FDP Utp

PCB 4032: FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 2 (FDP 2)
GULFAKS FIELD, NORTH SEA

BY:
GROUP 5
AHMED ABDALLA SALMAN AHMED 17870
RAMI ALI ALI AL-TAM 14987
MOHAMED AHMED MOHAMED ABDALLAH MOHAMED 14712
ILI NASHRIN BINTI NORIZAM 15050
AHMAD FAIZ NAJMUDDIN BIN HARUN 14795
Final Report submitted in partial fulfilment of

the requirements for the
Bachelor of Engineering (Hons)
(Petroleum Engineering)
JANUARY 2015
Supervisor: Dr. Shifferaw Regassa Jufar

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
Bandar Seri Iskandar
31750 Tronoh
Perak Darul Ridzuan
Supervisor: Mr. Titus Ntow Ofei
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
GULFAKS FIELD, NORTH SEA
PREPARE BY: GROUP 5
AHMED ABDALLA SALMAN AHMED 17870

RAMI ALI ALI AL-TAM 14987
MOHAMED AHMED MOHAMED ABDALLAH MOHAMED 14712
ILI NASHRIN BINTI NORIZAM 15050
AHMAD FAIZ NAJMUDDIN BIN HARUN 14795
Final Report submitted in partial fulfilment of

the requirements for the
Bachelor of Engineering (Hons)
(Petroleum Engineering)
Approved by,
Approved by,
_____________________________
___________________________
(Dr Shifferaw Regassa Jufar)
(Mr. Titus Ntow Ofei)
FDP SUPERVISOR
FDP SUPERVISOR
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS

Jan 2015
CERTIFICATION OF ORIGINALITY
This is to certify that we are responsible for the work submitted in this project, that the
original work is our own except as specified in the references and acknowledgements, and
that the original work contained herein have not been undertaken or done by unspecified
sources or persons.
AHMED ABDALLA SALMAN
RAMI ALI ALI AL-TAM
____________________________
____________________________
MOHAMED AHMED MOHAMED
ILI NASHRIN BINTI NORIZAM
_____________________________
____________________________
AHMAD FAIZ NAJMUDDIN

____________________________
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Gulfaks Field is located in the North Sea of Norwegian sector along the western flank of the
Viking Graben and operated by Statoil. The field is situated in block 34/10, approximately
175km Northwest of Bergen. The field lies in the central part of the East Shetland basin.
The fields depositional environment consists basically of four main stratigraphic units: the
Creteceous, Tarbert, Ness and Etive, with Tarbert and Ness the target hydrocarbon bearing
area. The petroleum system involves a sequence of sandstones, siltstones, shales and coals
with maximum thickness of 300 - 400 m.
The objective of this project is to carry out a technical and economics study of the proposed
development utilizing the latest technology available. This FDP group intended to provide a
comprehensive description development plan includes geological interpretation, petrophysics,
geological, reservoir modeling, reservoir engineering, drilling engineering, production
technology, facilities engineering, economics and HSE.
iii
Table of contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
................................................................................................................ i
ii
List of
Figures......................................................................................................
......................... x
List of
Tables........................................................................................................
..................... xiv
CHAPTER
1...............................................................................................................
.................... 1
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................
................................. 1
1.1 Background of
Project................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem
Statement.....................................................................................................................
.. 3
1.3
Objectives.....................................................................................................................
................. 4
1.4 Scope of
Work..............................................................................................................................
.5
CHAPTER2..................................................................................................
.................................. 6
GEOPHYSICS & GEOLOGY
............................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Location and Exploration
History.................................................................................................. 6
2.2 Regional Geology
.......................................................................................................................... 7
2.3
Stratigraphy..................................................................................................................
............... 10
2.4 Hydrocarbons and Pressure
distribution .................................................................................... 14
2.4.1 Hydrocarbons
Distribution...................................................................................................14
Petroleum
System.......................................................................................................................
..14
2.4.2 Pressure Distribution
...........................................................................................................23
CHAPTER
3...............................................................................................................
.................. 28
PETRO
PHYSICS ....................................................................................................
...................... 28
3.1
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................
.............. 28
3.2 DATA
SET................................................................................................................................
..... 28
3.3
METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................
.............29
3.4 WORKFLOW OF PETROPHYSICAL
EVALUATION..........................................................................29
3.4.1 Lithology
study.....................................................................................................................30
3.4.2 Interpretation of log
data .................................................................................................... 34
3.4.3 Identification of the permeable and non-permeable
zones................................................37
3.4.4 Determination of water and hydrocarbon saturation in the zone of
interest ....................42
3.4.5 Identification of fuid
types..................................................................................................44
3.4.6 Determination of porosity in the zone of
interest............................................................... 45
CHAPTER
4...............................................................................................................
.................. 51
GEOLOGIC RESERVOIR
MODEL.................................................................................................... 5
1
4.1 Model Parameters
......................................................................................................................51
iv
4.2 Structure
Development...............................................................................................................5
2
4.3 Stratigraphic
Modeling................................................................................................................52
4.3.1 Base
Cretaceous.................................................................................................................
..54
4.3.2 Top Tarbert
..........................................................................................................................54
4.3.3Top
Ness...........................................................................................................................
.....55
4.3.4 Top Etive
..............................................................................................................................55
4.3.5
Isochores ...................................................................................................................
...........56
4.4 Make Fluid Model, Rock Physics Functions and
Initialization.....................................................59
4.4.1 Make Fluid Model
................................................................................................................59
4.4.2 Make Rock Physics
Functions...............................................................................................61
4.4.3
Initialization................................................................................................................
..........63
CHAPTER
5...............................................................................................................
.................. 64
HYDROCARBON IN
PLACE........................................................................................................
... 64
5.1 PETREL STOIIP and
GIIP............................................................................................................... 64
5.1.1 Volume
calculation...............................................................................................................6
4
5.1.2 Monte Carlo Uncertainty
................................................................................................... 65
CHAPTER
6...............................................................................................................
.................. 68
MANUAL VOLUMETRIC
CALCULATION ........................................................................................ 68
6.1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................
..............68
6.2 Gross Rock Volume
(GRV) ...........................................................................................................69
6.3 Cut
offs:...............................................................................................................................
........ 90
6.4
Porosity .........................................................................................................................
..............94
6.5 Water
Saturation......................................................................................................................
...96
6.6 Gas Formation Volume Factor,
Bg: ...........................................................................................100
6.7 STOIIP and GIIP
Calculation.......................................................................................................105
6.7.1 Deterministic
Method ........................................................................................................105
6.7.2 Probabilistic method (Monte Carlo
Simulation): ............................................................... 109
CHAPTER7..................................................................................................
.............................. 129
RESERVOIR
ENGINERING...............................................................................................
............ 129
7.1 INTRODUCTION
...................................................................................................................129
7.1.1 PROBLEM
STATEMENT................................................................................................129
7.1.2 OBJECTIVES
.................................................................................................................130
7.1.3 SCOPE OF
STUDIES ......................................................................................................130
7.2
RESERVOIR DATA AND
ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................131
v
7.2.1 PVT
ANALYSIS..............................................................................................................13
1
7.2.2 HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS OF SEPARATOR
PRODUCTS .....................................................135
7.2.3 WELL TEST RESULTS
....................................................................................................136
7.2.4 CAPILLARY PRESSURE
RESULTS ..........................................................................................139
7.2.5 RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
TEST ...........................................................................................143
7.2.6 FLUID
CONTACTS................................................................................................................
146
7.3 RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
...................................................................................148
7.3.1 RESERVE
ESTIMATION.................................................................................................148
7.3.2
History
Matching .............................................................................................................149
7.3.3 WELL SPACING
............................................................................................................153
7.3.4 WELL
PLACEMENT.......................................................................................................154
7.3.5 Primary
depletion ..............................................................................................................15
7
7.3.6 Secondary
recovery:...........................................................................................................157
7.3.7 Creaming
curve ..................................................................................................................157
7.3.8 PRODUCTION
PROFILE ................................................................................................163
7.4 GULFAKS FIELD 3D SIMULATION
MODEL................................................................................ 168
7.4.1 3D Static
Model..................................................................................................................168
7.4.2 SIMULATOR DATA INPUT (MODEL SETUP) .......................................................................168
7.4.3 HYDROCARBON IN PLACE
..................................................................................................169
7.4.4 DYNAMIC
INITIALIZATION ..................................................................................................170
7.4.4 SATURATION DISTRIBUTION AND FAULT
LOCATIONS .......................................................171
7.5 RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT

PLAN ...........................................................................................177
7.5.1 OPERATING
STRATEGY................................................................................................178
7.5.2 SURVEILLANCE
PLAN...................................................................................................180
7.6 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY (EOR) PLAN
..................................................................................182
7.6.1 EOR
METHOD ..............................................................................................................183
7.6.2 EOR
SCREENING ..........................................................................................................188
7.6.3 CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2)
FLOODING. ...........................................................................192
7.7
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................
............ 196
7.7.1
UNCERTAINTY ............................................................................................................
.196
7.7.2
SUMMARY...................................................................................................................
197
CHAPTER
8...............................................................................................................
................ 198
DRILLING ENGINEERING
........................................................................................................... 198
8.1 PROJECT
DESCRIPTION..............................................................................................................1
98
vi
8.2 BASIS OF
DESIGN.......................................................................................................................1
99
8.3 OFFSET WELL ANALYSIS
............................................................................................................201
8.4 RIG
SELECTION ....................................................................................................................
...... 208
8.5 WELL TRAJECTORY AND TARGET
TOLERANCE ..........................................................................210
8.6 CASING
DESIGN.........................................................................................................................
213
8.7 BIT
SELECTION....................................................................................................................
....... 218
8.8 DRILLING FLUID AND
SYSTEM ...................................................................................................220
8.9
CEMENTING ..................................................................................................................
............ 222
8.11 DRILLING
OPTIMIZATION ........................................................................................................227
8.12 NEW DRILLING TECHNOLOGY
CONSIDERATION ..................................................................... 228
CHAPTER
9...............................................................................................................
................ 232
PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY
PLAN............................................................................................ 232
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................
.................. 232
9.0 DESIGN
PHILOSOPHY ..........................................................................................................232
9.1 NODAL
ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................233
9.1.1 Infow Performance
Prediction ................................................................................... 233
9.1.2 Outfow Performance
Prediction ................................................................................235
9.1.3 Tubing Size
..................................................................................................................237
9.3 SAND
CONTROL...................................................................................................................2
38
9.3.1 Sand Control Method

Selection ..................................................................................238
9.3.2 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
CALCULATION..............................................................242
9.3 ARTIFICIAL
LIFT....................................................................................................................244
9.3.1 Gas Lift
........................................................................................................................245
9.3.2 Completion Designs for Gas
Lift.................................................................................. 246
9.4 WELL COMPLETION
PLAN ...................................................................................................247
9.4.1 Well Completion
Matrix..............................................................................................248
9.4.2 Bottom Hole
Completion. ...........................................................................................249
9.5 COMPLETION STRING
COMPONENTS.................................................................................250
9.5.1 Wellhead and Christmas
Tree.....................................................................................250
9.6 COMPLETION STRING DESIGN
............................................................................................ 252
9.6.1 Single Oil
Producer......................................................................................................252
3.7
PERFORATION SELECTION
.......................................................................................... 253
9.7.1 Perforation Conveyance
Method................................................................................253
9.7.2 Tubing Conveyed Perforation
Equipment...................................................................253
vii
9.7.3 Shot per

foot ...............................................................................................................254
9.7.4 Explosive Material
Selection .......................................................................................254
3.7.5 Summary of Perforation
Design.................................................................................. 255
9.8 SECONDARY RECOVERY METHOD (WATER
FLOODING) ..................................................... 255
9.8.1 Water
fooding ............................................................................................................ 255
9.9 POTENTIAL PRODUCTION PROBLEM.
................................................................................. 256
9.9.1 Wax
Deposition...........................................................................................................256
9.9.2
Corrosion....................................................................................................................
.256
9.9.3 Scale
Formation ..........................................................................................................256
9.9.4 Emulsion
formation.....................................................................................................256
Chapter
10.............................................................................................................
.................. 258
Facilitates Engineering
.............................................................................................................
258
10.1 Design Basis and
Philosophy...................................................................................................258
10.1.1 Design
Basis......................................................................................................................25
8
10.1.2 Design
Philosophy ............................................................................................................25
8
10.2 Concept
selection.................................................................................................................... 26
0
10.2.1 Platform
Plan.......................................................................................................................260
10.2.3 Platform
Selection............................................................................................................262
10.3 Pipeline
sizing..........................................................................................................................2
62
10.3.1 Sensitivity
Analysis ...........................................................................................................263
10.4 HOST Tie-ins
Facilities .............................................................................................................267
10.5 Surface Facilities
.....................................................................................................................268
10.5.1 Production, test and injection
manifolds.........................................................................268
10.5.2
Separation.................................................................................................................
.......269
10.5.3 Water
treatment..............................................................................................................27
0
10.5.4
Pumps .......................................................................................................................
.......270
10.6 Platform Utilities and Service
Facilities................................................................................... 271
10.7 Operational and Maintenance
philosophy .............................................................................272
10.7.1 Operational
philopshy......................................................................................................272
10.8 Abandonment
......................................................................................................................275
CHAPTER
11.............................................................................................................
................ 277
ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS...................................................................................................
............ 277
11.1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................
...... 277
11.2 Problem
Statement.............................................................................................................277
viii
11.3
Objective .......................................................................................................................
...... 277
11.4 Fiscal
Terms.........................................................................................................................2
78
11.5 Economic
Assumptions .......................................................................................................280
11.6 Development
Options.........................................................................................................282
11.7 Economic Analysis and Results
........................................................................................... 283
11.8 Net Cash Flow
Profile..............................................................................................................284
11.9 Revenue Split
.......................................................................................................................... 285
11.10 Sensitivity
Analysis ................................................................................................................286
11.11
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................
..288
CHAPTER
12.............................................................................................................
................ 289
HEALTH, SAFETY AND MANAGEMENT
(HSE).............................................................................. 289
12.1
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................
......289
12.2 HEALTH, SAFETY AND
ENVIRONMENT................................................................................289
12.2.1 HSE Management
System ...........................................................................................289
12.2.2 HSE
Leadership............................................................................................................29
1
12.2.3 Safety and Risk
Management .....................................................................................293
12.2.4 Occupational Health
Management.............................................................................294
12.2.5 Quality
Management ..................................................................................................295
12.2.6 Environmental
Management ......................................................................................295
12.3 SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................. 297
12.3.1 Abandonment
Options................................................................................................297
12.3.2 Consideration of sustainable development option
....................................................298
ix
List of Figures
FIGURE
1.1: LOCATION
OF
GULLFAKS
FIELD
IN
THE
NORTH
SEA
............................................................................................ 1 FIGURE 1.2: THE GULLFAKS
REGION LOCATED IN THE NORWEGIAN SEA.................................................................................. 2
FIGURE
2.1: LOCATION
OF
GULLFAKS
FIELD ...................................................................................................................... 6 FIGURE
2.2: GEOGRAPHICAL
LOCATION
OF
THE
RESERVOIR .................................................................................................. 7
FIGURE
2.3: GULFAKS
- STATFJORD
AREA ......................................................................................................................... 8 FIGURE
2.4: STATFJORD
FAULT
MAP ................................................................................................................................ 9
FIGURE
2.5: LOG
CORRELATIONS
FOR
WELLS
A10,
A15 &
A16
......................................................................................... 12 FIGURE 2.6: LOG CORRELATIONS
FOR WELLS B8, B9&C2 ................................................................................................. 12
FIGURE
2. 7: LOG
CORRELATIONS
FOR
WELLS
C3 &
C4 ..................................................................................................... 13
FIGURE
2.8: LOG
CORRELATIONS
FOR
WELLS
C4,
C5 &
C6 ................................................................................................ 13 FIGURE 2.9: POSSIBILITY
OF
PRESENCE
OF
LITHOLOGY ............................................................. 18
HYDROCARBONS
FIGURE 2.10: REGIONAL
PRODUCING
DRAINAGE AREAS
AND INTERPRETED MIGRATION PATHWAYS THROUGH JURASSIC SOURCE ROCKS IN THE

NORTHERN NORTH
SEA...................................................................................................................................... 2
2 MAP IS NOT TO SCALE. MODIFIED AFTER KUBALA ET AL. (2003). BLUE ARROWS INDICATE DRAINAGE IN
IMMATURE AREAS, RED AND
ORANGE ARROWS ARE FOR DRAINAGE IN THE DRAUPNE FORMAION. GREEN AND RED PATCHES ARE
HYDROCARBON FIELDS .... 22 FIGURE 2.11 (A) FROM LEFT, LOCATION OF STRUCTURES AND WELLS IN THE
GULLFAK AREA (BLOCK 34/10). (B) NE-SW CROSSSECTION THROUGH THE GULLFAKS SOUTH
STRUCTURE.............................................................................................. 24 FIGURE 2.12:
(A) PRESSURE COMPOSITE PLOTS (EQ.MW G/CM 3) IN THE GULLFAKS FIELDS (FROM STATOIL).
(B) RESERVOIR
PRESSURE
DATA
(RFT DATA) AND DEPTH TO MAJOR FLUID CONTACTS IN GULLFAKS
SOUTH.............................................. 25 FIGURE 2.13: DRILLING EXPONENT AND MUD GAS READINGS
FROM AN OVERPRESSURED GULLFAKS SOUTH WELL. ....................... 26 FIGURE 3.1 LITHOLOGY
CORRELATIONS
FOR
WELL
A10,
A15 AND
A16.
.............................................................................. 30
FIGURE
3.2 LITHOLOGY
CORRELATIONS
FOR
WELL
B8,
B9 AND
C2...................................................................................... 31
FIGURE
3.3 LITHOLOGY
CORRELATIONS
FOR
WELL
C3 AND
C4............................................................................................ 32
FIGURE
3.4 LITHOLOGY
CORRELATIONS
FOR
WELL
C5 AND
C6............................................................................................ 33 FIGURE 3.5 IDENTIFICATION
OF PERMEABLE AND NON PERMEABLE ZONE FOR WELLS A10 AND A15 .......................................... 37
FIGURE 3.6 IDENTIFICATION OF PERMEABLE AND NON PERMEABLE ZONE FOR WELLS A16 AND B8
............................................ 38 FIGURE 3.7 IDENTIFICATION OF PERMEABLE AND NON PERMEABLE
ZONE FOR WELLS B9 AND C2............................................... 39 FIGURE 3.8 IDENTIFICATION OF
PERMEABLE AND NON PERMEABLE ZONE FOR WELLS C3 AND C4............................................... 40
FIGURE 3.9 IDENTIFICATION OF PERMEABLE AND NON PERMEABLE ZONE FOR WELLS C5 AND
C6............................................... 41 FIGURE 3.10 INTERPRETATION OF WATER AND HYDROCARBON
BEARING ZONES ..................................................................... 42
FIGURE 3.11 DETERMINATION OF

........................................................................ 43
FIGURE
3.12 FORMATION
PRESSURE
VS
TVD FOR
WELL
A10
............................................................................................ 44
FIGURE
3.13 FORMATION
PRESSURE
VS
TVD FOR
WELL
B9............................................................................................... 45
FIGURE
3.14 IDENTIFICATION
OF
POROSITY
FOR
WELL
A10 AND
A15 .................................................................................. 46 FIGURE 3.15 IDENTIFICATION OF
POROSITY FOR WELL A16 AND B8 .................................................................................... 47
FIGURE
3.16 IDENTIFICATION
OF
POROSITY
FOR
WELL
B9 AND
C2
...................................................................................... 48 FIGURE 3.17 IDENTIFICATION OF
POROSITY FOR WELL C3 AND C4 ...................................................................................... 49
FIGURE
3.18 IDENTIFICATION
OF
POROSITY
OF
WELL
C5 AND
C .......................................................................................... 50 FIGURE 4.1: BASE CRETACEOUS
HORIZON....................................................................................................................... 54
FIGURE
4.2: TOP
TARBET
HORIZON.
............................................................................................................................. 55 FIGURE
4.3: TOP
NESS
HORIZON.................................................................................................................................
. 55
FIGURE
4.4: TOP
ETIVE
HORIZON. ................................................................................................................................
56
FIGURE
4.5: ISOCHORE
BCTT..................................................................................................................................... 56
FIGURE
4.6: ISOCHORE
TTT2 ..................................................................................................................................... 57
FIGURE
4.7: ISOCHORE
T2T1 ..................................................................................................................................... 57
FLUID TYPE AND POSSIBLE FLUID CONTACT
FIGURE
4.8: ISOCHORE
T1TN..................................................................................................................................... 57
FIGURE
4.9: ISOCHORE
TNN1.................................................................................................................................... 58
FIGURE
4.10: ISOCHORE
N1-TE
.................................................................................................................................. 58
FIGURE
4.11: PVT DATA
OF
THE
FLUID
MODEL .............................................................................................................. 59
FIGURE
4.12: OIL
PVT DATA
...................................................................................................................................... 60
FIGURE
4.13: GAS
PVT DATA
..................................................................................................................................... 60
FIGURE
4.14: SATURATION
FUNCTIONS
OF
GOOD
SAND ................................................................................................... 61
FIGURE
4.15: SATURATION
FUNCTIONS
OF
SHALY
SAND ................................................................................................... 62
FIGURE
4.16: SATURATION
FUNCTIONS
OF
FAIR
SAND
..................................................................................................... 62 FIGURE 6.1: ISOPACH MAP
FOR BC-TT ......................................................................................................................... 70
FIGURE
6.2: ISOPACH
MAP
FOR
TTT2 .......................................................................................................................... 71 FIGURE
6.3: ISOPACH
MAP
FOR
T2T1 .......................................................................................................................... 72 FIGURE
6.4: ISOPACH
MAP
FOR
T1TN.......................................................................................................................... 73 FIGURE
6.5: ISOPACH
MAP
FOR
TNN1......................................................................................................................... 74 FIGURE
6.6: ISOPACH
MAP
FOR
N1TE.......................................................................................................................... 75 FIGURE
6.7: PLANIMETER ......................................................................................................................
..................... 76 FIGURE 6.8: THICKNESS VS CUMULATIVE AREA PLOT FOR OIL IN BCTT............................................................................... 77 FIGURE 6.9: THICKNESS VS CUMULATIVE
AREA PLOT FOR GAS IN BC-TT.............................................................................. 78 FIGURE
6.10: THICKNESS
VS
CUMULATIVE
AREA
PLOT
FOR
OIL
IN
TTT2 ............................................................................. 79
FIGURE
6.11: THICKNESS
VS
CUMULATIVE AREA PLOT FOR GAS IN TT-T2 ............................................................................ 80
FIGURE
6.12: THICKNESS
VS
CUMULATIVE
AREA
PLOT
FOR
OIL
IN
T2T1 ............................................................................. 81
FIGURE
6.13: THICKNESS
VS
CUMULATIVE AREA PLOT FOR GAS IN T2-T1 ............................................................................ 82
FIGURE
6.14: THICKNESS
VS
CUMULATIVE
AREA
PLOT
FOR
OIL
IN
T1TN............................................................................. 83
FIGURE
6.15: THICKNESS
VS
CUMULATIVE AREA PLOT FOR GAS IN T1-TN............................................................................ 84
FIGURE
6.16: THICKNESS
VS
CUMULATIVE
AREA
PLOT
FOR
OIL
IN
TNN1 ............................................................................ 85 FIGURE 6.17: THICKNESS VS CUMULATIVE
AREA PLOT FOR GAS IN TN-N1........................................................................... 86 FIGURE
6.18: THICKNESS
VS
CUMULATIVE
AREA
PLOT
FOR
OIL
IN
N1TE............................................................................. 87 FIGURE 6.19: THICKNESS VS CUMULATIVE
AREA PLOT FOR GAS IN N1-TE............................................................................ 88 FIGURE
6.20: A10 WELL
LOGS .....................................................................................................................................
98
FIGURE
6.21: PSEUDO
CRITICAL
TEMPERATURE
FO R
C7+................................................................................................. 101 FIGURE 6.22: PSEUDO
CRITICAL
PRESSURE
C7+ ....................................................................................................... 101
F OR
FIGURE
6.23: STANDING-KATZ
Z-FACTOR
CHART ........................................................................................................... 104
FIGURE
6.24: STOIIP
COMPARISON
GRAPH
................................................................................................................ 106
FIGURE
6.25: GIIP
COMPARISON
GRAPH
.................................................................................................................... 108
FIGURE
6.26: PROBABILITIES
OF
MONTE
CARLO............................................................................................................ 109
FIGURE
6.27: HISTOGRAM
FOR
STOIIP
PROBABILISTIC
CALCULATION
FOR
ZONE
BC
TT..................................................... 111 FIGURE 6.28: HISTOGRAM FOR GIIP PROBABILISTIC

CALCULATION
FOR
ZONE
BC
TT......................................................... 112
FIGURE
6.29: HISTOGRAM
FOR
STOIIP
PROBABILISTIC
CALCULATION
FOR
ZONE
TT
T2 ..................................................... 113 FIGURE 6.30: HISTOGRAM FOR GIIP PROBABILISTIC
CALCULATION
FOR
ZONE
TT
T2 ......................................................... 114
FIGURE
6.31: HISTOGRAM
FOR
STOIIP
PROBABILISTIC
CALCULATION
FOR
ZONE
T2
T1 ..................................................... 115 FIGURE 6.32: HISTOGRAM FOR GIIP PROBABILISTIC

CALCULATION
FOR
ZONE
T2
T1 ......................................................... 116
FIGURE
6.33: HISTOGRAM FOR STOIIP
PROBABILISTIC CALCULATION FOR ZONE T1
TN
.................................................... 117 FIGURE 6.34: HISTOGRAM FOR GIIP PROBABILISTIC
CALCULATION
FOR
ZONE
T1
TN
........................................................ 118
FIGURE
6.35: HISTOGRAM
FOR
STOIIP
PROBABILISTIC
CALCULATION
FOR
ZONE
TN
N1.................................................... 119 FIGURE 6.36: HISTOGRAM FOR GIIP PROBABILISTIC

CALCULATION
FOR
ZONE
TN
N1........................................................ 120
FIGURE
6.37: HISTOGRAM
FOR
STOIIP
PROBABILISTIC
CALCULATION
FOR
ZONE
N1
TE
.................................................... 121 FIGURE 6.38: HISTOGRAM FOR GIIP PROBABILISTIC
CALCULATION
FOR
ZONE
N1 TE
........................................................ 122
FIGURE
6.39: HISTOGRAM
FOR
STOIIP
PROBABILISTIC
CALCULATION
FOR
ALL
ZONES
.......................................................... 124 FIGURE 6.40: HISTOGRAM FOR GIIP PROBABILISTIC
CALCULATION FOR ALL ZONES .............................................................. 125
xi
FIGURE
6.41: STOIIP
COMPARISON
GRAPH
................................................................................................................ 126
FIGURE
6.42: GIIP
COMPARISON
GRAPH
.................................................................................................................... 127
FIGURE
7.1: PVT ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................
................... 131
FIGURE
7.2: OIL
VOLUME
FACTOR
AT
DIFFERENT
PRESSURE ............................................................................................. 133 FIGURE 7.3: GASOIL
RATIO
AT
DIFFERENT
PRESSURE
..................................................................................................... 133 FIGURE 7.4: GAS FVF
VS
PRESSURE
........................................................................................................................... 134 FIGURE
7.5: PRESSURE
DRAWDOWN
AND
BUILD-UP
TEST
FOR
SINGLE
CYCLE ...................................................................... 136 FIGURE 7.6: PRESSURE DRAWDOWN AND
BUILD-UP TEST FOR TWO CYCLES ....................................................................... 136 FIGURE
7.7: BOURDET-GRINGARTEN
TYPE
CURVE .......................................................................................................... 137
FIGURE
7.8: CAPILLARY
PRESSURE
VS
WATER
SATURATION
FOR
SAMPLE
12001................................................................ 140 FIGURE 7.9: CAPILLARY PRESSURE VS WATER
SATURATION FOR SAMPLE 1-3001................................................................ 141
FIGURE
7.10: CAPILLARY
PRESSURE
VS
WATER
SATURATION
FOR
SAMPLE
14003.............................................................. 142
FIGURE 7.11: GAS
OIL RELATIVE
PERMEABILITY FOR GOOD SAND.................................................................................. 143 FIGURE
7.12: WATER
OIL
RELATIVE
PERMEABILITY
FOR
GOOD
SAND
............................................................................. 143 FIGURE 7.13: GAS OIL RELATIVE
PERMEABILITY FOR SHALY SAND.................................................................................. 144 FIGURE
7.14: WATER
OIL
RELATIVE
PERMEABILITY
FOR
SHALY
SAND
............................................................................. 144 FIGURE 7.15: GAS OIL RELATIVE
PERMEABILITY FOR FAIR SAND .................................................................................... 145 FIGURE
7.16: WATER
OIL
RELATIVE
PERMEABILITY
FOR
FAIR
SAND................................................................................ 145 FIGURE 7.17: PRESSURE VERSUS
DEPTH
PLOT............................................................................................................... 147
FIGURE
7.18: MAGNITUDE
OF
UNCERTAINTY
IN
RESERVE
ESTIMATES ................................................................................ 148
FIGURE
7.19: A10 MULTIRATE
WELL
TEST
DATA.......................................................................................................... 150
FIGURE
7.20 HISTORY
MATCHING
WITH
MODIFIED
PERMEABILITY
................................................................................... 151 FIGURE 7.21: THE BEST HISTORY
MATCHING CASES WITH MODIFIED PERMEABILITY ............................................................ 151 FIGURE
7.22: ORIGINAL
PERMEABILITY
MODEL
PROPERTIES
........................................................................................... 152 FIGURE7.23 HALF PERMEABILITY
MODEL
PROPERTIES
................................................................................................... 152
FIGURE
7.24 ONE
THIRD
PERMEABILITY
MODEL
PROPERTIES
.......................................................................................... 152
FIGURE
7.25: 0.16 PERMEABILITY
MODEL
PROPERTIES.................................................................................................. 152
FIGURE
7.26: ORIGINAL
MODEL
................................................................................................................................. 154
FIGURE
7.27: WATER
SATURATION
FILTERED ................................................................................................................. 155 FIGURE
7.28: FINAL
FILTERED
MODEL .......................................................................................................................... 155
FIGURE
7.29: PRODUCERS
AND
INJECTORS
LOCATION
..................................................................................................... 156 FIGURE 7.30: FIELD OIL
PRODUCTION
CUMULATIVE
FOR
4 INJECTORS ............................................................................... 158 FIGURE 7.31: CREAMING

CURVE
FOR
1 INJECTORS
........................................................................................................ 158 FIGURE 7.32: FIELD
OIL
PRODUCTION
CUMULATIVE
FOR
CURVE
FOR
2 INJECTORS
........................................................................................................ 159 FIGURE 7.34: FIELD
OIL
PRODUCTION
CUMULATIVE
FOR
CURVE
FOR
3 INJECTOR.......................................................................................................... 160
FIGURE
7.36: FIELD
OIL
PRODUCTION
CUMULATIVE
FOR
CURVE
FOR
4 INJECTORS
........................................................................................................ 161
FIGURE
7.38: OVERALL FIELD OIL PRODUCTION CUMULATIVE FOR DIFFERENT NUMBERS OF INJECTORS AND
10 PRODUCERS....... 162 FIGURE 7.39: ESTIMATED TOTAL PRODUCTION OF WATER INJECTION
............................................................................... 166 FIGURE 7.40: DECLINE CURVE OF
PRODUCTION RATE BY WATER INJECTION ....................................................................... 167 FIGURE
7.41: PRODUCTION
PROFILE
BY
WATER
INJECTION
............................................................................................. 167 FIGURE 7.42: HYDROCARBON
IN
PLACE ....................................................................................................................... 169
FIGURE
7.43: SATURATION
DISTRIBUTION
OF
BC LAYER .................................................................................................. 171
FIGURE
7.44: SATURATION
DISTRIBUTION
OF
TT LAYER
.................................................................................................. 171 FIGURE 7.45: SATURATION
DISTRIBUTION OF T2 LAYER .................................................................................................. 172
FIGURE
7.46: SATURATION
DISTRIBUTION
OF
T1 LAYER
.................................................................................................. 172 FIGURE 7.47: SATURATION
DISTRIBUTION OF TN LAYER .................................................................................................. 173
xii
FIGURE
7.48: SATURATION
DISTRIBUTION
N1 LAYER.................................................................................................. 173
7.49: SATURATION
DISTRIBUTION
OF
TE
.................................................................................................. 174 FIGURE
OF
FIGURE
LAYER
7.50: CLOSING
FAULT
SOUTH
2....................................................................................................................... 174
FIGURE
7.51: MAIN
FAULT
EAST
1 ............................................................................................................................. 175
FIGURE
7.52: MAIN
FAULT
EAST
2 ............................................................................................................................. 175
FIGURE
7.53: MAIN
FAULT
NS 2................................................................................................................................ 176
FIGURE
7.54: MAIN
FAULT
NS 1................................................................................................................................ 176
FIGURE
7.55: RESERVOIR
OPTIMIZATION ..................................................................................................................... 17
8
FIGURE
7.56: RESISTIVITY
MONITORING ...................................................................................................................... 180
FIGURE
7.57: THERMAL
RECOVERY. SOURCE: ALBERTA
GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY ..................................................................... 183
FIGURE
7.58: CO2
RECOVERY...............................................................................................................................
..... 185
FIGURE
7.59: CARBON
DIOXIDE
FLOODING. .................................................................................................................. 192
FIGURE
8.1: LOCATION
OF
WELL
PLACEMENT ............................................................................................................... 199
FIGURE
8.2: KEY
OF
COLOURS .................................................................................................................................
... 201 FIGURE 8.3: INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST PART CONSISTS OF SANDSTONES TO CLAY STONES WITH
SAND STRINGERS.................. 202 FIGURE 8.4: INTERPRETATION OF SHALES ALTERNATING WITH
LIMESTONE AND MARLS. ......................................................... 203 FIGURE 8.5: INTERPRETATION OF
MUDSTONES, CLAY STONES AND SHALE WITH LIMESTONE STRINGERS.................................... 204
FIGURE
8.6: INTERPRETATION
OF
SANDSTONES
TO
SHALE
WITH
LAYERS
OF
CARBONATES....................................................... 205 FIGURE 8.7: INTERPRETATION OF CLAY STONES
AND SHALE, WITH MUDSTONES AND LIMESTONE STRINGERS ............................. 206 FIGURE
8.8: INTERPRETATION
OF
SANDSTONES
TO
SHALE
WITH
LIMESTONE
STRINGERS
......................................................... 207 FIGURE 8.9: TOP VIEW OF WELL PLACEMENT
................................................................................................................ 211
FIGURE
8.10: WELL
TRAJECTORY
AND
WELL
LOCATION
WITH
GRID
FOR
2D SIDE
VIEW ......................................................... 211 FIGURE 8.11: WELL TRAJECTORY AND WELL
LOCATION FOR 2D SIDE VIEW ........................................................................ 212 FIGURE
8.12: PRESSURE
PROFILE
FOR
GULFAKS
FIELD .................................................................................................... 214
FIGURE
8.13: CASING
SETTING
DEPTH
......................................................................................................................... 215
FIGURE
8.13: MUD
WEIGHT
SELECTION
FOR
EACH
CASING
............................................................................................. 221 FIGURE 8.14: THE DEPTH
VERSUS DAYS FOR A SINGLE WELL USING SEMI-SUBMERSIBLE......................................................... 226
FIGURE
9.3: INFLOW
PERFORMANCE
RELATION
PLOT
BASED
ON
VOGEL ............................................................................. 234 FIGURE 9.4: TUBING PERFORMANCE
WITH INCREASING WATER CUT @ PR = 2516PSI .......................................................... 235
FIGURE9.3: TUBING
PERFORMANCE
WITH
DIFFERENT
RESERVOIR
PRESSURE
@WC=0%
....................................................... 236 FIGURE 9.4: TUBING PERFORMANCE WITH DIFFERENT
WELLHEAD PRESSURE @WC=0% ....................................................... 237 FIGURE 9.6: GRAPH OF
GRAIN
SIZE............................................................................................................................. 243
FIGURE
9.9: OIL
PRODUCER
COMPLETION.................................................................................................................... 252
FIGURE
9.10: TUBING
CONVEYED
PERFORATION ........................................................................................................... 253
FIGURE
9.11: TIME-TEMP
CURVE
FOR
EXPLOSIVE
.......................................................................................................... 254
FIGURE
10.2: DETERMENTS
FOR
A
DETERMENTS
SELECTION ............................................................................................. 260
FIGURE
10.2.2: DEVELOPMENT
PLATFORM
FOR
GULLFAKS
FIELD...................................................................................... 261 FIGURE 10.3.1A: SELECTION
POSSIBILITIES FOR THE DIAMETER OF PIPELINE FOR EACH WELL .................................................. 265
FIGURE 10.3.1B: SELECTION POSSIBILITIES FOR THE DIAMETER OF PIPELINE FOR ALL
WELLS ................................................... 266 FIGURE 10.4: A TIE-IN SUBSEA SYSTEM FOR GULLFAKS
FIELD. ( SOURCE: STATOIL) ............................................................... 268 FIGURE 10.7.1 : THE
STRUCTURE
FOR
THE
TEAM ...................................................................................................... 272
RIG
FIGURE 11.1: NET

CASH
FLOW
PROFILE
...................................................................................................................... 284
FIGURE
11.2: NPV
&
IRR ........................................................................................................................................
285
FIGURE
11.3: SENSITIVITY
ANALYSIS
PLOT
................................................................................................................... 287
FIGURE
12.1 HSEMS APPROACH
SEQUENCE
............................................................................................................... 290
FIGURE
12.2 HSE
RISK
MANAGEMENT
PROCESS........................................................................................................... 293
xiii
List of Tables
TABLE
2.1: LOGS
DESCRIPTION
.................................................................................................................................... 11
TABLE
2.2: STRATIGRAPHIC
SUCCESSION
PROVIDED
BY
THE
STUDY
DATA ............................................................................... 19
TABLE
3.1 DATA
AVAILABILITY ............................................................................................................................
......... 28
TABLE
3.2 WORKFLOW
OF
PETRO
PHYSICAL
EVALUATION
.................................................................................................. 29
TABLE
3.3: DETAILED
LITHOLOGY
INTERPRETATION
FOR
WELL
A16...................................................................................... 36
TABLE
3.4 PRESSURE
GRADIENT ................................................................................................................................
... 44
TABLE
4.1: CONDITIONS
FOR
SATNUM........................................................................................................................ 63
TABLE
5.1: VOLUME
ESTIMATION
FOR
HYDROCARBONS
IN
PLACE
(STOIIP
&
GIIP)............................................................... 65 TABLE 5.2: MONTE CARLO UNCERTAINTY
ANALYSIS CASES STOIIP IN PERCENTAGE ............................................................... 66 TABLE
5.3: MONTE
CARLO
UNCERTAINTY
ANALYSIS
CASES
STOIIP..................................................................................... 66 TABLE 5.4: MONTE CARLO
UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS CASES GIIP IN PERCENTAGE ................................................................... 67
TABLE
5.5: MONTE
CARLO
UNCERTAINTY
ANALYSIS
CASES
GIIP
........................................................................................ 67 TABLE 6.1: CUMULATIVE AREA OF
OIL BEARING ZONE IN BC-TT........................................................................................ 77 TABLE
6.2: CUMULATIVE
AREA
OF
GAS
BEARING
ZONE
IN
BCTT....................................................................................... 78 TABLE 6.3: CUMULATIVE AREA OF
OIL BEARING ZONE IN BC-TT........................................................................................ 79 TABLE
6.4: CUMULATIVE
AREA
OF
GAS
BEARING
ZONE
IN
BCTT....................................................................................... 80 TABLE 6.5: CUMULATIVE AREA OF
OIL BEARING ZONE IN T2-T1........................................................................................ 81 TABLE
6.6: CUMULATIVE
AREA
OF
GAS
BEARING
ZONE
IN
T2T1....................................................................................... 82 TABLE 6.7: CUMULATIVE AREA OF
OIL BEARING ZONE IN T1-TN ....................................................................................... 83 TABLE
6.8: CUMULATIVE
AREA
OF
GAS
BEARING
ZONE
IN
T1-TN
...................................................................................... 84 TABLE 6.9: CUMULATIVE AREA OF OIL
BEARING ZONE IN TN-N1....................................................................................... 85 TABLE
6.10:
CUMULATIVE
AREA
OF
GAS
BEARING
ZONE
IN
TNN1.................................................................................... 86 TABLE 6.11: CUMULATIVE AREA OF
OIL BEARING ZONE IN N1-TE ..................................................................................... 87 TABLE
6.12:
CUMULATIVE
AREA
OF
GAS
BEARING
ZONE
IN
N1-TE
.................................................................................... 88 TABLE 6.13: TOTAL VALUE OF GRV
OBTAINED FROM AREA UNDER THE GRAPH ..................................................................... 89 TABLE
6.14:
CALCULATION
OF
VSH
AND
N/G................................................................................................................. 92
TABLE
6.15: NET
TO
GROSS
FOR
EACH
ZONE
.................................................................................................................. 94
TABLE
6.17: AVERAGE
POROSITY
FROM
WELL
LOGS.......................................................................................................... 96
TABLE 6.17:
CONFIGURATION
OF
THE
DIFFERENT
SAND
REGIONS ........................................................................................ 99 TABLE 6.19: STOIIP OF
EACH
ZONE
OF
THE
RESERVOIR
.................................................................................................. 105 TABLE 6.20: STOIIP

THE
RESERVOIR
WITH
AVERAGE
OF
PARAMETER
VALUES ...................................................................... 105
TABLE
6.21:
STOIIP
VALUE
COMPARISON................................................................................................................... 106
TABLE
6.22:
GIIP
OF
EACH
ZONE
AND
TOTAL
GIIP
OF
THE
RESERVOIR
............................................................................... 107 TABLE 6.23: GIIP OF EACH ZONE AND
TOTAL GIIP OF THE RESERVOIR WITH AVERAGE PARAMETER VALUES ............................... 107 TABLE
6.24:
GIIP
VALUE
COMPARISON
...................................................................................................................... 108
TABLE
6.25: NET
TO
GROSS
FOR
EACH
ZONE
................................................................................................................ 110
TABLE
6.27: POROSITY
FOR
ALL
ZONES
WITH
MOST
LIKELY,
MINIMUM
AND
MAXIMUM
CASES ................................................. 110 TABLE 6.28: CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY FOR STOIIP FOR
ZONE BC TT ............................................................................ 111 TABLE 6.29: CUMULATIVE
FREQUENCY FOR GIIP FOR ZONE BC - TT................................................................................. 112
TABLE
6.30:
CUMULATIVE
FREQUENCY
FOR
GIIP
FOR
ZONE
TT
T2
................................................................................ 113 TABLE 6.31: CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
FOR GIIP FOR ZONE TT T2 ................................................................................ 114 TABLE
6.32:
CUMULATIVE
FREQUENCY
FOR
STOIIP
FOR
ZONE
T2
T1
............................................................................ 115 TABLE 6.33: CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY FOR
GIIP FOR ZONE T2 T1 ................................................................................ 116 TABLE 6.34:
CUMULATIVE
FREQUENCY
FOR
STOIIP
FOR
ZONE
T1
TN............................................................................ 117 TABLE 6.35: CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY

FOR GIIP FOR ZONE T1 TN................................................................................ 118
xiv
TABLE
6.36:
CUMULATIVE
FREQUENCY
FOR
STOIIP
FOR
ZONE
TN
N1 ........................................................................... 119 TABLE 6.37: CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY

FOR GIIP FOR ZONE TN N1 ............................................................................... 120 TABLE
6.38:
CUMULATIVE
FREQUENCY
FOR
STOIIP
FOR
ZONE
N1
TE............................................................................ 121 TABLE 6.39: CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
FOR GIIP FOR ZONE N1 TE................................................................................ 122 TABLE
6.40:
THE
CUMULATIVE
PROBABLE
(P50) STOIIP
AND
GIIP .................................................................................. 122
TABLE 6.43:
CUMULATIVE
FREQUENCY
FOR
STOIIP
FOR
ALL
ZONES .................................................................................. 124
TABLE 6.44: CUMULATIVE
FREQUENCY FOR GIIP FOR ALL ZONES...................................................................................... 125
TABLE
6.45:
THE
CUMULATIVE
PROBABLE
(P50) STOIIP
AND
GIIP .................................................................................. 125 TABLE 6.46: STOIIP VALUE
COMPARISON................................................................................................................... 126
TABLE
6.47:
GIIP
VALUE
COMPARISON
...................................................................................................................... 127
TABLE
7.1: PVT ANALYSIS
RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 13
2
TABLE
7.2: ANALYSIS
RESULTS
OF
SEPARATOR ............................................................................................................... 135
TABLE
7.3: CAPILLARY
PRESSURE
TEST
FOR
SAMPLE
12001 ........................................................................................... 139 TABLE 7.4: CAPILLARY
PRESSURE
TEST
FOR
SAMPLE
13001 ........................................................................................... 140 TABLE 7.5: CAPILLARY
PRESSURE
TEST
FOR
SAMPLE
14003 ........................................................................................... 141 TABLE 7.6: PRESSURE VS
DEPTH................................................................................................................................. 1
47
TABLE7.7: RESERVOIR
STOIIP
&
GIIP ........................................................................................................................ 149
TABLE
7.8: PROPOSED
PRODUCERS
AND
INJECTORS ....................................................................................................... 156
TABLE
7.9: RECOVERABLE
OIL
BY
WATER
INJECTION........................................................................................................ 163 TABLE 7.10:
THE
PRODUCTION
DECLINE
CURVE
OF
A
SINGLE
WELL..................................................................................... 165
TABLE
7.11: POSSIBLE
PROBLEMS
AND
ITS
.................................................................................................... 179
SOLUTIONS
TABLE 7.11: POSSIBLE
PROBLEM
FACED ....................................................................................................................... 179
TABLE
7.12:
SURVEILLANCE
PLAN............................................................................................................................... 180
TABLE
7.13:
GULFAKS
RESERVOIR
ROCKS
AND
FLUIDS
PROPERTIES .................................................................................... 188 TABLE 7.14: SCREENING
CRITERIA
FOR
EOR.
SOURCE: ENHANCE
OIL
RECOVERY,
DONALDSON
ERLE ....................................... 189
TABLE
7.15:
SCREENING
CRITERIA
FOR
EOR. ................................................................................................................ 190
TABLE
7.16:
SCREENING
CRITERIAS
FOR
CO2
FLOODING .................................................................................................. 193
TABLE 7.17:
UNCERTAINTIES
INVOLVED....................................................................................................................... 196
TABLE
2.1:
TARGETS
COORDINATE
............................................................................................................................. 198 TABLE
8.2: DRILLING
SCHEDULE ...............................................................................................................................
.. 200
TABLE
8.3: DEPTH
AND
DAILY
RATES
FOR
OFFSHORE
DRILLING
RIGS
................................................................................... 208 TABLE 8.4: OFFSET WELL PROFILE
.............................................................................................................................. 210 TABLE
8.5: CASING
GRADE
SELECTION
........................................................................................................................ 217
TABLE
8.6: SAFETY
FACTOR
OF
NORTH
SEA .................................................................................................................. 218
TABLE
8.7: BIT
RECORD
FOR
GULFAKS
FIELD
WELL
34/10-C47...................................................................................... 218 TABLE 8.8: BIT SIZE SELECTION
FOR ALL PRODUCER WELLS ............................................................................................... 219
TABLE
8.9: CEMENTING
PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................. 2
22
TABLE
8.10:
TIME
COST
ESTIMATION
FOR
ALL
WELLS ...................................................................................................... 223
TABLE 8.11:
TIME
BREAKDOWN
FOR
A
PRODUCER
WELL
................................................................................................. 224
TABLE
8.12:
TIME
BREAKDOWN
FOR
WELL....................................................................................................... 225
EXISTING
TABLE
9.1:
TUBING
PERFORMANCE
WITH
INCREASING
WATER
CUT
@ PR
= 2516PSI ............................................................ 235 TABLE 9.2: TUBING PERFORMANCE WITH
RESERVOIR PRESSURE @WC=0% ....................................................................... 236 TABLE 9.3:
TUBING
PERFORMANCE
AT
DIFFERENT
WELLHEAD
PRESSURE
@WC=0% ............................................................ 236 TABLE 9.4: SAND CONTROL METHOD
AVAILABLE ............................................................................................................ 239
TABLE
9.5: SAND
CONTROL
METHOD
COMPARISON ........................................................................................................ 241
TABLE
9.7:
TIFFIN'S
CRITERIA
.................................................................................................................................. 242
TABLE
9.8:
GRAIN
SIZE
OF
GULFAKS
FIELD
................................................................................................................... 242
TABLE
9.9: CUMULATIVE
NUMBER
FOR
10,
40,
90 AND
95
............................................................................................ 243
TABLE
9.10:
SORTING
COEFFICIENT, AND
UNIFORMITY
COEFFICIENT .................................................................................. 243
xv
TABLE
9.11: ARTIFICIAL
LIFT
SELECTION
CRITERIA ........................................................................................................... 244
9.12:
GAS
LIFTS
TABLE
COMPLETION
DESIGN ............................................................................................................... 246
9.13: WELL
TABLE
COMPLETION
MATRIX ..................................................................................................................... 248
TABLE
3.14:
TYPES
OF
BOTTOM
HOLE
....................................................................................................... 249
COMPLETION
COMPLETION
TABLE
COMPONENTS ........................................................................................................ 250
9.15:
SUMMARY
FOR
PERFORATION
PROPOSED ......................................................................................... 255
9.15:
STRINGS
TABLE
DESIGN
TABLE
10.3.1:
SUMMARY
FOR
OIL
FLOW
RATE
PER
WELL ................................................................................................ 263 TABLE 11.1: FISCAL
TERM
FOR
O&G IN
NORWAY ......................................................................................................... 278
TABLE
11.2: PETROLEUM
INCOME
TAX
....................................................................................................................... 279
TABLE
11.3:
SPECIAL
PETROLEUM
TAX ........................................................................................................................ 279 TABLE
11.4:
COST
GUIDELINES .............................................................................................................................
..... 280
TABLE
11.5:
TOTAL
COST
OF
DEVELOPMENT
OPTION..................................................................................................... 282 TABLE 11.6:
CUMULATIVE
REVENUE ........................................................................................................................... 283
TABLE
11.7: NET
REVENUES................................................................................................................................
...... 286
TABLE
11.8:
SENSITIVITY
TABLE
FOR
NPV
@10% ......................................................................................................... 287
xvi
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of Project
The Gulfaks field is located in the north-eastern part of block 34/10 in the Norwegian sector
of the North Sea. It represents the shallowest structural element of the Tampen Spur, and was
formed during the Upper Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous as a sloping high, with a westerly
structural dip gradually decreasing towards the east. The major north to south striking faults
with easterly dipping fault planes divided the field into several rotated fault blocks. Central
and eastern parts have been eroded by the early Cretaceous transgression. The field is related
to block 34/10 which is approximately 175 km northwest of Bergen and covers an area of 55
km2and occupies the eastern half of the 10-25 km wide Gulfaks fault block (Fossen and
Hesthammer, 2000).
Figure 1.1: Location of Gullfaks field in the North Sea
Figure 1.2: The Gullfaks region located in the Norwegian Sea.
The right picture shows the hydrocarbon fields, green being oil, red being gas containing
(Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, 2011)
It is generally agreed that Middle Jurassic deposits of the reservoirs in Gulfaks field are
represented by the deltaic sediments with deposition strongly controlled by regressive or
transgressive cycles and occurred during the late phase of post -rift subsidence following the
Late Permian/Early Triassic rifting (Ryseth, 2000). The thickness distribution is consequently
controlled by both the thermally driven subsidence and ongoing faulting of the Late Jurassic
Early Cretaceous episode of rifting. A delta formed when alluvial sediments reach the river
mouth and the energy of the river is dissipated in a basin.
1.2 Problem Statement

The Gulfaks field was discovered in 1978 and went on production in 1986 with subsea wells
producing to the GF-A platform, followed by the subsequent installation of GF-B and GF-C
platforms in 1988 and 1990 respectively. All these wells are vertical wells. Development
of
structurally complex oil and gas field requires a thorough understanding of the reservoir
characteristics and geological characteristics in order to optimize the field performance. This
process also requires a good understanding of all available data to come up with a suitable
drilling and completion program together with necessary health, safety and environment
considerations in developing the field. These plans consist of drilling appraisal wells in
Gulfaks field. Volumetric and reserves calculation should be conducted to ensure that the
decisional tree analysis will show positive and bigger Expected Value (EV) to sustain the
project.
Thus, this case study analyses the Gulfaks field and focuses on the necessary aspects in field
development process which are as following:
Phase I
: Geology & Geophysics and Petrophysics.
Phase II
: Reservoir Engineering.
Phase III
:Drilling Engineering, Production Technology and Facilities Engineering.
Phase IV
: Project Economics.
Phase V
: Sustainable Development and Health, Safety, & Environment.
The field data should be obtained for the Gullfaks field are:
Field outline.
Field stratigraphy.
Petrophysical data.
Special Core Analysis (SCAL) data & Reservoir Fluid Study (PVT).
Gamma Ray (GR), Resistivity (RT) and Neutron (NPHI) /Density (RHOB) logs.
Field contour map.
1.3 Objectives
The objectives of the Gulfaks FDP are focused on the development of structurally complex
oil and gas field with thorough understanding of the geological characteristics and reservoir
characteristics in order to optimize the field performance. Addition to carrying out a technical
and economics study of the proposed development utilizing the latest technology, economics
and environmental element.
The objectives in formulating the best, possible FDP will include the following:
Maximizing economic return.
Maximizing recoverable hydrocarbons.
Maximizing hydrocarbon production.
Compliance with health, safety and environment requirements.
Providing recommendations in reducing risks and uncertainties.
Providing sustainable development options.
The main objective is to come up with technically and economically viable development plan
to maximize return to operator within the stipulated schedule. The development strategy must
satisfy the needs of high-level management in making decision of the proposed development
for Gulfaks field.
1.4 Scope of Work

The general scope of works for the Gulfaks Field Development Project is:
To determine the Gross Rock volume, Net to Gross (NTG), porosity and saturation
distribution profile, types of fluids and their contacts, Stock Tank Oil Initially in
Place (STOIIP) and Gas Initially in Place (GIIP).
To develop the static model of Gulfaks Field.
To prepare a dynamic model and perform simulation to achieve highest recovery

factor (RF) and economic return of the field.
To prepare well completion design and propose a drilling program.
To propose the most feasible and economical facilities.
To perform economic evaluation and sensitivity analysis for all development stages
and options.
To ensure the FDP is in compliance with national regulation and HSE requirements.
CHAPTER2
GEOPHYSICS & GEOLOGY
2.1 Location and Exploration History
Gulfaks is an oil and gas field, located in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea and
operated by a fully Norwegian license group consisting of Statoil (operator), Norsk Hydro,
and Saga Petroleum. The field is situated in block 34/10, approximately 175km Northwest of
BERGEN. The field lies in the central part of the East SHETLAND basin. The oil and Gas
field was first discovered in 1979 at a water depth of 135 meters. The Gullfaks project
consists of three production platforms Gulfaks A, Gulfaks B, and Gulfaks C. According to
(Petterson et al. 1990) the field has been under production since 1986, and the total
recoverable reserves were estimated to be 310 x 106 Sm3 of oil and some 30 x 109 Sm3 of
gas, located in the Jurassic Brent Group, Cook Formation and Statfjord Formation.
Figure 2.1: Location of Gullfaks Field
2.2 Regional Geology

Gulfaks Field is located in the North Sea of Norwegian sector and operated by Statoil.
The field is situated in block 34/10, approximately 175km Northwest of Bergen. The field
lies in the central part of the East Shetland basin. Research made on the basin shows that the
field is located on the western flank of the Viking Graben, where it occupies the eastern half
of a 10-25km wide, NNE-SSW-trending fault block, called the Gulfaks fault. This fault block
is one of series of large (first order) fault blocks that are easily identified on regional seismic
lines across the North Sea.
This field is characterized by two structurally contrasting compartments; a western domino
system with typical domino-style fault block geometry, and a deeply eroded eastern
horst complex of elevated sub-horizontal layers and steep faults. These two compartments
have different structural development and will be analyzed separately
Figure 2.2: Geographical location of the reservoir

7
Figure 2.3: Gulfaks - Statfjord area
Between the western and eastern regions is a transitional accommodation zone (graben
system), which is identified as a modified fold structure. The distribution of these structurally
different areas displays an east- stepping occurrence of the accommodation zone as one goes
from the north to the south. The stepping occurs across E-W transfer faults with high
displacement gradients (rapidly decreasing displacement to the west). These E-W faults thus
separate domains of contrasting dips.
Figure 2.4: Statfjord fault map
With water depths ranging from 135 to 220m, the field covers an area of 51 km 2 from
southwest to northeast. Comparable to giant Statfjord field, the hydrocarbons, sourced from
the Kimmeridgian Hot Shale, the Draupne Formation, have accumulated in Lower and
Middle Jurassic sandstones, besides having complex tectonic structural development and
shallower burial depth.
2.3 Stratigraphy
Gulfaks Field Stratigraphy

The deepest well in the Gulfaks area (34/10-13) was drilled to about 3350m depth,
and penetrated 1340m of Triassic sands and shale of the Lunde and Lomvi Formations
(Hegre Group). The base of the Triassic has never been reached in this part of the northern
North Sea, and little is therefore known about early and pre-Triassic strata. From gravity
surveys, palinspastic reconstructions and regional, deep seismic lines, it is, however, inferred
that only thin sequences of sediments are present between the Triassic clastics and Devonian
or metamorphic/ crystalline basement in this area. The Triassic Hegre Group consists of
interbedded intervals of sandstones, claystones and shales, all deposited in a continental
environment.
The upper part of the Hegre Group (the Lunde Formation) consists of medium-grained,
fluvial sandstones and contains reserves in the eastern Gulfaks area. Overlying the Hegre
Group is the Rhaetian-SinemurianStatfjord Formation which consists of 180-200 m of
sandstones deposited in an alluvial environment that to a more humid alluvial plain. The 370420m thick Dunlin Group is subdivided into the Amundsen, Burton, Cook and Drake
Formations. The Amundsen and Burton Formations consist 170-180 m of marine claystones
and siltstones overlain by the regressive, marine, silty claystones of the lower part of the 110160 m thick Cook Formation, and in turn by muddy sandstones, sands and shales of the upper
part of the Cook Formation. The 75- 120 m thick Drake Formation comprises marine shales
with varying amounts of silt.
The Brent Group of mainly Bajocian-Early Bathonian age forms the upper and main part of
the reservoirs. It is sub-divided into the Broom (8-12m), Rannoch (50-90m), Etive (15-40m),
Ness (85-110m) and Tarbert (75-105m) Formations, all deposited in a deltaic environment. A
broad lithological sub-division can be made between the shaly Ness Formation and the sandy
intervals below and above. A major time gap (up to 100Ma) is represented by the base
Cretaceous (late Cimmerian) unconformity on the Gulfaks Field, separating Upper
Cretaceous sediments from Jurassic or Triassic sediments, and post dating the major part of
the faulting history of the area. Up to 100 m of Upper Jurassic shales (Heather Formation) are
locally preserved in the hanging walls to the main faults in the Gulfaks Field, particularly in
the western part.
10
Stratigraphic Correlation
Stratigraphic correlation is one of the success key in the field development plan (FDP)
as it gives information about lateral extent of the reservoir formations and useful in providing
additional information to help interpret depositional environments. In stratigraphy
correlation, relationships between rocks layers need to be study and classify. Then
information about the arrangement of the facies, porosity and permeability zones, flow units
and potential barriers in a reservoir and also the volume and extent of the reservoir can be
obtained. In order to derive good stratigraphic correlation various methods and techniques are
available such as seismic data and well logs. However well logs are the only one type of data
used to establish a correlation as shown below.
Table 2.1: Logs Description
Type of Logs
Caliper Logs
Dip meter Logs
Sonic Logs
Description
Measure the size or diameter of the hole
Measure dip of the formation
Measure the elastic or (sound) wave properties of the
formation
Density logs
Measure electron density of the formation which

is related to formation density
Electrical Logs
Measure the electrical properties of the formation

along with the formation fuids
Resistivity Logs
Measure the electrical resistivity to characterize rocks

or sediment in a borehole
Gamma Ray Logs
Measures the natural gamma radiation emanating

from a formation split into contributions from each
of the major radio-isotopic sources.
In the case of Gulfaks field, gamma ray (GR) log is used as it measures the natural
radioactivity of the reservoir formations where high GR response indicates shale formation
while low GR indicate sands formation. This can be obtained because rock formation emits
different amount of natural gamma radiation where a shale formation emits more gamma rays
as shale usually contains significant radioactive substance which are Uranium, Thorium and
Potassium. In addition, readings from GR generally show a close relationship to grain size.
11
Below are Figure 2.5 Figure 2.8 that display the well log correlations done in petrel
software for wells A10, A15, A16, B8, B9, C2, C3, C4, C5 and C6 based on Gamma-Ray log
(porosity).
Figure 2.5: Log correlations for wells A10, A15 & A16
Figure 2.6: Log correlations for wells B8, B9&C2
12
Figure 2. 7: Log correlations for wells C3 & C4
Figure 2.8: Log correlations for wells C4, C5 & C6
13
2.4 Hydrocarbons and Pressure distribution

2.4.1 Hydrocarbons Distribution
Petroleum System
According to Adda (2012), in the northern North Sea, the Upper Jurassic Petroleum system is
considered the only established one. Considering that the main source rock is the Upper
Jurassic marine shale between sandstone reservoirs are the Triassic and lower to Middle
Jurassic sandstone.
As claimed by Johnson and Fisher (1998), the northern North Seas can be classified as the
following plays:
Triassic-Lower and Middle Jurassic plays
Upper Jurassic play
Cretaceous play and,
Paleogene play.
These plays are a result of a combination of a regional Upper Jurassic source rock
accompanied by a structural geometry designed by a late Jurassic to early Cretaceous rift
system and its following subsidence. However, mainly the discovered resources in the
northern North Sea is from the Lower to Middle Jurassic Play (Eriksen et al., 2003).
Interpreting the formation, migration and existence of the fluid will help in the evaluation of
the estimated Hydrocarbons in place.
2.4.1.1 Source rock
There are two main source rocks in our study case. Both are considered from the Viking
members: the uppermost more oil prone Draupne Formation/Kimmeridge Clay, and the lower
more gas prone Heather Formation. (Adda, 2012)
14
Draupne Formation/Kimmeridge Clay

This formation is considered the main source rock of hydrocarbons. Non-calcareous
mudstones made brownish black colored , which are locally silty and micaeous (Kubala et al.,
2003). The average thickness for this unit varies between 50-250 m, however, it can reaches
to 1200m.
Immature Kimmeridge Clay organic matter consists mostly of Type II kerogen (William and
Douglas, 1980) and is rated as an excellent oil generating source rock generating gas at
higher maturity levels (Goff, 1983). Type II kerogen is a mixture if bacterially degraded algal
debris of marine planktonic origin and degraded humic matter of terrigenous origin
(Cornford, 1998).
The source potential of the mudstones within this unit is directly related to the kerogen facies
(Cornford, 1998), which varies laterally, and vertically within the unit (Goff, 1983). Total
Organic Carbon (TOC) values average 6% but can locally be as low as 2% or in excess of 10
%. Hydrogen Indices (HI) are also variable and dependent of the kerogen composition but
range between 200-400 mg / gTOC (Kubala et al., 2003).
The environment of deposition of the unit has been of much debate, however in the graben
areas such as the northern North Sea, deposition occurred below wave base in an anoxic
environment with high biogenic productivity and sedimentation rates
(Cornford, 1998).
Heather Formation
The unit contains carbonate bands embedded within dark grey silty Mudstone. In the Viking
Garben, the formation thickness has wide range that can reaches sometimes to 1000 m
(Kubala et al., 2003). The Heather Formation is typically gas prone but studies by Gormly et
al. (1994) indicate that it is locally oil prone in the eastern flanks of the Viking Graben. TOC
values are typically between 2-2.5 % (Goff, 1983).
15
Due to the terrestrial humic kerogen huge portion, hydrogen indices are consequently low.
Values typically range from 100-200mg / gTOC and rarely exceed 300mg / gTOC (Kubala et
al., 2003).
Another important source rocks for gas generation is the Middle Jurassic Brent Group -Ness
formation coal intervals, especially for that of North Viking Graben (Chung et al., 1995).
2.4.1.2 Reservoirs
Triassic and Lower Jurassic

The Triassic reservoirs commonly occur in tilted fault blocks with varying degrees of Jurassic
Cretaceous erosion and on lap. Along with the accumulations in Triassic reservoirs, except
for that of Snorre field, northern North sea contain most of their accumulations in overlying
Lower and Middle Jurassic reservoirs (Goldsmith et al., 2003).
Fluvial channel and sheet flood deposits are the major compromised reservoir intervals.
Deposition in terrestrial and semi-arid conditions occurs from the Statfjord and Lunde
formation although the younger Statfjord Formation shows an increase in the marginal
marine influence. Due to the mixing of marine transgression effect along with the humid
conditions in the Early Jurassic (Johnson and Fisher, 1998). The most important hydrocarbon
reservoir bearing in this category in this formation is the Statfjord Formation.
Middle Jurassic
The main ingredients for the Middle Jurassic reservoirs are arkoses and subkorses along with
clay minerals, feldspars where they make up to 95% of the total mineralogy (Humso et al.,
2002). These sandstones are both quartz and calcite cemented at depths exceeding 2500m
(Walderhaug and Bjorkum, 1992).
16
Laterally extensive interconnected fluvial, deltaic and coastal depositional systems are
encompassed within the reservoirs form a thick clastic wedge with permeability and
porosities ranging from 50-500mD and 20-30% respectively at shallow depths (Giles et al.,
1992). In the northern North Sea, the Middle Jurassic reservoirs are represented by the Brent
Group, which comprises the Tarbert (youngest), Ness, Etive, Rannoch and Broom
Formations (Vollset and Dore, 1984). The basal Brent is typically upper shore face
sandstones while transgressive sandstone represents the groups upper part (Gautier, 2005).
Upper Jurassic
According to Stewart and Faulkner (1991), other than Emerald Basin, plus the shallow
marine sandstones found in the Troll gas occurring in tilted fault blocks, there are no Upper
Jurassic reservoirs in the northern North Sea. Deep marine sandstones also occur in localized
areas where their presence is attributed to major rift, fault footwall uplift and erosion
(Johnson and Fisher, 1998).
17
Figure 2.9: Possibility of presence of a hydrocarbons producing lithology
18
The provided Reservoir Data

According to the supplied data, we were given the following wells, along with their well
headers (well location map), well deviations (well paths), well logs, and well tops (formation
tops), are supplied: A 20, A19,A10, A15, A16, B1, B2, B4, B8, B9, C1, C2,C3, C4, C5, C6,
and C7. Therefore, the stratigraphic succession of the reservoir under study is given in the
following table:
Table 2.2: Stratigraphic succession provided by the study data
Succession
1)
Horizon
Zone (From TOP)
Base Cretaceous
Tarbert-3 (Top Tarbert)
2)
Top Tarbert
Tarbert-2
Tarbert-1
3)
Top Ness
Ness-2 (Top Ness)
Ness-1
4)
Top Etive
19
2.4.1.3 Traps and Seals
As there are varieties in the hydrocarbon accumulations, there are different types of seals and
traps. However most trapping mechanisms are provided by rotated faults blocks sealed by
fine grained post rift sediments which drape onto the structures to form seals (Gautier, 2005).
In the Viking Graben, for example, hydrocarbons trapped in the Middle Jurassic Brent Group
are sealed vertically by uncomfortably overlying Jurassic Draupne Clay and Heather
Formation and Cretaceous shales of the Cromer Knoll Group (Johnson and Fisher, 1998).
Lateral trapping and sealing can also be shaped where non-reservoir rocks juxtapose the
reservoir rocks at fault contacts (Gautier, 2005).Overpressures have bounded the sealing
capacity of the cap rocks (Karlsson,1986) and most seals are close to hydraulic fracture
(Huem, 1996).
2.4.1.4 Migration
England et al. (1987) and Mackenzie et al. (1988) indicate that pressure driven flow of a
discrete hydrocarbon phase through micro fractures and pores caused the primary migration
in the northern North Sea. Quantitative modeling results show that source intervals which are
inorganic rich can be found in the Kimmeridge Clay unit; it is expected to find high expulsion
efficiencies (Cooles et al., 1986).
As cleared below in Fig 2.10, difference in density between the hydrocarbon and water that
caused buoyancy is considered the main source of secondary migration. In the northern North
Sea, hydrocarbons have migrated vertically along the major half graben-bounding faults with
possible leakage where sandstones terminate against faults within the Mesozoic section.
Along faults planes towards structural highs hydrocarbons mostly follow structural contours
(Kubala et al., 2003).
20
The main conduits of migration with the study area is provided by sandstones of the Brent
Group provide the (Miles, 1990). Three main mechanisms of primary migration were applied
by Curtin and Ballestad (1986) as follows: (i) intercalation of source and reservoir were
enhanced by migration (ii) migration due to juxtaposition of reservoir and source rocks across
faults (iii) vertical migration across micro fracture systems. Cornford et al., (1986) expanded
on the earlier classification into five modes as follows:
Up-flank migration from the graben and
Migration in rotated fault blocks
Migration through faults and micro fractures
Short distance migration
Unconformity and multiple conduit migration.
For the northern North Sea, the two main mechanisms of migration are rotated fault blocks
migration and the Juxtaposition of reservoir and source rock migration.
21
Figure 2.10: Regional drainage areas and interpreted migration pathways through Jurassic source
rocks in the northern North Sea.
Map is not to scale. Modified after Kubala et al. (2003). Blue arrows indicate drainage in immature
areas, red and orange arrows are for drainage in the Draupne Formaion. Green and red patches are
hydrocarbon fields.
22
2.4.2 Pressure Distribution
The Pressure composite plots (Fig. 2.11 A) provided by Statoil form the basis for this
investigation. The plots represent reported pressure gradients estimated from wire line logs,
drilling and drilling mud parameters. Direct pressure measurements, such as repeated
formation tests (RFT) and drill stein tests (DST), were only available from good quality
reservoirs (Fig. 2.11 B).
A normal pressure gradient is seen throughout most of the Quaternary and Upper Tertiary
section, but there is a marked transition zone across the Paleocene and into Upper Cretaceous
argillaceous sediments. In the thin Cretaceous sediments (i.e. Gulfaks), a homogeneous and
rapid pressure increase occurs, with maximum pressure gradients in the cap rock.
A much more heterogeneous Cretaceous pressure distribution has been encountered in the
more deeply buried Gullfaks South structure. Wells located near the shallow eastern apex of
the rotated Jurassic fault block show high pressure gradients (1.5-1.6 g/ 3 ) near the top of
the Cretaceous interval which are maintained down to the Upper Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous
caprock. Wells located in the eastern back-basin show a smaller increase (1.2 g/3 ) with a
second steep increase in the Lower Cretaceous and into the Upper Jurassic shales, reaching a
maximum gradient of about 1.4 g/3 . The shape of the pressure gradient plots generally
correlates with the reported mud weight data from company reports. The overpressure
estimates are also supported by mud balance data (e.g. yield and composition of mud gas
readings and reported kicks).
23
Figure 2.11 (A) From left, location of structures and wells in the Gullfak area (block 34/10). (B) NESW cross-section through the Gullfaks South structure.
Note that Upper Jurassic shales (Viking Gr.) are thin or absent above the crest of the
structure.
2.4.2.1 Pressure
The pore-pressure gradient in non-reservoir lithology (Fig. 2.12 A) are often estimated using
the equivalent depth matrix stress equation, based on the drilling exponent (dc-exp.). After
logging runs using sonic transit time and bulk density derived overburden, further
recalculations are often necessary to improve the quality of these deep. Pressure estimates. In
conjunction with these methods, flow line temperature and log resistivity, gas analysis, shale
factor and hole conditions are monitored to augment the dc-exp, and sonic derived data.
Generally, formation density and acoustic velocity in normally compacted mud rocks
increase with increasing burial depth. Geopressured mud rocks usually differ from normally
pressure mud rocks at equivalent depths in having abnormal water contents, higher porosities
and a change in the ionic concentration of their pore-fluids which are reflected in their
formation resistivity and acoustic velocity logs. Most indirect methods are based on the
concept that abnormally pressured mud rocks are associated with compaction disequilibrium
and higher than 'normal' porosities.
24
Northern North Sea Tertiary deposits commonly exhibit very irregular and discontinuous dcexp. trends and wire line log readings, with distinct deflections at the base of the Nordland
Group and in the upper part of the Hordaland Group. These deflections are due to the
presence of thick sands are due to the presence of thick sands.
Figure 2.12: (A) Pressure composite plots (EQ.MW g/cm 3) in the Gullfaks fields (from Statoil). (B)
Reservoir pressure data (RFT data) and depth to major fluid contacts in Gullfaks South.
Solid lines represents individual well profiles in the three structures: (1) Gullfaks
(two wells); (2) Gullfaks South (five wells); and (3) Gamma (one well). The
pressures in the Jurassic reservoirs correspond to RFT-data on Fig. 2B, Filled
squares are teak-of test data points. Overburden gradients are estimated from
the density log. Typical ranges of excess reservoir pressures (reference to
hydrostatic) between 100-150 and 350-400 bars are shown as dotted lines (in
EQ.MW units). The pore-pressure gradients in the post-Jurassic section vary, both
between and within individual structures. The Jurassic reservoir pressures
(except Gamma) are part of a regional Tampen Spur pressure regime.
The pressure at the top of the Brent Group gas zone is -30 bars higher (435 psi)
than the pressure defined by the equivalent water zone pressure gradient due to
the density contrast between gas and water.
25
Figure 2.13: Drilling exponent and mud gas readings from an overpressured Gullfaks South well.
The dc-exp, represents the empirical relationship of several drilling parameters
(i.e. rate of penetration, bit size, weight on bit, and rotary speed), corrected for
the ratio of the normal mud weight to equivalent circulation mud density. It is
commonly afected by factors such as change to new bit, hole conditions and
lithology changes. Note that both the background (shaded black) and trip gas
(+) increase across the pressure transition zone. Pore-pressures (bars)
recalculated from the provided pressure composite
2.4.2.2 RESERVOIR PRESSURE AND SEAL FAILURE

Reservoir pressure (RFT)
Reservoir pressure data from Gulfaks South wells indicate the presence of two major pressure
regimes, one which includes the Brent Group reservoirs and the other the Statfjord and Lunde
Formations. The Brent sandstones contain gas with subordinate oil and appear to be nearly in
pressure communication across the whole structure. Variations in the position of the fluid
contacts and in the oil gradients in the Statfjord and Lunde Formations, and minor variations
in their water gradients, are probably an effect of sealing fault zones which separates the
hydrocarbon column in the western pressure cell into two minor pressure compartments.
26
The lateral and vertical pressure barriers separating the major pressure cells are N-S oriented
normal faults and thick shale units within the Dunlin Group. Based on Buhrig's (1989)
classification, the reservoir pressure gradients in Gulfaks South are close to the boundary
between his 'restricted' and 'closed' pressure systems.
Caprock Integrity
The reservoirs in the Gulfaks area are uncomfortably overlain by cap rocks of Upper Jurassic
shales and Cretaceous mud rocks and marls. However, their lithologies, lateral heterogeneity
and thickness show considerable variations. There are several mechanisms for mechanical
seal failure: (a) an increase in the reservoir pressure, or in the thickness of the hydrocarbon
(gas) column to pressures which exceed the formation integrity of the seal; (b) a reduction in
mechanical strength and micro fracturing due to in situ petroleum generation; and (c) tectonic
processes which may change the overall stress pattern in the cap rock. The reservoir pressures
in the Gulfaks structure have been reported to be close to the formation integrity of the
overlying Cretaceous rocks (Karlsson, 1986; Miles, 1990), with evidence for hydrocarbon
leakage from the reservoirs into shallower formations (Irwin, 1989; Petterson et al., 1992).
Figure 2 shows a typical overburden gradient and fracture pressures from Leak-off Tests
(LOT). Both the Gulfaks and Gamma reservoirs show pressure gradients which are very close
to the fracture points of the adjacent seals. The present reservoir pressure in Gulfaks South is
--90% of the fracture pressure.
However, the mechanical behavior of the Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous rocks in
Gulfaks South is poorly known since most LOTs have not been obtained within the cap rock
itself but in the shallower Upper Cretaceous mud rocks. The fact that the pressure gradients in
the Gulfaks fields generally approach the lithostatic pressure gradient indicate that an
overpressure release by mechanisms such as hydro fracturing of the thin seals above shallow
reservoirs, could explain the heterogeneous pressure distribution in the post-Jurassic section.
Upper Jurassic North Sea organic rich shales are commonly acting as both source rocks and
cap rocks. Generation of overpressures from petroleum generation may have a significant
effect upon the failure mechanics and sealing capacity of these cap rocks. This may have
caused a reduction in the mechanical strength of the early mature Gulfaks South cap rocks,
and initiated micro fracturing in the mature Gamma cap rocks.
27
CHAPTER 3
PETRO PHYSICS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
A major application of petro physics is in studying reservoirs for the hydrocarbon industry.
Petro physicists help the reservoir engineers and geoscientist to understand the rock
properties of the reservoir, particularly how pores in the subsurface are interconnected,
controlling the accumulation and migration of hydrocarbons. Studies in petro physics involve
lithology, porosity, water saturation, permeability and density.
This chapter will present the lithology understandings of the Gulfaks Field. Gamma ray log
information has been used in order to determine the zone of interest and targeted zone as it is
the easily available data. For this project, 10 wells are able to be identified to perform
petrophysical interpretations which are; A10, A15, A16, B8, B9, C2, C3, C4, C5, and C6.
Petrophysical interpretations are important as it will be use for identification of reservoir and
non reservoir layers, hydrocarbon layer as well as hydrocarbon and water bearing zone.
3.2 DATA SET
Data availability as below:
Table 3.1 Data Availability
Well
A10
A15
A16
A19
A20
B8
B9
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
Resistivity Gamma Density Log

Neutron
Permeability
Porosity Log
Ray Log
Log
N/A
Available
N/A
N/A
Available
Available
N/A
Available
N/A
N/A
Available
Available
N/A
Available
N/A
N/A
Available
Available
Available
Available Available Available
N/A
N/A
Available
Available Available Available
N/A
N/A
N/A
Available
N/A
N/A
Available
Available
N/A
Available
N/A
N/A
Available
Available
N/A
Available
N/A
N/A
Available
Available
N/A
Available
N/A
N/A
Available
Available
N/A
Available
N/A
N/A
Available
Available
N/A
Available
N/A
N/A
Available
Available
N/A
Available
N/A
N/A
Available
Available
Note:
N/A = Not available

28
Well log data for A19 & 20 was given as readily generated log curve whereas well log
data for other wells are given as in .las file
3.3 METHODOLOGY
PETREL well log interpretation

Well Log, well top and well deviation of 10 wells were imported into the PETREL. A
log curve will be generated for each well and the reading parameter was interpreted.
3.4 WORKFLOW OF PETROPHYSICAL EVALUATION

The process for Gulfaks Field can be summarized as below:
Lithology study
Interpretation of log data
Identification of the permeable and non-permeable

zones
Determination of the water and hydrocarbon bearing

zones
Determination of the porosity in the zone of interest
Table 3.2 Workflow of petro physical evaluation
29
3.4.1 Lithology study
Figure 3.1 Lithology correlations for well A10, A15 and A16.
30
Figure 3.2 Lithology correlations for well B8, B9 and C2.
31
Figure 3.3 Lithology correlations for well C3 and C4.
32
Figure 3.4 Lithology correlations for well C5 and C6.
In lithology study section, log correlations are performed for all the wells. Besides each wells are recorded with
gamma ray log reading.
33
3.4.2 Interpretation of log data
The lithology understanding of Gulfaks field is analyzed utilizing Gamma Ray logs. The
function of Gamma Ray is to record of formations radioactivity from potassium,
uranium and thorium. Well A16 has been used to demonstrate the translation of
lithology.
Top Tarbet Tarbert 2
Depth (m)
1805 1813
Interpretation
Goodres
ervoir
potential
Lithology
Siltinterbed
ded by
layer of
sandtone
Tarbert 2 Tarbert 1
Log Section
Depth (m)
1813 - 1820
Interpretation
Lithology
Good
Silt
reservoir
interbedded
potential
by thick layer
of sandstone
and thin layer
of clay
34
Log Section
Tarbert 1 Top Ness

Depth (m)
Interpretation
Lithology
1820
Average
Sandstone
1851
reservoir
interbedded
potential
by layer of
clay
Top Ness Ness 1
Log Section
Depth
Interpretation
Lithology
Log Section
1851
Good
Silt
1895
reservoir
interbedded
potential
by thin layer
(m)
of sandstone
35
Ness 1 Top Etive

Depth(m Interpretation
)
1895
-1945
Badreser
voir
potential
Lithology
Log Section
Contains
mostly
Claystone
Table 3.3: Detailed lithology interpretation for well A16
Through lithology interpretation for well 16, 4 facies has been identified namely sand,
silt, fine silt and clay. Different zones have different facies distributions. As shown in
table above, the first 4 zones are a good reservoir potential as they contain rich silt and
sandstones which have high porosity and high permeability.
After doing well correlation, some zones are assumed to be eroded as it is not shown in
another well. For example, base cretaceous zone is missing for most of the wells. This
can be concluded that missing base cretaceous zone is because of unconformities.
Unconformities are gaps in the geologic record that may indicate episodes of crustal
deformation, erosion and sea level variations. They are surfaces between two rock
bodies that constitute a substantial break in the geologic record. Unconformities
represent times when deposition stopped, an interval of erosion removed some of the
previously deposited rock and finally deposition was resumed.
36
3.4.3 Identification of the permeable and non-permeable zones
Fine silt, silt and sandstone are considered as permeable zone as they are having a good porosity and permeability while shale is
considered as non permeable zone.
Figure 3.5 Identification of permeable and non permeable zone for wells A10 and A15
37
Figure 3.6 Identification of permeable and non permeable zone for wells A16 and B8
38
Figure 3.7 Identification of permeable and non permeable zone for wells B9 and C2
39
Figure 3.8 Identification of permeable and non permeable zone for wells C3 and C4
40
Figure 3.9 Identification of permeable and non permeable zone for wells C5 and C6
41
3.4.4 Determination of water and hydrocarbon saturation in the zone of

interest
Resistivity and porosity logs are utilized to identify the hydrocarbon and water bearing
zones. The main Gulfaks exploration well that has the resistivity and porosity logs is
Well A20. Thusly, both logs are utilized to separate the hydrocarbon and water bearing
zones in Well A20. The deep resistivity log is utilized to identify hydrocarbon bearing
zone inside the penetrable zones. From the log, the establishment that contains
hydrocarbon liquid is recognized from high resistivity log perusing (low conductivity).
For low resistivity log understanding, it demonstrates that the shaping contains nonhydrocarbon liquid (high conductivity). The figures below demonstrate the results of
interpretation.
.
Figure 3.10 Interpretation of water and hydrocarbon bearing zones
42
So as to focus the potential sorts of liquid in the establishment, log information from
well A20 is used. The presence of possible oil and gas is detected using NPHI/Density
logs. The hydrocarbon recognized by resistivity logs are likewise reaffirm by these logs.
From the porosity logs, if the density log shows low value and the NPHI or neutron log
shows high value, it demonstrates that gas zone is exist. In this zone, when these two log
readings hybrid one another, it indicate a gas impact (butterfly impact). The fluids
determine in the well A20 of Gulfaks field are oil, water and gas. But, the main fluids
identified are oil and water. Gas is identified within the oil zone. The possible oil-water
contact is believed to be at 1907m TVDSS.
Oil
OWC
Water
Figure 3.11 Determination of fluid type and possible fluid contact

43
3.4.5 Identification of fluid types
Pressure Gradient:
Table 3.4 Pressure Gradient
Fluids
Pressure Gradient ( Theoretical value)

Psi/ft
Psi/m
Gas
0.10 and below
0.33 and below
Oil
0.25-0.35
0.82-1.15
Water
0.40-0.55
1.31-1.8
Based on the MDT Formation Pressure Data of well A10, the TVD versus Formation
pressure was plotted and GOC was determined.
Formation Pressure (psia)
2400
550
0
2450
2500
2650 5400
2550
2600
Gas gradient =
0.12 psi/ft
GOC = 5570
ft / 1698 m
560
0
A10
gas gradient
570
0
5800
5900
6000
6100
Figure 3.12 Formation Pressure vs TVD for well A10
Based on the MDT Formation Pressure Data of well B9, the TVD versus Formation
pressure was plotted and OWC was determined.
44
2450
Formation Pressure (psia)

2500
2550
2600
2650 5600
5700
Water gradient =
0.433 psi/ft
5800
B9
5900
Water Gradient
6000
WOC = 6250 ft /
1905 m
6100
6200
6300
6400
Figure 3.13 Formation Pressure vs TVD for well B9
3.4.6 Determination of porosity in the zone of interest
Porosity is defined as the ration of pore volume over total volume of the rock.

Porosity can be obtained from combination of Neutron log and Density log. Generally,
shale has low porosity due to fine grain size distribution in shale. Contrarily, sandstone
has higher porosity due to coarser grain size distribution.
45
Figure 3.14 Identification of porosity for well A10 and A15.
46
Figure 3.15 Identification of porosity for well A16 and B8
47
Figure 3.16 Identification of porosity for well B9 and C2.
48
Figure 3.17 Identification of porosity for well C3 and C4.
49
Figure 3.18 Identification of porosity of well C5 and C
50
CHAPTER 4
GEOLOGIC RESERVOIR MODEL
Geologic modeling or Geo-modeling is the applied science of making computerized
representations of parts of the Earth's crust focused around geophysical and
geological perceptions made on and below the Earth surface. Moreover, a geo-model is
the numerical equivalent of a three-dimensional geological map complemented by a
description of physical quantities in the area of interest.
Geo-modeling is normally utilized for overseeing natural resources and evaluating
topographical techniques, with main applications to oil and gas fields, groundwater aquifers
and mineral stores. For instance, in the oil and gas industry, reasonable geologic models are
needed as input to reservoir simulator programs, which foresee the behavior of the rocks
under different hydrocarbon recovery scenarios. An actual reservoir must be created and
delivered once, and oversights can be deplorable and inefficient. Utilizing geological models
and reservoir simulation permits reservoir engineers to distinguish which recovery
alternatives offer the most secure and most monetary, productive, and successful
advancement plan for a specific reservoir.
There are many types of geologic modeling softwares such as JewelSuite by Baker Hughes,
Schlumberger Petrel and Landmark Graphics Corporation. In this project Schlumberger
Petrel software has been chosen to build the geologic reservoir model for Gulfaks reservoir.
The static model had been done is based on contour map for each layer from Base Cretaceous
to Top Etive. The 3-D model was developed by using Schlumberger PETREL software. By
this static model the production profile and reservoir performance can be predicted and
forecasted. The geological features and all other available information were essential to
predict the reservoir behavior. The 3-dimensional model is based on the surface contoured
maps, lithology correlated from log reading and also facies based on depositional
environment.
There are four surfaces in Glfaks reservoir which is located in North Sea namely Base
Cretaceous, Top Tarbert, Top Ness and Top Etive.
4.1 Model Parameters

The Gulfaks areas are modeled using surface maps imported into PETREL. They are defined
for the same value of X-axis value from 450000 to 459000 meter east, and for Y-axis value
51
from 6780000 to 6790000 meter north. This approximates to a perimeter of investigation at

9000 meter from west to east and 10000 meter from north to south.
4.2 Structure Development

First, the BMP image files of every layers were first input into PETREL, and coordinates in
the 3 dimension are set for X, Y, and Z axis. The polygons of the 3D contour lines are created
as such by dotting the lines in the surface maps and then transferring the contours to the
desired depth. The depth of this boundary should be the lowest point in the surface image
map. The Make/edit Surface converts the digitized contour into top structure map by
choosing the polygon as the main input while boundary as the boundary itself. The geometry
of grid size and position is set to automatic, thus by this it means, the structure (hills and
slope) will be automatically defined. Ten top structure maps are then stacked on top of each
other for a complete view of the reservoir structure skeleton.
4.3 Stratigraphic Modeling
Making well tops and well correlation are comprised under stratigraphic modeling. The logs
from the well logging data are transferred into PETREL. Based on the lithology
identification, well correlations can be made to identify the well tops from Base Cretaceous
to Top Etive. By using the Create well top function, each zones can be easily distinguished
as the information can be converted into the three dimensional model as well. Other log
properties, such as effective porosity, permeability and water saturation can be derived from
the original log and will be discussed in the later section of 3D Static modeling.
Then make simple grid which is a network of lines that crosses each other to form a
polygon of four sides which could be either a rectangle or a square if all the sides are equal.
In simulating, making grids are important as it helps assign reservoir properties to the grid
which is a representative of the reservoir which is being dealt with. The grid contains all the
defined properties and geometry for the model. These simple grids are later upscale to give a
full representation of the reservoir. This grid defines the boundaries with which petrel works
with. The establishment of boundaries is also important, because with this boundaries, area
and in turn volumetric will be estimated. The increment values are used to specify the
intervals between grids. In this case, a value of 40m is used for both X and Y- axis. This
implies that he crossed lines are 40m separated from each other. In applying the petro
physical data and other data to the 3D grids, petrel uses sequential guassian elimination to
distribute these properties.
Generally in building grids that will be used for reservoir simulations, it should be ensured
that the grids match most of the geological features, or at least the important ones. Other than
that, the grids should maintain orthogonality and smoothness. By so doing, the grid tries to
duplicate the real reservoir as much as possible. This in turn helps increases the accuracy of
the model thus increases the certainty or dependability of the obtained results. Also, the
52
created grids should maintain vertical stacking, this accounts for gravity and drainage.
This vertical stacking shows effect of gravity and at the end will comply with fluid
properties, where lighter fluids will be on top and denser ones go below due to density
differentiation.
In geological modeling, few types of grids are used, these includes:
Pillar Grid: Provided by Petrel, gOcad, Irap RMS. Some features include; all vertical
boundary. The cell stacks are parallel to fault. The model dimensions are simplified.
(i, j, k grid). Locally there are very irregular footprints across all levels. Pillar grid has
problematic handling of intersecting faults and of lateral changes in fault dip,
complexities can be avoided by confining the model to a relatively thin interval such
as the model in this project where the interval is 40 metes. By doing this, some
complexities are eliminated or reduced.
SKUA Grid: Provided by Paradigm. Some of its attributes include; simple irregular
grids at top modelling interval, stretch squeeze towards base interval. The cell stacks
mostly orthogonal to top interval, can be aligned at faults with faulted cells. It can
adopt folded structures such as defined at top and base of modeling interval. It is
comparatively easy to implement facies and property modeling to be consistent with
paleo-domain. It is also able to represent structural complexity although this applies
only in models of limited thickness.
Conventional S-Grid: Provided by various applications. Some features include;

orthogonal footprint at all levels. Vertical cell stacks where faults are voxelised into
steps of vertical and horizon-parallel segments. Also, there are no restrictions to
geometry/topology handling except for granularity. Layer sampling may be poor
with dips of over 45 degrees.
To insert additional horizons into the 3D grid, isochores will be used to create zones between
the major horizons. Isochore is using to determine the thickness of the zone. Images of every
layer and the elevation depths are shown below (Base Cretaceous, Top Tarbert, Top Tarbert
2, Top Tarbert 1, Top Ness, Top Ness 1 and Top Etive). Different colors show different
elevation depths. Same color shows that the contour line is in the same height. Under the
global well logs (general log- if logs are added here, it will be automatically be added in both
53
of the wells), there are other few alternatives log created which were Facies (for facies),
NDPoro (neutron-density porosity), Eff_Poro (effective porosity), NTG (net to gross) and Sw
(water saturation).
4.3.1 Base Cretaceous
Surfaces delta is calculated by using Arithmetic operation, Z=Z*Constant and it is projected

below the sea bed by using Z=Z + Constant.
Axis
Min
Max
Delta
Elevation Depth (m)

-1988.15
-1654.72
333.42
Figure 4.1: Base cretaceous horizon.
4.3.2 Top Tarbert

Axis
Min
Max
Delta
Elevation Depth (m)

-2107.42
-1644.67
462.75
54
Figure 4.2: Top Tarbet Horizon.

4.3.3Top Ness
Axis
Min
Max
Delta
Elevation Depth (m)

-2131.51
-1644.46
487.05
Figure 4.3: Top Ness Horizon
4.3.4 Top Etive

Axis
Min
Max
Delta
Elevation Depth (m)

-2188.06
-1644.85
562.21
55
Figure 4.4: Top Etive Horizon.
4.3.5 Isochores
Isochore map contours for equal vertical thickness. There are 1 isochore for Base Cretaceous
- Top Tarbert interval. There are 3 isochores for Top Tarbert-Top Ness interval. As for Top
Ness-Top Etive interval there are 2 isochores.
Horizon
Isochore
Horizon
Isochore
Isochore
Isochore
Horizon
Isochore
Isochore
Horizon
Base Cretaceous
Base Cretaceous-Top Tarbert (BCTT)
Top Tarbert
Top Tarbert Tarbert2 (TT-T2)
Tarbert 2- Tarbert 1 (T2-T1)
Tarbert 1- Top Ness (T1-TN)
Top Ness
Top Ness Ness 1 (TN-T1)
Ness 1- Top Etive (N1-TE)
Top Etive
Figure 4.5: Isochore BC-TT
56
Figure 4.6: Isochore TT-T2
Figure 4.7: Isochore T2-T1
Figure 4.8: Isochore T1-TN
57
Figure 4.9: Isochore TN-N1
Figure 4.10: Isochore N1-TE
58
4.4 Make Fluid Model, Rock Physics Functions and Initialization

4.4.1 Make Fluid Model
Make fluid model is a process of generating black oil fluid models. The fluid model is
generated using the PVTi software. Data from fluid study report are used as input in the
software and it will automatically generate phase behaviour for the fluid. Soarve-RedlichKwong Equation of State is chosen to be used in making fluid model. The results are shown
as in Figure 4.11.
Figure 4.11: PVT Data of the Fluid Model
59
Figure 4.12 and Figure 4.13 show the Gas and Oil PVT Data generated from the PVTi
Software.
Figure 4.12: Oil PVT Data
Figure 4.13: Gas PVT Data.
60
4.4.2 Make Rock Physics Functions
The make rock functions is a process used to generate the rock model. There are two steps in
this section;
Make a saturation function

Make a rock compaction function
Based on the data given, there are three set of core samples data available, each representing
shaly sand, fair sand and good sand. The Gas-Oil Relative Permeability, Oil-Water Relative
Permeability and Oil-Water Capillary Pressure graph are shown as in figures below. These
later are imported to PETREL to make the saturation function.
Figure 4.14: Saturation Functions of Good Sand
61
Figure 4.15: Saturation Functions of Shaly Sand.
Figure 4.16: Saturation Functions of Fair Sand.
62
4.4.3 Initialization
The reservoir rock is initializing with different SATNUM according to its permeability as
shown in Table 4.1 below:
Table 4.1: Conditions for SATNUM
Type of Sand
Condition
SATNUM
Shaly
39 md & md &
39 md
Fair
39 md < 156
md & 39 md <
156 md & 39 md <
156 md
Good
> 156 md & > 156 md

& > 156 md
63
CHAPTER 5
HYDROCARBON IN PLACE
5.1 PETREL STOIIP and GIIP
5.1.1 Volume calculation
This process accurately calculates the volumes in a 3D grid (bulk, pore and fluid).These
numbers will often be used as a first indication in the economic decision making of the field
and together with an uncertainty analysis, can determine where efforts in reservoir evaluation
should be concentrated. The volume calculation process is done in the Utilities > Volume
calculation pane. A new case is created and defined. Several steps are carried out by
inserting the parameters as follows:
Fluid Zones : Select Oil and Gas
Net/Gross : Constant 0.46
Porosity: deselect constant property and select from dropdown list.
Fluid Saturation: keep Constant property option, Sw (0.3), Bo (1.1)
Gas properties: Sw (0.3), S0 (0.4), Bg (0.0009)
We found that:
STOIIP = 382 MM 3
GIIP = 2323 MM3
64
Table 5.1: Volume estimation for Hydrocarbons in Place (STOIIP & GIIP)
5.1.2 Monte Carlo Uncertainty
Monte Carlo methods are a broad class of computational algorithms that rely on repeated
random sampling to obtain numerical results; typically one runs simulations many times over
in order to obtain the distribution of an unknown probabilistic entity.
This process aims to identify the uncertainty in our cases. For this, first we open the
Uncertainty and Optimization under the utilities process. A new case is created and
Uncertainty task is selected. After several steps are done, a variables spreadsheet is displayed.
Then, the Show volumetric button is clicked and STOIIP is selected. This value is added to
the table. Finally, the STOIIP column is clicked in the spreadsheet to highlight it and the
%Percent ranks button is clicked to rank the case. 20 contacts uncertainty cases are selected
65
from the uncertainty analysis. Case P50 is considered closest value ( shown in change in
colour from blue to pink )
Table 5.2: Monte Carlo Uncertainty Analysis cases STOIIP in percentage
Table 5.3: Monte Carlo Uncertainty Analysis cases STOIIP.
66
Table 5.4: Monte Carlo Uncertainty Analysis cases GIIP in percentage
Table 5.5: Monte Carlo Uncertainty Analysis cases GIIP
67
CHAPTER 6
MANUAL VOLUMETRIC CALCULATION
6.1 Introduction
This chapter is about the discussion for evaluating the formation parameters needed for the
calculation of the Stock Tank Oil Initially in Place (STOIIP) and reservoir modeling for
Gulfaks field.
The purpose of volumetric estimation is to calculate the amount of hydrocarbon in reservoir.
The estimation of the stock tank oil initially in place (STOIIP) or gas initially in place (GIIP)
is based on the availability of any pressure and production data. The insufficiency of
production data cause the volumetric estimation is an important key point especially during
the appraisal phase. Determining STOIIP or GIIP is basically one of the common practices by
geologist and geophysicist in evaluating the economic value of the field development.
The following formulas are applied to calculate the volume of the reservoir:
STOIIP =
GIIP =
Where:
GRV: Gross Rock Volume
: Net to Gross fraction
: Porosity fraction
( )
(1
( )
(1
: Water Saturation fraction

: Oil formation volume factor
68
: Gas formation volume factor

6.2 Gross Rock Volume (GRV)
Gross Rock Volume (GRV) is the bulk volume of the reservoir unit of interest.GRV, the
volume of rock between a top and base reservoir surface and above a known or postulated
hydrocarbon-water contact in a geologic trap, is often the most influential parameter in
determining the magnitude of resource volumes contained, or potentially contained, in that
trap. In any petroleum volumetric analysis it is therefore essential to calculate both the best
estimate and the range of uncertainty for GRV accurately and appropriately. There are two
methods in finding the GRV which are area-depth method and the other one is area-thickness
method. The method chosen to calculate the GRV is using the area thickness method. First,
we need to calculate the area of oil and gas bearing zone using the surface map of the
reservoir. Then, the thickness of each zones are found using the contour map.
In this project, GRV is first calculated by finding the area using a Planimeter on
isopach maps. Isopach maps are maps that illustrate thickness variation within the reservoir
while isopachs are contour lines that connect points of equal thickness over an area. A total of
sixisopach maps were generated covering from Base Cretaceous zone to Top Etive.
Below are the figures showing isopach maps obtained from Petrel Software.
69
Figure 6.1: Isopach Map for BC-TT

70
Figure 6.2: Isopach map for TT-T2

71
Figure 6.3: Isopach map for T2-T1

72
Figure 6.4: Isopach map for T1-TN

73
Figure 6.5: Isopach map for TN-N1

74
Figure 6.6: Isopach map for N1-TE

75
As stated earlier, a planimeter is used to calculate the corresponding area for each zones
based on the isopach map. Figure 6.7 shows the planimeter used.
Figure 6.7: Planimeter
The stylus of the planimeter is guided around the depth to be measures and the
respective area contained within this contour can then be read off. The area is the plotted for
each depth and entered onto the area-depth graph.Since the structure is basically cut into
slices of increasing depth the area measured for each depth will also increase. Area will be
calculated and being differentiate based on thickness region in the isopach maps. Then graph
thickness vs total area cumulative being plotted. Area under this graph is the gross rock
volume (GRV). Tables and figures showing the result of area and GRV of each zones in the
reservoir:
76
Tables and figures showing the result of area and GRV of each zones in the reservoir:
i)
Zone BC-TT
Table 6.1: Cumulative Area of Oil Bearing Zone in BC-TT
Figure 6.8: Thickness vs Cumulative Area plot for Oil in BC-TT
77
Table 6.2: Cumulative Area of Gas Bearing Zone in BC-TT
Figure 6.9: Thickness vs Cumulative Area plot for Gas in BC-TT
78
ii)
Zone TT-T2
Table 6.3: Cumulative Area of Oil Bearing Zone in BC-TT
Figure 6.10: Thickness vs Cumulative Area plot for Oil in TT-T2
79
Table 6.4: Cumulative Area of Gas Bearing Zone in BC-TT
Figure 6.11: Thickness vs Cumulative Area plot for Gas in TT-T2
80
iii)
Zone T2-T1
Table 6.5: Cumulative Area of Oil Bearing Zone in T2-T1
Figure 6.12: Thickness vs Cumulative Area plot for Oil in T2-T1
81
Table 6.6: Cumulative Area of Gas Bearing Zone in T2-T1
Figure 6.13: Thickness vs Cumulative Area plot for Gas in T2-T1
82
iv)
Zone T1-TN
Table 6.7: Cumulative Area of Oil Bearing Zone in T1-TN
Figure 6.14: Thickness vs Cumulative Area plot for Oil in T1-TN
83
Table 6.8: Cumulative Area of Gas Bearing Zone in T1-TN
Figure 6.15: Thickness vs Cumulative Area plot for Gas in T1-TN
84
v)
Zone TN-N1
Table 6.9: Cumulative Area of Oil Bearing Zone in TN-N1
Figure 6.16: Thickness vs Cumulative Area plot for Oil in TN-N1
85
Table 6.10: Cumulative Area of Gas Bearing Zone in TN-N1
Figure 6.17: Thickness vs Cumulative Area plot for Gas in TN-N1
86
vi)
Zone N1-TE
Table 6.11: Cumulative Area of Oil Bearing Zone in N1-TE
Figure 6.18: Thickness vs Cumulative Area plot for Oil in N1-TE
87
Table 6.12: Cumulative Area of Gas Bearing Zone in N1-TE
Figure 6.19: Thickness vs Cumulative Area plot for Gas in N1-TE
88
vii)
Total GRV(Total Area Under Curve)
Table 6.13: Total value of GRV obtained from Area under the Graph
89
6.3 Cut offs:

The general petro physical analysis evaluation of the selected zones of interest can be done
by using three petrophysical parameters; volume of shale, porosity and water saturation.
The first thing to do in petrophysical analysis is to select the zones of interest on the Gamma
ray log to come up with the volume of shale, which is used to determine the effective
porosity. The reservoir quality or the volume of shale can be calculated as follows:
GR log GR min
GR max GR min
In our case here the matrix is sand.

The porosity can be calculated suing Neutron and density log. And here form density log.
The amount of recoverable hydrocarbon in the reservoir is directly based on the water in the
pore spaces so that inured to calculate (So) you are required to calculate (SW).
Sw can be calculated from the deep resistivity log using this Archis equation:
For sand
= (.62 )/(2.15 )
Rw is the resistivity corresponds to 100% water saturation
90
In general
Vsh >= 50%
Shale cut off
<= 12%
Porosity cut off
Sw >= 60%
Water Saturation cut off
Normally the Softwares such as Integrated Petrophysics (IP) directly calculate Vsh, porosity
and water saturation and then generate the cut offs of each zone.
To do the cut offs calculations the Gamma ray log for shale cut off, the Neutron or density
log for porosity cut off and the resistivity log for water saturation cut off must be available. In
our case here we couldnt do the cut offs due the unavailability of the complete set of log data
for each well.
Calculation for Shale volume and Net to Gross:

Naturally shale is more radioactive than sand and carbonate. As a results, gamma ray logs can
be used to calculate the volume of shale in the formation. The volume of shale is expressed as
a decimal fraction or percentage is called (Vsh). The value is very useful to be applied in the
analysis of shaly sand. Calculation of gamma ray index starts by determines the volume of
shale from a gamma ray log. In first order estimation for shale volume, the Vsh can be
determined directly from the flowing equation:
GR log GR min
GR max GR min
After obtaining the volume of shale, the volume of sand is determined by assuming the
remaining thickness as sand after subtracting the shale volume from the total thickness.
The net to gross ratio (N/G) also can be identified from these data as shown below:
91
Table 6.14: Calculation of Vsh and N/G
Well
Zone
BC-TT
TT-T2
T2-T1
A1N/A T1-TN
TN-TN1
TN1-TE
BC-TT
TT-T2
GRmax GRmi
n
131.2
3
131.2
3
131.2
3
131.2
3
131.2
3
131.2
399.91
99.91
T2-T1
99.91
T1-TN
TN-TN1
99.91
99.91
TN1-TE
BC-TT
TT-T2
T2-T1
TN1-TE
BC-TT
TT-T2
T2-T1
99.91
134.3
7
134.3
7
134.3
7
134.3
7
134.3
7
134.3
7
136.3
5
136.3
5
136.3
5
136.3
5
136.3
5
136.3
5130.9
130.9
130.9
T1-TN
TN-TN1
130.9
130.9
TN1-TE
BC-TT
130.9
155.5
6
A15
A16
T1-TN
TN-TN1
TN1-TE
BC-TT
TT-T2
T2-T1
B8
B9
C2
T1-TN
TN-TN1
45.6
8
45.6
8
45.6
8
45.6
8
45.6
8
45.6
8
40.0
9
40.0
9
40.0
9
40.0
9
40.0
9
40.0
9
29.7
8
29.7
8
29.7
8
29.7
8
29.7
8
29.7
8
39.6
8
39.6
8
39.6
8
39.6
8
39.6
8
39.6
8
52.3
6
52.3
6
52.3
6
52.3
6
52.3
6
52.3
6
20.0
4
GRlog
Gross
Thickn
ess
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
15.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
68.9
2
120.3
8
N/A
N/A
44.0
9
78.8
99
62.0
7
88.9
N/A
N/A
63.7
5
75.6
3
98.6
1
60.4
8
116.8
4
N/A
N/A
49.3
4
79.7
6
101.2
169.0
5
125.4
5
N/A
N/A
61.4
82.7
9
104.5
574.8
9
124.1
6
148.7
9
92
Net
san
d
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
27.1
11.5
7
1
37.6
87.3
4.78
5
2
N/A
N/A
4
6.69
3.73
13
1
45
54
7
11
30
41
49
13
33
26
50
47
23
22
34
56
46
28.6
2
Vsh%
N/G
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.73
0.13
N/A
0.93
64.7
4.59
0.35
1
98.4
0.02
0.02
8
36.7
28.4
0.63
4
7
81.5
9.94
0.18
9
N/A
N/A
N/A
32.4
4.73
0.68
8
43.8
6.18
0.56
4
65.8
10.2
0.34
1
6
29.3
28.9
0.71
5
7
83.2
8.21
0.17
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
9.99
11.7
0.90
0
41.4
19.3
0.59
6
2
63.6
9.45
0.36
5
30.3
34.8
0.70
8
1
88.7
5.30
0.11
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
11.5
20.3
0.88
1
5
38.7
13.4
0.61
4
8
66.4
11.4
0.34
5
1
28.6
39.9
0.71
9
4
91.4
3.95
0.09
2
95.0
1.43
0.05
0
ZONE
OF
INTERE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
RESERVOI
R
NOT
RESERVO
IR
N/A
RESERVOI
R
NOT
RESERVO
IR
NOT
RESERVO
IR
RESERVOI
R
NOT
RESERVO
IR
N/A
RESERVOI
R
RESERVOI
R
NOT
RESERVO
IR
RESERVOI
R
NOT
RESERVO
IR
N/A
RESERVOI
R
RESERVOI
R
NOT
RESERVO
IR
RESERVOI
R
NOT
RESERVO
IR
N/A
RESERVOI
R
RESERVOI
R
NOT
RESERVO
IR
RESERVOI
R
NOT
RESERVO
IR
NOT
TT-T2
T2-T1
BC-TT
TT-T2
T2-T1
T1-TN
TN-TN1
155.5
6
155.5
6
155.5
6
155.5
6
155.5
6
152.1
9
152.1
9
152.1
9
152.1
9
152.1
9
152.1
9
157.2
7
157.2
7
157.2
7
157.2
7
157.2
7
157.2
7
156.2
156.2
156.2
156.2
156.2
TN1-TE
156.2
T1-TN
TN-TN1
TN1-TE
BC-TT
TT-T2
T2-T1
C3
T1-TN
TN-TN1
TN1-TE
BC-TT
TT-T2
T2-T1
C4
T1-TN
TN-TN1
TN1-TE
C5
BC-TT
TT-T2
T2-T1
C6
T1-TN
TN-TN1
TN1-TE
158.6
7
158.6
7
158.6
7
158.6
7
158.6
7
158.6
7
20.0
4
20.0
4
20.0
4
20.0
4
20.0
4
36.7
3
36.7
3
36.7
3
36.7
3
36.7
3
36.7
3
31
31
31
27.0
9
72.4
8
91.0
5
46.8
5
110.5
5
145.4
261.8
882.2
18.1
750.2
108.4
872.9
9
124
26.3
40
144.6
9
46.94
576.9
6
31 95.81
31 5
60.78
5
31 111.4
1
43.8 130.76
5
5 47.7
43.8
5
1
43.8
76.9
5
5
43.8
94.7
5
5
43.8
71.9
5
9
43.8
113.6
5
6
33.0
144.2
2
844.6
33.0
2
9
33.0
71.8
2
7
33.0
100.8
2
963.3
33.0
2
8
33.0
118.8
2
8
101.9
618.6
7
41.2
7
27.5
140.5
21.2
6
37.7
9
42.4
5
11.4
27.1
35.7
38.5
39.6
6
48
13
36
29
56
66
90
19
31
28
40
44
93
5.20
38.7
0
52.4
0
19.7
8
66.7
9
94.1
4
21.7
8
39.3
8
62.1
4
31.4
0
75.5
8
90.0
4
12.6
3
36.4
0
51.3
3
23.5
9
63.6
8
77.3
63.44
29.4
6
45.3
0
25.0
5
62.1
4
88.5
59.29
30.9
2
54.0
2
24.1
6
68.3
3
17.2
2
30.7
7
10.1
2
30.3
1
14.1
0
0.67
21.2
0
21.6
4
9.96
27.4
4
9.40
10.1
6
16.3
1
26.2
5
13.3
9
30.9
5
14.4
0
10.8
7
12.5
5
25.3
9
15.8
6
41.9
7
24.9
9
10.3
1
17.2
4
21.4
2
12.8
8
30.3
4
13.9
3
RESERVOI
0.95 R
RESERVOI
0.61 R
RESERVOI
R
NOT
0.48 RESERVO
0.80 IR
RESERVOI
R
NOT
0.33 RESERVO
IR
NOT
0.06 RESERVO
0.78 IR
RESERVOI
0.61 R
RESERVOI
R
NOT
0.38 RESERVO
0.69 IR
RESERVOI
R
NOT
0.24 RESERVO
IR
NOT
0.10 RESERVO
IR
0.87 RESERVOI
R
0.64 RESERVOI
R
NOT
0.49 RESERVO
0.76 IR
RESERVOI
R
NOT
0.36 RESERVO
IR
NOT
0.23 RESERVO
IR
0.97 RESERVOI
R
0.71 RESERVOI
R
0.55 RESERVOI
0.75 R
RESERVOI
R
NOT
0.38 RESERVO
IR
NOT
0.11 RESERVO
0.91 IR
RESERVOI
0.69 R
RESERVOI
R
NOT
0.46 RESERVO
0.76 IR
RESERVOI
R
NOT
0.32 RESERVO
IR
From the above date the total net to gross for all zones has been calculated and bellow is the
value for total net to gross including both produced and non-produced zones:
N/G
0.462209
116
However, this value is for the whole zones together. So the Net to Gross for each individual
zone has been calculated shown in the table below:
Table 6.15: Net to Gross for each zone
Zone
N/G
N/G %
BC-TT
TT-T2
T2-T1
T1-TN
TN-TN1
TN1-TE
0.11940
2
0.86977
7
0.61878
2
0.41840
4
0.72186
3
0.23478
3
11.94020
252
86.97765
498
61.87819
203
41.84041
314
72.18633
277
23.47826
687
Zone of interest to be as
reservoir
NOT RESERVOIR
RESERVOIR
RESERVOIR
NOT RESERVOIR
RESERVOIR
NOT RESERVOIR
From the calculated Net to Gross the zones of interest are TT-T2, T2-T1 and TN-TN1,
because the N/G for these zones are more than 50 % of the total gross thickness so they
considered as reservoir and the most recoverable oil will come from these zons. So the total
Net to gross for the three zones of interest is:
N/G for zons of interest only
0.714339526
6.4 Porosity
Porosity is defined as the pore volume per unit volume of formation. In other words, it is a
fraction of the total volume of a rock that is occupied by pores or voids. In this study the
thickness-weighted average method is used since SCAL report (core analysis data) is
provided.
94
Where,
= formation depth, m
= porosity, cP
Sand Type
Depth
Good Sand
3m
(From 1824m-1827m)
Fair Sand
2m
(From 1903m-1905m)
Shaly Sand
2m
(From 1794m-1796m)
Table 6.16: Porosity value at each sand type

Thus,
Average porosity, =
0.275(3)+0.26(2)+0.219(2)
= 0.255
Porosity
0.275
0.26
0.219
95
Moreover we calculate the average porosity for the ten wells and for the three zones of
interest from the well logs which are shown below:
Table 6.17: Average porosity from well logs
`
Zone 1
(BC TT) 2
Zone
(TT - T2)
Zone 3
(T2 - T1)
Zone 4
(T1 TN) 5
Zone
(TN N1) 6
Zone
(N1 TE)
Averag
e Well
Porosit
y
A10
A15
A16
B8
B9
C2
0.07188
4
C3
C4
0.109942 0.090703
0.07666
C5
C6
0.11929
0.019288
0.196531
0.23682
0.275679 0.245598 0.017115 0.092784

7
0.188788
0.22962
0.278836 0.219011 0.09092

3
0.140078 0.079827 0.126782 0.092264
0.205455
0.21565
0.262594 0.193972 0.09301

7
0.118127
0.239341 0.180381
0.22127
0.232367 0.182732 0.09146

7
0.109683 0.082392 0.114179 0.100966
0.248495 0.190297
0.22355
0.175121 0.136049 0.07067

7
0.11417
0.08092
0.119165 0.108979
0.111785 0.069826
0.137779 0.094709 0.057145
0.245879 0.2543427 0.222353 0.2335010 0.1849261 0.076444 0.1153960 0.0927720 0.1112519 0.0608491
7
7
2
5
9
2
7
1
7
6.5 Water Saturation

To calculate the reservoir average water saturation, we need to refer to the SCAL data
extracted from the analysis of Gullfaks field. Three core samples were taken from the data of
well A10 (Good sand, Shaly sand, Fair sand)
Note:
1. Three core samples were taken from a single well at depth intervals
1794-1796m, 1824-1827m and 1903-1905m.
2. Reservoir Temperature = 220 0F
Reported Reservoir Conditions

Reservoir Pressure: 2516psia
Reservoir Temperature: 220degF
96
Averag
e Zone
Porosit
y
0.08222
0.152147
97
0.16068
1
0.150149
0.15547
78
0.14479
To calculate the average water saturation, we use the arithmetic averaging method. The
method used as the following:
w ()()()
()()
Where:
Sw = Saturation of Water
= Porosity Fraction
H = Depth (m)
From the previous data the GOC is at 1700m. Then oil bearing zone extends till 1905 at
WOC.
97
Figure 6.20: A10 well logs
98
So we can extract from the well data that:

Table 6.17: Configuration of the different sand regions
Sand Type
(Sw)
Depth
Water Saturation
2m
(From 1794 1796m)
Good Sand
Shaly Sand
3m
(From 1824 1827m)
Fair Sand
2m
(From 1903 1905m)
0.18
0.32
0.22
We use the height of sand layer to average the water saturation. Product of sand layer for
each well and water saturation is total and divided by total of sand layer
Depth
Porosity
Sw
Sw**h
*h
1795
0.275
0.180
2.000
0.099
0.550
1904
0.219
0.320
3.000
0.210
0.657
1905
0.260
0.220
2.000
0.114
0.520
0.423
1.727
1700
Total
99
w ()()()
()()
0.18(0.275)(2) + 0.32(0.219)(3) +
0.22(0.260)(2) (0.275)(2) + (0.219)(3) +
(0.260)(2)
=
=
0.42
3
1.72
7
0.245 or
6.6 Gas Formation Volume Factor, Bg:

The formation volume factor of a natural gas(Bg) relates the volume of 1 lb-mol of
gas reservoir condition to the volume of the same lb-mol of gas at standard
conditions.
Bg = 0.0283
In order to calculate the Bg, we need to get the value of Z.

Calculations for Z factor
To calculate z, we look at the reservoir fluid study report. In the report, we focus on the
compositional analysis of separator gas samples. The following data are obtained from the
report.
100
Table 6.18: Separator gas compositions

Mole
Compone
nt
Fractio
n
yi
CO2
N2
C1
C2
C3
iC4
nC4
iC5
nC5
C6
C7+
TOTAL
0.014
9
Molecular
Wieght
44
28.013
Density @ SC
(lb/ft3)
Tcri
Pcri
psia
0.116699732 547.91
1071
yi *
Tcri
8.164
0.614
0.073898906 227.49
493.1
15.95
8
1.331
0.002
7
16.043
0.606
6
44.097
0.153
2
58.123
0.079872204 549.92
706.5
58.123
0.118049817 666.06
0.101
4
72.15
0.157753589 734.46
527.9
13.80
8
0.018
8
86.177
0.15805279 765.62
550.6
36.90
3
26.53
9
0.190110454 829.1
490.4
11.85
6
7.013
0.014
3
0.190110454 845.8
488.6
10.99
5
0.013
0.227071459 1113.6
436.9
28.84
2
0.230
1.215
653.59
9
0.048
2
0.025
9
30.07
72.15
218
208.2
64
yi *
Pcri
0.042354934 343.33
666.4
53.15742
0.000
9
1350
84.24
8
616
255
67.53
8
472.4
48
For the component C7+, the critical pressure and temperature varies based on the specific
gravity of it is component which is 0.8515.
The two graphs can be used to determine it is Tcri and Pcri for the component C7+.
404.23
8
108.23
6
62.46
2
9.925
6.352
11.31
6
Figure 6.21: pseudo critical temperature for C7+
Figure 6.22: pseudo critical pressure for C7+

101

Reservoir pressure = 2516 psia
Reservoir temperature = 680R
For the sour natural gas with non-hydrocarbon components such as H2Sabd Co2, an
adjustment of the pseudo critical temperature and pseudo critical pressure need to be made
using the equation below :-
Where
A = Sum of mole fraction of H2S and Co2.
B = mole fraction of H2S
Tpc = Tpc-
Ppr =
and
Tpr =
680
2516
T'pc=Tpc-
P'pc
2.579696897
469.868
650.0300476
Tpr
1.447
Ppr
3.871
0.74
Bg
0.00566
102
Using the adjusted pseudo critical temperature and pseudo critical pressure. The reduced
temperature and reduced pressure are calculated using the equations above.
The Z-Factor can be determined using Standing-Katz z-factor chart as indicated in the graph
below which is:
Z = 0.74
By employing the formula for Bg and substitute in the values we have:
Bg = 0.00566 rcf/scf
103
Figure 6.23: Standing-Katz z-factor chart
104
6.7 STOIIP and GIIP Calculation

6.7.1 Deterministic Method
Stock tank oil initially in place (STOIIP)

Where:
() (N/G)Bo(1 Sw) ()
Table 6.19: STOIIP of each zone of the reservoir

ZONES
BC-TT
TT-T2
T2-T1
T1-TN
TN-N1
N1-TE
GRV OIL (m)

1902480485.7
81
441747393.6
22
502833924.3
80
256011511.7
19
593364881.8
01
548593516.2
30
N/G
Porosity
0.11940 0.082221
2
4
0.86977
0.1521479
7
0.61878 67
0.160681
2
0.41840 0.1501495
4
0.72186 56
0.155477
3
0.23478 8
0.144799
3 TOTAL 2
1-Sw
0.755
0.755
0.755
0.755
0.755
0.755
Bo
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
STOIIP (m)
12819495.85
40123825.7
34314765.43
11039099.32
45708742.59
12800818.71
156806747.6
(0.46) (0.755) (0.255)
Table 6.20: STOIIP of the reservoir with average parameter values

ZONES
BC-TT
TT-T2
T2-T1
T1-TN
TN-N1
N1-TE
GRV OIL (m)

1902480485.7
81
441747393.6
22
502833924.3
80
256011511.7
19
593364881.8
01
548593516.2
30
N/G
Porosity
0.46
0.255
0.46
0.255
0.46
0.255
0.46
0.255
0.46
0.255
0.46
0.255
TOTAL
105
1-Sw
0.755
0.755
0.755
0.755
0.755
0.755
Bo
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
STOIIP (m)
153169568.7
35565283.45
40483387.81
20611603.18
47772076.35
44167513.35
341769432.8
By comparing the obtained value using PETREL with manual volumetric estimation, it
clearly can be seen that there is a significant difference which due to several reason. The
difference can be as follow:
Table 6.21: STOIIP Value Comparison
HORIZON
STOIIP (m)
BC-TT
12819495.85
214000000
94.00958138
TT-T2
40123825.7
42000000
4.467081669
T2-T1
34314765.43
34000000
0.925780681
T1-TN
11039099.32
9000000
22.65665908
TN-N1
45708742.59
73000000
37.38528412
N1-TE
12800818.71
9000000
42.23131899
341769432.8
382000000
10.5315620
9
TOTAL ZONES
STOIIP (using
core data
&N/G=0.46)
STOIIP PETREL (m)
ERROR (%)
STOIIP
450000000
400000000
350000000
300000000
250000000
200000000
150000000
100000000
50000000
0
1
2
Volumetric Estimation
PETREL
Figure 6.24: STOIIP Comparison Graph
106
Gas Initially in Place (GIIP)

Where:
=
() (N/G)Bg(1 Sw) ()
Table 6.22: GIIP of each zone and total GIIP of the reservoir
(0.46) 00.755) (0.255)
Table 6.23: GIIP of each zone and total GIIP of the reservoir with average parameter values
107
Table 6.24: GIIP Value Comparison
HORIZON
GIIP (m)
BC-TT
19205745.51
972000000
98.02410026
TT-T2
323582443.7
783000000
58.67401741
T2-T1
166707935.3
16000000
941.9245954
T1-TN
218650556.3
41000000
433.2940397
TN-N1
755620210.7
481000000
57.0935989
N1-TE
148392469.9
30000000
394.6415663
2422959896
2323000000
4.30305191
6
TOTAL ZONES
GIIP (using
core data
&N/G=0.46)
GIIP PETREL (m)
ERROR (%)
GII
P
3E+09
2.5E+09
2E+09
1.5E+09
1E+09
500000000
0
1
4
Volumetric Estimation
Figure 6.25: GIIP Comparison Graph
6
PETREL
108
6.7.2 Probabilistic method (Monte Carlo Simulation):
Probabilistic method involves the use of Monte Carlo Algorithm to study probabilities and
the uncertainties in the volumetric calculation. Monte Carlo method is a broad class
of computational algorithms that rely on repeated random sampling to obtain numerical
results. A random number generator function from Microsoft Excel is used to provide a set of
values for the input parameters, and the inverse log normal distribution has been used to
distribute the porosity and water saturation which then provides results that take uncertainties
of the variables into account.
The figure below explains the probabilities of Monte Carlo method:
Figure 6.26: Probabilities of Monte Carlo.
From the histograms, it is possible to determine the Possible, Probable, and Proven
Reserves of the zones. Proven reserves, which is also known as 1P Reserves or engineering
term P90 (90% engineering probability) are those reserves claimed to have a reasonable
certainty (normally at least 90% confidence) of being recoverable under existing economic
and political conditions, with existing technology. Probable reserves (2PorP50) are attributed
109
to known accumulations and claim a 50% confidence level of recovery. Possible reserves (3P
or P10) are attributed to known accumulations that have a less likely chance of being
recovered (at least a 10% certainty) than probable reserves.
The variables and its respectively ranges that are being applied in the Monte Carlo method
are described as below:
Net to Gross
Table 6.25: Net to Gross for each zone
Water Saturation
Zone
N/G
BC-TT
TT-T2
T2-T1
T1-TN
TN-TN1
TN1-TE
0.119402
0.869777
0.618782
0.418404
0.721863
0.234783
Sw
0.245
0.18
0.32
Most likely
Minimum value
Maximum Value
Table 6.26: Water Saturation for Most likely, minimum value & maximum cases
Porosity
Table 6.27: Porosity for all zones with most likely, minimum and maximum cases
Zone
0.082
Minimum
value
0.02
0.152
0.077
0.161
0.08
0.279
0.150
0.07
0.263
0.155
0.082
0.239
0.145
0.06
Most likely
BC-TT
TT-T2
T2-T1
T1-TN
TN-TN1
TN1-TE
110
Maximum
Value
0.12
The results for each zone are shown below:

BC-TT
STOIIP(BCTT)
120.00%
100.00%
60
80.00%
50
60.00%
40
40.00%
30
20.00%
20
0.00%
10
0
Bin
Frequency
Cumulative %
Figure 6.27: Histogram for STOIIP Probabilistic Calculation for zone BC TT
Table 6.28: Cumulative Frequency for STOIIP for zone BC TT
Cum. Perc.
STOIIP
Probability
10% Cum. Perc.
13373183.59
P90
50% Cum. Perc.
14229228.86
P50
90% Cum. Perc.
15085274.13
P10
111
GIIP(BCTT)
120.00%
100.00%
4
5
4
0
3
5
3
0
2
5
2
0
1
5
1
0
5
0
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
Bin
Frequency
Cumulative %
Figure 6.28: Histogram for GIIP Probabilistic Calculation for zone BC TT
Table 6.29: Cumulative Frequency for GIIP for zone BC - TT

Cum. Perc.
10% Cum. Perc.
50% Cum. Perc.
90% Cum. Perc.
GIIP
Probability
11701409
19450791
26093118
P90
P50
P10
112
TT-T2
STOIIP(TTT2)
120.00
%
100.00
7
0
6
0
5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0
0
%
80.00
%
60.00
%
40.00
%
20.00
%
0.00%
Bin
Frequency
Cumulative %
Figure 6.29: Histogram for STOIIP Probabilistic Calculation for zone TT T2
Table 6.30: Cumulative Frequency for GIIP for zone TT T2

Cum. Perc.
STOIIP
Probability
10% Cum. Perc.
40215496.86
P90
50% Cum. Perc.
42706962.62
P50
90% Cum. Perc.
44700135.22
P10
113
GIIP(TTT2)
120.00%
100.00%
60
80.00%
50
60.00%
40
40.00%
30
20.00%
20
0.00%
10
0
Bin
Frequency
Cumulative %
Figure 6.30: Histogram for GIIP Probabilistic Calculation for zone TT T2
Table 6.31: Cumulative Frequency for GIIP for zone TT T2

Cum. Perc.
GIIP
Probability
10% Cum. Perc.
212921120.7
P90
50% Cum. Perc.
353295339.2
P50
90% Cum. Perc.
493669557.7
P10
114
T2-T1
STOIIP(T2T1)
120.00%
100.00%
70
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
0
3
0
2
0
1
0
0
Bin
Frequency
Cumulative %
Figure 6.31: Histogram for STOIIP Probabilistic Calculation for zone T2 T1
Table 6.32: Cumulative Frequency for STOIIP for zone T2 T1

Cum. Perc.
STOIIP
Probability
10% Cum. Perc.
23502212.45
P90
50% Cum. Perc.
25194420.47
P50
90% Cum. Perc.
26352297.01
P10
115
GIIP(T2T1)
120.00%
100.00%
70
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
0
3
0
2
0
1
0
0
Bin
Frequency
Cumulative %
Figure 6.32: Histogram for GIIP Probabilistic Calculation for zone T2 T1
Table 6.33: Cumulative Frequency for GIIP for zone T2 T1

Cum. Perc.
GIIP
Probability
10% Cum. Perc.
105901795.8
P90
50% Cum. Perc.
175388817.3
P50
90% Cum. Perc.
244875838.9
P10
116
T1-TN
STOIIP(T1TN)
120.00%
100.00%
60
80.00%
50
60.00%
40
40.00%
30
20.00%
20
0.00%
10
0
Bin
Frequency
Cumulative %
Figure 6.33: Histogram for STOIIP Probabilistic Calculation for zone T1 TN
Table 6.34: Cumulative Frequency for STOIIP for zone T1 TN

Cum. Perc.
STOIIP
Probability
10% Cum. Perc.
10370787.68
P90
50% Cum. Perc.
11071178.04
P50
90% Cum. Perc.
11764203.16
P10
117
GIIP(T1TN)
120.00%
100.00%
60
80.00%
50
60.00%
40
40.00%
30
20.00%
20
0.00%
10
0
Bin
Frequency
Cumulative %
Figure 6.34: Histogram for GIIP Probabilistic Calculation for zone T1 TN
Table 6.35: Cumulative Frequency for GIIP for zone T1 TN

Cum. Perc.
GIIP
Probability
10% Cum. Perc.
126515660.2
P90
50% Cum. Perc.
224659105.2
P50
90% Cum. Perc.
322802550.1
P10
118
TN-N1
STOIIP(TNN1)
120.00
%
60
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00%
Bin
Frequency
Cumulative %
Figure 6.35: Histogram for STOIIP Probabilistic Calculation for zone TN N1
Table 6.36: Cumulative Frequency for STOIIP for zone TN N1

Cum. Perc.
STOIIP
Probability
10% Cum. Perc.
37411507.38
P90
50% Cum. Perc.
38624971.44
P50
90% Cum. Perc.
41912969.72
P10
119
GIIP(TNN1)
120.00%
100.00%
60
80.00%
50
60.00%
40
40.00%
30
20.00%
20
0.00%
10
0
Bin
Frequency
Cumulative %
Figure 6.36: Histogram for GIIP Probabilistic Calculation for zone TN N1
Table 6.37: Cumulative Frequency for GIIP for zone TN N1

Cum. Perc.
GIIP
Probability
10% Cum. Perc.
510759242.5
P90
50% Cum. Perc.
789332606.4
P50
90% Cum. Perc.
71015977076
P10
120
N1-TE
STOIIP(N1TE)
120.00
%
100.00
%
80.00
%
60.00
%
40.00
%
20.00
%
0.00%
60
5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0
0
Bin
Frequency
Cumulative %
Figure 6.37: Histogram for STOIIP Probabilistic Calculation for zone N1 TE
Table 6.38: Cumulative Frequency for STOIIP for zone N1 TE

Cum. Perc.
STOIIP
Probability
10% Cum. Perc.
12243017.27
P90
50% Cum. Perc.
13021597.80
P50
90% Cum. Perc.
13800178.33
P10
121
GIIP(N1TE)
120.00
%
70
100.00
6
0
5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0
0
%
80.00
%
60.00
%
40.00
%
20.00
%
0.00%
Bin
Frequency
Cumulative %
Figure 6.38: Histogram for GIIP Probabilistic Calculation for zone N1 TE
Table 6.39: Cumulative Frequency for GIIP for zone N1 TE

Cum. Perc.
GIIP
Probability
10% Cum. Perc.
80677616.06
P90
50% Cum. Perc.
141612465.6
P50
90% Cum. Perc.
202547315.2
P10
Moreover the table below shows the cumulative probable (P50) STOIIP and GIIP for the
above results:-
Table 6.40: The cumulative probable (P50) STOIIP and GIIP
Cum P50 STOIIP
145 MM cubic meter
Cum P50 GIIP
1701 MM cubic meter
122
However, the above calculation is not highly accurate because the readings for the averaging
porosity are from the logs which are not always accurate. So to increase the accuracy of the
calculation the averaging for the porosity and the saturation have been calculated from the
SCAL (Special Core Analysis) which is the most accurate data. The below variables have
been taken to recalculate the total STOIIP and GIIP: Total Net to Gross:N/G
0.462209
This net to gross after the cutoffs for the have been excluded.
Water Saturation:-
Sw
0.245
0.18
0.32
Most likely
Minimum value
Maximum Value
Table 6.41: Water Saturation for Most likely, minimum value & maximum cases
Porosity:Most likely
Minimum value
Maximum Value
Porosity
0.255
0.22
0.28
Table 6.42: Porosity for Most likely, minimum value & maximum cases
123
The results for total STOIIP and GIIP are shown below:
STOIIP(Tot
al)
120.00%
100.00%
60
80.00%
50
60.00%
40
40.00%
30
20.00%
20
0.00%
10
0
Bin
Frequency
Cumulative %
Figure 6.39: Histogram for STOIIP Probabilistic Calculation for all zones
Table 6.43: Cumulative Frequency for STOIIP for all zones

Cum. Perc.
10% Cum. Perc.
50% Cum. Perc.
90% Cum. Perc.
STOIIP
Probability
356606412.26
377847363.4
403336504.8
P90
P50
P10
124
GIIP(Tot
al)
120.00%
100.00%
5
0
4
5
4
0
3
5
3
0
2
5
2
0
1
5
1
0
5
0
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
Bin
Frequency
Cumulative %
Figure 6.40: Histogram for GIIP Probabilistic Calculation for all zones
Table 6.44: Cumulative Frequency for GIIP for all zones

Cum. Perc.
10% Cum. Perc.
50% Cum. Perc.
90% Cum. Perc.
GIIP
Probability
2120335304
2295580096
2470824889
P90
P50
P10
The table below shows the cumulative probable (P50) STOIIP and GIIP for the above
results:Table 6.45: The cumulative probable (P50) STOIIP and GIIP
Cum P50 STOIIP
378 MM cubic meter
Cum P50 GIIP
2296 MM cubic meter
125
By comparing the obtained value for STOIIP using PETREL with Monte Carlo
Simulation, it clearly can be seen that there is a significant difference which due to
several reason. The difference can be as follow:
Table 6.46: STOIIP Value Comparison
HORIZON
STOIIP (m)
BC-TT
14229228.86
214000000
93.35082764
TT-T2
42706962.62
42000000
1.683244333
T2-T1
25194420.47
34000000
25.89876332
T1-TN
11071178.04
9000000
23.01308933
TN-N1
38624971.44
73000000
47.08908022
N1-TE
13021597.8
9000000
44.68442
378000000
382000000
1.04712041
9
TOTAL ZONES
STOIIP (using
core data
&N/G=0.46)
STOIIP PETREL (m)
ERROR (%)
STOIIP
450000000
400000000
350000000
300000000
250000000
200000000
150000000
100000000
50000000
0
1
2
Monte Carlo Simulation
PETREL
Figure 6.41: STOIIP Comparison Graph
126
By comparing the obtained value GIPP using PETREL with Monte Carlo Simulation, it
Table 6.47: GIIP Value Comparison
HORIZON
GIIP (m)
BC-TT
19450791
972000000
97.99888981
TT-T2
353295339.2
783000000
54.87926702
T2-T1
175388817.3
16000000
996.1801081
T1-TN
224659105.2
41000000
447.9490371
TN-N1
789332606.4
481000000
64.10241297
N1-TE
141612465.6
30000000
372.041552
2296000000
2323000000
1.16229014
2
TOTAL ZONES
GIIP (using
core data
&N/G=0.46)
GIIP PETREL (m)
ERROR (%)
GII
P
2.5E+09
2E+09
1.5E+09
1E+09
500000000
0
1
4
Monte Carlo Simulation
Figure 6.42: GIIP Comparison Graph
6
PETREL
127
CONCLUSION
The main objective of this project is to develop the ideal plan in managing the natural
resources in the Gulfaks field as well as to find the STOIIP and GIIP using PETREL.
Based on PETREL simulation, the estimated Stock Tank Oil Initially in Place (STOIIP) of
the Gulfaks field is 382,000,000m3 while the estimated Gas Initially in Place (GIIP) is
2323,000,000m3.
The manual volumetric calculation for STOIIP and GIIP from the Deterministic method the
values are 341769432.8m3 and 2422959896m3, respectively.
The manual volumetric calculation for STOIIP and GIIP from the Probabilistic method
(Monty Carlo) the values are 377847363.4 and 2295580096m3, respectively.
clearly can be seen that there is a difference which due to several reason. The difference can
be estimated by the following formula:
Percentage Error = |
| x 100%
Where the Percentage Error between Petrel and Deterministic method is:
STOIIP = 10.5%
GIIP = 4.3%
Where the Percentage Error between Petrel and Probabilistic method (Monty Carlo) is:
STOIIP = 1.05%
GIIP = 1.16%
Future plan for the Gulfaks field development will need the collective efforts of the operators,
drilling contractors, service companies and special services to make the future planning to be
possible.
128
CHAPTER7
RESERVOIR ENGINERING
7.1
INTRODUCTION
This section presents the reservoir engineering studies for development of Gulfaks field, prior
the previous G&G assessments in Phase I of Field Development Plan (FDP1). All the
findings from G&G activities will be used in this phase. Well test data, PVT data; fluid
composition data are analyzed to confirm the reservoir condition. Reservoir performance,
well locations, well numbers, depletion strategy up until tertiary recovery by Enhanced Oil
Recovery (EOR) are being analyzed in this session.
Gulfaks field is located in the North Sea of Norwegian sector along the western flank of the
Viking Graben approximately 175km Northwest of Bergen and operated by Statoil. The field lies
in the central part of the East Shetland basin. The fields depositional environments consists
basically of four main stratigraphic units: the Creteceous, Tarbert, Ness and Etive. The petroleum
system involves a sequence of sandstones, siltstones, shales and coals with maximum thickness
of 300 400 m. All the assumption and justification made in G&G part was based
on probabilistic method using Petrel Software and deterministic method through

manual calculations. The team manages to come up with preliminary result that can be
further use for Reservoir Engineering Phase. All details about this phase will be discussed
in more in this report.
7.1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT
The Gulfaks field is located in block 34/10, approximately 175km Northwest of Bergen. The
field was discovered in year 1978 and went on production in 1986 with subsea wells
producing to the GF-A platform, followed by the subsequent installation GF-B and GF-C
platforms in 1988 and 1990 respectively. Based on the information obtained from
geological studies, 2D seismic grid shot and simple well logging, it indicated that the
129
economics for the field development are marginal. Prior the previous G&G assessments in
Phase I of Field Development Plan (FDP1), all the findings from G&G activities will be used
in this phase. The project teams are required to analyze the well test data, PVT data; fluid
composition data to confirm the reservoir condition and come out with a proposal to improve
oil recovery and its subsequent reservoir management. It is essential in getting a balance
between risk and uncertainty versus expenditure through the existing data evaluation and
economic analysis as well.
7.1.2 OBJECTIVES
The main objective of the Gulfaks field development plan is to conduct a technical analysis
and economic study of the field and propose a method to optimize oil recovery. By
integrating both technical and non-technical knowledge, a feasible field development must be
constructed that can deliver significant value to shareholders within the stipulated schedule.
Aside from the main objectives, the other co-objectives are:
1)
To calculate the number of production wells
2)
To estimate the production forecast for water injection drive
3)
To establish a reservoir management plans and EOR proposal for the field.
7.1.3 SCOPE OF STUDIES
In order to come out with a proper reservoir management planning, this team needs to cover
the following aspects:
1) Reservoir engineering: to gather data, to analyze the PVT analysis, hydrocarbon
analysis, well testing analysis and fluid formation analysis,
2) Production profile: to estimate the reserves value, to the conduct the production
forecast for each depletion strategies and to decide the well locations.
3) Reservoir management: to plan for the reservoir management and reservoir
surveillance.
130
7.2
RESERVOIR DATA AND ANALYSIS
7.2.1 PVT ANALYSIS
PVT stands for Pressure, Volume and Temperature. It is an examination of reservoir

fluid under various pressures, volumes and temperatures to determine the characteristics
and behaviour of the fluid. The objective of PVT analysis is to simulate the process
which occurs in the reservoir and surface during production of the reservoir fluid. Other
than that, the PVT analysis is use to provide data required for correct prediction of phase
behaviour using Equation of State (EOS).
There are two types of PVT sampling;
Surface Sampling (Separator)

1. Perform as test separator
2. Ensure GOR/CGR, Pressure separator, Temperature Separator and Well
Head Pressure stable prior sampling
3. Separator liquid and gas samples should be taken simultaneously
4. Recommended for saturated oil & gas condensates samples
Subsurface Sampling (Bottom hole)

1. Trapping volume of liquid in a pressurised container suspended on a wire
line inside the well
2. This method is use when oil is not so viscous
3. Recommended for under saturated oils where FBHP > Psat
4. Should not be used as the only sources of samples from gas-condensates
and oils at or close to the bubble point
PVT
ANALYSIS
QUALITY CHECK
COMPOSITIONAL ANALYSIS
CONSTANT COMPOSITION
EXPANSION DIFFERENTIAL
VAPORISATION SEPARATIOR
VISCOSITY
CONSTANT VOLUME DEPLETION
Figure 7.1: PVT Analysis
131
However, PVT analysis is usually obtained from constant composition expansion (CC)
test in the lab. For every pressure value there is a change in the value of fluids
properties like; oil formation volume, viscosity, gas oil ratio (GOR), compressibility
factor, density, etc.
Essential PVT Parameters found in any PVT analysis:
1. Relative volume
2. Oil volume factor (Bo)
3. Gas-oil ratio (Scf/Stb)
4. Liquid density
5. Gas volume factor
6. Gas deviation factor
7. Gas relative density ( air = 1)
8. Gas viscosity (cp)
9. Reservoir oil viscosity
Three core samples were taken from a single well at depth intervals 1794 - 1796m, 1824
- 1827m and 1903 - 1905m. The reservoir temperature was recorded at 220 deg F and
the bubble point pressure of these samples was 2516.7 psia. The results of PVT analysis
can be seen in table provided below.
Table 7.1: PVT Analysis Results
Pressure
(psig)
2516.7
2350
2100
1850
1600
1350
1100
850
600
350
159
0
Gas-Oil
Ratio
(Mscf/stb)
1.1342
1.0526
0.9378
0.8309
0.7307
0.6361
0.546
0.4591
0.3732
0.2824
0.196
0
Oil
Relative
Volume
(rb/stb)
1.7493
1.7095
1.6535
1.6013
1.5523
1.5057
1.4609
1.4171
1.3234
1.3234
1.272
1.1228
Vapor ZFactor
0.8686
0.8692
0.8719
0.8767
0.8836
0.8926
0.9036
0.9167
0.9324
0.9481
132
Liquid
Density
(lb/ft3)
45.11
45.669
46.502
47.331
48.16
48.992
49.835
50.699
51.608
52.632
53.673
56.323
Gas
gravity
Gas FVF
(rb/Mscf)
0.7553
0.7547
0.7565
0.7614
0.7704
0.7859
0.8121
0.8597
0.9618
1.1726
1.8901
0
1.2574
1.407
1.6006
1.8586
2.2164
2.7411
3.5773
5.105
8.7518
18.685
0
Oil Volume Factor Vs Pressure

2
1.
8
1.
6
1.
4
1.
2
1
0.
8
0.
6
0.
4
0.
2
0
1500
2000
Pressure (psig)
2500
3000
500
1000
Figure 7.2: Oil Volume Factor at different pressure
Gas Solubility Condition

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Pressure (psig)
Figure 7.3: Gas-Oil ratio at different pressure
2500
3000
133
Gas FVF vs Pressure

2
0
1
8
1
6
1
4
1
2
1
0
8
6
4
2
0
1500
2000
Pressure (psig)
2500
3000
500
1000
Figure 7.4: Gas FVF Vs Pressure
By continuous depletion, eventually the pressure drops to the bubble point pressure, at
which the first bubble of gas will be liberated from oil, the oil becomes saturated. As
pressure decreases below bubble point pressure, more gas is liberated leading to a
presence of two phases; oil & gas. Gas saturation continues to increase until it exceeds
the critical gas saturation. Production below bubble point pressure is considered
sometimes as critical because the gas viscosity tends to be fifty times lower than the
oils; therefore it is capable of travelling much faster than oil. This leads to recovery
under solution gas drive condition.
7.2.1.1 Summary of PVT Results
The following is the summary of the results obtained from the PVT analysis.
Reservoir Pressure:
2516 psia
Reservoir Temperature:
220 F
Constant Composition Expansion

Bubble-point Pressure:
Differential Liberation Test
2516.7 psia
Oil Formation Volume Factor:
1.1 bbl/STB
Solution Gas-Oil Ratio:
1.1342 Mscf/STB
134
Oil Density:
45.11 lb/ft3
Reservoir Fluid Viscosity

Oil Viscosity:
1.33 cp
7.2.2 HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS OF SEPARATOR PRODUCTS
Separator tests are carried for liquid and gas to determine the changes in the volumetric
behaviour of the reservoir fluid as it flows through the separators and then to the stock
tank at the atmospheric pressure and temperature; 14.7 psi & 60 F respectively. The
main objective of the separator tests is to provide important laboratory information for
determining the optimum surface separation conditions. Below are the analysis results of
the separator products.
Table 7.2: Analysis results of separator
Component
Mole %
Separator Gas
1.49
Separator Oil
Well Stream
Carbon dioxide,
0.08
0.91
CO2
0.00
0.27
0.16
Nitrogen, N2
1.91
60.66
36.47
Methane, C1
1.60
15.32
9.67
Ethane, C2
2.40
10.14
6.95
Propane, C3
0.81
1.88
1.44
Iso-butane, IC4
2.66
4.82
3.93
N-butane, NC4
1.45
1.43
1.44
Iso-pentane, IC5
1.57
1.30
1.41
N-pentane, NC5
6.81
2.59
4.33
Hexanes, C6
80.71
0.09
33.29
Heptanes plus, C7+
TOTAL
100.00
100.00
100.00
Based on the separator tests, it can be observed that there is no presence of Hydrogen
Sulphide and a low portion of Nitrogen and Carbon dioxide. The Heptanes plus is
recorded to be 80.71% which contributes to a higher viscosity. It can be concluded that
this is a black oil reservoir.
135
7.2.3 WELL TEST RESULTS
Figure 7.5 & 7.6 below show the graph of pressure drawdown and build up test for
single and two cycles.
Figure 7.5: Pressure Drawdown and Build-Up Test for single cycle
Figure 7.6: Pressure Drawdown and Build-Up Test for two cycles
136
Also the data for the build-up test has been plotted using the pressure and the pressure
derivative data verses the equivalent time. Then the plot has been matched with
Bourdet- Gringarten type curve.
Figure 7.7: Bourdet-Gringarten type curve
From the graph a match point has been selected, the match point data:
PD = 2
P = 100
tD/CD = 0.3
t = 1
CD e2s = 10
Using formula below to calculate the average reservoir permeability:
137
K = 141.2 * 3460* 1.2*1.2 *2
270 mD
52*100
Similarly calculating the radius of investigation
kt
948 ct
Radius of investigation = 400 m

The use of well testing calculations:
The average permeability obtained used to assist and rectifying the model permeability
and therefore significantly increase the quality of history matching.
The radius of investigation is very important especially when it comes to placing new
wells, we make sure that there is no overlapping between wells in the drainage area.
138
7.2.4 CAPILLARY PRESSURE RESULTS
There are 3 samples available for capillary pressure test. The test method is low speed
centrifuge with confining pressure at overburden pressure of 1300psi.
Sample No 1-2001
Table 7.3: Capillary Pressure test for Sample 1-2001
Capillary Pressure (psi)
0.89632
Water
Saturati
on (%
pv)
0.18
0.46587
0.35614
0.29441
0.25157
0.2185
0.19121
0.16756
0.1463
0.12655
0.10768
0.08915
0.07045
0.05101
0.03013
0.00681
0.00341
0.0017
0.00085
0.00043
0.00021
0.00011
0.211
0.242
0.273
0.304
0.335
0.366
0.397
0.428
0.459
0.49
0.521
0.552
0.583
0.614
0.645
0.676
0.707
0.738
0.769
0.8
1
139
12001
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Water Saturation (%)
0.8
Figure 7.8: Capillary Pressure vs Water Saturation for Sample 1-2001
Sample No 1-3001
0.89632
0.3879
0.28075
0.22513
0.18863
0.16167
0.14021
0.12219
0.10641
0.09208
0.07864
0.06563
0.05262
0.03916
0.02469
0.0084
0.0042
0.0021
Water
Saturati
on (%
pv)
0.32
0.3415
0.363
0.3845
0.406
0.4275
0.449
0.4705
0.492
0.5135
0.535
0.5565
0.578
0.5995
0.621
0.6425
0.664
0.6855
140
0.00105
0.00053
0.00026
0.707
0.7285
0.75
1-3001
1
0.
9
0.
8
0.
7
0.
6
0.
5
0.
4
0.
3
0.
2
0.
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Sample No 1-4003
0.89632
0.46284
Water
Saturati
on (%
pv)
0.22
0.249
0.35226
0.29001
0.24678
0.21338
0.18578
0.16185
0.14029
0.12025
0.10108
141
0.278
0.307
0.336
0.365
0.394
0.423
0.452
0.481
0.51
0.08222
0.06316
0.04332
0.02198
0.01099
0.0055
0.00275
0.00137
0.00069
0.00034
0.00017
0.539
0.568
0.597
0.626
0.655
0.684
0.713
0.742
0.771
0.8
1
14003
0.
9
0.
8
0.
7
0.
6
0.
5
0.
4
0.
3
0.
2
0.
1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
142
7.2.5 RELATIVE PERMEABILITY TEST
Six relative permeability graph were plotted depending to the type of sand; good sand, shaly
sand and fair sand.
Good Sand
Gas - Oil Relative Permeability for Good Sand

1
0.
9
0.
8
0.
7
0.
6
0.
5
0.
4
0.
3
0.
2
0.
1
0
Krg
Kro
0.2
0.8
0.4
0.6
Gas Saturation (fraction)
Figure 7.11: Gas Oil Relative Permeability for Good Sand
Water - Oil Relative Permeability for

Good Sand
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
Krw
0.4
Kro
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Water Saturation (fraction)
Figure 7.12: Water Oil Relative Permeability for Good Sand
143
Shaly Sand
Figure 7.13: Gas Oil Relative Permeability for Shaly Sand
Shaly Sand
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
Krw
0.4
Kro
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Figure 7.14: Water Oil Relative Permeability for Shaly Sand
144
Fair Sand
Gas - Oil Relative Permeability for Fair Sand

1
0.
9
0.
8
0.
7
0.
6
0.
5
0.
4
0.
3
0.
2
0.
1
0
Krg
Kro
0.2
0.8
0.4
0.6
Gas Saturation (fraction)
Figure 7.15: Gas Oil Relative Permeability for Fair Sand

Fair Sand
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
Krw
0.4
Kro
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Figure 7.16: Water Oil Relative Permeability for Fair Sand
145
7.2.6 FLUID CONTACTS
7.2.6.1 Data Acquired

Calculation
Equation of water pressure at any depth:
Pw = 0.45D + 14.7
At the water oil contact (OWC) at 6256.56ft, the pressure in oil and water must be equal and
can be calculated;
At OWC = 6256.56ft;
Po = Pw = (0.45 6256.56) + 14.7 = 2830.15 psia
Equation of oil pressure at any depth; Po = 0.35D + constant and since Po = 2830.15 psia at
depth 6256.56ft, the constant is then
Constant = 2830.15 0.35(6256.56) = 640.35
Hence, the equation of oil pressure at any depth is then;
Po = 0.35D + 640.35
At the gas oil contact (GOC) at 5570ft, the pressure in oil and gas must be equal and can be
calculated,
At GOC = 5570 ft;
Pg = Po = 0.35(5570) + 640.35 = 2589.85 psia
Equation of oil pressure at any depth; Pg = 0.08D + constant and since Pg = 2589.85psia at
depth of 5570 ft, the constant is then
Constant = 2589.85 0.08(5570) = 2144.25
Hence, the equation of oil pressure at any depth is then;
Pg = 0.08D + 2144.25
By using the pressure equations, graph of pressure versus depth can now be plotted. The
calculated pressure at various depths is as shown in Table 3.
146
Table 7.6: Pressure vs Depth

Fluid
Contact
GOC
WOC
Depth
(ft)
450
0
460
0
470
0
480
0
490
0
500
5570
560
0
570
0
580
0
590
6256.5
6300
Pw
(psia)
2039
.7
2084
.7
2129
.7
2174
.7
2219
.7
2264
2521.2
2534
.7
2579
.7
2624
.7
2669
2830.15
2849.7
Pg
(psia)
2504.
25
2512.
25
2520.
25
2528.
25
2536.
25
2544.
2589.8
Po
(psia)
2589.8
2600.
35
2635.
35
2670.
35
2705.
2830.14
2845.3
Pressure
Regime
Pressure (psig)
1700
1900
2100
3100 4000
2300
2500
2700
2900
4500
5000
550
0
Water
GOC = Po = Pg = 5570ft
Gas
Oil
600
0
Pw = 6500
WOC = Po =
6256.56ft
Figure 7.17: Pressure versus Depth Plot
147
7.3 RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
7.3.1 RESERVE ESTIMATION
One of the most difficult parts in this development project is to estimate the amount of oil and
gas as accurately as possible. Reserve estimation involves much more risk especially in the
first stage of a field where there is not much reservoir data available. Process of estimating oil
and gas reserve continues throughout the entire life of the field where the accuracy of
estimation depends on the amount of reliable geological and engineering data at the time of
estimate. Generally, the level of uncertainty is affected by the following factors:
1) Reservoir type
2) Source of reservoir energy
3) Quantity and quality of the geological, engineering and geophysical data
4) Available technology, and
5) Experience and knowledge of the evaluator.
However, the magnitude of uncertainty will decreases with time until the economic limit is
reached and ultimate recovery is realized, as shown in Figure 17.
Figure 7.18: Magnitude of Uncertainty in Reserve Estimates
148
The oil and gas reserves estimation methods can be determined by Analogy, Volumetric,
Decline analysis, Material balance calculations for oil reservoirs, Material balance
calculations for gas reservoirs, and Reservoir simulation. In this project the determination of
reserves has been estimated using Petrel simulator, and the following table shows the total
STOIIP and GIIP for the whole reservoir.
Table7.7: Reservoir STOIIP & GIIP
Zone
STOIIP (MMm3)
GIIP (MMm3)
BC-TT
25
905
TT-T2
25
1280
T2-T1
15
372
T1-TN
23
901
TN-N1
48
2084
N1-TE
38
818
TOTAL
174
6360
7.3.2 History Matching
This history matching is done in order to validate our model before using it for further
production forecast and prediction.
Models are history matched so that under historical production constraints the model behaves
similar to actual wells. The assumption is that once the model reacts under historical
constraints, as did the actual wells, then it will behave the same as the actual wells under
future constraints. But this is often incorrect, and misused models are common. One should
not use modeling results that contradict common reservoir engineering principles. Often
professionals tend to place a higher than justified level of confidence on model results,
simply because they were calculated with a sophisticated approach. It seems obvious,
however, to remember that the model is not the reservoir itself. The model is only a
representation or an analogy of the reservoir.
Once the model is built, history matched, and verified, it can be used for many purposes.
Among these is to test alternative development scenarios for a field or reservoir to try to
149
optimize either recovery or economic returns. This is an attempted optimization because no

one ever knows the best depletion scenario. One can only compare reservoir performance
from a relative standpoint.
Problems in determining whether a model represents the actual reservoir for a particular
forecast depend on input data quality, reservoir complexity, availability of appropriate
data, and level of detail, effort, and skill used to construct the model
The history matching is carried out by comparing the production data from the well test for
the well A10 with the model production data. When the model production data is close to the
real production data thats mean our model is behaving like the real reservoir and we can
confidently go for prediction stage.
The pressure build up and drawdown test that has been used for history match is shown in the
figure below.
Figure 7.19: A10 Multirate Well Test Data
Few runs have been carried out in order to investigate the effects of different value of
permeability on the bottom hole pressure. The multiplier for the permeability model used are
0.16, 0.33, 0.5 and 1. As shown in the figure below, 0.16 gives the best matching. However,
the permeability has been reduced too much to a very low extend, which is unrealistic.
150
Figure 7.20 History Matching with Modified Permeability
The figure below shows that this case has the best history matching however the permeability
seems to be very small compared to the original one. Thats why this case wasnt used in the
prediction stage taking into account that the production period is too short and the field is a
green field. Therefore, there is a lot of uncertainties
Figure 7.21: The best History Matching cases with Modified Permeability
151
The Figures below will show the settings for the different permeability values after applying
the multiplier:
Figure 7.22: Original Permeability Model Properties
Figure7.23 Half Permeability Model Properties
Figure 7.24 One Third Permeability Model Properties
Figure 7.25: 0.16 Permeability Model Properties
152
7.3.3 WELL SPACING
To properly manage reservoirs, well spacing is a great important factor that shall be
considered in planning the number of wells to be drilled in such drainage area. The wells
have to be positioned in a way that ultimate recovery is obtained. This is done by optimal
well spacing. Optimal well spacing is the calculated number of acres per well that will yield
maximum return on investment from the development of the reservoir as a whole under the
known and/or assumed conditions. In the oil and gas industry as in any other industry,
investors want to get the highest possible return on the investment made, therefore the
available funds have to be managed properly in the course of the reservoir management. To
do this, optimal spacing of wells is greatly important, as it gives the maximum possible
ultimate recovery using the minimal number of wells (Barlow & Berwald, 1945).
In the early days, optimal well spacing was considered to be close well spacing. That is, to
drill as much wells as economically affordable. This ideology was referred to as the close
spacers. As time passed by, it was discovered that it was not necessary to drill so many wells
as recovery is independent of well spacing; therefore wider spacing is more economical as
less amount of money has to be spent on drilling many wells. This rule was called wide
spacers. The close spacers idea was that, the more wells drilled; the more gas produced thus
the more recovery. Later studies showed that this was not exactly true as excessive and
unnecessary wells caused the reservoir pressure to deplete rapidly and uncontrollably. This is
not good as it shows bad management of the reservoir, thus the reservoir cannot be produced
for a long period of time. The wide spacers argued that wider spacing gave better control of
reservoir energy and pressure, which in turns yield ultimate recovery and ultimate
production. They also stated that the main focus is the drainage area, that is the drainage
and extent to which a well can drain gas from its environments. Gas drainage can
occur over a large distance in a continuous reservoir (Suman, 1934; Craze, 1958).
The drainage area is a very important factor in placing wells so the minimum distance
between two wells considered to be 400 m.
153
7.3.4 WELL PLACEMENT
After done planning with well spacing, the number of wells to be drilled was decided. Now
the process on how we finalized the current well placement is first by creating oil saturation
of the whole model, and then take to consideration the following parameters, porosity,
STOIIPS, fluid contacts, permeability and faults location, by evaluating these parameters the
applicable placement of wells will be achieved. These parameters were involved zones
filtering in order to enable the drilling engineers to see the high, medium and low values of
porosity, permeability, and oil saturation. Below is the criteria for selecting the location of the
wells:
High porosity
High permeability
Low water saturation
Not fault crossing
The common cut off for the porosity and water saturation are shown below:
<= 12%
Porosity cut off
Sw >= 60%
Water Saturation cut off
The cells can be filtered according to their properties using the 1D filter function available in
PETREL. The figure below shows the original model before the filtering process:
Figure 7.26: original model

154
Some cells have been hide after filtering with water saturation cut off of 60%, as shown
below:
Figure 7.27: water saturation filtered
Further filtering has been done on the porosity and permeability cut off is also applied to this
model, the minimum values which have been selected are 12% and 80mD respectively for
this filter, so further decreasing the number of cells in the model and the figure below shows
the final filtered model:
Figure 7.28: final filtered model
At the begging many wells were added to the model and follow certain criteria using the
filters created before which are targeting the best location. The drainage area is a very
important factor in placing wells. The minimum distance between two wells considered to be
155
400 m. Therefore, there is no overlap between the new wells added or between the new and
older wells. The location of the faults was also taken into consideration. The minimum
distance between the wells and the faults is considered to be 100 m.
The water injectors were placed on the edge down dip to take advantage of the gravity
segregation. The injected water either enters the aquifer or is near the aquifer reservoir
interface displacing oil towards the producer wells located at the upper part of the reservoir.
The proposed wells location are as illustrated in the figure below:
Figure 7.29: producers and injectors location

Table 7.8: Proposed Producers and Injectors
Type of Wells Name of Wells
(m)
Producer
New Well 1
X-coordinate (m)
456269
6783358
Producer
New Well 2
456687
6784599
Producer
New Well 3
456424
6784894
Producer
New Well 4
457349
6784589
Producer
New Well 5
456821
6786441
Producer
New Well 6
456755
6783822
Injector
New
1
New
2
New
3
New
4
Well Injector
456087
6784044
Well Injector
456067
6785256
Well Injector
456262
6782801
Well Injector
456568
6783155
Injector
Injector
Injector
156
Y-coordinate
7.3.5 Primary depletion
It means that the reservoir is depleted by its natural energy such as water aquifer, gas cap or
solution gas drive. Even though Gulfaks field considered to have big aquifer, it is located at
the bottom and also has a gas cap but the problem is the field pressure is already below the
bubble point, so depending only on the primary depletion is risky which might result in
excessive pressure drop very soon, we decided to avoid that and start with secondary
recovery.
7.3.6 Secondary recovery:
The reservoir pressure is below the bubble pressure leaving us no option but start right away
with the secondary recovery. Either water injection or gas injection. Since the oil is very light
water injection seems to be the most convenient method as the cheapest one due to the
availability of water since the operation is offshore.
At the begging may wells were added to the model and follow certain criteria using the filters
created before which are targeting the best location as well as the drainage area. The
minimum distance between two wells considered to be 400 m.
After many cases has been run to optimize the location of the new wells, we started to add
injectors to the model.
7.3.7 Creaming curve
In order to get the optimum number of wells we applied the creaming curve method, we keep
increasing the number of wells until the cumulative production is no longer increasing. Our
base case is 5 producers then we increase the number of producers.
4 scenarios has been carried out, the first scenario is one injector with 5 producers to 11
producers, the second, third and fourth, is 2, 3 and 4 injectors. So, our strategy was to keep
the number of injectors and to change number of producers for each case at the end the best
case will be selected
157
One injector scenario:

The graph below show the cases run in one injector scenario, starting from 5 producers case
then 6 producers the cumulative keep increasing with increasing number of wells until we
reach 10 producers then it is not increasing any more.
Figure 7.30: Field Oil Production Cumulative for 4 Injectors
Using the above results the creaming curve has been produced. It shows that the case of 10
producers was the best case among them.
2.221.81.61.41.214
11
12
Figure 7.31: Creaming Curve for 1 Injectors
158
10
Two injectors scenario

Similarly like one injectors scenario the same cases has been run, we also found out that 10
producers case is the best case.
Creaming Curve for 2

Injectors
2.4
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
4
10
Number of producer well
159
11
12
Three injecotors scenario:

In the case 3 injectors were fixed with changing the number of producers, the creaming curve
is produced as well

Injectors
2.4
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
4
10
Figure 7.35: Creaming Curve for 3 Injector
160
11
12
Four injectors scenario:

This was the final scenario, 4 injectors with 5 to 11 producers. As the graph showing
production increase with increasing the number of producers.
The creaming curve has been produced, also the case with the 10 producers seems to be the
optimum case.

Injectors
2.4
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
4
10
161
11
12
The best case

Four scenarios have been run with 28 cases, and the best case among all has been selected to
be the best development strategy for the field. For all the scenarios the case of 10 producers is
the optimum case. Therefore, we plot the beast case of each scenario to get the the best
among them.
As the graph showing below the 4 injectors with 10 producers case is the best one, followed
by 3, 2 and 1 injectors. It has been observed that the 2 injectors and 3 injector scenario are
close to each other, thats maybe due to the location of the injection wells.
Figure 7.38: Overall Field Oil Production Cumulative for Different Numbers of Injectors and 10
producers
The best case which is 4 injectors with 10 producers was able to recover 38.2* 106 m3 in 20
years. The STOIIP estimated to be 174*106 so the recovery factor for these 20 years is around
22 %. This case has been run for 10 more years until the water cut reach 97% and the
recovery factor become around 30 %.
162
7.3.8 PRODUCTION PROFILE
In this section, we are going to show the production profile forecast of Gulfaks field, for
natural depletion with water injection strategy. The production profile is generated based on
the limitations and criteria explained in the previous section.
The subsurface development of any reservoir depends on many factors such as the reservoir
pressure and the primary drive mechanism. In this field there will not be a primary drive
mechanism because the reservoir pressure is below the bubble point, so the water injection
has been considered as a recovery mechanism for this field. The recovery factor for the field
with water injection is around 30% of the STOIIP for 30 years of production which has been
shown in the previous section. The table below shows the recoverable reserves from this
field.
Table 7.9: Recoverable oil by water injection.
Zone
Recoverable oil 30%
Recoverable oil 30%
(MMm3)
(MMSTB)
BC-TT
7.5
47.13386
TT-T2
7.5
47.13386
T2-T1
4.5
28.28032
T1-TN
6.9
43.36315
TN-N1
14.4
90.49702
N1-TE
11.4
71.64347
TOTAL
52.2
328.0517
The next step is to calculate the number of wells, so some assumptions have been made in
order to calculate the number of wells and these assumptions are:
1- The minimum economical flow rate per well is 1.7 MSTB/Day.
So the abandonment rate will 1.7 MSTB/Day at the end of the 30 years, the initial flow rate is
available from the well test data which is equal to 4.711 MSTB/Day/well. Now all the data
required for calculating the number of wells is ready. The first step is to calculate the D
which is the decline nominal:
163

= ln( )
ln(
4.711
D = 0.0339757 /year
D = 0.000093 / day
The second step is to calculate the number of oil barrels that can be produced by one well
over the entire field life.
=
4.711
1.7
0.000093
Np = 32.3692 MMSTB
The final step is to calculate number of wells.

=
Number of wells = 10 wells
So this number confirm our selected number of wells using the sensitivity analysis for
creaming curve which 10 producers has been selected as optimum number of wells
The table below shows the production decline curve of a single well using the equation
= .
164
Table 7.10: The production decline curve of a single well
Time (year)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Rate
Production
(Mstb/day Cumulative
)
(Mstb)
4.717
4.559
4.407
4.259
4.117
3.979
3.846
3.717
3.593
3.473
3.357
3.244
3.136
3.031
2.930
2.832
2.737
2.645
2.557
2.471
2.389
2.309
2.232
2.157
2.085
2.015
1.948
1.883
1.820
1.759
1.700
0
1692.7
3328.8
4910.1
6438.6
7915.9
9343.8
10724.0
12058.0
13347.4
14593.6
15798.2
16962.4
18087.8
19175.5
20226.8
21242.9
22225.1
23174.4
24092.0
24978.8
25836.0
26664.6
27465.4
28239.4
28987.5
29710.7
30409.6
31085.2
31738.1
32369.2
Annu
al
(Mstb
0
1692.690
1636.073
1581.350
1528.457
1477.333
1427.920
1380.159
1333.996
1289.376
1246.250
1204.565
1164.275
1125.333
1087.693
1051.312
1016.148
982.160
949.309
917.556
886.866
857.202
828.531
800.818
774.033
748.143
723.119
698.932
675.555
652.959
631.119
So after 30 years of production each well will achieve the total number of oil barrels which is
already calculated and it is equal to 32.3692 MMSTB.
165
7.3.8.1 Water Injection Strategy

The function of water injection is to increase the sweep efficiency of oil and at the same time
act as the pressure maintenance. With recovery factor of 30%, water injection does increase
the total production of oil. The injection of water will commence during first year of
production.
According to Figure 7.39, the total estimated producible of oil by water injection is 328.0517
MMSTB which is 30% of STOIIP. The remaining oil in reservoir is 765.9483 MMSTB.
Total
Production
328.0517
MMSTB 30%
remaining oil in
reservoir
765.9483 MMSTB
70%
Figure 7.39: Estimated Total Production of Water Injection
166
Figure 7.40 represents the decline curve of production rate of natural depletion by water
injection. The initial production rate is 4.717 MSTB/D. The production rate start to decline
and we estimated it using exponential decline curve analysis. The production will reach
abandonment period at 30 years with rate of 1.7 MSTB/D.
5
4.
5
4
3.
5
3
2.
5
2
1.
5
1
0.
5
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Time (Year)
Figure 7.40: Decline Curve of Production rate by Water Injection
The following Figure 7.41 shows the production profile of Gulfaks field for natural depletion
by water injection. The production is accumulated from a single well. The total production of
oil of each well until 30 years is 32.3692 MMSTB.
YTOP(MSTB)
COP (MSTB)
1800
1600
35000
30000
25000
1400
1200
1000
20000
800
15000
600
10000
200
0
400
5000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
Year
Figure 7.41: Production Profile by Water Injection

167
7.4 GULFAKS FIELD 3D SIMULATION MODEL
7.4.1 3D Static Model
The 3D static model was generated from geological studies in Petrel. The 3D static models
reservoir parameters were established from interpretations done on geological, geophysical
and petrophysical in chapter 2.
The objective for the simulation is to mimic the subsurface condition using data, built-in
equation and correlation and thus will display the reservoir behaviour. By doing simulation,
risk and uncertainty can be lessen. Several scenarios and development plan can be simulated
ahead and all the technical and economic feasibility for the cases can be determined.
However, as explain in the previous chapter, the model is as good as the data. Quality
checking for the data is utmost important.
7.4.2 SIMULATOR DATA INPUT (MODEL SET-UP)
Fluid Contacts
Aforementioned in previous chapter, the fluid contacts were discovered from the
well logs data MDT formation data analysis. The water oil contact (WOC) is
6256.56ft TVDSS and gas oil contact (GOC) is 5570 ft TVDSS. It is assumed that
the layers for all sands are communicating with each other.
Fluid Data
The fluid data was obtained the PVT Report which was then imported into PVTi
software and matching was done. Then the data is exported into Petrel to simulate
how the fluid behaves in the reservoir. Only one PVT model was created and it is
assumed that all sands store the same fluid model.
168
Core Data
The relative permeability data and capillary pressure data were obtained from the
Gulfaks SCAL report. There are three facies extracted from the core samples.
Division of the segments for the section was done by using Satnum function in Petrel.
The rock physic model are divided into three based on their permeability range to
represent the hydraulic flow unit.
Aquifer Data
From the interpretation conducted on the well logs and material balance calculation,
Gulfaks reservoir has an aquifer with good connection coming from North, South and
West of the field and localized at bottommost layer.
The faults, edges and sector model are honored.
7.4.3 HYDROCARBON IN PLACE
Figure 7.42: Hydrocarbon in Place
169
7.4.4 DYNAMIC INITIALIZATION
In assuring that no error is present in the data file, a pre-run was conducted which was read
by the reservoir simulator. Post the pre-run, all the initialized key parameters prior the
simulation will be examined to ensure it is consistent with geology and geophysics
interpretation. These were to validate the sensitivity analysis and case studies conducted to
predict the reservoir performance.
a) Original Hydrocarbon in Place
Gulfaks simulation models were founded on the the STOIIP obtained from the 3D
static model. The initialization of the simulation model is accepted only if the STOIIP
error is in the range 0.5% or less. The slight differential is expected as the 3D static
model STOIIP was based on cell capillary pressure calculation while simulation
models initialization (STOIIP) utilized the capillary pressure grouping calculation and
the equilibrium condition obtained from the water drive mechanism of the aquifer.
The pore volumes that were calculated in dynamic modelling will possess a slight
difference to the static model due to the rock compressibility from decline of pore
volume as overburden pressure overlaid stress to the pores.
b) Initial Reservoir Pressure and Fluid Equilibrium
Gulfaks field was simulated with initial pressure of 2516 psia obtained from the
Reservoir Fluid Study Report and MDT Formation Pressure Data. Fluid was in
equilibrium so once the simulator is run the material balance will be validated.
c) Operating Constraints
Constraints were set ensure the production profile and development strategies that
will be proposed for the well are feasible in term of facilities and equipment that are
required for the development phase.
170
7.4.4 SATURATION DISTRIBUTION AND FAULT LOCATIONS
Below are figures obtained from Petrel showing the distribution of saturation in the reservoir
by each layer also the main faults that exist in the reservoir.
Figure 7.43: Saturation distribution of BC layer
Figure 7.44: Saturation distribution of TT layer
171
Figure 7.45: Saturation distribution of T2 layer
Figure 7.46: Saturation distribution of T1 layer
172
Figure 7.47: Saturation distribution of TN layer
Figure 7.48: Saturation distribution of N1 layer
173
Figure 7.49: Saturation distribution of TE layer
Figure 7.50: Closing fault South 2
174
Figure 7.51: Main fault East 1
Figure 7.52: Main fault East 2
175
Figure 7.53: Main fault NS 2
Figure 7.54: Main fault NS 1
176
7.5 RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT PLAN
Reservoir management is a complex decision-making process that is influenced by technical,

logistical, health, safety, environmental, and economic issues. Planning is probably the most
important aspect of reservoir management. Successful planning defines the problem and
develops possible solutions, but it also involves setting the objectives and limits, such as
production targets and budgets, that will influence this project.
Operating strategy and surveillance plan are the sub topics of reservoir management plan.
These two topics are important to make sure the reservoir produces the optimum recovery of
oil. Before moving into these topics, the authors will summarize the overview and challenges
in developing the Gulfaks Field.
Gulfaks Field has been estimated to recover 328.05MMstb by drilling ten (10) production
wells. This is the optimum recovery with the optimum strategy to delay the reservoir pressure
reduction by injecting water to replace the void space after the first oil production.
The degree of the uncertainties are increased due to planned injection wells, the water
injection strategy planned are highly risky due to;
Reservoir Compartment- the reservoir may be in different fluid system with the
injector well.
Reservoir Quality- the reliability of data to interpret the reservoir characteristics and
structure.
Furthermore, this project development already has high uncertainties on the Stock Tank Oil
Initial In Place (STOIIP) which determine the reservoir recovery. Although with all of
the uncertainties, the authors will take all the consideration with the budgets available, health
and safety (HSE) in order to manage the reservoir optimally.
177
7.5.1 OPERATING STRATEGY
Figure 7.55: Reservoir Optimization
Based on Figure 21, the graph of traditional development and reservoir optimization shows
distinct value which is the key factors on the maximizing profits to develop Gulfaks Field.
The operating strategy must follow the reservoir optimization and avoid from doing
traditional development. Reduce the capital expenditure and operating expenditure with
maximizing the recovery and the life of well.
The pressure maintenance plan, the well injection will be drilled to make sure the reservoir
pressure is maintained. The introduction of gas lift will be started when the pressure of the
well is decreased based on the Tubing Head Presssure (THP) and production performance
without specifying the time to introduce the gas lift. Moreover, the operating cost will be
lowered because the gas lift is not operated at first oil production.
The well will be shut in if the water cut reaches 95% to avoid loss of profit because it is not
economical to produce the high water cut well. However, the well will not abandoned forever
due to that high water cut, but the well will be checked, analyzed and the possible solution
like shutting off the high water zone and open new zone will be considered to maximize the
life of well.
The operating strategy is much closed to how soft we treat the reservoir. The key step
would be to have a patient approach in producing the reservoir. For example, producing the
reservoir with the choke in maximum when well does not flow will make the reservoir
become dead as the pressure inside the reservoir does not permit the flow. Playing around
178
with the choke by beam up and beam down so that the pressure inside the well will gradually
stabilize especially after shut in period. They will be patient although it consumes some time
but the well will be alive and produce better recovery.
Due to lack of data given to develop this field, the authors will list down the possible
problems and solutions to operate this field as summarized in Table 7.11.
Table 7.11: possible problems and its solutions
PROBLEMS
SOLUTION
Data reliability to determine

reservoir quality, reservoir
compartment.
Drill the wells with sequenced to obtain optimum

initial oil production and its build-up with reservoir
uncertainties will be defined along the well is drilled as
the information will increase. Therefore the next well
drill will be more concise with reliable data.
Obtaining the optimum size of

production tubing to recover the oil.
The pressure gradient data will be obtained from leakoff test to determine the optimum size of production
tubing. Common size of production tubing in Malaysia
basin 3.5 inches, 2.87 inches etc.
Sanding problem
Early planning to mitigate the effect of erosion due to

sanding is very important. The type of formation must
be verified the consolidation type. If it is very loose
grained, sand screen and sand packer are very
important to install to avoid loss of well due to erosion
in the future.
Gas source to operate the gas lift

and facilities when needed in the
future
L sand gas cap is potential zone to drill in the future.

Alternatively, the existing planned oil producer well
can be changed to gas producer by shutting off the oil
zone and perforate the gas cap zone to produce gas
after the well has very high water cut and not
economical to produce oil from that well.
Completion strategy to solve

problems that may occurred in the
future
Dummy gas lift mandrel and chemical mandrel can be

installed earlier at suitable depth with precise
calculation and advice from experienced specialist.
When the gas lift and chemical injection needed, the
mandrel can perform the job to mitigate the problem.
Table 7.11: Possible problem faced

179
7.5.2 SURVEILLANCE PLAN
Figure 7.56: Resistivity Monitoring
The figure above is one of the examples of the resistivity monitoring. Surveillance plan is
very important to make sure the well is maintained and serviced periodically. This job scope
is mainly under production team, the operation part to alter the well would be specifically
under well intervention department. Service companies emerged to conduct these specialized
tasks and, over the years, have improved and extended their technology, thus providing the
operating companies with better information about their vital hydrocarbon assets.
authors will list down the common jobs under the surveillance plan;
The
Table 7.12: Surveillance Plan
PERIOD
Everyday
Monthly
Anually
Anually
JOB
Tubing Head Pressure (THP)
Casing Head Pressure (CHP)
Production rate
API Gravity
Static Gradient Survey
Flowing Gradient Survey
Bottom Hole Pressure (BHP)
DESCRIPTION
To monitor the well pressure and leakage
To monitor the well production
To monitor the viscosity of hydrocarbon
Monitor the pressure of well during shut in
Monitor the pressure of well in live well
Monitor the reservoir pressure and areal
pressure distribution
180
The period which is stated above are not fixed, it may done any time in the future with
technology advancement with real-time technology and can be monitored hundred kilometres from the rig. Usually slickline entry will be performed to do intervention job such as
to remove wax, scale or tubing clearance. The maintenance of the well accessories is also
important for the reservoir management. If the well is damage, the oil in the reservoir also
cannot be produced although the reservoir has been managed efficiently. The safety is also
the main issue; the wellhead will be monitored from any leaking. The equipment will be
exercised to make sure there is no leakage or flow. The Surface-Controlled Subsurface Safety
Valve (SCSSV) and Surface Safety Valve can be monitored periodically to make sure the
safety valve is functioning at any time to prevent blow out.
181
7.6 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY (EOR) PLAN

Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) is a generic term for techniques for increasing the amount of
crude oil that can be extracted from an oil field. Enhanced oil recovery is also called
improved oil recovery or tertiary recovery (as opposed to primary and secondary recovery).
Sometimes the term quaternary recovery is used to refer to more advanced, speculative, EOR
techniques. Oil production is separated into three phases: primary, secondary and tertiary,
which is also known as Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR).
i.
Primary recovery is about using the natural stored energy in the reservoir to move the
oil to the production well. Primary oil recovery is limited to hydrocarbons that
naturally rise to the surface, or those that use artificial lift devices, such as pump
jacks. It is not used for Gulfaks field as there is a gas cap; Natural depletion would
lower the reservoir pressure making it uneconomical.
ii.
The secondary recovery start when the natural energy depleted and pressure start to
decline. Thus second phase of oil production is needed to supplement the depleted
energy by injecting water into the reservoir. Secondary recovery employs water and
gas injection, displacing the oil and driving it to the surface.
iii.
Tertiary recovery come in handy after the water oil ratio (WOR) approaches the
operations economic limit and plus, the net profit diminishes due to the increase in
cost of water treatment and injection. Although more expensive to employ on a field,
EOR can increase production from a well to up to 75% recovery.
According to the US Department of Energy, utilizing the first two methods of production can
leave up to 75% of the oil in the well but in the module has stated that the combination of
primary and secondary method resulted in less than 40% of oil recovery of oil initially in
place. For Gulfaks, North Sea field, the water injection method resulted in 30% of oil
recovery. Used in fields that exhibit heavy oil, poor permeability and irregular fault lines,
EOR entails changing the actual properties of the hydrocarbons, which further distinguishes
this phase of recovery from the secondary recovery method. While waterflooding and gas
injection during the secondary recovery method are used to push the oil through the well,
EOR applies steam or gas to change the makeup of the reservoir.
182
Whether it is used after both primary and secondary recovery have been exhausted or at the
initial stage of production, EOR restores formation pressure and enhances oil displacement in
the reservoir.
7.6.1 EOR METHOD
There are three main types of EOR, including chemical flooding, gas injection and thermal
recovery. Increasing the cost of development alongside the hydrocarbons brought to the
surface, producers do not use EOR on all wells and reservoirs. The economics of the
development equation must make sense. Therefore, each field must be heavily evaluated to
determine which type of EOR will work best on the reservoir. This is done through reservoir
characterization, screening, scoping, and reservoir modeling and simulation.
7.6.1.1 Thermal Method
In this approach, various methods are used to heat the crude oil in the formation to reduce its
viscosity and/or vaporize part of the oil and thus decrease the mobility ratio. The increased
heat reduces the surface tension and increases the permeability of the oil. The heated oil may
also vaporize and then condense forming improved oil. Methods include cyclic steam
injection, steam drive and combustion.
Figure 7.57: Thermal Recovery. Source: Alberta Geological Survey
These methods improve the sweep efficiency and the displacement efficiency. Steam
injection has been used commercially since the 1960s in California fields. In 2011 solar
183
thermal enhanced oil recovery projects were started in California and Oman, this method is
similar to thermal EOR but uses a solar array to produce the steam.
Steam flooding
Steam flooding is one means of introducing heat to the reservoir by pumping steam into the
well with a pattern similar to that of water injection. Eventually the steam condenses to hot
water, in the steam zone the oil evaporates and in the hot water zone the oil expands. As a
result the oil expands the viscosity drops and the permeability increases. To ensure success
the process has to be cyclical. This is the principal enhanced oil recovery program in use
today.
Fire Flood
Fire flood works best when the oil saturation and porosity are high. Combustion generates the
heat within the reservoir itself. Continuous injection of air or other gas mixture with high
oxygen content will maintain the flame front. As the fire burns, it moves through the
reservoir toward production wells. Heat from the fire reduces oil viscosity and helps vaporize
reservoir water to steam. The steam, hot water, combustion gas and a bank of distilled solvent
all act to drive oil in front of the fire toward production wells.
There are three methods of combustion: Dry forward, reverse and wet combustion. Dry
forward uses an igniter to set fire to the oil. As the fire progresses the oil is pushed away from
the fire toward the producing well. In reverse the air injection and the ignition occur from
opposite directions. In wet water is injected just behind the front and turned into steam by the
hot rock this quenches the fire and spreads the heat more evenly.
7.6.1.2 Gas Injection
Gas injection or miscible flooding is presently the most-commonly used approach in
enhanced oil recovery. Miscible flooding is a general term for injection processes that
introduce miscible gases into the reservoir. A miscible displacement process maintains
reservoir pressure and improves oil displacement because the interfacial tension between oil
and water is reduced. This refers to removing the interface between the two interacting fluids.
This allows for total displacement efficiency.
184
Figure 7.58: CO2 Recovery
Gases used include CO2, natural gas or nitrogen. The fluid most commonly used for miscible
displacement is carbon dioxide because it reduces the oil viscosity and is less expensive than
liquefied petroleum gas. Oil displacement by carbon dioxide injection relies on the phase
behavior of the mixtures of that gas and the crude, which are strongly dependent on reservoir
temperature, pressure and crude oil composition.
7.6.1.3 Chemical Injection
The injection of various chemicals, usually as dilute solutions, have been used to aid mobility
and the reduction in surface tension. Injection of alkaline or caustic solutions into reservoirs
with oil that has organic acids naturally occurring in the oil will result in the production of
soap that may lower the interfacial tension enough to increase production. Injection of a
dilute solution of a water soluble polymer to increase the viscosity of the injected water can
increase the amount of oil recovered in some formations. Dilute solutions of surfactants such
as petroleum sulfonates or bio-surfactants such as rhamnolipids may be injected to lower the
interfacial tension or capillary pressure that impedes oil droplets from moving through a
reservoir. Special formulations of oil, water and surfactant, micro-emulsions, can be
particularly effective in this. Application of these methods is usually limited by the cost of the
chemicals and their adsorption and loss onto the rock of the oil containing formation. In all of
these methods the chemicals are injected into several wells and the production occurs in other
nearby wells.
185
Polymer flooding
Polymer flooding consists in mixing long chain polymer molecules with the injected water in
order to increase the water viscosity. This method improves the vertical and areal sweep
efficiency as a consequence of improving the water/oil Mobility ratio. In addition, the
polymer reduces the contrasts in permeability by preferentially plugging the high
permeability zones flooded by polymers. This forces the water to flood the lower
permeability zones and increases the sweep efficiency.
Surfactants may be used in conjunction with polymers; they decrease the surface tension
between the oil and water. This reduces the residual oil saturation and improves the
microscopic efficiency of the process.
Primary surfactants usually have Co-surfactants, activity boosters, Co-solvents added to them
to improve stability of the formulation.
Caustic flooding is the addition of sodium hydroxide to injection water. It does this by
lowering the surface tension, reversing the rock wettability, emulsification of the oil,
mobilization of the oil and helps in drawing the oil out of the rock.
Microbial injection
Microbial injection is part of microbial enhanced oil recovery and is rarely used because of
its higher cost and because the developments is not widely accepted. These microbes function
either by partially digesting long hydrocarbon molecules, by generating bio-surfactants, or by
emitting carbon dioxide (which then functions as described in Gas injection above).
Three approaches have been used to achieve microbial injection. In the first approach,
bacterial cultures mixed with a food source (a carbohydrate such as molasses is commonly
used) are injected into the oil field. In the second approach, used since 1985, nutrients are
injected into the ground to nurture existing microbial bodies; these nutrients cause the
bacteria to increase production of the natural surfactants they normally use to metabolize
crude oil underground. After the injected nutrients are consumed, the microbes go into nearshutdown mode, their exteriors become hydrophilic, and they migrate to the oil-water
interface area, where they cause oil droplets to form from the larger oil mass, making the
186
droplets more likely to migrate to the wellhead. This approach has been used in oilfields near
the Four Corners and in the Beverly Hills Oil Field in Beverly Hills, California.
The third approach is used to address the problem of paraffin wax components of the crude
oil, which tend to precipitate as the crude flows to the surface, since the Earth's surface is
considerably cooler than the petroleum deposits (a temperature drop of 9-10-14 C per
thousand feet of depth is usual).
Liquid carbon dioxide super-fluids.
Carbon dioxide is particularly effective in reservoirs deeper than 2,000 ft., where CO2 will be
in a supercritical state. In high pressure applications with lighter oils, CO2 is miscible with
the oil, with resultant swelling of the oil, and reduction in viscosity, and possibly also with a
reduction in the surface tension with the reservoir rock. In the case of low pressure reservoirs
or heavy oils, CO2 will form an immiscible fluid, or will only partially mix with the oil. Some
oil swelling may occur, and oil viscosity can still be significantly reduced.
In these applications, between one-half and two-thirds of the injected CO2 returns with the
produced oil and is usually re-injected into the reservoir to minimize operating costs. The
remainder is trapped in the oil reservoir by various means. Carbon Dioxide as a solvent has
the benefit of being more economical than other similarly miscible fluids such as propane and
butane.
Hydrocarbon displacement
Hydrocarbon displacement is where a slug of hydrocarbon gas is pushed into the reservoir in
order to form a miscible phase at high pressure. This however suffers from poor mobility
ratio, and the solvents ability to dissolve the oil is reduced as it goes through. As with all
methods, this is only attempted when it is deemed economical.
187
7.6.2 EOR SCREENING
The optimum application of each type of EOR method depends on the reservoir
characteristics including type of oil. In order to determine which EOR method is suitable for
Gulfaks, North Sea, illustrate the screening parameters that are useful as preliminary
evaluation of the reservoir by referring to the reservoir rocks and fluid properties of Gulfaks,
North Sea field in the Table 7.13 below.
Table 7.13: Gulfaks Reservoir rocks and fluids properties
Properties
Oil API Gravity
Oil Viscosity (cp)
Permeability (md)
Depth (m)
Solution Gas Ratio, scf/stb
Porosity
Value
32
1.337
Temperature (0F)
Initial reservoir pressure, psig
Residual Oil Saturation
188
150
1827 WOC
130
0.27
220
2516 psig
0.25
Table 7.14: Screening criteria for EOR. Source: Enhance Oil Recovery, Donaldson Erle
Screening
parameters
Oil viscosity ,cp

Oil gravity ,API
Depth ,ft
Reservoir
temperature ,F
Initial reservoir
pressure ,psig
Net pay , ft
Permeability , md
Porosity , %
Salinity ,ppm
Target oil,
bbl/acre-ft
Lithology
Gas cap
Natural water
drive
Fractures
Steam
In situ
injection
combustion
Thermal
>8
10-25
200-5000
>10
10-45
>500
NC
Surfactant
polymer
< 12
>30
>2300
< 20
>25
>8500
<250
Polymer
>20
NC
>10
>500
NC
>400
High porosity sand/

sandstone
Hydrocarbon
miscible
Gas method
< 200
15-35
NC
<200
<5
>30
>4000
NC
>50
NC
<2500
NC
< 200
>18
>8500
<200
NC
>10
>10
Alkaline
waterflood
Chemical
>1200
NC
>20
CO2
flooding
Gas method
<50000
Sandstone/carbonate
NC
>20
NC
NC
NC
sandstone
None to minor
None to weak
None to minor
None to minor
189
Sandstone/
carbonate
NC
NC
Table 7.15: Screening criteria for EOR.
EOR method
Oil viscosity ,cp
Oil gravity ,API
Depth ,ft
Reservoir
temperature ,F
Initial reservoir
pressure ,psig
Net pay , ft
Permeability , md
Porosity , %
Lithology
Gas cap
Natural water
drive
Fractures
Steam
injection
In situ
combustion
CO2
flooding
Surfactant
polymer
Polymer
Alkaline
waterflood
Hydrocarbon
miscible
190
From Table 14, preliminary screening indicates that there is no suitable EOR method suitable
for the fluid of Gulfaks, North Sea field. This is because there is some of the screening
parameters do not match the criteria for any EOR method. Therefore, the next step is to
proceed with the elimination method whereby any EOR method that is less suitable will be
eliminated.
Firstly, the thermal method which involved in-situ combustion and steam injection are ruled
out of consideration for Gulfaks field because thermal methods are costly. It is only profitable
and more worth to apply in reservoir of heavy oil with low API gravity and high viscosity
(heavy oil). The crude oil in Gulfaks East field is classified as light oil with 32 API gravity
has a low viscosity of 1.335 cP. Plus, the thermal method is only suitable for high porosity
sandstone whereby for Gulfaks field, the sandstone is considered having moderate porosity.
Next to be considered is the chemical method which involves surfactant polymer, polymer
and alkaline waterflood. However, these methods are not suitable for Gulfaks field due to
high cost and is highly dependent on the current oil price. Besides that, it is difficult to be
implemented at reservoirs with high temperature (220F). In addition, further testing is
required to determine the compatible polymer and surfactant that can work effectively under
Gulfaks, North Sea fields reservoir properties. Water hardness and formation water salinity
are also the main factors that could affect ASP flooding effectiveness. To apply this method,
we have to conduct numerous laboratory works in order to determine the best chemicals to be
applied. So, this method is also eliminated from considerations.
Thus, now the option left is to go for gas method. Two methods for gas method is immiscible
hydrocarbon flooding and CO2 flooding. Both methods have only one criterion that is not
match with the reservoir fluid which is the reservoir depth. Plus, it also can be considered for
Gulfaks, North Sea field if there is an abundant of gas available nearby the field. However,
the gas produced is planned to be used for artificial lift. With additional data reservoir data
and rock properties, we could produce the gas from the L sand later and implement
hydrocarbon flooding in Gulfaks, North Sea field.
191
7.6.3 CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) FLOODING.
Figure 7.59: Carbon dioxide flooding.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) can sometimes be used to enhance the displacement of oil from a
reservoir. Carbon dioxide occurs naturally in some reservoirs, either with natural gas or as a
nearly pure compound. It can also be obtained as a by-product from chemical and fertilizer
plants, or it can be manufactured or separated from power plant stack gas. When pressure in a
candidate reservoir has been depleted through primary production and possibly
waterflooding, it must be restored before CO2 injection can begin. To do this, normally water
is pumped into the reservoir through injection wells until pressure reaches a desired level,
then CO2 is introduced into the reservoir through these same injection wells. Carbon dioxide
is highly soluble in oil and to a lesser extent in water. This results in the following factors
which contribute to enhanced oil recovery:
Reduction in crude oil viscosity and increase in water viscosity
Swelling of crude oil and reduction in oil density
Acid effect on carbonate and shale rocks
Miscibility effects
192
Table 7.16: Screening criterias for CO2 flooding
Gravity *API
Viscosity *cp
Permeability
*mD
Depth *ft
Porosity *%
Temperature *F
Miscible
22-45
35-0
1.5-4500
1500-13365
3-37
82-250
Immiscible
11-35
592-0.6
30-1000
1150-8500
17-32
82-198
Value
32
1.332
150
5992
27
220
Based on the screening table above, both of the type of CO2 injection should satisfy the
reservoir condition in Gulfaks East.
But, the most important deciding criteria are the
economic value for the CO2 injection. Does the injection will be profitable when compare to
the expected additional oil recovery from the field? That is the most crucial question that
needs to be answered when planning for the CO2 injection operation. But, if compared with
the other methods such as thermal, chemicals and microbial, CO2 injection is regarded as one
of the cheapest method available for the EOR today.
To carry out a CO2 injection, additional equipments need to be installed prior to the
operation. A pipeline connecting the processing facilities to the injector wells must be
installed to transport CO2 for the injection. Furthermore, a pump or compressor with desired
horsepower is needed to help transport and inject the CO2 into the reservoir. At the
processing facilities, the maximum loading for the platform have be considered before the
additional separator are installed to know whether the platform can handle the weight of the
separator or not.
All of the equipment mentioned above will contribute to the economic value of the operation.
So, if the additional oil recovery is high enough to support for the economic evaluation for
the operation, then the CO2 injection is the best available method to recover the additional oil
in the Gulfaks, East Field. With the abundance supply of CO2, this method will hardly fail to
extract or recover more oil in the depleted reservoir. CO2 injection has its own pros and cons
that must be considered before selecting the most suitable method to be used.
193
7.6.3.1 CO 2 Miscible Flooding

Dynamic miscibility of CO2 with light and medium crude oils is generated as a vaporizing
gas drive mechanism. CO2 at appropriate pressure vaporizes or extracts heavier hydrocarbon
from the oil and concentrates them at the displacement front where miscibility is achieved.
Advantage of miscible flooding
The presences of carbon dioxide in oil change the viscosity, density and
compressibility which help increase the oil recovery efficiency.
Displacement efficiency is high in miscible cases
Miscibility can be generated if lost
Useful over wide range of crude oils than hydrocarbon injection methods.
7.6.3.2 CO2 Immiscible Flooding
Immiscible CO2 oil displacement is best suited to medium and heavy oils since the oil
viscosity reduction is greater and more significant. The CO2 flooding process involves
alternating injection of CO2 and water until a certain amount of CO2 has been injected, then
water is injected continuously. The water-alternating-gas (WAG) process is characterized by
an improved mobility ratio and additional recovery over that of water flooding without CO 2.
In addition, the swelling effect of crude oil with CO2 increases the oil formation volume
factor so that residual oil behind the water flood is similar in volume at surface condition.
Advantage of immiscible flooding
The swelling of the crude oil
The reduction in the crude oil viscosity
Disadvantages of using CO2
Despite the advantages of using CO2 as our gas, it also has its own disadvantages that we
believe could be mitigated without any problems.
Availability of carbon dioxide resources.
Transportation costs.
Under certain conditions, poor sweep and gravity segregation can be obtained.
Corrosion.
194
Necessity of produced gas recycling.

Lead to heavy hydrocarbon deposition
Using CO2 in order to bring the extra recovery to the oil would otherwise give some problems
towards the well condition and integrity. Basically, the main problem occurs with the
introduction of CO2 in the wells are corrosion problem. Corrosion will occurs due to
corrosive environment created by the carbonic acid formed in the presence of water. Other
than that, some precipitation such as asphaltenes can occur in the tubing, reservoir and in the
surface separators. All the problems stated could cause well plugging and formation damage.
Because of that, a proper clean up method must be carried out and will affect the cost of
operational expenditure. The availability of CO2 could also become a major concern where
CO2 availability must be checked to have sufficient enough for the injection operation to take
place. On the other hand, if the CO2 used need to be recycled, additional equipment need to
be installed in the platform which eventually will increase the overall cost for the CO2
injection.
195
7.7 CONCLUSION
7.7.1 UNCERTAINTY
As for field development, understanding the reservoir properties would

assist in estimating the initial oil in place and the gas in place. However,
without sufficient well data, averaging the rock properties might either
lead to underestimation or over estimation of the expected oil and gas
reserves. In this project, there are a few challenges faced by the team.
Most of the uncertainties faced are due to the lack of available well
data. The uncertainties are as follows:
Table 7.17: Uncertainties Involved.
UNCERTAINTIES
Fluid properties
Recovery factor
Production
DESCRIPTION
Affects the pressure profile. There
is possibility to encounter
over-pressurized zone since the PVT
analysis is performed in a single
well only and is assumed to be
representative of the fuids in all
of the M reservoir units.
In this project, every sand unit is
assumed to contribute
the
same
recovery
factor.
Estimation
of
reservoir
might
be
affected
therefore increasing the risk in
Production forecast and profile
generated by oil field development
tool will likely be uncertain.
Water injectivity index
Causes
uncertainty
in
the
estimation of number of injection
well and injection program.
Geological model and reservoir

extension.
Results in uncertainties of well

placement and perforated layers.
196
7.7.2 SUMMARY
From the depletion strategy which is water injection depletion drive, 10 production wells are
planned to produce 30 percent of the STOIIP which is 328.0517 MMstb with the production
is planned to be on-going for 30 years. Each well is expected to produce 32.3692MMstb after
30 years, with the minimum economical flow rate per well is 1.7 Mstb/D.
In conclusion, water injection depletion drive can be seen as the best option for this field
development plan, since it gives the best recovery factor as well as the fact that the reservoir
is naturally below the bubble point pressure. However, advance considerations should be
made in term of the economic, operation strategy and maintenance operations. For this time
being, our team will stick on water injection as the depletion drive.
As for the tertiary recovery plan, the team proposed miscible CO2 method. However, after
years of production, reservoir condition might alter. Detailed reservoir evaluation and
consider the economic feasibility of the EOR method need to be revising from time to time.
Constant surveillance and detailed planning on reservoir condition is essential in optimizing
reservoir management.
197
CHAPTER 8
DRILLING ENGINEERING
8.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Gulfaks Field are in the development phase. In this section the drilling development plan is to
drill a total of 10 producer wells including 5 existing wells and 4 injector wells are going to
be conducted. The drilling philosophy is safety, cost effectiveness and design simplicity. One
of the objectives for the drilling engineering is to create a possible design of wells from
targets that has been given from the reservoir engineer in economical way. The can be done
by first aim is to know the location of the targets, obtain information of any offset data wells
that may interfere with the targets and once the proper location has been selected, the
trajectories of the well can be made. Below are the informations of the Gulfaks Field:
Depth (m/ft) : 130 - 230 m (427 755 ft)
Location of Target :
Table 2.1: Targets Coordinate
Name of Wells
x-coordinate (m)
y-coordinate (m)
Producer 1
456269
6783358
Producer 2
456687
6784599
Producer 3
456424
6784894
Producer 4
457349
6784589
Producer 5
456821
6786441
Producer 6
456755
6783822
456087
6784044
New Well Injector 1
198
New Well Injector 2
456067
6785256
New Well Injector 3
456262
6782801
New Well Injector 4
456568
6783155
Geological Cross Section

Gulfaks Field is located on the western flank of the Viking Graben, where it occupies
the eastern half of a 10 25km wide. The Gulfaks fault block is one of a series of
large fault blocks that are easily identified on regional seismic lines across the North
Sea.
Well Placement
Producer 5
67870
00
67865
00
Injector
2
3
67860
00
Producer
Producer 2
Producer 4
Producer
67855
00
67850
00
Injector
6784500 Injector
6784000
6783500
6783000
Producer
6
Producer 1
Injector
Injector
4
3
6782500
456000 456200 456400 456600 456800 457000 457200
457400 457600
Figure 8.1: Location of Well Placement
8.2 BASIS OF DESIGN
Platform
The basis of development for Gulfaks Field is based on the offshore operation design. Based
on the figure above, the wells are all scattered around. Considering the economic perspective,
199
it is not cost effective to place a platform at every well. Therefore, the platform will be placed
in between of those wells and the wellheads will be set up on the platform itself. Production
riser will be used as connection from platform to seabed.
The drilling schedule for this project is presented as in Table 2.2. The total for drilling
process for a single producer well is expected to be finished within 27 days. However, nonproductive time (NPT) should also be considered in case of facing a bad weather situation.
Table 8.2: Drilling Schedule
Casing Type
Activity
Days
Cumulative
Duration (days)
Drill 26 hole
Set 20 conductor casing
Cement 20 conductor
Cement hardened
Drill 171/2 open hole
Set 13 3/8 conductor
10
11
Cement hardened
12
Drill 12 1/4 open hole
15
Set 9 5/8 conductor
18
19
Cement hardened
20
Liner
(4750 6256
Drill 8 1/2 open hole for
23
ft)
Run the liner on drill pipe
25
26
Conductor
Casing
(0 400 ft)
casing
Surface
Casing
(0 3550)
casing
Cement 13 3/8 conductor
casing
Intermediate
Casing
( 0 4750 ft)
casing
Cement 9 5/8 conductor
casing
1596 ft interval
& set the liner hanger
Pump down & displace
200
the cement
Cement hardened
27
Non productive time
31
(NPT)
8.3 OFFSET WELL ANALYSIS

In this section presents the litho logical interpretations from well C-47. The interpretation
is performed using the graphics of WOB, RPM, ROP and K. WOB, RPM and ROP
support information that K transmits. The litho logical interpretation is based on the relative
changes in the drill ability.
Figure 8.2: Key of colours
201
Figure 8.3: interpretation of the first part consists of sandstones to clay stones with sand stringers.
In Figure 8.3, presents the big grain-size in comparison with other ones. Increasing in the
RPM line is coincided with higher grain-size.
202
The shales show regular line in ROP and K. When limestones occur, the RPM line will
decrease.
Figure 8.4: interpretation of shales alternating with limestone and marls.
203
Figure 8.5: Interpretation of Mudstones, clay stones and shale with Limestone stringers.
204
Figure 8.6: Interpretation of Sandstones to Shale with layers of carbonates.
This part of the section contains many data gaps which makes it difficult to interpret.
205
Figure 8.7: Interpretation of clay stones and shale, with Mudstones and Limestone stringers.
Most of the section is shale and clay stones which appear as a uniform layer using ROP for
interpretation but the material changes are shown in K line. Two possible overpressure zones
are identified.
206
Figure 8.8: Interpretation of sandstones to shale with limestone stringers.
The curve which shows K is overall cleaner than the curve of the ROP. Lithologies with
higher K values are more abrupt strokes while those with lower values are more
homogeneous strokes. The behaviour of WOB and RPM in different lithologies varies with
K. Materials with higher K have a lower WOB and higher RPM. Lithoglogies with lower K
have the opposite behaviour. Hence, there is a reduction in the WOB when reducing the size
of the drill. In areas with possible overpressure thereis a reduction of WOB, this is incoherent
with variation in ROP and RPM.

Increase in pore pressure increases the value of K, but the traversed material is the same. The
value of K in these areas is overestimated and corresponds to materials with lower hardness
of the real.
207
8.4 RIG SELECTION

The rig and platform selection of the Gulfaks Field is based on few considerations. The
primary goal of rig selection is to choose from the available rigs the one that will nearly meet
the condition for drilling a useable hole at the most minimal overall expense of the proposed
well.
The drilling rigs are selected based on conditions below:
i.
Water depth of the location (offshore), depth of target zone and expected formation
pressure
ii.
Cost and availability
iii.
Weather conditions in the area of operation
iv.
Costing rig capacity and stability
v.
Seabed soil condition
vi.
Mobility or transportability (onshore)
Table below are some specifications of the types of rig in use in the industry with their
respective water depth and the cost of rental of the rig.
Table 8.3: Depth and daily rates for offshore drilling rigs
Rig
Water Depth (ft)
Cost (Average
day rate, $)
Jacket Rig
40 400 ft
$43,935
Jack Up Rig
500 625 ft
$40,000
Tender Assisted Rig
Anchor length
$159,000
Semi-Submersible
150 -8000 ft
$281,000
Drill Ship / Submersible Rig
1000 13000 ft
$450,000
208
Water depth in Gulfaks Field is approximately between 130 230 m which is from the mean
sea level to the seabed and consists of sandstone formations and faults. From the water depth,
jacket rig and jack up rig are not necessary to be selected due to the limited water depth.
Semi-Submersible Rig has been selected as the most suitable rig for this field. This type of
rig is capable of carrying out the Gulfaks drilling although it has quite high cost rig.
A semi-submersible drilling rig is a floating drilling rig that is capable of working depths
ranging from shallow through to ultra-deepwater. Semi-submersible use a number of
pontoons that are submerged beneath the water line to float and remain stable in a single
location. The deck is positioned above the water line and sits on top of a number of columns
that connect the hull to the submerged pontoons. Semi-submersibles offer an increased level
of stability whilst drilling in comparison to drill ships and are thus preferred for drilling in
harsh environment regions.
209
8.5 WELL TRAJECTORY AND TARGET TOLERANCE

It should be noted that the well path, final well azimuth and inclination are still subjected to
changes when actual development drilling takes place. These targets maybe revised according
to actual well results and revised geological and reservoir modelling. All wells drilled were
vertical wells with predefined targets as followed:
1. Platform is centred at coordinates:
o North : 6784000 m
o Easting : 456500 m
The predefined targets are :

Table 8.4: Offset Well profile
Type of Well
Producer 1
Producer 2
Producer 3
Producer 4
Producer 5
Producer 6
Injector 1
Injector 2
Injector 3
Injector 4
platform
x-coordinates
(m) 456269
456687
456424
457349
456821
456755
456087
456067
456262
456568
456500
y-coordinates (m)
6783358
6784599
6784894
6784589
6786441
6783822
6784044
6785256
6782801
6783155
6784000
Depth (m)
2010
Based on the table above, there are 6 producer wells to be drilled and 4 injector wells. From
the proposed targets, the spider plot and trajectory for all the wells can be seen in figure 8.9
and 8.10.
210
Producer 5
Well
Placement
6786500
6787000
Injector 2Producer 3
6786000
Producer 2
Producer 4
6785500
Injector 1
Produc
6785000
Producer 1
6784500
6784000
Producer 6
er
Injector
Injector 4
Injector 3
6783500
6783000
6782500
456000 456200 456400 456600 456800 457000 457200
457400 457600
Figure 8.9: Top view of well placement.
Platform
Figure 8.10: Well Trajectory and Well Location with Grid for 2D side view
211
Figure 8.11: Well Trajectory and Well Location for 2D side view
212
8.6 CASING DESIGN

Casings are pipes that are run in a wellbore after drilling a hole. They have various sizes to
suit different hole sizes for each section of drilling operations. Usually, casing will be
cemented in a wellbore. The casing design process involves few distinct operations; the
selection of the casing sizes and setting depths and the calculation of the magnitude of loads
and selection of an appropriate weight and grade of casing.
a) The selection of the casing sizes and setting depths
The data used for plotting pore pressure were obtained from previous studies. Several factors
have an influence on the pressure trend which are; thickness, fracturing of different
formations, location of faults and also the depth of the reservoir. The pore pressure follows a
normal seawater gradient from the sea level down to a transition zone at approximately 1400
m TVD.
The following criteria are used to determine casing setting depths:
The mudweight should be kept 0.05g/3 above the pore pressure gradient in the
transition zone
The mudweight should be kept 0.05g/3 below the lowest measure formation
integrity in the interval
The overbalance should be 10 bar when drilling into the reservoir. Mud densities used
include acceptable trip margin
213
8
18 0
10
Mud Weight (ppg)

12
14
16
500
1000
1500
2000
Pore pressure
Overburden
Fracture
PP + SF
Figure 8.12: Pressure Profile for Gulfaks Field
214
Frac - SF
b) The calculation of the magnitude of loads and selection of an appropriate weight and
grade of casing
Having defined the size and setting depth for the casing strings, and defined the operational
scenarios to be considered, the loads to which the casing will be exposed can be computed.
The particular weight and grade of casing required to withstand these loads can then be
determined.
Figure 8.13: Casing setting depth
a) Conductor Casing (20 OD)

The conductor is the first casing string to be run and consequently has the largest diameter.
Its function is to seal off unconsolidated formations at shallow depths which with continuous
mud circulation, would be washed away. The surface formations may also have low fracture
215
strengths which could easily be exceeded by the hydrostatic pressure exerted by the drilling
fluid when drilling a deeper section of the hole. In areas where the surface formations are
stronger and less likely to be eroded the conductor pipe may not be necessary. For this
project, all conductors casing for development wells are using 20 OD.
b) Surface Casing (13 3/8 OD)

The surface casing 13 3/8 is run after the conductor. The main functions of surface casing
are to seal off any fresh water sands and support the wellhead and BOP equipment. The
setting depth of this casing is at 1400 m.
c) Intermediate Casing (9 5/8 OD)

Intermediate casing strings are used to isolate troublesome formations between the surface
casing setting depth and the production casing setting depth. The intermediate casing will be
drilled until the depth 1600 m.
d) Production Casing (7 OD)

The production casing is either run through the pay zone, or set just above the pay zone. The
main purpose of this casing is to isolate the production interval from other formations and/or
act as a conduit for the production tubing. Since it forms the conduit for the well completion,
it should be thoroughly pressure tested before running the completion. The production casing
will be drilled until the depth 2010 m.
There are three important steps in order to determine the casing design. Firstly, the depths
and casing sizes need to be determine which are depending on the hole section condition.
Next step is considering the operational scenarios which lead to burst, collapse and axial
loads being applied to the casing. Lastly, after the calculation of burst and collapse,
appropriate weight and grade of casing were selected. Below is the summary of the casing
selection.
216
Table 8.5: Casing Grade Selection

Casing type Grade /
Nominal Section Interval Casing Collapse
Connection
Resistance
Weight (m)
Resistance
Burst
size
H-40 /
STC
K-55 / LTC
94
0-400
(in)
20
(psi)
520
(psi)
1530
61
0 - 800
13 3/8
1540
3090
Intermedia J-55 / BTC

te
Productio L-80 /
n
LTC
36
0-1600
9 5/8
2020
3520
23
0 - 2010
3830
6340
Conducto
r
Surface
Connections
A coupling is already installed on one end of each joint when the casing is delivered to the
rig. The connection must be leak proof but can have a higher or lower physical strength than
the main body of the casing joint. Three types of connections are being used for this project
which are; Short Thread Connection (STC), Long Thread Connection (LTC), and Buttress
thread connection (BTC). The conductor and liner casing are using the STC because STC is a
good choice for shorter length casing applications. Moreover, the axial loads or bending is
also low. Meanwhile, the surface casing ith 13 3/8 is using the LTC because there might be
some axial loads encountered since the interval of Surface Casing is from 0 to 1440 m.
Lastly, the BTC is use for intermediate casing since the axial loads is high and the internal
pressures are moderate.
Design factors
The uncertainty associated with the conditions used in the calculation is accommodated by
increasing the burst collapse by a design factor. These factors are applied to increase the
actual loading figures to obtain the design loadings. Design factors are determined largely
through experience and are influenced by the consequences of a casing failure. The degree of
uncertainty must also be considered.
Design factor that are being used for this project are typical safety factor for North Sea.
217
Table 8.6: Safety Factor of North Sea
Design Factor
North Sea Safety Factor
Collapse (psi)
1.35
Burst (psi)
1.1
Tension (lbs)
1.3
8.7 BIT SELECTION

The continuous improvement and innovation in drill bit design provides the flexibilility in
choosing the most suitable bit according to the nature of the drilling process and to obtain the
optimum drilling operation, which can be determined by the cost per foot. In selecting a drill
bit to be used in a certain drilling operation, the parameter that needs to be looked at is the
characteristics of the formation. Formation hardness, compressive strength, abrasiveness and
stickiness of the rocks are the main parameters that determine which type of drill bit is most
suitable.Other characteristics to be considered in choosing the bit is the length of the hole
sections, drilling fluid, directional drilling needs and the geological characteristics of the
field.
Table 8.7: Bit record for Gulfaks Field Well 34/10-C-47
Run No.
Bit Size
Depth In
Depth Out
(in.)
(m)
(m)
Depth
Time
Drilled
Drilled
(m)
(h)
ROP
(m/h)
24
436
624
188
7.0
26.9
24
624
1,124
500
26.9
18.6
24
1,124
1,508
384
49.4
7.8
17
1,508
1,511
3.5
0.9
17
1,511
1,514
0.6
5.0
17
1,514
2,070
556
38.2
14.6
218
17
2,070
2,116
46
1.8
25.6
17
2,116
2,379
263
22.7
11.6
17
2,379
2,407
28
3.1
4.6
10
17
2407
2787
380
30.0
12.7
11
2787
4399
1612
100.3
16.1
Based on literature reviews regarding this field, Gulfaks hard formation can be seen at the
interval of 1,124m until 1,514m (3,688ft to 4,967ft), this is determined by the low rate of
penetration (ROP) shown from the available field data. Thus, the proposed drill bit to be used
are based on the formation hardness information at hand. For soft formation, Mill Tooth Bit
is selected as it is proven to provide the highest ROP in soft formations. The bit is designed to
have the teeth that is long, slender and widely spaced. These teeth will produce freshly
broken cuttings from soft formations. Meanwhile the Polycrystalline Diamond Compact
(PDC) bit is selected to drill the hard formations as it have continuously proven to produce
optimum ROP for drilling medium to hard formations. The bit size will be prepared
according to the planned drilling hole size.
Table 8.8: Bit size selection for all producer wells

Bit Size
Type of Drill Bit
(inch)
Length
(ft)
24
Mill Tooth Bit
0 400
17 1/2
Mill Tooth Bit
400 3,650
12 1/4
Mill Tooth Bit
3,650 3,680
PDC Bit
3,680 4,800
PDC Bit
4,800 4,970
Mill Tooth Bit
4,970 6,250
8 1/2
219
8.8 DRILLING FLUID AND SYSTEM

Drilling fluid is a mixture of chemicals and water that are used while drilling oil and natural
gas wells. This drilling fluid is pumped down the drill pipe to lubricate and cooling down the
drill bit. This function is due to the heat consideration that generated by friction in the bit and
where the drill string is in contact with the formation or casing. A good lubricator and coolant
able to decrease torque increase the bit life and also reduce pump pressure. It also acts as a
medium that to raise the cuttings to the surface. The mud will suspend the cuttings and will
bring it to the surface. Hence it has to have certain viscosity in order for it to carry the
cuttings. Weight of mud will provide buoyancy force and reduce the total weight of the drill
string.
a) Drilling Mud Selection
The wells drilled in the exploration phase were basically drilled with lignosulfonate mud
systems. The Gulfaks formation have a high content of highly reactive clays, and these clays
will cause excessive hole problems if exposed to water more that the minimum amount of
the time needed to drill and set casing. A KCl-polymer and KCL-silicate muds was
selected. However, maintenance cost in this type of mud system is high. Premature bit
and slower drilling rates were observed as compared to the lignosulfoante mud system.
This effect was attributed to the non-wetting effect of the KCl mud. The use of a lowtoxic oil based mud system was selected as the solution for Gulfaks development drilling for
several reasons:
Elimination of hole problems due to clay reactivity
Better usage of PDC bits and mud motors
Less hole friction in wells and less chance of pipe sti
b) Solid Controls
Solid controls may be defined as the control of the quantity and quality of suspended solids in
the drilling fluid so as to reduce the total well cost. Solid control is the most expensive part of
the mud system since is its operating continuously to remove unwanted solids. It is generally
220
cheaper to use mechanical devices to reduce the solids content rather than treat the mud with
chemicals once the solids have become incorporated in the drilling fluid.
Below are the mud operating windows from well A10. Since this is the only data available, it
is important as a reference to a newly drilled well in the future. Pressure profiles enable the
drillers to estimate overpressures and under pressures formation which in return as a
preventive actions toward any drilling hazards such as loss circulation.
Figure 8.13: Mud Weight Selection for each casing
As shown in figure above, there are only four possible mud weight can be used in this project
since it is between the kick margin and trip margin. The possible mud weight that can be used
is in interval of 9 ppg to 15.5 ppg. The mud weight must then be higher than the pore
pressure value so that formation fluid will not enter the well and lower than the fracture
pressure so that the rocks will not fracture causing mud loss. Safety factor of 0.5 has been
applied to both the pore pressure and fracture pressure. Trip margin is higher than the pore
pressure to ensure that there is a safety margin to avoid fluid entering the well. In the
meantime, safety factor of 0.5 been applied to fracture pressure is to ensure that the mud
weight is low enough to avoid fracturing the rocks.
221
8.9 CEMENTING
Cement is used for sealing between the casing and borehole, bonding the casing to the
formation and providing barrier to the flow of fluids from/into the formations behind the
casing and from/into subsequent hole section. The following calculations must be taken prior
to cementing operation:
Slurry requirements
No of sacks of cement
Volume of additives
Volume of mix water
Displacement volume and duration of operation
Class G cement powder is selected with slurry composition for the cementing operations.
Class G cement powders are compatible with most additives; it can be used over a wide range
of temperature and pressure. The additives are used to modify the properties of the slurry and
optimize the cement job in terms of varying the slurry density, compressive strength,
accelerate or retard the setting time, reduce slurry viscosity. However, based on the literature
review when they used the class G cement in some intervals they face a problems with the
gas shoes so the micro-silica has been suggested to eliminate these problems.
Table 8.9: Cementing Program

Depth Interval
Volume (ft)
0
400
0
3550
3166
4750
4170
-625
6
Hole
Casing
Size
Size
(inch
)
(inch)
26
20
3550
17
133/8
1583
12
9 5/8
2085
8 1/2
400
Cement
Type
excess
Casing
Area
Volume
(ft)
(bbls)
15%
Class G
Conductor
micro-silica
Class G
Surface
micro-silica
Class G
Intermedia
micro-silica
te
1.50
107.25
123.33
0.69
389.74
448.18
0.31
66.94
76.98
Class G
micro-silica
0.13
34.02
39.12
597.95
687.61
Total
Productio
n
222
Total volume of cement slurry required: 687.61 bbls
8.10 TIME AND COST ESTIMATE

The drilling time and cost estimation for 3 producer wells and 3 existing wells are shown as
in table below.
Table 8.10: Time cost estimation for all wells
Days
Total Cost
Operation
Genera
l
Produ
c er 1
Produ
c er 2
Produ
c er 3
Existin
g1
Rig Mobilization
Position & rig
up rig Deploy
rig's anchor
Producer 1
well
operation
Retrieve rig's
anchor Move rig
Position & rig
up rig Deploy
rig's anchor
Producer 2
well
operation
Retrieve rig's
anchor Move rig
Position & rig
up rig Deploy
rig's anchor
Producer 3
well
operation
Retrieve rig's
anchor Move rig
Position & rig
up rig Deploy
rig's anchor
Existing 1
well
operation
Retrieve rig's
Cumul
ati ve
Day
US
D
(mi
1.405
Cumul
ati ve
Usd
(mil)
1.405
1.124
0.562
2.529
3.091
48
49
10.397
0.281
13.488
13.769
--
52
54
56
0.843
0.562
0.562
14.612
15.174
15.736
2
7
-
1
0
-
93
95
10.397
0.562
26.133
26.695
1
2
--
--
97
98
100
0.562
0.281
0.562
27.257
27.538
28.1
2
7
-
1
0
-
137
139
10.397
0.562
38.497
39.059
1
2
--
--
141
142
144
0.562
0.281
0.562
39.621
39.902
40.464
148
150
152
1.124
0.562
0.562
41.588
42.15
42.712
Oth
er s
5
4
2
Drilli
ng
-
Comple
tio n
-
2
7
-
1
0
-
2
2
--
2
223
5
9
11
location
Existin
g2
Existin
g3
Genera
l
Position & rig

up rig Deploy
rig's anchor
Existing 2
well
operation
Retrieve rig's
anchor Move rig
Position & rig
up rig Deploy
rig's anchor
Existing 3
well
operation
Retrieve rig's
anchor Move rig
Rig DeMobilization
1
2
153
155
0.281
0.562
42.993
43.555
4
-
159
161
1.124
0.562
44.679
45.241
1
2
163
164
166
0.562
0.281
0.562
45.803
46.084
46.646
4
-
170
172
1.124
0.562
47.77
48.332
174
179
0.562
1.405
Tota
l
Cost
48.894
50.299
5029900
0
Overall cost estimation for development wells is USD 50,299,000 for estimated time to be
completed in 179 days.
Table 8.11: Time breakdown for a producer well
Well
General
Produc
er Well
Activity
3
1
1
1
Cumul
ati ve
Durati
on
(Days)
3
4
5
6
2
2
9
11
12
13
16
19
20
Durati
on
(Days)
Rig mobilization & Rig

up
Drill 26" hole until
400ft
Set
20' conductor
casing20" conductor
Cement
casing Waiting for
cement to
Drill 17 hardened
1/2" hole until
3550
ft
Set 13 3/8 surface
casing
Cement 13 3/8"
surface casing
Waiting for
cement to
Drill 12 hardened
1/4" hole until
4750 ft Set 9 5/8"
intermediate
casing
Cement
9 5/8"
intermediate casing
224
Total Cost
US
D
(mi
1.405
Cumulat
ive USD
8.306
9.711
1.405
General
Waiting for
cement to
hardened
Drill 8 1/2"
hole until
6256
ft production
Set 7"
casing 7" production
Cement
casingWaiting for
cement to
hardened
Cased hole
logs /
perforation
Completion
Sand Control
Move rig to the next
location
21
3
3
1
24
27
28
29
3
6
2
1
32
38
40
41
7.091
16.802
0.562
17.364
Table 8.12: Time breakdown for existing well
Well
Activity
General
Rig mobilization
Position & rig up rig.
Deploy rig's anchor
Cased hole logs /
perforation
Completion (if needed)
Sand control
Demobilization
Existin
g Well
General
Durati
on
(Days)
1
Cumul
ati ve
Durati
on
(Days)
1
US
D
(mi
0.281
Cumulat
ive USD
0.562
0.843
1
1
1
3
5
6
7
10
1.2
2.043
1.124
3.243
225
Total Cost
0.281
The time breakdown and cost estimation for producer well and existing well are display as in
table above. Estimated overall costs for both wells are USD 19,050,000 and USD 32, 43,000
respectively.
Drilling Schedule
0
5
30 0
(days)
10
15
20
Cumulative duration
25
20" Conductor
Casing at 1000 400ft
2000
300
0
400
0
13 3/8" Surface
Casing at 3550ft
9 5/8" Intermediate
Casing at 4750ft
500
0
6000
7000
7" Production Casing at

6256ft
Figure 8.14: The depth versus days for a single well using semi-submersible.
226
8.11 DRILLING OPTIMIZATION

In this development phase, a number of potential drilling optimization can be further applied
in order to reduce the time and cost of the drilling operation. For time to time, the oil and gas
industry has been adapting and upgrading tools in order to obtain the most precise
measurements. Four main variables that are being consider in drilling operators are, speed,
precision, consistency and reliability. All of these parameters are at lowest to increase
production margins.
a. Optimum Bit Hydraulics
Determination of proper condition is necessary so that we can get the best hydraulic cleaning
at the bit. This condition can be achieved through proper selection of bit nozzle sizes. Proper
bottom-hole cleaning will eliminate excessive regrinding of drilled solids and will result in
improved penetration rates. Through nozzle size selection, optimization may be based on
maximizing the following;
Bit hydraulic horsepower
Bit nozzle velocity
Jet impact force
b. Multilateral Completion
Further study can likewise be made to consider multilateral completion design as this
development just includes a total of 10 production wells. Use of multilateral wells may have
the capacity to decrease the quantity of wellhead and size of topside facilities under specific
conditions.
c. Cement Assessment Tool (CAT)
The mixture of cement and Swell Technology provides a long term isolation for the micro
annulus. The Cement Assurance Tool (CAT) is to be sent together with the essential
cementing job at the casing pipe. The profit of the CAT is that it can successfully seal
irregular borehole geometry with supplement to all concrete slurry design. For highly
deviated and horizontals wells, they regularly have more prominent introduction to the
227
reservoir than vertical well, thus achieving zone isolation is critical. An incomplete cement
sheath encompassing the concrete may happen if casing centralization is not as much as
optimum, penetrating cutting evacuation not finish, pockets of viscous mud remaining in
well.
8.12 NEW DRILLING TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATION
a. Underbalanced Drilling
Underbalanced drilling is not a new technique. It has been utilized for specific applications
associated with overbalanced drilling. A number of developments took place in the oil
industry that caused the present increased interest in underbalanced drilling. Underbalanced
drilling can be defined as the drilling process where the wellbore pressure is intentionally
designed to be lower than the pressure of the formation being drilled, thereby inducing a
continuous flow of formation fluids into the wellbore as drilling progresses.
In underbalanced drilling, the concept of primary well control (containing the formation
fluids by means of a hydrostatic column greater than the formation pressure) has been
replaced by the concept of flow control. Flow control is where the bottom hole pressure and
also the influx of formation fluids, is monitored and controlled. The objective of flow control
is to keep the wellbore pressure between two limits, which are formation pore pressure and
borehole collapsed limit. Secondary well control which is BOP stack is in place, the same as
in conventional overbalanced drilling.
Control and regulation of the wellbore pressure is obtained by leading the well returns
through and adjustable surface choke. A second mechanism of regulating wellbore pressure is
given by the injection of lift gas in some form into the drilling fluid system. In the past,
bottom hole pressure was not monitored directly but an indication of under balance was
roughly deducted from secondary indication like the size of flare or the well flow rate.
Therefore, from a safety point of view and to ensure the success of underbalanced operation,
the direct monitoring of the bottomhole pressure by means of a downhole pressure gauge is
considered essential. The liquid phase of the drilling fluid system will in general have
sufficient density to serve as a kill fluid in case an emergency occurs. If this liquid phase
doesnt have the appropriate density, a separate batch of kill fluid has to be available at the
site.
228
b. Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD)

Since the pore pressure for this field is assumed, using Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD)
could assist in determining the exact pore pressure. MPD for non-technical terms is cheating
Mother Nature. As most drillers learn, bottomhole pressure is normally maintained above
pore pressure by controlling the density of fluid. When density is too high, the formation
began to drink fluid and casing must be run to isolate the open hole before drilling can
continue. MPD is done using a closed system and an automated choke at the flowline. The
closed system is achieved by utilizing a rotating head that is able to seal the annulus clearance
while still allowing the ability to drill ahead. The automated choke at the flowline is able to
create an extra surface backpressure by closing certain proportion of the flowline.
MPD in other term can be said as well bore pressure management. This technology
developed to limit well kicks, lost circulation, and differential pressure sticking, in an effort
to reduce the number of additional casing strings required to reach total depth (TD).
For MPD, common objectives are to stretch or eliminate casing points to allow drilling
beyond conventional limits of depth or pressure variation. Thus Mother Nature is cheated out.
MPD is more complex than conventional drilling but should be considered as an option when
it is impractical to drill using conventional means. MPD is an emerging technology that will
likely improve in capability over time due to innovation and experience.
c. Casing While Drilling
Casing while drilling has been proven and used in industry for its capability for decreasing
penetrating time. With the utilization of this technology, the expenses of the project can be
reduced. Casing while drilling has numerous of benefits such as torque improvement, reduce
loss circulation problem due to Plastering Effects, improve borehole stability and reduce
stuck pipe problems. This method can be suggested for a formation that is already well
known with lost circulation issues and to save drilling time, thus reducing the cost. If
combined with overbalance technique, the CWD will significantly reduce the wellbore
damage and skin, thus enhancing well productivity. CWD also has shown to create more
stable wellbore and less openhole problems. Due to considerable low risk formation in
229
Gullfaks Field, it is suggested that further study be made to for application of casing while
drilling in this development.
d. Rotary Steerable System (RSS)
For the horizontal drilling section, the Rotary Steerable System is preferable compared to
conventional mud motors. The RSS improves the removal of the drill cuttings from the
wellbore and also eliminating the time for wellbore cleanout. A smoother well trajectory will
induce less drag on the drill string as well as the torque required from the surface.
2.13 POTENTIAL DRILLING HAZARD
Shallow Gas
Based on the offset well data, shallow gas has been identified at several drilling locations and
at differing depths in block 34/10. In the Gullfaks field one main shallow gas layer is located
at 310 m 315 m mean sea level. The gas varies in thickness from 2 meter to 5 meters and
permeability varies with sand sorting and cleanness. The presence of gas at this depth has
caused uncontrolled flow of gas in two wells.
High Pore Pressure
Mud weights to reduce the borehole instability effects are used throught the upper part of the
transition zone. Deeper down in hole, mud weight is kept in close balance in order to enable
pore pressure detection. Unexpected high formation pressures have been experienced in
drilling some of the wells. It is believe to be a result of continuing faults above the top of the
reservoir and into Crataceous and lower Tertiary.
Highly Reactive Clay
The Eocene-paleocene formations muds have a high content of highly reactive clays. These
clays cause excessive hole problems if exposed to water more than theminimum amount of
time needed to drill and set casing.
230
Differential Sticking
This phenomenon can occur, where there is case of high differential pressure between the
mud hydrostatic pressure and the formation pore pressure. Some indications of pipe
becoming differentially stuck may be:
The string becomes stuck in front of a porous formation
Pipe has not been moved for a period of time before getting stuck
Circulation is free with no pressure variation
A normal amount of cuttings is observed at the shaker
Mud Losses
They face this problem in the shallow formation so LCM is should be added to the mud.
231
CHAPTER 9
PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY PLAN
INTRODUCTION
The study of production technology in Gulfaks field comprised the aspect from bottomhole
up to the surface are included in this section. It cover the nodal analysis of each well in terms
of parameters sensitivity toward production of the well. Petroleum Experts PROSPER
software was used to assist in the analysis. After having the best selection of the best
expected deliverability, the completion design will be suggested in order to achieve the
production objectives.
The main objectives of the production technology design are:
i.
Analyze the production rate that each well can achieve and also several
possibilities on the parameters that affect the well deliverability.
ii.
Provide a safe and effective design of a well completion for all producers.
iii.
Study the potential problem that can occur to the well production and suggest
the solution of it in order to maximize the capability of the well production.
iv.
Allow future intervention and recompletion for any production enhancement

activities.
9.0
DESIGN PHILOSOPHY
Based on reservoir simulation results, a total of fourteen (14) development wells are proposed
for Gulfaks field. The design for all ten single string oil producer are based on vertical well
completion. The production strategy is to produce the oil through vertical cased hole with
WWS and gravel pack completion. The main factor that cased hole completion is proposed
because of Gulfaks field is expected to have high sand production; hence cased hole
completion is possible to control sand production.
232
9.1
NODAL ANALYSIS
Nodal Analysis also called Total System Analysis will be applied for Gulfaks field to analyze
the performance of systems composed of interacting components. The Gulfaks well
deliverability is determined by the combination of well inflow performance and wellbore
flow performance. Fluid properties change with the location-dependent pressure and
temperature in the oil and gas production system. To simulate the fluid flow in the system, it
is necessary to break the system into discrete nodes that separate system elements (equipment
sections). Fluid properties at the elements are evaluated locally. Nodal analysis is performed
on the principle of pressure continuity, that is, there is only one unique pressure value at a
given node regardless of whether the pressure is evaluated from the performance of upstream
equipment or downstream equipment.
The performance curve (pressurerate relation) of upstream equipment is called inflow
performance curve and the performance curve of downstream equipment is called outflow
performance curve. The intersection of the two performance curves defines the operating
point, which is operating flow rate and pressure, at the specified node. All of the components
upstream of the node comprise the inflow section, while the outflow section consists of all of
the components downstream of the node.
9.1.1 Inflow Performance Prediction
The models for well development will be generated by Petroleum Expert PROSPER software
utilizing data from the available exploration and appraisal wells. The data need will be
coming from the test point data of the well test report. The main flow data will consist of the
following;
1. Reservoir Pressure
2. Well test production rate
3. Wellhead pressure
4. Reservoir layer pressure for the interested zone.
5. Bottomhole temperature
6. Mid perforation depth
7. Effective permeability
8. Skin factor
233
From the data available, IPR model is constructed using Vogel for two phase flow
correlation. From the model, we will be able to generate the productivity index (PI) and
absolute open flow (AOF) for the well. The Standing correlation will be used for the gas
solution, bubble point pressure and formation volume factor, while Beggs and Brill is
expected to be used to represent the vertical flow correlation for the model.
Figure 9.3: Inflow Performance Relation Plot based on Vogel
The Vogels equation is was used to determine the inflow performance for this case.
By using this relation, we may find out the AOF or the Qo Max. The maximum flow rate for
Gulfaks field is 5260.9 STB/Day.
The Productivity Index, J or PI which is the relationship between well inflow rate and
pressure drawdown, for Gulfaks field is 3.79STB/day/psi.
234
9.1.2 Outflow Performance Prediction
This section discusses the nodal analysis modeling process prior simulating the new
development wells tubing performance and well deliverability. In this section, sensitivity runs
on the models are tubing sizes and water cut increase, decreasing reservoir pressure and
Flowing Tubing Head Pressure. The outflow performance prediction sensitivities are tubing
sizes of 2.75 in, 2.99 in and 3.5 in with water cut of 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50. The
plots of sensitivities are listed below.
Table 9.1: Tubing performance with increasing water cut @ Pr = 2516psi

WC (%)
10
20
30
40
50
60
Tubing
Oil rate
Oil rate
Oil rate
Oil rate
Oil rate
Oil rate
Oil rate
diameter
(Stb/d)
(Stb/d)
(Stb/d)
(Stb/d)
(Stb/d)
(Stb/d)
(Stb/d)
2.75
2952.4
1210.0
934.3
782.4
656.9
544.2
434.1
2.99
3294.2
1252.4
955.9
795.6
672.8
559.7
448.5
3.5
3849.5
1288.0
988.2
815.3
689.1
574.3
463.9
(in)
Figure 9.4: Tubing performance with increasing water cut @ Pr = 2516psi
235
Table 9.2: Tubing performance with reservoir pressure @WC=0%
Reservoir pressure
2516
2100
1800
1200
Oil rate
Oil rate
Oil rate
Oil rate
(Stb/d)
(Stb/d)
(Stb/d)
(Stb/d)
2.75
2952.4
2403.9
1996.8
1115.1
2.99
3294.2
2680.9
2225.2
1242.4
3.5
3849.5
3126.4
2591.3
1467.3
(psia)
Tubing diameter (in)
Figure 3.5: Tubing performance at different wellhead pressure @WC=0%
Figure9.3: Tubing performance with different reservoir pressure @WC=0%
Table 9.3: Tubing performance at different wellhead pressure @WC=0%
WHP (psia)
100
200
300
400
500
Tubing
Oil rate
Oil rate
Oil rate
Oil rate
Oil rate
diameter (in)
(Stb/d)
(Stb/d)
(Stb/d)
(Stb/d)
(Stb/d)
2.75
2970.6
2871.8
2729.6
2560.9
2368.5
2.99
3316.1
3200.3
3040.2
2849.3
2632.3
236
3.5
3878.1
3734.4
3544.2
3320.2
3058.6
Figure 9.4: Tubing performance with different wellhead pressure @WC=0%
The
well production
is sensitive
to the increasing
of
water
cut
percentage. According to PROSPER MODEL simulation in table 9.1, the

production is no economically profitable at more than 60% of water cut.
The production of Gulfaks is not afected by wellhead pressure as the
result shows that all tubing sizes can still produce more than 2300 stb/d
until 500 psi of wellhead pressure. Based on table 9.2, the production
of Gulfaks is varying with the depletion of reservoir pressure. All tubing
size sensitivities to the reservoir pressure show that the well can
produce naturally according to the desired production rate which is 1100
stb/d until the pressure is dropped near to 1200 psi. Therefore, an
artificial lift is needed to optimize and support the production of the well
in the future.
9.1.3 Tubing Size
For the tubing sizing evaluation, three different tubing sizes 2.75, 2.99 and 3.5 were
investigated for their vertical flow performance in delivering the required production rates.
The oil producers in Gulfaks are recommended to be completed with 3.5 ID (4OD) tubing.
The 3.5 tubing size is evaluated to be competent in delivering the target production rate of
237
1000-2000 stb/day per well. In addition, 3.5 tubing can reduce the frictional pressure drop
during gas lift injection and also provide more flexibility in future workover operations as
compared with 2.75 tubing and 2.99 tubing.
9.3
SAND CONTROL
From the well test result, Gulfaks field shows that all productive zones have the possibility of
sand production at high flow velocities and also due to the driving force applied by the
injected water during water injection. During water breakthrough, the produced water
production can increase sand transport to surface and result in more sand production. Hence,
since water breakthrough is expected to occur during the oil production in Gulfaks Field,
sand control is required for this field.
9.3.1 Sand Control Method Selection
There are two types of sand control technique; passive sand control and active sand control.
i.
Passive Sand Control.
A passive sand control implies that the sand production is allow at certain level and were
actively monitored by selective testing and choke management. Sand is produced in a
controlled manner and managed at the surface. By choosing to allow sand production, a
costly sand control completion during infill drilling operations can be avoided. However,
production of sand creates disposal issues and several integrity challenges (Andrew J., 2005):
Sand is erosive and may affect the functionality of valves and regularity equipment.
Uncontrolled erosion can lead to loss of integrity and hazardous situations.
Sand fill in separators or storage tanks /transportation vessel may cause process
problems and ultimately lead to costly shut downs and removal operations.
Hence, the implementation of active sand control is most recommended for Gulfaks Field.
This is also due to the requirement to maintain high drawdown in order to get the estimated
recoverable reserve. Furthermore, insufficient data on the critical drawdown for sand
production complicates the passive sand control.
238
ii.
Active Sand Control.
There are a number of different screens are commercially available for active sand control.
All form of screen can be run either a cased hole or openhole well with or without gravel
packing (standalone), although each will have its optimum environment. Besides screens,
slotted liners are also be used for sand control, although it is difficult to make slots small
enough to stop anything but the coarsest of formation. Table below shows the comparison
between different options of active sand control available:
Table 9.4: Sand control method available
Sand Control
Method
Slotted Liner
Wire Wrapped Screen

(WWS)
Pre-Packed Screen
239
Description
Consists of steel
pipe (tubing or
casing) where a
series of parallel
slots have been cut
through the metal.
Comprise a base pipe

with holes, longitudinal
rods and a single
wedge-shaped wire
wrapped and spotwelded to the rods.
Similar to WWS, but

with two screens.
Concept
Wellbore
reinforcement;
sand bridges
Formation sand
exclusion or gravel
retention
Gravel provide sand

exclusion
Material
Mild steel
Stainless steel on mild

steel base pipe
Stainless steel on mild

steel base pipe
Sand Exclusion
Poor0.012 slot
width minimum
Better than slotted liner

0.006 to 0.04 slot
width
Excellent : as with
gravel pack
Works with
gravel pack
Yes
Yes
Yes
Flow restriction
High
Low
High
Mechanical
resistance
Good
Poor to collapse or
tension if base pipe
omitted
Fair
Plugging
tendency
Low
Moderate
High
Application
Borehole
reinforcement
coarse grained
formation
Higher productivity
well medium grained
formation. Allow fines
production.
Retains sand grains of

all sizes.
Pros
Cheap: ~$20/ft
Robust
Cheap: ~$50/ft
Can be less prone to

erosion
Can be used for finer
sands
Cons
Open flow area 36% only

Prone to erosion
Need quality
control on slots
(no burr, debris)
Open flow area 6 to

12% only
Prone to erosion and
damage although more
robust screen are now
available.
Open flow area 3 to 4%

only.
Prone to plugging.
More expensive:
~$100/ft
Reduced well diameter.
Based on the criteria given, wire wrapped screen is the best option as it gives high
productivity with low cost of installation.
Since standalone screens are well-known for its failure, despite its relative low cost of
installation, gravel pack is considered in this development plan. A summary of the main sand
methods which are cased-hole gravel pack, open hole stand-alone screen and open hole
gravel pack are assessed against the four criteria is shown in table 3.5 (Bellarby, 2012). The
assessment are graded by colour coding; green=good, yellow=moderate, red=poor.
240
Table 9.5: Sand control method comparison
Reliability
Standalone Screen
Historically poor,
especially in
heterogenous
intervals.
Open Hole Gravel Pack
Good if a complete
pack is ensured.
Cased Hole Gravel Pack
Good - Similar to open hole

gravel pack.
Cost
Productivity
Excellent; skin factor

Positive skin factor expected;
close to zero
increasing as formation
achievable except
permeability increases.
where fines invasion
causetoplugging.
Based on the assessment, our team decided
select standalone wire wrapped screen.
Zonal Isolation
Excellent, except
where rock failure
leads to screen
plugging by fines.
Low; suitable for use

with very long
horizontal wells or
multilaterals.
Previously relied on
external casing
packers, but now
improved by use of
swellable elastomer
packers.
Higher than standalone

screens due to extra
rig time and
equipment pumps and
241
fuid.
Minimal
opportunities.
High cost; running and

cementing liner,
perforating and clean ups
along with pumping
operations.
Excellent opportunities to
be selective up-front.
Stacking gravel pack offers
large scale zonal isolation
post completion.
9.3.2 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CALCULATION
Tiffins criteria (SPE 39437) is the method to evaluate the median grain size. Besides the
median grain size, the uniformity coefficient and the percentage of fines are also taken into
account. Below is the criteria by using this method:
Table 9.7: Tiffin's criteria
Fines
Sorting coefficient
Uniformity Coefficient
Types
<2%
<10
<3
Wire-Wrapped
2%<X<5%
<10
3<X<5
Mesh Screen
>5%
>10
>5
Gravel pack
Firstly, we need to determine the sand properties that exist in Gulfaks field. According to
Statoil, below are the size distribution in Gulfaks field:
Table 9.8: Grain Size of Gulfaks Field
242
Next, plotting the grain size distribution, by using the cumulative weight versus the upper
interval of grains size in semi log graph.
Figure 9.6: Graph of Grain Size
Once plotted, the sorting coefficient and uniformity coefficient should be identified from the
graph. Sorting coefficient or Cs is ratio at cumulative weight in 40 and 90. Uniformity
coefficient or Cu is ratio at cumulative weight in 10 and 95.
Hence by using the table and graph above, we obtained:
Table 9.9: Cumulative number for 10, 40, 90 and 95
D10
16 m
D40
283
D90
366
D95
428
Then we proceed by finding the Cs and Cu

Table 9.10: Sorting coefficient, and uniformity coefficient
Cs
Cu
Fine percentages
95=
90=
= 0.39
428
= 0.77
366
<2%
243
Based on calculation above, hence the sand control technique that will be used for Gulfaks
field is Wire Wrapped Screen.
9.3
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
Artificial lift is the method of adding energy to the flow stream within the completion to
increase the flow rate (Bellarby, 2013). Artificial lift overcomes bottomhole pressure so that a
well can produce at some desired rate, either by injecting gas into the producing fluid column
to reduce its hydrostatic pressure, or using a downhole pump to provide additional lift
pressure downhole. This method is not only applied in mature, depleted field, but also used in
younger fields to increase production rates and improve project economics.
Selection of the most appropriate artificial lift method has to be made by evaluating several
factors such as well's production potential, Gas/Oil ratios, well bore deviation and size as well
as corrosion/erosion potential of produced fluids. Other factors include availability of power
source such as compressed gas, electricity, surface facility, service availability,
space limitation and personnel capabilities. Table 3.10 is the criteria for artificial lift
selection provided by Weatherford (2011):
Table 9.11: Artificial lift selection criteria
244
Gas lift valve can be used to a useful life of 10-20 years compared to the ESP which can last
for only 3-6 years before they are required to be changed and, The proposed tubing for
Gulfaks completion is 3.5 ID while the minimum tubing diameter required for ESP
installation would be approximately 4.5 OD which is equivalent to 4.0 ID. ESP is most
often used for high production wells ranging from 1000-64000 stb/day. However, the targeted
production for Gulfaks is approximately at the range of 1000-2000 stb/day.
Thus, it would not be economical for ESP and Jet pump operation in the field since there is a
higher capital and maintenance cost involved, where having a gas lift on site would be
sufficient to produce. Therefore, GLV is the best method to be installed as artificial lift in
Gulfaks field.
9.3.1 Gas Lift
By injecting light fluid (usually gas) into the well, gas lift reduces the density of the flowing
fluid and therefore decreases the required flowing bottomhole pressure. The most common
method of injecting gas into the flow stream is annular gas lift. Gas goes from the annulus
into the tubing through a gas lift valve which sits in a side pocket mandrel. In this field
development plan, side pocket mandrel with dummy valve will be installed initially in the
production string. When gas lift is required the dummy valve will be replaced with gas lift
valves using wireline.
In many fields, energy source is mostly readily provided in a high pressure well, however a
compressor can be utilized to operate a closed system in case of insufficient gas pressure. The
gas injected will be recirculated back through a compressor facility. Only minor amount of
makeup gas is needed to replenish gas lost in separation processing or as fuel for compressor
facilities.
245
9.3.2 Completion Designs for Gas Lift
Table 3.11 shows the completion design of gas lift for both single and dual string completion:
Table 9.12: Gas lifts completion design
Schematic 1 : Single Zone Gas Lift
Schematic 2 : Dual String Gas Lift
The single string Gas lift completion for This illustrates dual-string installations where Gas
intermittent lift applications utilizes a standing Lift Valves lift fluids from two zones using gas
valve near bottom of the tubing to prevent Gas from a common annulus. An installation can be
pressure surges against the reservoir during designed, with proper well information to produce
cyclic operations. Side Pocket Mandrels are
246and carry both zones to depletion. The conditions
designed to provide the facility of removing and affecting dual string design are casing size,
replacing Gas Lift Valves without removing the distance between zones, well bore deviation
tubing. These service operations are performed continuous or intermittent lift and operator's
either by using wireline, through - flow line preference.
(TFL) or coiled tubing methods depending on the
completion configuration.
9.4
WELL COMPLETION PLAN
In this development plan, a total of forty-one (14) wells are proposed for Gulfaks field which
consists of ten (10) producers and four (4) injectors. The completions of this well are often
divided into the reservoir completion (the connection between reservoir and the well) and the
upper completion (conduit from reservoir completion to surface facilities).
Major decisions in the reservoir completion are
Bottom hole completion technique
Sand control requirement and type of sand control
Single or multi-zone (commingled or selective)
Perforation technique
Major decisions in the upper completion are
Artificial lift and type
Tubing size
Single or dual completion
Tubing isolation (packer or equivalent)
247
9.4.1 Well Completion Matrix
The conceptual well completion matrix is as shown in table below:

Table 9.13: Well completion matrix
Well Name
GK-01
GK-02
GK-03
GK-04
GK-05
GK-06
GK-07
GK-08
GK-09
GK-10
GK-11
GK-12
GK-13
GK-14
Type
Single String
Description
Single flow from one zone, cased
hole with WWS and gravel pack.
Remark
Existing Wells,
Producers
Single String
Single flow from one zone, cased

hole with WWS and gravel pack.
New wells,
Producers
Single String
Perforated cased hole completion.
Injectors
In deciding the completion matrix, we assume that the characteristic of the hydrocarbon from
different layer will be different. Thus, the production will not be comingled and separated for
each producing zone.
248
9.4.2 Bottom Hole Completion.

Table 3.14: Types of bottom hole completion
Open Hole
Uncemented Liner
Completion
Advantage
No perforating
Introduces flexibility
or cementing
Allowing isolation of zones
expense for the
and selection of zones for
production
production or injection.
casingAssists
in preventing
sand
production.
No critical log
interpretation is
Liable to sand out
No selectivity for
Requires critical log
No selectivity
production or
interpretation to specify
forproduction or
stimulationCost
actual perforation
Since each layer will be produce separately, hence perforated completion
is the bestzone
option
stimulation Ability to
of slotted liner or
Cost of casing/liner and
for this field.
isolate islimited to the
pre-packed
cementationCost of rig
lower part of the hole.
screen.Difficult
time for longer completion
to isolate zones for
period.
production control.
Disadvantage
No perforating, no
production casing, no
cementing expense.
Minimum rig time.Full
diameter hole in the pay
zone.Improves
productivity. No critical
loginterpretation is
required.
Perforated
Completion
249
9.5
COMPLETION STRING COMPONENTS
The design of a completion string involves the selection of components that perform specific
functions.
Table 9.15: Completion strings components
Functional Requirement
Optimize Production
Casing Protection
Isolate various producing zones
Emergency Containment
Chemical Injection
Gas lift valve installation
Well kill
Tubing to annulus circulation
Routine downhole operation
Tubing string movements
Extend tubing life
Support
Barrier installation points
Pressure testing
Pumping operations
Isolation devices that prevent
communication between the tubing and
the annulus.
Components
Tubing ID
Tubing hanger
Permanent packer
Packer
Safety valve landing nipple
Hydraulic control line
Wireline retrievable safety valve
Side pocket mandrel (SPM)
Sliding side door
Xmas tree
Seal assembly
Flow coupling
Tubing hanger
Landing nipple
Tubing hanger
Landing nipple
Piping manifold c/w choke
Dummy valve
9.5.1 Wellhead and Christmas Tree
Wellheads are the connection point for the tubular and the surface flow lines as well as being
the surface pressure control point in almost any well operation. They are rated for working
pressures of 2000 psi to 15,000 psi (or greater). They must be selected to meet the pressure,
temperature, corrosion, and production compatibility requirements of the well. For this field,
subsea wellhead will be used and the oil will be lift to the platform by using wellhead header.
Christmas tree is full of chokes and isolation valves to control the fluid flow during the
production. It is crucial to design a Christmas tree that is suitable to our operating pressure
and condition. The Christmas tree also important during encounter the gas lifting activity, gas
injection job and kick from the well.
Types for Christmas tree available are:
250
1)
Composite Tree
Composite trees generally consist of the following: Studded adaptors,

Tree caps, Specific number of gate valves, chokes and studded trees or
crosses upon customer request. We can also provide actuated valves for
safety purposes. Chokes can be positive or adjustable depending on the
customer requirements. All these configurations can be provided with
different sizes ranging from 2-1/16 to 5-1/18 with also different
pressure ratings. Low pressure usage (up to 3000 psi).
2)
Figure 3.6: Composite tree
Single Block Tree
The advantages of going for a solid block tree are reduced overall height,
reduced potential leak paths and easier installation. Pressure of 10,000 psi
and above are recommended. The valves can be integrated into tree blocks
using API end connections and outlet connections as covered by API 6A.
Figure 3.7: Single block tree
3)
Dual Block Tree
Dual Block Christmas trees having manual operated valves and actuator
operated valves. The purposes of using Dual Bores is producing oil from
different levels inside the same well and using it for multi-lateral drillings.
The associated tubing hanger sealing systems are designed accordingly to
provide an overall integrated design installation. These valves are
designed to fail-safe in an emergency and to cut braided a slickline wire
up to 0.23 in diameter. A variety of proprietary actuators can be offered
for this duty.
Figure 3.8: Dual block tree
The best option is to use the single solid block tree that can handle up to 10,000 psi. The
design must complies with the standard specification of API 6A. The Single Solid Block Tree
can handle single or dual tubing strings.
251
9.6
COMPLETION STRING DESIGN
The completion string is designed for this well with following basic functional requirements:
1) To provide optimum flowing conditions;
2) To protect the casing from well fluids;
3) To contain reservoir pressure in an emergency;
4) To enable down hole chemical injection;
5) To enable the well to be put in a safe condition prior to removing the production
conduit (i.e. to be killed);
6) To enable routine downhole operations.
9.6.1 Single Oil Producer
Xmas
TreeTu
bing
Hanger
(single)
SCSSV
GLMSS
D
Figure 9.9: Oil Producer Completion
252
3.7
PERFORATION SELECTION
After confirmed the well completion and understand the geology principle behind our
formations, the perforation selection needs to be done. In this section, type of perforation and
type of gun system will be discussed. Different completion will have a different perforation
design. First of all, identified and understand about our reservoir properties. These include
what type of formation, the porosity and permeability of the formation is there any fractures
in the formation and what is our targeted rate of penetration then. Two issues to be
considered, the perforation interaction, as per discussed, and the permeability of the
formation. In general, vertical permeability is lower than horizontal permeability, and
because of that we are going to use a high shot density of guns, to improve the rate of
penetration. Perforation will lead to formation damage, and thus the occurrence of skin effect.
Formation damage may cause by other factor such as invasion of mud, which will lead to low
effective permeability near wellbore.
9.7.1 Perforation Conveyance Method
For the project, the method suggested is to use the Tubing Conveyed Perforating guns (TCP).
This method is very suitable for a good quality of perforation. It gives a well optimized well
flow after the penetration. The powerful and high performance of explosion and deeppenetrating shaped charges will maximize the perforation length and entry hole size. Even the
TCP are suitable to deep formation, up to extend than 8000ft. In other words, TCP can give
high productivity index after penetrate the formation.
9.7.2 Tubing Conveyed Perforation Equipment
Major components of a typical Tubing Conveyed Perforating Equipment, and a

sample of Weatherford product are shown below.
Steel hollow carrier gun place where the shaped charged is

positioned.
Spacer subs a component function as a position correctional, to

correct the position of the guns.
Production vents or valves important to a
253
Figure 9.10: Tubing

Conveyed Perforation
the tubing below the packer
Gun drop sub a middle part where it release the gun assembly after the perforation.
Radioactive tag sub the gamma ray log is attached and the through-tubing log is
carried out
Retrieval production packer
9.7.3 Shot per foot
For a gun carrier, shot density or shot per foot (spf) is defined as number of shaped charged
in a gun carrier to be shot. Commonly used, is 12-6 spf for a thick formation, and a low
fracturing formation. In the other hand, for a thin formation, 6-4 spf is used an it is safe
margin for preventing the formation collapse. The angular phasing of the orientation prior to
perforation is also important. Angular phasing of 30 degree is used and 12 spf is proposed
since the formation is thick and deep.
9.7.4 Explosive Material Selection
The most important criteria to be considered for selecting the explosives material is the
temperature of the well. For the explosives to work at best condition, the explosive need to be
choosing within the rating. The performance of the explosive is the secondary consideration
for selecting it. Performance of the explosives is influences by many factors such as diameter
of the perforating tunnel and perforation penetration depth.
Temperature : HNS/HTX > HMX > RDX
Performance : HMX > RDX > HNS/HTX
Figure 9.11: Time-Temp curve for

explosive
254
The Gulfaks formations temperature is about 220 F, thus, the RDX explosive material is the
best to be used. Since previously we decided to shot many time, thus a short penetration is
enough and prevent the formation damage.
3.7.5 Summary of Perforation Design
Table 9.15: Summary for perforation design proposed
Gun Type
Hollow carrier gun
Explosive Material
RDX
Conveyance Method
Tubing Conveyance Perforation
Perforation Method
Underbalanced method
Angular Phasing
30 degree
Shot per foot (spf)
12 spf
Assuming the producing zone is above the WOC, and to avoid perforate in water zone, the
perforation depth is divided into three sections. The perforation depth is set at the middle
zone of the producing zone.
9.8
SECONDARY RECOVERY METHOD (WATER FLOODING)
Based on the Reservoir Engineering data and PVT data we already research, the proposed
secondary recovery method is by water injection.
9.8.1 Water flooding
The most well-known secondary recovery method is the water flooding. A mixture of foam in
the water flooding method has been introduced by many such Statoil and it has improved the
viscosity of the injected water. Water-Alternating-gas (WAG) injection helps to improve the
gas sweep efficiency.
In order to maintain reservoir pressure, water flooding is very essential for it. It also enhances
the oil production rate and even improves oil recovery as per mention before. By decreasing
the oil viscosity, the sweep efficiency is increased.
255
9.9
POTENTIAL PRODUCTION PROBLEM.
9.9.1 Wax Deposition
One of the major problems is the wax deposition in tubing or pipeline. It happens because of
the crude oil temperature is decrease during the transportation process. It also enhances the
solidifying process. Such temperature is called Wax Appearance Temperature. In production,
wax deposition largely takes place in pipeline. It is easy to know when our pipeline is
blocked. The mechanical way is during the pigging process. Pigging is needed to clean
pipeline and to transport product to other pipeline. When the pig is stucked, we know that
there is blockage. Wax inhibitor can prevent wax from forming on the pipeline. As the
temperature of the crude oil need to be remaining lower than WAT, then the wax may not be
formed. It is suggested to conduct a regular monitoring and even the pipeline thermal
insulator can be applied.
9.9.2 Corrosion
Based on our PVT data given, the carbon dioxide CO2 content is very high. High CO2
content can lead to corrosion problem in pipeline. The best way is to use corrosion inhibitor.
A corrosion inhibitor is a substance that when added in small concentration, decreases the
effective corrosion rate.
9.9.3 Scale Formation
Scale forms and deposits under supersaturated conditions, wherever the mixing of the
incompatible types of water; formation water from the bottom hole and the injected seawater,
takes place. The deposited scale adheres on the surfaces of the producing well tubing and on
parts of water handling equipment, where it builds up in time and leads to problems in
reservoirs, pumps, valves and topside facilities. Factors that affect the scale formation are
pressure change, change in pH and even rise in temperature. Scale is made up of carbonate
such calcium carbonate or magnesium carbonate. The best way to know when scale is
forming is to test with acid like hydrochloric acid for any chemical reaction. If it is formed in
the pipeline, then the production may reduce as low area of pipeline is encountered prior to
production. Further study on the type of scale formed in the pipeline need to be done in order
to come out with a suitable scale-removal technique.
9.9.4 Emulsion formation
An emulsion is a volume of droplets of one liquid in another immiscible liquid. It is very

common when we are reducing crude oil and there is formation of emulsion in the pipeline.
256
Emulsions occur in almost all phases of oil production and processing whether from the
wellbore until the surface flow lines. Basically, when oil and water are in contact to each
other, and there is presence of emulsifying agent, then the emulsion will be formed. The
factors affecting the droplet size of the emulsions are interfacial tension (IFT), shear m
presence of solids and bulk properties of oil and water.
There are many methods to overcome the emulsion formation such as by using the emulsion
breaker. There are many type of emulsion breaker can be found in market, such as from
Weatherford. The type of emulsion need to be justified prior to decide what type of emulsion
breaker we want to use.
257
Chapter 10
Facilitates Engineering
10.1 Design Basis and Philosophy
10.1.1 Design Basis
All facilities design will also incorporate Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) standards
and legal requirements. The key design philosophy is that the platform is planned for an
unmanned facility to eliminate the need for personnel to be on-rig. The platform shall be
designed that it can accommodate servicing barges or vessels in the future. Besides, the
design is also aimed to withstand 30 years operating life with 35 years structural design life
with the monsoon storm condition. A remote well testing is to be run on a monthly basis.
The geological data of Gulfaks is as the following:
Location
: 175 km northwest of Bergen, covers an area of

55 km, and occupies
the eastern half of the 10
25 km wide of Gullfaks fault block

Water Depth
: 130-230 meter
Number of
wells
: 10 wells all vertical- 7 development plus 3 appraisal

wells
4 water injectors.
10.1.2 Design Philosophy
Several factors need to be considered in order to select the best

platform design. The factors are:
Processes
The design of filters, vessels, separator, and pump must be specifically

abide the type of fluids produced and properties of the fuid. The
produced
fluid
must
undergo
primary separation
and
necessary
treatment before evacuated to the onshore facilities. The factors

afecting behavior of the fluid flow, temperature and pressure of the
fluid and material of the pipe that can withstand it need to be considered.
258
Economic Justification
Besides aiming for a high hydrocarbon recovery, platform design should

consider economic side of it. The equipments capacity and sizing should
not be over-designed, but maintained to an optimum performance
according to the field capacity. Miscalculation in designing will cause an
unnecessary money outfow and increase in overall cost.
Design Flexibility
Future consideration must be taken into account during current design

to reduce cost for renovation. Additional slots must be allocated for
potential
development
based
on production forecast that has been
done.
Safety Measures
Safety has always been the top priority in oil and gas industry in general
and specifically in highly-risk
working
environment
of
plants
and
platforms. The need for a safe working condition and measures are a
lot far exceeding the need of hydrocarbon production as the impacts
caused by failures in safety aspects are catastrophic. The safety
measure are HSE plan, safety personnel, safety equipment, backup
facilities, emergency procedures, multiple stage failure containment and
emergency shutdown system. These are all been looked into prior to
installation
to
safeguard
the
nature
of
operation
and
most
importantly the personnel on board.
Environment
Offshore structure will be located in exposed and hostile environment. Thus, reliable source
of information on local winds, wave and current stability plus with stability of the structure
play an important role in determines safety measure of the platform. Apart from that,
facilities design should minimize environmental impact and damages to the environment.
259
10.2 Concept selection
Figure 10.2: Determents for a determents selection
10.2.1 Platform Plan

The platform shall be designed that it can accommodate servicing barges or vessels in the
future. Besides, the design is also aimed to withstand 30 years operating life with 35 years
structural design life with the monsoon storm condition. A remote well testing is to be run on
a monthly basis.
260
10.2.2 PLATFORM DEVELOPMENT

Gullfaks, North Sea Field is located 175 km northwest of Bergen and covers an area of 55
km and occupies the eastern half of the 1025 km wide of Gullfaks fault block. The field has
been developed with three integrated processing, drilling and accommodation facilities with
concrete bases and steel topsides (Gullfaks A, B and C). The A platform is also used for
storing and exporting stabilised crude from the Vigdis and Visund fields. Oil and gas from
Gullfaks B is transferred to the A and C platforms for processing, storage and export.
Produced oil is loaded directly into shuttle tankers on the field, while associated gas is piped
to the Krst gas treatment plant north of Stavanger and then on to continental Europe.
Figure 10.2.2: Development Platform for Gullfaks field
261
10.2.3 Platform Selection
After consider all the factors, Subsea system with well heads connected to Concrete Gravity
Structure platforms are proposed to be installed in Gullfaks, North Sea Field as the platform
has good stability and designed for very long-term use; as the depth is less than 1400 ft. Tiein to currently existing platform is the preferable development options as it reduces the cost
for processing and reduces the cost for buy/leasing a FPSO vessel. It would not be necessary
to have the similar processing facilities as it will increase CAPEX and deck load on the
platform.
Subsea system: This system consist of subsea hardware, subsea well template, water injection
umbilical, production umbilical, subsea distribution unit and subsea pipeline end termination.
10.3 Pipeline sizing
Crude oil pipelines gather crude from wells and move it to refineries or export port, and from
import port to refineries. It comprised of gathering lines and main lines. These pipeline
receive crude oils of differing qualities along their route. The crude oils are either
commingled in the line or segregated and batched. Another type of oil pipeline is refined
products line. Pipeline systems are designed according to various statutory and regulatory
codes and standards.
Detailed study on the design of the pipeline requires the following elements:
1. Pipeline flow assurance and line sizing.
2. Pipeline route selection.
3. Pipe spanning analysis.
4. Geohazard Analysis.
5. Determination of wall thickness and steel grade.
6. Stability analysis and determination of weight coating/trenching requirements.
7. Pipeline installation studies to verify alternative installation options.
Steps to choose a line-size:
i.
Determine the max and min velocity allowable for specific fluid types
ii.
Find pressure drop of the system
iii.
Determine the I.D of pipe relative to the velocity

262
iv.
Determine pressure drop in the pipeline
v.
Find the wall thickness based on the standard

Standards and Requirement
ANSI B 31.3 - Power Piping.
This standard deals with steam and is required by the U.S Coast Guard on all
rigs
ANSI B 31.3 Chemical Plant and Petroleum Refinery Piping.
This standard is required by the US Minerals Management Service for
offshore platform in federal, state waters and offshore facilities in other parts
of the world
ANSI B 31.4 Liquid Petroleum Transportation Piping System.
This standard is normally used in onshore oil production facilities
ANSI B 31.8 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping System.
This standard is normally used for gas lines in onshore production facilities
and when transporting or distributing gas.
vi.
Choose the appropriate pipeline size from the standard
10.3.1 Sensitivity Analysis

Table 10.3.1: Summary for Oil flow rate per well
Years
2016
Oil
Production
Rate
1692.690
2017
1636.073
2018
1581.350
2019
1528.457
2020
1477.333
2021
1427.920
263
1380.159
2023
1333.996
2024
1289.376
2025
1246.250
2026
1204.565
2027
1164.275
2028
1125.333
2029
1087.693
2030
1051.312
2031
1016.148
2032
2033
982.160
2034
917.556
2035
886.866
2036
857.202
2037
828.531
2038
800.818
2039
774.033
2040
748.143
2041
723.119
2042
698.932
2043
675.555
2044
652.959
2045
631.119
949.309
By using velocity as a variant from minimum 3 m/s to maximum of 15 m/s ( 13* 30

choices) are applicable
2022
Uing the equation :
264
D = 0.012
Where,
D= diameter, in inches
Q= flow rate, MStb/Day/well
V= velocity, ft/sec
5000
3
ft/s
4
ft/s
5
ft/s
6
ft/a
7
ft/s
8
ft/s
9
ft/s
10
ft/s
4500
4000
3500
3000
Fluid
flow
(Mstb/d
ay)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
1
3
Diamter( in)
Figure 10.3.1A: Selection possibilities for the diameter of pipeline for each well
The average velocity used for transporting the fluid is 6 to 8 ft/sec, so accordingly an average
pipeline diameter can varies 3 to 3.5 inches for the pipeline for each well.
However for the main pipeline receiving the vast oil production from all wells should be
equal to 9.5 to 10 inches.
265
50000
3
ft/s
4
ft/s
5
ft/s
6
ft/a
7
ft/s
8
ft/s
9
ft/s
10
ft/s
45000
40000
35000
30000
Fluid
flow
(Mstb/d
ay)
20000
15000
10000
5000
8
10
Diamter( in)
12
0
0
Figure 10.3.1B: Selection possibilities for the diameter of pipeline for all wells
Secondly: Calculating the wall thickness:

And now for we may calculate the pipe thickness by using formula :
t
t c t th
2(SE PY ) 100 Tol
t = Minimum design wall thickness, in.,
14
16
te = Corrosion allowance, in.,

tth = Thread or groove depth, in.
P = Allowable internal pressure in pipe, psi,
dO = Outside diameter of pipe, in.,
S = Allowable stress for pipe, psi
E = Longitudinal weld-joint factor [1.0 seamless, 0.95 electric fusion weld, double butt,
straight or spiral seam APL 5L, 0.85 electric resistance weld (ERW), 0.60 furnace butt weld],
266
Y = Derating factor (0.4 for ferrous materials operating below 900F),

Tol = Manufacturers allowable tolerance, % (12.5 pipe up to 20 in.-OD, 10 pipe > 20 in.
OD, API 5L).
10.4 HOST Tie-ins Facilities

The Gullfaks Satellite field development consists of the Gullfaks A, B and C fields. All three
oil fields are tied back to the Gullfaks A platform, where produced gas is re-injected( to
enhance the oil recovery). In addition, Gullfaks A was modified to increase its capacity for
gas treatment and reinjection. The three platforms are Concrete Gravity Structure (CGS).
CGS are known to be plop down and stay in place. These fixed structures are well known to
rely on brute force and huge footprints to resist wind, wave and current forces. They are
broadly known to be used in the north sea.
The Gullfaks Field development includes 5 HOST templates, control systems and 10 trees.
The oil production will be tied back to the Gullfaks A platform and gas production to
Gullfaks C. The equipment is designed for diverless operation in all phases (drilling,
installation, operation and maintenance) located at a water depth of 460-590 ft (140-180 m).
The HOST system is used for all templates. The templates consist of standard deployable
modules that can be assembled on deck or subsea. Pull-in and connection operations are
formed in one operation with the Universal Tie-In System tool. Horizontal Tie-in may be
used for both first-end and second-end tie-in of both flowlines, umbilicals and Jumper spools.
The termination head is hauled in to the Tie-in point by use of a subsea winch. Then
connected to a buoy.
The area of Karosta in the north sea, where Gullfaks is one of the main fields there, are
known to be export areas, where there is a pipeline connection between the north sea and the
European countries. Consequently, transportation using pipes could be effective in two
phases:
267
Phase I:
7 horizontal 10,000 psi subsea trees

3 HOST templates with manifold and control distribution systems
Phase II:
3 horizontal 10,000 psi subsea trees

1 HOST templates with manifold and control distribution systems
Figure 10.4: A tie-in subsea system for Gullfaks field. ( Source: Statoil)
10.5 Surface Facilities

10.5.1 Production, test and injection manifolds
Check valves allow each well to be routed into one or more of several Manifold Lines. There
will be at least one for each process train plus additional Manifolds for test and balancing
purposes. There are three: Test, Low Pressure and High Pressure Manifolds. The test
manifold allows one or more wells to be routed to the test separator. Since there is only one
process train, the HP and LP manifolds allow groups of HP and LP wells to be taken to the
first and second stage separators respectively. The chokes are set to reduce the wellhead flow
and pressure to the desired HP and LP pressures respectively.
268
10.5.2 Separation
As described earlier, the well-stream may consist of Crude oil, Gas, Condensates, water and
various contaminants. The purpose of the separators is to split the flow into desirable
fractions. 4.5.2.1 Test Separators and Well test
Test separators are used to separate the well flow from one or more wells for analysis and
detailed flow measurement. In this way, the behavior of each well under different pressure
flow conditions can be determined. This normally takes place when the well is taken into
production and later at regular intervals, typically 1-2 months and will measure the total and
component flow rates under different production conditions. Also undesirable behavior such
as slugging or sand can be determined. The separated components are also analyzed in the
laboratory to determine hydrocarbon composition of the Gas oil and Condensate.
4.5.2.2 Horizontal Separator
A 45.000 bpd design production with gas and 40% water cut this gives about 10 cubic meters
from the wellheads per minute. There also needs to be enough capacity to handle normal
slugging from wells and risers. This means the separator has to be about 100 cubic meters,
e.g. a cylinder 3 m in diameter and 14 meters long. At the rated operating pressure this means
a very heavy piece of equipment, typically around 50 tons for this size. This limits the
practical number of stages.
4.5.2.3 Second stage separator
The second stage separator is quite similar to the first stage HP separator. In addition to
output from the first stage, it will also receive production from wells connected to the Low
Pressure manifold. The pressure is now around 1 MPa (10 atmospheres) and temperature
below 100 degrees C. The water content will be reduced to below 2%. An oil heater could be
located between the first and second stage separator to reheat the oil/water/gas mixture. This
will make it easier to separate out water when initial water cut is high and temperature is low.
The heat exchanger is normally a tube/shell type where oil passes though tubes in a cooling
medium placed inside an outer shell.
269
10.5.3 Water treatment
Dissolved Gas Flotation

In dissolved gas units, the water to be treated is first saturated with gas under pressure
(typically at 4-6 barg) in a contactor vessel. The gas-saturated water is then injected into a
flotation tank, and the pressure drop at injection causes the dissolved gas to come out of
solution, producing small bubbles. These float the oil droplets to the surface, forming a froth
which is mechanically skimmed off. The gas used may be natural gas, although for produced
water treatment air is often used, in which case the process is called dissolved air flotation
(DAF). Dissolved gas units are common in refineries and chemical plants but are not widely
used for produced water treatment.
10.5.4 Pumps
Multiphase pump selection cannot be based solely on one defined operating point (main duty
point) as is common for process pumps or compressors for refinery duties. Multiphase pumps
should therefore be designed to be able to adapt to different operating parameters by having a
wide operating envelope. Flow rates and pressure predictions are never certain. The design of
production facilities is generally based on extrapolations from the results of exploration well
tests, delineation wells and reservoir characterization.
Criteria:
Offshore
Sand control
Water injection
Gas injection
Artificial lift
Progressive Cavity Pumps (Positive Displacement) Progressive cavity pumps are singlescrew types typically used in shallow wells or at the surface. This pump is mainly used on
surface applications where the pumped fluid may contain a considerable amount of solids
such as sand and dirt.
Electric Submersible Pumps (Centrifugal) These pumps are basically multistage centrifugal
pumps and are widely used in oil well applications as a method for artificial lift. These pumps
are usually specified when the pumped fluid is mainly liquid.
270
10.6 Platform Utilities and Service Facilities

Electrical Power and Lighting
The electric power generation and distribution system will be provided for the facilities on
the platform with the provision for future installed equipment. A configuration of 2 plus 2 gas
engine driven generation shall be provided to generate power. The power shall be design for
manned and attended operation.
Drain System
The platform would have closed drain vessel to collect process discharges from the
pressurized hydrocarbon systems. The close drain vessel will also cater for well unloading
operation. The platform shall also have an open drain system emptying into an open drain
caisson.
Venting/Flaring System
The flare system in Gullfaks platform should be used as both a means to depressure gas from
various pieces of equipment within the platform and as a safety mechanism for abnormal
process operations that may create unwanted pressure surges. The pressure surges are
relieved to the flare system via pressure relief valves to protect equipment and personnel. The
flare stack package also will burn gas vapor emitted from the hydrocarbon liquids that
accumulate in the flare knock out drum.
Instrument Air System
Instrument air system will be used to operate instrument valves wellhead control panel and
fusible plug loop
271
10.7 Operational and Maintenance philosophy

The offshore organization will consist of skilled personnel in all disciplines required for safe,
efficient, and environmentally responsible operation of all offshore facilities.
10.7.1 Operational philopshy
Figure 10.7.1 : The structure for the rig team
10.7.1.1 Operations Procedures

Operations procedures and manuals will be implemented specifically for the wells
development. They will make provision for compliance with all regulatory requirements, and
personnel will be trained to operate in accordance with the manuals and procedures. The
procedures will be finalized as requisite information becomes available (for example, systems
and equipment operations and maintenance manuals after vendor selection and receipt of
equipment/system documentation) and will cover the following topics:
systems;
equipment;
reporting relationships and procedures;
maintenance procedures;
production and marine procedures;
health and safety procedures;
272
emergency procedures;
alert and contingency procedures; and
environmental monitoring procedures.
Documents will be developed on a hierarchical basis to facilitate ease of use by personnel.

The basic documents will be developed in the detailed design phase. They will then be
augmented by the various user groups to customize them to their particular needs, all the
while maintaining strict compliance with regulatory requirements.
11.2.1 Systems
Systems manuals will provide descriptions and drawings of the primary process, ancillary
systems, and associated equipment and subsystems. The rationale behind the design will be
presented. Operating parameters will be set out. Operator training manuals will be based
upon these documents.
11.2.2 Equipment
Detailed information on each individual piece of equipment and each system and subsystem
will be assembled and incorporated into data books. Such information will be drawn from
vendor sources, design specifications and operational record. It will include drawings,
specifications, descriptions, materials, installation guidelines, operation and maintenance
guidelines, and recommendations on spare parts inventory.
11.2.3 Reporting
Relationships and Procedures Roles, limits of authority, lines of reporting and
accountabilities in production operations will be set out in reporting procedures and where
applicable bridging manuals. These will clearly identify reporting relationships throughout
the organization as well as with external agencies. The procedures for record-keeping will be
set out in the manuals, together with requirements for report generation and distribution and
data acquisition. Operating and maintenance records will be documented as required by
statoil and governing regulations. Requisite reports will be produced routinely
10.7.2Maintanance philosophy
Maintenance procedures manuals will be prepared for all equipment. These procedures will
be based on design data, recommendations by vendors, operating conditions, and the
importance of the equipment to operation of the facility. This latter aspect will be based on
the effect of failure of the item of equipment on personnel safety, environmental
273
consequences, operational efficiency, and revenues. The maintenance program will be

extensively supported by computerized systems, providing detailed information on each item
of equipment, including its criticality, maintenance history, and spares to be kept in
inventory. The system will also be linked to an inventory control system. The basic
significant features of monitoring, inspection, and maintenance and repair, will be recognized
in the program.
10.7.2.1 Monitoring
All structures and equipment will be monitored routinely as a planned part of the
maintenance program. Sensors and monitoring devices will be used as part of the program.
Also as part of the overall monitoring program, the integrity of the following aspects of the
FPSO will be monitored, using on line monitoring systems:
structural components;
sub-structural components;
equipment condition;
corrosion rates; and
vessel stability.
10.7.2.2 Inspection
All structural elements, piping and equipment will be inspected regularly and
comprehensively to ensure their integrity. The degree of inspection will be predicated upon
the item's criticality to the operation, its vulnerability and service, operating conditions,
vendor recommendations, and feedback from the monitoring systems. Inspection will be
accomplished by one or more of the recognized techniques of visual inspection,
nondestructive testing, operational parameter monitoring, vibration monitoring, and field and
laboratory tests. The main areas of attention will be:
structural;
pressure containing systems;
rotating equipment;
subsea systems;
lifting equipment; and

life saving equipment.
274
10.7.2.3 Maintenance and Repair

The focus of this activity is to maintain the facility in optimum condition to ensure safe and
continuous production operations. Three categories of maintenance and repair are recognized:
preventative maintenance;
predictive maintenance; and
breakdown maintenance.
How a particular piece of equipment is categorized depends on its criticality to safety and
operations (for example, safety equipment and systems will be in the top category), and
every effort will be made to avoid incurring situations where these have to receive
maintenance on a breakdown basis. The procedures will also cover the monitoring and
control components of the FPSO. The maintenance and repair program will be supported by
a computerized support system which will record maintenance history, maintenance
costs, item availability, and breakdown frequency.
10.8
Abandonment
Wells are either co-located with a platform and have been drilled from a permanent
installation to which the well is directly connected, or subsea and drilled from a mobile
installation and tied back to a local platform. Platform-based operations are significantly
more flexible and lower cost than their mobile alternative. Encountering unexpected
conditions is also generally less of a concern than for subsea wells, as operations are more
easily suspended. Subsea wells can also be abandoned using a mobile rig.
From the technical-economic perspective, the larger the structures are and the deeper they are
located, the more appropriate it is to leave them totally or partially intact. In shallow waters,
in contrast, total or partial structure removal makes more sense. The fragments can be taken
to the shore, buried, or reused for some other purposes.
A semi submersible is easy to be moved. From the fisheries perspective, any options when
the structures or their fragments are left on the bottom may cause physical interference with
fishing activities. In these cases, the possibility of vessel and gear damages and
corresponding losses does not disappear with termination of production activities in the area.
Instead, abandoned structures pose the threat to fishing for many decades after the oil and gas
operators leave the site. The obsolete pipelines left on the bottom are especially dangerous in
this respect. Their degradation and uncontrolled dissipation over wide areas may lead to the
275
most unexpected situations occurring during bottom trawling in the most unexpected places.
At the same time, national and international agreements about the decommissioning and
abandonment of offshore installations refer mostly to large, fixed structures like drilling
platforms. The fate of underwater pipelines is still not affected by clear regulations.
276
CHAPTER 11
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
11.1
Introduction
Economic analysis considers the identification, measurement and valuation which include the
comparison of the costs (inputs) and benefits (outputs) of two or more alternatives. It
definitely can be considered as one of the most crucial part of the project as gaining the
highest possible profit is the main goal of every company. Economic analysis takes
into account the opportunity, cost of resource employed and attempts to measure the best
option to maximize the profit. The result of the analysis is to determine whether the steps
taken or decision made is economically justified and produces the optimum profit for the
company.
11.2
Problem Statement
After going through all the technical aspects of the field development plan, economic analysis
is necessary to determine the value of the project and feasibility of the operations and
equipment selected to complete the field development. The main problem that needs to be
addressed is whether the selected development option is economically justified and
determining the total profit that could be generated with the said option.
11.3
Objective
The objectives of the economic analysis of Gulfaks Field Development strategy are:
1. To conduct economic analysis on the selected development option and to determine
the economic outcomes for the development of the well.
2. To carry out economic evaluations for proposed production scenario by the reservoir
engineering team, drilling engineering team and the production technologist based on
the profit generated and NPV.
277
Based on the data generated from the reservoir engineering study, the production
strategy of the field is as stated below:
Type of Production: Crude oil
Duration of Production: 30 Years
Total No. of Wells: 14
No. of Producing Well: 10
No. of Injector Well: 4
Type of Injector: Water Injector
11.4
Fiscal Terms
All law referred to are considered under the government of Norway. The operations of
petroleum in Norway are governed under the 1996 Petroleum Act (Petroleum Act no. 72 of
November 1996). The regulation Royal Decree of 27 June 1997 which is based on the 1996
Petroleum Act were issued after discussing based on the Exploration License and economic
analysis. To put it simply, the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy awards Exploration License
while the King in Council awards the Production License to contractors.
Table 11.1: Fiscal Term for O&G in Norway
Key Components
Royalty
Petroleum Income
Tax
Special Petroleum
Tax
State Participation
Royalty is not payable on oil production from

fields where the development plan was approved
after 1 January 1986.
The combine corporate income tax rate is 28%.
The SPT rate is 50%. The SPT is payable in addition

to corporate income tax in respect of income from
all upstream interests held by the taxpayer after
deduction allowed by the 1975 Petroleum
Taxation Act including the investment uplift (the
uplift include development costs and capitalised
interest
but not However,
exploration
costs)
Not mandatory.
the
government may
decide that the Norwegian State will participate in
petroleum activities.
278
Domestic Supply
Obligation
Not mandatory. However, the government may

demand that the licensee delivers petroleum from its
production to satisfy national demand, and provide
transportation to the Norwegian mainland.
Table 11.2: Petroleum Income Tax

Petroleum Income Tax
Rate
Deductions and
Depreciation
The combine corporate income tax rate is

28%.
In calculating income subject to corporate income
tax, eligible deductions are:
royalty (if applicable) and licence fees;
exploration costs (expensed and deducted
immediately or capitalised and depreciated);
operating costs;
depreciation of field development
costs; and CO2 tax.
During the exploration phase exploration costs may be expensed and
deducted immediately or capitalised and depreciated. Exploration costs
include all costs during the exploration phase including seismic, well
drilling and general and administrative costs. Development costs, which
must be capitalised, maybe depreciated at a maximum annual rate of 16
/3% per year (i.e. over six years straight-line) starting from the year in
which the investment is made.
Ring Fence
There is no licence ring-fencing for Income Tax.

The ring fence is efectively around all upstream
operations in Norway
Table 11.3: Special Petroleum Tax
Petroleum Income Tax
Rate
The Special Petroleum Tax (SPT) rate is 50%. The SPT is

payable in addition to corporate income tax in respect
of income from all upstream interests held by the
taxpayer after deductions allowed by the 1975
Petroleum Taxation Act including the investment uplift
(the uplift includes development costs and capitalised
interest but not exploration costs).
279
Deductions and
Depreciation
Ring Fence
11.5
Deductions and depreciation for SPT are the same as

for income tax except that capital investments which
were made after 1 January 1992 receive an extra
allowance in the form of an uplift. Beginning 1January
2005, under Act No. 78 of 10 December 2004 the uplift
was accelerated to 7.5% per annum over a four year
period from the year the investment was made. If the
uplift exceeds the income subject to special tax, excess
uplift may be deducted in
subsequent
There is no licence ring-fencing SPT. The ring
fence is efectively around all upstream operations in
Norway
Economic Assumptions
The economic assumptions made are as follows:

Table 11.4: Cost Guidelines
Field Operating Expenses
Monthly Field Operating Costs
$ 200000 per month
New Well Drilling Expenses
Cost of a vertical well
$ 1000000 per well
Cost of a horizontal well
$ 3000000 per well
Cost of a horizontal or multi$ 1500000 per multi-lateral well
lateral well drilled from historical
well location
New Well Setup Costs - Costs for Equipment and Construction to Setup New
Wells
CostInjection
of a water
injection well setup
$ 500000
Cost of a gas injection well setup
$ 1000000
Cost of a WAG injection well setup
$ 2000000
Cost of injected water
Injection Water Treatment Expenses

$ 1.00 per STB
Injected Methane/Separator Gas Costs

Cost of injected Methane/Separator
$ 4.00 per Mscf
Gas
Water Production Expenses
Cost of Treating Production
$ 5.00 per STB
Streams to Remove Water
Income from Gas Production
Sale Price for Separator Gas ($/Mscf) $ 4.00 per Mscf
Income from Oil Production
Sale Price for Separator Oil ($/Stb)
$ 60.00 per STB
280
Base Case
The proposed base case for the development of the Gulfaks field are 10 producing
wells (four existing) and four injector wells. All with vertical orientation.
Reference Year
The reference year is to be determined as 2014.
Production Period
The field is expected to produce for 30 years where first oil is expected in 2015.
Decommissioning Year
The decommissioning or abandonment period will begin after 30 years of production
period which is in 2045. 30% of the total CAPEX is allocated for abandonment cost.
Cash Flow Model

The cash flow model is determined to be in Money of the Day (MOD) term.
Operating Expenditure (OPEX)

The OPEX is determined as fixed rate of 5% of the cumulative capital expenditure
(CAPEX) which considers all well operations, completion strategies and production
facilities.
Discount Rate or Cost Recovery

A rate of 10% is assumed during the evaluation according to the opportunity cost of
capital, acquisition cost of capital and risk management.
281
11.6
Development Options
Two development options have been considered in the economic analysis. The analysis will
take into account the CAPEX, OPEX and the abandonment cost. Listed below are the two
development option that is considered.
1. Semi-submersible rig + Concrete gravity structure + FPSO
2. Semi-submersible rig + Concrete gravity structure + Pipeline
The total development cost for these options are shown in the table below.
Table 11.5: Total Cost of Development Option

Item
Option 1 (USD)
Option 2 (USD)
Facilities CAPEX
800,000,000
1,500,000,000
Development Wells CAPEX
184,440,000
184,440,000
Fixed OPEX (5%Of CAPEX)
49,222,000 X 30 YEARS=
84,222,000 X 30 YEARS =
1,476,660,000
2,526,660,000
250MM x 30 YEARS =
FPSO Rental
7500MM
Decommissioning
30% of Cumulative CAPEX
30% of Cumulative CAPEX
Total
9,961,100,000
4,211,100,000
The difference between Option 1 and Option 2 is the way the produced oil and gas is
transported onshore, proving to have a significant difference between the usages of FPSO or
pipeline. Thus, selecting based on the total cumulative cost of the development option,
Option 2 is determined to be more preferable.
282
11.7
Economic Analysis and Results
Economic analysis were done based on these parameters; Net Present Value (NPV), Payback
Period and Internal Rate of Return (IRR).Furthermore, sensitivity analysis using spider plot is
also conducted for the selected case to determine and analyze the effect of increasing and
decreasing the capital expenditure (CAPEX), operating expenditure (OPEX), oil price with
reflect to the NPV. Economic analysis will be used as a tool, to select the alternative which
can maximize recovery for the development strategies. In this part, the economic evaluations
were focused on Option 2 as it is the most desired option. All calculations are done in an
Excel Spreadsheet based on the fiscal regimes explained previously and all the economic
assumptions made.
Table 11.6: Cumulative Revenue
Year
Production
Oil
Revenue
Expenditure
Rate (Bbl)
Price
(USD)
(USD)
Profit (USD)
Cumulative
Profit (USD)
(USD)
1
16926900
60
1015614000
1768662000
-753048000
-753048000
16360730
60
981643800
84222000
897421800
144373800
15813500
60
948810000
84222000
864588000
1008961800
15284570
60
917074200
84222000
832852200
1841814000
14773330
60
886399800
84222000
802177800
2643991800
14279200
60
856752000
84222000
772530000
3416521800
13801590
60
828095400
84222000
743873400
4160395200
13339960
60
800397600
84222000
716175600
4876570800
12893760
60
773625600
84222000
689403600
5565974400
10
12462500
60
747750000
84222000
663528000
6229502400
11
12045650
60
722739000
84222000
638517000
6868019400
12
11642750
60
698565000
84222000
614343000
7482362400
13
11253330
60
675199800
84222000
590977800
8073340200
14
10876930
60
652615800
84222000
568393800
8641734000
15
10513120
60
630787200
84222000
546565200
9188299200
16
10161480
60
609688800
84222000
525466800
9713766000
17
9820160
60
589209600
84222000
504987600
10218753600
18
9493090
60
569585400
84222000
485363400
10704117000
19
9175560
60
550533600
84222000
466311600
11170428600
20
8868660
60
532119600
84222000
447897600
11618326200
283
21
8572020
60
514321200
84222000
430099200
12048425400
22
8285310
60
497118600
84222000
412896600
12461322000
23
8008180
60
480490800
84222000
396268800
12857590800
24
7740330
60
464419800
84222000
380197800
13237788600
25
7481430
60
448885800
84222000
364663800
13602452400
26
7231190
60
433871400
84222000
349649400
13952101800
27
6989320
60
419359200
84222000
335137200
14287239000
28
6755550
60
405333000
84222000
321111000
14608350000
29
6529590
60
391775400
84222000
307553400
14915903400
30
6311190
60
378671400
84222000
294449400
15210352800
The total revenue/profit generated from oil production considering the oil price maintained at
60 USD/bbl throughout the 30 years of production accumulates to 15,210,352,800 USD.
11.8 Net Cash Flow Profile
-2000
1800
0
1600
0
1400
0
1200
0
1000
0
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
N
C
h
Flo
w
P
file
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 Years
Annual Profit(USD)Million
Cummulative Profit(USD)Million
Figure 11.1: Net Cash Flow Profile
The net cash flow profile generated for Option 2 development shows a very good trend
throughout the total production from all 10 wells for the whole producing period of 30 years.
The payback period is roughly just one years and also the breakeven point is expected to be
reached in 2017, which is only after two years of production. This can be explained by the
284
high production rate obtained from the field. The cumulative revenue by the end of 2045 is
very high, proving this reservoir to be very profitable even with the assumed oil price of just
60 USD/bbl which can be considered quite low.
Net Present Value (NPV) & Internal

Rate of Return(IRR)
5,210.35
$16,000.00
$14,000.
00
$12,000.
$5,640.92
00
$10,000.
$3,025. $1,909. $1,301.09 918.69 $656.27
$465.03 $319.49 $205.00
00
$8,000.0
$112.60
0
$6,000.0
0
$4,000.0
0
$2,000.
00
$0.00
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
RATE
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
Figure 11.2: NPV & IRR
The Net Present Value (NPV) with 10% discount rate $6,393,968,168.48 USD and as the
value increase, the NPV can be said exponentially decrease and reach the value of 0 at 1. The
maximum cash outlay portrayed is $15,210.35 MMUSD.
11.9 Revenue Split

Basically, the licensing awarded to Statoil Company in managing the petroleum management
in Norway Therefore, the revenue for the Norway State is first deducted from the cost of
development from the contractor/ licensee, which then the remaining is based on income tax
of 28% and also by the Special Petroleum Tax (SPT) which is 50% from the income of the
contractor. The table below show the profit been gain from each year after deducting the
taxes and in conclusion the well will generate clean profit of 3,511,948,176 USD for 30 years
of production.
285
Table 11.7: Net Revenues

Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Producti
on Rate
(Bbl)
1692690
1636073
1581350
1528457
1477333
1427920
1380159
1333996
1289376
1246250
1204565
1164275
1125333
1087693
1051312
1016148
9820160
9493090
9175560
8868660
8572020
8285310
8008180
7740330
7481430
7231190
6989320
6755550
6529590
6311190
Oil
Revenue(U Expenditu
Profit
Price
SD )
re (USD)
(USD)
(USD)
60
10156140 176866200 60
98164380
84222000 89742180
60
94881000
84222000 86458800
60
91707420
84222000 83285220
60
88639980
84222000 80217780
60
85675200
84222000 77253000
60
82809540
84222000 74387340
60
80039760
84222000 71617560
60
77362560
84222000 68940360
60
74775000
84222000 66352800
60
72273900
84222000 63851700
60
69856500
84222000 61434300
60
67519980
84222000 59097780
60
65261580
84222000 56839380
60
63078720
84222000 54656520
60
60968880
84222000 52546680
60
58920960
84222000 50498760
60
56958540
84222000 48536340
60
55053360
84222000 46631160
60
53211960
84222000 44789760
60
51432120
84222000 43009920
60
49711860
84222000 41289660
60
48049080
84222000 39626880
60
46441980
84222000 38019780
60
44888580
84222000 36466380
60
43387140
84222000 34964940
60
41935920
84222000 33513720
60
40533300
84222000 32111100
60
39177540
84222000 30755340
60
37867140
84222000 29444940
Cummulati
ve Profit
- (USD)
7926330
872514330
170536653
250754433
328007433
402394773
474012333
542952693
609305493
673157193
734591493
793689273
850528653
905185173
957731853
1008230613
1056766953
1103398113
1148187873
1191197793
1232487453
1272114333
1310134113
1346600493
1381565433
1415079153
1447190253
1477945593
1521035280
Income
SPT Tax
Tax
50%
(28%)
25127810 44871090
24208464 43229400
23319861 41642610
22460978 40108890
21630840 38626500
20828455 37193670
20052916 35808780
19303300 34470180
18578784 33176400
17878476 31925850
17201604 30717150
16547378 29548890
15915026 28419690
15303825 27328260
14713070 26273340
14139652 25249380
13590175 24268170
13056724 23315580
12541132 22394880
12042777 21504960
11561104 20644830
11095526 19813440
10645538 19009890
10210586 18233190
97901832 17482470
93838416 16756860
89911080 16055550
86114952 15377670
82445832 14722470
TOTAL
11.10 Sensitivity Analysis

The sensitivity analysis is carried out in order to see the relationship between any changes in
key project parameters investigated during the evaluation process. There are four parameters
that considered in this sensitivity analysis which are oil production, oil price, CAPEX and
OPEX. The analysis is based on the NPV at discounted rate of 10% with sensitivity of 80%
286
Profit after
Tax (USD)
197432796
190209360
183227484
176479116
169956600
163652148
157558632
151668792
145976160
140473740
135155460
130015116
125046636
120244344
115602696
111097272
106779948
102588552
98537472
94621824
90837252
87179136
83643516
80226036
76922868
73730184
70644420
67661748
64778868
351194817
and 120%. Spider plot analysis also used in order to see the trend effects of the individual
variables toward the NPV of the project. By changing individual parameter, the results will
be different. The sensitivity analysis are being done for 20% sentivities. The resulting
plot can be seen in the figure below:
Sensitivity Analysis of
Spider Plot 8000
700
0
600
0
500
0
400
0
300
0
200
0
100
0
0
80%
100%
Percentage
Capex
Opex
oil price
120%
oil prod
Figure 11.3: Sensitivity Analysis Plot
Table 11.8: Sensitivity table for NPV @10%
Percentage
Capex
Opex
Oil Price
Oil Production
80%
5994652568
5767180480
4204301144
4204301145
100%
5640920168
5640920168
5640920168
5640920168
120%
5899246932
543574162
7077539192
Based on the sensitivity analysis, it is shown that changing the variable on the OPEX will
have the least effect on the new generated values. Meanwhile, changing the variable of oil
price and oil production have the most significant effect to the sensitivity values. The
capacity of the variable influence can be determined by the steepness of the gradient. This
may conclude that the project may not be economical is the price of oil or the production rate
is significantly reduced more than 20%. However, the sensitivity analysis are limited by the
fact that the variable of the project are adjusted and compared individually. Thus, further
research and analysis should be done in the future to find more solid results and justifications.
287
11.11 Conclusion
After completing the economic analysis on Option 2 development plan, it has been
determined that it will generate a considerably high revenue of 3,511,948,176 USD after 30
years of production. This value is generated after taking into consideration all the economic
assumptions, capital and operating expenditures and also the revenue split. The breakeven
point is achieved after just approximately 2 years of production due to the good production
rate generated from the field.
288
CHAPTER 12
HEALTH, SAFETY AND MANAGEMENT (HSE)
12.1
INTRODUCTION
The objective of HSE is to achieve zero harm or accidents and establish safe working
environment. The HSE plan for Gulfaks Field should comply with the operator or service
company that is overseeing the development of the field. For this project, since the presumed
operator is PETRONAS, so all the development plan should be coherent with PETRONAS
Health, Safety & Environment Management System (HSEMS) and other approved
PETRONAS / Regulatory / International Standard such as Norway Petroleum Safety
Authority Regulations due to the fields location. They should be the foundation of any HSE
Plan, shall one be developed plus all operational activities throughout the field life.
Any negligence or deviation from both PETRONAS HSEMS and Norway Petroleum Safety
Authority Regulations should be informed and justified plus approved by the pertinent
parties. All elements set forth shall weigh on all parties which operate within the
development of Gulfaks Field.
12.2
HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT
12.2.1 HSE Management System
This Health, safety, and environment management system (HSEMS) is implemented in order
to systematically identify, assess and manage risk. The aim of this HSEMS is to ensure there
is no injury cases happened to people, no damage to assets and no harm to the environment.
The approach is simplified as below:
289
HSE Policy
and
Strategic
Objective
Implementati
on &
Performance
Monitoring
Organizati
on
Planning
and
Procedure
s
Arrangment
Risk
Manageme
nt
Figure 12.1 HSEMS Approach Sequence
HSEMS provides a guideline on the standard safety procedures and guidelines to be

performed and adopted to ensure appropriate consideration are taken. Listed below are the
reasons for selecting standards which are used as models for this organization:
To ensure the performance of HSEMS is continuously improved over time.
ISO 14001 Standard for Environmental Management system is accepted

internationally.
OHSAS 18002:2000 Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems is also

internationally accepted.
OGP Management System is standard for International Oil and Gas Exploration
companies.
The API Model of HSEMS is a voluntary tool for companies which are interested in
developing and HSEMS or enhancing an existing one and is widely used in the
industry.
The standards are consistent with the key elements found in most management system
model
Models developed fulfilled the requirements by Petroleum Safety Authority Norway

(PSA) as the operated field is located in Norway.
Priorities and expectation are set by Statoil in order to achieve the principles stated in the
HSEMS which will help in ensuring the corporation conducts its business in accordance with
the HSE Policy which is accepted internationally.
290
12.2.2 HSE Leadership
The leadership and commitment for HSE is generally expected from all of the employees,
including contractors and third party members on behalf of the operators. The employee shall
demonstrate their commitment towards the HSE requirement and the general guidelines as of
various level are as below.
i. General Manager (GM)
Provides strong, visible leadership and commitment, and ensure that this commitment
is translated into the necessary resources to develop, operate and maintain the
HSEMS and to attain the HSE Policy and Strategic Objectives.
Delegates the responsibility and assigns the accountability for operations including
agreed HSE objectives, plans and targets to the respective managers.
ii. Operation Managers
Overall responsibility to the GM for the HSE performance of the Asset, including that
of Contractors.
Ensuring that all foreseeable risk associated with the operations has been adequately
identified, assessed and the necessary risk control measures effectively implemented.
Delegating and assigning the day to day responsibility and accountability for various
platforms, facilities or part of the asset to individual employees, dependent upon their
area of responsibility.
Ensuring that each contractors HSE performance is monitored whilst working on a

production facility and monitoring the HSE requirements are complied with.
iii. Project Managers
Delegates the responsibility and assigns the accountability for business activities
including
agreed
HSE
objectives,
plans
and
targets
to
the
respective
Supervisors/Engineers within his respective project.
The Project Manager reports to the GM and shall have the responsibility and
accountability for the implementation of HSEMS within his respective project.
Preparation of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for new project.
Ensure that the required Critical Risk Management Activities are carried out and
recommendation addressed at the project development stage.
291
iv. Head of Procurement & Logistics
The Head of Procurement & Logistics is the custodian of PCSBs Procurement,

Warehouse and Logistics Operations Manual.
Ensuring that the relevant requirement of the HSEMS is adhered to in the

procurement of goods, equipment and services from contractors and suppliers.
Ensuring that all PDSBs contractual documents contain the appropriate HSE
requirements while maintaining HSE performance database.
v. HSE Managers
Responsible for providing advice, guidance and technical support to all the managers
in meeting their HSEMS responsibilities.
Coordinates internal HSEMS Audits and records all incidents and accidents.
Coordinates HSE monitoring activities including incident investigations, planned

inspection and emergency drills / exercises.
vi. Head of Departments
Responsible for the implementation of HSEMS in respective area of authority and

ensures subordinate staff is trained and competent for assigned duties.
Shall ensure that all foreseeable risk associated with activities within their area of
operations has been adequately identified, assessed and the necessary risk control
measures effectively implemented.
vii. Superintendents / Supervisors
The Superintendents / Supervisors report to the respective Head of Department.
Implementing and enforcing the HSE Policy arrangements including all the practices
and procedures within his area of responsibility.
292
Ensuring that employees and contractors personnel under his supervision are fully
competent to carry out tasks allocated to them and holds the necessary competency
certificates.
Ensuring those adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) is provided as required.
viii. Employees and Contractors
Actively contribute to the creation and sustenance of a culture that support the
HSEMS through its policy, strategic objectives, initiatives and action plan.
Required to take responsible for the safety and health of themselves or of other
persons who may be affected by their acts or omissions at work.
12.2.3 Safety and Risk Management
Personnel from all organizational levels shall provide required support and resources, while
involved in the identification of HSE risk hazards, and the recovery measures. The
requirement for a structured HSE risk management shall be applied for all the activities
throughout the operations, including the activities conducted by contractors on behalf for the
operator or even for the third party member. All identified concerned risk on the chemicals
should be listed in the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and operational safety in the
Hazards Effect Register (HER) and reduced to a certain level. The risk management process
is presented as Figure 6.2 below.
Figure 12.2 HSE Risk Management Process

293
Common strategies in managing treats and risk are typically by transferring the threat to
another party, avoiding the treat, reducing the negative effect or probability of the threat or in
some cases accepting the potential or actual impact of the treat and the opposites for
opportunities. The principles implemented in the safety and risk management should:
Create value (profitable)
Be a part of decision making process
Be an integral part of organizational processes
Systematic and structure process
Take human factor into account
Explicitly address uncertainty and assumptions
Transparent and inclusive
Dynamic, iterative and responsive to change
Continually or periodically re-assessed
Capable of continual improvement and enhancement
12.2.4 Occupational Health Management
This occupational health management is concerned with the welfare, safety and health of
individuals engaged in the work. The main goal of this is to ensure a safe and healthy
working environment through its implementation. The co-workers, family members,
employers and customers who are directly or indirectly affected by the workplace
environment are also being protected. During the project operation, the potential health risk
to personnel is inevitable. Therefore, the personnels health should be constantly monitored
by procedures such as:
Job Safety Analysis (JSA)
Permit to Work (PTW)
Toolbox meeting before operation
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)
Hazards Effect Registers (HER)
Offshore Safety Passport System
PETRONAS Health Risk Assessment
294
Health Surveillance Programs
The guideline to provide guidance for personnel on effective medical and health care services
in work places has been issued in the HSEM 4.03-1 in 2001. The facilities shall be designed
in accordance with the standard requirements on the occupational health applicable to the
petroleum industry. The main objective of the planned safety or protection system is to
protect personnel. The secondary objective is to protect equipment and facilities. A hazard
analysis will be performed by on any new facilities to ensure safe operation of the facilities.
The Offshore Safety Passport system is to ensure that each and all the personnel working
offshore are fit for working offshore before they go to the location. Appropriate PETRONAS
Health Risk Assessment and Health Surveillance Programs shall be carried out and the
outcome of the assessment shall be followed up to ensure that all the reasonably practicable
measures shall be applied to eliminate or mitigate any potential harm to the personnel.
12.2.5 Quality Management
Technical challenges that are expected from the development of Gulfaks field are subsea
completions, transportation challenges and necessity of water injection facilities. The
organization will face challenges in its effort to procure safe and reliable products and
services. Assistance from third party will be required in assessing the supplier quality
management systems in accordance to the international QMS requirement documents such as
API Spec Q1 or Q2 and the ISO/TS 29001.
12.2.6 Environmental Management
Several issues in the environmental areas need to be considered with respect to the offshore
field development plan based on the background of the overall policy. Since the offshore
exploration and production activities involve various complicated processes, this cannot be
undertaken without impacts towards the environment where it may arises from waste
discharge and emission from site activities. The impacts which are likely to be associated are
those contributed by drilling, installation, development phase and well servicing where
emission or discharge into atmospheric or to the sea, affecting the local environment.
295
Wastes
Disposal of waste products is regulated by the Norwegian Pollution Act. The different types
of waste must be classified and transported to the correct type of onshore waste disposal
facility. Hazardous waste and industrial waste must be reported to the authorities. As the
disposal of waste can cause pollution, the waste disposal facility must have a license to
receive waste products. The waste disposal facility must pay a fee to the Treasury to cover
the costs related to procedures and control activities.
Drilling wastes consisting of drilling muds and cutting raise the concern of environmental
impact on marine life through toxic contamination, bioaccumulation and fish tainting as the
muds contain chemical and crude-oil.
The oil and gas extraction process also produced water which includes formation water,
injector water, well treatment solution and production chemical. The produced water shall
undergo treatment to isolate oil and solids prior to discharging. The development team shall
comply with the Norwegian Pollution Act on discharging the wastes:
i.
Chemical discharges to sea are only allowed if a discharge permit is granted by

Norwegian Climate and Pollution Agency (Pollution Control Act).
ii.
Oil discharges to sea are only allowed if a discharge permit is granted by Norwegian
Climate and Pollution Agency (Pollution Control Act).
iii.
Oil and chemical discharges from produced water can have local effects close to
facilities, and are regulated nationally through discharge permits granted by
Norwegian Climate and Pollution Agency (Pollution Control Act).
Gas Venting and Flaring

Gas flaring and venting is regulated by the Petroleum Act. The level of gas flaring and
venting cannot exceed the quantities determined by the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy
(MPE) of Norway. In relation to flaring, the burning of any kind of petroleum in excess of
the quantities needed for normal operational safety is prohibited, unless approved by the
MPE. The gas flaring permits can be divided into three different categories:
i.
Permits required in connection with the start of production in a new field.
ii.
Permits required for regular operations.
296
iii.
Permits required in connection with operational difficulties (that is, permits connected
to temporary difficulties with the export or injection of gas into the reservoir).
The gas flaring permits are granted in the form of a total amount of flared gas per quarter and
this amount is limited to what is required for safety reasons to achieve normal operation. For
new developments and fields, the gas flaring permits are issued on a monthly basis.
12.3
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
12.3.1 Abandonment Options
Generally, it is common that at the end of the production life of an oil and gas field, the
project will be decommissioned and abandoned so that the site is restored to safe
environmental conditions, and minimizes potential residual environmental impact and
permits reinstatement of activities conducted before the field development. Platform removal
affects both governments and companies and thus, ultimately, affects the bottom line of a
project. Typically, wells will be plugged and abandoned, topsides will either be taken to
shore or recycled, and substructures can be totally or partially removed or left in place. For
this project, abandonment will follow four distinct stages:
1. Develop, assess, and select options and create a detailed planning process that
includes engineering and safety preparedness.
2. Cease oil or gas production and safely plug and abandon wells.
3. Remove all or part of the offshore structure.
4. Dispose of or recycle removed equipment.
Moreover for this project, different options for offshore installation removal and disposal are
considered according to the literature. The best option depends on several factors such as type
of construction, size, and distance from shore, weather conditions, and removal complexity.
The abandonment option suggested for this project is the partial removal because it proves to
be safe, meeting the international regulation. In addition, and partial removals are easier than
total removals and in offshore locations, and are significantly less expensive. In partial
removal, the portion of the structure between 55 and 150 ft below the water surface is
removed. A minimum clearance of 55 m (180 ft) water from the sea surface to the remaining
structure will be conducted based on the navigational regulations requirements. The removed
top section may be towed and disposed in a licensed deepwater site, usually at least 200-m
297
(656 ft) deep and 150 nautical miles from land. The top portion of a structure may be cut
using nonexplosive methods or with small explosive charges.
12.3.2 Consideration of sustainable development option
In the oil and gas industry sustainable development should not be used to mean sustaining the
production of oil and gas indefinitely. The term refers to sustainability of human existence by
carefully balancing social, economic and environmental capital in a continuously changing
world. The oil and gas industrys role in sustainable development should be to meet the needs
of the global society for oil and gas at a reasonable cost, safely and with minimal impact on
the environment until suitable alternate energy sources are available.
This projects sustainable development plan is developed in order to establish a balance of the
social, economic an environmental factors throughout the drilling, production and
abandonment phases of the project. In order to achieve a sustainable development, this
project puts focus into avoiding or minimizing current environmental problems such as
pollution and climate change, and also emphasize in the good health and safety practices in
the workplace. Below are some of the actions which this project suggests so that sustainable
development is achieved:
Environmental sustainability:
To improve human welfare by protecting the sources of raw materials used for human needs
and ensuring that the sinks for human wastes are not exceeded, in order to prevent harm to
humans, which may be achieved by adopting environmental accounting.
Local content development and participation:
Local content development and participation entails the building of indigenous infrastructure
and human resource base of a nation so as to make its citizenry partake in the running of their
own affairs. This may be achieved through training local people/citizens with requisite
knowledge and skills to engender their effective participation.
Revenue accountability and transparency:
Petroleum revenue accountability and transparency is a significant step towards winning

public trust and confidence; the absence of which could result in expression of dissent of
298
many kinds. Social responsibility is also an important part which this projects sustainable
development plan takes into consideration.
299

FDP Utp

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FDP Utp

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

FDP Utp

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PCB 4032: FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 2 (FDP 2)

GULFAKS FIELD, NORTH SEA

Final Report submitted in partial fulfilment of

Supervisor: Dr. Shifferaw Regassa Jufar

Supervisor: Mr. Titus Ntow Ofei

AHMED ABDALLA SALMAN AHMED 17870

Final Report submitted in partial fulfilment of

(Dr Shifferaw Regassa Jufar)

(Mr. Titus Ntow Ofei)

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS

AHMED ABDALLA SALMAN

RAMI ALI ALI AL-TAM

MOHAMED AHMED MOHAMED

ILI NASHRIN BINTI NORIZAM

AHMAD FAIZ NAJMUDDIN

7.5 RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT

9.3.1 Sand Control Method

9.7.3 Shot per

FIGURE 2.10: REGIONAL

AND INTERPRETED MIGRATION PATHWAYS THROUGH JURASSIC SOURCE ROCKS IN THE

BEARING ZONES ..................................................................... 42

FIGURE 3.11 DETERMINATION OF

C7+ ....................................................................................................... 101

TT..................................................... 111 FIGURE 6.28: HISTOGRAM FOR GIIP PROBABILISTIC

T1 ..................................................... 115 FIGURE 6.32: HISTOGRAM FOR GIIP PROBABILISTIC

N1.................................................... 119 FIGURE 6.36: HISTOGRAM FOR GIIP PROBABILISTIC

4 INJECTORS ............................................................................... 158 FIGURE 7.31: CREAMING

TEAM ...................................................................................................... 272

FIGURE 11.1: NET

.................................................................................................. 105 TABLE 6.20: STOIIP

VALUES ...................................................................... 105

TN............................................................................ 117 TABLE 6.35: CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY

N1 ........................................................................... 119 TABLE 6.37: CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY

TABLE 7.11: POSSIBLE

CRITERIA ........................................................................................................... 244

DESIGN ............................................................................................................... 246

MATRIX ..................................................................................................................... 248

COMPONENTS ........................................................................................................ 250

PROPOSED ......................................................................................... 255

Figure 1.1: Location of Gullfaks field in the North Sea

Figure 1.2: The Gullfaks region located in the Norwegian Sea.

1.2 Problem Statement

: Geology & Geophysics and Petrophysics.

:Drilling Engineering, Production Technology and Facilities Engineering.

: Sustainable Development and Health, Safety, & Environment.

Field contour map.

Maximizing economic return.

Maximizing recoverable hydrocarbons.

Maximizing hydrocarbon production.

Compliance with health, safety and environment requirements.

Providing recommendations in reducing risks and uncertainties.

Providing sustainable development options.

1.4 Scope of Work

To develop the static model of Gulfaks Field.

To prepare a dynamic model and perform simulation to achieve highest recovery

To prepare well completion design and propose a drilling program.

To propose the most feasible and economical facilities.

Figure 2.1: Location of Gullfaks Field