Sunteți pe pagina 1din 139

2008/2009

MSc Petroleum Engineering


Heriot-Watt University

Field Development Plan

Indy Oil Company


Team Z
Adnan Al-Dhahli
Nasser Alteer
Isam Elshibani
Sheriff Faye
Mathee Kiatsakulphan
Pascal Lim
Gabriel Talong
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 11

2. TECHNICAL SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 13

2.1. GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 13

2.2. PETROPHYSICAL EVALUATION ....................................................................... 13

2.3. PVT ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 14

2.4. WELL TEST ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 14

2.5. RESERVOIR MODELLING APPROACH ............................................................. 15

2.6. ECONOMICS ........................................................................................................... 19

2.7. DRILLING ............................................................................................................... 20

2.8. WELL PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................ 20

2.9. PRODUCTION FACILITIES & ISSUES................................................................ 21

2.10. FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN ............................................................................. 22

2.11. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND FIELD ABANDONMENT ..... 23

3. FIELD DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................... 24

3.1. STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATION ...................................................................... 24

3.2. GEOLOGY AND RESERVOIR DESCRIPTION ................................................... 24

3.2.1. Depositional Environment ................................................................................ 24

3.2.2. Stratigraphy ...................................................................................................... 26

3.2.3. Source Rock ...................................................................................................... 27

3.2.4. Trap and Seal .................................................................................................... 27

3.2.5. GEOSTATISTICAL DESCRIPTION OF CORE SAMPLES ......................... 27

3.3. PETROPHYSICS AND RESERVOIR FLUIDS ..................................................... 28

3.4. PETROPHYSICS ..................................................................................................... 28

Team Z – Indy Oil


3

3.4.1. CORRECTIONS FOR BOREHOLE EFFECTS.............................................. 29

3.4.2. RESERVOIR LITHOLOGY DESCRIPTION ................................................. 29

3.4.3. WELL CORRELATION .................................................................................. 30

3.4.4. WATER RESISTIVITY ................................................................................... 30

3.4.5. POROSITY MODEL ....................................................................................... 30

3.4.6. DETERMINATION OF SW ............................................................................. 30

3.4.7. PERMEABILITY LOG.................................................................................... 31

3.4.8. MOVEABLE HYDROCARBONS .................................................................. 31

3.4.9. NET-TO-GROSS ............................................................................................. 31

3.4.10. FLUIDS-BEARING ZONES ........................................................................... 32

3.5. RESERVOIR FLUIDS ............................................................................................. 32

3.5.1. PVT Analysis .................................................................................................... 32

3.5.2. Water Analysis ................................................................................................. 33

3.6. HYDROCARBONS IN PLACE .............................................................................. 34

3.6.1. Uncertainties Associated with HCIIP Determination....................................... 34

3.7. WELL PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................ 36

3.7.1. APPRAISAL WELL TESTING ....................................................................... 36

Extended Production test .......................................................................................................... 36

Drill Stem Test ......................................................................................................................... 37

3.7.2. Well flowing design ......................................................................................... 39

3.7.2.1. WellFlo Analysis .......................................................................................... 39

3.7.3. Wellbore Completion ....................................................................................... 43

3.8. PRODUCTION ISSUES .......................................................................................... 44

3.8.1. Scaling Corrosion ............................................................................................. 44

3.8.2. Wax & Asphaltenes .......................................................................................... 45

3.8.3. Sand Failure Prediction .................................................................................... 45


Team Z – Indy Oil
4

3.8.4. Corrosion .......................................................................................................... 45

3.9. RESERVOIR MODELLING APPROACH ............................................................. 46

3.9.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 46

3.9.2. RESERVOIR MODELLING ........................................................................... 46

3.9.2.1. BODY GEOMETRY AND STRUCTURE.................................................. 47

3.9.2.2. PROPERTY MODELLING ......................................................................... 47

3.9.2.3. UPSCALING ................................................................................................ 49

3.9.3. SIMULATION MODELS ................................................................................ 49

3.9.3.1. INITIALIZATION ....................................................................................... 49

3.9.3.2. WELL MODEL ............................................................................................ 49

3.9.3.3. FAULT MODEL .......................................................................................... 50

3.10. SIMULATION RESULTS AND MAIN SENSITIVITIES ..................................... 50

3.10.1. RECOVERY MECHANISM ........................................................................... 50

3.10.2. DRAINAGE PLAN AND WELL LOCATION............................................... 52

3.10.3. SENSITIVITIES ............................................................................................... 54

3.11. ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLANS CONSIDERED ................................ 56

4. DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN.......................................................... 59

4.1. ECONOMICS AND FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS ....................................... 59

4.1.1. GENERAL ....................................................................................................... 59

4.1.2. INDY OIL COMPANY PORTFOLIO ............................................................ 60

4.1.3. TIE-BACK TO THE CLAIR FIELD (BP)....................................................... 60

4.2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN, RESERVES AND PRODUCTION PROFILES ........... 61

4.2.1. DEVELOPMENT PLAN ................................................................................. 61

4.2.1.1. Base case Development plan ........................................................................ 61

4.2.2. RESERVES ...................................................................................................... 63

4.2.3. PRODUCTION PROFILES ............................................................................. 64


Team Z – Indy Oil
5

4.2.4. WATER INJECTION POTENTIAL................................................................ 65

4.3. FIELD MANAGEMENT PLAN (FMP) .................................................................. 66

4.3.1. UNCERTAINTY MANAGEMENT. ............................................................... 66

4.3.1.1. Reservoir Heterogeneity ............................................................................... 66

4.3.1.2. Faults and reservoir compartmentalisation ................................................... 67

4.3.1.3. Deposition of the turbidites .......................................................................... 67

4.3.1.4. Reservoir fluid properties ............................................................................. 68

4.3.1.5. Size of the lower reservoir ............................................................................ 68

4.3.2. Workover, Re-entry and sidetrack potential ..................................................... 69

4.3.3. Artificial Lift..................................................................................................... 69

4.4. Further data gathering............................................................................................... 69

4.4.1. MANAGEMENT OF RESERVES RANGE ................................................... 71

4.5. DRILLING FACILITIES ......................................................................................... 71

4.5.1. OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................... 71

4.5.2. RIG SELECTION ............................................................................................ 72

4.5.3. PRESSURE PROFILE AND MUD PROGRAM ............................................ 73

4.5.4. WELL CONTROL ........................................................................................... 74

4.5.5. FLUID SELECTION........................................................................................ 74

4.5.6. BIT SELECTION ............................................................................................. 75

4.5.7. CASING DESIGN............................................................................................ 76

4.5.8. CEMENTING................................................................................................... 77

4.5.9. DISPOSAL OF DRILL CUTTINGS AND MUD ........................................... 78

4.5.10. BOTTOM HOLE ASSEMBLY ....................................................................... 78

4.5.11. DIRECTIONAL DRILLING ........................................................................... 78

4.5.12. RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES ..................................................................... 79

4.6. PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING FACILITIES. .............................................. 79


Team Z – Indy Oil
6

4.7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ABATEMENT ............................................ 80

4.7.1. NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY .................................................................... 81

4.7.2. ABANDONMENT ........................................................................................... 83

4.7.2.1. Abandonment Requirements ........................................................................ 84

4.7.2.2. Surface Abandonment .................................................................................. 84

4.7.2.3. Subsurface Abandonment ............................................................................. 84

4.7.2.4. Equipment Recovery .................................................................................... 85

4.8. COSTS ...................................................................................................................... 85

4.8.1. TAXATION ..................................................................................................... 87

4.8.2. ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................ 87

4.8.3. ECONOMIC PARAMETERS ......................................................................... 88

4.8.4. CASH FLOW MODEL .................................................................................... 88

4.8.5. ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTIES AND RISK MANAGEMENT ................... 88

5. REFERENCE ................................................................................................................... 91

6. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 91

Team Z – Indy Oil


7

List of tables

Table R1: Reservoir and fluid properties for using in reservoir simulation model
Table R2: The initialized parameter in simulation model
Table R3: Recovery factor from the different scenario models
Table R5: Alternative development plan comparison
Table G2: Statistics from well Z-7 core plugs
Table FE1: Wireline logs for each well
Table R7: Hydrocarbon Analysis of Reservoir Fluid Sample
Table R8: Produced water analysis
Table P4: Layer pressure vs Water cut
Table P5: formation water dissolved solids
Table R13: Properties used in simulation model
Table R14: The initialized parameter in simulation model
Table E1: Clair Processing Capacity
Table DVP3: the ranges of recovery factor from model simulation
Table D2: J.W.McLean specifications
Table D4: Drilling Fluids and Additives
Table D5: Bit selection
Table D6: Casing design
Table D8: cuttings volume and disposal
Table D9: Directional drilling overview
Table D10: Drilling Risks and Uncertainties
Table E2: Capital expenditure
Table E4: Operating costs, year 2011
Table E6: Economic assumptions
Table E7: Economics parameters

List of figures
Figure R4: Sensitivity analysis results
Figure R6: Five producers and five injectors position in the field development plan
Figure R7: Expected Production profiles
Figure G1: Core pictures (left: pebbles in sand, right : sand and cemented zone)
Figure P2: Neutron-density cross plot
Figure R9a: STOIIP Cumulative distribution
Team Z – Indy Oil
8

Figure R9b: Sensitivity analysis of individual parameters


Figure R9 and Figure R10: STOIIP calculation from the volumetric estimates of HCIIP and
Material balance
Figure R11: The extended well test data
Figure P1: well head sensitivity
Figure P2: Tubing size sensitivity
Figure P3: Deviation angle sensitivity
Figure R12: Reservoir 3-D simulation model
Figure R15: Well positions in three recovery mechanisms
Figure R16: Recovery factor simulated by three recovery scenarios.
Figure R17: the well location from pattern A
Figure R18: the well location from pattern B
Figure R19: Sensitivity analysis results
Figure R20: Six production wells development plan
Figure R21: Fix slot platform and two deviated wells
Figure R22: Alternative development plan comparison
Figure R23: Deviated well sensitivity analysis
Figure R24: FOPR vs time for deviated wells
Figure DVP1: Five producers and five injectors position in the field development plan
Figure DVP2: Development plan and drilling program
Figure DVP4: Production profiles for field development plan
Figure DVP5: Field water injection rate profiles
Figure G3: Effects of cemented zones on vertical permeability
Figure D1 : J. W. McLean semisubmersible
Figure D3: Pressure Profile
Figure EV1: Risk Management Review Committee
Figure E3: Capex breakdown
Figure E5: Opex breakdown for year 2011
Figure E8: Z field Spider Diagram

Team Z – Indy Oil


9

List of abbreviations

API American Petroleum Institute


bbl Barrel
BEP Best Environmental Practices
BHA Bottom Hole Assembly
Bo Oil Formation Volume Factor
Boi Initial oil Formation Volume Factor
BOP Blow Out Preventer
BU Build Up
BUR Build Up Rate
BUS Build Up Section
Bwi Initial Water Volume Factor
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
Co Oil Compressibility
Cr Rock Compressibility
DCF Discounted Cash Flow
DST Drill Stem Test
DTI UK Government Department of Trade and Industry
ESP Electrical Submersible Pump
FDP Field Development Plan
FPSO Floating Production and Storage Offshore vessel
GIIP Gas Initially In Place
GOR Gas Oil ratio
HIP Hydrocarbons In Place
HPWBM High Performance Water Based Muds
HSE Health and Safety Executive
IADC International Association of Drilling Contractors
ILD Dual Induction Log
ID Internal Diameter
IOC Indy Oil Company
IRR Internal Rate of Return
Kh Horizontal Permeability
Kv Vertical Permeability
Kv/Kh Vertical to Horizontal Permeability Ratio
KOP Kick Off Point
LLD Dual Laterolog
LWD Logging While Drilling
MCO Maximum Capital Outlay
MMSTB Million Stock Tank Barrels
MOD Money of the Day
MWD Measurement While Drilling
NCF Net Cash Flow
NPV Net Present Value
NTG Net To Gross ratio
OBM Oil Based Muds
OPEX Operating Expenditure
Team Z – Indy Oil
10

OWC Oil Water Contact


Pb Bubble Point Pressure
PDC Polycrystalline Diamond Compact
PIR Profit to Investment Ratio
Pr Reservoir Pressure
Psi Pounds per Square Inch
PWD Pressure While Drilling
PVT Pressure,Volume,Temperature
QHSE Quality Health Safety and Environment
QRA Quantitative Risk Assessment
RF Recovery Factor
RIH Run In Hole
ROP Rate Of Penetration
ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle
Ro Resistivity of 100% water saturated rock
Rt True Formation Resistivity
Rs Solution Gas Oil Ratio
Rw Water Resistivity
SAC Special Area of Conservation
SBM Synthetic Based Muds
SCAL Special Core Analysis
Scf Standard Cubic Feet
STB Stock Tank Barrels
SSCV Semi Submersible Crane Vessel
STOOIP Stock Tank Oil Originally In Place
Sw Water saturation
TOC Top Of Cement
UKCS United Kingdom Continental Shelf
UKOOA United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
WBM Water Based Muds
WDA Written Down Amount
WHP Well Head Pressure
WOB Weight On Bit

Team Z – Indy Oil


11

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Z-field is an oil field located in the North Sea, west of the Shetlands Islands (see

map appendix 1). It is situated near a bigger field named Clair and operated by BP. Seven

appraisal wells were drilled, and various data was gathered to know more about it. Our Field

Development Plan presents our technical interpretation of the data and as a consequence how

we decided to develop the field and produce the reservoir hydrocarbons.

Reservoir characteristics

The Z reservoir is synclined and highly heterogeneous due to the depositional

environment which is a turbidite. The field includes two layers: one main layer containing

around 150 million STB of oil in place (P50, obtained by material balance and by reservoir

geometry) from Early Cretaceous, the oil-water contact being at a depth of around 8900 feet,

and another one located below the main layer. However, data is too small to have a precise

idea of how to develop this layer. For the main one, a recovery factor of around 35-40% is

expected in the most likely case. However, several uncertainties are inherent to the field: how

is the heterogeneity going to affect the permeability? Are there faults? Our development plan

deals with these uncertainties by not letting them having a huge effect on the expected results

before more data is gathered for a better understanding of the reservoir.

Development plan

We chose to develop the reservoir with 5 producers and 5 water injectors. This

development scenario has been tested against several others (natural depletion, polymer

injection), but this one gives the best results. Several drainage patterns were tested, leading to

the optimized results being the base-case of the study. Water injection allows providing

pressure support to keep the reservoir above the bubble point pressure.

Team Z – Indy Oil


12

Surface facilities

The Z-field is a marginal deep water field. Quite close to it is the much bigger field

Clair (in terms of production and size) with processing facilities and hydrocarbons

transportation facilities. Therefore, it has been decided to develop our field by tie-backing the

Z-field production to the Clair field. This choice is mainly motivated by economic reasons;

the other scenarios (FPSO or Tension-leg Platform) were giving lower NPVs and less

recovery.

Economics considerations

Furthermore, this tie-back option allows mitigating several uncertainties: the Clair

field is big enough to support a higher production than expected, and a lower production

would simply result in the early abandonment of the field (still profitable). Variations of other

economic factors such as oil price or exchange rate still make this project have a positive

NPV. Therefore, the economic model is quite solid. Furthermore, this development strategy is

in accordance with Indy Oil Company strategy, which is maximizing utilization of core

infrastructures and maximizing the recovery.

Further development

More data need to be gathered in order to know more about the reservoir, especially

the western area, to detect potential faults or assess the reservoir performance. The lower

layer reservoir unit is quite a big uncertainty: how big is it? How hard will it be to produce

hydrocarbons from it? Further development of the Z-field clearly involves the gathering of

more data from this layer. The additional reserves will extend the field life of a few years; our

development plan takes it into account by the possibility to purchase additional processing

and transport facilities on the Clair field if needed.

Team Z – Indy Oil


13

2. TECHNICAL SUMMARY

2.1. GEOLOGY

The reservoir structure is characterized by its shape: it is synclined, the strike line of

the two limbs being in a North-West to South-East direction. The shape of the upper layers

(syncline as well) indicates that the deformation occurred after deposition. Core photographs

indicate that the depositional environment is a turbidite going from the southern zone and

spreading like a fan towards the exterior of the structure (it is actually thinning in these

directions, being the thickest at the depositional source). Therefore, a high heterogeneity

characterize the reservoir: there is no clean sand body but a mix of sand, mud and clay with

cemented zones. This raises the uncertainty concerning the reservoir vertical permeability.

Another uncertainty is the presence of faults in the reservoir.

2.2. PETROPHYSICAL EVALUATION

Petrophysical analysis was carried out using an extensive suite of wireline Logs,

SCAL, PVT analysis and RFT pressure surveys, gathered from seven appraisal wells.

In Well Z5, Z3 and Z1, the entire net pay thickness encountered was oil-bearing sand. Well

Z4 was a dry hole, a water bearing sand was found below the OWC of well Z5. Well Z7

encountered two main reservoir sand bodies. GR and SGR were used for lithology

identification and well-to-well correlation. The upper reservoir unit was correletable across

the field.

The upper reservoir unit becomes thinner and the quality of reservoir deteriorates

towards the eastern side of the field. Lithology Log for Well Z6 and well Z7 showed the

reservoir is sandstone dominated, which was confirmed by the Density-Neutron cross plot.

Besides, observation of cores retrieved from Well Z3 and Well Z5 showed heterogeneous

Team Z – Indy Oil


14

sand. The petrophysical properties of the reservoir have been computed using many methods

for each well. Well Z1 was no used for analysis because of the insufficient data.

Shale Content was calculated using GR method, porosity was solved with bulk density

logs except for well Z6 where we used sonic Log as there was no density Log. Water

resistivity was computed using the water sampling analysis result of well Z5. Water saturation

(Sw) was calculated using the Simandoux equation. The permeability was determined from

linear regression, using the Core porosity and core permeability derived from SCAL.

2.3. PVT ANALYSIS

Surface and subsurface fluid samples were collected from well 1, 3, 5, and 7 by FIT

(Formation interval test) and conventional DST. The PVT analysis and gas chromatography

were carried out to analyse fluid properties and hydrocarbon composition.

In terms of PVT analysis, the reservoir fluid seemed to be a light oil with API higher

than 31.5 and low GOR (220 scf/STB). The oil properties in the Z-field are characterised as a

highly undersaturated oil with a bubble point around 1050-1120 psia. In addition, the

properties of fluid in upper and lower reservoir appeared to have no significant difference.

They were considered uniform for the entire field. Thus, these results indicated that it will be

possible to produce as commingled fluid from the two zones.

Regarding the reservoir fluid composition, the result showed a very low amount of

hydrogen sulphide (<1ppm), contained in both upper and lower reservoir fluid with around

2% carbon dioxide. Therefore, the corrosion may be an issue and corrosion inhibitors will be

used if necessary.

2.4. WELL TEST ANALYSIS

The production test in well Z-1 was conducted to get a good indication of STOIIP by

using material balance. The oil has been produced for 1 year with a cumulative production of

Team Z – Indy Oil


15

751,000 barrels and followed by long time period shut in. As a result of this test, the pressure

was depleted of around 213 psi from the initial reservoir pressure with a PI around 2.89. At

the beginning of this test, the bottom hole pressure dropped rapidly by 286 psi in 21 days at

the early stage of test. Moreover, the reservoir pressure didn’t stabilize to the initial reservoir

(3713 psi), although it has been through a long shut in period (3 months). Therefore, the drive

mechanism of this field seems to be depletion with no aquifer support or very small support in

this field. Furthermore, the OIIP which is calculated by material balance is around 120-200

mSTB. This result is based on the fact that no water influx is occurring in the reservoir. The

oil volume by MB equation shows a good consistency with the STOIIP obtained from the

volumetric calculation. Based on these results, it can be concluded that this reservoir has no

large fault to block the pressure disturbance in reservoir.

The DST well testings, which has been conducted in well 2, 3, 5, and 7, show a wide

range of productivity index from the different areas of reservoir. Based on the results, the high

PI zone is situated in the West area (Z-7) with productivity index from 5-7. This result shows

a good agreement with the geological study and core analysis which indicated the high quality

sand with high permeability and porosity in this area. However, the DST testing time from the

other wells seemed to be very short (25-70 hrs), resulting in no late time region observed in

log-log derivative plot analysis. Due to the low quality of data, this problem is needed to be

dealt with and treated as the uncertainty in order to reduce the risk for field development

project.

2.5. RESERVOIR MODELLING APPROACH

Regarding the simulation study, the scenarios will be selected to study the field

recovery efficiency. In addition, natural depletion, water flooding, and polymer flooding

development plan will be simulated. After that, the effect of well positions, number and type

of well (deviated and vertical) will be analyzed to construct the base case model. Lastly, the

Team Z – Indy Oil


16

sensitivity analysis will be carried out to study the effects of recovery efficiency from the

reservoir uncertainty. Based on the undersaturated oil in reservoir, the 2phase, 3-D ‘Black Oil

model’ was used to simulate the area of reservoir by ECLIPSE100. Subsequently, the

reservoir model consists of 56x28x20 cells by grid corner point structure which generated and

exported from PETREL software. In addition, reservoir and initialize properties are shown in

table R1 and table R2 respectively.

Reservoir properties Water Properties


Average temperature, Density,
°F 175 lb/ft3 65.8
Bwi,
Initial Pressure, psia 3770 rb/STB 1.02
Viscosity,
OWC, ft (TVD) 8850 CP 0.4
-1
Cw, psi 2.46E-06
Oil Properties Rock properties
Density, lb/ft3 43 Cr, psi-1 7.50E-06
Boi, rb/STB 1.17
GOR, scf/STB 224
0.97-
Viscosity, CP 1.23
Bubble point pressure,
psia 1122

Table R1: Reservoir and fluid properties for using in reservoir simulation model

Datum, ft Pi at OWC, ft Pc at Oil in place,


TVD Datum, psia TVD OWC, psia million barrels
Reservoir initial
conditions 8500 3770 8850 0 140
Table R2: The initialized parameter in simulation model

A coarser grid is then created (31,600 cells) and is used for the properties upscaling

from the fine scaled grid (1,693,440 cells). The vertical transmissibility still is the uncertainty

in this reservoir. It will be treated as an uncertainty and need sensitivity analysis. During

simulation process, the reservoir was assumed to keep the reservoir pressure above bubble

point pressure with constant temperature, resulting in no gas coming out of solution in the
Team Z – Indy Oil
17

reservoir. In terms of well modeling, all wells were set up with the tubing 0.67 ft for both

producers and injectors. The location of the new wells tended to be drilled at the high PI zone

near the appraisal well Z-7. Regarding the water flooding and other case scenarios, the

appraisal wells were used as injector and producer for saving cost and rig time. However, the

new wells seem to be necessary to achieve high production and economic rate (2,000 bopd).

Based on the assumption that the reservoir will be produced above bubble point pressure, all

wells were controlled by the bottom hole pressure (1,200 psia), whereas the injectors were

limited at 12,000 psia to keep reservoir pressure constant. The production wells tend to be

perforated in upper zone to avoid early water breakthrough.

Simulation results and main sensitivity

a) Recovery mechanism

By simulation study, the natural depletion scenario had a recovery factor of just above

10 percent after 4,000 days whereas the recovery efficiency in the water flooding case

increased more than 38% during the same period. This result shows that the reservoir needs

some pressure maintenance even at the early stage of production. However, the recovery

factor from the polymer injection was not better than water flooding as expected. This is

because not only the pressure support is an important parameter for improving the recovery

efficiency but also the sweep efficiency that has to be improved to achieve the ultimate

recovery.

Model Water Injection Natural Depletion Polymer Flooding


Recover Factor 38% 10% 28%
Table R3: Recovery factor from the different scenario models

b) Drainage Pattern

The well location experiment was analyzed to compare between the extra injectors in the

middle field (Pattern A) and only the edge water injection (Pattern B). After the simulation

Team Z – Indy Oil


18

study, the pattern A (an extra injector in the middle and edge area of the reservoir) appeared

to be the most effective and has been selected as the base case for sensitivity study. In

addition, this case has the following benefits.

- Higher production rate and recovery efficiency

- A number of wells at the high PI zone which allows to produce fluids from two zones.

- The injectors in the center and West area lead to better pressure support for the entire field.

- All appraisal wells were used as injectors or producers, allowing savings on drilling costs.

- Reduction of the risk of the connectivity uncertainty in the case where there are some faults

isolating the high PI area from the other parts of reservoir.

c) Sensitivity analysis

The sensitivity analysis was used to take into account the uncertainty which occurred in

the reservoir simulation. In addition, the reservoir and fluids properties were studied the

impact on the recovery efficiency. The result of the analysis was demonstrated by a spider

diagram in figure R4.

Figure R4: Sensitivity analysis results

d) Alternative Development plans considered


Team Z – Indy Oil
19

Two models were developed from the base case and used as the alternative plan.

Firstly, a new producer was added from the base case to increase production. While the

second plan used the two deviated wells instead of the vertical wells in the reference case. The

results were shown in table R5. However, the cost of deviated well will be more important

than for a vertical one, and is more risky. Consequently, the economic and drilling issues need

to be dealt with together to find the optimum length for the ultimate recovery factor during the

production period.

Model Base Case Six production wells Deviated wells


Recover Factor 36% 38% 41.5%
Table R5: Alternative development plan comparison

2.6. ECONOMICS

The economical key issues considered during the financial appraisal of the Z field

were the processing and the disposal of the fluid streams. The development facilities of deep-

water fields are limited to floaters and tie-back to a nearby platform or ashore. The presence

of the Clair platform in the neighbourhood of the Z field was analyzed with the opportunity to

get the Clair owner to be involved in the development as a shareholder, to avoid any sharp

rise in the processing tariff rates throughout the field life. FPSO and Tension Leg Platforms

were the alternatives to a tie-back solution. With the current volatility in commodity markets,

we made the economic rates assumptions related to the development by scrutinizing the rates

fluctuations of the 5 past years. Among the three options available, the tie-back to Clair

Platform was the most attractive scenario, and has the advantage of allowing selling the gas.

The economical risks associated with the Z field development were raised and studied. As a

result of this study, some solutions were outlined to manage them.

Team Z – Indy Oil


20

2.7. DRILLING

Semi-submersible rig (J. W. McLean) will be used to drill the new wells. The well will

be controlled by 10,000 psia BOP which will come with the rig. There are no major problems

expected during the drilling since that the field is normally pressurised and there are no

indication of overpressure zones from previous mud logs of the appraisal wells. In the light of

this, two types of bits will be used (roller cone and PDC). Seawater, WBM and HPWBM will

be implemented as drilling fluids at different sections with the appropriate weight (9-10ppg)

and additives. The Common North sea Class G cement will be used and two grades of casing

(K-55 and L-80) will be used with different weights. Two deviated wells will be drilled using

rotary steering system. The cuttings from deep sections will be converted into slurry and re-

injected into one of the appraisal well.

2.8. WELL PERFORMANCE

Summary of analysis

• Z field wells will be drilled deviated and will use a 9”5/8 casing to complete the bottom

hole (along with cement and casing perforation).

• The main assumption here is to maintain the pressure above the downhole fluid bubble

point.

• Well head pressure will be 250 psi.

• All the producing wells will be completed with a 5”5 tubing string which will be coated or

chromium to prevent corrosion. Corrosion may happen due to the presence of CO2 and

H2S.

• The well which will produce from both upper and lower sands will be completed with a

dual completion string 3”1/2 and 2”7/8 tubing.

Team Z – Indy Oil


21

• Gas lift will be required to lift the wells when water cut increases to a level which affects

the wells productivity. Gas lift requirement will be included in the completion design.

• The water injecting wells will be completed by a 7” tubing to handle the high injection

rate of 10,000 bbl/day.

Uncertainty

The range of the reservoir parameters (average permeability or skin factor from

wireline logs and well) was obtained for the whole reservoir. However the data available from

the well testing is quite poor due to the shortage and the low quality of well tests. Because of

the reservoir high heterogeneity, these values might not reflect the reality of these parameters.

The productivity index used in analysis was obtained from well test surface rates and

downhole pressure measurements. These values depend on the well conditions (for example

we have DST for different units of the same reservoir, and not for the whole reservoir). The

exact string configuration used during the DST tests could not be reproduced as accurately as

in the real well tests. Therefore, to manage the uncertainties which were introduced above,

sensitivity studies with varying reservoir parameters were carried out to get the best possible

production rate.

2.9. PRODUCTION FACILITIES & ISSUES

Due to the small size of our field and due to the existence of nearby process facilities

which have the ability to receive our produced fluids, the development production plan (DPP)

is to produce our field hydrocarbons via a subsea cluster wells tied-back to the nearest field

(Clair field) which is 20 km away. Five production wells are tied-back to one cluster with a

manifold which is connected through pipelines to the Clair field, as well as injection wells.

Control of the wells is by hydraulic and signal umbilical from platform. Clair field topside

facilities might need to be upgraded if required; such as pipeline end station, oil heating, gas

Team Z – Indy Oil


22

and water treating, separator and metering equipment. The development plan is designed to

handle a production of 20,000 b/d and has water injection capacity of 40,000 b/d.

2.10. FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The field is planned to be developed as following: the recovery will be made thanks to water

injection from day 1 with 5 producing wells (2 from already existing appraisal wells, 2 new

deviated wells and 1 new vertical) and 5 water injection wells (4 from appraisal wells and 1

new vertical). All the production and injection will be dealt with the nearby Clair field

operated by BP since the tie-back solution has been chosen (in terms of economics and oil

recovery). The wells will be located as showed in the following figure R6:

Figure R6: Five producers and five injectors position in the field development plan

During the first phase, new producers and injectors will be successively drilled and

put on operation, for an expected plateau phase of around 1600 days. In the next phase, two

injection wells [INJ1 & INJ3] will be shut and one production well [P1] will be converted

into injection well. In the final phase in the project, the injection well [INJ4] will be shut and

P4 will be converted from producer to injector. This final phase will last for approximately

Team Z – Indy Oil


23

1400 days. The resulting production profiles (for an economic limit calculated at 2000 bopd)

are shown in the figure R7, for different cases (high, low and most likely).

Figure R7: Expected Production profiles

2.11. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND FIELD

ABANDONMENT

Our environmental statement will be conducted as required by DTI, UK. Our field lies

under the Transboundary jurisdiction of Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgium and

Norway. Our local sensitivities are drilling discharges, produced water, cetaceans, oil spills

and transboundary issues. Drilling mud and cuttings will be treated and re-injected to well 1,

oil spills will be carried out by our emergency support vessel, and produced water will be

treated and re-injected to the sea. Flaring will be kept to a minimum.

IOC will be leasing BP’s Claire Platform for our operation offshore, limited surface

abandonment will be carried out at the end of our operations. Sub-sea wells will be abandoned

by squeezing cement to the perforated regions, plugging the borehole and providing a

corrosion cap over the wellhead. Our producing zones will be plugged back with cement with

a minimum thickness of 100 ft above and below the formation.

Team Z – Indy Oil


24

3. FIELD DESCRIPTION

The field is situated in the North Sea and its area is around 200-240 million square feet

(see top structure map appendix 2). It is located offshore west of the Shetlands Islands, and is

20 km away from the Clair field operated by BP (see map in appendix 1).

3.1. STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATION

The most useful piece of information we use to determine the geometry of the

reservoir is the seismics shot. The most obvious characteristic of the reservoir is that it is

synclined, the strike line of the two limbs being in a North-West to South-East direction

(see cross section appendix 3). The syncline deformation occurred after deposition: as we can

see on the seismics the layers above are synclined as well; they would be horizontal if the

syncline happened before deposition. Calculation of the structure different dips is possible

thanks to the top structure map (given by seismic shots too): the main dip is 2.7° from the

horizontal towards a 120° clockwise from North direction. The western limb of the

syncline has a dip of 12.3° from horizontal towards NE. The eastern limb of the syncline

has a dip of 10.2° from horizontal towards SW.

3.2. GEOLOGY AND RESERVOIR DESCRIPTION

3.2.1. Depositional Environment

The depositional environment is a critical characteristic of a reservoir because it

allows us to infer the distribution of the main reservoir properties according to the geological

interpretation. Because there is not one and only one interpretation, it is important to define

the different scenarios so that it is possible to mitigate the uncertainty in the development

phase. Several clues relative to the Z-field reservoir can be found in the available data:

seismic studies, logs, core plugs tests, lithology logs, mud logs and core pictures.

Team Z – Indy Oil


25

Let’s describe the core photographs: We had access to the viewing of the cores for 3

wells (Z-2, Z-3 and Z-5). By looking at them, it is possible to determine the energy of the

deposition: several parts of the cores are poorly-sorted and we can see pebbles (figure G1),

characteristic of a high energy deposition. Furthermore, these pebbles are often at the base of

a fining upwards sequence, which means that the depositional energy decreases gradually.

These sequences are often separated by cemented zones (light grey-white zones, figure G1).

These cemented zones will have a bad effect on the reservoir performance by altering the

vertical permeability. The cementation comes from the invasion of the rocks by calcite,

which is either precipitated (by organisms in marine environment) or initially brought by the

deposition. This invasion is stopped by the oil traces present in some parts of the cores. Are

these cemented zones continuous sheets or just small zones? It is quite difficult to determine

only from the core samples because the samples are just a few inches diameter. One of the

main characteristics we can get from the study of the cores is that it is highly heterogeneous:

it is further confirmed by the mud logs, we don’t have any clean sand body; everything is a

heterogeneous mix of sand, clay and mud.

Fining upwards
sequence

Pebbles

Cemented zone

Figure G1: Core pictures (left: pebbles in sand, right : sand and cemented zone)
Team Z – Indy Oil
26

The main characteristics we get from the cores are: poorly-sorted, pebbles, high

energy deposition, fining upwards sequence, high heterogeneity and cemented zones. These

parameters are particular of a turbidite deposition in marine environment. We can then

determine one parameter of this turbidite deposition such as the direction of the deposition

thanks to the study of the mud logs and logs, which will give the thickness of the sand body:

the thicker the sand body, the closer to the origin of the deposition. We can then work out

an isochore map from these thicknesses (appendix 3). It is possible to see that the thickest

part is in the middle-south part of the reservoir and the further from this zone, the thinner it

gets. This gives us a major clue about the direction of the paleocurrent (indicated by the

arrows on the figure). The middle-south zone is then the source of the deposition (single

point-source). It is known from the core pictures that there were several successive

depositions. The major uncertainty now is the correlation of these depositions in the wells we

have: How is the turbidite channelized? How can we correlate reservoir properties throughout

the reservoir?

3.2.2. Stratigraphy

One particularity of the reservoir is that it pinches-out on the northern part, which

indicates that the trap is probably stratigraphic. Furthermore, the two limbs of the syncline

lead to the elevation of some parts of the sand with an unconformity on the south west part.

Therefore, one key part of the trapping system can be qualified as structural as well. The

general stratigraphy can be determined thanks to the available mud logs and lithology logs,

correlation between the wells can then be made and the result is shown on appendix 4.

The lower unit is detectable only in the well Z-7; therefore it means that it pinches out

in the east direction. However, nothing more can be inferred about this unit.

Team Z – Indy Oil


27

3.2.3. Source Rock

Well test fluid analysis states that we are dealing with an Early Cretaceous type of

fluids. However, due to the lack of data, it is quite difficult to know more about the source

rock.

3.2.4. Trap and Seal

According to the mud logs, there is a layer of Marl located directly on top of the sand.

This layer of marl is present in all the wells. Therefore marl is the cap rock that seals the

stratigraphic trap, keeping the hydrocarbons from migrating further (appendix 4: general

correlation from mud logs).

3.2.5. GEOSTATISTICAL DESCRIPTION OF CORE SAMPLES

Some core plugs taken from the wells are analyzed in a laboratory to determine rock

parameters such as porosity or permeability (horizontal and vertical). The results give quite a

good idea of the quality of the sand at the well location; however it doesn’t reflect the real

behaviour of the reservoir because of the heterogeneity of the Z-field. It is still interesting to

statistically study the repartition of the porosities and the permeabilities, in order to know

more about the sand quality. Results show that the cores taken from well Z-7 (both upper: 7U

and lower layer: 7L) are of quite good quality: horizontal permeability is quite high (given by

the arithmetic average) but very heterogeneous; however the vertical permeability is quite low

(given by the harmonic average) and heterogeneous as well. The lower layer seems to be of

much better quality than the upper layer.

Geometric Harmonic Arithmetic Number of Standard


average average average samples Deviation Cv
7U KH 2,31 0,09 100,13 47 174,68 1,74
7L KH 12,08 0,13 381,29 90 517,56 1,36
7U KV 0,61 1,17E-05 75,52 47 124,47 1,65
7L KV 1,40 9,00E-06 251,08 90 393,71 1,57
Table G2: Statistics from well Z-7 core plugs
Team Z – Indy Oil
28

3.3. PETROPHYSICS AND RESERVOIR FLUIDS

3.4. PETROPHYSICS

Seven appraisals wells wireline data (paper Logs and electronic versions), SCAL, PVT

and RFT were available for petrophysics analysis of Z field. A careful check was conducted

to ensure the consistency between paper logs provided and the composite Logs available from

the software, and correction was performed where discrepancies were observed. All wells

were assumed vertical except well Z7 and Z1 for which deviation surveys were provided.

Well Z1 was not considered for study, as there was insufficient data to carry out analysis.

The set of wireline Logs available for each well are detailed in table FE1 below:

Well Log Type over Reservoir Drilling Mud

Well Z1 CGR/SGR/NPHI WBM

GR/PHID/SONI/CNL/LLS/ILD/LLD/MSFL/CALI/SFLU/Core
Well Z2 WBM
/Por/KH/KV

Well Z3 GR/CNL/DENS/LLS/LLD/MSFL/CALI /Core-Por/ KH/KV WBM

Well Z4 GR/DENS/SONI/PEF/CNL/ILM/ILD/SFLU/CALI/DRHO/Pore core/KH WBM

GR/DENS/SONI/CNL/ILM/ILD/CALI/DRHO/POR-
Well Z5 OBM
HEL/POTA/URAN/THOR/KH/KV

GR/SGR/DT/NCNL/SCNL/FCNL/ILM/ILD/ CALI/SFLU/ Core Por/


Well Z6 WBM
KH/RSFL

SGR/DENS/SONI/PEF/CNL/MSFL/ILM/ILD

Well Z7 /LLD/LLS/CALI/SFLU/DRHO/CGR/TVD/CorePor/KH/KVPOTA/URAN/ WBM

THOR/

Table FE1: Wireline logs for each well

Team Z – Indy Oil


29

3.4.1. CORRECTIONS FOR BOREHOLE EFFECTS

There was no information to know whether the Service Company corrected the logs

for borehole and mud filtrate invasion. Therefore, we assumed they have not been corrected

and did so for all the Logs. For each well, the Caliper Log was used to correct for borehole

effects and in addition, resistivity Logs were corrected for mud-filtrate invasion with Tornado

charts. Equally, there was no evidence of the company that performed the wireline logging

service, we assumed Schlumberger though and used theirs charts for correction.

3.4.2. RESERVOIR LITHOLOGY DESCRIPTION

Two reservoir units were identified in Well Z7, the upper and the lower reservoir

units. The upper reservoir unit was highly heterogeneous. Shale identification was made using

gamma ray (GR) and spectral gamma ray (SGR) curves. Equally, Neutron-density cross plots

(figure P2) and the PEF Plot on the Paper composite log were also used for mineralogy

identification. The Cross-plot showed an extensive concentration of calcite in the reservoir,

this was due to the presence of calcite cemented sandstone in the reservoir sand. This was also

confirmed by the observation of cores recovered from Well Z5 and Z3. Mud logs were also

used to further consolidate the abundant presence of calcite-cemented horizons in the

reservoir.

Figure P2: Neutron-


density cross plot

Team Z – Indy Oil


30

3.4.3. WELL CORRELATION

Due to the high heterogeneity of the reservoir, it was difficult to distinguish layering in

the reservoir with GR Logs. In order to make the correlation across the field, DST

interpretation, from well test analysis, was used to improve more information about the

connectivity. In addition, by pressure survey data, the upper sand was correlated across the

whole field (see appendix 5).

3.4.4. WATER RESISTIVITY

Water resistivity Rw used to compute Sw was determined from water analysis carried

out on twenty-six samples collected in well Z-5. The analysis reported a minor contamination

of samples. We determined an average of representatives values of the water resistivity and

the result was as follows: Rw= 0.052 @ 175°F.

3.4.5. POROSITY MODEL

Density log was available for five of the wells analyzed, and was used for porosity

computation as the neutron porosity showed higher apparent porosity due to dispersed shale

present in the reservoir sand. Equally, core porosity and neutron porosity were similar as both

indicate the total porosity. Core porosity was based on core oven-dried helium porosities and

was therefore very close to "total porosity”. Shale corrections were applied to density logs to

determine effective porosity.

3.4.6. DETERMINATION OF SW

As we have shaly sands in some part of the reservoir, we have used the Simandoux

Method for water saturation computation. This method includes a shale correction for the

saturation calculation. Values used across the field for the tortuosity, cementation and

saturation exponent were a=1, m=1.78, n=2.06, they were derived from SCAL data of well

Team Z – Indy Oil


31

Z5. The true resistivity used in Simandoux method for each well was the deep resistivity

corrected for borehole and mud filtrate invasion. Density porosity was used for all the wells

except for Well 2 where sonic porosity was used since density porosity was not available. A

comparative study with SCAL showed a match.

3.4.7. PERMEABILITY LOG

A linear regression relationship (Appendix 6a) between core porosity and core

permeabilities was determined; this was then used to indirectly compute vertical and

horizontal permeability from density porosity Log for each well. The permeability

deteriorated towards the eastern side of the field. A comparison between the permeability

obtained from logs and well testing showed discrepancies, with the permeability obtained

from well test being lower. This was probably due to the large scale of heterogeneity in our

reservoir caused by the presence of shale and cemented zones within the reservoir. In

addition, the well test permeability is the effective permeability measured at the reservoir

prevailing saturation while the core permeability is the absolute one.

3.4.8. MOVEABLE HYDROCARBONS

A study of the reservoir permeability around the wellbore zone was carried out by

computing the moveable hydrocarbon. As result in well Z5, the mud filtrate substituted almost

half of the original fluid in place in the reservoir zone, showing the permeability of the

reservoir (see appendix 6b).

3.4.9. NET-TO-GROSS

A net pay analysis was conducted for all of the wells. We assumed a mobility ratio

threshold of 0.7mD/cp to determine the permeability cut off criteria. Linear regression

relationship between the logarithm of the permeability and Φ, VSh and Sw respectively were

Team Z – Indy Oil


32

used to determine the threshold values of each parameter (appendix 7). The base Cut off

criteria used was as follows: Vshale > 0.4, Porosity >0.1, Sw < 0.5, Kh>1mD.

3.4.10. FLUIDS-BEARING ZONES

The LRU and the URU were identified as oil-bearing, with no gas cap throughout all

the six wells analyzed. Resistivity Logs, neutron and density logs were used to identify

reservoir fluids type. Core saturations were employed to confirm log results. An aquifer was

also identified in Well 5 with the OWC at 8892ft. No aquifer was observed below the oil

zone in well Z2 and in the upper Reservoir of well 7.

The table appendix 8 summarizes the properties of the upper sand reservoir obtained for each

well.

3.5. RESERVOIR FLUIDS

3.5.1. PVT Analysis

Surface and subsurface fluid samples were collected from well 1, 3, 5, and 7 by FIT

(Formation interval test) and conventional DST. The PVT analysis and gas chromatography

were carried out to analyse fluid properties and hydrocarbon composition.

In terms of PVT analysis, separator, flash vaporization and differential tests were

carried out to obtain the fluid properties including Bo, Rs and Pb from above to below bubble

point. The samples, both surface and bottom hole, were analysed in various stages of

separator (from 60-150 F and 0-200 psig). Furthermore, fluid viscosity was measured by

rolling ball viscometer at various ranges of temperature and pressure. As demonstrated in

appendix 9, the reservoir fluid seemed to be a light oil with API higher than 31.5 and low

GOR. The oil properties in the Z-field are characterised as a highly undersaturated oil with a

bubble point around 1050-1120 psia. In addition, the properties of fluid in upper and lower

reservoir appeared to have no significant difference. They were considered uniform for the
Team Z – Indy Oil
33

entire field. Thus, these results indicated that it will be possible to produce as commingled

fluids from the two zones.

Regarding the reservoir fluid composition, the selected separator gas sample was

determined by gas chromatography until detectable limit. Moreover, the separator liquid was

determined by both low and high temperature fractional distillation. As shown in table R7, the

result showed a very low amount of hydrogen sulphide, containing in both upper and lower

reservoir fluid with around 2% carbon dioxide.

Components Upper reservoir Lower reservoir


Mole Percent Mole Percent
Nitrogen 1.32 1.43
Carbon Dioxide 0.36 0.76
Hydrogen Sulphide 0.00* 0.00
Hydrocarbons
METHANE 15.50 15.89
ETHANE 4.92 5.20
PROPANE 8.68 10.03
ISO-BUTANE 1.00 1.32
N-BUTANE 3.61 5.77
ISO-PENTANE 1.19 2.08
N-PENTANE 1.95 3.30
N-HEXANE 3.59 4.59
Heptanes plus** 57.88 49.63
TOTAL 100.00 100.00
* Less than 1ppm

** Molecular weight of C7+ = 243

Table R7: Hydrocarbon Analysis of Reservoir Fluid Sample

3.5.2. Water Analysis

In terms of water analysis, Produced water was analysed by collecting 26 samples

during the reverse circulation of well Z-5 in DST-1. Three of these samples, which consist

almost entirely of formation water, were tested by API analysis. As a result of this test, it is

evident that these samples were contaminated by sea water by 12%vol. The results of

produced water analysis are shown in table R8.

Team Z – Indy Oil


34

Water( well 5) 8896-8926 ft

Sample1 Sample2 Sample3


ppm solid 74750 76640 77010
specific gravity at 60/60F 1.051 1.052 1.052
Resistivity 0.129 0.127 0.127
pH 7.22 7.5 7.24
Hydrogen Sulphide None None None
Table R8: Produced water analysis

Furthermore, oil and water were recovered at 8930 ft by a 1 gall FMT tool.

Subsequently, an API analysis and ‘finger print analysis’ were performed to analyze oil and

water. As a consequence of these tests, the formation water seems to be contaminated

formation water. In addition, from the chromatogram, the oil consists almost entirely of oil

base mud filtrate.

Based on the summary table, corrosion may happen due to the high water salinity and

high concentrated solid. The corrosion inhibitor will be used and injected into the well if

necessary. Moreover, the corrosion monitoring log should be run to examine the tubing

damage from corrosion.

3.6. HYDROCARBONS IN PLACE

3.6.1. Uncertainties Associated with HCIIP Determination

As depicted in figure R9 and figure R10, the tables show the HCIIP which were

calculated by the volumetric estimation and material balance calculation. Based on the

geometry, the input parameters were obtained from petro-physical data, core, and PVT

analysis. Whereas the MB equation can calculate the initial oil in place by using data from

EWT or extended well testing (see appendix 10). The high and low STOIIP cases for both

geometry and material balance were simulated by Monte Carlo method to account for the

parameters uncertainty. By using the Crystal Ball software, the parameters distributions were

assumed as being normal and triangular distribution (see appendix 10). The results have been
Team Z – Indy Oil
35

demonstrated in the probabilistic range with P10, P50, and P90. After that the STOIIP with

P50 was used as the representative base case to construct the reservoir model.

An Estimation of the Z Field STOIIP with volumetric method was obtained using the

Monte Carlo Simulation. The input parameters for the simulation were derived from

petrophysical and PVT analysis. Each of the parameters was modeled using an appropriate

probability distribution function to account for the associated uncertainty. The results are

shown in figure R9 and a distribution of the cumulative probabilities and sensitivities are

shown in Figure R9a and Figure R9b respectively.

Figure R9a: STOIIP Cumulative distribution function Figure R9b: Sensitivity analysis of
individual parameters

STOIIP calculation STOIIP calculation


From Reservoir geometry: From Material Balance:
P10 = 196 million STB (Based on no water influx)
P50 = 157 million STB P10 = 200 million STB
P90 = 124 million STB P50 = 152 million STB
P90 = 123 million STB

Figure R9 and Figure R10: STOIIP calculation from the volumetric estimates of
HCIIP and Material balance

Regarding the results, the STOIIP calculations from Material Balance and geometry

have no significant difference. By integrating the MB equation and geometry, the correct

STOIIP ranges can be confirmed, leading to a reduced risk of uncertainty.

Team Z – Indy Oil


36

3.7. WELL PERFORMANCE

3.7.1. APPRAISAL WELL TESTING

Extended Production test

A one-year production test in well Z-1 was conducted to get a good indication of

STOIIP by using material balance. As demonstrated in figure R11, the oil has been produced

for 1 year with a cumulative production of 751,000 barrels and followed by a long period of

shut in. As a result of this test, the pressure depleted around 213 psi from the initial reservoir

with PI around 2.89. At the beginning of this test, the bottom hole pressure dropped rapidly by

286 psi in 21 days at the early stage of test. Moreover, the reservoir pressure didn’t stabilize to

the initial reservoir pressure level (3713 psi), even if it has a long time shut in period (3

months). Therefore, the drive mechanism of this field seems to be depletion with no aquifer

support or very small support in this field.

Furthermore, the OIIP which was calculated by material balance is around 120-200

mSTB. This result is based on the fact that there is no water influx in the reservoir (see

appendix 10). The oil volume by MB equation shows a good consistency with the STOIIP

which was obtained from the volumetric calculation. Based on these results, it can be

concluded that this reservoir has no large fault to block the pressure disturbance in reservoir.

Team Z – Indy Oil


37

Figure R11: The extended well test data

Drill Stem Test

DST has been conducted in well 2, 3, 5, and 7. The main results are shown in

appendix 11. It shows a wide range of productivity index from the different areas of reservoir.

Based on this summary table, the high PI zone is situated in the West area (Z-7) with

productivity index from 5-7 (appendix 12). This result shows a good consistency with the

geological study and the core analysis which indicated the high quality sand with high

permeability and porosity in this area. In addition, the no flow boundaries were suspected

around well Z-7 from build-up analysis in Pansystem software (see appendix 13). The fault

distance from the well test analysis is reasonably close to the big fault (unconformity

boundaries) which is situated in the Western area of the field.

However, the DST testing time from the other wells seemed to be very short period

(25-70 hrs.), resulting in no late time region observed in log-log derivative plot analysis.

Therefore, the well test analysis can only define the effective permeability, skin and average

reservoir pressure by semi-log plot in Build-up analysis (demonstrated in appendix 11). In

addition, the average pressure from the build up analysis is not really different from the initial

Team Z – Indy Oil


38

pressure from the production test except for well Z-7. This is because the DST in well Z-7

was conducted after the pressure depletion from production test in well Z-1. Regarding this

result, it would be believed that the reservoir has a connection between these two areas.

Furthermore, by comparing with the static data from core analysis, the permeability which is

obtained from core analysis and well test appeared to be really different in well Z-7 (appendix

14) due to the high heterogeneity in the reservoir. However, this result supports the

assumption that the high permeability zone is situated in the West of the field around well Z-7

area.

Well test analysis of the Lower reservoir

Well test analysis from well Z-7 (west of the field) and log analysis indicated that

there is the another reservoir situated below at 10260-10400 ft (MD). From the DST analysis,

it seemed to be faults or no flow boundary situated in U-shaped around well Z-7. This well

has been test by DST and clearly showed the clean sand with higher permeability and porosity

than the upper reservoir.

Moreover, the radius of investigation calculated from the lower reservoir is around

900 ft. However, the volume of oil in place could not be identified by neither well testing nor

geological structure map because of the lack of data. Regarding the above reason, it appeared

difficult to include the lower reservoir in the simulation model and it will be treated as the

uncertainty. Therefore, it has been suggested that the well test should be conducted in this

area (Z-7) to confirm the reservoir drainage area before development or drill more wells to

gain the information from this reservoir: from the reservoir fluid analysis point of view, it is

showed that it would be possible to produce fluids from two zones at the same time as

commingled.

Team Z – Indy Oil


39

3.7.2. Well flowing design

3.7.2.1. WellFlo Analysis

By using the WellFlo software, a good understanding of the relationship between the

inflow and outflow performance has been achieved, as well as the reservoir, the completion

and the well head conditions. Well flow behaviour simulation and performance of the Z field

have been done by using the WellFlo software and by modelling the outflow and inflow of the

appraisal wells.

The data collected from DST, cores, composite logs and fluid properties from wells Z-

2, Z-3, Z-5, and Z-7 were used to build a base model with a PI reflecting the field

characteristics. Getting the best match results with actual data was obtained from DST results.

The base model is then used to run different reservoir possible conditions (sensitivity studies).

3.7.2.1.1. Methodology

The WellFlo base-model was built by using the data available and with the

reconstruction of the DST string which was used for the testing of well Z-3. The further input

of the reservoir data is then used to tune the model and to make it match the actual well test

data. This base-case model is then studied with the modification of various parameters

(sensitivities) under different reservoir conditions. According to this study, it will be possible

to determine the behaviour and performance of new drilled wells anywhere in the reservoir

and under any conditions. The completion string can then be optimized, as well as the

configuration design and downhole completion (including perforations density, phase and

angle deviation, wellhead pressure and facilities options). In a later phase of the field life, the

lifting capacity will decrease along with well production due to the water cut increase;

flowing the well will therefore require artificial lift. Thanks to its availability, gas lifting will

be used rather than ESPs (as explained in the artificial lift section below).

Team Z – Indy Oil


40

Upper The correlation which gives the best match


sand
Average PI , STB/D/PSI 7 results of the outflow from the base model is
Bo bbl/STB 1.2
Haggedorn and Brown. The model is then tuned
Average layer pressure 3775
Average permeability, k md 130 thanks to the modification of the L-factor, to
Bubble point, psi 1100
more precisely match the flow obtained from the
Well radius, ft .6
Average thickness, ft 140 well test (as shown in appendix 15 and 16).
Viscosity Cp 1.3

3.7.2.1.2. Sensitivities

3.7.2.1.2.1 Well head Pressure

By taking into account separator requirements, the optimum well head pressure is 250

psi. Figure P1 and appendix 17 below show the well head pressure sensitivity.

well head sensitivity

3500
3000
flow rate STB/day

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
150 200 250 300 350 400 450
well head pressure psi

Figure P1: well head sensitivity

3.7.2.1.2.2 Well flow design

A generic model for the upper sand was developed with a reservoir thickness of 140ft.

It was assumed that wells will be drilled with zero formation damage thanks to the penetration

Team Z – Indy Oil


41

depth of perforations which should be enough to bypass the damaged zone. Furthermore,

reservoir pressure will be maintained above bubble point. Sensitivities were then generated

for various conditions: different tubing sizes, different deviation angles and different

perforations densities with various phases and penetration depths.

3.7.2.1.2.3 Perforations dimensions

As it is shown in the appendices 18, 19, 20, the best perforations density is 4 shots/ft

with a phase of 90 degrees. The penetration is 50 inches.

3.7.2.1.2.4 Tubing size

From WellFlow we can find that the highest production can be obtained from the 5.5”

and 5” diameter tubing as shown in the figure P2 and appendices 21. It is interesting to note

that 5.5” is the most common and used tubing diameter in the North Sea area.

Tubing size sensitivity

4000
flowr rate STB/day

3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1.99 2.5 3.5 2.9 4.044 4.89
Tubing inside diameter" inche"

Figure P2: Tubing size sensitivity

Team Z – Indy Oil


42

3.7.2.1.2.5 Deviation

As it is shown in the figure P3 and appendix 22, the maximum production can be

achieved with an inclination up to 75°. This inclination will give the best flow rates.

However the well deviation will be limited by the dip of the reservoir layers and by the

length of the deviated bath in the reservoir. Drilling the wells with a 60° inclination gives

adequate flow and also simplifies wireline logging and operations.

Deviation sensitivity
flow rate STB/day

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
deviation angle "dgree"

Figure P3: Deviation angle sensitivity

3.7.2.1.2.6 Layer Pressure and Water Cut Variation

A 5.5” diameter tubing size and a 60° inclination will now be assumed. The table

below shows the prediction of the well performance under different pressures and the

maximum water cut which can be handled under these conditions. As we can see, if it is

assumed that the pressure will be maintained by pressure support both by water injection and

rock compressibility, the well will continue to flow at different water cuts as shown in table

P4 (and appendix 23) below. The economic rate is 500 STB/day with a water cut of 80%.

Team Z – Indy Oil


43

Layer Pressure (psia)

Water Cut
(%) 3700 3600 3500 3400 3300 3200 3100 3000
0 4332 3947 3556 3156 2748 2331 1826 1031
10 3857 3486 3108 2718 2318 1907 1299 112
20 3371 3015 2650 2274 1887 1425 720 0
30 2886 2548 2202 1849 1488 957 0 0
40 2417 2101 1773 1436 1039 434 0 0
50 1947 1655 1351 1033 1033 0 0 0
60 1489 1227 954 636 600 0 0 0
70 1053 829 592 303 205 0 0 0
80 646 474 285 73 0 0 0 0
90 286 188 81 0 0 0 0 0

Table P4: Layer pressure vs Water cut

3.7.2.1.3. Artificial Lift Selection & Design

Due to the increase of water cut, natural reservoir energy will not be enough at some

point to lift the fluid to the surface and then to the surface facilities, in this case artificial lift is

needed according to location and reservoir parameters (such as pressure, oil °API or GOR). It

will be suitable to consider the gas lift as the method of artificial lift rather than ESP

(electrical submersible pumps). Considering the fact that the field economic water cut is 65

%, artificial lift will be needed to enhance production at 40% water cut. Appendix 24 shows

gas lift design characteristics and operating conditions to produce liquid. For a liquid

production of 8293 bbl (4119 bbl /day of oil), a gas injection rate of 3mmscf/day is needed as

shown in appendix 25 and 26. Economic production rate water cut is then increased to 90% at

500 STB/day. And two dummy valves are to be installed and other accessories as contingency

plan when needed.

3.7.3. Wellbore Completion

As a result of drilling operations the casing of 9”5/8 will be set at TD, cemented and

perforated with a casing gun that will allow the selection of the flow zones (and avoid water

Team Z – Indy Oil


44

zones when needed). The perforation penetration depth should be more than 50 inches with a

phase of 90 degrees to get the best performance as mentioned above. The completion

schematics are shown in appendix 27 and 28 for the wells which produce from the upper sand

and the wells which will produce from the two layers of sand (upper and lower sand as

present in well Z-7).

3.8. PRODUCTION ISSUES

3.8.1. Scaling Corrosion

The formation water has a high concentration of sodium ions and chloride cations

according to the samples of water extracted from the separator to identify scaling issues.

According to the chemical composition of formation water the type of scales anticipated are

calcium sulphates and barium sulphates. Furthermore, incompatibility between formation

water and injection sea water can be a source of scale creation. The table P5 below shows the

dissolved solids in the formation water. Scale Inhibitors should be injected when required to

prevent the scales from building up in the tubing and the production facilities so we can avoid

any tubing plug or flow restriction.

CATIONS ANIONS
Sodium 36.6 Chloride 59.6
Potassium 0.38 Sulphate 0.16
Calcium 1.2 Bicarbonate 1.26
Magnesium 0.38 Carbonate NIL
Barium 0.011 Hydroxide NIL
Strontium 0.29

Total
dissolved
solids
Total iron 0.027 (Mg/L) 76640
Dissolved
iron 0.000013 PH 7.5
Table P5: formation water dissolved solids

Team Z – Indy Oil


45

3.8.2. Wax & Asphaltenes

To date, analysis of the wax and asphaltene shows that they are not present. The

operating temperature will be maintained high enough to avoid any formation of wax in the

surface facilities. Reservoir pressure will be kept constant to avoid any chance of asphaltine to

develop due to the pressure drop. In case of wax formation, inhibitors will be injected.

Therefore, inhibitor injection will be included in the production facilities (such as storage

tanks). The wax present in the tubing will be cleaned chemically with acid or mechanically

thanks to coiled tubing.

3.8.3. Sand Failure Prediction

The data obtained during the appraisal stage and from Basic Sediments & Water

(water cut analysis) measurements during DST show no sand production failure. Furthermore,

the cores suggest that the sand of the reservoir is consolidated. Usually the sand production

increases with high rates of production. It will not be the case in our study according to

simulation and well flow prediction of rate.

3.8.4. Corrosion

Corrosion is one of the problems expected during production operations. It would lead

to important costs due to the loss of down hole equipment, casing or surface facility as the

C02 dissolved in the water forms a strong acid and corrodes the steel. Moreover, H2S can

lead as well to metal loss by corrosion. This aspect will be monitored and corrosion inhibitors

will be injected when required. Coated or chrome tubing will avoid any work over to repair

corrosion failures. Monitoring logs can be run to check corrosion if necessary.

Team Z – Indy Oil


46

3.9. RESERVOIR MODELLING APPROACH

3.9.1. Introduction

Regarding the simulation study, the scenarios will be selected to study the field

recovery efficiency. In addition, natural depletion, water flooding, and polymer flooding

development plan will be simulated. After that the effect of well position, number and type of

well (deviated and vertical) will be analyzed to construct the base case model. Then the

sensitivity analysis will be carried out to study the effects of recovery efficiency from the

reservoir uncertainty. Based on the results of these simulation studies, the development plan

will be determined with the most suitable scenario and field management. Moreover, the

production profile and field performance will be predicted for further history matching and

economic analysis. However, the data and information which were imported to the model

came from the appraisal stage. Therefore, an amount of assumptions were justified because of

incomplete data and lack of information. These assumptions lead to a lot of uncertainty in

reservoir simulation including the Kv/Kh ratio, porosity, and water and rock properties. To

reduce the risk of uncertainty, more data acquisitions are recommended including well testing,

core analysis and history matching to create the representative model in the future.

3.9.2. RESERVOIR MODELLING

Based on the undersaturated oil in the reservoir, the 2phase, 3-D ‘Black Oil model’

was used to simulate the area of reservoir by ECLIPSE100. Subsequently, the reservoir model

consists of 56x28x20 cells by grid corner point structure which was generated from PETREL.

In addition, the reservoir model has been created with a total area of 240 million square feet.

Furthermore, the model thickness varies from 70 ft to 650 ft, and that’s only the upper

reservoir including the edge water in the East direction (see figure R12).

Team Z – Indy Oil


47

Figure R12: Reservoir 3-D simulation model

3.9.2.1. BODY GEOMETRY AND STRUCTURE

The grid cell structures were generated from PETREL by using top structure map,

geological and log data. The top structure contour map is the upper delimitation of the sand

body (correctly adjusted thanks to the definition of horizons corresponding to the sand tops

detected in the logs). The lower delimitation of the sand body is taken from the same contour

map but shifted downwards and adjusted with the definition of the sand bottoms detected in

the logs. In a first step the whole system is finely gridded (1,693,440 cells). The properties are

then distributed in the model thanks to the logs interpretation. A coarser grid is then created

(31,600 cells) and is used for the properties upscaling from the fine scaled grid (see section

below on upscaling). The vertical transmissibility still is the uncertainty in this reservoir. It

will be treated as an uncertainty and will need a sensitivity analysis.

3.9.2.2. PROPERTY MODELLING

The properties in each grid cells including permeability, porosity and saturation water

were created and distributed from log data and reservoir fluid analysis. All properties are in

field units. In addition, the relative permeability and capillary pressure curves were obtained
Team Z – Indy Oil
48

from the special core analysis in well Z-7. The relative permeability tables were grouped

together in the same type of rock, resulting in two rel-perm tables which were used in

simulation model (see appendix 29). In addition, from Craig’s rule of thumb, this reservoir

shows the main characteristic of being oil wet so that a drainage behavior is expected with the

water injection mechanism.

In terms of capillary pressure, the J-function was used, creating the one dimensionless

Pc curve for generating Pc in each grid cell (see appendix 30). Moreover, the ENDSCALE

keyword was used to scale the properties such as relative permeability by using end points

scaling method. However, all properties, obtained from special core analysis, come only from

well Z-7. Therefore, it would be suggested to gain more data and information from the other

wells to reduce property uncertainties and risk.

Throughout the simulation process, the reservoir pressure is assumed to never

decrease below the bubble point pressure with constant temperature, resulting in no gas

coming out of the solution in the reservoir. Thus, the gas production can be calculated by

GOR which is obtained from fluid properties analysis. The property used in the simulation

model is shown in table R13 below.

Reservoir properties Oil Properties


Average temperature, °F 175 Density, lb/ft3 43
Initial Pressure, psia 3770 Boi, rb/STB 1.17
OWC, ft (TVD) 8850 GOR, scf/STB 224
Water Properties Viscosity, CP 0.97-1.23
3
Density, lb/ft 65.8 Bubble point pressure, psia 1122
Bwi, rb/STB 1.02 Rock properties
Viscosity, CP 0.4 Cr, psi-1 7.50E-06
-1
Cw, psi 2.46E-06

Table R13: Properties used in simulation model

Team Z – Indy Oil


49

3.9.2.3. UPSCALING

The fine grid model had 1,693,440 cells which have been reduced to 56x28x20 cells

i.e. 31600 blocks for saving simulation run time. As previously mentioned, the properties for

the coarse grid are upscaled from the properties distributed in the fine scale grid (these

properties have been distributed according to the statistical repartition of the interpreted

petrophysical values from the logs). The upscaling method used here is the geometric

average because of the heterogeneous repartition of rocks: this repartition gets close to a

random correlated repartition; therefore the average tends to be geometric. The upscaled

model only represented the upper reservoir because of lack of information in the lower part.

3.9.3. SIMULATION MODELS

3.9.3.1. INITIALIZATION

The model has been initialized with a capillary pressure = 0 psi at the oil water contact

(8850 ft TVD). In addition, the saturation water properties in grid cells were depending on the

capillary pressures which are generated by keyword EQUIL in ECLIPSE simulation. The

datum pressure, 8500 ft (TVD) was set at 3770 psia. And the oil in place has been set at 140

million barrels with no gas cap in the reservoir. The initialization properties table is shown

below.

Datum, ft TVD Pi at Datum, psia OWC, ft TVD Pc at OWC, psia Oil in place, mmbbls

Reservoir initial conditions 8500 3770 8850 0 140


Table R14: The initialized parameter in simulation model

3.9.3.2. WELL MODEL

All wells were set up with the tubing 0.67 ft for both producers and injectors. The area

near wellbore were assumed as zero-skin, based on the low skin factor from well test. The

location of the new wells tended to be drilled at the high PI zone near the appraisal well Z-7.
Team Z – Indy Oil
50

However, not only the producer locations but also the injector locations which control the

good effective displacement have to be concerned. Thus, the well location experiment was

analyzed to compare between the edge water injection and the extra injectors in the middle

field. Furthermore, the benefits of horizontal well were analyzed by comparing with the

vertical well. The criterion which was used to justify our choice was not only the incremental

oil production but also the technical and economic issues which should be taken into account.

Regarding the water flooding and other scenarios, the appraisal wells were used as

injectors and producers for saving costs and rig time. However, new wells seem to be

necessary to achieve high production and economic rate. Based on the assumption that the

reservoir will be produced above the bubble point pressure, all wells were controlled by the

bottom-hole pressure (1,200 psia), whereas the injectors were limited at 12,000 psia to keep

reservoir pressure constant. The production wells tend to be perforated in the upper zone to

avoid early water breakthrough.

3.9.3.3. FAULT MODEL

Concerning the faults in reservoir, the model was created based on no big fault which

would block the pressure connectivity, although some faults were observed in the seismic

interpretation and well test analysis. This is because the production test indicated the good

lateral connectivity along the field. Thus, by integrating geological and well test data, this

field was assumed that it does not have big fault situated in the reservoir and the fault model

was ignored in the model simulation.

3.10. SIMULATION RESULTS AND MAIN SENSITIVITIES

3.10.1.RECOVERY MECHANISM

The recovery method of natural depletion, water flooding, and polymer flooding have

been investigated with the simulation model. First, natural depletion plan had only 5
Team Z – Indy Oil
51

producers. Secondly, the water drive mechanism consisted of 5 injectors and 5 producers

which mainly produced in the high PI area. Since polymer flooding is more expensive than

water drive, this case was investigated by using 3 injectors and 5 producers in the reservoir. In

addition, the well positions of three recovery mechanisms are shown in figure R15.

Polymer flooding

Figure R15: Well positions in three recovery mechanisms

Based on production test analysis, the reservoir tends to have no aquifer or very small

aquifer support. Thus, the production by natural depletion drive appeared to be the least

attractive. As depicted in figure R16, by simulation study, the natural depletion scenario had a

recovery factor of just above 10 percent after 4,000 days whereas the recovery efficiency in

the water flooding case increased by more than 38% during the same period. This result had

shown that the reservoir needs some pressure maintenance even at the early stage of

production. However, the recovery factor from the polymer injection was not better than the

one for water flooding as expected. This is because not only the pressure support is an

important parameter for improving the recovery efficiency but also the sweep efficiency that

has to be improved to achieve the ultimate recovery.

Team Z – Indy Oil


52

Figure R16: Recovery factor simulated by three recovery scenarios.

3.10.2.DRAINAGE PLAN AND WELL LOCATION

According to the above summary, water flooding seems to be the most effective plan

to produce oil in the reservoir. However, the wells location and drainage plan should be

carefully studied; because not only the suitable drainage by producer is an important factor to

achieve the ultimate oil recovery production but also the sweep efficiency influenced by the

injector. Therefore, two drainage patterns and their effect on the recovery factor have been

investigated. These patterns are described in details as following.

Pattern A

This is the base case study for water flooding pattern. It consists of 10 wells, 5

producers and 5 injectors. In addition, six appraisal wells were used as producer and injector.

As shown in figure R17, there are four new wells requiring to be drilled: 1 injector and 3

production wells. All the new producers were drilled in the high productivity area which was

indicated by well test analysis. The new injection well helps to improve the sweep front from

the water edge to the west side area of the reservoir.

Team Z – Indy Oil


53

Figure R17: the well location from pattern A

Pattern B

This drainage pattern consists of 8 wells (4 producers and 4 injectors). The new two

injected wells were drilled at the edge of water to get good sweep efficiency. All the

production wells were located on the West side area to prevent early water breakthrough as

shown in figure R18.

Figure R18: the well location from pattern B

Team Z – Indy Oil


54

Comparison

After the simulation study, the pattern A appeared to be the most effective and has

been selected as the base case for sensitivity study. In addition, this case has the following

benefits:

- Higher production rate and recovery efficiency,

- A number of wells were penetrating the high PI zone in which the lower reservoir is

located, giving the opportunity to produce fluid from the two zones,

- There is an injection well in the west of the center area, resulting in better pressure

support for the entire field,

- All of the conventional wells were used as injection or production wells which

allowed to make savings on the drilling costs,

- Reduced risk of connectivity if some faults isolate the western area from the other

parts of reservoir.

3.10.3.SENSITIVITIES

• Kv/Kh

The upper reservoir in the Z-field is described as a very heterogeneous structure. It

quite often contains zones of cemented rocks. The vertical transmissibility appeared to be the

unknown parameter for this reservoir. By sensitivity analysis, the base case model has been

justified as low vertical transmissibility with Kv/Kh ratio of 0.4. The wide ranges of Kv/Kh

ratio were used from 0.01 to 1.00 to analyze the effect of vertical transmissibility.

By using a low Kv/Kh , the recovery factor seems to be better than high Kv/Kh ratio.

The recovery efficiency was changed by ±1% from the original recovery factor. However, for

the Kv/Kh of 0.01, the recovery factor dropped by 4% from the base case since the vertical

sweep efficiency was ignored in this case. In conclusion, the vertical transmissibility has only

a minor impact on the ultimate recovery in the model.

Team Z – Indy Oil


55

• Porosity

The porosity in the model was generated from logs and core properties distribution in

PETREL. This process resulted in the uncertainty issue because of the heterogeneity of

reservoir. The sensitivity analysis was simulated by varying the porosity of ± 15% from the

base case. As a result, the lower porosity appeared to have higher recovery efficient. The

recovery factor varied between ± 11% from the original case. This is because the water will

break through very early in the high porosity case. Therefore, porosity seemed to have a

significant effect on the field oil recovery.

• Rock compressibility

The rock compressibility which obtained from the special core analysis was justified

as an uncertainty since this property was observed only in well Z-7. The property distribution

from well Z-7 to the whole reservoir was assumed to be a layered distribution, although this

assumption appeared to be impossible in heterogeneous reservoir. By using Cr= 7.5x10-6 in

the base case, the impact on rock compressibility was studied by used Cr from 4 x10-6 to 10

x10-6 psi-1. As a consequence of this analysis, the rock compressibility has a small effect on

the recovery factor. In addition, its effect was only of ±2% from the reference case.

• Water viscosity

The water viscosity is one of the most important parameters for mobility ratio

calculation. The water analysis data was obtained from only well Z-5. However, no water

viscosity information was found. Thus, the water viscosity would be assumed in the range of

2x10-6 – 6x10-6 psi-1(reference case = 4x10-6 psi-1). During the sensitivity analysis, the results

showed that the higher viscosity will increase the recovery efficiency (just above 8% change).

Due to the simulation result, it can be implied that water viscosity has an important influence

in the recovery factor. Because the high water viscosity will increase the mobility ratio which

improves the oil mobility in reservoir.

Team Z – Indy Oil


56

Figure R19: Sensitivity analysis results

3.11. ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLANS CONSIDERED

The results presented below are compared with the base case (Pattern A) as described

in drainage plan above.

a) Six production wells

A new producer was added from the base case in the West side of reservoir to increase

production (see figure R20 below). The injector pattern is still the same as Pattern A.

Figure R20: Six production wells development plan

Team Z – Indy Oil


57

b) Deviated wells

Concerning the technical issues of drilling, three vertical wells which were situated in

the vicinity seem to be a problem in technical terms because the drilling slot prefers to be

fixed at some place rather than be moved every time as a new well is drilled. Thus, this

development plan tried to fix the slot in the P2 area. And then drill the P3 and P5 as deviated

wells along the edge of the reservoir as shown in figure R21 below. Regarding the benefits of

deviated wells, the production performance will be improved because of the changes in pipe

length and drainage shape.

Figure R21: Fix slot platform and two deviated wells

As a result of the simulation study, the recovery factor prediction simulated from

alternative development plan is shown in figure R22 below. Based on model simulation, the

horizontal wells showed a little increase in recovery factor of more than 4% whereas the

recovery factor in 6 production wells case rise above 38% in 4,000 days.

Team Z – Indy Oil


58

Figure R22: Alternative development plan comparison

However, the cost of deviated well will be more expensive than for vertical wells and

take a higher risk. Consequently, the economic and drilling issues need to be considered

together to find the optimum length for the ultimate recovery factor during the production

period.

Sensitivity Analysis :

As a result from the alternative plan, the deviated well plan seemed to be the most

attractive plan due to the high recovery factor and the technical feasibility. However, the

drainage area and deviated well performance are different from the vertical wells scenario. So

the sensitivity analysis need to be studied with the same uncertainty as with the vertical wells

scenario, especially with the Kv/Kh ratio which has more impact on recovery factor than for

vertical wells. In addition, the deviated well as shown in figure R23 was used as base case for

the sensitivity analysis.

As demonstrated in figure R23, the sensitivity analysis showed the same result as the vertical

wells case. However, in the lowest Kv/Kh of 0.01, the recovery factor was still increased

which is different from the vertical well case. In conclusion, the Kv/Kh ratio uncertainty still

has a minor effect on the recovery factor in deviated well plan.

Team Z – Indy Oil


59

Figure R23: Deviated well sensitivity analysis

Figure R24: FOPR vs time for deviated wells

4. DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

4.1. ECONOMICS AND FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1.1. GENERAL

With Indy Oil North Sea strategy directed towards exploration opportunities and

maximizing utilization of core infrastructures, the economic strategy for Z field should lead to

a cost-effective development plan that will maximize the recovery from the reservoir and

bring oil to the market as soon as possible. Although the field has been appraised sufficiently
Team Z – Indy Oil
60

for development, delineation of the upper reservoir in the southwest and size of the lower

reservoir are unknown so any development strategy needs to be able to cope with additional

capacity. In addition to the financial aspect, the criteria used to select the best field

development scenario were the strategy and the goals of Indy Oil, the inherent risks of each

plan and the experience of our peers in the nearby fields.

4.1.2. INDY OIL COMPANY PORTFOLIO

Indy oil is a Canadian company with operations on six continents. Indy Oil engages in

the upstream and midstream of the petroleum Industry. Its upstream activities involve oil and

gas exploration, production and development. The mainstream activities include pipeline

transportation. UK and Canada activities are the key portfolios of Indy Oil. Indy Oil project

portfolio management has recently shifted from the previous mature assets acquisitions

towards high exploration-impact, and geographical spreading with opportunities in South-east

Asia.

4.1.3. TIE-BACK TO THE CLAIR FIELD (BP)

For deep water marginal field, tieback to nearby processing facilities whenever

possible is usually one of the economic viable options to develop marginal field. We then

considered the possibility of process our fluids from CLAIR platform. The processing

capacity of CLAIR platform is detailed in the table E1 below:

Processing Capacity:

Oil ('000 b/d) 100

Gas (mmcfd) 50

Water ('000 b/d) 100

*Courtesy of Wood Mackenzie

Table E1: Clair Processing Capacity

Team Z – Indy Oil


61

The present Phase I of Clair production has a plateau of less than half of its capacity.

A second phase development is currently being considered, and the production was

anticipated for around 2014 with uncertainties surrounding that phase. Conceptual studies

were due to begin in the third quarter of 2008, and possible development scenarios include a

further one or two major steel platforms. In this situation, we have considered beginning

negotiations with BP, as they presently have free capacity and our production would start to

decline in 2014. The subsea template tied back to the CLAIR Platform was the most attractive

development scenario giving an NPV of Can$505.64 millions. With water depth of 300m, the

alternatives were limited to floating facilities (FPSO and TLP). They were also considered,

TLP was not economically viable for this marginal field while leasing a FPSO gave a good

NPV (Can$400 millions) but still lesser than tieback. Equally, the FPSO development plan

would lead to field abandonment 2 years earlier. A close look into the PVT data of CLAIR

field showed that oil from CLAIR is of less good quality and will downgrade our own. To

compensate for that, the processing tariff should be negotiated with this in mind.

4.2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN, RESERVES AND PRODUCTION

PROFILES

4.2.1. DEVELOPMENT PLAN

4.2.1.1. Base case Development plan

5 Producers - 1 new vertical, 2 new deviated, and 2 from appraisal wells

5 Injectors - 1 new vertical and 4 from appraisal wells

Different scenarios were considered for surface production facilities configuration.

Due to the small size of our field and from an economic point of view, the decision was to tie-

back to the nearby field (Clair field) 22 km away. The plan is to tie all production wells to one

central cluster and transport the production fluids to the Clair field through pipelines.
Team Z – Indy Oil
62

Similarly with water injection wells, the water will be imported from the Clair field through a

pipeline connected to the injection wells cluster.

The J. W. McLean semisubmersible rig will be used to drill all the new wells. Four

new wells will be drilled: one injector and three produces. In addition, six appraisal wells

were used as injectors and producers (see figure DVP1).

Figure DVP1: Five producers and five injectors position in the field development plan

The project will start on 1st of January when the rig will be on location (Figure DVP2

below gives an overview of the sequence and timing of the development plan). At the

beginning, one vertical injection well (INJ4) will be drilled along the water contact to

maintain good pressure support. Once INJ4 is ready, the water will be injected through all

injection wells (1-5). At the same time, the production will start from wells P1 and P4. Then

the rig will be moved to drill the other three wells from a subsea cluster which can

accommodate four wells. All these three wells will be used as production wells [P5 deviated,

P2 vertical well and P3 deviated]. The deviated wells will enter the production zone at 60

degrees [as explained in the production technology section]. P5 will be drilled first followed

by P2 and finally P3. The production of each well will directly start once its drilling is

Team Z – Indy Oil


63

completed. By this stage all the injectors and producers will run simultaneously. This is the

plateau phase in the production profile which will last for around 1600 days. In the next

phase, two injection wells [INJ1 & INJ3] will be shut and one production well [P1] will be

converted into injection well. In the final phase in the project, the injection well [INJ4] will

be shut and P4 will be converted from producer to injector. This final phase will last for

approximately 1400 days.

Figure DVP2: Development plan and drilling program

4.2.2. RESERVES

The range of recovery factors are indicative of the range in sweep efficiency and

residual hydrocarbon saturations and are derived probabilistically from detailed reservoir

simulation studies. In addition, the appropriate reserves and properties are used together in

order to calculate the highest and lowest case for comparing with the expected case (base case

model). The range of oil and gas production from various simulation models were shown in

Table DVP3.

Team Z – Indy Oil


64

Low (P90) Exp(P50) High(P10)


Oil recovery factor, % 32 39.5 42
Oil Production total, STB 44.4x106 54.9x106 59.1x106
Gas Production total, scf 9.77x109 12.08x109 13.00x109
Table DVP3: the ranges of recovery factor from model simulation

4.2.3. PRODUCTION PROFILES

The production profiles (Low, Most Likely, and High) in the development plan were

demonstrated in figure DVP4. These production profiles were simulated based on the

assumption that the economic limit rate is 2,000 bopd. In addition, all of these models were

simulated by using water flooding recovery since the simulation analysis showed that this

reservoir has not enough pressure to support to produce by itself. Moreover, the gas

production were calculated by GOR (220 scf/stb) and oil production volume.

Figure DVP4: Production profiles for field development plan

Based on the economic production rate, the low case can be produced for 4,000 days

whereas the expected and high cases were predicted around 4,500 and 5,000 days

respectively.

Team Z – Indy Oil


65

4.2.4. WATER INJECTION POTENTIAL

Regarding the assumption that the reservoir has no aquifer support, the water injection

seems to be required at the beginning of the production stage. In order to maintain the

reservoir pressure above bubble point, the water injection rate profiles were determined by

simulation studies as depicted in figure DVP5.

Figure DVP5: Field water injection rate profiles

The benefit of the water injection is the pressure support to keep the reservoir pressure

above bubble point. In fact, the water drive could improve the sweep efficiency and recovery

factor as shown in reservoir simulation section. However, there is a risk that the water will

break through the producers in the early stage of production. To solve this problem,

perforation depths have to be accordingly designed. The perforation depths in all injectors

tend to inject water at the lower part of the reservoir in order to increase the sweep efficiency,

while the producers are designed to be perforated in the upper part to prevent the early water

breakthrough. In conclusion, by reservoir simulation and economic evaluation, the water

injection is required in order to achieve the ultimate recovery in this field.

Team Z – Indy Oil


66

4.3. FIELD MANAGEMENT PLAN (FMP)

The objective of the FMP is to manage and develop the individual reservoirs so as to

maximise the economic ultimate recovery factor. To achieve this objective, this project will

try to improve and maintain the overall company and working performance by following

‘Field development best practice’. Moreover, the environment will be conserved and

protected during all the activities.

In order to ensure that the development plan will be successful, the plan will be

updated and reviewed annually. Moreover, by using multidiscipline integration such as

geology, reservoir simulation and well testing, the plan will be improved to ensure the

optimum development. In addition, the flexibility of the development plan makes it prepared

for further opportunities of new technology and development.

4.3.1. UNCERTAINTY MANAGEMENT.

The uncertainties for Z-field which are addressed by the Field Management plan are:

1. Reservoir heterogeneity

2. Faults and reservoir compartmentalisation

3. Deposition of the turbidites

4. Reservoir fluid properties

5. Size of the lower reservoir

4.3.1.1. Reservoir Heterogeneity

As it is mentioned previously, one of the reservoir main uncertainties lies in its vertical

permeability: the core images display zones highly cemented by calcite. However, what is not

known is the size of these zones: are they just boulders or are they spread out in large sheets

(see figure G3 below)? The vertical permeability will be highly affected by these zones and

by their layout: normal vertical permeability if the cemented zones are boulders, small one if

Team Z – Indy Oil


67

the cemented zones are continuous sheets. Since the reservoir will be drained by two long

deviated wells, the risk of early water breakthrough can be reduced by completing the wells in

the crestal part of the reservoir (as shown in figure DVP1). In addition, the full shut-off of the

branch or wells can be used if required.

Figure G3: Effects of cemented zones on vertical permeability

4.3.1.2. Faults and reservoir compartmentalisation

According to the seismic shot interpretation (and precision), it is possible to determine

several faults within the reservoir. The smaller faults are almost impossible to detect with

seismic because of the resolution scale. How the presence of faults in the reservoir will affect

its quality in terms of permeability? Well testing results give us a more precise idea of their

distance to the well. However, it does not give any clue on the size or the direction of these

faults (see well testing section). In order to reduce this uncertainty, the producers and injectors

are put in the center and West side of field instead of only at the edge of the oil water contact.

Thus, it can be ensured that the reservoir will have enough pressure support even if some

faults are effectively present in the field.

4.3.1.3. Deposition of the turbidites

It is possible to infer the distribution of the different properties according to how the

turbidite has been deposited. Furthermore, the distance from the source of deposition is an

indication of the sorting of the rocks: bigger boulders will tend to stay near the source of

Team Z – Indy Oil


68

deposition whereas smaller grains (sand, silt, mud) will be distributed further. The uncertainty

here is how it is possible to relate this sorting with the quality of the reservoir. Based on this

uncertainty, the multidiscipline integration will be required such as well test and reservoir

simulation, in order to select the most appropriate well position to achieve the ultimate

recovery.

4.3.1.4. Reservoir fluid properties

As mentioned in the reservoir fluid section, the uncertainties of the fluid properties

come from the heterogeneity of reservoir and lack of information. For example, the SCAL

which showed the relative permeability and capillary pressure curves come from only one

well which could not use correctly as representative for the whole reservoir. To reduce this

uncertainty, more data from the other wells need to be gathered and analyzed. Moreover, the

simulation model is required to update the fluid properties by data from the other wells and

history matching.

4.3.1.5. Size of the lower reservoir

Well test analysis from well Z-7 (western part of the field) and log analysis indicated

that there is the another reservoir situated below the main one at 10260-10400 ft (MD). From

the DST analysis, there seems to be faults or no flow boundaries situated in a U-shape around

well Z-7. This well has been test by DST and clearly showed a clean sand with higher

permeability and porosity than the upper reservoir. However, the volume of oil in place could

not be identified neither by well testing nor by geological structure map because of the lack of

data. Regarding the above reason, it appeared to be difficult to consider the lower reservoir in

the simulation model and it will be treated as the uncertainty. Therefore, it has been suggested

that another well test should be conducted in this area (Z-7) to confirm the reservoir drainage

area before development. Furthermore it would be suggested to drill the new wells deeper and

Team Z – Indy Oil


69

conduct the test to gain the information from this area. Reservoir fluid analysis showed that it

would be possible to produce fluids from two zones at the same time as commingled which

should increase the production rate of the field.

4.3.2. Workover, Re-entry and sidetrack potential

The main uncertainty in re-entering the old wells is the well path of the appraisal wells

because the drilling surveying has not been conducted for all the appraisal wells. This may

lead to drilling through the casing and thus going out of the track. Therefore, it is essential to

monitor the ROP all the time during the drilling phase.

4.3.3. Artificial Lift

If the production performance of the Z-field indicates that there is no aquifer support

or very small aquifer. It is possible to use the artificial lift i.e. gas lift or ESPs in the wells

located within high PI area. After investigation, both gas lift and ESP were not required in the

base case. Because water flooding can support the pressure in the reservoir and keep it above

bubble point pressure. However, these artificial lift can be used to extend the production

period when the field water cut exceeds 70% but this will have to be justified by economic

evaluation.

4.4. Further data gathering

Seismic information – More seismic data is required from the other area of Z-field,

especially the West area which consists of three producers. The seismic interpretation will

give more understanding about well connectivity and avoid the uncertainty of faults.

Open-Hole Logging – Intermediate logging will be performed in the first injection

well (INJ4) and production well (P2) to gain more data about the upper and lower reservoir.

In addition both producer and injector will be logged with a conventional logging suite

including calliper/ density/ neutron and resistivity tools.


Team Z – Indy Oil
70

The special core analysis – the appraisal well had a large core data in order to cover

the main reservoir area. However, the special core analysis including rel-perm and capillary

pressure table were obtained from only one well (Z-7). Thus more SCAL are required for the

other well to cover the main reservoir area and reduce the uncertainty due to heterogeneity of

the reservoir.

Rate Measurements – The production test should be conducted in well P2 in order to

confirm the connectivity of the lower and upper reservoir. Moreover, the size of the lower

reservoir should be indicated for the further development plan. During the production phase,

well tests will be carried out to monitor production rate, and water cut for all wells. It is

proposed that early in the accumulation life each producer is tested once per month over a 12

hour period. This testing frequency and duration may be revised once the production

performance of each well has been established.

Bottom Hole Pressure Measurements – Permanent bottom hole pressure gauges

with continuous data transmission will be used in all producers. Gauges can measure valuable

early information of reservoir performance and will reduce the initial requirements for BHP

surveys. It is expected that the surveys data will be gathered for material balance calculation

and model history matching.

Leak-off test/ Formation test - In drilling, the pressure profiles can be considered as

main uncertainties since that formation pressure and the leak off test has been conducted in

well 3 only (appraisal well). Moreover, there is no indication of the overpressure zones from

the mud logs of the appraisal wells. This is because there are not enough data to confirm such

zones. These uncertainties could lead to kick and thus unexpected intervention (killing

operations). In order to reduce such uncertainties, it is required to conduct more leakage test

in the new wells. In addition it is important to keep an eye on the early kick indications.

Laboratory Test – More fluid samples should be tested from the new wells to

determine the PVT properties and water analysis.


Team Z – Indy Oil
71

Conclusion: The Field Management Plan and testing programme as stated above are

used for providing the flexibility in order to achieve the maximum recovery efficiency in Z-

field.

4.4.1. MANAGEMENT OF RESERVES RANGE

There is an imperfect knowledge of the size of the lower reservoir unit and the edge of

the South of the reservoir upper unit. The development plan has mapped out to tackle those

uncertainties as soon as possible. The drilling phase will start by delineating the south side of

the reservoir, and then followed by the lower reservoir unit in the North West.

The uncertainties inherent to volume of oil in place have been addressed technically

and economically. In case the reservoir coming in bigger than expected reserves, the main

challenge is the water injection pumping rate as there is enough free capacity at Clair platform

to process our flow stream. Therefore, a financial provision has been made to upgrade the

Clair platform pumping capability. Equally, the downside risk of having less oil has also been

studied, and as a result the field required to be abandoned earlier. In conclusion, subsea tie-

back offers protection against the downside and upside risk of volume of oil in place.

4.5. DRILLING FACILITIES

4.5.1. OVERVIEW

The mud logs of the appraisal wells show that the field has a formation pressure

gradient of 0.446 psi which is close to the normal pressure (0.465 psi/ft). The pressure

gradient in the reservoir is 0.499 psi/ft. From the leak off test the fracture pressure gradient is

between 0.728-0.754 psi/ft. There is no indication of any overpressured zone. Moreover, there

are no major faults existing in the field. This makes the drilling program of the field less

complex as it will be shown in the following sections. Some parts of the drilling program

Team Z – Indy Oil


72

follow the common configuration of the North Sea offshore drilling programs (this will be

pointed where required). [Note the drilling schedule has been illustrated in the field

development plan figure DVP2 and appendix 37].

4.5.2. RIG SELECTION

The new wells will be drilled from semi-submersible rig. The J. W. McLean

semisubmersible rig (figure D1) is chosen for drilling since it meets the main required

specifications (Table D2) such as rating of water depth, pumps, hoisting system, BOPS etc.

The water depth of the field is about 990 ft which is met by the rig specification (1500 ft

WD). The derrick can withstand weights higher than the maximum weight expected to be

exerted on the rig which is about 500,000 lb (weight of the production casing including the

pull off margin). Appendix 31 shows the full specification of the J W McLean rig. The

average day rate is $304,477.27. The drilled wells will be tied back to the subsea manifold

once it is completed and production will start directly.

Figure D1 : J. W. McLean semisubmersible

Max Drill Depth 25,000 ft / 7,620 m


Max Water Depth 1,250 ft / 381 m
Derrick Lee C. Moore 180 ft. dynamic derrick with 40 ft.
x 40 ft. base. Rated 1,300,000 lbs. gross nominal
capacity, with 1,000,000 lb. hook load capacity
with (12) lines.
BOP Cameron Type U Model II, 18 ¾ in., 10,000 psi
Riser Tensioners 8 - Rucker Shaeffer MRT's each with (2) 40 ft.
line travel x 80,000 lbs. tensioners, total 640,000
lbs.
Table D2: J.W.McLean specifications

Team Z – Indy Oil


73

4.5.3. PRESSURE PROFILE AND MUD PROGRAM

From appraisal mud logs, the formation pressure gradient above the reservoir is 0.446

psi/ft and the fracture formation gradient is 0.754 psi/ft. The formation pressure changes once

the cap rock is reached, at around 7900 ft (RKB), to 0.499 psi/ft whereas the fracture pressure

gradient is 0.728 psi/ft until the bottom of the reservoir [indicated in figure D3]. There is no

indication of any over pressured zone from the appraisal mud logs. However, there are some

shale zones above the reservoir. Based on the mud logs and the leak off test available from the

appraisal wells, the mud weight has been calculated including the overbalance pressure of 200

psi [figure D3]. See mud weight calculation in appendix 32.

Figure D3: Pressure Profile


Team Z – Indy Oil
74

4.5.4. WELL CONTROL

Each well will be controlled by 18 ¾ inch and 10,000 psia BOP single stack system.

This configuration is commonly used in the North Sea. W J Mclean contains such

configuration [see appendix 31]. Since the maximum pressure which might be experienced at

the surface occurs during an influx of around 4000 psi, the 10,000 psia working pressure of

BOP is more than sufficient to control the well safely. Leak-off test will be conducted at each

casing shoe to gather more information about the fracture pressure, and then to avoid any

possible fracture during the cementing operation. In the case of a kick experienced, one

circulation method will be conducted because of its simplicity and quickness. Sufficient

quantity of barite will be available for increasing the density of the mud (kill mud).

4.5.5. FLUID SELECTION

The major factors which influence the process of selecting the drilling fluid are the

type of the formation (geological section), drilling performance and the related environmental

issues. Based on such factors, Seawater, WBM and High performance water based drilling

fluids (HPWBM) will be used with the additives for drilling the wells of Z field. Polymers

will be added to the seawater in order to increase its viscosity to drill the 36’’ and 26’’ hole

sections. The drilling solids will be controlled by using de-silters [comes with the M J

McLean]. The next hole section (17 ½’’) will be drilled using WBM which is the most

preferable in terms of cost and environmental considerations. Since some shale will be

encountered in drilling 17 ½’’ section, KCL polymer which is used to minimise the problems

associated while drilling through shale sections. The ph level of the mud will be maintained

by adding bentonite and soda. In order to control the fluid loss, clay will be added. The final

hole section (12 ¼’’) will be drilled by using HPWBM which can reduce formation damage

caused by the drilling fluid and it will give better cementing job. Since, it is expected that H2S

Team Z – Indy Oil


75

is present in the reservoir; NaOH will be added to the mud. Table D4 shows a summary of

drilling fluids and the major additives which will be used.

Depth (ft) Hole size Drilling Additives Remarks


RKB Fluid
0 36'' Seawater Polymers Unconsolidated formations
700 at shallow depths
1300 26''
4700 17 1/2'' WBM KCL polymer Shaley zones
7850 12 1/4''
7900 HPWBM NaOH, betonite and soda Reservoir section, presence
8900 of H2S
10300

Table D4: Drilling Fluids and Additives

4.5.6. BIT SELECTION

The main objectives of bit selection are minimizing the drilling time (maximize the

ROP) and keeping the number of trips as low as possible. In order to meet these objectives,

the drilling bits should be selected carefully. The essential elements to be considered in bit

selection are the formation type of the drilled hole and the cost. For the shallow soft formation

(36’’ hole), a roller cone bits with long, thin and widely spaced teeth (preventing bit balling)

will be used. In 26’’ hole section, the formations are less soft with some of shale zones.

Therefore, shorter and wider teeth bits are required and so, roller cone bits with insert bits will

be implemented. In the next two hole sections (17 ½’’ & 12 ¼’’), consolidated formation are

encountered and since the operating costs of offshore are high, the PDC bits will be used.

PDC bits provides long bit runs and high ROP, which both are important in the longest

sections (17 ½’’ & 12 ¼’’ hole section) of the well, which will reduce the number of trips

required and thus minimize the drilling time (which is very important in areas of high

operating costs). Table D5 summaries the bit selection of each hole section.

Team Z – Indy Oil


76

Hole (“) TVD (ft) RKB Bit Type Formation Type


36 700 Roller Cone (milled tooth) Soft formation
26 1300 Roller Cone (insert bit) Moderately hard formation
17 ½ 4700 PDC Hard Formation
12 ¼ 8900 PDC Hard Formation
Table D5: Bit selection

4.5.7. CASING DESIGN

There are three main processes which have been followed in the casing design. The

first step was to determine the casing sizes and the setting depths which depend on the hole

section conditions (formation type). For the surface and intermediate casing strings, the

maximum pressures that can be encountered while drilling which might occur when

circulating out a gas influx has been calculated and compared with the fracture formation

pressure to determine the shallowest depth at which the casing can be set safely. The second

step in the casing design was the definition of the operational scenarios which leads to burst,

collapse and axial loads being applied to the casing. The design scenario which was

considered for collapse of casing is when the casing is fully evacuated due to lost circulation

whilst drilling whereas for burst is when the well is closed in after a gas kick. Finally, the

appropriate weight and grade of casing has been selected after calculation of burst, collapse &

axial loads [see appendix 33]. For the Surface casing API connection will be used because

there are no high pressures expected in the shallow formations. H2S is expected to present in

the 17 ½” and 12 ¼” hole sections, thus the casing grade L-80 with VAM connection has

been chosen to withstand H2S and high pressures. Table D6 presents the casing data which

will be used for the Z field. These data has been derived by the casing design process which

has been mentioned. Appendix D shows the casing schematic diagram.

Team Z – Indy Oil


77

Set Depth Nominal


Hole OD TVD (ft) Weight
size (in) Casing (in) RKB Grade (lbs/ft) Connections Remarks
seal off unconsolidated
36’’ Conductor 30” 700 K-55 106.3 API formations at shallow depths
seal off any fresh water sands,
and support the wellhead and
26’’ Surface 20” 1300 K-55 106.3 API BOP Equipment.
isolate unstable shales and lost
circulation zones between the
13 surface casing and the
17 ½’’ Intermediate 3/8” 4700 L-80 72 VAM production casing
isolate pay zone interval from
12 ¼’’ Production 9 5/8” 8900 L-80 47 VAM other formations

Table D6: Casing design

4.5.8. CEMENTING

In order to conduct a good cementing job, centralisers will be used and the casing will

be rotating during the cementing operation. Since, the shallow formation is unconsolidated,

the conductor will be cemented to the seabed. The surface casing will be cemented to the

seabed to provide good support for the casing string. Since there are no expected problems in

the 17 ½’’ hole section, the intermediate casing will be cemented to 740 ft. The production

casing will be cemented to 6440 ft above the casing shoe in order to isolate the casing from

possible corrosive formation fluids which might be encountered. Cement Class G will be

used (this is the common cement class used in the North Sea). Summary of the cementing

process is showed in table D7 [See Appendix 34 for cementing schematic diagram].

Casing (in) 20’’ 13 3/8’’ 9 5/8’’


Casing shoe (TVD sea bed ft) 840 4240 8440
TOC (TVD sea bed ft ) sea bed 740 6440
Cement class G G G
Cement density (ppg) 13.1 14.5 14.5
Slurry volume (ft3) 2530 2963 2475
No of sacks 1346 1567 1309
Volume mix water (ft3) 1830 1050 877
Displacement mud (bbl) 465 616 554
Table D7: Cementing process summary

Team Z – Indy Oil


78

4.5.9. DISPOSAL OF DRILL CUTTINGS AND MUD

The drill cuttings of the first two hole sections (36’’ & 26’’) will be deposited onto the

seabed. Cuttings of the subsequent sections will be converted into slurry and re-injected in

one of the appraisal wells (well 1). Table D8 gives more details about the cutting volumes and

the appropriate disposal method for each hole section.

Hole Section Volume cu. ft. Disposal


Conductor 1696 Dispose on sea bed
Surface 2212 Dispose on sea bed
Intermediate 5679 Re-injected in well 1
Production 3438 Re-injected in well 1
Table D8: cuttings volume and disposal

4.5.10.BOTTOM HOLE ASSEMBLY

Simple BHA (stabilisers) will be used in the 36’’ and 26’’ hole sections because the

ROP in these two holes will be limited by cleaning process of them. For the deviated wells,

the kick off point will be in 12 ¼ ’’ hole section and thus a rotary steering system with MWD

(for monitoring the inclination) will be used until reaching the target. The rotary steering

system [appendix 35] will allow rotation of the drillstring even when drilling is in the oriented

mode. This will help to transport the cutting to the surface without stuck pipe problems.

4.5.11.DIRECTIONAL DRILLING

Two deviated well will be drilled from the same cluster [see figure R21 p.57 which

show the location of the cluster and the target of the deviated wells]. The Kick off point of the

deviated wells will be around 4800ft (subsea) with 2 degrees/100 ft build up rate. In other

words, the first three hole sections (36’’, 26’’ & 17 ½’’) will be vertical. The last hole (12

¼’’) will contain the kick off point, build up section and the tangent section which will enter

the reservoir at 60o [see Appendix 36]. Table D9 gives overview of directional drilling of the

deviated wells in field Z.

Team Z – Indy Oil


79

Hole Section Max. Inclination (deg.) BUR (deg/100ft) TVD ft RKB


36” 0 0 700
26” 0 0 1300
17 ½” 0 0 4700
0 Kick off point 4800
60 2 7700
12 ¼” 60 0 7900
Table D9: Directional drilling overview

4.5.12.RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES

The main risks and uncertainties to be considered are summarised in table D10:

Risk Comments and possible actions that can be taken

Bad weather could cause a delay in Allowing extra days in the planning of drilling for
drilling program weather changes.
Ignorance of the overpressure zones From the logs of the appraisal wells, there are no signs of
overpressure zones. However, the drilling crew should be
prepared in case of such zone detected during the drilling.
The BOP Operational efficiency Regular check up for the pressure
Frequent pressure testing should be carried out
Experiencing a kick which costs time A proper mud weight will be used.
to do killing operation Experienced personal who can detect early signs of a
kick.
Drillstring gets stuck in the deviated The rotary steerable system will be used with
section. centralizers.
poor cement job Selecting appropriate additives, centralizers. Deciding the
TOC carefully.

Table D10: Drilling Risks and Uncertainties

4.6. PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING FACILITIES.

CHOICE OF PRODUCTION FACILITIES

Different options were considered for identifying the optimum configuration for production

facilities to develop our field technically and economically, these options were:

- Fixed platform with dry wells or subsea wells.

- Floating production, short storage (FPSO) with shuttle tankers for offloading.

Team Z – Indy Oil


80

- Subsea wells Tie-back to the nearby field which is located 20 km away (Clair field).

The last option was chosen to develop the field from an economic and technical point of view.

Moreover, the Clair field has the capacity to receive our production fluids (see appendix 38).

4.6.1.1.1. Top Side Facilities

- Export pipe line.

- Treatment facilities for production fluids and water injection.

- Utility facilities such as horizontal separator, chemical injection, instrument and water

injection.

- A two-stages horizontal separator will be used at operating pressure (150 and 50 psi) to

handle 70,000 b/d. the dead oil will be produced by heating the crude oil between the two

separator stages. While some gas production will be used as fuel for power generation,

the rest will be sold.

4.6.1.1.2. Produced Water Treatment Unit

Produced water unit’s objective is to remove all undesirable dissolved solid, bacteria,

gas and oil to meet water specifications of 20 ppm or less .The treated water will be injected

to the reservoir (see appendix 39).

4.6.1.1.3. Metering system

Metering system will provide all data and information about well head pressure at

injection and production wells, flow rate, water production and injection, etc. through

umbilical. These will help in reservoir management to detect well problems and water cut.

4.7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ABATEMENT

Health Safety and Environmental Management

Indy Oil Company adopted a Policy, Planning and Implementation System. Our overall

requirements for HSE management are set for the Best Industry Practise (BIP).

Team Z – Indy Oil


81

Our Policy is to continuously provide top quality safety to the people and the environment.

Our Goal

• To do minimal alteration to the environment,

• To apply 100% working environment,

• To have zero tolerance of hazards,

• To eliminate HSE risks,

• To ensure that Flaring is kept to a minimum.

We are members of national and international association of oil and gas producers.

Figure 3 National & International Association

We provide high level of environmental standards by

monitoring the environment through Risk Management Review

Committee (figure EV1).

RISK

MANAGEMENT

REVIEW

ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION OPERATION

Figure EV1: Risk Management Review Committee

4.7.1. NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

Introduction

Our Environmental Statement has been prepared for the application to develop Field

Z, Block 43 located Northern North Sea near the Clair Fields, UK Continental Shelf. The

purpose of this Environmental Statement is to develop a concept on how to implement,

Team Z – Indy Oil


82

manage, and fulfil both legal and regulatory requirements by the Department of Trade and

Industry, UK Government. This area has been identified by our Environmental Assessment

Committee as Strategic Environmental Assessment Area 3 (SEA 3) and Transboundary

location (see Appendix 40). The Z Field will begin production with group of subsea oil and

gas wells (5 injections and 5 producers) with a tie-back connected to a 20km pipeline to the

Clair Field.

Local Sensitivities key issues

Drilling Discharges – mud and drilling cuttings could cause environmental damage if

not treated and discharged to the sea.

Produced Water Discharges – untreated produced water could be a major threat if

discharged to the sea.

Animals – such as grey seals, crabs, salmon fish and seabirds – could be affected by

oil spills, seismic activities, waste, physical presence of Rigs and support vessels.

Oil Spills – this could cause accidental events, contamination to the sea and can cause

danger to birds and sea mammals.

Transboundary Issues – Transboundaries are the maritime borders with other

countries. Discharge to the sea, waste, seismic activities, drilling discharges and air emissions

could potentially affects the sea and the environment.

Control measures of local sensitivities:

Drilling discharges: IOC will use class G type cement for the casing and Water Base

Mud for drilling fluid. Drilling cuttings will be treated and re-injected to one of the appraisal

wells (well Z-1). The above mentioned operations will have minimum effects to the

environment.

Produced Water discharges: Concerns over produced water to the SEA3 area has

been quantify and water base mud will disperse rapidly with minimal ecological effects. This

will be treated at our treatment plan and re-injected to the reservoir.


Team Z – Indy Oil
83

Animals: SEA3 area is reported to have marine mammals such as grey or common

seals; fisheries such crabs, lobsters; and seabirds. However, our report indicates that all the

operations will be conducted in a professional way that there will be limited environmental

impact to the area.

Oil Spills: Oil spills could pose environmental risk to the environment however, IOC

has assessed that the level of risk posed by the type of spill that could occur is very low. We

have some measures implemented to ensure that the effects of any kind of spill will be

controlled easily.

Transboundary Issue: SEA 3 area lies on the continental shelf area under the

jurisdiction of Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Belgium and France (see Appendix 40). Our

study indicates that winds and residual water circulation of the North Sea may result in

transboundary transport of discharges to water (including particles) and atmospheric

emissions. Our water treatment plant will minimise the amount of effects to the area. Flaring

will be kept to a minimum and regular maintenance will be carried out throughout our

operations.

Decommissioning: Decommissioning of the Z Field will be in accordance with the

national and international regulations in force at that time. The Z Field production will range

from 2011 to 2024 and after this period, decommissioning will begin. Thus, a complete

removal of subsea facilities will be carried out.

Conclusions: The results of our environmental assessment to the Z Field are not

expected to have significant effects to the short or long term. Potential effects from local

sensitivities have been incorporated in our mitigation measures.

4.7.2. ABANDONMENT

Production from the Z Field has been forecast to run up to 13 years at which time the

facilities will be subject to decommissioning with complete removal of subsea facilities. As

Team Z – Indy Oil


84

part of our plan for decommissioning, our company will prepare a Best Practicable

Environmental Option (BPEO) study which will indentify the technical, environmental and

cost implications of each option, then submit it to the DTI as part of our decommissioning

approval process. After a successful application for decommissioning of offshore facilities, if

granted approval by DTI – under the Petroleum Act 1998 (in accordance with OSPAR

Decision 98/3), Indy Oil Company facilities will be decommissioned in accordance with the

national and international guidelines by the Petroleum Operations such as, UKOOA, OSPAR,

IMO in force at that time.

4.7.2.1. Abandonment Requirements

We will shut down production wells and process systems for abandonment.

We will recover all equipment that is placed in the well.

We will ensure that there is no hydraulic communication between the subsurface formation

and the surface.

We will ensure that there is no communication or cross flow between formations down hole.

We will seal off formation with abnormal pressures.

We will ensure minimal seabed obstruction.

4.7.2.2. Surface Abandonment

IOC will be leasing BP’s Claire Platform for our operation offshore, limited surface

abandonment will be carried out at the end of our operations.

4.7.2.3. Subsurface Abandonment

IOC followed the guidelines of OSPAR and requirements of Petroleum Act 1998 for

subsurface decommissioning and it is as follows: We will abandon our sub-sea wells by

squeezing cement to the perforated regions, plugging the borehole and providing a corrosion

Team Z – Indy Oil


85

cap over the wellhead. Our producing zones will be plugged back with cement with a

minimum thickness of 100 ft above and below the formation.

4.7.2.4. Equipment Recovery

We will remove subsea facilities such as Christmas Trees and Manifolds from the

seabed to make sure that there will be no obstruction to marine and fishing operations. All

casing strings will be cut off to a minimum of 15 ft below the seabed. After our abandonment

operations we will carry out surveys to ensure that no debris is left within 50m radius of the

drilling location and the results will be sent to the DTI so as to obtain a Seabed Clearance

Certificate.

4.8. COSTS

The first phase of our financial analysis was to define the most profitable development

scenario among the three choices technical feasible. Obviously due to the small size of the

field, build our own FPSO or Tension Leg Platform resulted in poor net present value. The

Subsea tie-back scenario gave the best net Present value. As we do not produce enough gas, it

would be to sale to BP during the first years of Production, and may be used later for gas

lifting and Power Generation. Cash flow modelling

Capital expenditure.

Estimated capital costs for the Z field development are detailed in the accompanying table E2.

Clair
Drilling &
Upgrade
Completion Subsea Pipeline Decommission TOTAL
Provision
Year (Can$) (Can$) (Can$) (Can$) (Can$) (Can$)
2009 5.4 3.6 9
2010 288 131.4 36 9 464.4
2011 117 117
2024 216 216
*Costs in mod terms.

Total CAPEX: £2009394 millions = Can$2009 708.8 millions


Team Z – Indy Oil
86

Table E2: Capital expenditure

The main portion of CAPEX investment is in Drilling and completion followed by

decommissioning. The CAPEX is broken down in figure E3 below in Can$2009.

Figure E3: Capex breakdown


Operating expenditure

Annual operating costs for the Z field are detailed in the table below. In addition to

direct operating costs, a tariff of £2/barrel is assumed for using the CLAIR facilities and a

further £0.8/barrel of oil is paid to BP for the use of its 20-inch pipeline to transport oil to

Sullom Voe terminal. Tariffs above were considered with the help of Wood Mackenzie file.

The direct costs have been kept constant until 2021 where the water cut increases sharply.

Operating costs 2011(£2011millions)


Cost Category £millions

Direct Costs 3

Pipeline tariff 4.09

Oil Processing Tariff 10.22

G&A 1

TOTAL 18.31

*Cost in mod terms. Total Opex = £201118.31 millions=£2009 17.26 millions

Table E4: Operating costs, year 2011

Team Z – Indy Oil


87

The total Opex for the first year of production 2011 is £200917.26 millions and the figure

below shows the Opex breakdown for the year 2011 in money of the day. The processing

tariff is the major constituent of the Opex.

Figure E5: Opex breakdown for year 2011

4.8.1. TAXATION

The fiscal regime that will be applied to Indy oil for its oil and gas extraction from the

UKCS Z field consists of two elements: the Ring Fence Corporation Tax and the

Supplementary Charge. Under the ring fence, Indy Oil capital expenditure is qualified to be

fully depreciated in the year incurred, as there is no long life asset. The relief of

decommissioning cost against the RFCT and SC will be carried back until fully offset.

4.8.2. ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS

For the purposes of this analysis, we have assumed the following:

• All exploration and appraisal costs have been excluded from the cash flow(sunk costs)

• The rates for the base case cash flow model chosen were as following:

Oil Price Gas Price $US/£ (Can$)/£ Inflation Discount Recovery


US$/bbl US$/MSCF Rate Rate Rate Rate Factor
61 3 1.6 1.8 3% 10% 39.5%

Table E6: Economic assumptions

Team Z – Indy Oil


88

The oil price has been spotted by taking the average price of oil between 2004 and

2007, just before the sharp soaring and deep slump in commodity price. The exchange rates

are the current exchange rates. Our inflation rate is 3% onward, we have assumed this by

scrutinize the UK RPI since 1992 and the forecast on the website www.marketoracle.co.uk

With today volatility in equity market, we have assumed all rates constants over the field

lifetime.

4.8.3. ECONOMIC PARAMETERS

The economic parameters of the projects are detailed in the table below :
NPV[0.10] (Can$2009millions) 505.64 Total CAPEX (Can$2009millions) 708.80
PIR 2.20 2011 Total OPEX (£2009millions) 17.26
IRR (%) 42.00 Reserves(million bbl) 52.20
CAPEX/bbl (Can$2009 /daily bbl)
MCO (Can$2009millions) 459.88 13.58
[undiscounted]

Table E7: Economics parameters

4.8.4. CASH FLOW MODEL

As can be seen on the cash flow model (appendix 41), the project will generate a NPV

[0.10] of Can$2009 505.64 millions.

4.8.5. ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTIES AND RISK MANAGEMENT

UK is a politic stable country, therefore the main sources of uncertainties and the risks

that have a direct economic impact for this project are described as follows:

Management of reservoir Range

There is an imperfect knowledge of the size of the lower reservoir unit and the edge of

the southwest of the reservoir upper unit. The development plan has mapped out to tackle

those uncertainties as soon as possible. The drilling phase will start by delineating the

southwest side of the reservoir, and then followed by the lower reservoir unit. The
Team Z – Indy Oil
89

uncertainties inherent to volume of oil in place have been addressed technically and

economically. In case the reservoir coming in bigger than expected reserves, the main

challenge was the water injection pumping rate as there was enough free capacity at Clair

platform to process our flow stream. Therefore, a financial provision has been made to

upgrade the Clair platform pumping capability. Equally, the downside risk of having less oil

has also been studied, and as a result the field required to be abandoned three years earlier. In

conclusion, subsea tie-back offers protection against the downside and upside risk of volume

of oil in place.

Facilities

All companies operating in the UKCS are abided by the Infrastructure code of practice

(ICOP), therefore we may expect to reach a good agreement with the owner of CLAIR field.

Economy

To analyze the economic parameters that could mitigate this project, we have run base

case method sensitivity analysis. A graph showing the results is given in Figure 3 below. The

variables were examined for a variation of ± 50%. We only considered the exchange rate

Can$/£ which directly affected our annually revenue. The results showed that the project is

the most sensitive to a change in oil price. Despite being undermined by a low oil price our

project remained economically viable for an oil price of US$30. Inflation rate Can$/£ was the

second major variable to impact our project. With the UK already in recession, a further

slump of exchange rate will affect our project but the project will remain viable at 0.9

exchange rate. However, we may expect a stronger British pound during the years to come.

The effect of first oil being delayed by one year was also examined. This had a large impact

on the development and reduced the NPV [0.10] of the project to Can$ 396 million.

Team Z – Indy Oil


90

Figure E8: Z field Spider Diagram.

Team Z – Indy Oil


91

5. REFERENCE

1) L.P. Dake, ‘Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering’; Elsevier, UK London, 1978.


2) L.P. Dake, ‘The Practice of Reservoir Engineering (revised edition)’; Elsevier, UK
London, 2001.
3) Michael J. Economides, A. Daniel Hill, Christine Ehlig-Economides, ‘Petroleum
Production Systems’; Prentice Hall Inc. Massachusetts USA, 1994
4) Notes in Reservoir engineering, Well testing, and Reservoir simulation, Heriot-Watt
University
5) Roland N. Horne, ‘Modern Well Test Analysis: A Computer-Aided Approach’, Petro
Way, USA Jan 1995
6) Ali Danesh, ‘ PVT and Phase Behaviour Of Petroleum Reservoir Fluids , Elsevier
(Developments in Petroleum Science) ,7 May 1998)
7) Dye William et al, ‘New Water-Based Mud Balances High Performance Drilling and
Environmental Compliance’ 2005 SPE 92367
8) http://www.rigzone.com/data/rig_detail.asp?rig_id=384
9) http://www.offshore247.com/projects/rigdetails.aspx?rid=52
10) http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/J-W-McLean-87C77.html?LayoutID=17
11) Geoscience Notes, Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University
12) Formation Evaluation Notes, Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University
13) Petroleum Economics Notes, Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University
14) Drilling Notes, Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University
15) Production Technology Notes, Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University
16) Formation Evaluation Notes, Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

6. APPENDICES

Team Z – Indy Oil


92

Z-field

Shetlands Islands

Appendix 1: Location of the Z-field

Team Z – Indy Oil


93

Appendix 2: Z-field top structure

Team Z – Indy Oil


94

Appendix 3: Z-field isochore map

Team Z – Indy Oil


95

Appendix 4: General lithology correlation

Team Z – Indy Oil


96

Z-2 [SSTVD] Z-3 [SSTVD] z-4 [SSTVD] Z-5 [SSTVD] Z-6 [SSTVD] Z-7 [SSTVD]
SSTVD 2.33 GR 217.89 SSTVD 2.31 GR 198.00 SSTVD 6.91 GR 256.26 SSTVD 2.61 GR 184.94 SSTVD -7.29 GR 207.26 SSTVD 3.16 SGR 138.13
7800
7800
7800 7800 7800
7800 Top Sand
Top Sand

Bottom Sand
8000 Bottom Sand
8000 8000 8000 8000

8000

8200 8200 8200


8200
8200 8200

Top Sand

8400 8400
Top Sand 8400 8400
Top Sand 8400
8400
Bottom Sand
Bottom Sand

Bottom Sand

8600
8600
8600 8600
8600
(8600)

Top Sand

8800
8800
8800
(8800)
8800 Bottom Sand
Top Sand

Bottom Sand (8800)

9000
9000
Top Sand
9000
(9000)

9000

(9000)
9200
9200
9200

(9200)

9200

(9400) (9200)
(9400)
9400

(9400)

9400
(9600)
Bottom Sand (9600)
9600 (9400)

9677 (9609) 9518 (9709) (9691) (9470)

Appendix 5: Sand body correlation from logs

Team Z – Indy Oil


97

Appendix 6a: Well Z-5 Core Log permeability-porosity linear regression relationship Appendix 6b: Moveable Hydrocarbons
plot

Team Z – Indy Oil


98

Appendix 7: Well Z3 Core Log permeability-saturation linear regression relationship

Team Z – Indy Oil


99

Top Sand Geo Arith


Sand Bottom thickness Avge Avge Arith
Well (ft) Sand (ft) (ft) Max Φ Min Φ Avge Φ kh(mD) kh(mD) Max Sw Min Sw avge Sw N/G
Well Z2 8400 8450 50 0.25 0.1 0.18 17 732 0.26 0.12 0.16 0.3
Well Z3 8334 8530 196 0.25 0.1 0.16 76 120 0.49 0.064 0.16 0.65
Well Z4 9225 9450 225 0.14 0.1 0.12 Water bearing sand
Well Z5 8750 8892 142 0.25 0.1 0.16 74 176 0.5 0.21 0.35 0.44
Well Z6 8900 8932 32 0.28 0.1 0.15 65 112 0.5 0.23 0.3 0.62
Well Z7
(Zone1) 9785 9925 140 0.37 0.1 0.18 368 649 0.49 0.16 0.29 0.67
Well Z7
(Zone2) 10250 10391 141 0.55 0.1 0.2 528 930 0.49 0.07 0.36 0.59

Appendix 8: Petrophysical properties

Team Z – Indy Oil


100

Separator test condition Condition Well 1 Well 3 Well 5 Well 7


Temperature, F To standard conditions 120 to 60 150 to 60 85 to 60 85 to 60
Pressure, psi (60 F and 14.7 psia) 120 to 14.7 58 to 14.7 80 to 14.7 80 to 14.7
Upper Upper Upper Lower
Fluid properties reservoir reservoir reservoir reservoir
Oil gravity, API at standard conditions 32.7 31.2 32.9 33.1
Bubble point pressure
(Pb), psi 1104 1055 1120 1104
Bob at bubble point pressure 1.175 1.263 1.2 1.203
Boi at initial reservoir conditions 1.150 1.232 1.171 1.173
GOR (1) above bubble point 251 236 224 228
Oil Compressibility (Co),
psi-1 7.06E-06 7.91E-06 7.90E-06 8.00E-06
Viscosity at bubble point pressure - 1.14 0.75 0.964
at initial reservoir conditions - 1.4580 0.8415 1.2360
Gas specific gravity at standard conditions 1.0010 1.0039 0.9777 0.9553
(1) Gas/Oil Ratio in cubic feet of gas at 14.73 psia and 60°F. per barrel of stock tank oil at 60°F
(2) Formation Volume Factor is barrels of saturated oil at bubble point pressure and reservoir temperature per barrel of stock tank oil at 60°F.

Appendix 9: Fluid properties from bottom hole and surface sample


101

Appendix 10: STOIIP Calculation

From the production test in well Z-1, the cumulative production and date were

obtained to calculate the STOIIP by material balance equation as following.

In addition, this equation is based on the assumptions that there is no water influx and

no gas cap in reservoir. The initial properties (Bo, Cf, Cw, and Swc) which were used for

material balance calculation were depicted below.

Figure 1 Bo Vs Pressure used in Material Balance calculation

Bo(init) Sw(init) Cw Cf

1.1511 0.20 2.3E-06 4.00E-06

Table1 Initial parameters for used in Material Balance Calculation


102

Cumulative P, psia Bo (1-Np/N)


Production (P-Pi) rtb/STB see Eq.A
Date (Np), STB Np, STB P N (STB)

6-Apr-84 0 3,713 0 1.15108 1.000000


17-May-84 87 3,652 -61 1.15163 0.999691
30-May-84 204 30-May-84 3,249 -464 1.15526 0.997659 1.63E+08
22-juin-84 298 reference 3,315 -398 1.15467 0.997991
05-juil-84 369 point 3,292 -421 1.15487 0.997875
2-Aug-84 369 3,517 -196 1.15285 0.999009
8-Aug-84 405 3,222 -491 1.15550 0.997523
26-Aug-84 411 3,514 -199 1.15287 0.998994
28-Aug-84 432 3,228 -485 1.15545 0.997554
01-sept-84 442 3,197 -516 1.15573 0.997398
01-oct-84 454 3,512 -201 1.15289 0.998984
02-oct-84 459 3,27 -443 1.15507 0.997765
16-nov-84 465 3,534 -179 1.15269 0.999095
6-Dec-84 467 3,542 -171 1.15262 0.999135
12-Dec-84 703 3,274 -439 1.15503 0.997785
15-janv-85 705 3,129 -584 1.15634 0.997056
22-janv-85 748 3,116 -597 1.15646 0.996991
02-mars-85 751 3,415 -298 1.15377 0.998495
25-Apr-85 751 3,46 -253 1.15336 0.998721
10-Apr-85 751 3,496 -217 1.15304 0.998903

Table2 Hydrocarbon in Place calculation from the extended production test in well Z-1
103

STOIIP calculation by Monte Carlo Analysis


Due to the uncertainty of properties used in the material balance equation for

calculating the oil in place, the Monte Carlo method was used to analyse the effect of

uncertainty data. In addition, the simulation was run 100,000 times for the good distribution

representative curve. The range and distribution assumption of properties were demonstrated

in figure 1. And the results of simulation were shown in figure 2.

Figure1 The assumptions used in Monte- Carlo simulation

Figure2 The distribution STOIIP curve from P10-P90 confidential level


104

Well
2 3 5 7
DST 1 DST1 DST 2 DST 3 DST1 DST 2 DST 1 DST 2
Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Lower Upper
Layer sand sand sand sand sand sand sand sand
8488-8518 8400-8423 10260-
Interval(ft) 8394-8456 8462-8478 8425-8438 8368-8390 8896-8926 8724-8864 10400 9780-9920
Flowing interval, ft 57 46 36 22 30 140 140 140
Flow rate (BOPD) 1260 1098 2021 1500 1720 1820 4079 2103
Main flow period, mins 364.98 294 2942 357 238.31 1060.56 1052.5 745.2
Main Build up, mins 1060 1747 4146 1655 912.6 1525.8 2314.2 1105.8
Bottom hole pressure, psia 3071.7 3021.7 2969.47 2686.84 3258.98 3266.97 2904 3130
PI (Productivity index) 1.74 - 2.70 1.43 3.80 5.89 5.72 7.04
Permeability (k), mD 49.36 - 239.601 68.62 175.781 59.586 130.41 153.729
Average Reservoir
Pressure, psia 3796 - 3717.79 3734.04 3711.82 3576 3616.9 3428.83
Skin 0.5074 12.769 -0.259 12.5 19.4315 2.5694 2.0657
Kh mD-ft 2813.66 - 8695.85 3773.87 5276.13 7746.18 54768.42 21522.06

Appendix 11: Well test analysis summary


105

Appendix 12: the high PI area in the Z-field


106

Appendix 13: Well test analysis results

Figure 1 Cartesian Plots from Well Z-2(DST1)

Figure 2 Log-Log Derivative Plots from Well Z-2 (DST1)


107

Figure 3 Semi-Log Specialise Plots from Well Z-2 (DST1)

Figure 4 Cartesian Plots from Well Z-3(DST2A)


108

Figure 5 Log-Log Derivative Plots from Well Z-3 (DST2A)

Figure 6 Semi-Log Specialise Plots from Well Z-3 (DST2A)


109

Figure 7 Cartesian Plots from Well Z-3(DST3)

Figure 8 Log-Log Derivative Plots from Well Z-3 (DST3)


110

Figure 9 Cartesian Plots from Well Z-5 (DST1)

Figure 10 Log-Log Derivative Plots from Well Z-5 (DST1)


111

Figure 11 Semi-Log Specialise Plots from Well Z-5 (DST1)

Figure 12 Cartesian Plots from Well Z-5 (DST2)


112

Figure 13 Log-Log Derivative Plots from Well Z-5 (DST2)

Figure 14 Semi-Log Specialise Plots from Well Z-5 (DST2)


113

Figure 15 Cartesian Plots from Well Z-7 (DST1)

Figure 16 Log-Log Derivative Plots from Well Z-7 (DST1)


114

Figure 17 Semi-Log Specialise Plots from Well Z-7 (DST1)

Figure 18 Cartesian Plots from Well Z-7 (DST2)


115

Figure 19 Semi-Log Specialise Plots from Well Z-7 (DST2)

Figure 120 Semi-Log Specialise Plots from Well Z-7 (DST2)


116

Well Well-test k from kh (mDarcy) Core Kair (mDarcy) Core Kair arithmetic (mDarcy) Distance to boundary (ft) Shape of faults
2 49.36 - - none seen -
3 154.02 76 120.146 none seen -
5 117.69 74 176 none seen -
7 (Upper) 153.73 368 649 270 U-shape
7 ( Lower) 130.41 528 930 145 U-shape

Appendix 14: Permeability comparison from core and well testing data
117

Inflow/Outflow Curves for Z 3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300m water BASE CASE


Sensitivity To: Well and riser flow correlation
3600
Inflow: All values
Outflow: Hagedorn and Brown (mod)
Outflow: Hagedorn and Brown (std)
Outflow: Beggs and Brill (mod)
Outflow: Beggs and Brill (std)
Outflow: Orkiszewski
Measured data

2700
Pressure (psia) at MID OF PERFS, MD 9123.000 ft

1800

900

0
0 2500 5000 7500 10000
Total Production Rate (STB/day)
Operating Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Pressure Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(psia) (STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
2657.603 2575.324 2575.324 0 0.428 0 166.000 Stable
2657.634 2575.236 2575.236 0 0.427 0 166.000 Stable
2654.831 2583.200 2583.200 0 0.429 0 166.000 Stable
2716.795 2407.145 2407.145 0 0.400 0 166.000 Stable
2552.377 2874.301 2874.301 0 0.477 0 166.000 Stable

Appendix 15: Sensitivity study: Well flow correlation


Inflow/Outflow Curves for Z 3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300m water BASE CASE
Sensitivity To: Well and riser flow correlation
3600
Inflow: Hagedorn and Brown (std)
Outflow: Hagedorn and Brown (std)
Measured data

2700
Pressure (psia) at MID OF PERFS, MD 9123.000 ft

1800

900

0
0 2500 5000 7500 10000
Total Production Rate (STB/day)
Operating Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Pressure Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(psia) (STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
2657.634 2575.236 2575.236 0 0.427 0 166.000 Stable

Appendix 16: shows the correlation match. (Hagedorn & Brown (STD) correlation)
118
Inflow/Outflow Curves for Z 3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300m water BASE CASE
Sensitivity To: Top/start node pressure
3600
Inflow: All values
Outflow: 150.000 psia
Outflow: 200.000 psia
Outflow: 250.000 psia
Outflow: 300.000 psia
Outflow: 350.000 psia
Outflow: 400.000 psia
Outflow: 450.000 psia
Measured data

2700
Pressure (psia) at MID OF PERFS, MD 9123.000 ft

1800

900

0
0 2500 5000 7500 10000
Total Production Rate (STB/day)
Operating Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Pressure Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(psia) (STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
2408.482 3283.148 3283.148 0 0.545 0 166.000 Stable
2539.801 2910.034 2910.034 0 0.483 0 166.000 Stable
2657.603 2575.324 2575.324 0 0.428 0 166.000 Stable
2763.522 2274.379 2274.379 0 0.378 0 166.000 Stable
2857.147 2008.366 2008.366 0 0.333 0 166.000 Stable
2942.594 1765.586 1765.586 0 0.293 0 166.000 Stable
3021.764 1540.643 1540.643 0 0.256 0 166.000 Stable

Appendix 17: Sensitivity study: Well head pressure

Inflow/Outflow Curves for Z 3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300m water BASE CASE


Sensitivity To: Shot density (Layer 1)
3600
Inflow: 2.000 spf
Outflow: All values
Inflow: 3.000 spf
Inflow: 4.000 spf
Inflow: 5.000 spf
Inflow: 6.000 spf
Inflow: 7.000 spf

2700
Pressure (psia) at MID OF PERFS, MD 9123.000 ft

1800

900

0
0 4000 8000 12000 16000
Total Production Rate (STB/day)
Operating Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Pressure Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(psia) (STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
2636.338 3725.279 3725.279 0 0.618 0 166.000 Stable
2636.307 3778.999 3778.999 0 0.627 0 166.000 Stable
2636.305 3782.736 3782.736 0 0.628 0 166.000 Stable
2636.313 3766.208 3766.208 0 0.625 0 166.000 Stable
2636.328 3739.849 3739.849 0 0.621 0 166.000 Stable
2636.350 3708.247 3708.247 0 0.616 0 166.000 Stable

Appendix 18: Sensitivity: Shot density


119

Inflow/Outflow Curves for Z 3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300m water BASE CASE


Sensitivity To: Shot phasing (Layer 1)
3600
Inflow: 90.000 degrees
Outflow: All values
Inflow: 80.000 degrees
Inflow: 60.000 degrees
Inflow: 45.000 degrees
Inflow: 30.000 degrees

2700
Pressure (psia) at MID OF PERFS, MD 9123.000 ft

1800

900

0
0 4000 8000 12000 16000
Total Production Rate (STB/day)
Operating Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Pressure Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(psia) (STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
2636.328 3739.849 3739.849 0 0.621 0 166.000 Stable
2636.358 3698.335 3698.335 0 0.614 0 166.000 Stable
2636.432 3617.947 3617.947 0 0.601 0 166.000 Stable
2636.501 3559.853 3559.853 0 0.591 0 166.000 Stable
2636.580 3503.548 3503.548 0 0.582 0 166.000 Stable

Appendix 19: Sensitivity: Shot phasing

Inflow/Outflow Curves for Z 3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300m water BASE CASE


Sensitivity To: Shot penetration (Layer 1)
3600
Inflow: 20.000 in
Outflow: All values
Inflow: 30.000 in
Inflow: 40.000 in
Inflow: 50.000 in

2700
Pressure (psia) at MID OF PERFS, MD 9123.000 ft

1800

900

0
0 4000 8000 12000 16000
Total Production Rate (STB/day)
Operating Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Pressure Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(psia) (STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
2636.373 3678.980 3678.980 0 0.611 0 166.000 Stable
2636.344 3715.497 3715.497 0 0.617 0 166.000 Stable
2636.330 3736.766 3736.766 0 0.620 0 166.000 Stable
2636.322 3749.377 3749.377 0 0.622 0 166.000 Stable

Appendix 20: Sensitivity: Shot penetration


120
Inflow/Outflow Curves for Z 3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300m water BASE CASE
Sensitivity To: Inside dia. of one well node (tubing 1)
12000
Inflow: All values
Outflow: 1.990 in
Outflow: 2.500 in
Outflow: 3.500 in
Outflow: 3.900 in
Outflow: 4.044 in
Outflow: 4.892 in

9000
Pressure (psia) at MID OF PERFS, MD 9123.000 ft

6000

3000

0
0 4000 8000 12000 16000
Total Production Rate (STB/day)
Operating Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Pressure Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(psia) (STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
3027.274 2077.182 2077.182 0 0.345 0 166.000 Stable
2839.410 2804.236 2804.236 0 0.466 0 166.000 Stable
2677.816 3429.620 3429.620 0 0.569 0 166.000 Stable
2658.128 3505.813 3505.813 0 0.582 0 166.000 Stable
2653.545 3523.551 3523.551 0 0.585 0 166.000 Stable
2640.967 3572.230 3572.230 0 0.593 0 166.000 Stable

Appendix 21: Sensitivity: Tubing inside diameter

Inflow/Outflow Curves for Z 3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300m water BASE CASE


Sensitivity To: Deviation angle (Layer 1)
3600
Inflow: 10.000 degrees
Outflow: All values
9 Inflow: 20.000 degrees
Inflow: 30.000 degrees
Inflow: 40.000 degrees
9 Inflow: 50.000 degrees
Inflow: 60.000 degrees
Inflow: 70.000 degrees
9 Inflow: 75.000 degrees
9

9
2700

9
Pressure (psia) at MID OF PERFS, MD 9123.000 ft

9
1800

900

0
0 4000 8000 12000 16000
Total Production Rate (STB/day)
Operating Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Pressure Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(psia) (STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
2660.517 2981.908 2981.908 0 0.495 0 166.000 Stable
2660.768 3004.177 3004.177 0 0.499 0 166.000 Stable
2661.254 3046.236 3046.236 0 0.506 0 166.000 Stable
2662.121 3118.193 3118.193 0 0.518 0 166.000 Stable
2663.720 3242.182 3242.182 0 0.538 0 166.000 Stable
2667.029 3471.367 3471.367 0 0.576 0 166.000 Stable
2675.534 3956.204 3956.204 0 0.657 0 166.000 Stable
2685.728 4425.840 4425.840 0 0.735 0 166.000 Stable

Appendix 22: Sensitivity: Deviation angle


121
Inflow/Outflow Curves for Z 3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300m water BASE CASE
Sensitivity To: Layer pressure (Layer 1) and Water cut (Layer 1)
4000
Inflow: 3700.000 psia and 0 per cent
Outflow: 3700.000 psia and 0 per cent
Inflow: 3700.000 psia and 10.000 per cent
Outflow: 3700.000 psia and 10.000 per cent
Inflow: 3700.000 psia and 20.000 per cent
f Outflow: 3700.000 psia and 20.000 per cent
Inflow: 3700.000 psia and 30.000 per cent
f Outflow: 3700.000 psia and 30.000 per cent
Inflow: 3700.000
g psia and 40.000 per cent
g g g
g Outflow: 3700.000 psia and 40.000 per cent
g gf g g g g
Inflow: 3700.000 psia and 50.000 per cent
f Outflow: 3700.000 psia and 50.000 per cent
Inflow: 3700.000 psia and 60.000 per cent
3000 Outflow: 3700.000 psia and 60.000 per cent
f f Inflow: 3700.000 psia and 70.000 per cent
g Outflow: 3700.000 psia and 70.000 per cent
f Inflow: 3700.000 psia and 80.000 per cent
Pressure (psia) at MID OF PERFS, MD 9123.000 ft

Outflow: 3700.000 psia and 80.000 per cent


f

2000 f

1000

0
0 4000 8000 12000 16000
Total Production Rate (STB/day)
Operating Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Pressure Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(psia) (STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
2636.656 4342.160 4342.160 0 0.721 0 166.000 Stable
2720.866 4299.650 3869.685 429.965 0.642 10.000 166.000 Stable
2806.217 4244.698 3395.758 848.940 0.564 20.000 166.000 Stable
2890.612 4184.844 2929.391 1255.453 0.486 30.000 166.000 Stable
2978.987 4090.655 2454.393 1636.262 0.407 40.000 166.000 Stable
3068.312 3970.091 1985.046 1985.046 0.330 50.000 166.000 Stable
3158.734 3812.572 1525.029 2287.543 0.253 60.000 166.000 Stable
3253.720 3575.113 1072.534 2502.579 0.178 70.000 166.000 Stable
3344.810 3298.157 659.632 2638.526 0.109 80.000 166.000 Stable

Appendix 23 Sensitivity: Layer Pressure and Water Cut


Gas Lift Valve Positions - Z 3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300m water BASE CASE
Temperature (degrees F)
0 50 100 150 200
0

2500
True Vertical Depth (ft)

5000

7500

Objective Tubing Pressure: Q liq = 10000.000 STB/day


Temperature: Q liq = 10000.000 STB/day
Unloading Casing Pressure, 1200.000 psia
Operating Casing Pressure, 816.764 psia
Unloading sequence
Design operating valve
10000
0 1500 3000 4500 6000
Pressure (psia)
Unloading Objective
Valve MD TVD Casing Tubing Temperature
No. Pressure Pressure
(ft) (ft) (psia) (psia) (degrees F)
1 2574.875 2574.875 1250.204 471.784 157.545
2 4000.000 4000.000 1247.100 778.295 160.772

Appendix 24 : Gas lift valve positions


122
WellFlo Performance Analysis for Z 3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300m water gas lift
Operating Rate vs Lift gas injection rate
6250
Base case

5000

3750
Operating Rate (STB/day)

2500

1250

0
0 5 10 15 20
Lift gas injection rate (MMSCF/day)

Appendix 25: Operating rate vs lift gas injection rate


Inflow/Outflow Curves for Z 3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300m water gas lift
Sensitivity To: Water cut (Layer 1)
4000
Inflow: 10.000 per cent
Outflow: 10.000 per cent
Inflow: 20.000 per cent
Outflow: 20.000 per cent
Inflow: 30.000 per cent
Outflow:
g 30.000 per cent
f Inflow: 40.000 per cent
Outflow: 40.000 per cent
g Inflow: 50.000 per cent
f g
g Outflow: 50.000 per cent
f g Inflow: 60.000 per cent
g Outflow: 60.000 per cent
g Inflow: 70.000 per cent
gf
3000 Outflow: 70.000 per cent
f f Inflow: 80.000 per cent
g Outflow: 80.000 per cent
f Inflow: 90.000 per cent
Pressure (psia) at MID OF PERFS, MD 9123.000 ft

Outflow: 90.000 per cent


g f
g
f
g
f

f
2000

1000

0
0 6000 12000 18000 24000
Total Production Rate (STB/day)
Operating Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Pressure Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(psia) (STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
2360.024 8386.772 7548.095 838.677 1.253 10.000 166.000 Stable
2500.943 8006.320 6405.056 1601.264 1.063 20.000 166.000 Stable
2577.148 8088.905 5662.233 2426.671 0.940 30.000 166.000 Stable
2656.146 8162.187 4897.312 3264.875 0.813 40.000 166.000 Stable
2736.299 8239.479 4119.740 4119.739 0.684 50.000 166.000 Stable
2897.730 7428.862 2971.544 4457.317 0.493 60.000 166.000 Stable
2973.712 7479.552 2243.866 5235.687 0.372 70.000 166.000 Stable
3050.272 7537.571 1507.514 6030.057 0.250 80.000 166.000 Stable
3126.287 7626.539 762.654 6863.885 0.127 90.000 166.000 Stable

Appendix 26: Gas lift production rate


123

Completion Schematic

Tubing hunger assembly

S.S.S.V

5.5" tubing

Gas lift mandrels

S.S.D.

Top of reservoir
Wire line set permanent packer

9 5/8 “casing shoe

Appendix 27: Completion Schematic of well produce from upper sand


124

Dual Completion Schematic (Z-7)

Tubing hunger assembly

S.S.S.V
3 ½ " tubing
2 7/8" tubing

Gas lift mandrels

Tubing hunger assembly

Wire line set top of upper sand


permanent packer
blast joint
Wire line set
permanent packer Top of lower sand

Appendix 28: Dual Completion Schematic of well production from both upper & lower sand
125

Appendix 29: Relative Permeability

According to special core analysis report from Core LAB, six plug samples were

scheduled to undergo steady-state water-oil relative permeability analysis in the restored state.

These tests were performed using the 1.5 centipoise refined mineral oil and the sulphate brine.

These two fluids were tested simultaneous through each sample at different flow ratios. When

the pressure differential across the samples appeared to have stabilized, indicating that wetting

equilibrium has occurred, permeabilities to oil and brine were determined.

Based on the results, six rel-perm tables were grouped to two tables which represent

the average rel-perm table for the upper and lower reservoir (see figure1).

Figure 1 Relative Permeability for upper and lower reservoir from Steady state test
126

Appendix 30: Capillary pressure and J-Function


For air-brine capillary pressure test, thirteen plug samples were used as representative

data. The samples were evacuated and pressure saturated with simulated brine. After that, the

fully saturated plugs were placed in a porous plate cell and desaturated by introducing

humidified air at increasing incremental pressures up to 180 psig.

However, the reasonable correlation is needed to change the air-brine capillary

pressure to the oil-water capillary pressure (multiply by 50/72). Moreover, the J-Function was

used to normalize all Pc curves to one modified table as shown in figure 2.

This J-function can use as the representative capillary pressure function for this reservoir

which Pc is the function of porosity, permeability, and saturation water in the reservoir.

J-Function

12000

10000

8000
Pressure

6000

4000

2000

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sw

Figure 2 Modified Leverett J Function curves.


127

Appendix 31: J. W. McLean Specifications

J. W. McLean

The J. W. McLean is a Zapata SS-3000 class semisubmersible, a propulsion assisted twin hulled sea
barge catamaran with six stabilizing columns and a water tight working platform

Rig Type Other Floaters

Design Zapata SS-3000

Builder

Year Built 1974/1991/1996

Classification 1A1 Column Stabilized

Flag Marshall Islands

Accommodation Air-conditioned to accommodate 100 people

Helideck 'D' value 22.5 m (72.8 ft.) 84 ft. x 83 ft. (25.6 m x 25.3 m) designed to DNV
/ Norwegian rules, to accommodate Sikorsky S-61.

Moonpool 21 ft x 21 ft

Station Keeping Moored (Propulsion Assist)

Max Drill Depth 25,000 ft / 7,620 m

Max Water Depth 1,250 ft / 381 m

Operating Conditions 55-knot winds, 30-foot waves at 10 seconds, current 1.4 knots

Storm Conditions 123-knot winds, 100-foot waves maximum at 3 seconds, current 0.5 knots

Technical Dimensions

Length 367 ft 112 m

Breadth 210 ft 64 m

Depth 25 ft 8m

Operating Draft 80 ft 24 m

Ocean Transit Draft 25 ft 8m

VDL - Operating 3,829 st 3,475 mt


128

Capacities

Liquid Mud 3,332 bbls 18,708 cu ft 529 cu m

Drill Water 8,000 bbls 44,916 cu ft 1,271 cu m

Potable Water 2,700 bbls 15,159 cu ft 429 cu m

Fuel Oil 10,000 bbls 56,145 cu ft 1,589 cu m

Bulk Mud 8,970 cu ft 254 cu m

Bulk Cement 10,350 cu ft 293 cu m

Sack Material 4,000 sacks

Drilling Equipment

Derrick Lee C. Moore 180 ft. dynamic derrick with 40 ft. x 40 ft. base. Rated
1,300,000 lbs. gross nominal capacity, with 1,000,000 lb. hook load capacity
with (12) lines.

Drawworks Oilwell E3000 with Crown-O-Matic and Baylor model 7838 electro-
magnetic brake, sandline spool with 18,000 ft. of 9/16

Motion Compensator Rucker Shaffer DSC-25-500

Top Drive Varco TDS 4S complete with PH 85 and Raised Backup System (RBS), Hi-
Torque GE 752 motor

Rotary - Oilwell A-495, 49-1/2

Pipe Handling 1 x Varco AR3200 Iron Roughneck

Mud Pumps Three (3) Oilwell 1,700 PT triplex mud pumps rated at 1,700 hp and at 120
SPM

Shale Shakers 4 - Derrick Model 2000 with Hi G motors

Desander None

Desilter 20 x 4-inch cones mounted above a shaker

Mud Cleaner One shaker configured as a mud cleaner

BOP Cameron Type U Model II, 18 ¾ in., 10,000 psi

LMRP Shaffer Type Annular 5K WP

Diverter Regan/KFDH, 500 psi WP, Bore size 24.5 inches

Control System Koomey Type 80 with 500 gallon reservoir


129

Riser Vetco MR-6C 20-1/2 (21-1/2-inch OD)

Riser 8 - Rucker Shaeffer MRT's each with (2) 40 ft. line travel x 80,000 lbs.
Tensioners tensioners, total 640,000 lbs.

Guideline 4 x Rucker Shaffer, 12.2m stroke travel & 7.3MT


Tensioners

Podline None, lines are suspended off angel wings


Tensioners

Choke & Kill Cameron 3-1/8-inch x 10K

Cementing Halliburton HCS-250

Machinery

Main Power 4 - EMD Model 16-645-E8 marine diesel engines rated ABS continuous
1,950 bhp at 900 rpm each skid mounted unit includes: 1 EMD Model A20
AC alternator ABS rated and certified for 1,400 kw 2,000 KVA, for SCR
system application

Emergency Power 1 - Cummins turbocharged engine w/ 600 kw Marine AC Generator

Power Distribution 6 x Ross Hill SCR, plus 1 Bauteil SCR

Deck Cranes 1 - National OS-435, 41-ton, 10-m, 1 each Amclyde 35000, 68-ton, 10-m

Thrusters N/A

Propulsion Propulsion assist, 2 x 10 dia. propellers w/ Kort nozzles ea. driven by 4 x


850 hp electric motors

Mooring Equipment

Winches 10 x Skagit rated for 159 mt

Wire/Chain 10 x 3 inch stud linked ORQ, usefull length - 3608 ft

Anchors 10 x Stevpis MKV each weighing 15mt


130

Appendix 32: Mud program

Depth (ft) RKB Formation Formation Expected LOT Fracture Mudweight Mudweight
gradient (psi/ft) Pressure (psi) Pressure Gradinet Pressure (psi) (ppg)
(ppg) (psi)
0 0.447 0 14.5 0 0
1100 0.447 491.7 14.5 829.4
7850 0.447 3508.95 14 5714.8 3708.95 9.1
7900 0.499 3942.1 14 5751.2
10300 0.499 5139.7 14 7498.4 5339.7 10.0
Mud program Calculations

The pore pressure gradients in the formations from surface are


ppg psi/ft
0-7850 ft 8.6 0.447
0-10300 9.6 0.499
Required Mudweight:
at psi/ft ppg
7850 0.473 9.1
10300 0.519 10.0
Summary of mud programme
131

Appendix 33: Casing Design Set Selected Selected

Depth Calculated Calculated Casing Casing Nominal


OD Casing Connec
Casing TVD Collapse Burst Load Burst Collaps Grade* Weight* Remarks
(in) ID (in) tions
Hole size (ft) Load (psi) (psi) Load* e Load* (lbs/ft)

(in) RKB (psi) (psi)

API seal off unconsolidated formations at


36’’ Conductor 30” - 700 - - - - K-55 106.3
shallow depths

seal off any fresh water sands, and


API
26’’ Surface 20” 19 1300 581 1795 2410 770 K-55 106.3 support the wellhead and BOP

Equipment.

isolate unstable shales and lost

Intermediat 13 circulation zones


17 ½’’ 12.347 4700 2100 3900 5380 2670 L-80 72 VAM
e 3/8” between the surface casing and the

production casing

isolate pay zone interval from other


12 ¼’’ Production 9 5/8” 8.681 8900 4443 3900 6780 4750 L-80 47 VAM
formations

*Schlumberger i-Handbook has been used to select the appropriate casing


132

Appendix 34: Casing and Cementing

TOC seabed

240’

TOC 740’
840’

4240’

TOC 6640’

8440’

The casing and the cementing schematic diagram


133

Appendix 35: BHA

Rotary steering system (Courtesy of Baker Hughes Inteq)

[taken from John Ford Drilling Engineering notes 2008]


134

Appendix 36 : Directional Drilling

Directional Drilling
135

Appendix 37: Drilling Schedule


136

Appendix 38: Process plant


137

Appendix 39: Water treatment plant


138

BLOCK 43

Appendix 40: Transboundary map


139

Cum
Oil prod Oil rev Gas prod Gas rev Tot Rev Opex Capex Tax NCF NCF(real) NCF(real) DCF[0.1]
10^3
Year bbls/d £millions 10^6 scf/d £millions £millions £millions £millions £millions £millions £millions £millions £millions
0 2009 5.00 -5.00 -5.00 -5.00 -5.00
1 2010 258.00 -258.00 -250.49 -255.49 -227.71
2 2011 14 194.84 4.2 2.30 197.14 18.31 65.00 0.00 113.84 107.30 -148.18 88.68
3 2012 18 250.51 5.4 2.96 253.47 22.40 0.00 40.96 190.12 173.99 25.80 130.72
4 2013 18 250.51 5.4 2.96 253.47 22.40 0.00 115.54 115.54 102.65 128.46 70.11
5 2014 17.5 243.56 5.25 2.87 246.43 21.89 0.00 112.27 112.27 96.85 225.30 60.13
6 2015 15 208.76 4.5 2.46 211.23 19.33 0.00 95.95 95.95 80.35 305.66 45.36
7 2016 13 180.93 3.9 2.14 183.06 17.29 0.00 82.89 82.89 67.40 373.05 34.58
8 2017 11.6 161.44 3.48 1.91 163.35 15.86 0.00 73.75 73.75 58.22 431.27 27.16
9 2018 11 153.09 3.3 1.81 154.90 16.74 0.00 69.08 69.08 52.94 484.21 22.45
10 2019 9.8 136.39 2.94 1.61 138.00 15.52 0.00 61.24 61.24 45.57 529.78 17.57
11 2020 7.6 105.77 2.28 1.25 107.02 13.27 0.00 37.20 56.55 40.85 570.64 14.32
12 2021 5 69.59 1.5 0.82 70.41 10.61 0.00 0.00 59.80 41.94 612.58 13.36
13 2022 2.2 30.62 0.66 0.36 30.98 9.25 0.00 0.00 21.73 14.80 627.38 4.29
14 2023 2 27.83 0.6 0.33 28.16 9.04 0.00 0.00 19.12 12.64 640.02 3.33
15 2024 120.00 0.00 -120.00 -77.02 562.99 -18.44

52.82 15845 448.00 688.87


NPV £280.91
*Currency in mod terms NPV=£280.91millions=Can$505.64 millions
Appendix 41: Summary of the cash flow model

S-ar putea să vă placă și