610 August 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Reservoir Technical Limits: A Framework for

Maximizing Recovery From Oil Fields
P. Craig Smalley, Bill Ross, Chris E. Brown, Tim P. Moulds, and Mike J. Smith, SPE, BP
Copyright 2009 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 109555) was accepted for presentation at the 2007 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, 1114 November, and revised
for publication. Original manuscript received for review 23 July 2007. Revised manuscript
received for review 4 March 2009. Paper peer approved 7 March 2009.
Summary
The Reservoir Technical Limits (RTL
TM
) approach described herein
has proved highly effective at identifying those activities and tech-
nologies required to push oilfield recovery factors toward their
maximum potential. It combines classical reservoir engineering
approaches, together with knowledge of existing and novel recovery-
enhancing technologies, to create a common framework for identify-
ing specific actions to increase recovery factor. RTL is implemented
in a structured workshop supported by a software toolkit.
The RTL workshop involves the cross-disciplinary field team
(in-depth field knowledge), external technical experts (challenge,
cross-fertilization), and trained facilitation. The software toolkit
encourages innovation in a structured and reproducible manner
and documents the outcomes in a consistent format. The RTL
conceptual framework represents a recovery factor as the product
of four efficiency factors: (1) pore-scale displacement (microscopic
efficiency of the recovery process); (2) drainage (connectedness to
a producer); (3) sweep (movement of oil to producers within the
drained volume); and (4) cut-offs (losses related to end of field
life/access). RTL encourages identification of new opportuni-
ties, specific activities or projects that, if implemented, increase
one or more efficiency factor, and thus increase recovery relative
to the current field Depletion Plan. New ideas are stimulated by
comparing current efficiency values with the effects of successful
prescreened activities from analogue fields. The identified oppor-
tunities are validated by benchmarking: (a) internally, comparing
recovery factors derived from summing the opportunity volumes
with recovery factors derived from the expected efficiency factor
increments; and (b) externally, comparing 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 opportunities (and any required new technologies)
are valued in terms of the resultant incremental barrels. The RTL
approach is a significant innovation, because it provides a system-
atic framework to: (a) identify new recovery-increasing activities
across a portfolio of fields; (b) engender ownership of these activi-
ties by the individual field teams; and (c) identify the technology
requirements to progress the opportunities. Now, having been
implemented in more than 200 fields, this systematic approach has
enabled opportunity descriptions/values and technology require-
ments to be compared consistently across all fields, thereby
improving project prioritization and focusing corporate technology
development and deployment onto the highest impact areas.
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. Being able to maximize
economic recovery from an incumbent resource position is advan-
tageous both for the company and host nation alike.
But, what is that maximum-recovery potential and how can
it be attained? Why do recovery factors for the vast majority of
oil fields still languish lower than 40%, despite the availability of
drilling and enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technologies that have
enabled some fields to reach more than 70%?
In 2002, we conducted a root-cause analysis of published and
internal company data to determine the critical success factors for
increasing recovery factor. Some issues were obvious, such as the
need to reduce the cost of available technologies. Other factors
were more surprising.
At the individual field level, key success factors are that the field
team needs to have a systematic way of understanding their field
performance, and a systematic way of assessing what technologies
are suitable for increasing recovery in their specific circumstances.
Activities to increase recovery need to be packaged as projects rather
than vague technology applications, and these projects need to be
owned and promoted by the field team, not by a remote technology
group. Further, the field team needs a clear and consistent way of
communicating the nature and value of the projects to compete for
internal company funds. They also need a consistent way of articulat-
ing their need for new technologies, and the value they would extract
from such technologies by deploying them in their field.
At the corporate level, firms need a consistent view of their
full potential portfolio of recovery-increasing projects to be able to
make decisions about which ones to fund. They need to understand
which existing technology capabilities are advantaged in each field
to determine where to target technology deployment. Particularly
important for long-term growth is a systematic way of gauging the
need for new technologies, and the value added by each, so that
strategic decisions can be made about research and development
(R&D) funding.
Stemming from this review, a new systematic approach to
opportunity identification and description was developed at BP
called Reservoir Technical Limits (RTL
TM
RTL is a registered
trade mark of BP plc). This approach, which has been applied to
more than 200 oil and gas fields during the last 5 years, has proved
highly effective in determining the practical recovery potential of
an oil or gas field, as well as identifying and prioritizing specific
activities that help increase recovery toward that ultimate target.
This paper outlines the approach as applied to oil fields, also
providing some examples of the benefits. A subsequent paper will
outline the application of the RTL approach to gas fields.
The Reservoir Technical Limits Concept
RTL determines the life-of-field recovery potential of an oil
fieldand the steps needed to get thereby combining the fol-
lowing key ingredients:
Depth of technical knowledge of the individual oil field,
together with breadth of experience of other fields and what
worked for them
Innovation, creativity, and awareness of the latest technolo-
gies, together with rigorous quality-control to exclude unrealistic
or purely fanciful ideas
Field specificity, so the identified opportunities really suit the
field in question, but combined with a consistent approach and
documentation/reporting mechanism, so that every opportunity in
every field in a company portfolio can be compared and prioritized
on a level playing field.
To incorporate these varied ingredients, RTL consists of the
following components: (1) a structured workshop owned by the
field team but embracing external perspectives; (2) a conceptual
framework that probes the performance of each field in a consis-
tent manner and prompts new ideas in a structured way; and (3)
supporting software tools that help with screening, quality control,
benchmarking, and consistent documentation. RTL is applied to
an oil field using the following process:
August 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 611
1. Before the workshop, apply prescreening tools to prepopu-
late a list of high-potential field-specific technologies.
2. Engage the right people: the RTL workshop combines the field
team, external technical experts, and specially trained facilitation.
3. Use an RTL conceptual framework, in which the recovery
factor is broken into four component efficiency factors, to achieve
a good understanding of the Base. This involves consensus on
what the field has delivered so far and how, and what will have
been delivered when the activities in the current depletion plan
have been implemented.
4. Use the RTL conceptual framework, seeded by examples of
what has worked elsewhere and the technologies identified in (1),
to drive the generation of new opportunities. An opportunity is
defined as any activity that can increase the recovery factor com-
pared to the current depletion plan.
5. Describe the opportunities and perform a preliminary priori-
tization based on doability, cost, and timescale.
6. Quality control the new opportunity set using an internal
consistency check and external benchmarking based on global
analogue data.
7. The software toolkit facilitates steps 1 through 6, 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 workopportunity progression.
The following sections describe how these steps are imple-
mented in practice. Subsequent sections deal with examples to
illustrate the benefits.
Application of the RTL
TM
Concept
Prescreening. Screening criteria have long been used to determine
whether or not a reservoir is suitable for the application of various
technologiesfor example, improved oil recovery (IOR) processes
(Al-Bahar et al. 2004; Taber et al. 1997a; 1997b). The applicabil-
ity of new recovery technologies to a eld can be estimated based
on the degree of t between the reservoir/uid properties of the
eld in question and the critical success factors for each recov-
ery-enhancing technology. Some have tried to do this in a purely
mathematical manner, using objective functions and optimization
approaches (Pardo-Torres et al. 2007). However, RTL prescreening
is not intended to come up with either the answer, or to pre-empt
discussion by overzealously screening out opportunities. Rather,
the idea is to screen-in opportunities by using coarse (relaxed)
screening criteria, such that only the most inappropriate technolo-
gies are excluded from subsequent discussion.
Screening criteria have been developed based on a combina-
tion of published data and new in-house criteria. The criteria were
rigorously tested against an extensive in-house reservoir property
database representing many hundreds of reservoirs. The screening
criteria are applied before an RTL workshop using field data from
the in-house database. The RTL discussion is thus primed to start
on a positive note, with a list of suggestions that may work.
RTL Workshop. This cross-disciplinary workshop is the main vehi-
cle for applying the RTL process. In this forum, the eld team brings
to the table a deep understanding of their asset, its development story
so far, the reservoir mechanisms and so forth, based on their expe-
rience and technical studies. This understanding would have been
developed using surveillance, advanced reservoir modeling, and
visualization. The information available and depth of understanding
of the eld team are criticalany limitations in these constrain the
quality of the results. Other attendees are specially selected technical
experts from outside the eld team, who bring experience from other
elds as well as the latest technology perspectives. Both the eld
team and the external attendees are cross-disciplinary, representing
subsurface, drilling and completions, facilities, commercial, etc.as
appropriate for the eld 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 reserves
growth opportunities. The RTL facilitator is trained to capitalize
on this knowledge and enthusiasm by harnessing it and focusing
it to identify a full and thorough opportunity set.
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 Efciency Factor Framework. The RTL conceptual frame-
work represents an oil-recovery factor as the product of four
efciency factors (Fig. 1). Each efciency factor is a number
between zero and one; when multiplied together, the product
Eps*Ed*Es*Ec equals the recovery factor. The purpose of using
the efciency factors is to understand the broad controls on eld
recovery factor and to be able to link these with specic efciency-
improving practices. The efciency factor framework is an exten-
sion of the approach often used in classical reservoir engineering
(Dawe 2000). The following efciency factors have been carefully
designed to relate to specic types of activities that may become
opportunities for reserves growth.
Pore-Scale Displacement Efficiency (Eps). This is the micro-
scopic efficiency of the recovery process, which is the theoretical
maximum recovery factor if the recovery process could be applied
perfectly throughout the whole field. It is a function of the recov-
ery 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 50 to 80% for high-quality waterfloods, and to
>90% in miscible-gas injection projects.
S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
Produced
Eps
1-Eps
Ed
Fault
1-Ed
1-Eps
Distance
Time
1-Ed
1-Eps
1-Es
Es
Cut-off
Ec
1-Ec
Pore- cale Displacement: Eps
Drainage: Ed
Sweep: Es & Cut-offs: Ec
initial
So
final
So
Remaining
S
Fig. 1Illustration of the efficiency factors, Porescale Dis-
placement (Eps), Drainage (Ed), Sweep (Es), and Cut-offs (Ec)
that are used to understand recovery factor and how it can
be increased. Recovery factor is equal to Eps*Ed*Es*Ec, all
expressed as fractions between 0 and 1.
612 August 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Drainage Efficiency (Ed). This refers to connectedness to a
producing well. If a part of the reservoir is pressure connected
(through the oil-leg) to a producing well on a production timescale,
it would be regarded as drained (Fig. 1). In many mature fields,
this efficiency factor is close to 1. Situations in which it may be
lower may include phased developments or highly compartmental-
ized fields.
Sweep Efficiency (Es). This refers to movement of oil to
producers within the drained volume. In this paper, we limited
discussion to total volumetric sweep, but in RTL workshops, both
areal and vertical sweep efficiencies are distinguished for greater
clarity. The sweep efficiency is influenced by the injector/producer
well pattern and spacing, injection rate, reservoir aspect ratio, res-
ervoir heterogeneity, fractures, position of fluid contacts, mobility
ratio, density contrasts between injected, and reservoir fluids, etc.
In BP, proprietary simulation codes are available for estimating
and visualizing sweep.
Cut-Offs Efficiency (Ec). This refers to loss of recovery related
to end of field life/access. In most post-plateau fields, produc-
tion gradually tails off, with decreasing oil production matched
by increasing water production and operating cost per oil barrel.
Actual production ceases before the theoretical maximum produc-
tion volume is reached because of critical economic thresholds
being reached. This loss of the production tail is represented by
Ec, which is 1 the fraction lost. Herein, we considered only the
overall cut-offs efficiency, though for increased clarity, this may be
broken into subfactors related to the three main mechanisms that
cause field production to cease: (1) energy, in which the reservoir is
so depleted the wells are not able to flow effectively; (2) facilities,
in which facilities are either stretched beyond their design capabili-
ties (e.g., water/oil limits) or reach the end of their safe operating
lifetime and cost/benefit does not support facility renewal; and (3)
commercial, in which the end of a license agreement means that
production ends prematurelyat least for the company holding
the expiring license.
Dening the Base. The rst step to building a good opportunity
set is to dene its foundation. The Base consists of previously
produced oil, plus oil expected to be produced from previously
committed activities as part of the depletion plan. The understand-
ing of the reservoir possessed by the eld team is used to estimate
the contributions of each of the efciency 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 of the controls on
end of eld life and commercial models. In cases in which such
data are insufcientfor example, elds very early in their life
cycleefciency factor values can be estimated with the help of
the RTL software tools (Fig. 2), in which efciency factors can
be estimated based on typical values for standard reservoir and
recovery process types, combined with eld analogue data.
The Base efficiency factors for oil fields vary greatly. In gen-
eral, Ed and Ec are high in mature fields (unless Ec is artificially
reduced by issues related to commercial terms, such as license
expiry). Eps and Es are often where the greatest remaining prizes
lay (Fig. 3).
Identication of New Opportunities. The starting point for new
ideas is the efciency factors identied for the Base. Opportunity
creation involves a structured but creative conversation about the
various activities that may be employed to push each efciency
factor in turn toward their maximum. Various structured brain-
storming techniques may be employed by the trained facilitator,
as appropriate for the eld in question. Potential opportunities that
may be discussed include those having passed the prescreening
process described earlier, plus other activities typically used to
improve the efciency factors. Some examples are as follows:
Eps: Waterflooding, enhanced waterflooding (including BPs
LoSal
TM
waterflooding processWebb et al. 2004; Jerauld et al.
2006), immiscible gas injection, miscible gas injection, blowdown,
microbial EOR, wettability modifiers, and viscosity modifiers, etc.
Ed: Infill drilling, recompletions, sidetracks, and extended-
reach wells, etc.
Es: Offtake management; infill wells, sidetracks, fracs; water/
gas shut off, Bright Water (Frampton et al. 2004; Yaez et al. 2007),
wellwork, and intelligent completions, etc.
Ec: Artificial lift, facilities upgrades, renegotiation of commer-
cial framework, capture of nearby production, infrastructure-led
exploration, and gas storage, etc.
Opportunity Description and Prioritization. Each of the identi-
ed opportunities are described in a consistent way, including
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Efficiency
Factor
75%
RF =
30.4%
0.72
0.88
0.50
0.95
Depletion No P support Strong P support
Waterflood y t i l a u q h g i H y t i l a u q w o L
EOR Water-based Miscible gas
Field 10
Field 11
Field 4
Well spacing Wide Close
Compartments Many None
Heterogeneity/Layering High Low
Dip/Geometry Shallow/BW Steep/edge
Field 19 Field 21 Field 22 Field 25 Field 23
Field 24
Field 20
Mobility Low High
PSA Short Life of field
Energy Low High
Facilities Complex Easy
Field 1
Field 3 Field 2 Field 7
Field 6
Field 8
Field 9
Field 5
Field 17
Field 18
Field 16 Field 15 Field 14
Field 13
Field 12
Field 27 Field 26 Field 28 Field 30
Field 31
Field 29
Drainage
Pore Scale Displacement
Sweep
Cut-offs
OIL
FIELD
Efficiency
Factor
Guide
Phased developments
Fig. 2Screen shot from part of the RTL toolkit that aids efficiency factor estimation. Typical ranges are shown for various sce-
narios. 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 used to reality-check the efficiency factor values.
August 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 613
opportunity name, activity involved, expected resource volume
added by the activity, time-scale, which efciency factor is being
improved, likely cost per incremental barrel, probability of success,
key risks, technical challenges/barriers, possible technical solu-
tions, and an action plan. Based on these descriptors, the opportuni-
ties were assigned to one of the following groupings:
Options. Opportunities that are well defined, economic, and
can be implemented in the short term (~1 year). Note: This does
not mean the opportunity will actually be implemented on that
time-scale; it simply means it may be implemented within ~1
year, if selected for progression based on subsequent technical and
commercial analysis.
Possibilities. Opportunities that can be implemented economi-
cally using either existing technology or technology that requires
only incremental development. Possibilities are subdivided into
medium-term (1 to 5 years) and long-term (>5 years).
Barrier Opportunities. The opportunities are so called, because
there is a barrier to progressing such opportunities (i.e., these
cannot progress without a step change in technology, cost, or
commercial framework, such as license extension to overcome a
technical/commercial barrier). This does not necessarily imply a
lengthy timescale; some barriers can be overcome quickly with
focused attention.
The opportunities within each of these categories are given a
preliminary prioritization based on a variety of factors, such as
volume, doability, and probability of success. For each opportunity,
the key risks to delivery are identified, and any risk management
activities highlighted. Some of the longer-term or more difficult
opportunities may have long lead times or a limited window of
opportunity, and may need urgent action to eventually generate
new reserves; such issues are captured and documented.
Quality Control. The opportunities are quality controlledin
other words, checked to ensure that they are internally consistent
and reasonable compared to other eldsin two ways: using an
internal (i.e., within-eld) efciency factor check and comparison
with external (i.e., vs. other elds) analogue data.
Internal Consistency Check. A simple check for internal con-
sistency can be done using the efficiency factor framework, which
involves estimating the recovery factor in two independent ways
and checking that the results are similar, as follows:
(1) Each of the identified opportunities, whether or not they are
classed as Options, Possibilities, or Barrier Opportunities, have an
incremental volume attributed to them, as described earlier. These
volumes can be summed together with the oil volume already
produced, divided by the oil in place, and converted into recovery
factors. This generates three recovery factors, relating to that would
be achieved if all of the: (a) Options, (b) Possibilities, and then
finally (c) Barrier Opportunities were implemented.
(2) The identified opportunities are each aimed at improving
one or more of the efficiency factors. For each opportunity, an
estimate is made of how much the relevant efficiency factor(s) are
increased by implementation of that opportunity. This estimation
is guided by expert input from RTL workshop participants with
experience of the application of similar opportunities in other
fields. Examining in turn the Options, Possibilities, and Bar-
rier Opportunities, it is then possible to estimate what the new
improved efficiency factor values are, if all the opportunities in
each category were implemented. The revised efficiency factors
can then be multiplied out to give modified estimates of the recov-
ery factor after implementation of the Options, Possibilities, and
Barrier Opportunities (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 on recovery factor (Fig. 4).
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Eps
Ed
Es
Ec
RF
Base
Options
Possibilities
Barrier
Remaining
Fig. 3Example of efficiency factor values for a mature water-
flooded oil field. The Base values represent an understanding
of the reservoir at the time of the RTL review, and include oil
previously produced plus oil expected to be produced from
already committed activities. The Options, Possibilities, and
Barrier values relate to the efficiency factors expected to re-
sult from each activity set identified via the RTL process. The
recovery factor (RF) is the product of the relevant efficiency
factors (i.e., RF = Eps*Ed*Es*Ec).
S O
P
B
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
R
F

Fig. 4Screen shots of the tool used to perform an internal consistency check of the opportunity volumes. The left panel illus-
trates how the estimated efficiency factors are input for the Base (S = Sanctioned), Options (O), Possibilities (P), and Barrier (B)
opportunities. This panel is linked to the diagram on the right, therefore changing the efficiency factors changes the recovery
factor accordingly (shown by column height; this is method 2 described in the text). The small horizontal lines on the right chart
represent the recovery factors calculated by adding up the opportunity volumes (method 1, described in the text). If the columns
and horizontal lines match, this indicates the opportunity volumes are consistent with the understanding of the field represented
by the efficiency factor estimates.
614 August 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
The estimates of the recovery factor derived by the two previ-
ously discussed pathways are compared graphically (Fig. 4). If
similar, this comparison indicates that, within the uncertainty limits,
there is consistency between the description of the opportunity set
volumes (method 1) and the understanding of their impact on the
reservoir efficiency factors (method 2), thereby giving confidence
that the opportunity set is reasonable. Minor differences (as in Fig.
4) are likely to be within the noise of this semiquantitative 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 differ-
ent, mutually exclusive ways), misunderstanding 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 (e.g., deleting or merging
competing opportunities) until agreement is reached and a fully
consistent opportunity set is achieved.
External Consistency Check. BP has an extensive reservoir
performance benchmarking toolkit. This toolkit allows recovery
factors for the field in question to be compared to those of relevant
analogue fields (i.e., those with similar geology, recovery process,
well spacing, and field maturity). A numerical estimation of res-
ervoir 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 numerically on the
same graph. The external consistency check simply involves plot-
ting the recovery factors for the Options, Possibilities, and Barrier
Opportunities derived using the previous method (1), against CI for
a range of analogue fields. An example of this is shown in Fig. 5.
Herein, for confidentiality reasons, individual analogue field data
points have been removed and are instead represented by trend
lines tuned to the analogue data. In Fig. 5, the recovery factors
derived from the Options, Possibilities, and Barrier Opportunities
benchmark well, because they lay very close to the appropriate
analogue trend lines. This indicates the recovery factors are rea-
sonable when compared to analogue fields with similar complexi-
ties, employing similar recovery processes, and with similar well
spacings. In cases in which significant discrepancies are revealed,
particularly when the recovery factors are high relative to the ana-
logue data, the opportunity volumes may be adjusted until they are
more in keeping with the analogues.
Data Capture and Follow-Up. The data describing the opportu-
nity set plus the relevant background data on the eld 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 workshop
are uploaded into a global RTL database.
The opportunity set feeds into an opportunity progression
workflow (Fig. 6), the first part of which is often a more detailed
screening process. The opportunities that make it through this sec-
ond, stricter round of screening are prioritized for more detailed
technical work. The RTL review is only the first step, but it gives
focus and impetus to the critical technical and commercial work that
follows, to take the opportunities and turn them into a high-quality
portfolio from which projects can be selected for investment.
Case Study 1: New Opportunities in a
Mature Field
This case study deals with a mature onshore oil field with more
than a billion barrels of oil initially in place and more than
20 years of production history. The reservoir consists of highly
heterogeneous fluvio-deltaic sands containing 23 API gravity
oil. The field was developed initially as a waterflood, with
72 oil producers and 33 water injectors, with a well spacing of
~80 acres. Subsequently, five gas injectors were drilled, and a
Water-Alternating-Gas process was implemented using a miscible
gas injectant (MI). This process was applied to approximately 25%
of the field. The result of the effective waterflood, enhanced by gas
injection, and the tight well spacing, was a relatively high Base
recovery factor of ~52%.
The RTL approach was applied to this field in 2006, and the
analysis of the efficiency factors for the Base was Eps = 0.72
(this is volume-averaged, derived from pore-scale displacement
efficiency factors of 0.53 for the waterflood and 0.90 for the mis-
cible gas displacement parts of the field respectively, both derived
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Complexity Index
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

F
a
c
t
o
r
Barrier
Possibilities
Options
Base
RF
B
O
P
B
Fig. 5Recovery factors for the Base, Options, Possibilities,
and Barrier (circles) compared to analogue-calibrated trend
lines of recovery factor vs. complexity index for fields with
similar Eps (the y-intercept) and well spacings. As more op-
portunities are implemented, the Eps increases because of the
EOR, and the well spacing decreases because of infill drilling.
In this case, the recovery factors benchmark well.
RTL
TM RTL
TM
Coarse Pre-Screening
All Available
Technologies
Potential
Opportunities
Progression
Progression
Fine Screening
Opportunities Prioritized
Opportunities
Opportunity Work-Up
Technology Plans
Surveillance Plans
Reservoir Description
Fig. 6The overall workflow in which RTL is implemented. Preliminary coarse prescreening feeds potential opportunities into the
RTL workshop. Opportunities are devised and quality controlled in the RTL. Subsequently, these are fine screened to prioritize
the opportunities for further work. These opportunities feed into a workflow called Opportunity Progression.
August 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 615
from core-flood data); Ed = 0.90 (derived from field-wide pressure
surveillance), Es = 0.85 (derived from reservoir simulation sweep
analysis, and Ec = 0.97 (derived by application of an economic
cut-off to the simulation-derived production profile). The product
of these efficiency factors is 0.531, which matches closely the
52% recovery factor.
From this Base, the RTL workshop identified a number of
activities that may increase the efficiency factors, and thus increase
recovery factor (Fig. 7).
Options. The options identified were: (a) implementation of
BPs LoSal
TM
low-salinity waterflooding technology (Webb et al.
2004) to improve Eps of the waterflood; (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 involved expanding the through-
put of both LoSal
TM
and MI by tapping into new supplies of these
injectants, resulting in an improved sweep (Es) and field life
extension (Ec).
Barrier Opportunities. A rich vein of barrier opportunities
includes: (a) late-life sale of gas from the gas cap associated with
field depressurization; (b) expansion of the MI by using miscible
CO
2
gas, enabling the full field volume to be covered with the
EOR process; (c) increased water-handling capacity to extend field
life to higher water cuts; (d) use of Bright Water (Frampton et al.
2004) to improve waterflood sweep deep in the reservoir; and (e)
extension of the MI to a new isolated part of the field. All these
Barrier opportunities have technical barriers, but each barrier has
an associated set of proposed activities to overcome the barriers
(e.g., R&D, field piloting, etc.).
Several of these opportunities are additional to those originally
in the field depletion plan; if implemented in entirety, these oppor-
tunities can raise the recovery factor to almost 70% (Fig. 7). The
corresponding efficiency factors are then Eps = 0.84, Ed = 0.99,
Es = 0.89, and Ec = 0.99.
Case Study 2: RTL Helps Identify New
Opportunities to Replace Production
The RTL process is ideally repeated at regular intervals, perhaps
every 1 to 2 years, depending on the field in question. Many fields
have been through the RTL process twice or more. An example
from a mature offshore oil field that has undergone the RTL pro-
cess three times during a 3-year period is shown in Fig. 8. This
offshore field is a large, mature waterflood with more than 20
years of production. It has 45 producers and 27 injectors, and a
well spacing of approximately 160 acres. When RTL was applied
for the first time in 2002, already 46% of the in-place oil had been
produced, and the estimated recovery from the existing Base was
54% (Fig. 8). A miscible gas injection WAG process was at that
time being applied to approximately 10% of the in-place volume.
The efficiency factors were estimated at: Eps = 0.80, Ed = 0.92,
Es = 0.76, and Ec = 0.95. In the 2002 RTL, the following oppor-
tunities were identified:
Options. An extensive infill drilling program, aimed at improv-
ing sweep.
Possibilities. Infill drilling aimed specifically at draining an
isolated segment, and an extension of the WAG process to cover
~50% of the reservoir, improving the volume-weighted Eps.
Barrier Opportunities. Extending the WAG process to cover
~80% of the reservoir, coupled with late-life depressurization to
recover the injectant.
If all these opportunities were implemented, the predicted res-
ervoir technical limit recovery factor would be ~64%, caused by
improving: Eps from 0.80 to 0.88, Ed from 0.92 to 0.95, Es from
0.76 to 0.80, and Ec from 0.95 to 0.96.
1
3
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
Base Options Possibilities Barrier
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

F
a
c
t
o
r
MI in Isolated Segment
Bright Water
Increase Water Handling
EOR: CO
2
Injection
Gas Sales
Expanded LoSal
TM
Additional MI Source
MI Sweep Optimization
Gas Cap Water Injection
LoSal
TM
Base
Opportunity set
2
3
3
2
1
4
5
4
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
10
9
10
9
Fig. 7An RTL-derived opportunity set for a mature oil field. MI = miscible hydrocarbon injection.
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
Produced Base Options Possibilities Barrier
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

F
a
c
t
o
r
2002
2003
2005
Fig. 8Results from repeated RTL reviews during a 3-year
period for a mature offshore oil field. The Base increases from
2002 to 2005, representing delivery of new reserves (increased
Base) caused by progression of 2002 Options and Possibilities
into the 2005 Base. However, the Options and Possibilities have
also grown, representing progression of 2002 Barrier opportu-
nities to create 2005 Options and Possibilities.
616 August 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
A repeat RTL a year later showed similar results, with only
minor changes in estimated volumes. However, a third RTL in 2005
revealed an interesting pattern of opportunity identification and
progression during that period (Fig. 8). During the intervening 3
years, cumulative production had increased to 49%. Nevertheless,
the expected Base recovery has more than kept pace with this,
increasing significantly in 2005 from 54 to 58% as a result of those
infill drilling Options and Possibilities identified in 2002 being
progressed through to sanction and implementation. The hopper
of Options and Possibilities did not become depleted, though; both
actually rose in 2005, because some of the EOR extension opportu-
nities in the Barrier category in 2002 had been worked by the field
team, the technical and commercial barriers overcome, and those
opportunities promoted to Options and Possibilities. Although >30
mmbbl of opportunities were promoted out of the Barrier category
between 2003 and 2005, in 2005, the Barrier opportunities actu-
ally increased, because the 2005 RTL identified three new Barrier
opportunities: (1) drilling of small, undrained peripheral compart-
ments identified from new seismic data; (2) application of LoSal
TM

(Webb et al. 2004) to the waterflooded remnant of the field based
on new technical studies; and (3) enhancement of the MI EOR
process by increasing throughput by accessing a larger amount
of MI injectant. If all these opportunities were implemented, the
reservoir technical limit recovery factor increased from 64 to 67%
(Fig. 8), representing final efficiency factors of Eps = 0.90, Ed =
0.96, Es = 0.81, and Ec = 0.97. This example illustrates how the
RTL approach can continue to identify new opportunities to grow
reserves as new data are acquired and more is understood about
field performance, and as technology evolves.
Case Study 3: Focusing R&D Investment
The consistent format of the RTL outputs, imposed by the RTL
toolkit used during the RTL workshop, facilitates the simple
uploading of RTL data for each field into a single corporate data-
base. 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 (e.g., to unlock a group of barrier oppor-
tunities across several fields, it is possible to value the technol-
ogy advancement based on the amount of resource it progresses
through to production. This helps to focus R&D efforts onto the
technologies that have the greatest global impact.
In this example, a corporate R&D program needed to estimate
the potential impact of various EOR technologies in one particular
geographical area, to determine whether or not the optimal balance
of R&D effort had been achieved. The kind of analysis available
readily from the database is illustrated in Fig. 9. A breakdown
of the technologies required in the set of EOR-related Barrier
opportunities from the geographic region in question, weighted
by the expected resource volume to be added by each technology,
is shown in the figure. This kind of data is invaluable at the regional
level, for technology planning, for developing regional technology
strategies as well as assessing manpower and training require-
ments. Looked at globally, this type of data is key to efficient
focusing of R&D resources onto the technologies which, in the
future, are likely to produce the largest gain.
Conclusion
In the quest to maximize recovery factors, Reservoir Technical
Limits is a valuable new tool, providing a way of packaging and
implementing both standard and innovative reservoir engineering
approaches in a practical, consistent, and reproducible manner
across many fields. The RTL process is designed to reach an opti-
mal balance between the two conflicting drivers: (1) the need for
innovation and creativity to generate new ideas; and (2) the need
for focus, discipline, and consistency for the process to be efficient
and give reproducible high-quality results. The combination of in-
field experience (the field team), global technical expertise, and
trained facilitation has proved highly effective and is supported by
a proprietary software toolkit. We found it very useful to decon-
struct the recovery factor into the four efficiency factorsPore-
Scale Displacement, Drainage, Sweep, and Cut-Offsso that
prescreened field-specific activities/technologies to maximize each
efficiency factor can be seeded into the discussion.
Innovation is good, but way-out ideas disconnected from reality
or unsupported by understanding of the reservoir are not good
they distort the picture of what is reasonably 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 recovery factor calculated from adding up the oppor-
tunity volumes with that estimated by multiplying out the modified
efficiency factors; and (b) comparison with global 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-vs.-after comparisons show that in almost all cases, new
ideas are generated, adding to the potential producible volume.
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 suf-
ficient time to track some opportunities from their conception in
an RTL review, into technology planning, technology development,
field piloting, and right through to production.
The global dataset represented by hundreds of RTL reviews
and thousands of individual opportunitieseach of which links
a technology and activity to a resulting resource volumeis 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.
Other
Microbial
Miscible
CO
2
Immiscible
Gas
Bright
Water
Depressurization
Repressurization
Gas Cap Water Injection
Enhanced Waterflood
LoSal
TM
Fig. 9A breakdown by volume of the potential EOR-related Barrier opportunities for one geographical region (other opportunities
related to drilling, facilities, and commercial, etc. are not included). This breakdown illustrates the type of information derived
from the global RTL database; it is valuable for developing local technology plans and global R&D strategies.
August 2009 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 617
This paper focused on the RTL process, but that is only the
start. Opportunity identification through RTL has to be followed
by efficient and effective opportunity progression in which each
opportunity is worked up by the field team and aided by technical
experts as appropriate. The RTL toolkit is designed to link seam-
lessly with the subsequent opportunity progression workflow that
turns the ideas into reality.
Acknowledgments
We thank BP for permission to publish. Cliff Black and Gary Nev-
ille can be singled out for thanks for their help in devising the RTL
process. Numerous other colleaguestoo many to mentionhave
contributed to the conception, development, and implementation of
the processes described herein. Their work is highly appreciated.
References
Al-Bahar, M.A., Merrill, R., Peake, W., Jumaa, M., and Oskui, R. 2004.
Evaluation of IOR Potential Within Kuwait. Paper SPE 88716 presented
at the Abu Dhabi International Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi,
UAE, 1013 October. DOI: 10.2118/88716-MS.
Dawe, R.A. ed. 2000. Modern Petroleum Technology, Vol. 1 Upstream,
sixth edition, 207282. London: Institute of Petroleum.
Dromgoole, P. and Speers, R. 1997. Geoscore: A method for quantifying
uncertainty in field reserve estimates. Petroleum Geoscience 3 (1):
112.
Frampton, H., Morgan, J.C., Cheung, S.K., Munson, L., Chang, K.T.,
and Williams, D. 2004. Development of a Novel Waterflood Confor-
mance Control System. Paper SPE 89391 presented at the SPE/DOE
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 1721 April. DOI:
10.2118/89391-MS.
Jerauld, G.R., Lin, C.Y., Webb, K.J., and Seccombe, J.C. 2008. Modeling
Low-Salinity Waterflooding. SPE Res Eval & Eng 11 (6): 10001012.
SPE-102239-PA. DOI: 10.2118/102239-PA.
Pardo-Torres, J.A., Moctezuma, B.A., Pardo-Torres, A.C., and Villalobos,
L.H. 2007. Design of objective functions for optimization of process of
additional oil recovery. Paper SPE 108710 presented at the International
Oil Conference and Exhibition in Mexico, Veracruz, Mexico, 2730
June. DOI: 10.2118/108710-MS.
Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D., and Seright, R.S. 1997a. EOR Screening Criteria
RevisitedPart 1: Introduction to Screening Criteria and Enhanced
Recovery Field Projects. SPE Res Eng 12 (3): 189198. SPE-35385-
PA. DOI: 10.2118/35385-PA.
Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D., and Seright, R.S. 1997b. EOR Screening Criteria
RevisitedPart 2: Applications and Impact of Oil Prices. SPE Res Eng
12 (3): 199206. SPE-39234-PA. DOI: 10.2118/39234-PA.
Webb, K.J., Black, C.J.J., and Al-Ajeel, H. 2004. Low Salinity Oil Recov-
eryLog-Inject-Log. Paper SPE 89379 presented at the SPE/DOE
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 1721 April. DOI:
10.2118/89379-MS.
Yaez, P.A.P, Mustoni, J.L., Relling, M.F., Chang, K.-T., Hopkinson, P.,
and 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. Paper SPE 107923 presented at
the Latin American & Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference,
Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1518 April. DOI: 10.2118/107923-MS.
Craig Smalley is currently a senior advisor in Subsurface
Uncertainty and Risk Management, and coordinates the global
application of the RTL approach described in this paper. After
5 years as a geologist at the Institute for Energy Technology
(Norway), he joined BP at their Sunbury Technology Centre. In 20
years with BP he has held a variety of R&D and leadership roles.
He has a long-term interest in novel approaches to assessing
reservoir quality and compartmentalization risks. He holds a BSc
degree in geology and a PhD degree in geochemistry and
isotope geology from Nottingham University, UK. He has been
an SPE member since 1992. Bill Ross is a reservoir engineer with a
long and varied career in BP, having held various international
roles. Currently based in Houston, he is a senior advisor in classical
reservoir engineering. He helped devise and pioneer the
application of the RTL approach described in this paper. Chris
Brown is a consultant who recently retired from BP after a long
career that included many key technical and leadership roles,
including Director of Reservoir Management and Distinguished
Advisor. Tim Moulds is a reservoir engineering advisor with BP in
Aberdeen, UK. He has worked on many gas injection projects in
Alaska and the UK and Norwegian sectors of the North Sea, also
has interests in assisted history matching and scale-up. He holds
a BS degree in mathematics from the University of Newcastle-
upon-Tyne and an MS degree in applied mathematics from
Imperial College. Mike Smith has held a number of senior reservoir
engineering roles over a 30-year career with BP, including roles in
Abu Dhabi, Alaska, and Colombia. He is currently VP of Reservoir
Management. His interests include quantifying and formalizing
concepts of What Makes a Good Reservoir Plan. He holds a
BSc degree in mathematics and mathematical methods from
Cranfield University, UK.