SPE 109555

Reservoir Technical Limits: A Framework for Maximizing Recovery From Oil Fields
P. Craig Smalley, SPE, Bill Ross, SPE, Chris E. Brown, SPE, Tim P. Moulds, SPE, and Mike J. Smith, SPE, BP

Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Anaheim, California, U.S.A., 1114 November 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Maximizing recovery is an important part of responsible asset
management and of optimizing value from an incumbent
resource position. BPs Reservoir Technical Limits (RTLTM)
process has proved highly effective at estimating oilfield
maximum recovery potential and identifying/prioritizing
specific activities to help deliver it. This paper describes the
process and examples of how it has worked and can be
applied.
RTL incorporates a conceptual framework with supporting
software, designed to stimulate and structure a conversation
with the asset team in a workshop environment. Key
ingredients are: in-depth knowledge/experience of the crossdisciplinary asset team; trained facilitation; cross-fertilization
from external technical experts; a toolkit to encourage
innovation in a structured and reproducible manner. The RTL
framework represents recovery factor as the product of four
efficiency factors: Pore-Scale Displacement (microscopic
efficiency of the recovery process); Drainage (connectedness
to a producer); Sweep (movement of oil to producers within
the drained volume); Cut-offs (losses related to end of field
life/access). Increasing recovery involves trying to increase
all of these efficiency factors.
RTL builds upon the
opportunity set already contained in the Depletion Plan. New
opportunities are identified systematically by comparing
current/expected efficiency values with data from highperforming analogue fields, seeding ideas with checklists of
previously successful pre-screened activities. The identified
opportunities are prioritized based on size, cost, risk, timing
and technology stretch, and then validated by recovery factor
benchmarking: (a) internally, comparing bottom-up (summing
opportunity volumes) and top-down (from efficiencies) values;
and (b) externally, by comparison with analogue fields.
The result is a prioritized list of validated opportunities and
an understanding of how each activity affects the reservoir to
increase recovery. The activities (and any required new
technologies) are valued in terms of the resultant incremental

barrels. Case studies demonstrate the effectiveness of RTL in

stimulating activity in individual fields and focusing corporate
technology resources into high-impact areas.
The RTL framework is a significant innovation towards
increased recovery factors. It is a new medium to focus the
talent of the asset team onto life-of-field value, generating an
opportunity set of real activities that the team can start to
progress immediately.
Introduction
When oil companies are given stewardship of valuable
subsurface oil resources, maximizing recovery of that resource
is an important aspect of responsible asset management. At a
time of high oil price, and high access price to new resources
or exploration acreage, never has it been more advantageous to
leverage value from a companys or a nations incumbent
resource position by increasing oil recovery to its maximum
potential. But what is that maximum potential and how can it
be attained? It is a sobering fact that, despite the everadvancing wave of new technologies, recovery factors for the
vast majority of oil fields are still languishing below 40%.
Intuitively, we know we should be able to improve on that
but what specific activities need to be initiated in individual
fields to begin pushing recovery factor towards its ultimate
potential? Is it all about new technologies? What role does
better application of existing technologies play?
BPs Reservoir Technical Limits (RTLTM) approach,
developed over the last 5 years, has proved highly effective in
determining the maximum recovery potential of an oil field
and identifying and prioritizing specific activities that will
help increase recovery towards that ultimate target. This paper
aims to outline the approach and provide some examples of
the benefits. A subsequent paper will outline the application
of the RTL approach to gas fields.
The Reservoir Technical Limits Concept
Trying to determine the ultimate life-of-field recovery
potential of an oil field involves a number of key ingredients,
some of which have a natural tension between them. Depth of
technical knowledge of the oil field is critical; but breadth of
experience of other fields and what worked for them is also
crucial. It is important that the latest technologies are
represented, and that real innovation is encouraged to come up
with creative new ideas; but, on the other hand, the process
needs to be focused and efficient, with the outputs being
consistent and reproducible. The process should involve true
creativity, yet the ideas should be quality-controlled not so
fanciful that they are never likely to be implemented.

SPE 109555

These varied ingredients have been synthesized into a highly

efficient process, delivered through a workshop-style event
called an RTL Review that involves the following:
1.
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
7.

8.

Application of pre-screening tools to pre-populate a

list of potentially applicable technologies
The right people. The RTL Review workshop
combines the asset team, external technical experts
specially trained facilitation.
Use of an RTL Framework, where recovery factor
is broken down into four component efficiency
factors.
A good understanding of the Base: consensus on
what the field has delivered so far and how and
would deliver if the activities in the current depletion
plan were implemented.
Generation of new ideas Opportunities that could
increase recovery compared to the current depletion
plan, generated by applying novel group innovation
techniques, focused by specially-trained RTL
facilitators.
Opportunity
description
and
preliminary
prioritization, based on doability and timescale.
Quality control of the new opportunity set by using
an internal consistency check based on the efficiency
factors and through external benchmarking based on
global analogue data.
A proprietary toolkit that facilitates steps 1-7, and
enables the results to be captured, analyzed and
presented in a consistent format. The opportunity set
then passes into the next stage of technical work
opportunity progression.

The following sections describe how these steps are

implemented in practice. Subsequent sections deal with some
examples to illustrate the benefits.
TM

Application of the RTL process

Pre-screening. Screening criteria have long been used to
determine whether a reservoir is suitable for the application of
various technologies IOR processes for example (e.g. AlBahar et al., 2004; Taber et al., 1997a and 1997b). Such
criteria, based on the degree of fit between the reservoir/fluid
properties of the field in question and the critical success
factors for the process, can be applied using different threshold
values to create different levels of screening.
The RTL
process is designed to foster creativity and innovation, so it is
not the intent of the pre-screening step to stifle discussion by
over-zealously screening out opportunities. Rather, the idea is
to screen-in opportunities by using coarse screening criteria,
such that only the really inappropriate ones are lost.
Screening criteria have been developed based on a
combination of published data and new in-house criteria. The
criteria have been rigorously tested using BPs extensive inhouse reservoir property database representing many hundreds
of reservoirs. The screening criteria can be applied prior to an
RTL workshop using data for the field in question already
available in the database. The RTL discussion is thus primed
to start on a positive note, with a list of new ideas that might
work.

RTL Review Workshop. This cross-disciplinary workshop is

the main vehicle for applying the RTL process. In this forum,
the asset team brings to the table a deep understanding of their
oil field, the development story do far, the reservoir
mechanisms and so forth, based on their experience and a
wealth of deep technical studies. This understanding will have
been developed using extensive surveillance, advanced
reservoir modelling and visualization. Other attendees are
specially selected technical experts from outside of the asset,
who will bring experience from other fields as well as the
latest technology perspectives. Both the asset team and the
external attendees are cross-disciplinary, representing
subsurface, drilling and completions, facilities, commercial etc
as appropriate for the field in question.
In many cases, bringing the team together with the time
and space to focus on the full life-of-field value of the asset is
all that is needed to precipitate an excellent discussion of
future growth activities. The RTL approach capitalizes on this
knowledge and enthusiasm by harnessing it and focusing it to
identify a full and thorough opportunity set. The use of a
specially-trained RTL-facilitator is important in realizing these
goals.
To optimize the quality of technical discussion, a field may
be subdivided into different segments/units based on their
character and the recovery processes being used in each; these
subvolumes may be considered separately and subsequently
recombined to give a field-wide RTL view. In this way, the
RTL approach can handle multiple recovery processes
deployed independently in different subvolumes of a field or
simultaneously in the same subvolumes.
RTL Efficiency Factor Framework. The RTL framework
represents oil recovery factor as the product of four efficiency
factors (Fig. 1). The purpose of using the efficiency factors is
to understand the broad controls on recovery factor in the
field, and to be able to link these with efficiency-improving
practices specific to each factor. The efficiency factor
framework is an extension of the approach often used in
classical reservoir engineering (e.g. Dawe, 2000).
Pore-Scale Displacement Efficiency (Eps). Microscopic
efficiency of the recovery process. This would be the
theoretical maximum recovery factor if the recovery process
could be applied perfectly throughout the whole field, to the
same degree that it could in a laboratory core sample. It is a
function of the recovery process and how it interplays with
pore-scale mineralogy, geometry, chemistry and fluid
characteristics. Depending on the reservoir characteristics Eps
can vary from <20% for oil fields on depletion, through 5080% for high quality waterfloods, to >90% in miscible gas
injection projects. It parallels the maximum reduction in oil
saturation for each recovery process.
Drainage Efficiency (Ed). Connectedness to a producing well.
If a part of the reservoir is pressure-connected to a producing
well on a production timescale, it would be counted as
connected (Fig. 1). In many mature fields this efficiency
factor is close to 1. Situations where it could be lower might
include phased developments, where a decision was made not
to develop the whole oil volume at once, or

SPE 109555

compartmentalization, where parts of the reservoir are isolated

from producing wells by pressure and fluid flow barriers.
Sweep efficiency (Es). Movement of oil to producers within
the drained volume, as a function of the proportion of the
reservoir contacted by the injected fluid. Total volumetric
sweep is considered here, but this is frequently broken down
into areal and vertical sweep efficiencies for greater clarity.
The volumetric sweep efficiency is an overall effect of the
injection point pattern and spacing, injection rate, reservoir
aspect ratio, reservoir permeability heterogeneity, fractures,
position of gas-oil or oil-water contacts, mobility ratio, density
contrasts between the injected and reservoir fluids etc. This is
one of the most difficult efficiency factors to quantify; in BP
proprietary simulation codes are used for estimating and
visualizing sweep.
Cut-offs efficiency (Ec). Loss of recovery related to end of
field life/access. This is where the time dimension is taken
into account.
In most fields after plateau, production
gradually tails off, often with decreasing oil production
matched by increasing water production and operating costs
per oil barrel. Actual production will usually cease before the
theoretical maximum production volume is reached, as
calculated from the asymptotic production profile. This loss
of the production tail is represented by Ec, which is 1- the
fraction lost. Here we consider only the overall cut-offs
efficiency, though for increased clarity this may be broken into
3 efficiency sub-factors related to the three main mechanisms
that cause field production to cease: (1) Energy, where the
reservoir is sufficiently depleted that the wells are not able to
flow effectively; (2) Facilities, where facilities are either
stretched beyond their design capabilities (e.g. water/oil or
gas/oil limits) or reach the end of their safe operating lifetime
and cost/benefit does not support renewal of facilities; and (3)
Commercial, where the end of a license agreement means that
production ends prematurely at least for the company
holding the expiring license.
These efficiency factors have been carefully designed to
relate to specific types of activities that could become
opportunities for reserves growth.
Defining the Base. The first step to building a good
opportunity set is to define its foundation. The Base
consists of oil that has been produced already, plus oil that is
expected to be produced from activities that have already been
committed to as part of the depletion plan. The understanding
of the reservoir possessed by the field team is used here to
estimate the contributions of each of the efficiency factors
(Fig. 1) to the expected Base recovery factor. The Eps may be
estimated from special core analysis data, Ed and Es from
surveillance and/or simulation data, and Ec from an
understanding on the controls on end of field life. In cases
where such data are insufficient for example fields very
early in their life cycle efficiency factor values can be
estimated with the help of the RTL Toolkit (Fig. 2). Here,
typical efficiency factor ranges are provided for standard
reservoir and recovery process types, and values are provided
for a range of well known fields for guidance.

The Base efficiency factors for oil fields vary greatly. In

general, Ed and Ec are high in mature fields (unless Ec is
artificially reduced by issues related to commercial terms,
such as license expiry). Ep and Es are usually where the
greatest remaining prizes lay (e.g. Fig. 3).
Creation of New Opportunities. The starting point for new
ideas is the efficiency factors identified for the Base.
Opportunity creation involves a structured but creative
conversation about the various activities that could be
employed to push each efficiency factor in turn towards their
maximum. The focus is on those factors displaying the
biggest potential prize. Various structured brainstorming
techniques may be employed by the trained facilitator, as
appropriate for the field in question. Potential opportunities
that might be discussed would include those that have passed
the pre-screening process described earlier, plus other
activities that are typically used to improve the efficiencies.
Some examples are given below.
Ed: Waterflooding, enhanced waterflooding (including
BPs LoSalTM waterflooding process Webb et al., 2004;
Jerauld et al., 2006) , immiscible gas injection, miscible gas
injection, blowdown, microbial EOR, wettability modifiers,
viscosity modifiers etc.
Ed: Infill drilling, recompletions, sidetracks, extendedreach wells etc.
Es: Offtake management; infill wells, sidetracks, fracs;
water/gas shut off, Bright Water (e.g. Frampton et al., 2004;
Yaez et al., 2007), wellwork, intelligent completions etc.
Ec: Artificial lift, facilities upgrades, renegotiate
commercial framework, capture of nearby production,
infrastructure-led exploration, gas storage etc.
Opportunity Description and Prioritization. Each of the
opportunities identified are described in a consistent way,
including name, verbal description of activity involved,
expected resource volume, time scale, which efficiency factor
is being improved, likely cost per barrel, probability of
success, key risks, technical challenges/barriers, possible
technical solutions and an action plan. Based on these
descriptors, the opportunities are assigned to one of 4
groupings:
Options: Opportunities that are well defined, economic,
and can be implemented in the short term (within a year).
Note that this does not mean that the opportunity will be
implemented on that time scale that is the outcome of
subsequent technical work and commercial decisions simply
that it could be, if selected.
Possibilities: Opportunities that can be implemented
economically using existing technology, or technology that
requires only incremental development. Possibilities are
subdivided into medium-term (1-5 years) and long-term (>5
years).
Barrier Opportunities: These require a step change in
technology or commercial framework (e.g. license extension).
This does not necessarily imply a lengthy timescale; although
there must be a barrier to be in this grouping, it could be that
the barrier can be overcome quickly.
Prioritization of the opportunities depends on a variety of
factors, such as volume, doability and probability of success.

Options are not necessarily of a higher priority than

possibilities or even Barrier opportunities: some of the longer
term or more difficult opportunities may have long lead times
or have a limited window of opportunity so that they may need
urgent action in order for them eventually to generate new
reserves.
Quality Control. The opportunities are quality controlled in
other words checked that they are internally consistent and
reasonable compared to other fields in two ways: using an
efficiency factor check and by comparison with analogue data.
Internal consistency check. A simple check can be done
using efficiency factor analysis. Firstly, the volumes expected
to be added for the Options, Possibilities and Barrier
opportunities can be summed, divided by the oil in place, and
converted into bottom-up estimates of recovery factors. Then,
the efficiency factors are estimated that would relate to the
situations after having implemented the Options, Possibilities
and Barrier opportunities. This is done by assessing each
opportunity, what efficiency factor it is designed to improve
and estimating by how much it will increase. This estimation
need only be semi-quantitative; it can be guided by expert
input from RTL Review participants who have experience of
the application of similar opportunities in other fields. The
efficiency factors at each stage are multiplied out to give a
top-down estimate of the recovery factor (Fig. 3). Analysis of
the efficiency factors is aided by a software tool whereby the
efficiency factor inputs are dynamically linked to graphics that
display the impact of the efficiency factor estimates (Fig. 4).
The bottom-up and top-down estimates of recovery factor
are compared graphically (Fig, 4). If they are similar, this
indicates that, within the uncertainty limits, there is
consistency between the description of the opportunity set
(bottom-up), and the understanding of their impact on the
reservoir (top-down), giving confidence that the opportunity
set is reasonable. Minor differences (as in Fig. 4) are likely to
be within the noise of this approach. However, sometimes
large discrepancies have been identified at this stage, which
may indicate problems such as opportunities that duplicate
each other (i.e. producing the same barrels in two different
mutually exclusive ways), misunderstanding of the effect of an
activity on an efficiency factor, or even an unresolved problem
with defining the oil-in-place. Whenever such a discrepancy
is identified, this leads to an iteration of the process (for
example deleting or merging competing opportunities) until
agreement is reached. RTL provides an excellent framework
for challenging overall volume estimates
External consistency check.
BP has an extensive
reservoir performance benchmarking toolkit that will be
described in a later paper. This allows recovery factors for the
field in question to be compared to carefully selected analogue
fields. A numerical estimation of reservoir complexity index
(CI) is key to this; the process used has evolved from the early
work of Dromgoole and Speers (1997), now involving more
sophisticated scoring and weighting methods. The CI allows
different reservoirs to be compared on the same graph. Figure
5 shows an example of this; here, individual analogue field
data points have been removed and are instead represented by
trend lines, constructed using an equation that expresses
recovery factor as a function of the Eps, well spacing and a

SPE 109555

reservoir complexity index, calibrated using relevant analogue

data. In Figure 5, the bottom-up recovery factors benchmark
well to the analogue trend lines. This indicates that the
recovery factors are reasonable when compared to analogue
fields with similar recovery processes, well spacings and
complexities.
In cases where there are significant
discrepancies, particularly where the recovery factors are high
relative to the analogue data, the opportunity volumes may be
adjusted (decreased) until they are more in keeping with the
analogues.
Data capture and follow-up. The data describing the
opportunity set plus the relevant background data on the field
are captured in a consistent format with built-in graphics and
summary tables that illustrate the opportunities and help
communicate the results to a wider audience. The data
resulting from the RTL Review workshop can automatically
be uploaded into the global database.
The opportunity set feeds into a workflow called
opportunity progression (Fig. 6), the first part of which is
often a more detailed screening process. The opportunities
that make it through the fine screening are prioritized for
progression and become the subject of detailed technical work.
The RTL review is only the first step, but it gives focus and
impetus to the critical work that follows high quality
technical and commercial work that takes the opportunities
and turns them into reality.
Examples
The refreshed opportunity set. The main output of the RTL
process is an updated view of the full life-of-field
opportunities that, when implemented, will take recovery
factor to its technical limit. An example of a typical
opportunity set is shown in Figure 7, representing data from a
mature oil field. In this example the Base already includes
extensive conventional waterflooding and Enhanced Oil
Recovery (EOR) using miscible injection (MI) of hydrocarbon
gas.
Options. The options identified were: (a) implementation
of BPs LoSalTM low salinity waterflooding technology to
improve Eps; (b) water injection into the gas cap improving
the Ec by maintaining pressure and thus maintaining injectant
miscibility; and (c) improve the sweep (Es) of the MI by
sidetracking MI injectors into optimal positions.
Possibilities. The Possibilities involve expanding the
throughput of both LoSalTM and MI by tapping into new
supplies of these injectants, resulting in improved sweep (Es)
and field life extension (Ec).
Barrier opportunities. A rich vein of barrier opportunities
includes: late life sale of gas from the gas cap; expansion of
the MI by using miscible CO2 gas; increased water handling
capacity to extend field life to higher water cuts; use of Bright
Water to improve waterflood sweep deep in the reservoir; and
extension of the MI to an new isolated part of the field. All of
these opportunities have technical barriers, but the fact that
they are included as opportunities means that each barrier has
an associated technology plan and a set of activities designed
to overcome the barriers.
In most cases, many of the opportunities identified through
the RTL process will already have been present in the field

SPE 109555

depletion plan, though RTL might generate some new

perspectives or activities associated with them. However in
virtually every RTL Review there are some new opportunities
that had not previously been identified. Some opportunities
initially generated in this way are already contributing to
production.
Repeat RTL Reviews reveal opportunity progression. The
RTL process is repeated at regular intervals, perhaps every 1-2
years depending on the field in question. Figure 8 shows an
example from a mature North Sea oil field which has
undergone the RTL process 3 times over a 3-year period. This
reveals an interesting pattern of opportunity identification and
progression during that period. Over the 3 years cumulative
production has of course increased. However the Base
(representing proved reserves) has more than kept pace with
this, increasing significantly in 2005 as a direct result of
Options and Possibilities identified in 2002/3 being progressed
through to sanction and implementation. This does not mean
that the hopper of Options and Possibilities is becoming
depleted; both actually rose in 2005, the result of Barrier
opportunities identified in 2002/3 having been progressed and
promoted from the Barrier category. Such progression occurs
through implementation of the field technology plan and
focused corporate R&D so that the technical barriers are
surmounted.
Application of the global RTL database. The consistent
format of the RTL outputs controlled by the RTL toolkit
facilitates the simple uploading of RTL data for each field into
a single database. The resulting global dataset is an incredibly
powerful tool that links possible future producible volumes to
specific activities and to the application of specific
technologies. Where technology advances are necessary, for
example to unlock a group of barrier opportunities, it is
possible to value the technology advancement based on the
amount of resource it will generate. This helps to focus R&D
resources onto the technologies that will have the greatest
global impact. Figure 9 illustrates the kind of analysis that is
available readily from the database. It shows a breakdown of
the technologies involved in the set of EOR-related Barrier
opportunities from one particular geographic region weighted
by the expected resource volume to be added by each
technology. For a region, this kind of data is valuable for
technology planning, for regional technology strategies and for
human resource planning and technical training. Looked at
globally, this type of data is key to efficient focusing of R&D
resources onto the technologies that in the future are likely to
produce the largest gain.
Conclusions
In the quest to maximize recovery factors, Reservoir Technical
Limits is a valuable new approach. The RTL process is
designed to reach an optimal balance between the two
conflicting drivers: the need for innovation and creativity to
generate new ideas; and the need for focus, discipline and
consistency so that the process is efficient and gives
reproducible high-quality results.
The combination of infield expert knowledge (the field team), global technical

expertise and trained facilitation has proved highly effective

when the effort is channeled using the RTL toolkit.
Key to this is the ability to deconstruct recovery factor into
the four efficiency factors Porescale Displacement,
Drainage, Sweep and Cut-offs with typical pre-screened
activities/technologies that are available to seed discussion on
what can be done to maximize each efficiency factor.
Innovation is good, but way-out ideas that are
disconnected from reality or unsupported by understanding of
the reservoir are not good they distort the picture of what is
possible. The quality control measures implemented in RTL
use a simple but effective method to ensure that unrealistic or
duplicate ideas are filtered out. These measures consist of (a)
an internal consistency check that compares the bottom-up
recovery factor (adding up the opportunity volumes) and the
top-down recovery factor (estimating the efficiency factors
and multiplying them out), and (b) comparison with analogue
fields using an in-house performance benchmarking toolkit.
The RTL process has been in operation for several years,
and an extensive database has built up of successful RTL
Reviews. Before-versus-after comparisons show that in
almost all cases new ideas are generated with the capability to
grow the resource. Where RTL reviews have been repeated
the trend continues, each time expanding the opportunity set
through time as more is known about the reservoir and as
technology evolves. There has been sufficient time to track
some opportunities from their conception in an RTL review,
into technology planning, technology development, field
piloting through to production
The global dataset represented by hundreds of RTL
reviews and thousands of individual opportunities each of
which links a technology and activity to a resulting resource
volume is an extremely useful tool for planning R&D on a
variety of scales, from field and regional technology plans
through to corporate R&D prioritization.
This paper has focused on the RTL process, but this is only
the start. Opportunity identification through RTL has to be
followed by efficient and effective opportunity progression.
The RTL toolkit is designed to link seamlessly with the
opportunity progression toolkit that prioritizes the necessary
work and tracks progress, so as to turn the ideas into reality
Acknowledgements
BP is thanked for permission to publish. Cliff Black and Gary
Neville can be singled out for thanks for their help in devising
the RTL process. Numerous other colleagues too many to
mention have contributed to the conception, development
and implementation of the processes described herein. Their
work is much appreciated.
References
Al-Bahar, M.A., Merrill, R., Peake, W., Jumaa, M., Oskui, R.
2004. Evaluation of IOR Potential within Kuwait.
SPE
88716.
Dawe, R.A. 2000. Reservoir Engineering. In Modern
Petroleum Technology, Volume 1 Upstream, ed. Dawe, R.A.
Institute of Petroleum, p207-282.
Dromgoole, P., Speers, R., 1997. Geoscore: A method for
quantifying uncertainty in field reserve estimates. Petroleum
Geoscience v3, p1-12.

Frampton, H., Morgan, J.C., Cheung, S.K., Munson, L.,

Chang, K.T., Williams, D., 2004. Development of a Novel
Waterflood Conformance Control System. SPE 89391
Jerauld, G.R., Lin, C.Y., Webb, K.J., Seccombe, J.C., 2006.
Modeling Low-Salinity Waterflooding. SPE 102239.
Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D., Seright, R.S. 1997a. EOR Screening
Criteria Revisited - Part 1: Introduction to Screening Criteria
and Enhanced Recovery Field Projects. SPE 35385.
Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D., Seright, R.S. 1997b. EOR Screening
Criteria RevisitedPart 2: Applications and Impact of Oil
Prices. SPE 39234.
Webb, K.J., Black, C.J.J., Al-Ajeel H., 2004. Low Salinity Oil
Recovery - Log-Inject-Log. SPE 89379.
Yaez, P.A.P, Mustoni, J.L., Relling, M.F., Chang, K.-T.,
Hopkinson, P., Frampton, H., 2007. New Attempt in
Improving Sweep Efficiency at the Mature Koluel Kaike and
Piedra Clavada Waterflooding Projects of the S. Jorge Basin in
Argentina. SPE 107923.

SPE 109555

SPE 109555

Figures

Saturation

Pore-scale Displacement: Eps

Soinitial

Eps

Sofinal

1-Eps

Drainage: Ed
Fault
1-Ed

Ed
1-Eps

Sweep: Es & Cut-offs: Ec

1-Ed

Cut-off
1-Ec
Ec

Es

1-Es
1-Eps

Time

Distance
Produced

Remaining

Fig. 1Illustration of the efficiency factors, Porescale

Displacement (Eps), Drainage (Ed), Sweep (Es) and Cut-offs (Ec),
that are used to understand recovery factor and how it can be
increased.
OIL
FIELD
Efficiency
Factor
Guide

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Low quality
No P support

Depletion

0.6

0.7

0.9

1 Efficiency
Factor

High quality

Waterflood

Strong P support

0.8

Water-based

EOR Miscible gas

0.72

Pore Scale Displacement

Field 1

Field 2 Field 3 Field 5

Field 7
Field 8
Field 6
Field 9
Field 4

Field 10
Field 11

Wide

Well spacing

Close

Many

Compartments

None

Phased developments
Drainage

RF =
75%
30.4%

Field 12

Field 13

Low
Shallow/BW
High

Field 14

0.88
Field 16Field 17
Field 18

Field 15

Mobility

High

Dip/Geometry

Steep/edge

Heterogeneity/Layering

Low

0.50
Sweep

Field 19 Field 20

Field 21

Field 22

Field 23
Field 24

Complex

Facilities

Low

Energy

Short

PSA

Field 25
Easy
High
Life of field

0.95
Cut-offs

Field 26

Field 27

Fig. 2Screen shot from part of the RTL toolkit that aids efficiency
factor estimation.
Typical ranges are shown for various
scenarios. Values for analogue fields are incorporated for
guidance (field names omitted). The efficiency factors are set
using the sliders. The resultant recovery factor is recalculated in
real time and is used to reality-check the efficiency factor values.

Field 28
Field 30
Field 29 Field 31

SPE 109555

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Eps
Ed
Es
Ec
RF
Base
Options
Possibilities
Barrier
Remaining
Fig. 3Typical efficiency factor values. The Base values represent
understanding of the reservoir at the time of the RTL review, and
include oil that has been produced already or results from
activities that have been committed to. The Options, Possibilities
and Barrier values relate to the efficiency factors expected to
result from each activity set. The recovery factor (RF) is the
product of the relevant efficiency factors.
1.0
0.8

RF

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

Fig. 4Screen shots of the tool used to perform an internal

consistency check of the opportunity volumes. The left panel
illustrates how the estimated efficiency factors are input for the
Base (S = Sanctioned), Options (O), Possibilities (P) and Barrier
opportunities (B). This panel is linked to the diagram on the right,
so that changing the efficiency factors changes the top-down
recovery factor shown by the columns accordingly. The small
horizontal lines represent the bottom-up recovery factors
calculated by adding up the opportunity volumes. If the bottomup and top-down RFs are similar, this indicates that the
opportunity descriptions are consistent with the understanding of
the field represented by the efficiency factor estimates.

SPE 109555

1.0

Recovery Factor

0.9
0.8
0.7

0.6

P
O
B

Barrier
Possibilities
Options
Base
RF

0.5
0.4
0.3
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Complexity Index
Fig. 5Recovery factors for the Base, Options, Possibilities and
Barrier compared to analogue-calibrated trend lines of recovery
factor v complexity index for fields with similar Eps (the yintercept) and well spacings.
As more opportunities are
implemented the Eps increases due to EOR and the well spacing
decreases due to infill drilling. In this case the recovery factors
benchmark well.

Coarse Pre-Screening

Fine Screening

Opportunities
Potential
Opportunities

All available
technologies
9
9
9
9

Prioritised
Opportunities
9
9

TM
RTL
RTLTM

Progression
Progression
9

Fig. 6The overall workflow in which RTL is implemented.

Preliminary coarse pre-screening feeds potential opportunities
into the RTL Review. Opportunities that are taken up and quality
controlled in the RTL are then fine-screened afterward to prioritize
the opportunities for further work. These opportunities feed into
a tranche of technical work called Opportunity Progression.

Opportunity w ork-up
Technology plans
Surveillance plans
Reservoir description etc

10

SPE 109555

0.70

10
9
8

Opportunity set
10 MI in isolated segment

Recovery Factor

0.65

0.60

3
2

7 EOR: CO2 injection

6 Gas Sales
5 Expanded LoSalTM
4 Additional MI source
3 MI sweep optimization

5
4

2 Gas Cap water injection

1 LoSalTM

0.55

9 Bright Water
8 Increase water handling

Base

0.50
Base

Options

Possibilities

Barrier

Fig. 7An RTL-derived opportunity set for a mature oilfield.

MI = Miscible hydrocarbon injection.
0.7
2002

Recovery Factor

0.65

2003
2005

Depressurization
Microbial

Other

0.6

0.55

Miscible
CO2

0.5

Immiscible
gas

Bright
Water

LoSal TM

RepressurGas cap WI ization

Enhanced waterflood

0.45

Produced

Base

Options Possibilities

Barrier

Fig. 8Results from repeated RTL reviews over a 3 year period for
a mature North Sea oil field, showing opportunity progression and
delivery of new reserves (increased Base).

Fig. 9A breakdown by volume of the potential EOR-related

Barrier opportunities for one geographical region (other
opportunities related to drilling, facilities, commercial etc are not
included). This illustrates the type of information that can be
derived from the global RTL database; it is valuable for
developing local technology plans and global R&D strategies.