SPE 167553

Application of Empirically Derived Oil Recovery Factor Regression

Equations to Water Drive Reservoirs in Niger Delta
Okpere Adrian, SPE; Ndibueze Charles, SPE; Shell Petroleum Development Company

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 30 July 1 August 2013.

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
In order to make sound investment decisions with regards
to oil field appraisal and development, it is crucial to be
able to properly predict reservoir performance and hence
oil recovery factor. Oil recovery factor is the recoverable
fraction of the initial oil in place. It varies across different
reservoirs depending on depositional environment, drive
mechanism, rock and fluid properties.
Over the years, a variety of methods have been used for
the estimation of oil recovery factors vis (Analytical,
Simulation, Empirical e.t.c). The thrust of this paper will
focus on the use of empirically derived recovery factor
regression equation for estimating oil recovery factor for
water drive reservoirs in the Niger Delta. This method was
first developed by the American Institute of Petroleum
(API) subcommittee on recovery efficiency in Nov., 1967
with the publication of API Bulletin D14 A Statistical
Analysis of Recovery Efficiency. The subcommittee used
case histories from some 312 producing oil reservoirs with
sandstone lithology from which certain empirical
relationships were derived by regression analysis. Specific
regression equations were developed for Water-drive and
Solution gas reservoirs.
This paper presents the practicality of using the regression
equation for water drive reservoirs in the Niger Delta,
which have similar lithology. Firstly, a form of robustness
check was done with mature reservoirs to see how well
prediction from the regression equations line up with
reality. Secondly, the equation was used to predict
recovery efficiency in green reservoirs and results
compared with other recovery factor estimation
methodology noting the standard deviation in both cases.
The results compared favorably and could be used as an
additional robustness check when estimating reservoir
recovery factor for water drive reservoirs in the Niger
Delta.
Introduction
The total estimated amount of oil in a reservoir, both
producible and non-producible, is called oil in place.
However, due to varying reservoir characteristics and
limitations in petroleum extraction technologies, only a
fraction of this oil can be produced to surface from the
reservoir, this fraction of producible volume is reffered to
as the ultimate recovery. The ratio of ultimate recovery to
total oil in place for a given field is often referred to as the
oil recovery factor (RF), which gives an idea of the
reservoir production efficiency. The RF of any particular
field may change over time based on operating history and
in response to changes in technology and economics.
Uncertainty also exists in the estimation of initial oil
recovery factor due to the fact that there is usually
insufficient or inaccurate data at the early stage of field
development. Considering all these uncertainties, it will
come as no surprise to know that initial RF estimates at
early stage of field development are usually over or under
estimated. The accuracy of the RF estimate depends on the
availability of data and type of estimation of methodology
employed.
Generally RF estimation methods can be grouped into two
broad categories; Analytical and Empirical. Analytical RF
estimation methods can further be grouped into two main
sub categories;
(i) Analogues:
(ii) Performance Based Estimates.
Analogues are widely used, particularly in initial field
development stages, when direct measurement information
is limited. The methodology is based on the assumption
that the analogous reservoir is comparable to the subject
reservoir regarding reservoir and fluid properties that
control ultimate recovery of petroleum and hence the RF.
Performance based estimates tend to be applied post field
2 SPE 167553

development stage, they include material balance, Literature Review of empirically derived oil
production decline, and other production performance recovery regression equations for estimation
analyses, after production commences and production of Oil Recovery Factors
rates and pressure information become available,
As highlighted in the abstract of this paper, empricially
performance-based methods can be applied to estimate
derived oil RF regression equations was first investigated
recovery factors. Generally performance based estimates
in 1967 by the American Petroleum Institute (API)
for recovery facors tend to provide more reliability and
subcommittee on recovery efficiency. The subcommittee
accuracy depending on the amount of performance data
used case histories from some 312 producing oil reservoirs
available. All other oil recovery factor analytical
with sandstone lithology from which certain empirical
estimation methods such as reservoir simulation and
relationships were derived by regression analysis. The
volumetrics can be used in either Analogue or
1 equations were developed for oil reservoirs depending on
performance based method to determine the RF . the dominant reservoir drive mechanism (e.g Water,
Solution Gas, Gas Cap), this resulted in a publication by
Empirical methods can be used at the pre/post field the API in a Bulletin D14 titled A Statistical Analysis of
development stages it involves estimating RF through the 2
Recovery Efficiency . The regression equation for water
use of mathematical regression equations between key
drive reservoirs taken from the publication is presented
subsurface parameters from multiple reservoirs with
below;
similar characteristics that are known to have an impact on
recoverable volumes.
+ 0 .0422 0 .0770
(1 S w ) k wi
At early field development stage data acquired from direct RF ( 54 . 898 )
Boi
measurement is not always available, analogues may not oi
also be easy to find and there may be little or no
performance data this can prove challenging in providing 0 . 2159
an initial estimate of RF to tag economic value of the field. pi
S w 0 . 1903
percent .......... 1
Empirical methods provide a quick and easy way to give pa
an initial estimate of RF with limited data within a given
tolerance so as to provide a framework for investment.
The ratios in the equation were defined as follows:
The main objectives of this study therefore include: (1 Sw)
To give a brief overview of the use of empirically 1. B oi Oil in place - Represents the
derived regression equations for estimating oil
portion of the rock volume occupied by stock
RFs.
tank oil at initial conditions for water drive cases.
To test the robustness of the empricially derived
oil RF regression equation for water drive k wi

reservoirs developed by API on Niger Delta 2. Mobility Factor - Represents the ratio of
oi
reservoirs supported by water drive using
statistical analysis to show how accurately the permeability in Darcies to the ratio of water to oil
equation predicts in Niger Delta environment. viscocity in centipoise under initial conditons for
water drive cases.
The scope of this paper is as follows:
3. Sw Water Saturation Represents the
Only empirically derived oil RF regression interstitial water saturation as a decimal fration of
equations developed by API considered, other the pore space.
regression equations for calculating recovering
factor not considered. pi
4. Pressure drop ratio Represents the
pa

Only empirically derived oil RF regression
ratio between initial and abandonment pressures
equations for reservoirs with dominant water
for water drive cases.
drive mechanism considered. Empirically
derived oil regression equations for other drive
Further work was done on the empirically derived oil RF
dominated systems such as solution gas and gas
regression equations by J.J Arps et al in the 1968 paper
cap drive reservoirs are considered in this paper. 3
titled Reasons for Differences in Recovery Efficiencies .
The work done by Arps grouped oil recoveries from 72
water drive case histories into four equal parts or quartiles
and statstically analysed each quartile. The observations
SPE 167553
were as follows:
(1) Maximum oil recovery efficiency for water drive
situation was found to occur;
When oil in place variable in the equation reaches
25 percent of its rock volume.
When the mobility factor variable reaches
maximum value of 3.4.
When the water saturation variable reaches a
minimal value of 10 percent.
When the pressure-drop ratio variable reaches a
minimal value of barely above unity.
(2) Minimum oil recovery efficiency for water drive
situation was found to occur;
When oil in place variable in the equation reaches
4 percent of its rock volume.
When the mobility factor variable reaches
minimal values as low as 0.002.
When the water saturation variable reaches a
maximum of over 40 to 50 percent.
When the pressure-drop ratio variable reaches a
maximum value of 8.
(3) The ratio between the maximum and minimum oil
recoveries in the water drive case histories for both
the observed and calculated RF values was exactly
3.2. No explanation was given by Arps for this
remarkable coincidence as stated in his paper.
There has not been so much work done on empirically
derived oil RF regression equations since the paper written
by J.J Arps et al in 1968. An SPE paper was written by
4
K.Akpara in 2007 which optimised on the initial
equations developed by API. It improved on the oil RF
regression equations by using post history matched
reservoir properties from a 3D simulation model as input
parameters into the equations. The modification presented
in the paper brought changes in the multiplicative and
exponential constants of the equation. The use of post
history matched variables however requires well and
reservoir performance data to be able to perform history
match and act as a calibration for the regression equations.
The brief literature review presented in this section shows
work done on empirically derived regression equations for
calculating oil RF developed by API has not been very
extensive. Various authors have suggested alternative oil
RF regression equations with different parameters e.g
Craze, R. C. and Buckley, S. E in their paper published in
5 6
1945 and Muskat . There appears to be a gap in literature
on the use of the oil empiricial regression equations
3
developed by API specifically towards providing a
benchmark on how effective it is in specific geological
environments. Literature review currently shows little or
no work done on testing the effectivinesss of this empirical
regression equation developed by API on Niger Delta
reservoirs which are very similar in lithology to the
reservoirs in North America used to develop these
equations.
The highlighted information gap brings up an urgent need
to test the robustness of this oil RF empiricial regression
equation on Niger Delta reservoirs. This is what has been
done in this paper, the regression equation has been
applied to a selection of Niger Delta reservoirs with water
drive as dominant drive mechanism, statistical analysis
and tools have been used to provide a benchmark on its
effectiveness.
Methodology used for testing effectiveness
of empirical oil Recovery Factor regression
equation on Water Drive Reservoirs in the
Niger Delta.
The methodology adopted for testing the effectiveness of
the oil RF regression equation for water drive reservoirs in
the Niger Delta presented in this paper is divided into two
broad categories; Robustness Check and Application.
The robustness check category is further split into 3 (three)
sub stages;
(i) Identification
(ii) Selection
(iii) Statistical Analysis and Benchmarking.
The application stage of the methodology has to do with
case study scenario were the empirical oil recovery
regression equation is applied to a green reservoir in the
Niger Delta with strong water drive support. The result
from the equation would be compared with the result using
another oil RF estimation method such as reservoir
simulation.
Step 1 - Identification: This stage involved identification
of oil reservoirs that satisfied the initial criteria of having
strong water drive as the dominant drive mechanism. To
carry out this exercise, data was selected from Shell
Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) corporate
database which contatins various well and reservoir
information from the Niger Delta. Over 200 oil reservoirs
in the Niger Delta from the database were identified as
having water drive as the dominant reservoir drive
mechanism.
Step 2 - Selection: Once the intial identification of water
drive reservoirs has is done, the next step is screening and
selection from the set of reservoirs already identified as
having strong water drive. As mentioned in the abstract of
this paper, robustness check is initially to be done with
mature reservoirs. For purposes of this paper, there are two
conditions that are defined for technical maturity of an oil
4 SPE 167553
reservoir as follows:
(1) Oil reservoirs that have estimated RF between 50 -
70%.
(2) Oil Reservoirs that have produced greater than or
equal to 80% of estimated RF.
The first condition selected as basis for technical maturity
is in line with typical ranges for oil RF for strong water
drive reservoirs as written in J.J Arps paper and based on
local knowledge and understanding of what has
realistically been seen in terms of oil recovery from
strong water drive reservoirs in the Niger Delta. The
second condition represents an assumption which states
reservoirs that have produced greater than 80% of
estimated RF would be deemed to be technically mature
and as such was approximated to relflect the actual oil RF
of the reservoir.
Based on these definitions of technical maturity, a total of
40 oil reservoirs were selected from the initial set of over
200 oil reservoirs with strong water drive as having
satisfied these two conditions. The 40 reservoirs selected
now represent the sample population of actual oil reservoir
RF from strong water drive reservoirs in the Niger Delta
that would be used for analysis.
Step 3 - Statistical Analysis and Benchmarking: The
final stage of the robustness check involves using
statistical analysis on the sample set to check how the
predicition from empirical equations compare with actual
RF seen in oil reservoirs supported by strong water drive
in the niger delta. Statistical analysis has been used
extensively in literature for providing benchmark on
effectiveness of empirically derived oil RF regression
7
equations e.g Guthrie, R.I and Greenberger, M.H ,
8 means when using the equation care must be taken to
Sharma, A, Srinvasan, S, and Lake, L . These authors
have proven statistical analysis as a very effective
mathematical tool for benchmarking oil RFs.
The first thing to be done with the sample dataset is to
estimate the oil RF using the regression equation for water
drive developed by API, with the input parameters for
each of the 40 reservoirs. The result from the equation is
then compared with the actual oil RF from these
reservoirs, the comparision is done using a cross-plot of
actual vs predicted presented in Figure 1.0. The cross plot
done in Figure 1.0 shows relationship between the two
datasets, the straight line equation returns an R-squared
value of approximately 0.60. This shows that there is good
correlation between the results predicted from the equation
and the actual RF from the Niger Delta reservoirs.
The next step is to study the statistical distribution of both
datasets (actual vs predicted), to find out any other
similarities or inferences that could be derived from the
data, from the distribution shown in Figure 1.1 the
following observations can be inferred
Statistical analysis as shown in Figure 1.1 shows that
the variance and standard deviation in the predicted
equation RF dataset is similar to actual RF dataset and
is very small in both cases less that 1. This means that
both datasets have similar small error margins around
the mean and narrow uncertainty band. In addition,
both datasets show the mean and median as having
exactly the same number. These attributes show that
statiscally the two datasets can be modeled with a
Normal Distribution. This is demonstrated in Figure
1.2 both datasets are converted to a normal
distribution and plotted on the same graph.
Skeweness is a measure of the degree of asymmetry
of a distribution around the mean. The skewness value
is low less than 0.1 for the actual RF dataset as well
as the predicted RF dataset from the equation. This
illustrates that distribution around the mean is
symmetrical once again confirming that both datasets
fit a normal distribution and show that there is a good
correlation between actual RF and predicted RF
dataset calculated using the regression equations.
The final analysis done is to test the sensitivity impact of
each of the input parameters into the regression equation
to find out which parameter is the most sensitive
parameter that can cause an impact on the RF. This was
done by varying each of the input parameters by +/- 10%
while keeping the other parameters constant and recording
the impact on the RF. The result is presented as a tornado
plot in Figure 1.3.
The result from the tornado plot clearly shows the pressure
drop (pi/pa) is the most senstitive input parameter that
affects the RF with an impact of +/-1.5% on the RF. It
ensure accurate estimates of initial and abandonment
reservoir pressure to ensure higher degree of confidence in
the result from the equation.
The methodology presented in this section gives an insight
into the use of the oil RF regression equation for Niger
Delta water drive reservoirs. Statistical analysis shows the
level of accuracy and uncertainty of prediction as
compared with the actual recorded oil RF of these
reservoirs. The next section of this paper will focus on the
application of this equation towards predicting the oil RF
for green reservoirs and will compare results with RF
estimated from reservoir simulation. This will be
presented as a case study in the next section.
SPE 167553
Application on X100 green reservoir in the
Niger Delta- Case Study:
X100 reservoir is a green reservoir with five well
penetrations lying at a depth of about 13,500 ftss below
four producing reservoirs(X20, X40, X60 and X80) in a
typical Niger Delta stacked reservoir system as shown in
Figure 1.4. Over 20 years historical production
performance from the above mentioned shallower
reservoirs confirmed strong water drive as the primary
drive mechanism. X100 has uncharacteristic poor reservoir
quality with low Net-to-Gross, porosity and relatively
lower permeability (ca. 100mD to 250mD) by Niger Delta
sand quality standards. Thus, identifying a suitable mature
analogue for RF estimation for investment decision
purposes proved challenging. In the absence of suitable
analogue, a 3-D simulation model was developed to
estimate the RF for this reservoir and the result was
calibrated with RF estimated from regression equation.
A static model was constructed for the X100 reservoir and
exported to dynamic reservoir simulator for evaluation of
development options. Based on the electro-facies analysis,
the reservoir can be described as a lower shoreface deposit
with an average thickness of 51 ft with a 5ft thick laterally
continuous intra-reservoir shale. Hence, the reservoir was
modeled as a three-zone reservoir, upper sand zone, the
intra-reservoir shale and the basal sand unit. There are no
internal faults or barriers to flow in the model. 3-D
property model was built using log data from the five
wells that penetrated the reservoir. Two analytical
aquifers, one in the South and one to the West side of the
reservoir, were attached to the model based on the
understanding of the boundary faults seen on seismic. The
structural configuration shows reservoir exposed to aquifer
influx, this is shown in Figure 1.5 from the top structure
map of X100. No history match was necessary since X100
reservoir has not produced so far. Hydrostatic initialization
of the model showed the STOIIP of 9 MMstb. After
detailed sensitivity and optimization analysis, a crestally
located one-well development scenario was chosen as the
selected concept and it is estimated to recover about 4
MMbbls of oil. This represents a recovery factor of about
51.3%.
The next step involves comparing the recovery factor
derived from reservoir simulation to empirically derived
regression equations for oil recovery factor for strong
water drive reservoirs. This was done by selecting the
average reservoir and fluid properties and fed in as input
into the regression equation. Table 1.0 below summarizes
the key input into the equation.
5
Table 1.0: X100 RF correlation input data
Input
S/no Values Unit
parameter
1 K 250 mD
2 Sw 24 %
3 Boi 1.853 rb/stb
4 0.16 %
5 wi 0.30 cp
6 o 0.20 cp
7 Pi 5997 psia
8 Pa 5100 psia
The oil recovery factor calculated from empirical
regression equation is 57.5%. This is about the same range
with the recovery factor calculated from the reservoir
simulation model of 51.3%. This section shows estimation
of oil recovery factor in strong water drive reservoirs using
complex simulation techniques can still be used to
compare with the empirical regression equations in the
Niger Delta although the regression equations tend to be
more optimistic.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Accurate prediction of reservoir performance and
hence RF is key in order to make sound investment
decisions with regards to oil field appraisal and
development. Empirical oil regression equations
developed by API provide a quick and simple way in
which oil RF can be estimated and used to support
other analytical methods of RF estimation.
The methodology utilised in this paper tests the
effectiveness of the empirically derived oil regression
equations for strong water drive in the Niger Delta
environment. The methodology used is applied in two
(2) key stages, robustness check and application. The
robustness check stage involves identifying, selecting
and benchmarking of actual RFs from technically
mature brown oil reservoirs with strong water drive
support against calculated RF from same oil
reservoirs with empirical regression equations using
statistical analysis. The second stage involves a case
study approach; Application of empirical regression
oil RF equation to a green reservoir in the Niger Delta
and compared results with an analytical RF estimation
method namely reservoir simulation to see the margin
of error utilizing two different estimation methods in a
green reservoir.
Results from statistical analysis benchmarking done
using data from over 40 strong water driven brown oil
reservoirs in the Niger Delta show that there is a
correlation between RFs estimated by empirical
equations and actual RFs from performance, both
datasets are normally distributed symmetrically
around a mean RF and compare favourably within one
standard deviation to the mean.
6 SPE 167553
When applying empricial oil regression equations
caution must be exercised in ensuring the pressure
drop parameter is accurately estimated because it has
the biggest impact on the recovery factor.
The case study presented in this paper shows that
recovery factors estimated using empirical equations
compare within certain range with other recovery
factor estimation methods such as reservoir
simulation. This may vary on a case by case basis.
It is important to note that the oil recovery factor
estimated from empirical equations are not always
accurate due to uncertainty in parameters, the
statistical benchmarking done and case study
results show that it presents a slightly more
optimistic RF than actual RF or the one predicted
from simulation. RF from empirical regression
equations should always be supported with other
recovery factor estimation methods to benchmark.
In a case no other method can be used, percentage
uncertainty should be applied to the results based
on local knowledge of reservoir performance.
Areas for Further Study
The scope of this study was limited due to data paucity
and time. The following improvements could be made for
to methodology to improve its robustness:
The same methodology utilized in this paper could be
used to test empirical regression equations developed
by API for oil reservoirs in the Niger Delta that are
mainly solution gas or gas cap drive driven.
Larger datasets from brown oil reservoirs across the
Niger Delta could be analyzed using cross plots to
develop empirical oil regression equations specifically
for estimating recovery factor in the Niger Delta.
Further benchmarking could be done with more data
in particular and case studies in Niger delta region
using specific recovery factor estimation methods e.g
simulation in undeveloped reservoirs against
empirically derived oil recovery factor equations to
find exactly what band of uncertainty exists in
applying these two methods.
Acknowledgments
The author and co-author wishes to thank the management
of SPDC for permission to publish this paper.
Nomenclature
Porosity
Sw Water Saturation
Boi InitialOil Formation Volume Factor rbbl/stb
k Permeability, md
pi Initial Reservoir Pressure, psia
pa Abandonment Reservoir Pressure, psia
oi Initial Oil Viscocity, cp
wi Initial Water Viscocity, cp
Subscript
o oil
i Initial
References
(1) World Petroleum Council (WPC), Society of
Petroleum Engineers (SPE), American
Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG),
Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers
(SPEE): Petroleum Resources Management
System (SPE-PRMS), (Jan 2008).
(2) Arps, J. J., Brons, Folkert, van Everdingen, A. F.,
Buchwald, R. W. and Smith, A. E.: A Statistical
Study of Recovery Efficiency, Bull. D14, API
(Oct., 1967).
(3) ARPS, J.J., Petroleum Consultant.: Reasons for
Differences in Recovery Efficiency, American
Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum
Engineers (AIME), presented at Symposium on
Petroleum Economics and Evaluation (Mar.,
1968).
(4) Akpara, K., Schlumberger Information
Solutions.:Tuning the Analytical Model for
better Prediction of Recovery Factor, Presented
at Nigeria Annual International Conference and
Exhibition (NAICE), (Aug., 2007).
(5) Craze, R.C. and Buckley, S.E.: A Factual
Analysis of the Effect of Well Spacing on Oil
Recovery, Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1945).
(6) Muskat, M. and Taylor, M. O.: Effect of
Reservoir Fluid and Rock Characteristics on
Production Histories of Gas Drive Reservoirs,
Trans., AIME (1946) Vol. 165, 78-93.
(7) Guthrie, R. K. and Greenberger, M. H.: The Use
of Multiple Correlation Analysis for Interpreting
Petroleum Engineering Data, Drill. and Prod.
Prac., API (1955).
(8) Sharma, A, Srinvasan, S, and Lake, L.
Classification of Oil and Gas Reservoirs Based
on Recovery Factor: A Data-Mining Approach,
SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibtion, (Sep.,2010).
SPE 167553 7

Figure 1.0: Cross plot showing actual vs predicted Oil RF using Empirical
Correlations for Water Drive Reservoirs
8 SPE 167553

Figure 1.1: Comparison of RF (Actual vs Predicted) using statistical

analysis
SPE 167553 9

Figure 1.2: Normal Distribution graph showing predicted vs Actual RF

Figure 1.3: Tornado plot showing the impact of input parameters in
equation on oil recovery factor
SPE 167553 11

Figure 1.4: Cross section showing stacked reservoir system in Niger

Delta
12 SPE 167553