An Exploration of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and its Utilization for Decision-Making in Energy Resource Management Richard Olawoyin

a* and Samuel A. Oyewole a,

a

The John and Willie Leone Family Department of Energy and Mineral Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
*

Corresponding author: rzo5017@psu.edu (R. Olawoyin)

Abstract The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a functional tool with unique capabilities in engineering decision making. It is effective for alternative selection in design, preferences configuration, consensus building, design mal function identification and conflict resolution. Project planning, design and execution in petroleum engineering involves several complex decision making stages, with the consideration of the cost and benefits of the project, environmental footprints, safety, human health, regulations, operational risk and dynamic economic factors. The need for expert judgment to inform preferences and priorities is quintessential and the AHP is a satisfactory tool which allows for problem structuring as a hierarchy and employing the pairwise comparison technique between attributes for the determination of user preferences. This paper presents the simplistic characteristic of the AHP in integrating subjective preferences and group decision making for proper fracturing fluid selection during petroleum well development. The preferences employed are for tradeoffs between the alternatives available, which weighed the individual alternatives based on effectiveness, weaknesses and flexibility. The theoretical foundations of the AHP and its applicability in the field of petroleum engineering are explained in this study. Keywords: Decision-making; safety criteria; hydraulic fracturing fluids; Environmental risk assessment 1.0 INTRODUCTION

Pinchot [1] defined the concept of natural resource management as the process of long term provision of the greatest good for the maximum number. There are however, several schools of thought that interpret the fundamental terms of greatest and also the good differently. But a general consensus is achieved in understanding those terms as meaning the determination of when, how, where of the core element in the actualization of an effective natural resource management, with the aim of achieving the preferred value in the future. This ideology has been tagged the Pinchot Principle and has been adapted into several areas where the management of subjects or components are necessary. The gulf between people and the biophysical environment they live in can be easily removed with the use of this principle in ecosystem management [2, 3]. The interaction between people and other environmental factors such as the political, economic, biodiversity, biophysical integrity, cultural and social processes
1

can be easily captured and are all taken into considerations in natural resource management. Natural resources such as petroleum and natural gas are important for the sustenance of the people, the economy and for general use. An efficient resource planning will include making informed, reasonable and realistic choices in view of many alternatives available. In consideration of the simultaneous ultimate satisfaction of the entire components involved in petroleum and natural gas production, the effective management of the entire system with a win all situation is mutually inconsistent due to limitations. In the real world, all aspirations may not be met simultaneously in natural resource planning, but the technical management of the key components contained by the biophysical limitations needs to be addressed with precise and articulate decision making processes with accommodating and flexible characteristics using available information. The complexities encountered in natural resources management include the improbability of future outcomes and also our inability to effectively predict this outcome with the lowest margin of error [4]. The political, economic, biodiversity, biophysical integrity, cultural and social processes are subject to unanticipated variations which could make the most favorable choices available today, the minimal choice tomorrow. Often times, science generalizes rather than provide an individual understanding of future scenarios pertaining to the ecosystem components and the interaction between human, economic, and environmental systems. In other cases, some decision-makers result to the use of heuristics or initiative in an attempt to minimizing the complexities involved in an effective resource management. The risk involved here is that some information could be lost, divergent views ignored and elements of doubt discarded Several analytical tools are now available for the evaluation and understanding of management scenarios which aid decision support. These include econometric and simulation models, expert systems, optimization techniques and also technologies such as the geographic information systems-GIS [5]. Decision analysis techniques (DA) are incorporated for the selection of the best alternatives amongst other competitors. An efficient methodology that integrates qualitative and quantitative contributions from engineering assessment cost and benefits, safety and risk, and future values in the quest of ranking alternatives in the field of petroleum engineering process decision making is yet to be fully developed. Due to this fit, several possible alternatives that are economically important to project planning and implementation are not assessed in the process of selecting the preferred alternatives. An example of the effective use of the analytic hierarchy process in hydraulic fracturing fluid type selection for well stimulation jobs is presented in this paper. 2.0 The Analytic Hierarchy process

The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) developed by Saaty [6] is a method of deriving ration scales using paired comparisons of attributes which has been employed to several problems in deciding the best out of all alternatives present. AHP enables decision- makers to structure a complex decision in the form of a hierarchy. Each factor and alternative can be identified and evaluated with respect to other related factors. Judgments are solicited from members of the group about each facet of the decision problem. Saaty [7] noted that the AHP is based on three principles: decomposition, comparative judgments, and synthesis of priorities. There are three
2

fundamental steps used for the AHP process, they include; the structuring of problems in form of a hierarchy, user preference determination using Pairwise Comparisons, and attributes weighting and priority calculations. 2.1 Preference Structuring as a Hierarchy

The analytic hierarchy process necessitates the structuring of problems hierarchically with the aim of representing the individual alternatives in succession at the base, the attributes that compares the different alternatives is at the center and the problem is topmost on the hierarchy. Precise and comprehensive information is crucial to an effective decision making in the field of natural resources management. Understanding of the process and the idea behind a design based on past experiences, training and learning opportunities are instrumental to the entire process. The knowledge of the decision-makers can be likened to a telescope in which the real situation is views, analyses and interpreted in favor of a well-informed choice. The initial application of the analytic hierarchy process is to enhance the expression of preferences using comparison judgments and later transformed into priority vectors of cardinal scale. Compared to some other analytical methods, the pair wise comparisons method could be incorporated with the AHP as a natural and uncomplicated technique for the expression of preferences [8, 9]. Preference configurations using the AHP provide the opportunity to select the proper choice that is considered optimum or the full representative of the planned goal shown in Figure1.
GOAL

Level 1 Attributes

Level 2 Attributes

Alternatives

Figure 1: Schematic of Hierarchical Process From Figure 1, it can be seen that the AHP can be applied to different real life situations. Assuming three students of the Society of Petroleum Engineers are competing for a single research intern position, the AHP can be employed to select the best candidate for the position. The goal in this case is the best intern, which conspicuously appears topmost on the hierarchy levels, followed by the criteria for selection. These could include academic proficiency, adaptability, communication capabilities, ability to be decisive, and commitment. The candidates to be considered can be labeled as X, Y, Z which are (the alternatives) at the lowest level on
3

the hierarchy process (Figure 2). The first step of consideration is a pairwise comparison of the alternatives with respect to the criteria of selection. According to Saaty [10], a number range between 1 and 9 is used for the comparison, depending on the importance to the overall goal. An example of a matrix that could result from such comparison with the chosen example is presented in Table 1. The arrangement of the elements in the rows and columns of the matrix are listed such that for every value (aij), the extent of importance or better preference is the row (i) while the column is (j). Equivalent matrix of (aji) is written as 1/aij. Meanwhile all the elements positioned at the diagonal of the matrix are at unity. Saaty [7] reiterated that the eigenvector of the matrix identifies the priority values associated with the criteria.

Best Intern

Academic Proficiency

Adaptability

Communication

Decisiveness

Commitment

Figure 2: A simple analytic hierarchy process for choosing the best intern from among three alternatives, X, Y, and Z using a total of five (5) criteria. 2.2 Pairwise Comparisons

Paired comparisons are carried out amongst the attributes and weighted with respect to each attributes contribution to the desired goal which is at the top of the hierarchy. Table 1 shows the fundamental scale of assessment of the comparisons based on the work of Miller [11]. This was ranked from one to nine. It should be noted that the differences become more noticeable as the number increases. This means that one being the level of equal importance
4

of the compared attributes, and the highest number (nine) equals to one attribute significantly more important than the compared attribute. The idea behind the one to nine range scale is that the comparisons of numbered objects can be done by an individual when approximately seven (2) of those objects are compared simultaneously without resulting to confusions. Reciprocals can be used to show the strength of one compared attribute (e.g. the weaker) against the other (e.g. the stronger). An example of the use of the pairwise comparison could include the determination of the importance of two types of drilling mud (oil- and waterbased) for a well at a given location, assuming the water-based mud (W) is five (5) times more effective for this operation than an oil-based mud (O), therefore (O) is 1/5 as important as (W). An illustration of the nine point scale comparison system developed by Miller [11] was used for the pairwise comparisons in AHP as shown Table 1.

Table 1: Nine Point Scale Comparison System Used For Pairwise Comparisons in AHP Magnitude of Importance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Description Equally important Weakly important Moderately important Moderately Strong Strongly important More Strongly important Very strongly importance Very, very strongly Import. Extremely Important The proof in support of one activity over another of the highest possible order of assertion Assuming activity Y has 1 of the non zero numbers at the top, given to it during comparison with activity Z, meaning Z would have the reciprocal value once pair compared with Y An activity is preferred very strongly better than the another; its ascendancy established in practice Details Two actions add equally to the objective

Foreknowledge and opinion slightly favor one activity better than the other Foreknowledge and opinion strongly favor one activity better than the other

Reciprocals of above nonzero numbers

Pairwise comparisons are performed at every level on the hierarchy on every attribute in the group, after which the outcome is reported in a matrix form as positive reciprocals. In an AHP assessment, it is required that every attribute are paired compared with respect to the alternative [7], if the alternatives do not exceed seven, otherwise the problem becomes awkward. The nature of the problem determines the steps to be taken as these values can
5

otherwise be allocated linearly as a ratio of the biggest value obtained [12]. Table 2 shows the use of the Pair-wise comparison method bases on the five criteria used in the selection of the best candidate for an intern position. Table 2: Pair-Wise Comparisons of Criteria Used In Selecting the Best Candidate Criteria Academic Proficiency Adaptability Communication Decisiveness Commitment Academic Adaptability Communication Proficiency 1 1/3 1/5 1/3 1/7 3 1 1/5 1/5 1/9 5 5 1 1 1/3 Decisiveness Commitment 3 5 1 1 1/3 7 9 3 3 1

The above table shows the matrix of the paired compared criteria selected and if the judgment is absolutely consistent, which means that aijajk=aik for all i,is not equal to k, Then; Where; A = Matrix (Table 1) w = vector of priority values or the right eigenvector of A n = associated eigenvalue

It is imperative to note that only the non-zero eigenvalue of the matrix in a consistent case is n. Inconsistency in the matrix could occur due to variation in aij, in this case there would be multiple solutions of eigenvalue and eigenvectors in terms of (1) and the principal eigenvalue stays close to n since the changes are minimal the matrix remains fairly consistent [7]. The principal right eigenvector can still be viewed as being consistent to the eigenvector w. For each criterion, a matrix such as shown in Table 2 is generated using the information in Table 1, a priority vector w1' is calculated which in this case is (0.637, 0.258, 0.105), likewise for the remaining criteria 2 to 5, the priority vector can be generated (i.e. w2, w3, w4,w5). The level at which the candidates hold each criterion is subjective of the significance of that criterion (ci), added together to reflect on all criteria to achieve an ultimate priority value that represent the candidates in consideration. Table 3 shows the comparison of the three candidates (alternatives) with regards to the decisive factor (attribute), which in this case is the academic proficiency. This was also carried out on the remaining factors. The final priority vector for the best candidate is represented as shown in (2).

. (2)

Table 3: Comparison of Candidates Based on Academic Proficiency Academic proficiency Candidate X Candidate Y Candidate Z

Candidate X 1 1/3 1/5

Candidate Y 3 1 1/3

Candidate Z 5 3 1

2.3

Weighting of Attributes and Priority Calculations

Using the pairwise comparison matrix, there are several methods for the calculation of the weight of attributes, one method is the calculation of the principle right eigenvector from the positive reciprocal matrix [6, 7]. Another simple method [13] is the utilization of the normalized geometric mean that is derived from the priority matrix row. The priority calculation of an alternative based on the other is as a result of the weight of the attribute and also the value of the relative attribute added up for all attributes relating to each alternative. 2.4 Short fall of the AHP

In solving practical problems, there are two basic aspects of criticism of the AHP method namely; rank reversals and modes of elicit pairwise comparisons. 2.4.1 Rank Reversals in AHP

When the AHP was first developed [6] the attribute values of the alternatives were paired, which summed up to a value of one by normalization. This shows how the relative importance of the attribute is dependent on the significance of the attribute belonging to the other alternative that is compared. The variation in the relative value resulting from the addition or subtraction of alternative of concern leads to changes in the ranking all together, which is valid in some cases as it relates to the economic principle of scarcity generating value. But this phenomenon of rank reversal is not suitable or acceptable in other scenarios. Saaty [12] developed an ideal mode of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) which disallows the occurrence of rank reversal. This involves dividing the values of the attributes of every considered alternative by the highest value of the attribute of all compared alternatives. Forman and Gass [14] provided a detailed discussion about the effect of rank reversal when using the AHP process, while Saaty [15] gave published examples of rank reversal considering the intransitivity of assessment rules. Ultimately, the problem judge is required to make a decision on the possibility of rank reversal to transpire considering the nature of the problem.
7

2.4.2 Pairwise Comparison Elicitation: The subjective preference between attributes has been a front of controversy which is arbitrary and baseless [16]. The goal of expert decisionmakers is to eliminate as much as possible every inconsistency in judgments and also to place an effective priority from a set of incoherent judgments. The congruence and dissonance consistency measures could be employed by decision makers during elicitation to solve the two types of inconsistency issues in pairwise comparisons (cardinal and ordinal). The question of how attribute X is preferred over Y can be addressed by the use of linking of pins [17]. This procedure is comparable to the ideal mode proposed by Saaty, only that the question will have to change to How much do you prefer a shale reservoir (516 square miles) to gas (methane)? where 516 square miles of the reservoir and methane are the optimum values for these two attributes that are being represented by the compared alternatives. In reality, decision-makers preferences experience no variation when the attributes ranges are influenced [18] which makes it easier to answer questions such as How much do you prefer attribute X compared to Y? rather than How much do you prefer the reservoir (of 516 square miles) to gas produced?

3.0

The use of the AHP in Energy Resource Management Decision-Making

Although energy resources abound in space and locations, the exploration, exploitation and production of the energy from various sources require complex techniques and processes in which making the best rational choices amongst many viable alternatives require decision support systems to justify the final decision. Numerous publications have been made available on the application of the AHP in forest management. Forestry is a source of energy from which coal and other fuels are derived, and an effective management of this resource will not only guarantee the sustainability, but would help the environment extensively. Several research works have been done in the field of forestry management [19]; scenic values of forests appraisal [20]; recognition and prioritization of fire study needs [21]; evaluation of attribute and indicators for assessing forest maintenance [22, 23, 24, 25]; forest protection [26]; making preference for restitution plans [26]; timber bridge resources [27]; National Parks management plans and resource development [8];and National Parks observation and resource record [28]. In the area of environmental policy, resource allocation, land use suitability and, land capacity, energy and planning. Relevant publications elaborate on the applicability of AHP in the systems [29]; environmental policy and consumer preference; irrigation methods assessment [30]; resource allocation and energy planning decisions; [31]; fisheries management [32]; land usage appropriateness study [33, 34]; Huchinson and Toledano [35] utilized AHP integrated with geographic information systems (GIS) for land use plans. Another management applicability of the AHP is in wildlife management, habitat suitability have been studied with the aid of AHP and GIS synergy, which is assessable from the published work by Pereira and Duckstein [36, 37]. Meanwhile Kangas et al. [38] used expert judgment to evaluate the habitat. Table 4 shows the various applications of decision-making methodologies used in environmental management practice [39].

Table 4: Applications of Decision Methodologies in Environmental Management

Relevance area Technique Decision Framework Land circumstance evaluation for allotment of military training areas Prioritization of sites/ areas operations AHP along with GIS Selection of boundaries for national park Funding agency United States Army Engineering Research and Development Center International Institute for Geoinformation Science and Earth Observation, The Netherlands Vrije University, The Netherlands Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, India Citation

[40]

[41]

Landfill sitting Review of MCDA use for EIAs in Netherlands Socioeconomic impact assessment for a construction project in India Environmental impact assessment of 2 water development projects on a Finnish river Natural park management Natural resource management AHP Management of small forest in North Carolina,

[42]

Review

[43]

Environmental impact assessment

AHP

[44]

AHP and MAUT/SMART

Finnish Environmental Agency; Helsinki University of Technology USDA Forest Services USDA Forest Services

[45]

[28]

[46]

AHP, MAUT, and outranking

Forestry planning in Finland

Finnish Academy of Sciences; Finnish Forest Research Institute

[47]

AHP

Environmental vulnerability assessment for mid-Atlantic region

USEPA /USDOE

[48]

From the Table 4, the following abbreviations stand for; AHP = analytical hierarchy process; G I S = geographic information system; MAUT = multi attribute utility theory; MCDA = multi criteria decision analysis; EIA = environmental impact assessment; USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture; USDOE = U.S. Department of Energy; SMART = simple multi attribute rating technique.

3.1

Site-Specific Operations Decision-Making

Schmoldt et al. [28] provided an example of the analytic hierarchy process with mathematical derivations. The AHP is a very straight forward and easy method which gives a final outcome of the highest scoring alternative, which is known as the priority value. This suggests that it is the best alternative based on the evaluated criteria, and it enables the decision-maker to easily make an informed choice. AHP has been practically applicable to several disciplines for priority setting, allocation of resources and project planning in fields such as academic, politics, energy, business, marketing and transportation [49]. These decision-making process is also applicable in the management of natural resources such as the oil and gas industry, where multiple opinions or complex decision-making procedure are required for an effective job planning, such as selecting the best hydraulic fracturing fluid for well stimulation in a particular area. A new paradigm in technological advancement in petroleum engineering such as in drilling, well stimulation and completion, production and distribution have given engineers the ability to devise project activities that meet the distinctive needs of each and every site in accordance to the project plan. The use of new technologies in drilling engineering has revolutionized the ability to be more efficient and dependable with such technologies such as; deviated or direction drilling, measurement-while-drilling (MWD) technology, developments in fiber optics, advanced sensors, and mud pulse telemetry. The activities of the oil and gas industry are strongly related with environmental impacts and effect locally and on a global scale. This has led to the planning of activities with the environment as a major consideration. Novel innovations in the petroleum up stream sector have ensured that adequate balance is achieved between petroleum and natural gas production and environmental sustainability. The use of Smarter Intelligent and fast computing, this is referred to as smart wells, Farther Deviated wells, such as horizontal wells or multiple laterals that are
10

laterally extensive, Deeper wells: Deep subsalt exploration and production, Cleaner operations: Down hole separation technology, Gas-to-liquids conversion, Smaller Footprint, minimal effect on the environmental impact, use of micro hole technology. The geographic information systems (GIS) can be employed in conjunction with the analytic hierarchy process to analyze natural resources and the effects on their exploration on the environment which can be site specific. Several research works have been carried out in an attempt to combine spatial analyses with analytic decision-making, such as the AHP with the quest of practicality by applying them to site specific natural resources projects, this include the works of Eastman et al. [50] and Jankowski [51]. The advantages of the AHP cannot be over emphasized, as it demonstrates flexibilities with analytical features which make it capable to integrate spatial technologies such as the GIS and act as a connector to viaduct the gap using expert judgment [52]. Enhancing this linkage will equally improve the applicability of the spatial tools utility and also the analytic hierarchy process which eventually strengthen the suitability and practical application of decision making in natural resource utilization.

3.2

The Application of AHP in the Selection of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid

Hydraulic fracturing is the process of creating an effective conductive network of fractures that will facilitate the movement of methane gas through the gas bearing rocks to the production conduit from where the methane gas or fluid of interest is collected. This process open up or expand fractures as well as connect natural fractures in the rocks. Another function of this process is the transportation of sands or granular substances called proppant into the existing fracture networks. This is done by pumping the mixture of different fluid constituents and the proppant to prop open the fractures or hold the fractures in place against closure. There are several factors in consideration when selecting the best hydraulic fracturing fluid for well stimulation, such as the viscosity of the fluid which allows for efficient movement of the fluid and the proppant placement into the created fractures. The different fracturing fluids have unique properties with their pros and cons. An ideal fluid is expected to possess the following traits which are adapted from [53], these properties could be adjusted to meet the desired outcome; low leak off rate, proppant carrying ability into fractures, low pumping friction loss, reduced cost, easily degradable, minimal formation permeability damage, easily recoverable from the formation (clean up), compatibility with natural formation fluids. Fracturing fluids could be made up of water, oil, methanol, combination fluids, etc. The use of methanol is encourages since it enhances fluid recovery and reduces fluid leak off [54]. Also polymer-based fluids demonstrate high fracturing efficiency but more expensive [55]. Carbon dioxide is sometimes combined with fracturing fluids to produce forms that are used for hydraulic fracturing jobs, this type of fluid required lesser amount to transport proppant of the same quantity into the fracture. Selecting the best fracturing fluid for a job requires characteristic information of the materials and other factors for an efficient operation. Using the analytical hierarchy process, an engineer can easily make a well- informed decision by selecting the most appropriate fracturing fluid alternative that will serve the ultimate goal of the drilling operation.
11

3.3

A Case Study on the Selection of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid

Assuming there are six different hydraulic fracturing fluids in consideration for use to stimulate a well that has just been completed, Table 5 shows a comparison of the attributes with the aim of selecting the best fluid that is cost effective and also environmentally friendly. In this example relative attribute values are given as a percentage of the biggest value, considering the overall attribute. Consequently, producing value ranging between zero and one and the largest value will indicate the most expensive fluid from the list of alternatives. Table 5: Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Types and Attributes Cost ($)/1000 barrels (bbls) 600 1200 800 1500 2000 900 Recovery (bbls) 3,000,000 1,000,000 2,500,000 50,000 100,000 150,000 Effectiveness (%) 15 20 15 35 20 30 Environmental Impact Minor Moderate Moderate Severe Severe Moderate

Fluid types Water Gelled Fluids Foamed Gels Acids Combination Fluids Carbon dioxide

Regarding the environmental impact, a different procedure must be used where values between zero and one are assigned for each impact level or rather, pairwise comparison can be carried out between the environmental impacts with the aim of determining the weighting value. Table 6 illustrates a paired comparison matrix of the environmental impact of the hydraulic fracture fluids. The normalized calculated geometric mean or the attribute values determined in the Table 6 is applicable. The direction in which a problem takes is important and it must be consistent, as for this example, the higher the significance of the attributes on the matrix table, the higher the cost of the alternative, therefore lower values will be preferable. Table 7 shows the positive reciprocal matrix of the problem derived from the use of paired comparisons of four attributes (cost, recovery, effectiveness and environmental impact). In this case, the normalized geometric mean is designated in the last column as the weight. Table 8 depicts the selection of priority for the hydraulic fracturing fluid type during well stimulation processes based on the minimization of the total cost of materials (in view of environmental and economic considerations). Table 6: Determination of Environmental Impact Relative Attribute Values Environmental Impact Severe Moderate Severe Moderate Minor 1 1/3 3 1 9 7 Normalized Geometric mean 0.66 0.29 Attribute Value 1 0.44
12

Minor

1/9

1/7

0.05

0.08

Table 7: The Positive Reciprocal Matrix of the Decision-Making Problem Attributes Cost Recovery Effectiveness Env. Imp Cost 1 1/5 1/3 1/9 Recovery 5 1 1/3 1/5 Effectiveness 3 3 1 1/7 Environmental Impact 9 5 7 1 Weight 0.578 0.223 0.159 0.04

Table 8: Selection of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Type during Well Stimulation Fluid Type Water Gelled Fluids Foamed Gels Acids Combination Fluids Carbon dioxide Cost 0.30 0.60 0.4 0.75 1.00 0.45 Recovery 1.00 0.33 0.83 0.02 0.03 0.05 Effectiveness 0.43 0.57 0.43 1.00 0.57 0.86 Environmental Impact 0.08 0.44 0.44 1.00 1.00 0.44 Preference value 0.47 0.53 0.50 0.64 0.72 0.43 Rank 2 4 3 5 6 1

From Table 8, it can be seen that the AHP technique could be used in the selection of the most appropriate hydraulic fracturing fluid type needed for well stimulation. The result in Table 7 shows the relative values of attributes, the values of the total priority and the ranking preference of each fluid type. Although, cost could be considered as the most influential attribute on fracture fluid selection, the fluid with the lowest value was not the most preferred fluid once the remaining three attributes were considered.

13

3.4

Statistical Exploration within the AHP Structure

The AHP is often criticized for being somewhat deficient of thorough scientific theory [56]. When applying the AHP to real world situations, some problems are often encountered that can be easily solved using statistical methods. One of these problems is that the original comparison scale prevents the manifestation of any uncertainty as regards the comparisons, while another problem is that the analytic hierarchy process does not offer appropriate tools for a comprehensive evaluation of priorities most importantly the ambiguity integrated in the available data. Fundamentally, it has been proven that the idea of using the paired comparisons as didactic and spontaneous method is feasible. The use of regression model in place of the popular eigenvalue procedure in analyzing paired comparison data was carried out by Crawford and Williams [57]. The results of the research were similar, but the advantage of the regression model over the eigenvalue procedure is that it allows for the uncertainties in the data to be easily analyzed. An improvement to this method was done [58], which modified the regression model by introducing the Bayesian approach. Similarly, an attempt was made to improve the Bayesian regression model by allowing for internal judgment data to be effectively analyzed against prior judgment which was for single numbers [59]. The incorporation of statistical methods into the AHP does not contradict the principle of the decision-making guiding framework; it only enhances the flexibility of the AHP technique by making it more efficient in the analysis of impeding problems. Statistical analyses provide the opportunity for the entire process to be more accurate and provide needed information on choices and preferences to the decision support.

4.0

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement in science and technology have been on the rise in recent times, resulting to novel innovations in tools needed for decision support. Consequently, methodologies of prime importance that enhances human scope of resource management are being transformed accordingly. The need for an effective decision-making platform necessitated the innovation of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) which enables the decision-maker to exploit the wealth of information available. The decision-maker can also consolidate this information in a coherent manner that clearly suggests the best choice. The AHP provides the opportunity for comparison of characteristics measured on different platforms [7] which has been revealed in the case study provided in this paper, where comparisons were made between cost, recovery, efficiency and environmental impact. The AHP tolerates the use of overt values in the decision-making procedure [60]. Following the popularity of the AHP method, it is important for its applications to be employed in making accurate and informed decisions in the petroleum industry, especially in situations of uncertainties where the outcome of processes such as in the hydraulic fracturing process of an oil/gas well could lead to losses/profits in capital investments. It is therefore, important for decision-makers in the field of energy resource management, especially in the petroleum industry to utilize the right tools for making cost-effective and efficient, yet realistic decisions. The AHP will find an enormous use in the management of petroleum resource with the incorporation of advance technologies such as the spatial GIS, seismic acquisition, artificial neural networks (ANN), drilling methods such as measurement while drilling (MWD), fracturing techniques, etc. Using these methods together with AHP will aid decision-makers in easily formulating problems and would be helpful in assigning weights to attributes in relations
14

to the available alternatives, and consequently, in choosing the appropriate alternative. Overall, this paper provides an overview of the use of the AHP procedure with case studies and relevant applications in the oil and gas industry, with a specific example on hydraulic fracturing. This provided the opportunity to establish the potential importance of the method in alternative comparison having various criteria or attributes measured on several scales. The benefits of the analytical hierarchy process is more prominent when professional experience is combined with quantitative techniques in the analysis of the decisions needed in making effective judgments. Future work will be geared towards the application of the AHP technique and other decisionmaking methods in the petroleum industry, such as in the selection of a preferential method of flow-back water treatment from hydraulically fractured wells.
REFERENCES

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Pinchot, G., (1947). Breaking New Ground. Univ. of Wash. Press, Seattle. FEMAT. (1993). Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. Lackey, R. T., (1998). Seven pillars of ecosystem management. Landscape and Urban Planning 40: 21-30. Schmoldt, D. L., & Rauscher, H. M., (1996). Building Knowledge-Based Systems for Natural Resource Management. Chapman & Hall, New York. Reynolds, K., Bjork, J., Riemann-Hershey, R., Schmoldt, D., Payne, J., King, S., Moeur, M., er al., (1999). Chapter 28: Decision support for ecosystem management. Pages 687721 in Johnson, N. C., Malk, A. J., Sexton, W. T. and Szaro, R. (eds.) Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem Management. Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford. Saaty, T.L., (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 15:234-281. Saaty, T. L., (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw Hill, New York. Peterson, D. L., Silsbee, D., & Schmoldt, D. L., (1994). A case study of resource management planning with multiple objectives, Environmental Management 18: 729-742. Bard, J. F., (1992). A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process with multi-attribute utility theory: A case study. IIE Transactions 24: 111-121. Saaty, T. L., (1990). Multi-criteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh. Miller, G.A., (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review. 63:81-97.
15

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

Saaty, T.L., (1994). Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research. 74:426-447. Lootsma, F.A., (1996). A model for the relative importance of the criteria in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART. European Journal of Operational Research. 94:467-476. Forman, E. H., & Gass, S. I., (2001-07). "The analytical hierarchy processan exposition". Operations Research 49 (4): 469487. doi:10.1287/opre.49.4.469.11231. Saaty, T.L., (2001). Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: RWS Publications. ISBN 0-9620317-6-3. Dyer, J.S., ( 1990). Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science. 36:249-258. 33. Schoner, B., Wedley W.C., & Choo E.U., ( 1993). A unified approach to AHP with linking pins. European Journal of Operational Research 64:384-392. Weber, M., (1997). Remarks on the paper 'on the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process' by A. A. Salo and R. P. Hamalainen. Journal of MultiCriteria Decision Analysis. 6:320-321. Mendoza, G. A. & Sprouse, W., (1989). Forest planning and decision making under fuzzy environments: An overview and analysis. Forest Science 35: 481-502. Kangas, J., Loikkanen, T., Pukkala, T., & Pykalainen, J., (1992). A participatory approach to tactical forest planning. Acta Forestalia Fennica 215. Schmoldt, D.L., & Peterson, D.L., (2000). Analytical group decision making in natural resources: Methodology and application. Forest Science 46: 62-75. Mendoza, G. A., & Prabhu, R., (2000). Multiple criteria decision-making approaches to assessing forest sustainability using criteria and indicators: A case study. Forest Ecology and Management 131: 107-126. Kangas, J., (1992a). Metsikn uudistamisketjun valinta-monitavoitteiseen hytyteoriaan perustuva ptsanalyysimalli. Summary: Choosing the regeneration chain in a forest stand: A decision model based on multi-attribute utility theory. Doctoral thesis. University of Joensuu, Publications in Sciences 24. Pukkala, T., & kangas, J., (1996). A method of integrating risk and attitude toward risk into forest planning. Forest Science 42: 198-205. Pesonen, M., Kajanus, M., & Kurttila, M., (1997). Using AHP in analyzing results of SWOT: A case of eco-labeled forestry in Finland. Pages 171-179 ACSM/ASPRS/RT Convention, Vol. 4 Resource Technology. American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda MD.

19. 20. 21. 22.

23.

24. 25.

16

26. 27.

Reynolds, K. M., & Holsten, E. (1994). Relative importance of risk factors for spruce beetle outbreaks. Can. J. of For. Research. 24: 2089-2095. Smith, R. L., Bush, R., & Schmoldt, D. L., (1995). A hierarchical model and analysis of factors affecting the adoption of timber as a bridge material. Wood and Fiber Science 27: 225-238. Schmoldt, D. L., Peterson, D. L., & Silsbee, D., (1994). Developing inventory and monitoring programs based on multiple objectives. Environmental Management 18(5):707-727. Uusitalo, L., (1990). Consumer preferences for environmental quality and other social goals. Journal of Consumer Policy 13: 231-251. Mingyao, Z., (1994). Group analytic hierarchy process (GAHP) -- fuzzy method for evaluation of irrigation district management. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 8: 177188. Gholamnezhad, A., & Saaty, T. L., (1982). A desired energy mix for the United States in the year 2000: An analytic hierarchy process approach. Int. J. of Policy Analysis and Information Systems 6(1): 47-64. Levy, D., (1989). The analytic hierarchy process: applications to natural resources and environmental management. M.S. Thesis. University of Maryland. Banai-Kashani, R., (1989). A new method for site suitability analysis: The analytic hierarchy process. Environmental Management 13: 685-693. Xiang, W., & Whitley, D. L., (1994). Weighting land suitability factors by the PLUS Method. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 21: 273-304. Hucthinson, C. F., & Toledano, J., 1993. Guidelines for demonstrating geographical information systems based on participatory development. Int. J. Geographical Information Systems 7: 453-461. Pereira, J. M., & Duckstein, L., (1991). GIS-based habitat modeling using logistic multiple regression: A study of the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 57: 1475-1486. Mendoza, G. A., (1997). Introduction to analytic hierarchy process: Theory and applications to natural resources management. Pages 130-139 in 1997 ACSM/ASPRS/RT Convention, Vol. 4 Resource Technology. American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda MD. Kangas, J., Karsikko, J., Laasonen, L., and Pukkala, T., 1993. A method for estimating the suitability function of wildlife habitat for forest planning on the basis of expertise. Silva Fennica 27: 259-268.

28.

29. 30.

31.

32. 33. 34. 35.

36.

37.

38.

17

39.

Kiker G. A., Todd S., Bridges, Arun V.,` Thomas P., Seager, and Igor L., (2005). Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management Volume 1, Number 2 pp. 95108 SETAC Mendoza G. A., Anderson A. B., & Gertner G. Z., (2002). Integrating multi-criteria analysis and GIS for land condition assessment: Part 2Allocation of military training areas. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis 6:1730. Sharifi M. A., van den Toorn W., Rico A., & Emmanuel M., (2003). Application of GIS and multicriteria evaluation in locating sustainable boundary between Tunari National Park and Cochabamba City (Bolivia). Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 11:151164. Siddiqui M., Everett J., Vieux B., (1996). Landfill siting using geographic information systems: A demonstration. Journal of Environmental Engineering 122:515523. Janssen R., (2001). On the use of multi-criteria analysis in environmental impact assessment in the Netherlands. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10:101 109. Ramanathan R., (2001). A note on the use of the analytical hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. J Environ Manag 63:2735. Marttunen M., Hamalainen R., ( 1995). Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessment. European Journal of Operational Research 87:551563 Schmoldt D., & Peterson D., (2001b). Strategic and tactical planning for managing national park resources.. The analytical hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision-making. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kluwer. p 6779. Kangas J., Kangas A., Leskinen P., & Pykalainen J., (2001). MCDM methods in strategic planning of forestry on state-owned lands in Finland: Applications and experiences. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10:257271. Tran L., Knight C. G., ONeill R., Smith E., Ritters K., & Wickham J., (2002). Environmental assessment fuzzy decision analysis for integrated environmental vulnerability assessment of the mid-atlantic region. Environ Manag 29:845859. Zahedi, F., (1986). The analytic hierarchy processA survey of the method and its applications. Interfaces 16: 96-108. Eastman, J. R., Jiang, H., & Toledano, J., (1998). Multi-criteria and multi-objective decision making for land allocation using GIS. Pages 227-252 in Beinat, E. and Nijkamp, P. (eds.) Multicriteria Analysis for Land-Use Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

40.

41.

42. 43.

44. 45. 46.

47.

48.

49. 50.

18

51.

Jankowski, P., Nyerges, T. L., Smith, A., Moore, T. J., & Horvath. E., (1997). Spatial group choice a SDSS tool for collaborative spatial decision making. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 11: 576-602. Store, R., & Kangas, J., (2001). Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expert knowledge for GIS based habitat suitability modeling. Landscape Planning (in press). Powell, R. J., McCabe, M. A., Slabaugh, B. F., Terracina, J. M., Yaritz, J. G., & Ferrer, D., (1999). Applications of a new, efficient hydraulic fracturing fluid system. SPE Production and Facilities, 14(2):139-143, 1064-668X. Thompson, J. E., Mchain, C., Gregory, G., & Gerbrandt, D., (1991). New continuous-mix process for gelling anhydrous methanol minimizes hazards. Proceedings-SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, October 6 9, 1991. Publication by Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, pp. 425-436. Ely, John W., (1985). Secondary recovery of oil, oil wells, hydraulic fracturing. Stimulation Engineering Handbook, ix, 357 p. Alho, J.M., Kangas, J., & Kolehmainen, O., (1996). Uncertainty in the expert predictions of the ecological consequences of forest plans. Applied Statistics 45: 1-14. Crawford, G., & Williams, C., (1985). A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 29: 387-405. Alho, J.M., & Kangas, J., (1997). Analyzing uncertainties in experts opinions of forest plan performance. Forest Science 43: 521-528. Leskinen, P., & Kangas, J., (1998). Analyzing uncertainties of interval judgment data in multiple criteria evaluation of forest plans. Silva Fennica 32: 363-372. Keeney, R.L., (1988). Value-driven expert systems for decision support. Support Systems. 4:405-412. Decision

52. 53.

54.

55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

19