Complexity of the capital intensive oil and gas portfolio investments is continuously growing. It is manifested in the constant increase in the type, number and degree of risks and uncertainties, which consequently lead to more challenging decision making problems. A typical complex decision making problem in petroleum exploration and production (E&P) is the selection and prioritization of oilfields/projects in a portfolio investment. Prioritizing oilfields maybe required for different purposes, including the achievement of a targeted production and allocation of limited available development resources. These resources cannot be distributed evenly nor can they be allocated based on the oilfield size or production capacity alone since various other factors need to be considered simultaneously. These factors may include subsurface complexity, size of reservoir, plateau production and needed infrastructure in addition to other issues of strategic concern, such as socio-economic, environmental and fiscal policies, particularly when the decision making involves governments or national oil companies. Therefore, it would be imperative to employ decision aiding tools that not only address these factors, but also incorporate the decision makers’ preferences clearly and accurately. However, the tools commonly used in project portfolio selection and optimization, including intuitive approaches, vary in their focus and strength in addressing the different criteria involved in such decision problems. They are also disadvantaged by a number of drawbacks, which may include lacking the capacity to address multiple and interrelated criteria, uncertainty and risk, project relationship with regard to value contribution and optimum resource utilization, non-monetary attributes, decision maker’s knowledge and expertise, in addition to varying levels of ease of use and other practical and theoretical drawbacks. These drawbacks have motivated researchers to investigate other tools and techniques that can provide more flexibility and inclusiveness in the decision making process, such as Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods. However, it can be observed that the MCDM literature: 1) is primarily focused on suggesting certain MCDM techniques to specific problems without providing sufficient evidence for their selection, 2) is inadequate in addressing MCDM in E&P portfolio selection and prioritization compared with other fields, and 3) does not address prioritizing brownfields (i.e., developed oilfields). This research study aims at addressing the above drawbacks through combining three MCDM methods (i.e., AHP, PROMETHEE and TOPSIS) into a single decision making tool that can support optimal oilfield portfolio investment decisions by helping determine the share of each oilfield of the total development resources allocated. Selecting these methods is reinforced by a pre-deployment and post-deployment validation framework. In addition, this study proposes a two-dimensional consistency test to verify the output coherence or prioritization stability of the MCDM methods in comparison with an intuitive approach. Nine scenarios representing all possible outcomes of the internal and external consistency tests are further proposed to reach a conclusion. The methodology is applied to a case study of six major oilfields in Iraq to generate percentage shares of each oilfield of a total production target that is in line with Iraq’s aspiration to increase oil production. However, the methodology is intended to be applicable to other E&P portfolio investment prioritization scenarios by taking the specific contextual characteristics into consideration.
|Advisor:||Deason, Jonathan P.|
|Commitee:||Abeledo, Hernan, Francis, Royce, Shittu, Ekundayo, Timilsina, Govinda|
|School:||The George Washington University|
|Department:||Engineering Mgt and Systems Engineering|
|School Location:||United States -- District of Columbia|
|Source:||DAI-B 77/11(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Industrial engineering, Energy, Operations research|
|Keywords:||Decision analysis, Energy management, Investment portfolio prioritization, Multi-criteria decision making, Oil and gas|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be