Spe 205723 Ms

SPE-205723-MS
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEAPOG/proceedings-pdf/21APOG/1-21APOG/D011S001R002/2497619/spe-205723-ms.pdf/1 by Middle East Technical University Ankara user on 23 October 2021
Knowledge Management Best Practices and Application in Field
Development, IORs and Life-Cycle Reservoir Management
Xiaoguang Lu, C&C Reservoirs
Copyright 2021, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held virtually on 12 - 14 October, 2021. The official
proceedings were published online on 4 October, 2021.
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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.
Abstract
This paper presents a unique E&P knowledge management system which has been widely accepted and
applied by upstream petroleum industry. This knowledge management system started in mid-1990s and
consists of standard static and dynamic knowledge base, comprehensive evaluation reports, and fit-for-
purpose analytics tools applicable to the entire E&P lifecycle. Emphasis is placed on illustrating the breadth
and depth of the E&P knowledge and advanced analytics in terms of their capturing and applications in
field development and production.
This knowledge base consists of >1600 reservoirs from around the world, each containing ~400
reservoir-level static parameters and a set of dynamic performance data. The static parameter covers
reservoir characteristics, fluid properties, original in-place volume, EUR, recovery factor, production-
related data (such as well spacing, well pattern, well EUR et al.), reservoir management practices, and
key IORs/EORs and their incremental recovery. The knowledge extraction process involves collecting,
reviewing, and synthesizing geologic, reservoir engineering and production data on a representative sample
of global reservoirs. The reliable, coherent, high-quality knowledge base provides a foundation for the
development of primary recovery index using supervised machine learning. Insights and intelligence derived
from this knowledge base are critical to decision-making for both initial or early field development and
production stages. The development application includes, but not limited to: (1) quantifying in-place
volume, EUR, and recovery factor; (2) characterizing possible production performance and uncertainties
and obtaining a conceptual production performance curve; (3) validating development plan options; and
(4) benchmarking reservoir simulation results. The production application includes: (1) benchmarking
production performance; (2) identifying upside potential and improved oil recovery opportunities; (3)
finding best practices and lessons learned in reservoir management and secondary recovery practice; and
(4) screening EOR methods, calibrating potential incremental recovery and characterizing EOR process
performance.
Lack of knowledge standardization and absence of coherence of data from various data sources are the
main challenges facing industry's data-driven application. The knowledge management system presented
in this study provides the most reliable knowledge base, advanced analytics tools, and practical application
workflow to help the upstream industry become more efficient in applying collective human intelligence.
2 SPE-205723-MS
Introduction
Petroleum industry has increasingly realized the importance of data-driven analytics, analog knowledge
data applications involving in decision making, geological uncertainty understanding, resources estimation,
recovery factor and production dynamic performance benchmarking, and IOR opportunity identification
(Smalley et al., 2009; Sidle et al., 2010; Wickens et al., 2010; Lu et al., 2012, 2015; Temizel, 2013; Popova,
2018; Sun et al., 2021a, 2021b). To achieve those ambitious goals, great efforts have been made. These
include collecting and capturing field and reservoir data, selecting fit-for-purpose reservoir analogues, and
applying the analog knowledge base to solve specific problems in the industry E&P sector (Bhushan et al.,
2002; Hodgin et al., 2006; Rodriguez et al., 2014).
The most popular application is benchmarking or estimating recovery factor using Reservoir Complex
Index (RCI) (Smalley et al., 2009; Wickens and Kelly, 2010; Ranjian et al., 2019; Masoudi et al., 2020),
Reservoir Quality Index (RQI) (Sandrea and Goddard, 2016; Gomes, 2018), Field Quality Index (FQI)
(Oil & Gas Authority 2017). The constructed RCI, RQI and FQI normally consist of static parameters
characterizing reservoir property, reservoir heterogeneity and fluid property, such as permeability, porosity,
N:G ratio, permeability contrast, compartment count, crude oil viscosity and water oil saturation et al. Basic
research was also conducted to establish ultimate recovery factor predicting model employing machine
learning technology based on analog data (Gomes, 2018).
These applications face huge challenges regarding availability of effective analogs and consistently
transforming huge information and routine data into useful and trusted knowledge base (Temizel, 2013; de
Melo, 2019). An ideal analogue would be a developed reservoir with well-documented physical parameters
and an adequate performance history to rely on for future production and performance expectations
(Temizel, 2013). Curtis (2019) indicated that it is not true whoever has the most data wins, while whoever
has the most trusted data wins. Specifically, main challenges and limitations facing effective and efficient
analog applications are:
• Lack of standard classification and definitions leading to operators or research institutes capturing
discrete variables in an inconsistent manner across many reservoirs.
• Lack of holistic approach to capture key relevant parameters, damaging the reliability of the
transformed knowledge base.
• Lack of dynamic performance data capturing, causing incoherent static and dynamic analogue
parameters.
• Knowledge capturing focusing on reservoir intrinsic characteristics while neglecting IOR/EOR
technology knowledge data, limiting the application on solutions.
• Solely on local analogues weaking the leveraging capacity of key learnings from global basis and
the opportunity of generating innovative idea and solution.
• Inefficient knowledge management tool developed by individual users serving single purpose.
In this study, a unique E&P knowledge management system which has been developed and evolved
for over 27 years is presented. This knowledge management system successfully removes the above "pain
points", providing a practical solution to analog applications.
History and Content

Historical Development
The E&P knowledge management system presented in this study was initiated in mid-1990s and has
experienced four major phases of development. Initially, field evaluation reports were written by a small
expert team with basic field parameters attached as a separate table in the report. Efforts focused on
carbonate case studies at beginning and expanded to sandstone and other reservoir types following the
SPE-205723-MS 3
industry requirement. By integrating information and data from various data sources, those reports document
full story of individual fields/reservoirs, offering a function of physical library (Figure 1).
Figure.1—Schematic diagram illustrating the history of KDMS developing and evolved applications.
During the second phase, with addition of more field case studies, the field evaluation reports were stored
in CD-ROMs, and preliminary database was established containing limited parameters such as regional
geological setting, depositional environment, trap type, reservoir and fluid properties, resources, ultimate
recovery factor et al. However, the captured data were not standardized using comprehensive classification
scheme and consistent definitions. Data population simply followed the term or value from original data
sources - there was a lack of consistently synthesizing process.
With more experienced industry professional experts joining the research team and increased field/
reservoir analogue case studies, the knowledge management system evolved into the third phase,
transforming from a rudimentary database with detailed field evaluation reports to comprehensive
knowledge base. Boasting the large number of established case studies, comprehensive classification and
definitions for individual attributes were carried out. Meanwhile, a web-based platform, with input, search
engine and analytics tools, was developed allowing knowledge capturing using standard classification and
attribute definition in an efficient way. The knowledge management system links field report, knowledge
base and analytics tool together, realizing multi-query analogue search, basic analysis, characterization,
and benchmarking. Industry users are allowed to efficiently input their own key attributes, conducting
characterization or benchmarking study. Despite significant advances in this E&P knowledge management
system, there were still gaps at that time, including: (1) lack of production performance characteristic
attributes such as well EUR, initial well rate, plateau well rate and annual recovery, and decline rate et al.;
(2) lack of systematic classification and definitions on IOR/EOR technologies and reservoir management
activities; (3) existence of production history performance in hard-copy curves in report rather than
digitized history data in dynamic database; (4) no separate EOR project reports and lac of EOR specific
knowledge capturing, limiting the leverage in EOR technology screening, incremental recovery estimation
and uncertainty understanding et al.
With more experienced reservoir engineering professionals joining the research team, widely absorbing
feedback from industry and tireless efforts of the R&D team in the nearly past ten years, the knowledge
management system has evolved into its fourth phase. The latest E&P knowledge management system
consists of fully standardized reservoir static parameters, dynamic performance attributes, IOR/EOR
technologies, digitized production history performance data (Figure 1). It provides integrated reservoir
characterization and benchmarking both statically and dynamically, and IOR/EOR solutions by leveraging
global analogues in an effective way.
4 SPE-205723-MS
Key Elements of the Content

The latest E&P knowledge management system includes evaluation reports, comprehensive knowledge
base, an independent EOR module and knowledge management platform. Evaluation report documents full
story of each field case study from discovery to the latest improved recovery, covering trap, depositional
environment, reservoir and fluid properties, resources and ultimate recovery factor, development strategy,
production history performance, IOR/EOR practices and reservoir management activities. The knowledge
management platform has powerful function of knowledge input, search, analytics, characterization, and
benchmarking. In this study, emphasis is placed on illustrating the knowledge base and EOR module.
Knowledge Base. There are more than 1600 global reservoir analogue case studies, each containing ~400
geological and engineering static attributes and over 20 dynamic history performance attributes. The static
knowledge base consists of three aspects (Table 1):
Table 1—Example showing part of the three-aspect knowledge base captured.
Development concept and

Reservoir and Recovery IOR/EOR and Reservoir Management
Production Performance
Attribute Type Attribute Type Attribute Type
Flow Unit count N Production Stage T Secondary Recovery T
Permeability N Well Type T EOR T
Conformance
Porosity N Completion T T
Improvement
Heavy Oil and

Net to Gross Ratio N Perforation T T
Tar Production
Permeability Contrast N Well Spacing N Drilling T
Drive Mechanism T Well Pattern N Stimulation T
Temperature N Initial Well Rate N Artificial Lift T
Depth N Plateau Well Rate N Sand Control T
Original Reservoir Well Productivity

N Well EUR N T
Pressure Optimization
Viscosity N Buildup Duration N Well Treatment T
API Gravity N Plateau Duration N Workover T
Plateau Annual
Mobility Index N N Infill well T
Recovery of STOIIP
Primary Plateau Annual Incremental Recovery

N N N
Recovery Index* Recovery of EUR (Secondary Recovery)
Recovery Incremental Recovery

N Decline Rate N N
Factor Ultimate (Infill Well)
*Derived from machine learning application, representing primary recovery factor; N: Numerical; T: Text
• Attributes characterizing reservoir intrinsic nature, reservoir conditions and recovery result, such
as reservoir and fluid properties, reservoir heterogeneity, temperature, original pressure, drive
mechanism, resources, and recovery factor.
• Attributes charactering development concept and production performance, such as well spacing,
well pattern, well EUR, plateau duration, plateau recovery of STOIIP/EUR, and decline rate.
• Attributes on IOR/EOR technology and key reservoir management activities, such as secondary
recovery water injection and dump flood, EOR polymer flood and ASP flood, conformance
improvement profile modification and zonal injection, simulation acid fracturing and hydraulic
fracturing, and incremental recovery of continuous water injection.
SPE-205723-MS 5
Dynamic history performance attributes capture reservoir hydrocarbon and fluid production rate, agent
injection rate, GOR, CGR, which further derive dynamic performance attributes such as water-cut, annual
recovery of STOIIP/GIIP, recovery efficiency of STOIIP/GIIP, injection-production ratio et al.
EOR module. The developed EOR module is designed to address the common industry challenges for
enhanced oil recovery techniques, which focuses on each globally individual pilot, expanded pilot or field-
wide application EOR projects, providing separate EOR evaluation report and knowledge base. EOR static
data model consists of 220 attributes including 88 EOR specific attributes charactering oil saturation before
and after EOR process, injectant viscosity, concentration, slug size, injectant utilization and incremental
recovery et al (Figure 2). EOR dynamic history performance captures both time-series and PV/HCPV-series
data.
Figure.2—Diagram showing EOR module components and example attributes characterizing EOR process.
Knowledge Capturing and Unique Characteristics

With more than 27-year efforts and ever-evolving, the E&P knowledge management system presented in
this study successfully transformed physical library of case studies or discrete information and data into the
unique global analogue knowledge system.
Comprehensive Classification Scheme

Each geological and reservoir engineering attribute has been classified. The process involved exhaustive
research to acquire a profound knowledge and understanding in the subject area, rigorous validation
using information from individual field reports and cross-checking by some of the world's most
experienced geoscientists and reservoir engineers. Some confused concepts were corrected and standardized
by incorporating industry mainstream consensus.Figure 3 shows an example of high-level IOR/EOR
classification. Under each of the main categories, there are sub-categories or standard "values" representing
specific technologies. In the classification, the IOR is a broad concept covering secondary recovery, EOR
and other IORs, which clarified the confusion between IOR and EOR in industry. Also, the term of EOR
rather than Tertiary Recovery was adopted because some thermal recovery applications started at the very
beginning of initial field development instead of following pressure maintenance secondary recovery.
6 SPE-205723-MS
Figure.3—Diagram illustrating high-level IOR/EOR classification.
Consistent Definition and Fit-for-Purpose Input Tool

To ensure the consistency of knowledge capturing, each attribute and standard value are well defined, and
more detailed guideline helps avoid easy-making mistakes (Figure 4). The robust knowledge management
platform provides an efficient input tool for capturing the specific value, saying "Profile Modification", is
just a simple click process.
Figure.4—Example showing definition for a specific "Profile Modification" technology of IOR Conformance Improvement.
Holistic and Standardized Knowledge Base

This is an importance process to transform information or data into knowledge base. This process requires
experienced industry professionals rather than data analyst with no industry experience. Information and
original data available are normally ambiguous, wide-ranging, or even incorrect:
• Data from different hierarchy level, e.g., permeability data from a single core sample, for an
individual flow unit or for a reservoir level.
• Data from different data sources, e.g., water saturation from core analysis or from logging
interpretation.
• Significant value ranges from public domain, e.g., for a specific reservoir, ultimate recovery factor
given ranging from 25% to 45%.
• Data vocabulary's inconsistency, e.g., using "Reserves" representing STOIIP/GIIP.
• Concept confusion, e.g., water flood and profile modification being mistaken as EOR and polymer
flood, respectively.
The E&P knowledge management system presented in this study aims at providing reliable and fit-
for-purpose knowledge base to support strategic decision-making, characterization, benchmarking, and
SPE-205723-MS 7
solution based on global analogues. Specific knowledge capturing sticks to established classification and
definition, transforming discrete data or piece of information into knowledge base through translation,
calibration, synthesis, and calculation. The process adopts a holistic approach by integrating reservoir and
fluid properties static information, dynamic history performance, recovery efficiency, available data type
and various data sources.
Synthesized Dynamic Performance History
Dynamic history performance of each analog reservoir is one of the key components of the E&P knowledge
management system presented in this study. The synthesized and normalized production/injection history
profiles along with the reservoir static and IOR/EOR information help identify the best practices as well
lessons learned from failure analogues. A group of normalized analogue dynamic performance curves
support dynamic characterization and benchmarking.
Performance data may be from various sources (Government or company's website, published book,
journal or conference paper et al.), in different types (numerical, hardcopy curves, or spot data in
paper text) and unit (metric, imperial or mixed). Creating multi-attribute performance profiles is a
comprehensive process involving synthesizing, calibrating, and converting the available data with various
units into standard format, digiting hardcopy curves, adding spot data point, and correcting the established
performance using spot cumulative information. Considering the limitation of knowledge base population
using public domain data sources and strategic application purpose, it is not necessary to follow the same
format and value as the original data.
Useful Knowledge Base Mining

In the process of analogue data application, some key attributes such as primary recovery, waterflood
incremental recovery and EOR incremental recovery are critical, which help understand and support the
decision-making. However, it is normally hard to obtain these attributes from public domain data sources.
To enrich our knowledge base using the specific available performance data, a further knowledge mining
through DCA is routinely conducted. In the C-Field example, primary recovery factor and water flood
recovery factor were estimated through DCA (Figure 5). Then the water flood and steam flood incremental
recovery factors were captured using waterflood recovery factor minus primary recovery factor and known
ultimate recovery factor minus water flood recovery factor, respectively.
Figure.5—C Field oil production history showing knowledge data capturing of primary recovery,
water flood incremental recovery and steam flood incremental recovery through simple DCA.
8 SPE-205723-MS
In the process of knowledge mining and for the practical purpose of analogue application, it is important
to strike a good balance between accuracy and relevance - getting approximately right for some critical
parameters is more important than trying to get an accurate value from public domain data sources.
Applications in Field Development
Analog data can be used across the entire E&P lifecycle. Some basic exploration application involves
understanding of geological uncertainties (Sun and Wan, 2002; Popova, 2018), assessment of resource
potential, supporting the estimate of reserves, and generating critical insights (Hodgin et al., 2006).
The E&P knowledge management system presented in this study contains well classified and defined,
coherent reservoir static and dynamic performance knowledge base. Particularly, it provides attributes of
production performance and IOR/EOR technologies synthesized and extracted by professional experts.
This has greatly widened its application opportunities in field development from understanding basic
development option and possible future dynamic performance profile, validating reservoir simulated
production performance, benchmarking recovery factor and performance history to identifying improved
recovery opportunities and generating creative ideas (Lu et al, 2012, 2015, 2018, 2019; Sun et al, 2021a,
2021b).
Analog Selection
Selection of fit-for-purpose analogues is the key and prerequisite of a successful knowledge application
process. The following summarizes some basic rules:
• Difference between onshore and offshore reservoir development.
• Similarity in reservoir depositional characteristic.
• Reservoir properties and heterogeneity, specific attributes such as permeability, porosity, N:G ratio,
permeability contrast et al.
• Analogues with similar fluid properties in oil viscosity and mobility index.
• Analogues with similar natural drive mechanism.
• Similar oil in-place volume.
• Recovery efficiency of EUR >30%.
It is not necessary to stick to all the above rules in practice, but adopts specific groups based on purposes
and balances the sample number availability. The robust Search Tool plus the well-defined classification on
the knowledge management platform make the process much efficient.
Applications in Field Appraisal or Early Development Stage.

Specific applications. Several specific applications are listed below, but it should not limit to these.
• Estimating primary recovery factor.
• Validating ultimate recovery factor, understanding its uncertainties.
• Obtaining conceptual development option such as well type and spacing and producer count.
• Validating reservoir simulation results.
• Obtaining conceptual development production profile.
• Identifying potential secondary recovery/EOR technologies and incremental recovery.

SPE-205723-MS 9
The following discussions will show some established and proved empirical correlation examples of
primary recovery forecast, well EUR estimation, and reservoir simulation water-cut benchmarking against
performance data of applicable analogues.
Primary recovery factor is one of the most important attributes supporting development option in POD
preparation. To maximize economics, reservoir development requires utilization of natural energy as much
as possible. Various machine learning models were created to estimate primary recovery factor by taking
advantage of global analogue knowledge statistic distribution. The generated Primary Recovery Index (PRI)
has strong correlation with primary recovery factor, suggesting PRI can be used as a proxy for primary
recovery factor (Figure 6 and Table 1).
Figure.6—Example showing correlation between primary recovery factor and primary recovery
index (PRI) for onshore conventional carbonate reservoirs, PRI obtained by machine learning.
Utilization of early production test data, primary recovery factor can also be estimated using Pressure
Depletion Index (PDI) vs. PRF empirical correlation (Figure 7). PDI is defined as reservoir pressure drop
per 1% of the in-place volume of the main hydrocarbon type recovered by natural drive.
10 SPE-205723-MS
Figure.7—Pressure Depletion Index vs. Primary Recovery factor of onshore carbonate reservoir.
Having a general concept of well EUR at appraisal or early field development stage is particularly
important for estimating total producer count required. Figure 8 shows initial well rate versus well EUR
of tight gas sand reservoirs. Based on early stable pilot well production rate, the well EUR can be roughly
estimated. Using estimated EUR of the tight gas reservoir to be developed, an approximate or a conceptual
producer count can be obtained.
Figure.8—Initial well rate versus well EUR of tight gas reservoirs.
During POD preparation, reservoir simulation study based on 3-D geological model is a mature and the
most popular approach to forecast future production performance. The reservoir simulation results are basis
for decision-making of full field development strategy and option. However, due to the big uncertainties
inherent in geological model created by limited available data and lack of production performance data
for history matching study, the reliability of reservoir simulation study depends on researcher's personal
experience and knowledge background. An inexperienced or even an experienced reservoir engineer without
SPE-205723-MS 11
similar reservoir's knowledge, e.g., a reservoir engineer with rich experiences in sandstone reservoirs turning
to fractured carbonate reservoir, may output the so called "art" by industry, causing "Garbage in and Garbage
Out (GIGO)".
The dynamic performance knowledge base is in fact an integration of collective intelligence. It provides
an opportunity to quickly get a general concept regarding production history performance and uncertainties.
More importantly, by inputting the normalized performance derived from reservoir simulation, such as
annual recovery, water-cut, recovery efficiency of STOIIP et al., it allows benchmarking and validation in
an efficient way. Figure 9 shows two-scenario water-cut simulation forecasts were benchmarked against
three analogues. Obviously, Scenario two provides a reasonable forecast, while Scenario one gives an over
optimistic forecast with water-cut increasing much slower than those of analogues and Scenario two.
Figure.9—Example showing benchmarking results of two-scenario water-

cut from reservoir simulated against a group of analogs water-cut performance.
Case Study. Field A is in its appraisal and POD preparation stage. The fractured carbonate reservoir
has oil viscosity ranging from 0.8-3 cP. STOIIP is around 300 MMBO. Weak aquifer and solution gas
is the dominant natural drive. Initial pilot production rate ranges 598-1006 BOPD. To obtain conceptual
production profiles, recovery factor uncertainties, development option and key IOR technologies, an analog
study was conducted.
Analogues were obtained using search criteria of API gravity degree and viscosity ranges, onshore field,
oil hydrocarbon type, fractured reservoir, and carbonate lithology. Three types of recovery efficiency of
STOIIP curves from analogous reservoirs generally represent optimistic, most probable, and pessimistic
results of the reservoir development, respectively (Figure 10). Taking the most probable scenario as
example, life-cycle annual recovery of STOIIP (defined as percent of annual production vs. STOIIP) and
water-cut profiles were obtained through simple DCA and extrapolation (Figure 11). The yearly production
history profile can be further derived using STOIIP * Annual Recovery of STOIIP.
12 SPE-205723-MS
Figure.10—Three-scenario recovery efficiency of STOIIP profiles based on analogous reservoirs.
Figure.11—Production rate, water-cut, and recovery efficiency of STOIIP profiles based on analog reservoirs.
The above dynamic performance curves give ultimate recovery factor of 31.7%. Static attribute analysis
of relevant analogues indicates an average recovery factor of 32.6. Further analysis of analogue data
indicates fractured carbonate reservoirs with solution gas and weak aquifer drive have a primary recover
factor ranging 13%-18%. Pressure maintenance water flood can improve recovery by 17% in average.
At the later period of field development, adopting CO2miscible flood EOR technology is expected to
enhance recovery by 10%. The typical well spacing is around 470 m between producers. Perforation
in the vertical well should be on the top section of a producing interval to mitigate pre-maturing water
breakthrough. Horizontal well production is 2-3 times of that of vertical well, typically having an initial
well rate of 1006 BOPD. Horizontal length is around1140 ft. Besides, infill well, acid fracturing, production
rate optimization, water plugging, sidetracking, intermittent production at mature development are feasible
reservoir management practices.
Mature Field Application Case

Maturely developed offshore Field B contains three compartmentalized blocks, being developed through
natural depletion. At the time of this study, several producers were shut-in due to low reservoir pressure or
high GOR. The fluvial sandstone reservoirs of the three blocks have permeabilities ranging from 651 mD
to 976 mD and viscosity of 0.5 cP at reservoir conditions. Natural energy drive is a combination of gas cap,
solution gas and weak peripheral aquifer.
SPE-205723-MS 13
Static analog benchmarking reveals that the three blocks have much favorable reservoir and fluid
properties than average. However, their ultimate recovery factors are all lower than that of the P50 and the
mean values of the analogues (Figure 12). Further dynamic performance benchmarking indicates production
performance from two blocks is poorer than that of pessimistic group, while B-W block's performance is
between the pessimistic and the most probable case. Both static and dynamic performance benchmarking
indicates there is incremental recovery potential and opportunities for the three blocks.
Figure.12—Benchmarking of ultimate recovery factor (A) and dynamic performance (B) of the three blocks in Field B.
Further analysis of analogue s with higher recover factors reveals that the main reason for these higher
recovery analogues is through implementing pressure maintenance water flood and adopting horizontal
wells (Figure 13). Pressure maintenance will provide reservoir with sufficient energy to lift the oil and allows
to restore production of high GOR shut-in producers. Application of horizontal well will help maximize
oil contact, thus increasing production rate, and mitigating gas coning and premature water breakthrough.
Benchmarking studies indicate the three blocks are expected to achieve incremental recovery from 7.7%
to 25.9%, respectively.
14 SPE-205723-MS
Figure.13—Recovery efficiency curves showing selection of higher recovery
factor analogs for identifying further improved recovery opportunities.
A best practice for rejuvenating a clastic-reservoir offshore oil field is shown in Figure 14. The oil in this
field has an API degree of 42ºand a viscosity of 0.3 cP, which are similar to those in the B-Field. However,
its reservoir quality (with permeability of 60 mD) is much poorer than that of B-Field reservoirs. Following
the application of horizontal drilling combined with continuous water injection, the oil production rate
increased from 2330 BOPD to a maximum of 9262 BOPD, leading to an incremental increase in recovery
of 8.6% STOIIP.
Figure.14—Oil rate, GOR and water-cut performance of a best practice offshore field cases
showing its successful rejuvenation through pressure maintenance and horizontal well drilling.
Conclusions
• Effective analog application faces challenges of transforming discrete information or data into
knowledge as well as lack of fit-for-purpose knowledge management tool.
SPE-205723-MS 15
• The E&P knowledge management system presented in this study has a standardized, consistent,
and reliable global reservoir knowledge base, consisting of static reservoir attributes, dynamic
performance and IOR/EOR methods.
• Knowledge capturing is based on holistic and comprehensive classification scheme as well as well
defined, and detailed guideline on each individual attributes or "standard value".
• This knowledge management platform is applicable to strategic decision-making, characterization,
and benchmarking in E&P lifecycle. Normalization of production performance and documentation
of IOR/EOR techniques have proved effective in field development early appraisal, POD
preparation and mature field IOR/EOR process.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the management of C&C Reservoirs for permission to publish this paper.
Nomenclature
ASP Alkaline Surfactant Polymer
BOPD Barrel Oil per Day
CGR Condensate Gas Ratio
DCA Decline Curve Analysis
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
E&P Exploration and Production
EUR Estimated ultimate recoverable reserves
HCPV Hydrocarbon Pore Volume
GIIP Stock Tank Oil-Initially-In-Place
GOR Gas Oil Ratio
IOR Improved Oil Recovery
MMBO Million Barrel Oil
N:G Net: Gross
POD Plan of Development
PV Pore Volume
R&D Research and Development
References
Bhushan, V.and Hopkinson, S. C.2002.A new approach to identify reservoir analogues.Paper presented at the SPE 13th
European Petroleum Conference,Aberdeen, Scotland, UK,29-31 October.SPE-78338-MS.
Curtis, T. 2019.Where are data and data management headed?JPT, December2:https://jpt.spe.org/where-are-data-and-
data-management-headed
de Melo, D. P.2019.Data Management Evolves,But Challenges Persist.JPT,August27:https://jpt.spe.org/data-
management-evolves-challenges-persist
Gomes, J., Narayanan, R., Parra, H.et al.2018.Benchmarking recovery factors from carbonate reservoirs: key challenges
and main findings from Middle Eastern fields.Paper presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition
and Conference,Abu Dhabi, UAE,7-10 November.SPE-193094-MS.
Hodgin, J. E.and Harrell, D. R. 2006.The selection, application and misapplication of reservoir analogs in the estimation
of petroleum reserves.Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,San Antonio, Texas,
USA,24-27 September.SPE-102505-MS.
Lu, X. G., Sun, S. Q., Xu, J.Wu, W. K., Thai,P. Y., Wei,Y. N., and Li,G. Q.2012.A novel method for life-cycle
production performance forecast based on dynamic analogs.Presented at the International Technology Conferenceheld
in Bangkok, Thailand,7-9 February.IPTC 14479.
Lu, X. G., Sun, S. Q.,Xu, and Jenkins,D.2015.Identify the key uncertainties which influence production performance and
recovery by using global analogs.Presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conferenceheld
in Abu Dhabi, UAE,9-12 November.SPE-177803-MS.
16 SPE-205723-MS
Lu, X. G., Sun, S.Q.and Dodds, R. 2016.Toward 70% recovery factor: knowledge of reservoir characteristics
and IOR/EOR methods from global analogs.SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference,Tulsa, Oklahoma,11-13
April.SPE-179586-MS.
Lu, X. G. 2018. Application of the digital reservoir analog knowledge in the dynamic prediction of the life-cycle production
process. Petroleum Geology and Oilfield Development in Daqing, 37(1): 76–82.
Lu, X. G., Li, G. Q., and Lin, Li,H.2019.How over 60% recovery achieved in a multi-layer, heterogeneous sandstone
reservoir.SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conferenceheld in Manama, Bahrain,18-21 March.SPE-194833-MS.
Masoudi, R., Jalan, S., and Sinha, A. K. 2020.Application of a novel hybrid workflow with data analytics and analog
assessment for recovery factor benchmarking and improvement plan in Malaysian oilfields.Paper presented at the SPE
Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibitionheld online, 17-19 November.SPE-202459-MS.
Oil & Gas Authority2017.Recovery Factor Benchmarking - UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) Oilfields. Oil and
Gas Authority,https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/news-publications/publications/2017/recovery-factor-benchmarking-
report-uk-continental-shelf-ukcs-oilfields/
PreliczR. M., FearfieldD., SoberaM., RoeterinkR., Van der HarstC. (2014)."Identifying New Opportunities Through
Reservoir Performance Reviews and Systematic Benchmarking of TQ Recovery",Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition and Conference,ADIPC, Abu Dhabi, UAE,10-13 November 2014.
Popova0.2018.Analogy in the world of geological uncertainties, or how reservoir analogs may refine your probabilistic
geomodel.Paper presented at the SPE Annual Caspian Technical Conference and Exhibitionheld in Astana,
Kazakhstan,31 October-2 November.SPE-192551-MS.
Ranjan, R., Rizal, M., Soni, S.et al. 2019.Reservoir performance benchmarking to unlock further development of
Malaysian oil fields.Paper presented at the SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Bali,
Indonesia,29-31 October.SPE-196443-MS.
Rodriguez, H. M., Escobar, E., Embid, S., Morilas, N. R., and Hegazy, M. 2014.New approach to identify analogous
reservoirs.SPE Economic & Management, October:175–184.
Sandrea, R.and Goddard, R. A. 2016. New reservoir-quality index forecasts field well-productivity worldwide. Oil & Gas
Journal, December5: 22–27.
Sidle, R. E.and Lee, W. J. 2010.An update on the use of reservoir analogs for the estimation of oil and gas reserves.SPE
Econ & Mgmt2(02): 80–85.SPE-129688-PA.
Smalley, P. C., Ross, B., Brown, C. E., Moulds, T. P.et al.2009.Reservoir technical limits: a framework for maximizing
recovery from oil fields.SPE Res Eval & Eng12(04): 610–617.SPE-109555-PA.
Sun, S. Q.and Wan, J. Q., 2002,Geological analogs usage rates high in Global survey.Oil and Gas Journal.
Sun, S. Q., Pollitt, D. A., Wu, S., and Leary, D. A. 2021a. Use of global analogues to improve decision quality in
exploration, development, and production. AAPG Bulletin105(05): 845–864.
Sun, S. Q.and Pollitt, D. A. 202lb.Optimizing development and production of naturally fractured reservoirs using a large
empirical dataset.Petroleum Geoscience 27: petgeo2020-079.https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2020-079.
Temizel, C., 2013.Efficient use of methods, attributes, and cased-based reasoning algorithms in reservoir analogue
techniques in field development.Paper presented at the SPE Digital Energy Conference and Exhibition,Woodland,
Texas, USA,5-7 March.SPE-163700-MS.
Wickens, L. M.and Kelly, R. 2010.Rapid assessment of potential recovery factor: a new correlation demonstrated on
UK and USA fields.Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,Florence, Italy,19-22
September.SPE-134450-MS

Spe 205723 Ms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spe 205723 Ms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPE-205723-MS

Xiaoguang Lu, C&C Reservoirs

Copyright 2021, Society of Petroleum Engineers

History and Content

Key Elements of the Content

Table 1—Example showing part of the three-aspect knowledge base captured.

Development concept and

Attribute Type Attribute Type Attribute Type

Flow Unit count N Production Stage T Secondary Recovery T

Permeability N Well Type T EOR T

Heavy Oil and

Permeability Contrast N Well Spacing N Drilling T

Drive Mechanism T Well Pattern N Stimulation T

Temperature N Initial Well Rate N Artificial Lift T

Depth N Plateau Well Rate N Sand Control T

Original Reservoir Well Productivity

Viscosity N Buildup Duration N Well Treatment T

API Gravity N Plateau Duration N Workover T

Primary Plateau Annual Incremental Recovery

Recovery Incremental Recovery

Knowledge Capturing and Unique Characteristics

Comprehensive Classification Scheme

Consistent Definition and Fit-for-Purpose Input Tool

Holistic and Standardized Knowledge Base

Useful Knowledge Base Mining

Applications in Field Development

• Difference between onshore and offshore reservoir development.

• Similarity in reservoir depositional characteristic.

• Analogues with similar natural drive mechanism.

• Similar oil in-place volume.

• Recovery efficiency of EUR >30%.

Applications in Field Appraisal or Early Development Stage.

• Estimating primary recovery factor.

• Validating ultimate recovery factor, understanding its uncertainties.

• Validating reservoir simulation results.

• Obtaining conceptual development production profile.

• Identifying potential secondary recovery/EOR technologies and incremental recovery.

Figure.8—Initial well rate versus well EUR of tight gas reservoirs.

Figure.9—Example showing benchmarking results of two-scenario water-

Mature Field Application Case

You might also like