Water flooding project $($Deadline $30$ Nov $2023)$

Imagine you are the lead reservoir engineer for a major oil company, and you are tasked with making decisions regarding the implementation of a water flooding project in a reservoir. This project is expected to enhance oil recovery and overall field economics. Describe the key engineering solutions and strategies you would consider for the project. Discuss the potential global, economic, environmental, and societal impacts of these solutions. How would you prioritize and balance these different considerations in your decision$-$making process? What factors would you take into account to ensure that the project aligns with sustainability goals and responsible engineering practices?

Utilize the provided data file $($Tutorial $1)$ from Tnav to support your engineering analysis. Create simulation scenarios and compare the results to justify your findings

Criteria for Assessment:

$1.$ Understanding of Water Flooding:

$$ Excellent $(5$ points$)$: The student demonstrates a deep understanding of water flooding in reservoirs, including the technical aspects and its significance in the petroleum industry.

$$ Good $(4$ points$)$: The student shows a solid understanding of water flooding but may have some minor gaps in their knowledge.

$$ Satisfactory $(3$ points$)$: The student's understanding is basic, with notable gaps in knowledge.

$$ Needs Improvement $(2$ points$)$: The student lacks a fundamental understanding of water flooding.

$$ Inadequate $(1$ point$)$: The student shows no understanding of the topic.

$2.$ Analysis of Engineering Solutions:

$$ Excellent $(5$ points$)$: The student provides a comprehensive analysis of various engineering solutions for water flooding, considering their technical, economic, and environmental aspects.

$$ Good $(4$ points$)$: The student's analysis is thorough, but some aspects may lack depth or clarity.

$$ Satisfactory $(3$ points$)$: The analysis is basic and lacks depth in some areas.

$$ Needs Improvement $(2$ points$)$: The analysis is superficial, and critical aspects are missing.

$$ Inadequate $(1$ point$)$: The student fails to provide any meaningful analysis.

$3.$ Consideration of Global Impact:

$$ Excellent $(5$ points$)$: The student thoroughly examines the global implications of different water flooding methods and demonstrates an advanced understanding.

$$ Good $(4$ points$)$: The student considers global impact but may not cover all relevant aspects.

$$ Satisfactory $(3$ points$)$: The consideration of global impact is basic and lacks depth.

$$ Needs Improvement $(2$ points$)$: The student's consideration is superficial and lacks key details.

$$ Inadequate $(1$ point$)$: The student does not address global impact at all.

$4.$ Economic Evaluation:

$$ Excellent $(5$ points$)$: The student conducts a comprehensive economic evaluation of water flooding options, considering costs, benefits, and financial feasibility.

$$ Good $(4$ points$)$: The economic evaluation is sound but may lack depth in some areas.

$$ Satisfactory $(3$ points$)$: The student provides a basic economic evaluation with notable gaps.

$$ Needs Improvement $(2$ points$)$: The economic evaluation is superficial and lacks key details.

$$ Inadequate $(1$ point$)$: The student does not attempt economic evaluation.

$5.$ Environmental and Societal Considerations:

$$ Excellent $(5$ points$)$: The student thoroughly considers the environmental and societal impacts of water flooding, demonstrating a clear understanding.

$$ Good $(4$ points$)$: The consideration of these impacts is good but may lack some depth or clarity.

$$ Satisfactory $(3$ points$)$: The analysis is basic and lacks depth in some areas.

$$ Needs Improvement $(2$ points$)$: The consideration is superficial, and key details are missing.

$$ Inadequate $(1$ point$)$: The student does not address environmental and societal aspects.

$6.$ Presentation and Communication:

$$ Excellent $(5$ points$)$: The project is exceptionally well$-$organized, and the student's communication is clear, concise, and engaging.

$$ Good $(4$ points$)$: The presentation is well$-$structured, and communication is effective.

$$ Satisfactory $(3$ points$)$: The organization and communication are adequate but may lack some clarity.

$$ Needs Improvement $(2$ points$)$: The project lacks structure, and communication is unclear.

$$ Inadequate $(1$ point$)$: The project and communication are incoherent.

$7.$ References and Citations:

$$ Excellent $(5$ points$)$: The student provides a comprehensive list of high$-$quality references and uses proper citations throughout the project.

$$ Good $(4$ points$)$: The references are good, but some minor issues with citations exist.

$$ Satisfactory $(3$ points$)$: The references are basic, and there are notable citation issues.

$$ Needs Improvement $(2$ points$)$: The references are lacking, and there are substantial citation issues.

$$ Inadequate $(1$ point$)$: The student provides no references or citations.

Total Points: $\_\_\_\_/35$