the reservoir characteristics relevant to thermal, gas injection, and chemical recovery processes.
Identify geological and petrophysical limitations that require further evaluation before selecting a recovery mechanism.
Explain the relevance of CO2 storage considerations when screening suitable CO2-EOR projects.
Recommend additional technical studies required to validate the suitability of a proposed recovery method.
Injectivity assessment examines whether reservoir properties and operating conditions support the intended injection process. This module integrates the petrophysical concepts covered throughout the course to evaluate formation permeability, continuity, heterogeneity, fluid characteristics, and potential flow restrictions. Participants examine how these factors influence injection distribution and why favourable average reservoir properties do not guarantee consistent injectivity across all intervals.
The final module focuses on integrated screening and technical recommendations. Participants combine well-log interpretations, core measurements, saturation estimates, fluid properties, and supporting reservoir information to compare candidate opportunities. They develop a structured approach to documenting screening criteria, ranking candidates, identifying uncertainty, and specifying the additional testing or modelling required to advance an opportunity to the next stage of evaluation.
ISO 27914 addresses geological storage of carbon dioxide and provides a recognised reference for relevant CO2 storage projects.
It covers considerations associated with the development and management of geological carbon dioxide storage operations.
Participants examine the importance of geological characterisation, containment considerations, and evidence-based evaluation where CO2 injection and storage are part of the project scope.
The standard is relevant to CO2-related project assessment but does not replace reservoir-specific injectivity analysis or constitute a universal standard for every EOR injection method.
Identify petrophysical inputs relevant to preliminary injectivity assessment.
Explain how permeability variation, reservoir continuity, and fluid properties affect injection behaviour.
Integrate well-log, core-analysis, saturation, and fluid-property information into a screening assessment.
Rank candidate reservoirs using documented criteria and explain the basis for technical recommendations.
Identify uncertainty and specify further testing, data acquisition, or modelling requirements.
Prepare a clear screening summary for multidisciplinary technical review and subsequent project evaluation.
Upon successful completion of the Enhanced Oil Recovery Petrophysics Training Course, attendees receive a Certificate of Completion from Institute For Oil & Gas Training.
The certificate recognises participation in the professional training programme and completion of its learning activities. Attendees are required to meet the course attendance requirement established by Institute For Oil & Gas Training to qualify for the certificate. Participants should confirm the applicable attendance policy with the training provider before enrolment.
Fees include tuition, course materials and refreshments. Need different dates or a different city? Ask about your preferred date.
The course explains how petrophysical data supports EOR Screening, reservoir quality assessment, recovery mechanism selection, and injectivity assessment. Participants examine porosity, permeability, fluid saturation, hydrocarbon mobility, and reservoir heterogeneity to understand how subsurface properties influence enhanced oil recovery opportunities.
The course is designed for petrophysicists, reservoir engineers, production engineers, geologists, EOR specialists, formation evaluation professionals, field development planners, and asset managers. It is particularly relevant to professionals involved in reservoir characterisation, recovery planning, candidate screening, and production optimisation.
Institute For Oil & Gas Training delivers the programme through technical presentations, reservoir case studies, petrophysical interpretation exercises, group discussions, and practical screening scenarios. These activities help participants connect reservoir properties with operational requirements and technical decision-making.
Participants develop skills in evaluating reservoir quality, interpreting permeability variation, understanding hydrocarbon mobility, comparing recovery mechanisms, and assessing the petrophysical factors relevant to injectivity. They also learn to identify data limitations, document uncertainty, rank candidate reservoirs, and communicate technical recommendations.
Yes. Attendees receive a Certificate of Completion from Institute For Oil & Gas Training upon completing the course, subject to meeting the training provider's attendance requirement. The certificate recognises completion of the professional training programme.
Register your interest
No payment is taken here. We reply within one working day with availability and a formal quotation.
Next: 09 Nov 2026
4 dates available
New courses, dates and industry insight. No more than twice a month.
