Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at Offshore Europe 2003 held in Aberdeen, UK, 2-5
September 2003.

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

Abstract
The estimated recoverable reserves from the Valhall field at
start of production in 1982 were 250 MMSTB. Now, after
twenty years on primary depletion, a total of 500 MMSTB has
been produced and additional 500 MMSTB remains to be
produced of the original 2.6 BSTB in place. This corresponds
to a recovery factor of 40%. Possibilities to increase ultimate
recovery have been defined. These will require further insights
into the detailed architecture of the field and improved
understanding of the reservoir energy and displacement
efficiency. Approximately 50% of the drive to date has been
from rock compaction. The field is a North Sea Chalk field
producing from Tor and Lower Hod Formations, porosity is
exceeding 50% in places, some fractured permeability is
present, but matrix permeability is generally low, less than 10
mD.

Application of new technology has been fundamental in
bringing the field up to current performance. New completion
techniques combined with dedicated draw down schedules has
been established to reduce influx of the weak chalk formations
and reduce well failures. Special well design for a compacting
and subsiding environment has also been implemented.
Drilling of the overburden has been a key challenge. This has
been partly mitigated by detailed geological mapping of
problem zones versus structure, lithology, overpressure and
wellbore stability analysis, but has also resulted in replacing
extended reach wells by the installation of new flank drilling
and production facilities. The particular characteristics of the
overburden and chalk also pose challenges for data
acquisition. Coring technology & practices are very tightly
controlled, as is selection of logging devices.

A water flood scheme has been approved based on a
successful water flood pilot, but issues related to sweep
efficiency, presence of fault and fracture zones and large
variation in thickness need to be understood to capture its full
potential. The reservoir will also experience extra water
induced compaction and increased subsidence. New logging
technology has recently made it possible to define and
characterize the fracture system, which combined with a range
of surveillance techniques will be key in this work.

Seismic imaging has generally been a challenge at Valhall due
to the presence of gas in the overburden. Use of 4C seismic
technology has improved this. In addition, the 4D seismic
response appears to be very sensitive to production-induced
depletion, compaction of the reservoir and subsidence of the
overburden and seafloor. Seismic techniques will be critical in
future development. For a more detailed review of the first 10
years of Valhall, reference is made to the paper by Ali and
Alcock [1].

Field History
The Valhall field is an over-pressured, under-saturated Upper
Cretaceous chalk reservoir located in the North Sea
approximately 290 km offshore southern Norway in 69 m of
water. The field is located in the most southwestern corner of
the Norwegian continental shelf, Figure 1. The Valhall field
was discovered in 1975, after exploration drilling in the period
1969 1974. Decision to develop the field was made in 1978
and the field started producing in October 1982. During
appraisal drilling the first issues with soft chalk and solids
production were experienced. Although early core tests
indicated a high compaction potential, it was believed that the
relatively thin chalk section would not result in significant
subsidence. The platforms, however, were built tall enough to
withstand some subsidence. The initial development consisted
of a 3-platform complex (quarters platform, drilling platform
and process/compression platform). Later, in 1996, a fourth
platform was added (wellhead platform) to provide additional
slots for infill drilling. In 2000, the Valhall partnership
approved a water injection program, from an additional
Injection platform, IP. With continued subsidence, drilling
wells in the overburden became increasingly difficult. To
provide efficient access to the flank areas in the North and
South, installation of two new wellhead platforms was
approved in 2001.

SPE 83957
Valhall Field - Still on Plateau after 20 Years of Production
Olav Barkved, Pete Heavey, Roar Kjelstadli, SPE, Tore Kleppan, and Tron Golder Kristiansen, SPE, BP
2 Barkved, Heavey, Kjelstadli, Kleppan and Kristiansen SPE 83957
Geological Settings & Data

General
The Valhall Field is a double plunging NNW-SSE trending
anticline, Figure 2. A simplified reservoir zonation is shown
in Figure 3. The primary reservoir is the Tor Formation with
secondary reservoir from a unit within the Hod Formation.
The thickness of the Tor reservoir varies abruptly ranging
from 0 to 80 m. The reservoir quality varies considerably with
some of the best porosities (42 to 50%) and permeability (1 to
10 mD) developed in the thickest areas. Generally, the Tor
Formation has higher porosity and permeability and provides
the greatest reservoir volume within structural closure. The
high porosities found within allochthonous or re-deposited
chalk intervals, are preserved by fluid over-pressuring before
oil emplacement, and decline with depth. The thin areas
(0.5m to 10m) generally have a skim of high porosity chalk
overlying a dense hardground. The lateral change from a thick
to a thin can occur abruptly - making for challenging
horizontal drilling.

Structural Evolution & depositional model
Presently, Valhall Field is at the highest structural position
along the Lindesnes Ridge in both the strike and dip
directions. A cross-section across the field is shown in Figure
4. The basic characteristic of an inverted structure is the
antecedent structural low, which has been transformed into a
relative positive feature.

The strong variations in Tor and Hod formation thickness
across the structure reveal various stages of development of a
growing structure. Understanding the details are important for
the zonation of the reservoir, detailed discussions can be found
in Farmer and Barkved [2]. The graphic correlation technique,
Mann and Lane [3], has been used for detailed biostratigraphic
analysis of the chalk and overlying shales. Using graphic
correlation and sequence stratigraphic techniques, the age and
the nature between the formations has been established. The
most important stage is the forming horsts and graben in the
Campanian as a result of extension across the top of the
growing structure (syn-depositional faulting). In the
Maastrichtian, chalk sediments of the Tor filled the crestal
grabens. On highs (close to storm wave base or current swept
areas), net sediment accumulation is low, and dense zones
and hard grounds are formed by early cementation. On
structural highs, sediment packages are thinner, hardground
development is pronounced and gap in depositional record are
considerably more extensive than on the flanks and in deeper
parts of the basin.

By the end of the Maastrichtian, most of the grabens had been
filled; the anticline remained structurally high and provided
less space for the younger Paleocene formations. Only a thin
condensed section (high gamma shale) equivalent to the
Ekofisk and Vle Formations blanket the crest of the structure.
Regional thinning of the Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, and
Miocene intervals across the Lindesnes Ridge indicates that a
structural high was present until the early Miocene.

Petrology of Chalk
Chalk is predominantly composed of fragments of
coccospheres calcareous planktonic algae, with minor
contents of planktonic foraminfera and fragments of larger
fossils like bryozoa. The coccospheres are complex structures
2-20 microns across comprised of individual calcite plates or
coccoliths, a typical volume of 0.3 to 1 micron
3
. Chalk would
be referred to as a mudstone in a clastic classification.
Additional constituents of the chalk are small percentages of
clay and clay sized quarts particles. The volume of this
material ranges from one to more than twenty percent. The
amount and the distribution of these elements and the packing
and preservation f the coccolith fragments (texture) have an
important impact on the dynamic properties of the Chalk.

Reservoir Zonation
The Tor Formation has been divided into four reservoir zones
based on detailed biostratigraphy; Tor-D, Tor-M1, Tor-M2,
Tor-M3+ (incl. Tor-Ca), Figure 3. The Tor Formation
consists of chalk deposited in the Danian, Maastrichtian and
Campanian periods. The Hod Formation age is Santonian,
Coniacian and Turonian, Andersen [4]. The Tor Fm. is
bounded by unconformities at the top and base.

The Maastrichtian Tor reservoir zones (Tor-M1, Tor-M2 and
Tor-M3) are present over the crest of Valhall Anticline as well
as on the south flanks. The Tor-M2 and Tor-M3+ zones
appear to be confined to the deepest crestal grabens and
downflank areas. The most complete stratigraphic section is
found in the flanks or in local structural lows. This includes an
older Campanian Tor zone and a Campanian age chalk
containing reworked Hod age microfossils.

Hydrocarbon source & Reservoir Seal
Source for oil at Valhall Field is from the Upper Jurassic
Mandal Formation (Kimmeridge Clay). Oil generation
occurred during Early Miocene to the present time.

A 1000m thick Tertiary claystone section of primarily
Paleocene, Eocene and Miocene age overlie the chalk section
and provide the top seal at Valhall Field. Escaped
hydrocarbons from the chalk penetrate and permeate micro
fractures in some of these claystones, and the matrix in highly
diatomaceous and low-density sections in the Miocene,
leading to the low seismic velocity "gas cloud" overlying the
central parts of Valhall Field.


Petrophysics& logging
Table 1 summarizes the pertinent reservoir rock and fluid
property data for Valhall. Valhall Field wells falls into two
categories, early exploration wells drilled with water based
mud, and development wells drilled almost without exception
with oil based mud. For the exploration wells, porosities are
SPE 83957 Valhall Field Still on Plateau after 20 Years of Production 3
calculated directly from the density logs, assuming a lime
matrix of 2.71 g/cc and a fluid density of 1.0 g/cc. A change to
this procedure is necessary when calculating porosities from
density logs in the development wells using oil-based mud.
Variations to standard techniques are also required when using
LWD tools, as it can be demonstrated that the light high GOR
Valhall crude is incompletely flushed away from the wellbore
at LWD time.

Petrophysical studies have shown that the Archie equation
provides a reasonable method for calculating water saturation
in Valhall wells. Connate water saturations in the crestal Tor
Formation are typically less than 5%.

During the last 10 years, considerable efforts have been
directed towards improving the understanding of porosity
distributions and relations to saturation and depth. Using
seismic data to map and understand the lateral variation in
porosity away from wells, and integrating log with capillary
pressure data, has been central to understanding distribution of
hydrocarbons within the field boundaries. As a result of
improved porosity and saturation models new well locations
have been identified and drilled.

Natural Fractures
Initially the crestal part of the field was naturally fractured,
Ali and Alcock [1]. Total permeability estimates from
production tests were more than ten times matrix
permeability. During pressure depletion, the fractures closed
in some parts of the field, and permeability declined. This
caused rapid decline in rate and was seen in build up response
and PTA. Powley et. al. [5], compared permeability decline
with pressure depletion. This permeability decline is not
uniform across the field. In some areas of the field, fractures
stay open.

Poor core recovery of semi-unconsolidated Tor chalks and the
difficulties in using advanced fracture detection tools such as
resistivity or acoustic imaging logs log, has historically made
definition and resolution of fracture systems and structural
detail at Valhall difficult. The recent development in oil based
resistivity imagers and LWD density/Pef image logs, coupled
with procedures for core cutting, tripping and handling has
improved this. The modern logs provide vital detailed insight
into the nature and distribution of chalk. Work is ongoing to
identify important fractures using micro-mud losses and
drilling parameters in addition to well logs.


Data Management
With the level of new well activity planned at Valhall, the new
LWD realtime azimuthal density tools, formation pressure
tools and rotary steerable systems provide data at
unprecedented rates. Getting this data in real time is critical to
make the right decisions. The fibre-optic cable from Valhall is
currently pressed into use providing realtime data via
WITSML and OPENWIRE to get drilling, mudlog, and
LWD into the digital workspace of the reservoir team in near
real time. In addition to biosteering inputs, this dataflow
facilitates accurate placement of geosteered horizontal targets
using all data available. This is becoming more important as
development progresses in areas with thinner or more complex
structural characteristics. In addition, critical operations can be
monitored very closely by key onshore staff. An example of
this is geostopping. To avoid total losses drilling into
depleted chalk a drilling liner needs to be deployed. In these
cases, drilling will have to stop within 5m TVD of top chalk to
allow safe deployment. Losses would expose the weak
overburden to strongly reduced hydrostatic pressure and could
result in stuck drill pipe.

Wireline acquisition can also be monitored by expert
petrophysical staff in realtime via the BP Norway Onshore
Operations Centre. It was constructed specifically to support
the IP drilling program, but has proven itself to have many
valuable uses, including the realtime monitoring and control of
propped-fracture stimulations.

With 20 years of data and reporting, and with the prospects of
another 25 years, it is critical to get data management right;
both for internal use, and for external reporting requirements
to partners and national datastores. To this end, efforts are
ongoing to improve and further standardize workflows and
products, right down to data mnemonic standardization. After
a tracked QC process - which also results in HQLD (High
Quality Log Data) reporting to the national datastore - well
log, mudlog, stratigraphic, lithologic, completion, perforation
and directional data are stored in a protected database,
administered within the subsurface team, which is then used
by all in the team as base data for interpretation. This avoids
unnecessary duplication of databases and attendant errors.
Preliminary and real-time data is flagged as such.

Use of the abundant historical drilling data in planning new
wells, and identifying potential trouble zones in existing wells
is a challenge. This is being achieved by consistently coding
up drilling observations, such as high torque, mud losses,
stuck pipe etc., so that these data can be used in 3D during the
planning, execution and post appraisal phases of a well.

Role of Seismic Data
Seismic data deliver the thickness variations, fault definitions
and subsurface topography needed for optimal well placement.
Due to rapid lateral variations in thickness of a relatively thin
reservoir, seismic is critical for detailed well planning and
drilling of horizontal wells needed to drain the field
economically. There appears to be a strong correlation
between overburden faults and drilling problems. Seismic
data is critical in defining a safe well trajectory avoiding
potential troublesome faults.

The presence of a low velocity gas-charged Miocene
diatomaceous interval creates a "gas cloud" effect that distorts
the seismic time data and makes it difficult to image the
4 Barkved, Heavey, Kjelstadli, Kleppan and Kristiansen SPE 83957
crestal area of the reservoir with conventional seismic
techniques, Figure 6. Outside the gas cloud area the seismic
quality is very good, and the seismic data has been vital in
developing the flank areas. Figure 7 demonstrates the
potential of seismic attributes to define areas of optimal
reservoir properties, Barkved, [6].

Advanced processing of conventional 2D seismic combined
with extensive use of VSP to undershoot the gas cloud was the
seismic tools used during the first ten years of production,
Leonard and Munns [7]. In 1990 the first horizontal wells
were successfully implemented, this raised the need for
improved lateral seismic coverage, and since the early targets
for horizontal wells were outside the gas-cloud area, a 3D
seismic dataset was acquired in 1992. The 3D seismic data
provided a better basis for validating earlier well observations.
A significant area in the northern part of the field, previously
mapped as thin due to a well placed at a localized reservoir
high were immediately pointed out and later confirmed by
drilling. The resulting increase in reserve was close to 40
MMstb Oil only for this area.

The step change in detailed reservoir characterization from 3D
seismic coverage soon raised the need for technology that
could provide seismic images of the reservoir beneath the gas
cloud. Pre stack migrations were tested out and 3D VSP was
considered , but the partnership agreed to pursue the potential
in utilizing the emerging four component (4C) seismic
technology.

The Valhall field has been instrumental in developing and
demonstrating the viability of imaging below gas using
converted shear waves recorded by four component sensors
placed on the seafloor, Thomsen et. al [8]. Converted shear
waves are converted reflected energy from down-going
compressional (p-wave) seismic energy, at the acoustic
interfaces in the subsurface. One of the worlds first 3D 4C
seismic datasets was acquired at Valhall in 1997, Rosland et.
al [9], Barkved et. al [10]. Images constructed from this
dataset are today essential in planning new wells in the central
area of the field, Figure 8.

The acoustic setting of the Valhall reservoir is such that strong
4D seismic responses should be expected. In 2002, a second
3D dataset was acquired demonstrating stunning 4D
responses clearly defining how wells are draining the field,
Figure 9, Barkved et. al [11]. The observations from the 4D
seismic have already been used successfully to plan and drill
new wells. The 4D seismic is very sensitive to minor changes
in effective stress in the reservoir, and there are indications
that pressure changes in the order of a few hundred psi might
be predicted from the seismic.

The 4C technology is still very much in an emerging state, and
new and improved processed results have been provided on a
regular basis. This acquisition provided also wide azimuth P-
wave data set, which has provided new insights into small
scale faulting in areas of generally good data quality in the
flanks by illuminating the subsurface from all azimuth angles.
The P-wave data set has also been analyzed for AvO-Azimuth
effects. These analyses revealed azimuthal anisotropy effects,
which showed strong correlations to existing fault patterns
Hall [12]. The converted wave data has also been analyzed for
shear wave splitting. Early analysis pointed out the presence
of shallow azimuthal anisotropy effects, probably related to
subsidence; and detailed analyzed has now demonstrated the
orientation and magnitude of the shear wave splitting effects is
closely related to the shape of the subsidence bowl at seafloor,
Figure 10. Currently, various approaches are tested for
isolating these effects to the reservoir level, and the intention
is to use this information to validate realizations modeled by
discrete network fracture modeling.

Other seismic techniques as the Coherency processing and
spectral-decomposition has been used to better define faults in
the reservoir. These techniques are actively used in well
planning, when a rigorous and detailed 3D model of the
subsurface is constructed to guide optimal drilling of a well.


Reservoir & Field Operations

Reservoir characteristics
The high porosity and low matrix permeability has given
relatively low gas mobility. This has been seen in field
observations, and confirmed by gas-oil relative permeability
measurements. Figure 11 shows field GOR over 20 years of
production history. The average solution GOR for the field is
around 1100 scf/stb with an increase in field GOR after 20
years depletion of only 35%.

Reservoir compaction has provided a large energy
contribution during pressure depletion. Reservoir compaction
has been observed by porosity reduction in infill wells and has
also resulted in reservoir thickness reduction. Porosity and
thickness reduction has been a complicating factor in the
geological and rock property modeling. An example of
porosity reduction is seen in Figure 12. The porosity reduction
is not uniform and matching porosity reduction with the rock
compaction curve has not been straight forward, Halvorsen
[13]. Geomechanical modeling has been useful to assess
impact of strain arching and areas with additional strain and
hence higher compaction energy.

In 2002, the Valhall partnership decided to inject water in
order to increase oil recovery. Water injection will start up
during 2003, and will initially focus on the crestal parts of the
field. There exact incremental recovery from the field is
difficult to predict, Martinsen et.al. [14]. The fractures,
wettability, relative permeability and low matrix permeability
represent a large uncertainty to incremental recovery.

Completion History
SPE 83957 Valhall Field Still on Plateau after 20 Years of Production 5
Initial testing at Valhall gave experiences with severe chalk
production and casing deformations due to the weakness of the
Tor formation. It was apparent that completion design would
be a critical factor to successfully produce the field. The
completion strategy has continuously been developed over the
years with focus on limiting solids production and well
failures. The completion history can be divided into periods as
described below. More completion details from 1982 to 1992
are presented by Ali and Alcock [1].

1980-1985
The first step in developing Valhall was through Up and
Under Fracturing. The concept was to perforate the more
competent upper Hod formation below the weaker Tor and
propped fracture stimulate up into the high porosity chalk.
This was often combined with direct fracturing into the more
competent but less productive Lower Hod formation. This was
a success until massive chalk production and well collapses in
mid-1985 resulted in drop in field production from around
60,000 to 30,000 BOPD. The technique was reassessed and
abandoned for the combination of direct propped fracture
stimulation and gravel packing.

1985-1990
The new method called Propped Fractured Gravel Packs
consisted of 180
o
phasing perforations that were propped
fracture stimulated using a Tip Screen-Out design, Smith et.
al. [15], followed by an internal gravel pack operation , Attard
et. al. [16]. The gravel pack was designed to support the weak
chalk and was successful in reducing massive chalk influxes
and well failures. This was the general completion method
until problems started to materialize from 1990. This led to the
use of resin-coated proppant directly fractured into Tor but
with no gravel pack. This was reasonably successful combined
with an increasing awareness of proper choke control.

1990-1995
The first horizontal well was drilled in 1990/91 after reservoir
studies and simulations indicated increased recovery and
higher flow rates at lower drawdowns. However, the
theoretical performance of horizontal wells turned out to be
too optimistic for a stress sensitive reservoir as the Tor chalk,
especially as a dramatic increase in well failure frequency was
seen. In the first years, one did typically loose access to 80%
of the horizontal section within the six first months on
production. The reason was chalk production and
deformed/collapsed liners. A variety of completion and
stimulation methods were used as described below:

Acid Fractured Horizontal Wells
The first horizontal well was acid fracture stimulated with
HCl. Acid fracturing had been tried out on the flanks with
acceptable results in the late eighties. Initial performance was
good, but with steep decline as fractures started to close. The
Lower Hod formation was also acid fracture stimulated, a
method still used. Initial rates of 10,000 BOPD declining to 3-
4,000 BOPD within two months are typical, but with positive
response to re-stimulations.

Acid Matrix Stimulated Horizontal Wells
These wells were performed in order to ensure that drilling
mud damage was properly removed from the natural fractures.
The acid was pumped below fracturing pressure, performance
was believed to be similar to a cased-off openhole well, and a
directly perforated unstimulated well.

Direct Perforated Unstimulated Horizontal Wells
These wells showed that it was possible to produce the Tor
formation through unstimulated perforations at economical
rates.

Cased-off Openhole with External Casing Packers.
This well completion was developed in order to try an
openhole completion type at Valhall. The mud cake was
removed using a mud breaker fluid before possibly unstable
zones were isolated using external casing packers (ECP). The
liner was then perforated and the well put on production.
Based on the experience with these wells, low cost openhole
completions were evaluated, Kristiansen [17], and tested out
successfully in a Tor well in 1996. The productivity from this
well was, however, low.

1995 to 2003
Due to the relatively disappointing performance of the
horizontal wells, studies were initiated to investigate root
causes of the behavior, Kristiansen [18] and Kristiansen and
Meling [19]. The aim was to develop a cost effective and
stable completion while producing at economical rates from a
large drainage area. The developed concept was a horizontal
cased hole completion with multiple propped fractures with
the first well (A-4 B) completed in 1995, Norris et. al [20].
The wells were usually equipped with heavy walled (HW)
liners (6-5/8/66 lb/ft or 5-1/2/46 lb/ft) and perforated with
180
o
phasing to improve wellbore strength and stability,
Pattillo and Kristiansen [21]. To date there are no clear
evidence of deformed or collapsed HW liners in the reservoir.
The number of zones has varied from 3 to 12. The proppant
clean-outs and zonal isolation were initially carried out using
snubbing, but this method was soon replaced by coiled tubing.
This method is still the preferred completion and stimulation
method used for horizontal Tor wells today, Olson et. al [22].
Clean out of excessive proppant and perforating is conducted
on the same coiled tubing run and sand (proppant) plugs are
used for zonal isolation, Norris et. al. [23]. This reduces the
cycle time per propped fracture down to an average of 3 days
and most of the excessive proppant is recycled, Slater [24].
The benefits from these completions have been high and
sustained rates, typically producing 5 to 8,000 BOPD the first
year. Stability has generally been good, but some solids
production and chalk influxes are still experienced.



6 Barkved, Heavey, Kjelstadli, Kleppan and Kristiansen SPE 83957
Well failures and well management
The weak reservoir formation represented a key pre-
development issue. Laboratory tests indicated possibilities for
the chalk to flow as toothpaste under certain conditions,
resulting in casing deformations and collapse. And the
development of the field has in fact been a continuous struggle
aiming for completion techniques that would allow sustained
high oil rates without producing chalk. The economic impact
has been significant, but todays improved completion
techniques combined with proactive well management has
resulted in a significant more stable production.

There are two types of well failures:

1. Influx failure - reservoir chalk is produced in an
uncontrolled way into the wellbore. The result is plugged
off wellbore. Chalk influx is evidently linked to pressure
cycling and total draw down of the reservoir. Production
may be restored by coiled tubing cleanout, taking about 1
week and at a cost of 400 MUSD.
2. Terminal failure - production may not be restored due to
lack of access, and the well has to be sidetracked at a cost
of 10 - 20 MM USD. During the first ten years of
production, the reason was usually a collapsed casing or
liner at top reservoir level, usually at the perforations.
Today most failures appear to occur close to faults in the
overburden that may be re-activated because of
subsidence. The re-activation is seen as micro-seismic
events and the casing design has been modified in order to
accommodate shearing, Kristiansen et. al [25].

The first horizontal wells drilled in the early nineties were
severely plagued by well failures, Figure 13. This resulted in a
strong focus on well management and triggered several new
initiatives, Kristiansen [17] and Kristiansen and Meling [18].

More resources were assigned to well management, including
a dedicated well management engineer onshore and soon in
rotation with petroleum engineers offshore. The purpose was
to train and transfer experience to offshore production staff.
Detailed opening and shut down guidelines were developed
for each well and the offshore control system was refined to
accommodate use of remotely operated chokes. The new
chokes made it easier to handle the wells more smoothly by
control room operator while monitoring the well performance.
Acoustic sand detectors were mounted on critical propped
fracture stimulated wells, as flow of proppant may easily be
detected.

The focus continues today. A dedicated control room operator
monitors the wells continuously offshore. Alarms are triggered
if pressure drops below predefined limits and action taken. In
addition, a full time onshore well engineer monitors well
performance and provides guidelines to the offshore staff. A
duty roster system with a pool of petroleum engineers ensures
follow up and well monitoring coverage outside office hours.

Detailed well guidelines defining draw down schedules and
opening guidelines for new wells are issued weekly. As a
result, a horizontal acid fracture stimulated well in the Lower
Hod formation is typically not fully open after 3-4 months. A
horizontal multiple propped fracture stimulated Tor well will
normally require a year to be producing at separator pressure,
Figure 14. The schedule very much depends on stability,
solids production, completion quality, reservoir properties and
response. The strategy is to draw the wells down quite quickly
the first days in order to clean up the fractures and then
gradually slow down.


Compaction and Subsidence
A major issue arising from testing reservoir cores in the
laboratory was what magnitude of compaction and related
permeability decline to be expected for the field, and whether
the compaction would be reflected as seafloor subsidence.
Seafloor subsidence was measured in 1985 only 3 year after
production start-up and was found to be around 0.5 meters.
Since then, the subsidence of the platforms at Valhall has been
measured with pressure gauges at the seafloor, infrared
sensing, single frequency GPS and currently dual frequency
GPS. Figure 15 shows the subsidence data at Valhall from the
initial measurements and until today. One can observe a
relatively constantly subsidence rate around 25 cm/year.

The reason for the subsidence is the reservoir compaction,
which is transferred through the overburden and up to the
seafloor as subsidence. The large amount of seafloor
subsidence as observed at Valhall can be attributed to the high
initial porosity of the chalks. The high initial porosity in the
field is primarily caused by the overpressure, secondary by
early oil migration, which would reduce any diagnesis as well
as chalk water weakening. The crestal Tor reservoir was
around 2900 psi over pressured at discovery. This is with a
pore pressure of 6550 psi and an overburden of around 7200
psi. This effective stress (650 psi) felt by the matrix is
equivalent to a burial depth of only 700-800 meters. Core with
porosity in the excess of 53% has been recovered from the
field; log porosity can locally be higher. When a weak chalk
like this is buried to around 2450 meters, but is only loaded
with an effective stress, which is equivalent to, a burial depth
of 700-800 meters one will expect the chalk to compact and
lose the porosity rapidly as the pore pressure is depleted by
4500 psi and even more close to the wells. This extreme
porosity reduction is indeed taking place in the Valhall
reservoirs. It can be observed in wells instrumented with
radioactive bullets and logged periodically in order to measure
formation strain.

The chalk in the Tor formation at Valhall is very clean (96 to
98% calcite). The chalk is composed of coccolith fragments of
around 0.5 to 1 micron in size. A large number of these
coccolith fragments are still parts of intact rosettes or parts of
rosettes. The size of these rosette fragments can be tens of
microns. Compaction in itself is just a process where the initial
SPE 83957 Valhall Field Still on Plateau after 20 Years of Production 7
open pore space is reduced through a deformation of the fine-
grained structures into the very open pore space in these
highly porous chalks. Due to the very complicated
microstructure, the chalks are very strain rate sensitive
materials. The measured stiffness and deformations are strain
rate dependent. Deformations at constant stress also show a
logarithmic creep response. This strain rate dependent
deformation makes the prediction of deformations over long
periods a bit uncertain from a few weeks of creep tests in the
laboratory. Ruddy et. al [26], Andersen et. al [27] and
Andersen [4] discuss the strain dependency of chalk in detail.
A stress-strain diagram of some typical Valhall chalk
specimens is shown in Figure 16. One can see that the strain
response is characterized with a close to elastic response at
low stress levels, then the chalk yield and is going through a
transition before the sample starts to deform plastically with
some signs of hardening. The curves for similar porosity are
equal. The curves for specimens with similar porosity, but
with water as the pore fluid, are showing a much weaker and
softer response. This is due to the water weakening effect in
chalk , Andersen et. al [28] Andersen [4] and Risnes et. al
[29].

The results from compaction at Valhall are both positive and
negative. The positive effects like reservoir drive energy are
far outweighing the negative ones, like chalk production and
influx failures and well failures.

Modeling of compaction is currently done using two separate
numerical models. In the reservoir fluid flow model, the
laboratory stress-strain curves have been adjusted for the
strain rate difference between the laboratory and the field and
converted to pore volume multiplier look-up tables as a
function of reservoir pressure. In the compaction and
subsidence model in ABAQUS, Pattillo et. al [30], the chalk
is modeled with a more accurate constitutive model. The latter
models have most of the time been run with the pore pressure
history from the fluid flow models as input to the deformation
analysis. Recent closer coupled fluid flow and deformation
models indicate that this approach may be too simplistic and
therefore producing less accurate results than a fully coupled
model.

One of the challenges in terms of modeling the fluid flow in
the Valhall reservoir has been to get the compaction energy
right. This has historically been partially due to lack of
relevant up-scaling from intact laboratory specimens to larger
reservoir grid cells containing high number of fractures. Other
problems are related to the size of the deformations in the
reservoir and the fact that the standard reservoir flow
simulation tools in the oil industry is not able to handle load
transfer within the reservoir or from one reservoir area to
another via the overburden. This problem can be illustrated by
the results from a recent compaction and subsidence model
run with the ISAMGEO software showing the magnitude of
the vertical stress (overburden) across the field at a specific
point in time. These results are seen in Figure 17 and one can
observe quite rapid local variations of around 450 psi in
difference. This implies that the standard reservoir flow model
is using the same pore volume reduction for a given pore
pressure even if the effective stress can be 450 psi different. In
addition to the load/stress transfer limitations in the standard
flow models, the limited coupling between pore pressure and
deformation in the standard flow models will also make the
prediction of accurate reservoir pressure in a low permeable
highly compressible reservoir very challenging. In some
situations, the compaction and subsidence process will
generate areas in the chalk reservoir that is actually increasing
in pressure during depletion, Cuisiat et. al [31]. This is
captured in the fully coupled simulation with VIRAGE, which
is compared to a standard ECLIPSE run in Figure 18 for a
local Valhall model.

Water induced chalk weakening during waterflood is a
phenomenon, which has been discussed in the literature the
last ten years. The effect was pointed out by Andersen et. al
[27]. It is clearly seen in Ekofisk, Sylte et. al [32]. The exact
mechanism for the chalk weakening has not been isolated, but
several authors have suggested a pure capillary effect. In
recent work, Risnes et. al [29] suggest a physio-chemical
process where the most important mechanisms are due to
absorption pressure and pressure solution.

The full field water flood will not start until 4Q 2003. Initially,
A simplistic function based on initial interpretations of the
laboratory tests was implemented in the standard flow model
to take into account the water induced rock compaction, Cook
et. al [33]. Later laboratory results have resulted in
refinements of this functionality. Water-induced compaction is
not a function of initial porosity only, but also initial water-
saturation and the relative change of the water saturation. It is
expected that the fully coupled models under construction will
be more effective in also handling the water weakening
process.

Waste Injection
Waste injection trials were initiated in the late eighties and
proved economically rational in connection with stricter
environmental legislation to be implemented in 1993. Regular
waste disposal started up in 1992 and to date more than 9 MM
bbls have been injected downhole at Valhall. The early
experience and theoretical basis is described by Moschovidis
et. al [34]. An update is also given by Moschovidis et. al [35].
Valhall generates close to 1 MM bbls of waste each year. The
largest contribution comes from filter and separator washes
from the process plant with drill cuttings slurry being second.
The waste is injected in batches of 2-3,000 bbls at rates of 5-8
BPM. A well and volumetric overview is given in Table 1.
The first well used, A-20 A, was an old producer transformed
to an injector. Waste was pumped through tubing and into the
Paleocene shale above the reservoir. The well was re-
perforated several times in Paleocene, Eocene and Miocene
due to plugging until indications of casing deformation and
waste domain being too shallow resulted in sidetracking the
8 Barkved, Heavey, Kjelstadli, Kleppan and Kristiansen SPE 83957
well. In the mean time, shallow annular injection below the
13-3/8 casing shoe in the Miocene was performed in two
wells. The sidetracked well, A-20 D, was a splitter well
(multi-lateral class 6S) with one producing and one waste
disposal leg injecting into Eocene, Sund et. al [36]. Due to
temporary integrity problems after a year, the poor producer
A-25 B was picked as an additional waste well. Injection was
into the Cretaceous reservoir far out on the flank, but pressures
gradually rose even above the overburden fracturing pressure
in Paleocene. The well is still used today and seismic images
have proven the waste to be deposited into the overlying
Paleocene shale, see Figure 19. Large volumes have been
injected and the waste wells have experienced more integrity
problems than producers have. Close monitoring and detailed
operational guidelines is critical for managing the waste wells
which are needed to support drilling and production activities.

Overburden Drilling and Replacement of ERD Wells
From the mid-80ties a number of slanted wells with high
inclination were drilled towards the flank of the field.
Reservoir characterization indicated that horizontal wells
would be needed in order to drain the thinnest areas in the
flanks of the field. A record ERD well (A-30B) was drilled to
the southern flank of the Valhall field in 1993. The well was
proving up substantial reserves in the south flank of the field.
The well had a sail angle between 70 and 75 degrees through
the shales of the Hordaland Group. The well was not drilled
without problems. The clean-out trip prior to running the
casing in the 12 section took close to 750 hours. Several
development concepts were evaluated for the producing the
flank reserves at Valhall. A wellbore stability study indicated
that a solution to go for two satellite platforms in the flanks
could be a less risky alternative than a central platform. This
was primarily because of two reasons: 1) the safe operational
window between the collapse pressure and the frac gradient
was indicated to be narrow. 2) There were concerns that the
ongoing subsidence could potentially increase the risk during
drilling as well as shorter well life on production for ERD
wells. The conclusions, however, were based on limited data
and quite simplified and uncertain models. After the A-30B
well had been drilled it was pointed out that some of the large
cavings, which were age dated, was originating from a fault
intersection that could be clearly seen based on coherency
analysis of the seismic data, Kristiansen [37]. Based on an
overall assessment of economics and risk, the concept selected
was a wellhead platform with bridge connection to the existing
platform complex at Valhall. The oil would be produced with
horizontal wells similar to the A-30B well. A steep learning
curve was assumed from the drilling of this well.

A work program that would assist drilling in reducing risk of
geological related unscheduled events in the ERD wells was
initiated in order to reduce risk. The program looked at
integrating seismic, petrophysics and rock mechanics.
Examples of some of the integration is presented in papers by
Kristiansen [37] and Kristiansen et. al [38].

The work supported the conclusions of the early work. The
work indicated a very narrow safe operational ECD window,
where some uncertainties were attributed to the potential
effect of subsidence. The change in stresses in the overburden
as predicted from a full field 3D continuum finite element
model (ISAMGEO) is shown in Figure 20. Work in modeling
stresses in faults indicated that the local changes around these
could be substantial higher than showed in Figure 20. This
explained some of the field observations that drilling ERD
wells at Valhall was similar to walking the razors edge.
Only minor incidents could make the well impossible to drill.
The stochastic nature of drilling the overburden at Valhall
with high sail angles is illustrated in Figure 21 and 22. As the
sail angle is increased above 55 degrees, the risk of increasing
the cost due to unscheduled events increases significantly. Due
to the ongoing subsidence process with stress changes and
stress release, it was concluded that an exact prediction of
drilling conditions pre-drill would be difficult. The trend in the
data indicated that the problem was getting worse with time.
After only achieving a 25% success rate between 1997 and
2000 for the ERD wells at Valhall, with substantial NPT cost,
it was decided that the risk of drilling these wells was too
high. This was after an aggressive application of proto-type
technology for real-time wellbore stability and control,
Bradford et. al [39]. Two unmanned satellite platforms have
been constructed in order to access the flank reserves at a
lower and more predictable cost. The concept for doing this is
illustrated in Figure 23. The implementation of these two
platforms will also increase the recovery from the field as well
as assisting to keep the field on plateau longer. The learnings
will also be applied in the upcoming water injector wells in the
crest of the field

20 Years on Plateau
Figure 24 shows the historic production profile for the Valhall
field. The history can be split into following stages:

1982-1985 : Build up of production with initial drilling.
1985-1986: Loss of high rate wells due to well failures
1986-1990: Continue drilling with improved completion
techniques, drill up remaining slots and add additional 6 slots
to the DP platform.
1990-1994: Start drilling horizontal wells and drain thin areas
that were uneconomic without horizontal wells. Climb
learning curve with implementing and managing horizontal
wells including optimized drawdown schedules for individual
wells. High well failure frequency was experienced initially,
but improved rapidly.
1994-1999: Propped fractured horizontal wells proven as most
effective completion technique. Install Wellhead Platform
with 19 additional slots. Large infill program arrest field
decline and gain rate to 80 M stb/d.
1999-2000: Drilling pause
2000-2003: Arrest field decline by sidetracking failed wells.

Developing completion techniques described in previous
sections has been vital in the Valhall field management.
SPE 83957 Valhall Field Still on Plateau after 20 Years of Production 9
Figure 13 shows number of chalk influxes with time. Chalk
influxes mean deferred production and costs related to clean
out. Well failures are plotted normalized to the number of
producing wells and Figure 25 shows how this trend peaked in
1992 when horizontal wells were introduced. The well failure
frequency has declined as improved completion techniques
were developed and through careful well monitoring and
drawdown procedures.

Terminal well failure remains a challenge. Due to water
induced weakening of the chalk, reservoir compaction and
seabed subsidence are predicted to continue during injection.
Terminal well failures cause high capital expenditures on
wells and increases lifting costs. Since 1995, all wells are
completed with heavy wall liners in the reservoir section, and
this has effectively stopped collapses in the reservoir section
with long liner laps. Today nearly all terminal well failures are
due to casing failures in the overburden. The strategy to
minimize well failures is in the overburden as follows:
Design well trajectory to avoid large faults in the
overburden
Avoid drilling high angle wells, drain flank areas
from the new flank wellhead platforms.
Casing design to enable some overburden movement.

Infill drilling has been key in arresting field decline. With the
exception of a few periods with drilling stops, infill wells have
been added. Infill wells have further provided reservoir data to
improve static and dynamic reservoir model. Continuous
improvement in the reservoir model has provided new low
risk infill opportunities.

The long plateau period for an oil reservoir on primary,
depletion (without a strong aquifer or a gas cap) could not
have been achieved without the large rock compaction. The
large rock compaction amounts to more than 50% of the
reservoir energy. With large rock compaction combined with
relatively low gas mobility the recovery factor from primary
depletion is estimated in the 33% range. With waterflood
scheme as currently planed, the ultimate recovery factor is
estimated around 40%.

Future Developments
In 2003, water injection will start up in the depleted parts of
the field. Although core tests have shown promising
displacement efficiency, field recovery from water injection is
uncertain, Martinsen[13], and Ali et al. [40]. Waterflood is
planned with both horizontal injectors and producers. Two
additional wellhead platforms have been installed (South and
North) and these will provide efficient access to the flank
areas. In these areas pressure is still high, and a period of
primary depletion will be take place prior to water injection.
As part of managing the sweep and to optimize infill drilling,
Life of Field Seismic (LoFS) array will be installed over the
field, Barkved et. al [41]. This will provide a future foundation
for Valhall reservoir management, and help shaping the future
drainage strategy.

Future Re-development of Valhall
Due to the subsidence, the air-gap for the platforms at Valhall
is approaching the limit in terms of what is needed for the
100-year wave. In addition, the facilities are aging, so
replacement of these in lieu of the license expiry in 2028 is
also more attractive. One of the major uncertainties related to
the timing of jack-up of the platforms or building new ones is
related to the exact in-situ effect of injecting water into the
reservoirs at Valhall. There are some uncertainties related to
the geomechanical behavior of the chalk during long time
exposure to the seawater in-situ, but really, the largest
uncertainty on subsidence and subsidence rates are related to
reservoir pressure and saturation changes with a displacement
process. This is illustrated in Figure 26 (based on numerical
simulations with ISAMGEO), which compares subsidence
forecasts for Valhall depending on rock mechanics
uncertainties, and pressure and saturation response
uncertainties for the flow model. There are two main groups of
curves. The two curves indicating subsidence in the 12-13
meter range around 2050 is resulting from a poor displacement
process. The difference between these two high curves is
illustrating the uncertainty in the rock mechanics (the water
weakening effect). The curves predicting lower subsidence are
based on a most likely scenario and again the scatter is a result
of the uncertainty in the water weakening effect.

Conclusions
The Valhall field has produced for 20 years on
primary depletion and recovered to date almost 100%
more than the reserves the development was
sanctioned on.
Plateau production around 80M stb/d has been
achieved by continuous drilling and large reservoir
energy from rock compaction.
Geosteering has been key to steer horizontal wells in
thin reservoir sections, and guide operation decisions
on casing points etc.
Careful well operation procedures have been
necessary to minimize solids production and well
failures. Wells have individual set opening and shut
down procedures with pre-programmed alarm
settings and acoustic solids detectors.
Reservoir compaction and seabed subsidence has
caused large drilling challenges in the overburden,
particularly Extended Reach Drilling. Infill drilling
from Flank Platforms has therefore proven more cost
effective to produce downdip reserves.
Through evolution of completion techniques,
propped fractured horizontal wells with heavy wall
liners have proven most efficient, and is currently the
preferred completion method.
Pressure depletion, porosity and thickness reduction
have given excellent 4D seismic response. 120 km of
10 Barkved, Heavey, Kjelstadli, Kleppan and Kristiansen SPE 83957
permanent seismic cables are being installed this year
to monitor changes in seismic response with time.
Since 1992 all separator washes from solids
production and cuttings from drilling have been
injected into waste injection wells (a total of 9MM
bbls). This method has proved to be safe,
environmentally friendly and economic.
The Platforms have subsided a total of 4.9 m since
start of production because of reservoir compaction.
Due to water weakening effects on chalk, compaction
and subsidence is expected to continue after
waterflooding.
Improved reservoir models have identified many
areas of inefficient drainage and field decline has
been arrested with infill drilling.
The Valhall team is challenged to extend the plateau
for 10 more years with waterflood and further infill
drilling in flank areas.
Seismic data is critical to successful development of
the field. The installation of a permanent seismic
array reflects the commitment and expectations to
4D/4C seismic to shape the future depletion strategy
Total estimated reserves are over 4 times initial
(PDO) estimate (Figure 27).

Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank the Valhall partnership (BP Norge,
Norske Shell, Total E&P Norge and Amerada Hess Norge for
permission to publish this work. The results and opinions
presented in this paper do not necessarily reflect the view of
the Valhall partnership.

References
[1] Ali, N. and Alcock, T.: Valhall Field, Norway The First Ten
Years, North Sea Oil and Gas Reservoirs III, NTH: 1994, 25-
40.
[2] Farmer, C. L. and Barkved, O.I., 1997. Influence of syn-
depositional faulting on thickness variations in chalk reservoirs
Valhall and Hod fields. Petroleum Geology of Northwestern
Europe: Proceedings of the 5
th
Conference. Geological Society
of London.
[3] Mann, K. O. and Lane, R., 1995. Graphic Correlation, SEPM
Special Publication No. 53.
[4] Andersen, M.A.: Petroleum Research in North Sea Chalk,
monograph, 1995, Rogaland Research
[5] Powley K.D, Peng C.P. and Ali N: Simulation of a North Sea
Chalk Reservoir with Dynamic Rock and Natural Fracture
Properties: Case Study of the Valhall Field (SPE 24914)
[6] Barkved, Successful Use of Seismic Attribute Maps and Post-
Stack Inversion In Horizontal Well Planning, 1996, EAGE
Expanded Abstracts
[7] Leonard, R.C. and Munns, J. W., 1987. Valhall Field in
Geology of Norwegian Oil and Gas Fields, Graham and
Trotman, pp. 153-163.
[8] Thomsen, L., O. Barkved, W. Haggard, J. Kommedal and B.
Rosland, 1997. Converted Wave Imaging of Valhall Reservoir,
EAGE Expanded Abstracts , 59, B048.
[9] Rosland, B. O., Tree, E.L., Barkved, O.I., Kristiansen, P., 1999,
Acquisition of 3D/4C OBS data at Valhall, EAGE Expanded
Abstracts, 61
[10] Barkved, O.I., Mueller, M.C., Thomsen, L., 1999, Vector
Interpretation of the Valhall 3D/4C OBS dataset, EAGE
Expanded Abstracts, 61.
[11] Barkved, O., Buer K., Halleland, K.B., Kjelstadli, R.,Kleppan,
T., Kristiansen, T.G., 2003, 4D Seismic Response of primary
production and waste injection at the Valhall field EAGE
Expanded Abstracts.
[12] Hall, S.A., Kendall, J.M., Barkved, O.I., Fractured reservoir
characterization using P-Wave AVOA analysis in 3D OBC data,
TLE
[13] Halvorsen H., Porosity Reduction Measured by Logs in the
Valhall Field 4
th
North Sea Chalk Symposium, Sep 1992.
[14] Martinsen, R., Kjelstadli R.M., Ross C., Rostad H. The Valhall
Waterflood Evaluation: A Decision Analaysis Case Study (SPE
38926)
[15] Smith, M. B., Miller II, W. K., and Haga, J.: Tip Screenout
Fracturing: A Technique for Soft Unstable Formations,
paper13273 presented at the 1984 59th SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX.
[16] Attard, M., Mathes, R. A., and Mower, L. N.: Gravel Packing
in an Abnormally Pressured Chalk Reservoir: A Valhall Field
Case Study, paper 18226 presented at the 1988 63rd Annual
SPE Conf. Proc. (P- Production Operations and Engineering),
Houston.
[17] Kristiansen, T.G.: Geomechanical Analysis of the Feasibility of
Openhole Completions in the Weak, Plastic Tor Formation at
Valhall, Based on Numerical Modeling, Analytical Analysis and
Field Data paper presented at Fifth North Sea Chalk
Symposium, October 7-9, 1996, Reims, France.
[18] Kristiansen, T.G.: A Review of Completion Techniques and the
Impact of Geomechanical Processes on their Performance in the
Valhall Field, paper presented at Fifth North Sea Chalk
Symposium, October 7-9, 1996, Reims, France.
[19] Kristiansen, T.G. and Meling, S.: A Production Parameter
Analysis of Chalk Influxes in the Valhall Field, paper
presented at Fifth North Sea Chalk Symposium, October 7-9,
1996, Reims, France.
[20] Norris M.R., Berntsen B., Myhre P. and Winters W: Multiple
Proppant Fracturing of a Horizontal Wellbore: an integration of
two technologies, paper SPE 36899 presented at the 1996
European Petroleum Conference, Milan, Italy, October 22-24.
[21] Pattillo, P. D., and Kristiansen, T. G.: Analysis of Horizontal
Casing Integrity in the Valhall Field, SPE/ISRM 78204,
SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics Conference held in Irving, Texas,
20-23 October 2002.
[22] Olson K.E., Olsen E., Haidar S., Boulatsel and Brekke K.:
Valhall Field: Horizontal Well Stimulations Acid vs.
Proppant and Best Practices for Fracture Optimization, paper
SPE 84392 to be presented at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical
Conference an Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., October
5-8.
[23] Norris M.R., Berntsen B.A., Skartveit L. and Teesdale C.:
Multiple Proppant Fracturing of Horizontal Wellbores in a
Chalk Formation: Evolving the Process in the Valhall Field,
paper SPE 50608 presented at the 1998 European Petroleum
Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 20-22.
[24] Slater M., Perez D., Teesdale C. and Hilbig N.: Unique
Offshore Recovery System Dramatically Reduces
Environmental Impact by Recycling Stimulation Proppant,
SPE 83957 Valhall Field Still on Plateau after 20 Years of Production 11
paper SPE 74473 presented at the 2002 SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., February 26-28.
[25] Kristiansen, T. G., Barkved, O., and Pattillo, P. D.: Use of
Passive Seismic Monitoring in Well and Casing Design in the
Compacting and Subsiding Valhall Field, North Sea, SPE
65134, presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference
held in Paris, France, 2425 October 2000.
[26] Ruddy, I., Andersen, M.A., Pattillo, P.D., Bishlawi, M., and
Foged, N.: "Rock Compressibility, Compaction, and Subsidence
in a High Porosity Chalk Reservoir: A Case Study of Valhall
Field", Journal of Petroleum Technology, July, 1989, pp. 741-
746.
[27] Andersen, M. A., Foged, N., and Pedersen, H.F.: The Rate
Type Compaction of a Weak North Sea Chalk, paper presented
at the 1992 33rd US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Santa Fe,
NM. Balkema
[28] Andersen, M.A., Foged, N., and Pedersen, H.F.: The Link
Between Waterflood-Induced Compaction and Rate-Sensitive
Behavior in a Weak North Sea Chalk, paper presented at te
1992 Fourth North Sea Chalk Symposium, Deauville, France.
[29] Risnes, R., Hole, M., and Kwabiah, N.K.: Chalk-fluid
Interactions with Water-Glycol Mixtures, paper in the press.
[30] Pattillo, P.D, Kristiansen, T.G., Sund, G.V., and Kjeldstadli,
R.M.: Reservoir Compaction and Seafloor Subsidence at
Valhall, paper (SPE/ISRM 47274), Proc., Eurock 98,
Trondheim, Norway, 1998.
[31] Cuisiat, F., Gutierrez, M., Lewis, R.W., and Masters, I.:
Petroleum Reservoir Simulation Coupling Flow and
Deformation, (SPE 50636), 1998
[32] Sylte, J.E., Thomas, L.K., Rhett, D.W., Bruning, D.D., Nagel,
N.B.; Water Induced Compaction in the Ekofisk Field
[33] Cook, C., Andersen, M.A., Halle, G., Gislefoss, E., and Bowen,
G. R.: Simulating the Effects on Water-Induced Compaction
in a North Sea Reservoir, paper, SPE 37992, presentation at the
Reservoir Simulation Symposium held in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.,
8-11 June 1997.
[34] Moschovidis, Z.A. , Gardner, D.C., Sund, G.V.: Disposal of
Oily Cuttings by Downhole Periodic Fracturing Injections in
Valhall-North Sea: A Case Study and Modelling Concepts,
paper SPE/IADC 25757 presented at the 1993 SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, February 23-25.
[35] Moschovidis, Z.A., Kleppan T. and Kristiansen T.G.:
Evaluation of Cuttings Injection in A-20 D Splitter Well in
Valhall, paper presented at the 6
th
International Conference on
Minimising the Environmental Effects of Drilling Operations,
Aberdeen, Scotland, June 18-19, 1998.
[36] Sund, G.V., Wenande B., Weaver C.L. and Adams J.M.:
Downhole Splitter Well for Simultaneous Injection and
Production at the Valhall Field, paper SPE 38498 presented at
the 1997 Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland,
September 9-12.
[37] Kristiansen, T. G.: "Geomechanical Characterization of the
Overburden Above the Compacting Chalk Reservoir at Valhall,"
paper (SPE/ISRM 47348), Proc., Eurock 98, Trondheim,
Norway, 1998.
[38] Kristiansen, T.G., Mandzuich, K., Heavey, P, and Kol, H.:
Minimizing Drilling Risk in Extended-Reach Wells at Valhall
Using Geomechanics, Geoscience and 3D Visualization
Technology, SPE/IADC 52863, presented at the 1999
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 9-11 March, 1999.
[39] Bradford, I. D.R., Aldred, W.A., Cook, J.M., Elewaut, E.F.M.,
Fuller, J.A., Kristiansen, T.G., and Walsgrove, T.R.: When
Rock Mechanics Met Drilling: Effective Implementation of
Real-Time Wellbore Stability Control, SPE 59121, presented at
the 2000 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference held in New Orleans,
Louisiana, 23-25 February 2000.
[40] Ali, N, Singh P.K, Peng C.P., Shirlakar G.S., Moschovidis Z,
Baack W.L. Injection Above Parting Pressure Waterflood
Pilot Valhall Field (SPE 22893).
[41] Barkved, O., Brheim A.G., Howe,D.J., Kommedal, J.H., and
Nicol, G.,Life of Field Seismic Implementation - "First at
Valhall" Workshop Notes EAGE 2003.

Tables
Table 1: Valhall Field, pertinent data sheet
Discovery 1975
First Production October 1982
Water depth, (m) 69
Reservoir depth, (m) 2400-2600
Initial Reservoir Pressure (psi) 6550
Reservoir Temperature (deg C) 90
Oil gravity, (API) 36
Oil viscosity, (cp) 0.40
Original oil-in-place, (MM stb) 2600
Cumulative oil production jan 2003,
MM stb)
472
Average thickness, (m) 25
Matrix Permeability range, (mD) 1-10
Total Permeability range, (mD) 1-300
Connate water saturation, (%) 5
Porosity, (%) 35-50
Bubble point pressure, (psi) 3000-4000
Solution GOR (scf/stb) 800-1400
Rock Compressibility (10
-6
psi
-1
) 10-100


Table 2: Overview of waste disposal wells and injected
volumes.






Well Injection Domain Depth Av. batch Cum.
into (m TVD) volume volume
(bbls) (bbls)
A-20 A Tubing Shale / 1590-2457 1965 3 449 269
Overburden
A-16 D Annulus Shale / 1362 2170 219 637
Overburden
A-3 B Annulus Shale / 1242-1251 2382 574 102
Overburden
A-20 D Tubing Shale / 2183-2188 2182 2 581 321

A-25 B Tubing Chalk / 2611-2633 2597 2 470 262
Reservoir
Total 9 294 591
12 Barkved, Heavey, Kjelstadli, Kleppan and Kristiansen SPE 83957



V ALHALL
ST A V ANGER
0 100 km
UNITED
KINGDOM
NOR W A Y
GERMANY
DENMARK
UNITED
KINGDOM
GERMANY
DENMARK
NOR W A Y
0 100 km
HOD


Figure 1: Location of the Valhall field in the Norwegian sector of
the North Sea.



Figure 3: Simplified reservoir zonation from the Valhall
field
Figure 4: Cross - section across the Valhall Field.
See figure 2 for location.



N
TIME MAP
TIME MAP
?
N N
TIME MAP
TIME MAP
?

Figure 5: Well planning using existing drilling
observations posted as symbols, combined with faults
from seismic in a 3D representation.
Figure 6: The presence of a low velocity gas-charged
Miocene diatomaceous interval creates a "gas cloud"
effect that distorts the seismic time data.



2/7 2/8
3
0
20
10.000 m.
56
0
15
2/11
2 3 0 0
2 4 0 0
2 5 0 0
2 6 0 0
2 7 0 0
2 8 0 0
2 9 0 0
3 0 0 0
V a l h a l l

F i e l d

C r e s t a l
A
E a s t
A
W e s t
S k e t c h

N o t

t o

s c a l e
V e r t i c a l

E x a g g e r a t i o n

x

1 0
L .

C r e t a c e o u s
L o w e r

H o d
L i s t a

F m
T o r

F m
O W C
L .

H o d
O W C
T o r
L o w e r

H o d

F m
C h a l k
G r o u p
2 3 0 0
2 4 0 0
2 5 0 0
2 6 0 0
2 7 0 0
2 8 0 0
2 9 0 0
3 0 0 0
V a l h a l l

F i e l d

C r e s t a l
A
E a s t
A
W e s t
S k e t c h

N o t

t o

s c a l e
V e r t i c a l

E x a g g e r a t i o n

x

1 0
L .

C r e t a c e o u s
L o w e r

H o d
L i s t a

F m
T o r

F m
O W C
L .

H o d
O W C
T o r
L o w e r

H o d

F m
C h a l k
G r o u p


X X
Figure 2: The Valhall field is a double plunging NNW-SSE
trending anticline. Modified from Farmer and Barkved [2].
SPE 83957 Valhall Field Still on Plateau after 20 Years of Production 13






Figure 7: Seismic attribute indicating distribution
of optimal reservoir properties (pink) draped over the
Valhall structure. Green colors indicates
poor or non reservoir properties.


Figure 8: Use of C- waves (P-waves converting to
sheare waves at target reflector) has improved the
definition of top reservoir below the gas cloud.

P-Wave Section (Geophone Z) C*-Wave section
(Geophone Z)
Figure 10: Shear wave splitting effects (magnitude and
strength orientation and length of vectors) posted on map
reflecting subsidence which is up to 3.5 m since 1982.


Reduced
Response
due to the
gas
cloud
Reduced
Response
due to the
gas
cloud
Figure 9: Difference in seismic response between surveys
acquired in 1992 and 2002. Bubbles indicate relative
productions volumes. The colors inside the circle represent
the phase of fluid produced. Green is oil, water is blue and
gas is red. From Barkved et.al. [11]




0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
sep.82 sep.86 sep.90 sep.94 sep.98 sep.02
G
O
R

s
c
f
/
s
t
b

Figure 11: Field GOR
1800
14 Barkved, Heavey, Kjelstadli, Kleppan and Kristiansen SPE 83957

0,37
0,39
0,41
0,43
0,45
0,47
0,49
P
o
r
o
s
i
t
y


Compaction Curves
Log data
Reservoir Pressure (psi)
Figure 12: Porosity Reduction seen on logs
0,35
5500 6500 1500 2500 3500 4500

Figure 15: Subsidence measurement at Valhall.
Subsidence March 2003 was 4.91 m.

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
Axial stress (kPa)
Ax
ial
str
ain
(%
)
Base curve(1), Sw=5%,=0.46 Base curve(6), Sw=5%,
=0.42 Base curve(14), Sw=2%,
=0.36
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
Axial stress (kPa)
Ax
ial
str
ain
(%
)
Base curve(1), Sw=5%,=0.46 Waterflooding(2), =0.47
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
Axial stress (kPa)
Ax
ial
str
ain
(%
)
Base curve(6), Sw=5%,
=0.42
Waterflood(7), =0.41 Waterflood(8), =0.42
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
Axial stress (kPa)
Ax
ial
str
ain
(%
)
Base curve(14), Sw=2%,
=0.36
Waterflood(13), =0.34 Waterflood(15), =0.37
Creepperiod
= 36%
= 42%
= 46%
Waterflooding
Creep period
&
Waterflooding
Creep period
&
Waterflooding
= 46%
= 42% = 36%
Figure 16: Laboratory stress-strain curves comparing Chalk
with different porosity and low watersaturation (upper left) to
similar specimens injected with water (three next figures).
These stress-strain curves are showing how chalk creeps
and how it responds to water.
Figure 17: Calculated changes in vertical stress (stress
arching) between production start-up in 1982 and June
1999 in the Tor M1 layer. The Difference is +/- 1.5 MPa
(218 psi) over fairly short distances.

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
YEAR
Influx Failures
Terminal Failure
N
U
M
B
E
R

O
F

F
A
I
L
U
R
E
S







.

Influx Failure
Well plugged with
solids. Returned to
production after
clean out.
Terminal Failure
Casing collapsed.
Well could not be
returned to
production.
Figure 13: Well failure statistics from startup in 1992.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Days
B
o
t
t
o
m

H
o
l
e

D
r
a
w

D
o
w
n

(
p
s
i
)


,

Figure 14: Typical bottom hole draw down development
in horizontal propped fracture stimulated wells where
max is reached after one year or with fully open chokes.

SPE 83957 Valhall Field Still on Plateau after 20 Years of Production 15

Decoupled
Fully - Coupled
VIRAGE
CONVENTIONAL
ECLIPSE
Figure 18: Comparison of the conventional ECLIPSE fluid flow model and the fully coupled VIRAGE simulator. Plot to the left
show a decoupled run with VIRAGE give the same result as ECLIPSE. Plot show when a fully coupled stress-strain and fluid flow
formulation is used. The difference in pore pressure prediction is more in line with field observations at Valhall.
Figure 19: Seismic 4D data showing how the waste injected
ino well A-25B is accumulating in the Lista shale formation
above the injectin points in the Tor chalk.

Changes at Lista Levels
1992
2002





Figure 20: The change in stresses in the overburden
as predicted from a full field 3D continuum finite
element model.

Figure 21: Days spent on drilling the Eocene section at
Valhall versus year drilled.

0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
110,0
120,0
130,0
1986 1990 1992 1992 1994 1994 1995 1996 1996 1996 1997 1997 1998 1998 1999 1999 1999 2000
Year
Da
ys
Successful
Unsiccessful
Figure 22: Plot of days spent drilling the Eocene section at
Valhall versus sail angle. Square points indicate wells that
did not make it to the reservoir.

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Sail angle at 2000-2200m TVD
D
a
y
s

Unsuccessful
Successful
16 Barkved, Heavey, Kjelstadli, Kleppan and Kristiansen SPE 83957

Figure 26: Comparison of several subsidence predictions.
Run VATL and VATK is showing a worse case scenario in
terms of water displacement mechanisms in the reservoir.
The difference between the two is uncertainty in the water
weakening response of the chalk. The cases VASR (1 and 2)
and VASO is using the most likely pressure scenario and
different assumptions with regard to the water weakening
response of the chalk.

Figure 23: Illustration of the concept of moving surface
locations to the flank of the Valhall field in order to improve
drilling efficiency and reduce risk of wellbore instability and
casing collapse.


Crestal
Platform
Flank
Platform
Flank
Platform
Compaction Bowl
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
sep.82 sep.86 sep.90 sep.94 sep.98 sep.02
o
i
l

r
a
t
e

(
1
0
0
0

s
t
b
/
d
)

Figure 24: Production Profile

Figure 27: Reserve Increase
Re
se
rv
es
M
M
ST
B
of
Oil
247 247 247
325
380
517 519 519
594
621
667
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
198
6
198
7
198
8
198
9
199
0
199
1
199
2
199
3
199
4
199
5
199
6
199
7
199
8
PD
O
Res
erv
es
Up
date
d
Res
erv
oir
Des
cr
.
5
add'
slot
app
rov
ed
Up
date
d
Res
.
Sou
th
Fla
nk
Pot.
&
Wat
erfl
ood
Pilo
t
WP
Plat
for
m
w/
19
Slot
s
Ap
pro
ved
2/8
F
-
2
pro
ves
up
new
area
Mo
del
HM
-
Bett
er
Perf
orm
anc
e
199
9
706
Ne
w
Sw
fun
ctio
n
and
incr
eas
ed
ST
OO
IP
200
0
900
1000
License extension
Waterflood
5 1
1 82
939
200
1
1 1 00
1 2 00
64
45
1048
Flank North & South
Re
se
rv
es
M
M
ST
B
of
Oil
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
198
6
198
7
198
8
198
9
199
0
199
1
199
2
199
3
199
4
199
5
199
6
199
7
199
8
PD
O
Res
erv
es
Up
date
d
Res
erv
oir
Des
cr
.
5
add'
slot
app
rov
ed
Sou
th
Fla
nk
Pot.
&
Wat
erfl
ood
Pilo
t
WP
Plat
for
m
w/
19
Slot
s
Ap
pro
ved
2/8
F
-
2
pro
ves
up
new
area
Mo
del
HM
-
Bett
er
Perf
orm
anc
e
199
9
Ne
w
Sw
fun
ctio
n
and
incr
eas
ed
ST
OO
IP
200
0
900
1000
Wat
erfl
ood
200
1
1 1 00
1 2 00
Fla
nk
Nor
th
&
Sou
th
Hor
izo
ntal
wel
ls
Re
se
rv
es
M
M
ST
B
of
Oil
247 247 247
325
380
517 519 519
594
621
667
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
198
6
198
7
198
8
198
9
199
0
199
1
199
2
199
3
199
4
199
5
199
6
199
7
199
8
PD
O
Res
erv
es
Up
date
d
Res
erv
oir
Des
cr
.
5
add'
slot
app
rov
ed
Up
date
d
Res
.
Sou
th
Fla
nk
Pot.
&
Wat
erfl
ood
Pilo
t
WP
Plat
for
m
w/
19
Slot
s
Ap
pro
ved
2/8
F
-
2
pro
ves
up
new
area
Mo
del
HM
-
Bett
er
Perf
orm
anc
e
199
9
706
Ne
w
Sw
fun
ctio
n
and
incr
eas
ed
ST
OO
IP
200
0
900
1000
License extension
Waterflood
5 1
1 82
939
200
1
1 1 00
1 2 00
64
45
1048
Flank North & South
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
s


M
M
S
T
B

o
f

O
i
l

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1
9
8
6

1
9
8
7

1
9
8
8

1
9
8
9

1
9
9
0

1
9
9
1

1
9
9
2

1
9
9
3

1
9
9
4

1
9
9
5

1
9
9
6

1
9
9
7

1
9
9
8

P
D
O
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
s

U
p
d
a
t
e
d
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

D
e
s
c
r
.
5
a
d
d
' s
l
o
t
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

S
o
u
t
h
F
l
a
n
k
P
o
t
. &

W
a
t
e
r
f
l
o
o
d

P
i
l
o
t

W
P
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
w
/
1
9
S
l
o
t
s
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

2
/
8
F
-
2
p
r
o
v
e
s
u
p
n
e
w
a
r
e
a

M
o
d
e
l
H
M
-
B
e
t
t
e
r
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

1
9
9
9

N
e
w

S
w

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
S
T
O
O
I
P

2
0
0
0

900
1000
W
a
t
e
r
f
l
o
o
d

2
0
0
1

1 1 00
1 2 00
F
l
a
n
k
N
o
r
t
h
&
S
o
u
t
h

H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
w
e
l
l
s

Figure 25: well failure frequency: Plott showing the well
failure frequency on Valhall since start-up in 1982. It is
number of influx and terminal well failures per year
divided by number of wells. It seems clear the trend is
very positive since 1993.

0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
W
e
l
l

F
a
i
l
u
r
e

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
s
/
w
e
l
l
/
y
e
a
r
)














,