Petroleum Science and Technology

ISSN: 1091-6466 (Print) 1532-2459 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpet20

Selection methodology for screening evaluation of

EOR methods
Baghir A. Suleimanov, Fahreddin S. Ismayilov, Oleq A. Dyshin & Elchin F.
Veliyev
To cite this article: Baghir A. Suleimanov, Fahreddin S. Ismayilov, Oleq A. Dyshin & Elchin F.
Veliyev (2016) Selection methodology for screening evaluation of EOR methods, Petroleum
Science and Technology, 34:10, 961-970
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10916466.2015.1107849

Published online: 24 Jun 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lpet20
Download by: [85.132.44.125]

Date: 24 June 2016, At: 23:38

PETROLEUM SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

, VOL. , NO. ,
http://dx.doi.org/./..

Selection methodology for screening evaluation of EOR methods

Baghir A. Suleimanov, Fahreddin S. Ismayilov, Oleq A. Dyshin, and Elchin F. Veliyev

Downloaded by [85.132.44.125] at 23:39 24 June 2016

Oil Gas Scientic Research Project Institute, SOCAR, Baku, Azerbaijan

ABSTRACT

KEYWORDS

The choice of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods for specific reservoir conditions is one of the most difficult tasks for a reservoir engineer. Taber (Taber,
1980; Taber et al., 1997a,b) gave informative overview of EOR research history.
He also offered technical screening guides for EOR nowadays known as Tabers
tables. It should be noted that the approach recommended by Taber could not
be taken as strong mathematical ranking of EOR methods. The authors propose
an approach for EOR methods selection, based on fuzzy logic, possibility theory, and Bayesian inference mechanisms. Rankings were made by way of best
EOR method selection for every criteria using fuzzy intervals comparison. Final
correction of each EOR selection coefficient was performed by the generalized
Bayesian inference mechanism. Application of this methodology for reservoir
conditions of Alberta oil field, as well as the offshore field Guneshli, allowed
for choosing the most effective EOR method, confirming the accuracy and feasibility of the proposed approach. Simple calculation (not more than five iterations) allows the automation of the process of selecting the most effective EOR
method for a particular field.

Bayesian inference
mechanisms; EOR methods
selection coecient; fuzzy
interval; screening criteria

1. Introduction
The choice of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods for specific reservoir conditions is one of the most
difficult tasks for a reservoir engineer (Alvarado and Manrique, 2010; Shokir and Sayyoch, 2002).
Earliest studies of the problem started in 1940 (De Golyer, 1940). Taber gave informative overview of
EOR research history (Taber, 1980). He also offered technical screening guides for EOR nowadays known
as Tabers tables (Taber et al., 1997a,b). Different authors (Parkinson et al., 1991; Cheng, 2001; Morooka
et al., 2001; de Cristo, 2003; Wang, 2003; Korb and Nicholson, 2004; Mohaghegh, 2005; Aladasani and
Bai, 2010; Fahad et al., 2011; Zerafat et al., 2011; Ivanov and Roslyak, 2012) have given comparison of various methods and screening criteria, relying on engineering constraints, economic and environmental
aspects. In particular, Siena et al.s (2015) study, based on the analogues rheological properties of collectors in different geographical areas eastern and western hemispheres, EOR methods were ranked using
a hierarchical Bayesian classification by deterministic input information.
It should be noted that the approach recommended by Taber could not be taken as strong mathematical ranking of EOR methods. In this regard, it is convenient to perform their treatment using fuzzy
logic (Parkinson et al., 1991; Ivanov and Roslyak, 2012). This approach used the individual function of
applicability for each screening criteria. Based on this function the EOR method selection coefficient is
formed, which varies within a certain interval, [a, a], a > 0. The selection interval [a, a] in its turn is
divided into subintervals with different selection degrees. Such a partition is feasible only with the help of
expert appraisals and is largely subjective. Furthermore, confidence intervals for screening criteria upon
CONTACT Baghir A. Suleimanov
baghir.suleymanov@socar.az
Oil Gas Scientic Research Project Institute, SOCAR, Az, H.
Zardabi av. a, Baku,
Color versions of one or more of the gures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/lpet
Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

962

B. A. SULEIMANOV ET AL.

which EOR selection functions are constructed may vary depending on the particular field conditions.
Therefore, it needs appropriately correction to the selection coefficients set by the average confidence
intervals.
This paper proposes approach for EOR methods selection, based on fuzzy logic, possibility theory,
and Bayesian inference mechanisms. Ranking is made by way of best EOR method selection for every
criteria using fuzzy intervals comparison (Dubois and Prade, 1988). Obtaining as an assessment result
EOR applicability degree further specified the generalized interval of the Bayesian inference mechanism
(Zadeh, 1965; Zalozhenkova and Parasyuk, 1997). Application of this methodology for reservoir conditions of Alberta oil field, as well as the offshore field Guneshli, allowed choosing the most effective
EOR method, confirming the accuracy and feasibility of the proposed approach. Simple calculation (not
more than five iterations) allows for the automation of the process of selecting the most effective EOR
method for a particular field.

Downloaded by [85.132.44.125] at 23:39 24 June 2016

2. EOR screening procedure

We consider next nine features of xi as screening criteria:
Oil properties:
x1 - gravity
x2 - viscosity
x3 - composition
Reservoir characteristics:
x4 - oil saturation
x5 - formation type
x6 - net thickness
x7 - average permeability
x8 - depth
x9 - temperature
j
j
Let xi denote variable xi , relevant to method j. Restrictions on xi , specified in works of Taber et al.
(1997a,b) and Aladasani and Bai (2010).
j
j
Let assume variable xi characterizing quality value of criteria xi is a binary variable: xi := 1 in the
j
presence of this quality in xi and xi := 0 otherwise. Let us also assume as binary ones those quantitative
j
variables xi , whose variation domain in accordance with recommendation of Taber et al. (1997a,b) and
j
Aladasani and Bai (2010) are described not by one, but several interval constraints; herein xi := 1, if
j
these constraints are satisfied for the investigated reservoir, and xi := 0 otherwise (e.g., variable x83 ).
The best EOR method selection performed in two steps:

3. Determination of fuzzy variables

j

Each quantitative variable xi with (xi , x ; ) variation domain shown in recommendations (Taber et al.,
( j)
1997a,b; Aladasani and Bai, 2010) is associated with trapezoidal shape L-R-type fuzzy interval Xi having membership function:
mx
at x m;

L( )
1
X (x) =

 at m x m;

R xm
at x m.

where L(x) = R(x) = max(0, 1 x). Interval [m,m] is called (Dubois and Prade, 1988) the kernel of
fuzzy interval X, and the values m and m are the lower and upper modal values, respectively. The interval
[a, b], a = m , b = m + is a carrier of a fuzzy interval X (if X has a bounded support). Parameters
( j)
and are called the left and right fuzziness coefficients. Thus, fuzzy interval Xi can be represented

PETROLEUM SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

963

as a quadruple of the following parameters:



j
Xi = m, m; ,

Downloaded by [85.132.44.125] at 23:39 24 June 2016

We assume m := xi , m := xi . in fuzzy interval Xi . We assume fuzziness coefficients and are equal

to errors of j parameter measurement and as shown in Zadeh (1965) accept it in calculations as =
m). The interval(ai j , bi j ), ai j = xi j , bi j = xij + is a carrier of a fuzzy interval Xij .
0, 05(m
Let conditionally divide the features we used for EOR screening into two groups according to the
nature of the preference parameter change, regardless of the EOR type: group 1 with preferred value
decrease and group 2 with preferred value increase.
Group 1 includes the density and viscosity of oil, the depth of the reservoir, and group 2 includes oil
saturation, net thickness, average permeability, and formation temperature.
j
j
j
j
Suppose that for a particular reservoir the actual value xi of parameter xi and xi (xi j , xi ) is
j
j j
known. Then for the parameter j from group 1 fuzzy interval Xi = (xi , xi ; , ) replaced a quanj
j
j
j j
titative variable xi and the parameter xi of the group 2, replaced by Xi = (xi , xi ; , ) fuzzy interj
j
j
( j)
val. Here, and are the same as inXi . If xi
/ (xi j , xi ) then we assume xi as binary value with
( j)
c xi = 0.

4. Ranking by EOR methods selection coefficient

j

Suppose that Ji1 and Ji0 are sets of binary criteria xi with xi = 1 and xi = 0, respectively, and ji1 and ji0
are numbers of elements Ji1 and Ji0 . Then given the total number of EOR methods j0 we need to arrange
elements of plurality Ji = J\Ji0 , J = {1, 2, . . . , j0 } at each fixed i, i I = {1, 2, . . . , i0 }. For a fixed i, we
assume j1 to be preferable rather than j2 (and write j1  j2 ), if method j1 is readily available by the
j
j
criteria xi than method j2 (e.g., j1  j2 by criteria x7 , if x71 < x72 ).
Let methods are ranked in ascending (descending) criteriaxi (i.e., a higher point is assigned to the
method, suitable for larger [smaller] values xi against other methods). Two fuzzy LR-type intervals are
compared with the aid of four indicators of possibility theories PSE, PS, NSE and NS (Dubois and Prade,
1988). We assign N(N = j0 ) points to method j, the most preferable due to a certain criterion xi (in
case
such a method is the only one), and in case ofr1 the most preferable methods we assign equally
1
r1 1
l=0 (N l) points to each one. At the same time for the criterion i (regardless of its group memr1
is listed as one of
bership) method j, which corresponds to the binary variable c xi ( j) = 1 (c xi ( j) =

0),
r2 1
[(N r1 ) l)]
the most (least) preferred. Next in order of preferable methods r2 are assigned r12 l=0
with
N

.
.
.

r
+
1 = 1, assigned
points,
until
the
last
by
preference
are
methods
r
s
1
2
s1
s
1
rs 1
(N

.
.
.

r
)

l
points.
1
s1
l=0
rs
( j)

Let Bi be number of points assigned to method j by the criteria xi . We will take

(j )
Bi 0
K j0 =
iI

( j)
iI
jJi Bi

(1)

for the EOR methods selection coefficient of the method j0

Obviously 0 K j0 < 1 andK j0 = P{ j = j0 |x}, where x = (x1 , . . . , xi0 ), (i.e., K j0 ) is equal to conditional probability of method selection decision K j by vector-valued criteriax.
EOR methods selection coefficient K j obtained by Eq. (1) is taken as conditional probabilities of
j
j
hypotheses j in the evidence of x j = (x1 , . . . , xi0 ),, that is, a priori probabilities P{h = j|x j } of the
j
hypothesis acceptance h = j at x = x .
To correct EOR methods selection coefficients the Bayesian inference mechanism has been used
(Zalozhenkova and Parasyuk, 1997; Veryovka et al., 1998). All selection coefficients that satisfy the con
j0
dition j=1
K j = 1, which was updated by predetermining a priori absolute probability of each hypothesis h = j in the form B0 (h) = j10 , j = 1, j0 . Limiting point of iterative procedure B(h) is taken as the
improved value of the coefficient K j ath = j.

964

B. A. SULEIMANOV ET AL.

While interval setting of a priori probability B0 (h) we obtain an interval estimate [BL (h), BR (h)] of
the selection criteria K j at h = j with a high confidence probability for a sufficiently large test number n
of a given EOR set J = {1, . . . , j0 }.
Finally to get a more preferable technique the values ranking of each EOR method for their selection
criteria was obtained.

5. Numerical implementation of method

Downloaded by [85.132.44.125] at 23:39 24 June 2016

5.1. Example 1
To assess the applicability of the proposed methodology chosen field, which according to other
researchers have successfully been implemented EOR, in particular CO2 injection.
The numerical implementation of the methodology was carried out based on reservoir conditions of
10 Alberta oil fields (Canada) explored in Shaw and Bachu (2002).
We consider seven EOR methods, the analysis of which was presented by Taber et al. (1997a,b):
1. Nitrogen and flue gas flooding (j = 1);
2. Hydrocarbon flooding (j = 2);
3. CO2 flooding (j = 3);
4. Surfactant flooding, micellar-polymer flooding (j = 4)
5. Polymer flooding (j = 5);
6. In situ combustion/fire flooding (j = 6);
7. Steam flooding (j = 7);
( j) ( j) ( j) ( j)
Table 1 shows the results of the ranking EOR by fuzzy quantitative variables x1 , x2 , x4 , x8 ( j =
1, ., 7) by pairwise comparison of fuzzy intervals towards more in view of belonging of criteria x1 , x2 , x8
to a group 1 and criteria x4 to group 2.
Table . EOR ranking results by fuzzy quantitative variables.
Criteria
Gravity(x1 )

Viscosity(x2 )

Oil saturation(x4 )

Depth(x8 )

Pair of methods

PSE

PS

NSE

NS

Leadership

EOR

Points

(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)
(,)

,
,

,
,
,
,

,
,

,
,

PETROLEUM SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

965

Table . Estimates of EOR method selection coecients.

Coecient
Ranking
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII

EOR method

Primary

Dotted

Interval

,
,
,
,
,
,
,

, ()
, ()
, ()
,()
, ()
, ()
, ()

[,; ,] ()
[,; ,] ()
[,; ,] ()
[,; ,] ()
[,; ,] ()
[,; ,] ()
[,; ,] ()

Downloaded by [85.132.44.125] at 23:39 24 June 2016

The number of iterations is indicated in parentheses.

The EOR methods selection coefficients, primary calculated by Eq. (3) with Bij points taken from the
last column of Table 1, where i is criteria number and j is method number (left part of first column). Iterative calculation of dotted estimates of selection coefficients was performed later. The results are shown
in the third column of Table 2. The number of iterations was shown in the parentheses. Finally, interval
estimates of selection coefficients were obtained. Numerical calculations to achieve the limit values with
an accuracy of 104 did not take more than four iterations to obtain dotted estimates and five for interval
estimates
We obtained the following EOR sequence in order of preference as a result of the ranking (%; GLEN
PARK oil field, horizon D-3B; Shaw and Bachu, 2002):
I. CO2 flooding (24.1)
II. Hydrocarbon flooding (21.9)
III. Polymer flooding (17.4)
IV. In-situ combustion/fire flooding (12.9)
V. Nitrogen and flue gas flooding (11.2)
VI. Steam flooding (7.1)
VII. Surfactant flooding (5.4)
Thereby obtained results are consistent with the data of the research (Shaw and Bachu, 2002) for the
reservoir conditions of 10 oilfields in Alberta.

5.2. Example 2
To verify suggested methodology we select Shallow Water Guneshli (SWG) oil field. The SWG located in
the southeast of the Azerbaijani sector of Caspian Sea. The production began at 1977. Main properties
of SWG are given in Table 3.

6. Conventional selection
Moderate Taber table (Aladasani and Bai, 2010) was used for primary screening of EOR methods. The
result shows that four following EOR techniques are acceptable for the current field:
CO2 miscible
Nitrogen immiscible
Hydrocarbon miscible
Polymer flooding
But the main challenge as we mentioned previously is the secondary selection criteria between these
four methods. At that point in standard situation the decision is made by an engineer and strongly
depends on subjective factors.

Gravity (API)

Oil viscosity
in reservoir
conditions,
cP

Oil viscosity
in
atmospheric
conditions at
C, cP

Table . SWG oil eld properties.

Oil
Saturation
(%PV)
(sand,
sandstone,
claystone)

Formation
type
.

Saturation
pressure,
MPa
.

Net
thickness, m

Average permeability,
mD

Average
porosity, %

Downloaded by [85.132.44.125] at 23:39 24 June 2016

Average
depth, m

Temperature,C

Initial
reservoir
pressure,
MPa

Current
reservoir
pressure,
MPa

966
B. A. SULEIMANOV ET AL.

PETROLEUM SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

967

Table . EOR methods ranking.

EOR method

Selection coecient %

CO (misc)
Nitrogen (immisc)
Hydrocarbon (misc)
Polymer ooding
CO (immisc)
Hydrocarbon (misc)
ASP
Nitrogen (misc)
Steam
In situ Combustion
Total

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Table . Data on core samples.

Downloaded by [85.132.44.125] at 23:39 24 June 2016

Sample no.

Permeability, md

Porosity, %

Length, cm

Diameter, cm

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

7. Suggested methodology application

We apply our methodology for ranking of EOR methods described in the moderate Taber table
(Aladasani and Bai, 2010) for our particular oilfield. The ranking results are shown in Table 4.

8. Experimental study
To verify the proposed approach we have carried out the following oil displacement studies: CO2 (miscible displacement), N2 (immiscible displacement), the hydrocarbon gas (miscible displacement), and
polymer flooding.
During the experiments the following materials were used.
Core material. All the cores used in the tests were from SWG main horizon Fasile Suit. General plug data
are shown in Table 5.
Crude oil/brine. Live crude oil and formation brine were used for all the core floods. The properties of
the oil and formation brine are given in Tables 6 and 7.
Secondary injection fluid. For secondary injection we used Caspian water, which has been used as injection fluid on SWG since 1986. The composition of Caspian sea water is given in Table 7.
Table . Crude oil and brine properties.
Properties
Viscosity in reservoir conditions, cP
Atmospheric viscosity at C, cP
Density, kg/m

Crude oil

Brine

.
.

Table . Formation brine and sea water properties.

Water type
Caspian sea water
Formation brine

Density at C, kg/m

Na+K+

Ca

Mg+

Cr

SO

HCO

CO

RCOO

HBO

.
.

.%
.%

.%
.%

.%
.%

.%
.%

.%
.%

.%
.%

.%
.%

.%
.%

.%
.%

968

B. A. SULEIMANOV ET AL.

9. Core preparation and test procedure

Downloaded by [85.132.44.125] at 23:39 24 June 2016

The dry cylindrical core was evacuated and saturated with formation brine under vacuum by standard
procedures (Shaw and Bachu, 2002; American Petroleum Institute, 1998). Porosity and pore volume were
calculated from weight difference between wet and dry core. The core was mounted in a core holder and
at least 15 PV of the same formation brine was injected into the core to reach a stabilized pH at the outlet
and also a constant pressure drop across the core. After determining the permeability of formation brine
by the porous plate method (Shaw and Bachu, 2002; American Petroleum Institute, 1998) residual water
saturation was 14%. Further, the core sample is placed back in the core holder, with simulated reservoir
conditions: formation pressure was 16 MPa and overburden pressure was 26 MPa, and temperature was
62C. The core sample was saturated by the live crude oil recombined from separator oil and synthetic
separator gas and after the constant differential pressure achieved oil permeability of the sample was
measured. The plugs were aged in live crude oil for a period of two weeks. During the ageing period the
live crude was replaced by fresh crude oil three times. A minimum of two pore volumes was injected and
sufficient amount was used to achieve a constant GOR.

10. Core flood simulation

Unsteady state displacement was performed at full reservoir conditions at a nominal flow rate of 5
PV/day. For secondary injection Caspian Sea water was injected at less 5 PV to reach pure water production, and then tertiary injection was performed by selected displacement agents and the test run
until pure injection agent production established. Miscible displacement for CO2 , hydrocarbon gases
and immiscible displacement for N2 were achieve at 25 MPa input pressure. Polymer (polyacrylamide)
0.1% aqueous solution with 1.7 cP viscosity in reservoir conditions was used for polymer flooding. The
volumes of produced water and oil were recorded at intervals, and the oil recovery factor was calculated as percent of original oil in place (%OOIP). The results of displacement efficiencies are shown in
Figures 1 and 2 and Table 8.
Tests results completely justify our previous ranking results and sustain them.
It should be noted that the proposed approach to the EOR screening does not depend on the number
of quantitative and qualitative selection criteria (geological, physical, technical, chemical, mechanical,
and economic), as well as the number of selected EOR methods.

Figure . Crude oil recovery curve for brine/CO/polymer tests.

Downloaded by [85.132.44.125] at 23:39 24 June 2016

PETROLEUM SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

969

Figure . Crude oil recovery curve for brine/nitrogen/hydrocarbon tests.

Table . Oil recovery factors for dierent displacement agents.
Caspian Sea water
.%

CO (miscible)

Nitrogen (immiscible)

Hydrocarbon (miscible)

Polymer

.%

11. Conclusions
1. A new selection methodology for screening evaluation of EOR methods was proposed.
2. Application of this methodology for reservoir conditions of Alberta oil field, as well as the offshore
field Guneshli, allowed choosing the most effective EOR method, confirming the accuracy and
feasibility of the proposed approach.
3. Simple calculation (not more than five iterations) allows the automation of the process of selecting
the most effective EOR method.

References
Aladasani, A., and Bai, B. (2010). Recent developments and updated screening criteria of enhanced oil recovery techniques.
SPE 130726.
Alvarado, V., and Manrique, E. (2010). Enhanced oil recovery. Field planning and development strategies, New York, NY:
Elsevier.
American Petroleum Institute. (1998). API RP40. Recommended practices for core analysis (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: API.
Cheng, J. (2001). Efficient stochastic sampling algorithms for Bayesian networks, Pittsburgh PA: University of Pittsburgh.
De Cristo, M. A. P., Calado, P. P., Silva, M. L. S. I., Silva, I., Muntz, R., and Ribeiro-Neto, B. (2003). Bayesian belief networks
for IR. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning, 34:163179.
De Golyer, E. (Ed.). (1940). Elements of the petroleum industry, New York: AIME.
Dubois, D., and Prade, H. (1988). Possibility theory, New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Fahad, I. S., Abdul, H. T., and Naveed, A. G. (2011). Compositional analysis and screening for enhanced oil recovery process
in different reservoir and operating conditions. Int. J. Appl. Sci. Technol., 1:143160.
Ivanov, E. N., and Roslyak, A. T. (2012). The selection and evaluation of enhanced oil recovery methods effectiveness for
oil fields in the Western Siberia. Int. J. Sci. Georesources, 6:8790.
Korb, K. B., and Nicholson, A. E. (2004). Bayesian artificial intelligence, London, England: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Mohaghegh, S. D. (2005). A new methodology for the identification of best practices in the oil and gas industry intelligent
systems. J. Pet. Sci Eng., 49:239260.

Downloaded by [85.132.44.125] at 23:39 24 June 2016

970

B. A. SULEIMANOV ET AL.

Morooka, C. K., Guilherme, I. R., and Mendes, J. R. P. (2001). Development of intelligent systems for well drilling and
petroleum production. J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 32:191199.
Parkinson, W. J. (1991). Screening EOR methods with fuzzy logic. International Reservoir Characterization Conference, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, November 35.
Shaw, J., and Bachu, S. (2002). Screening, evaluation, and ranking of oil reservoirs suitable for CO2-flood EOR and carbon
dioxide sequestration. J. Can. Pet. Technol., 41:5161.
Shokir, E. M., and Sayyoch, M. H. (2002). Selection and evaluation EOR method using artifical intelligence. SPE 79163.
Siena, M., Guadagnini, A., Della Rossa, E., Lamberti, A., Masserano, F., and Rotondi, M. (2015). A new Bayesian approach
for analogs evaluation in advanced EOR screening. SPE 174315.
Taber, J. J. (1980). Research on enhanced oil recovery: past, present and future. Pure Appl. Chem., 52:13231347.
Taber, J. J., Martin, F. D., and Seright, R. S. (1997a). EOR screening criteria revisited. Part 1: Introduction to screening criteria
and enhanced recovery field projects. SPE-35385-PA.
Taber, J. J., Martin, F. D., and Seright, R. S. (1997b). EOR screening criteria revisited. Part 2: Applications and impact of oil
prices. SPE-39234-PA.
Veryovka, O. V., Zalozhenkova, I. A., and Parasuk, I. N. (1998). A generalization of interval bayesian inference mechanisms
and prospects for their use. Cybernet. Syst. Anal., 34:785793.
Wang, C. (2003). Bayesian network simulation. Phd thesis, Tallahassee, FL: Department of Computer Science, Florida State
University.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information Cont. 8:338353.
Zalozhenkova, I. A., and Parasyuk, I. N. (1997). Integrated system for hypothesis testing: software and algorithms. Cybernet.
Syst. Anal., 33:652658.
Zerafat, M. M., Ayatolahi, S., Mehranbod, N., and Barregan, D. (2011). Bayesian network analysis as a tool for efficient EOR
screening. SPE 143282.