FDPGroup4FinalReport PDF

School of Engineering & Physical Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
B.Eng. Petroleum Engineering
Field Development Project
Academic Year 2017-2018
Group 4
Section Responsible Person

Geology Ulviyya Asgarova
Reservoir Engineering Jamal Ahmadov (TL)
Drilling Engineering Murad Hasanov
Production Engineering Elvin Hasanli
Economics/HSE Mehriban Aliyeva
Supervisor: Elkhan Ahmadov
1
Summary
The following report is aimed to describe a projected development plan of X field in a concise
manner. It starts with a geological description of a field based on the log, core, seismic and RFT
data obtained from the six appraisal wells. The stratigraphy, depositional environment,
sedimentary structures and reservoir properties were examined and a reservoir structure was
determined. The reserves were estimated and a static model of a field was generated. The
number of wells for both production and injection was defined and the corresponding rates were
calculated. The design for the drilling schemes such as casing, mud, cement and bit was carried
out and the directional drilling calculations were made. The production potential of a field was
analyzed through several sensitivity cases. The completion type of a well and an applicability of
the artifical lift was outlined. The economical estimations revealed a project NPV and IRR and
determined most sensitive parameters for a field development. Furthermore, HSE regulations
were reviewed and the risk matrix regarding HSE issues was generated. Finally, best, base and
worst case field plans were constructed considering technical, financial and environmental
factors.
2
Contents
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 2
Geology ........................................................................................................................... 7
Field Description .......................................................................................................... 7
Structural Configuration............................................................................................ 7
Seismic Interpretation............................................................................................... 8
Stratigraphy .............................................................................................................. 9
Special Core Analysis (SCAL) ..................................................................................... 9
Core Observations ..................................................................................................... 10
Property Distribution .................................................................................................. 11
Petrophysical Analysis ............................................................................................... 11
Log Analysis .............................................................................................................. 13
RFT Analysis ............................................................................................................. 15
Correlation ................................................................................................................. 15
Cross Section ............................................................................................................ 16
Reservoir Engineering ................................................................................................... 18
PVT Analysis ............................................................................................................. 18
STOIIP ....................................................................................................................... 20
Deterministic STOIIP .............................................................................................. 21
Probabilistic STOIIP ............................................................................................... 22
Static model ............................................................................................................... 23
Drive mechanism ....................................................................................................... 25
Well distribution ......................................................................................................... 25
Location.................................................................................................................. 25
Rate........................................................................................................................ 25
Waterflooding model .................................................................................................. 26
Field Development Plan ............................................................................................. 28
Decline curve analysis............................................................................................ 28
Material balance ..................................................................................................... 29
Results ................................................................................................................... 30
Drilling Engineering ....................................................................................................... 33
Rig selection .............................................................................................................. 33
Pressure profile of X field ........................................................................................... 33
Casing design ............................................................................................................ 35
Casing size and setting depth determination .......................................................... 35
Casing weight and grade determination ................................................................. 37
3
Cement design ........................................................................................................... 38
Directional drilling ...................................................................................................... 39
Drilling fluid selection ................................................................................................. 40
BHA design and Bit type ............................................................................................ 41
Surface casing (300-4297 ft) .................................................................................. 41
Intermediate casing (4297-4960 ft) ........................................................................ 41
Production casing (4960-10000 ft) ......................................................................... 42
Production liner (10000-10700 ft) ........................................................................... 42
BOP configuration ...................................................................................................... 43
Risk and hazards ....................................................................................................... 43
Production Engineering ................................................................................................. 44
Production Tubing Design.......................................................................................... 44
Diameter sensitivity and determination of operating point ...................................... 44
Well types .................................................................................................................. 46
Bottom Hole Completion ............................................................................................ 46
Perforation ................................................................................................................. 47
Production Well Completion....................................................................................... 47
Downhole completion elements ................................................................................. 48
Sub-Surface Safety Valves .................................................................................... 48
Nipple ..................................................................................................................... 48
Flow Couplings ....................................................................................................... 49
Annular isolation ..................................................................................................... 50
Wireline Entry Guide .............................................................................................. 50
Tubing Stress Analysis and Material Selection .......................................................... 50
Outflow Performance (Vertical Lift Performance - VLP) ............................................. 50
Artificial Lift ................................................................................................................ 52
Water Injection ........................................................................................................... 53
Flow Assurance ......................................................................................................... 54
Wax and Asphaltene. ............................................................................................. 54
Scale Formation ..................................................................................................... 54
Corrosion................................................................................................................ 55
Emulsion. ............................................................................................................... 55
Surface Facilities ....................................................................................................... 55
Economics ..................................................................................................................... 56
Cash Flow model construction ................................................................................... 56
Assumptions .............................................................................................................. 56
4
Selection of a field development plan ........................................................................ 57
Economic parameters of the project .......................................................................... 57
Probabilistic evaluation .............................................................................................. 59
Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................................... 59
Health Safety and Environment ..................................................................................... 61
UK HSE Regulations for Offshore Oil and Gas Processes ........................................ 61
ISO standards ............................................................................................................ 62
Environmental Management System ISO 14001 ................................................... 62
Occupational Health and Safety ISO 45001 ........................................................... 62
Environmental considerations .................................................................................... 62
Waste management ............................................................................................... 62
Water management ................................................................................................ 63
Air emissions .......................................................................................................... 63
Noise pollution ........................................................................................................ 64
Spill hazard ............................................................................................................ 64
Decommissioning ................................................................................................... 64
Health and Safety considerations .............................................................................. 64
Fire and explosion .................................................................................................. 64
Contaminated air .................................................................................................... 64
Hazardous materials .............................................................................................. 65
Blowout hazards ..................................................................................................... 65
Perforation risk ....................................................................................................... 65
Employee safety training and personal protection ..................................................... 65
Risk Assessment ....................................................................................................... 66
References .................................................................................................................... 67
Appendix ....................................................................................................................... 70
Appendix A ................................................................................................................ 70
Appendix B ................................................................................................................ 82
Appendix C ................................................................................................................ 88
Appendix C.1: Pressure profile .................................................................................. 88
Appendix C.2: Kick imposed pressure analysis ......................................................... 89
Appendix C.3: Casing grade and weight selection..................................................... 90
Surface casing ....................................................................................................... 90
Intermediate casing ................................................................................................ 92
Production casing ................................................................................................... 94
Production liner ...................................................................................................... 95
5
Appendix C.4: Cement design ................................................................................... 96
Appendix C.5: Directional drilling design ................................................................... 97
Appendix D ................................................................................................................ 98
Appendix E .............................................................................................................. 103
6
Geology
Field Description
Structural Configuration
The X field is located in the Central North Sea in block UKCS 22/12 almost 210km to the East
North East of mainland Britain in water depths of around 81m (265ft). There are some neighboring
fields developed around the X field including Nelson, 10km to the North North West, and Forties,
40km to the North West. The Fulmar gas pipeline and the Forties pipeline system also exist in
this area. Figure 1 illustrates top structure map of the field which has a dome-shaped anticline
structure that dips steeply. The structure crest is at 9900ft and it is assumed that major amount
of hydrocarbons is collected here. In general, for this province, failed and extensional rifting are
key to the distribution of hydrocarbons and small amount of hydrocarbons is accumulated in these
tilted and eroded faults, which is below base of chalk cretaceous unconformity (see: Figure 2
seismic map). Reservoir formation primarily comprises Upper Jurassic shallow marine sandstone.
It consists of two sections: northern and main section, the compartmentalization is due to the
presence of two faults.
Figure 1. X-Field Top Structure Map

It is not possible to determine both massive faults from provided seismic map, which allows to
determine only one of them, therefore, at the same time, there is a need to analyze both RFT
data and diverse log measurements. RFT data was not reliable enough (explanation will be given
in the next sections) and log analysis allows to determine continuity of formation layers, thus,
determination of fault locations will also be possible. Presence or absence of hydrocarbons will
7
allow to identify whether the faults are of sealing or non-sealing nature. Cross section of combined
wells conducted based on correlation of those wells, will clearly show fault placement within the
formation. As noted in the field overview, six appraisal wells were drilled and OWCs (Oil Water
Contacts) were determined for each well. OWC values for four wells are close and fluctuate within
the range of [10813 − 10858 𝑓𝑡], while for other two wells OWC values were also close and varied
within the range of [10549 − 10575 𝑓𝑡]. These values show that fluid contacts have been shifted
and prove the assumption that there are two crossing, “V” shaped faults that separate wells
number X1, X2, X3, X4 from wells X5 and X6. Angle between faults is around 90˚ as illustrated
on the figure 1.
Seismic Interpretation
2D seismic map in NNW-SSE direction was provided, of unfortunately moderate quality (Figure
2). Regardless of this, anticline structure of reservoir can easily be seen, with red line showing
possibility of fault, that has already been mentioned above. Top of the sealing chalk and base
cretaceous unconformity are illustrated with yellow and blue lines, respectively. It is assumed that
drop in sea level, erosion process and sediment transportation formed that base cretaceous
unconformity. There are two diverse reservoir units: ribble sand, which is not continuous and is
interrupted by thin shale layers, and it has already been justified by log interpretation as well (See
log analysis). It is member of Kimmeridge Clay Formation, that was deposited in Upper Jurassic
period. Below the Kimmeridge Clay there is continuous main sand, which makes up the reservoir
rock, it has also been proved by log analysis. On figure 2, ribble sand is shown with pink line and
main sand with purple. As illustrated on the map, reservoir structure is more curved in comparison
to top of chalk layer, which may be due to several reasons, such as erosion or unconformable
depositional environment. Generally, map allows to determine continuity and placement of layers
that are illustrated with different colored lines.
Figure 2. 2D Seismic profile for Well X-1

8
Stratigraphy
To determine depositional environment and stratigraphy, wide information and data is required,
however in this case, such amount of data is not available. Therefore, it is necessary to examine
nearby fields that have similar stratigraphy, such as Forties, Nelson and Fulmar. Main reservoir
is comprised of Upper Jurassic Kimmeridgian, which is a sequence of shallow marine sandstones.
At the same time, there is also sandstone with coarsening upward sequence (determined from
density log, rarely fining upward) and turbidities that are seen from porosity logs and core plugs.
Bioturbation is labelled on core pictures and expected to be an evidence of shallow marine
depositional environment representative of Kimmeridge Clay Formation. In general, fault-
bounded structure seen in the X field, that moves NE flank upwards to approximately 300ft, is
common for this area. Geological history of North Sea illustrates that rifting events have significant
effects on geology of Central Graben and basically are divided to three sections: pre-rifting, syn-
rifting and post-rifting. In this province, age of reservoirs changes from Devonian to Eocene. Pre-
rift rocks in fault-structure is contained with diverse amount of hydrocarbon. Rifting process allow
Middle and Upper Jurassic sandstone to accumulate, deposit and form reservoir rock. In syn-rift
reservoirs both shallow and deep marine environment was faced, it is assumed that, reason was
continuous change in sea level. Coarse sandstone was generated during deposition of shale from
Late Jurassic to earliest Cretaceous, at the same time, uplifting and erosion processes played a
role. In post-rift reservoirs mainly consist of Lower Cretaceous sandstone, but a top seal in Central
Graben and southern North Sea is provided by deposition of fine-grained chalks from Late
Cretaceous to earliest Paleocene. [1]
All elements of petroleum play are available in this field: for northern part of North Sea,
hydrocarbon is primarily generated in fine – grained Kimmeridgian Shale (Source Rock is
Kimmeridge Clay Formation) with high TOC from Late Jurassic and earliest Cretaceous. During
the Cretaceous time, Kimmeridge Shale was buried in nearly highest depth and started to be
thermally mature but in Viking Graben burial depth is not deeper as much as in Central Graben.
Cap (Seal) Rocks are varying in throughout the field and include upper Jurassic shallow marine
sandstone with Kimmeridgian shale for SW flank of the reservoir and fine – grained impermeable
chalk of Cretaceous age for NE flank. [2]
Uplifting and subsidence of footwall and hanging wall respectively contributed to form trap with
tilted fault – block structure. Seal rocks (Kimmeridge clay and Cretaceous chalk) cover reservoir
rock and create Trap. There was need time for trap formation, in Central Graben, it proceeded
from Latest Jurassic to earliest Cretaceous. [3]
Special Core Analysis (SCAL)
Special Core Analysis (SCAL) has been carried out on 13 core plugs that have been taken from
different depths from well X5 and have different properties (porosity and permeability). The aim
of this analysis is to record capillary pressure and water saturation during mercury injection to
plug saturated by water. Figure 3 illustrates trendline for capillary pressure and water saturation
9
in 13 core plugs. Longer transition zone is observed for high permeability and porosity values. To
obtain capillary pressure, mercury capillary pressure should be converted by using equation
below:
𝑃𝑐 , 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 1 (𝜎 cos 𝜃)𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 1
= (1)
𝑃𝑐 , 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 2 (𝜎 cos 𝜃)𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 2
Where: condition 2 – mercury/air, condition 1 – oil/water, 𝜃 – contact angle (for mercury/air – 130°,
for oil/water - 0°, 𝜎 – interfacial tension (for mercury/air – 485 dynes/cm, for oil/water – 15
dynes/cm).
Capilary Pressure & Water Saturation

1600
Por 11.3%, Perm 1mD
1400
Por 17.6 %, Perm 320mD
1200 Por 22.6%, Perm 100mD
Por 19%, Perm 1mD

1000
Capillary Pressure, psia
Por 18.8%, Perm 8mD

800 Por 23.6%, Perm 670mD
Por 16.2%, Perm 1mD

600
Por 26.6%, Perm 1800mD
400 Por 26.3%, Perm 2000mD

200
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-200 Por 23.1%, Perm 350mD
Water saturation. %
Figure 3. Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure for well X5.
Core Observations
There are several core pictures taken from well X5 located to the NE of the X field. Core samples
serve to define primary and secondary sedimentary structures. Primary sedimentary structure will
determine transporting and depositional units during deposition, and secondary post-depositional
ones. Coarsening upward structure in main formation with fine to medium grain size, moderate to
well sorting and grey to brown coloring grains is detected. Examples of primary and secondary
sedimentary structures are given and labeled on Figure 4.
Primary Sedimentary Structure
• Lamination with small angle
Secondary Sedimentary Structure
• Appearance of Bioturbation
• Post depositional deformation and dewatering structure (closed fractures and slumping)
10
Figure 4. Core Sample Photographs from Well X5
Property Distribution
Maps (which have been provided in Appendix A, Figures 12, 13, 14, 15) have been constructed
on Petrel, to visualize variation in some reservoir and fluid properties, such as permeability,
porosity, water saturation, thickness and finally net to gross ratio. It will also help to decide wells
placement. In all maps, color grading is applied. It is essential to select appropriate location in
terms of getting high productivity, so, areas where the wells will be located should have enough
permeability, less water saturation, and of course high net to gross ratio.
Petrophysical Analysis
In X field, petrophysical analysis has been done based on log and core data collected from six
exploration wells. Analyzing of this data separately may give inaccurate results, but combined,
they should provide more precise results and decrease some uncertainties. Log data contains
gamma ray (GR), caliper, sonic, neutron porosity, density and resistivity (long normal and short
normal) logs. The main aim of using these logs is to determine following properties:
11
✓ Porosity
✓ Permeability
✓ Oil/Water Saturation
✓ Oil Water Contact
✓ Net to Gross Ratio
✓ Oil Bearing Zone
Table 1 shows tops and bottoms of reservoir sand and oil bearing zones. Gross interval values
represent thickness of sand and pay interval illustrates thickness of hydrocarbon bearing sand.
All these values have been determined based on the log interpretation and will be used for
calculation of Net to Gross.
Table 1. Top and Bottom of Sand, Top of Oil, OWC, Gross Interval, Pay Interval
Top of Gross
Top of sand Bottom of Sand OWC Pay Interval
oil Interval
WELL1 10260 10890 10260 10813 630 553
WELL2 10626 11490 10628 10858 864 230
WELL3 10260 10914 10276 10853 654 480
WELL4 10236 11371 10236 10838 1135 602
WELL5 10056 10802 10263 10575 747 312
WELL6 10398 10576 10398 10549 178 151
The porosity is determined using density log and fluid saturations are estimated applying Archie’s
equation. Volume of shale is defined on the basis of gamma ray log however, it should be noted
that results may be affected by radioactive elements within the formation or mud. Determination
of porosity allows to find water saturation using Archie’s equation.
Porosity value is obtained by using equation shown below.
𝝆𝒎𝒂 − 𝝆𝒃
𝜱= (𝟐)
𝝆𝒎𝒂 − 𝝆𝒇
Where:
𝜌𝑚𝑎 −matrix density, 2.65 𝑔/𝑐𝑚3 the most common reservoir rock – sandstone
𝜌𝑏 −bulk density, taken from density log
𝜌𝑓 −fluid density, 1 𝑔/𝑐𝑚3
On the other hand, by using the combination of density and neutron log porosities, average
porosity is determined.
𝜱𝟐 + 𝜱𝟐𝑵
𝜱=√ 𝑫 (𝟑)
𝟐
As noted above, water saturation is calculated using Archie’s Equation.
𝒂 ∗ 𝑹𝒘
𝑺𝒏𝒘 = (𝟒)
𝜱𝒎 ∗ 𝑹𝒕
Where:
12
𝑅𝑤 −resistivity formation water from log
𝑅𝑡 −true formation resistivity from log
𝛷 −porosity
𝑎 – empirical constant
𝑚 – cementation component
𝑛 – saturation exponent
Besides, volume of shale present in each of the wells was computed using the Gamma Ray log
data. GR index is calculated by Stieber Equation, linear method is applied, and Gamma Ray index
will be equal to the volume of shale.
𝑮𝑹𝒍𝒐𝒈 − 𝑮𝑹𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒙
𝑮𝑹𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒙 = (𝟓)
𝑮𝑹𝒔𝒉𝒂𝒍𝒆 − 𝑮𝑹𝒎𝒂𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒙
𝑽𝒔𝒉𝒂𝒍𝒆 = 𝑮𝑹𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒙 (𝟔)
Where 𝐺𝑅𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 and 𝐺𝑅𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑒 values for each well were taken from the well data and 𝐺𝑅𝑙𝑜𝑔 values
from the Gamma Ray logs. Techlog software helped to obtain a visual representation of shale
volume by generating a corresponding log variable. It is essential to note that cut off values have
been applied to shale volume, porosity and saturation to obtain more accurate Net to Gross ratio.
Only oil bearing zone are of interest, because STOIIP calculation will be done based on this zone.
Net to Gross Ratio value was obtained by dividing the thickness of net pay to overall thickness of
the hydrocarbon bearing zone. To obtain net pay values, a set of cut-off criteria was selected.
𝑉𝑠ℎ ≤ 50%: This selection was based on overall research of similar reservoirs in the Central
Graben region of the North Sea. Many practices included using this or close shale volume cut-off
values there. [4]
𝛷𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 ≥ 12%: Typical values for effective porosity cut off range from 3 𝑡𝑜 16 %, however the
features of the region lead to the assumption of setting porosity cut off to be 12 %. [5]
𝑆𝑤 ≤ 50%: Saturation cut-off value was averaged from normal proposed values for this region.
All the cut-off values were defined by research-based assumptions. Pay flag method was used to
identify the thickness of net sand, net reservoir and net pay. [5]
Table 2. Cut-off application
Shale cut-off Porosity cut-off Saturation cut-off

Net Sand yes no no
Net Reservoir yes yes no
Net Pay yes yes yes
Log Analysis
Log analysis is carried out to define oil bearing zones in the reservoir, the main requirements here
are to find highly permeable and porous zones with low water saturation and high amount of
hydrocarbons. All logs are provided in Appendix A, figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and processed in
Schlumberger’s Techlog software. To understand lithostratigraphy of each well, each log should
be thoroughly interpreted and analyzed. Formation Evaluation has been conducted by the means
13
of gamma ray, compensated neutron, bulk density, resistivity, deep laterolog, shallow laterolog
and acoustic logs. First and foremost, it should be mentioned that due to the use of potassium
containing water-based muds in wells 1 to 5, GR readings are higher. Due to that fact, GR
baseline is moved 20 API to the right, making up a baseline on 95 API. The GR baseline in well
6 remains at 75 API on account of oil-based mud used.
Well X1. By evaluation of all the given logs for this well, a slight downside offset of GR curve was
assumed. High gamma ray reading in combination with CNL/density curves holding together
indicates a top shale bed till the depth of 10260 ft. Inside this shale bed slight separation between
CNL and density curves along with small decrease in GR APIs is representative of a very thin
ribble sand layer. Below the 10260 ft, GR readings decrease more substantially and along with
CNL/density curves separation this shows main sand up to 10890 ft. Below it, increased GR API
and joined CNL/density curves indicate shale to the very bottom of the well. Low resistivity log
readings combined with bulk density and deep laterolog curves mirroring each other shows
hydrocarbons between from 10260 ft to an OWC of 10813 ft.
Well X2. Well 2 has a very similar behavior to well 1 in terms of is lithology. There is a top shale
bed up to 10626 ft with some ribble sand layer between it. The indication of ribble sand presence
is obtained from some separation between CNL/density curves which normally coincide in shales.
However, ribble sand layer in well 2 is thicker than that of well 1. Main sand bed extends from
10626 to 11490 ft as seen from lower GR readings and change in CNL/density curves. Resistivity
log suggests hydrocarbons starting at 10628 ft up to an OWC of 10858 ft.
Well X3. From the top of well 3 to a depth of 10186 ft, GR log shows very low API readings, which
is normally indicative of limestone. Moreover, both CNL and bulk density tools are calibrated over
limestone matrix, so areas where they totally coincide indicates limestone lithology. Keeping in
mind the seismic interpretation and the top chalk mentioned in it, it is possible to assume chalk
lithology there. From 10186 ft to 10260 ft there is a separation between CNL/density as well as
rapid GR API increase, therefore, a thin shale bed presence is detected. It is followed by a uniform
main sand all the way to the bottom of the well. According to the resistivity log, oil is encountered
in three separate pinch outs: 1) 10276-10419 ft 2) 10472-10609 ft 3) 10638-10838 ft.
Well X4. Well 4 also exhibits very low API readings indicative of chalk down to 10236 ft followed
by thick main sand bed illustrated by a higher GR and small CNL/density separation down to
11371 ft. A thin shale layer is at the very bottom as indicated by high GR and coinciding
CNL/density curves. Hydrocarbons are found at the depth interval of 10236-10838 ft as seen from
resistivity log.
Well 5. Well 5 logs are very similar to the ones for well 4 in terms of lithology. There is also a top
chalk up to the depth of 10056 ft as indicated by both low GR and behavior of CNL/density curves.
From 10056 ft to 10802 ft there is a main sand layer as supported by GR and CNL/density logs.
It is followed by very thin shale. The resistivity log shows top of oil at 10263 ft, however for this
14
well it is interrupted in the middle of the hydrocarbon bearing zone. Data acquired from RFT and
CNL/density logs allows to assume OWC at 10575 ft.
Well 6. This well is different from the previous ones due to being drilled with oil-based mud, and
therefore no effect on GR log is assumed. Thus, the baseline remains at 75 API. Moreover, due
to the use of oil-based mud, it is impossible to use resistivity logs, so the hydrocarbon bearing
layer is a product of assumption. In terms of lithology, up to 10086 ft there is a top chalk followed
by thin shale layer. Main sand is between 10398-10576 ft. Another, more extensive shale layer is
beneath it. Based on the separation of CNL/density curves, the assumption is made that top of
oil is at 10398 at, while OWC is at 10549 ft.
RFT Analysis
Repeat Formation Test has been carried out for only three wells X1, X2 and X5. It records
pressures at different depths, and mainly aids to make a judgement about fluid contact according
to the gradients. RFT data available for three wells will be analyzed and a comparison between
the results and log analysis will be made (Appendix A, figures 9, 10, 11).
X1. Figure 9, Appendix A illustrates pressure and depth relationship for well X1. There is an abrupt
change in pressure approximately at 10850ft. Results show that gradient for this depth is nearly
0.50 psi/ft and are supported by the log analysis that shows OWC at approximately 10813ft.
X2. Another RFT has been done for well X2 (Figure 10, Appendix A). The graph illustrates that
change in pressure is detected at approximately 10825ft with a gradient of 0.27 psi/ft which is
close to the oil gradient. If it is assumed that oil water contact is present here, there should be
water below this depth. However, gradient for this zone is unusually lower than oil gradient, acting
like gas, which is practically impossible. This uncertain condition may be explained by the
possibility of pressure recording depths being very far away from each other.
X5. From RFT data of well X5, abrupt change in pressure is noticed at approximately 10573 ft
with the gradient of 0.30 psi/ft. It nearly matches the log results, but it should be noted that
resistivity logging has been done incompletely. Therefore, only combination of density and
neutron logs aided to define OWC which is also supported by RFT results.
Correlation
Before constructing cross section of the field, it is required to carry out the correlation of wells.
Two correlations with 3 wells per each are generated. Wells X2, X1 and X5 located on
approximately same line were chosen for lithological correlation. As sonic log response seemed
unreliable, GR and combination of CNL and bulk density logs were chosen for representation of
the lithology. All three wells were aligned according to the bottom shale layer present in each of
them. The top of this layer was selected to be a marker bed. Above the shale marker bed, a
relatively uniform layer of main sand is present. In wells X2 and X1, above the main sand, there
is a thin ribble sand layer sandwiched between two shale layers. X5th well doesn’t display this
behavior, having a chunk of chalk seal right above the main sand reservoir (Figure 7, Appendix
A).
15
Wells X4-X6-X3 located along another line were selected for second correlation. As it was
mentioned above, GR and CNL/bulk density logs were at the basis of the correlation. All of these
three wells display presence of chalk seal, which is why they were all aligned according to the
bottom of chalk marker bed. In wells X6 and X3 below the chalk, very thin shale layers are present.
The main sand reservoir is located just below and is present in all three wells. Below the main
sand there are shale layers in wells X4 and X6 (Figure 8, Appendix A).
Cross Section
After correlation is done, cross section of grouped wells is constructed based on those
correlations. First cross section is done for wells X2, X1, and X5. X2 is located on the SW flank,
X1 is located on the crest and X5 is located on the NE flank of the reservoir. After construction of
cross section, the structure of reservoir is analyzed. It follows that North – East limb of the
reservoir is steeper than South – West limb which is also proved by the top view of the field. Cross
section that has been done in NE – SW direction of the field illustrates that ribble sand sandwiched
between shale layers exists in both well X2 and X1, but not in well X5, due to the fault between
wells X2, X1 and well X5. In general, lithological units are the same in wells X2 and X1, but in X2
they have been accumulated deeper than X1. Cross section shows that illustrated fault makes
NE limb of the reservoir move upward.
Figure 5. Cross section of field for wells X2, X1 and X5

Another cross section is constructed for the wells X4, X6 and X3 by the means of correlation of
these wells, in NW – SE direction of the field. In contrast with the previous cross section, these
wells are not on the same line, thus, some uncertainties are possible. Lithological units are nearly
the same as for the first cross-section, whereas depths differ. Same as in the previous cross
section, it is related to the fault movement upward. Therefore, in well X4 and X3, same lithology
is located deeper than in well X6.
16
Figure 6. Cross section of field for wells X4, X6 and X3
Both correlation and cross-section are evident of an anticline reservoir shape. In addition to this,
shifted OWCs for wells can be easily seen from the cross sections. It was previously mentioned
that fault induced movement of the wells X5 and X6 upward. Averaged contact values also prove
that wells X5 and X6 are located at shallower depths than other wells. Height of this movement is
considered approximately 280m based on OWC values and placement of lithostratigraphic units
regarding to proper depth.
17
Reservoir Engineering
PVT Analysis
To carry out PVT analysis, the downhole samples were taken from well X-1 and X-2 and separator
and wellhead samples were obtained from well X-2, X-3, X-5 and X-6 during drill stem testing.
Table 3 shows the results of PVT analysis performed on the downhole sample from well X-1
whereas Table 4 describes the average reservoir fluid composition. Moreover, the reservoir is
undersaturated with an absence of primary gas cap. The reservoir fluid has 39˚ API gravity while
the formation and water compressibility is equal to 3 × 10−6 𝑝𝑠𝑖 −1 .
Table 3. PVT analysis (well X-1)
PVT Parameters Initial conditions Bubble point
Pressure (psia) 5722 @ 10500 ft 1800
Temperature ( F) 250 250
Bo (R B/STB) 1.323 1.395

Rs (SCF/STB) 505 505
Viscosity (cP) 0.49 0.41
Oil compressibility (10-6 Psi -1) 10.4 18
Table 4. Average reservoir fluid composition
Component Mole %
Methane, C1 24.38
Ethane, C2 9.41
Propane, C3 9.37
Isobutane, C4 1.29
N-butane, C4 4.65
Isopentane, C5 1.47
N-Pentane, C5 2.61
Hexane, C6 3.47
Heptane, C7 41.66
Carbon dioxide, CO2 0.54
Nitrogen, N2 1.18
C7 average Molecular weight 218.17
The relationship between the pressure and reservoir fluid properties such as the oil and gas
formation volume factors and a viscosity is derived from PVT. The oil formation volume factor up
to the bubble point pressure is estimated using Vasquez and Beggs [6] correlation. (Equation 7)
For the values below the bubble point pressure, differential expansion test data for well X-1 is
used. (Equation 8) Since the gas formation volume factor is an inverse of the gas expansion
18
factor, the gas formation volume factor values are calculated from differential expansion data for
well X-1. (Appendix B, Table 1 and 2)
𝐵𝑜 = 𝐵𝑜𝑏 exp (𝑐𝑜 (𝑃𝑏𝑝 − 𝑃)) (7)

𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑎𝑡 𝑃 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑃𝑏𝑝 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑟 𝑇
𝐵𝑜 = (8)
𝑆ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑘𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑟 𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑏𝑢𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 𝑜𝑖𝑙
Bo vs. Pressure
1,5
1,4
1,3
1,2
Bo
1,1
1
0,9
0,8
0,7
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Pressure (psia)
Figure 7. Bo vs. Pressure relationship (well X-1)
Bg vs. Pressure
0,2
Gas formation volume factor
0,18
0,16
0,14
0,12
0,1
0,08
0,06
0,04
0,02
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Pressure (psia)
Figure 8. Bg vs. Pressure relationship (well X-1)
Figure 9 and 10 shows a pressure dependence of viscosity for well X-1 and X-2 respectively. The
relative volume change in accordance to the pressure is also described. (Figure 11) The PVT
analysis plays a crucial role by providing inputs to the processes such as reserves calculation,
well production behavior, material balance estimations and reservoir simulation. (Appendix B,
Table 3)
19
Viscosity vs. Pressure
0,7
0,65
0,6
Viscosity (cP)
0,55
0,5
0,45
0,4
0,35
0,3
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Pressure (psia)
Figure 9. Viscosity vs. Pressure relationship (well X-1)
Viscosity vs. Pressure

1,40
1,20
1,00
Viscosity (cP)
0,80
0,60
0,40
0,20
0,00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Pressure (psia)
Figure 10. Viscosity vs. Pressure relationship (well X-2)
Relative volume
12
Volume at P/Volume at Pb
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Pressure (psia)
Figure 11. Relative volume relationship (well X-2)
STOIIP
The Stock Tank of Oil Initially in Place estimation is a complex process that includes integration
of geological and engineering data. There are various deterministic approaches to the estimation
process including volumetric, material balance, production history and field analogy methods. Due
to the quality and amount of data available, volumetric approach is chosen to calculate
deterministic STOIIP in X field. Additionally, Monte Carlo simulation model is generated and run
20
several times with input distributions of each variable to acquire probabilistic STOIIP values. The
results of simulation allow to analyze worst, most likely and best case scenarios.
Deterministic STOIIP
In the case of deterministic STOIIP estimation, the equation stated below is used to generate
output combining reservoir rock and fluid properties:
𝐺𝑅𝑉 × 𝑁𝑇𝐺 × 𝜑 × (1 − 𝑆𝑊 )
𝑆𝑇𝑂𝐼𝐼𝑃 = (9)
𝐵𝑜
Due to the presence of fault dividing the reservoir into two blocks, Gross Rock Volume (GRV)
estimation is carried out considering separate average oil water contact depth for each block.
(Figure 12 and 13)
Figure 12. First block (X1, X2, X3, X4) Figure 13. Second block (X5, X6)
The grid square counting is used to estimate areas between isopach contour lines. The
trapezoidal rule is selected to calculate volumes given the areas between contour lines. (Table 5
and 6)
Table 5. GRV for first block
Area Number of Depth Volume
Depth
(km^2) squares difference (km) (km^3)
10840 8,97 11,86 0,01219 0,11
10800 8,32 11 0,03048 0,23
10700 6,73 8,9 0,03048 0,19
10600 6,05 8 0,03048 0,18
10500 5,52 7,3 0,03048 0,15
10400 4,23 5,6 0,03048 0,12
10300 3,33 4,4 0,03048 0,09
10200 2,50 3,3 0,03048 0,07
10100 1,89 2,50 0,03048 0,04
10000 1,06 1,4 0,03048 0,02
9900 0,48 0,63 0,03048 0,01
9800 0,08 0,1
1,20
21
Table 6. GRV for second block
Area Number of Depth difference Volume
Depth
(km^2) squares (km) (km^3)
10560 1,67 2,21 0,01829 0,029
10500 1,50 1,98 0,03048 0,040
10400 1,13 1,49 0,03048 0,030
10300 0,82 1,08 0,03048 0,022
10200 0,62 0,82 0,03048 0,015
10100 0,38 0,5 0,03048 0,009
10000 0,18 0,24 0,03048 0,003
9900 0,04 0,05 0,03048 0,001
9800 0 0
0,14
The data needed for STOIIP calculation is given in Table 7. Apart from average values, largest
and smallest values of each parameter is used to generate minimum and maximum values of
deterministic STOIIP. +/- 5 percent criteria is applied to define minimum and maximum values of
GRV.
Table 7. STOIIP input data
Well NTG Porosity Sw Bo
X1 0,71 0,24 0,16 -
X2 0,39 0,24 0,31 1,350
X3 0,81 0,23 0,24 1,345
X4 0,86 0,25 0,12 -
X5 0,60 0,24 0,24 1,350
X6 0,57 0,21 0,63 1,340
Average 0,71 0,24 0,23 1,346
1,34 × 0,71 × 0,24 × (1 − 0,23)

𝑆𝑇𝑂𝐼𝐼𝑃 = = 0,13105 𝑘𝑚3 = 824,3 𝑀𝑀𝑆𝑇𝐵
1,346
Table 8. Deterministic STOIIP values
STOIIP (MMSTB)
Minimum Base Maximum
331,6 824,3 1246
Probabilistic STOIIP
Monte Carlo simulation code is generated and run in Matlab software to determine probabilistic
STOIIP values and worst, most likely and best case scenarios respectively. (Figure 14 and Table
9) The corresponding Matlab code is attached to the Appendix. (Appendix B, Figure 1) In addition
to that, P10, P50 and P90 analysis of reserves is carried out. (Figure 15)
22
Figure 14. Monte Carlo Simulation result
Table 9. Three cases output
STOIIP (MMSTB)
Worst Most likely Best
343.3 705,5 1219.7
In addition to that, P10, P50 and P90 analysis of reserves is carried out. (Figure 15)
Figure 15. P10, P50 and P90 analysis
Static model
The Petrel E&P modeling software is used to generate 3D structural model of X field and
distribution maps of the reservoir properties, such as porosity, water saturation and permeability.
The structure contour map, logs, well locations and well tops are used as inputs to the generation
of 3D structural interpretation. (Figure 16)
23
Figure 16. X field 3D structural model with OWC
The 3D grid construction which is a network of horizontal and vertical lines is carried out to
describe a three-dimensional geological model. The model is divided into the boxes which are
called grid cells and the pillar gridding is used to generate a grid consisting of a top, middle and
bottom skeleton grids representing a base of a model. The five-layer model is set up and the well
logs are upscaled using the arithmetic average for the porosity and saturation (Appendix B, Figure
2,3,4 and 5) and a harmonic average for the permeability. (Figure 17 and 18) The sequential
Gaussian distribution is used as a statistical method to assign a property value to each grid cell.
[7]
Figure 17. Permeability distribution (bird eye view)
Figure 18. Permeability distribution (cross-sectional view)

24
Drive mechanism
The well test results reveal very weak aquifer support to the reservoir which is a cause to the
1000 psi pressure depletion during a one-year production period. Although the results underline
the existence of many faults in the reservoir, their location couldn’t be positioned due to the
noisiness and the poor quality of the well tests. In most cases, the duration of a well test is short
unabling to reach semi-steady state and determining the position of the late time region boundary.
Therefore, it is concluded that the main drive mechanism of the reservoir is the expansion of the
reservoir formation and fluids since the reservoir doesn’t contain a gas cap being above bubble
point. Moreover, the injectivity test in the water zone demonstrated a low permeability and very
tight aquifer sand. In result, the injection of the water to the transition zone rather than to the
aquifer is decided as a pressure maintainance strategy in a field development plan.
Well distribution
Location
To start with, the economic calculations are carried out to determine the optimum number of
production wells that is a number in which NPV is maximized. As it is seen from the economics
part, 11 production wells give the highest NPV.
Figure 19. Well locations (green-producer, blue-injector)

The wells are located considering 3D distribution maps for a permeability, porosity and water
saturation and 2D distribution map for a reservoir thickness. 9 water injector wells are selected
for pressure maintenance scheme that are planned to support producers peripherally with an
injection to the transition zone. (Figure 19)
Rate
To obtain well rates, the productivity index of each well is estimated by a semi-steady state Darcy
law:
0.0078𝑘ℎ
𝑃𝐼 = 𝑟 (10)
𝜇𝐵𝑜 (ln (𝑟𝑒 ) − 0.5 + 𝑆)
𝑤
Where
k - permeability, mD
h - net thickness, ft
25
𝜇 - fluid viscosity, cP
𝐵𝑜 - formation volume factor, rb/STB
𝑟𝑒 - external boundary radius, ft
𝑟𝑤 - wellbore radius, ft
S - skin
The permeability and thickness values are derived from the distribution maps, 𝑟𝑒 is estimated in
accordance to the common 40 acres spacing for the oil wells and the wellbore radius is chosen
as 0.5 ft. [8] The skin values are varied to measure three PI values as a best, base and worst
case. As a best-case PI, the skin value is set to zero and the effect of a negative skin isn’t
considered in this case. The resulted productivity indexes are used to estimate the corresponding
rates.
Table 10. Well PIs and rates
Well number PI (best) Q (best) PI (base) Q (base) PI (worst) Q (worst)
1 71 25.7 51 24.4 31 21.8
2 59 25.1 39 23.1 19 18.3
3 53 24.6 33 22.2 13 15.2
4 95 22.7 65 20.1 35 14.5
5 124 17.0 84 16.3 44 14.5
6 71 25.7 51 24.4 31 21.8
7 87 16.4 67 15.8 47 14.7
8 62 15.5 42 14.3 22 11.6
9 148 17.3 98 16.6 48 14.8
10 36 26.6 24 25.4 12 22.5
11 83 26.2 63 25.3 43 23.6
Waterflooding model
The Buckley-Leverett theory is used to find the water breakthrough time for each producer and
predict after breakthrough performance. The theory is based on a mass conservation principle
and incorporates assumptions such as homogeneous reservoir, negligible capillary pressure
effects, no free gas saturation in the reservoir, linear flow and incompressible fluids. [9] The
relative permeability values are taken from the given data for the average porosity and
permeability values in the first and second compartments respectively. (Appendix B, Figure 7)
The Buckley-Leverett theory may not be valid for the mobility ratios above 10 because of the
effects of a viscous fingering. The mobility ratios are calculated and the values are below 10 until
the residual oil saturation value has been reached. The homogeneous reservoir and linear flow
assumptions lead to the vertical and areal sweep efficiencies of 100 %. The relative permeability
ratio 𝑘𝑟𝑜 /𝑘𝑟𝑤 versus water saturation is plotted on a semi-log scale to obtain a relationship
between two parameters. (Appendix B, Figure 8) The fractional flows and derivatives are
estimated and plotted versus water saturation to acquire water saturation value at which water
breakthrough initiates since it is more accurate way than a Welge tangent’s method. (Figure 20)
26
Figure 20 indicates the water saturation of 0.565 at the flood front which is also equal to the
minimum water saturation behind the flood front.
Sw
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80
4,5 1
4 0,9
3,5 0,8
0,7
3
Fw/(Sw-Swc)
0,6
dFw/dSw
2,5
0,5
2
0,4
1,5
0,3
1 0,2
0,5 0,1
0 0
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80
Sw
dFw/dSw Fw/(Sw-Swc)
Figure 20. Fractional flow curve
The following equation is used to calculate a water breakthrough time and estimate the saturation
profile between an injector and a producer well:
5.615𝑄𝑖𝑛𝑗 𝑡 𝑑𝑓𝑤
(𝑥)𝑆𝑤 = ( )( ) (11)
𝜑𝐴 𝑑𝑆𝑤 𝑆𝑤
Where
(𝑥)𝑆𝑤 – water saturation specific distance, ft
𝑄𝑖𝑛𝑗 - injection rate, stb/day
𝜑 – porosity
𝐴 – cross-sectional area for flow, 𝑓𝑡 2
The calculations are carried out for first producer and a water breakthrough time is 4.7 years.
Figure 21 shows the physical locations of the flood front for the 180, 360, 720 days and a water
breakthhrough time. Furthermore, the equation above is used to determine the time for water cut
values from water breakthrough saturation till the residual oil saturation and the production life of
each well that corresponds to the time estimated using the derivative of a fractional flow with
respect to the water saturation at a residual oil saturation.
27
Sw vs. time
0,7
0,65
0,6
0,55
0,5
0,45 180 days
Sw
0,4 360 days

0,35
720 days
0,3
Breakthrough
0,25
0,2
0,15
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Distance (m)
Figure 21. Water saturation profile for first well
The identical calculations are made for each of 11 producers and the water breakthrough times
and the production life of the wells are given in Table 11.
Table 11 Waterflooding model prediction
Well Tbreakthrough (years) Well life (years)

1 4.70 20.33
2 4.53 19.62
3 4.07 17.64
4 3.97 17.12
5 3.85 16.93
6 3.72 16.46
7 3.67 16.07
8 3.55 15.95
9 3.46 15.68
10 3.46 15.68
11 3.40 15.55
Field Development Plan

Decline curve analysis
To predict the future field performance, the decline curve analysis method is employed to forecast
the oil rates in the lifespan of the field. The decline curve analysis is a simple mathematical method
that introduces the time component into the prediction of recovery of the reserves. Generally,
either exponential, harmonic or hyperbolic model is used to predict the rates. Considering the
harmonic model as a conservative approach to the performance prediction and the exponential
type as a very optimistic, hyperbolic technique is used for the rate prediction. [10] The several
statements can be made regarding a decline curve analysis:
28
• Since the development plan includes a water injection starting from a first year of a
production, the hyperbolic exponent is taken as 0.5 which is a value from a range of
exponent values for the water drive reservoirs.
• The decline scheme is applied to the individual well rates rather than to the total field rate
and the decline is considered from a first year of well production. The nominal decline rate
is regarded as 13% per year that is an average decline rate for the North Sea fields. [11]
• The recovery factor is taken as 70% by analyzing the reserves production capability for
nearby fields which corresponds to 577 MMSTB of oil for the X field.
The code is written in Matlab to carry out a decline curve analysis and attached to the Appendix
B. (Appendix B, Figure 9)
Material balance
The material balance equation is used to estimate the pressure values during the life of the field.
It relates the underground withdrawal of fluids to the expansion of oil plus its dissolved gas, the
expansion of a gas cap gas, the change in a hydrocarbon pore volume due to the pore volume
reduction and a connate water expansion and the injected water and gas volumes. [12] The
equation and the specifications related to the calculations made are given below:
𝑁𝑝 (𝐵𝑜 + (𝑅𝑝 − 𝑅𝑠 )𝐵𝑔 )

(𝐵𝑜 − 𝐵𝑜𝑖 ) + (𝑅𝑠𝑖 − 𝑅𝑠 )𝐵𝑔 𝐵𝑔 𝑐𝑤 𝑆𝑤𝑐 + 𝑐𝑓
= 𝑁𝐵𝑜𝑖 [ +𝑚( − 1) + (1 + 𝑚) ( ) ∆𝑃]
𝐵𝑜𝑖 𝐵𝑔𝑖 1 − 𝑆𝑤𝑐
+ (𝑊𝑒 − 𝑊𝑝 )𝐵𝑤 + 𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑗 𝐵𝑤 + 𝐺𝑖𝑛𝑗 𝐵𝑔 (12)
• Since the water injection is planned to support a reservoir pressure above the bubble
point, there will be no free gas in a reservoir at any time (𝑅𝑝 = 𝑅𝑠 ) and the gas oil ratio at
any time till the bubble point pressure will be equal to the initial gas-oil ratio (𝑅𝑠𝑖 = 𝑅𝑠 )
• There is no initial gas cap in the reservoir (𝑚 = 0)
• Due to the weak aquifer support, a water influx is negligible (𝑊𝑒 = 0)
• There is no gas injection to be considered (𝐺𝑖𝑛𝑗 = 0)
• The water production (𝑊𝑝 ) is estimated using the time and water cut values obtained from
the Buckley-Leverett calculations
• The water injection rate (𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑗 ) is agreed upon a discussion with production engineer by
doing sensitivity analysis with respect to the injection rate and considering the feasibility
of required support by an injection well with a specific rate
• The oil formation volume factor is given as a function of the pressure for the pressure
values above bubble point pressure
Considering the mentioned modifications, the material balance equation to estimate the pressure
values can be expressed as below:
29
𝑁𝑝 (−2 × 10−5 𝑃 + 1.4277)
𝑐𝑤 𝑆𝑤𝑐 + 𝑐𝑓
= 𝑁(−2 × 10−5 𝑃 + 1.4277) − 𝑁𝐵𝑜𝑖 + 𝑁𝐵𝑜𝑖 ( ) (𝑃𝑖 − 𝑃) − 𝑊𝑝 𝐵𝑤
1 − 𝑆𝑤𝑐
+ 𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑗 𝐵𝑤
The calculations related to the decline curve analysis and material balance are given in Appendix.
(Appendix B, Figure 10)
Results
According to the data obtained from the previous sections, the field development plan is
generated. Out of 11 producers and 9 injectors, 8 producers and 8 injectors are placed in a first
compartment while the 3 producers will drain a second compartment supported by one injection
well. Furthermore, X-6 appraisal well in the second compartment can be redesigned as an
injection well if additional pressure support is needed. Figure 22 shows the period of the producers
and injectors coming on-line.
Well schedule
12
11
10
9
Number of wells
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 0,25 0,5 0,75 1 1,25 1,5 1,75 2 2,25 2,5 2,75 3 3,25 3,5 3,75 4 4,25 4,5 4,75 5
Years
Producer Injector
Figure 22. Well schedule
Although the number of wells is fixed, the life of the field will be different depending on the rates
encountered during the production. Therefore, three cases for constructing a field development
plan are considered and best, base and worst-case rates are used in each case respectively. It
is reasonable to state that the actual field development plan will take a form between best and
worst-case production scenarios. Figure 23 shows oil and water production rate, water injection
rate and pressure depletion over a field life for a base case scenario. The best and worst-case
scenarios are given in Appendix. (Appendix B, Figure 11, 12, 13 and 14) It is seen that the
pressure decreases with initial production. As more injector wells are drilled towards the end of
the fifth year, the support from the injectors becomes pronounced and the field pressure increases
30
in this period. Concurrently, the water production begins at the end of fifth year and the pressure
starts to decline again.
Field Plan (Base case)

300 7000
250 6000
5000
Rate (mstb/day)
200
Pressure (psia)
4000
150
3000
100
2000
50 1000
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Years
Oil production Water production Water injection Reservoir pressure
Figure 23. Field development plan (Base case)
To keep the pressure at higher values, the injection rate is increased after the start of a water
production which results in an alternative field plan. (Figure 24) However, the feasibility of updated
plan depends on the capacities of the facilities used for an injection process, as well as subjected
to the economic considerations. The plan should be implemented in the case of favorable financial
and technical conditions.
Field Plan (Base case)

300 7000
250 6000
Rate (mstb/day)
5000
Pressure (psia)
200
4000
150
3000
100
2000
50 1000
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Years
Oil production Water production Water injection Reservoir pressure
Figure 24. Alternative field development plan (Base case)
The large amount of risks used to be present in the development stage of the oil and gas projects.
Since the development of X field is planned by using the data obtained from the six appraisal
31
wells and nearby fields, there is a definite need to analyze uncertainties and to develop the
contingency plans before initializing a project. The risks are divided into the high impact and low
impact types and the probability of occurrence is also considered.
First and foremost, STOIIP is a crucial parameter to any field development project being very
sensitive at the same time. The uncertainties are mainly driven by the rates and the reserves. The
risks on rates are related to the uncertainties in initial well rates and well decline rates which in
turn are a function of drainage efficiency, drawdown management and productivity indexes. On
the other hand, the predicted reserves depend on the recovery factor assumed. For instance, the
poor vertical connectivity, shallow fluid contacts and diminished pore volume can lead to the
overpredicted reserves estimation. Moreover, the compartmentalized reservoirs lead to a rapid
production rate decline and present a challenge for a field development plan to meet its objectives.
The main uncertainties are related to the heterogeneity, fault location and transmissibility, fracture
connectivity and a displacement efficiency. [13] The risk descriptions and rankings are
summarized in a form of a risk matrix for the development plan of X field. (Figure 25)
Figure 25 Risk matrix for a field development plan
As more wells are drilled and more field data becomes available, the related uncertainties
decrease. Within the frame of financial constraints, several data gathering methods can be
applied to assist in reducing the uncertainties. For instance, 3D seismic is considered as a cost-
efficient alternative to the additional drilling which describes a subsurface geology and aids to
choose a future well location and improve waterflooding scheme. The interference and pressure
buildup tests can be deployed to obtain the level of connectivity between the wells, determine the
barriers and drainage areas across the field, monitor the reservoir pressure and acquire more
accurate permeability distribution. The use of tracers and downhole pressure and temperature
measurements are alternative ways to determine a degree of the field heterogeneity. To make
predictions and reservoir monitoring effective, the generation of a dynamic reservoir model
equipped with a continuous input from a history matching process should be carried out.
Moreover, an infill drilling, the openhole sidetrack from the development wells and a completion
of high angle or horizontal wells across the faults should be considered if the options are justified
economically.
32
Drilling Engineering
Rig selection
The phase one of X field will be developed from Jack-up rig and then it will be modified to platform
by installing all facilities for initiating production. Jack-up platform is the most suitable one for
water depth (250 ft) and maximum target depth. All wells will be drilled from one rig to reduce
expenditure. Another option could be semi-submersible rig; however, weather condition of North
Sea and cost of semi-subs doesn’t make it preferable option. Main factors for selecting the rig are
water depth, maximum drilling depth, maximum hook load and maximum mud pump pressure.
[16]
Table 12: Rig specification [44]
Rowan Gorilla VI
Max drilling payload 10,979,000 lbs
Max water depth 400 ft
Max drilling depth 35000 ft
Hook load 2,000,000 lbs
Top drive NOV TDX 1000, MU torque 120,000 ft-lbs, BO torque 150,000 ft-lbs
Derrick 70 ft. Woolslayer 40 ft. x 40 ft
Draw works National 2040 UDBE
Rotary National Oilwell D495
Mud System Max Pressure 7,500 psi
Location for jack-up is selected to be out of anticline and it was shown by black rectangle.
Figure 26: Location of rig
Pressure profile of X field

Pore pressure and fracture pressure have to be determined in order to know how to do casing
design and continue our drilling program. Also, lithology of all sections should be determined for
knowing pore pressures. However, only RFT data is provided for reservoir section. As the name
of field is not known, literature review of neighboring fields and general Central Graben was done
for obtaining pore pressure for all sections. Lithostratigraphy of neighboring Fulmar field was
described below. From the figure it can be seen that sea bed locates at 271 ft. Claystone and
siltstone deposited till 8978 ft and soft marlstones and claystone located below this section till
33
9525 ft. Below it, chalk group was observed till 9755 ft. Above reservoir 500ft thick Kimmeridge
clay was located. [17]
Figure 27: Lithology of Fulmar field
Montrose field and Central Graben pressure profiles were used for pore pressure assumptions.
Also, RFT data was used for reservoir section. From the graph below it can be seen that there is
overpressured zone below 4600 ft because of undercompacted shale. Our reservoir section
matches with thief zone. Thief zone means fluid loss can occur while drilling this section. Pressure
decrease can be observed from both graph for reservoir section. The reasons could be weak
aquifer support, absence of gas cap and thief zone. [19] All this pressure abnormalities will be
taken into account during casing setting depth selection.
Figure 28: Pressure profiles of Central Graben and Montrose field
There are several methods for determination of fracture pressure. Ben Eaton’s method was used
for fracture pressure determination. Based on literature review and by knowing lithostratigraphy
34
of neighboring field poisson’s ratio range was found out. Also, overburden pressure gradient was
assumed as 1psi/ft. As a result of all calculations and research of nearby fields, pressure profile
and PPFG plot of X field were determined. All calculations were provided in Appendix C.1.
Pressure(psi)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
2000
4000
Depth(ft)
6000
8000
10000
12000
Pore pressure Fracture pressure Overburden pressure
Figure 29: Pressure profile of X field
Casing design
Casing size and setting depth determination
Casing design was done based on pore pressure and fracture pressure gradient. However, as
the pressure data was obtained from nearby fields, 0.5 safety margin was added to the PPFG
plot.
Pressure gradient (ppg)

6,00 8,00 10,00 12,00 14,00 16,00 18,00
0
2000
4000
Depth (ft)
6000
8000
10000
12000
Pore pressure Fracture pressure

Pore pressure safety margin Fracture pressure safety margin
Figure 30: Casing setting depth selection
35
First step will be determination of number of casings and their setting depth. Casing depth
selection was done based on simple bottom to up method. Appropriate distance was chosen from
both pore pressure and fracture pressure safety margin at 10000 ft depth. Moreover, this vertical
line was plotted till approaching fracture pressure. Then horizontal line was plotted to pore
pressure and again vertical line was plotted upward. [14] This process continued till the seabed.
Based on this graph, 5 casing strings including conductor casing and production liner will be used
for reaching target depth. Casing sizes and setting depths of casing strings on X-3 well were
provided in the table below. [19]
Table 13: Casing string sizes and setting depths
Name Hole size (inch) Casing size (inch) Setting depth (ft)
Conductor casing 100 30 350
Surface casing 26 20 4267
Intermediate casing 17-1/2 13-3/8 4930
Production casing 12-1/4 9-5/8 10000
Production liner 8-1/2 7 10700
Conductor casing
Conductor casing has the largest size and it is the first string to be run. However, its setting depth
was determined last based on up to bottom method. General setting depth for conductor casing
is 100 ft below the sea level. The purpose of conductor casing is to avoid wash out of
unconsolidated formations with mud circulation. Also, fracture pressure of shallow depth
formations can be easily exceeded. It was determined that general conductor casing size was 30
inches for North Sea wells.
Surface casing
Surface casing setting depth was determined as 4267 ft from up to bottom method. Its function is
to seal off fresh water sands. Also, blow out preventer and wellhead equipment will be located
above surface casing. Setting depth selection for surface casing is so vital because formation
below casing setting depth should have enough strength for well shut-in process in case of gas
influx. It means that fracture pressure below casing shoe should be higher than the shut-in
pressure plus drilling fluid pressure. For determining correct setting depth kick-imposed pressure
analysis was done (see Appendix C.2). [14] Moreover, kick pressure and fracture pressure were
compared in the below graph and it can be said that kick pressure is lower than the fracture
pressure of selected casing setting depth. Setting depth of surface casing was justified by this
graph as well.
36
Pressure gradient(ppg)
0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00
0
1000
2000
3000
Pkick
4000
Depth(ft)
Pfrac
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Figure 31: Kick imposed pressure analysis
Intermediate casing
Intermediate casing is applied to seal off troublesome formations. Number of intermediate casing
depends on the number of problems. Problems can be related to abnormally pressured zones,
lost circulations, unstable shales. On X field wells, only one intermediate casing is used, and its
setting depth will be 4930 ft because of abnormal pressures in this area.
Production casing
Production casing is set just above pay zone because below it production liner will be run. The
aim of this casing string is to isolate above production zone. This casing will avoid the relation
between production zone and other water bearing sands. Also, it will make conduit for tubing.
Production liner
7’’ production liner will be set across the reservoir and it will case off that area. Production will
start from that section as a result of perforation. In addition, shale formation will be sealed off by
liner.
Casing weight and grade determination

After determining setting depth and size of casings, casing weight and grade should be
determined based on load applied on casing. Each casing should be able to withstand the load
applied during production, drilling and landing operations. Generally, it is not possible to determine
burst or collapse loads which will be applied on casing that is why during design process the worst
cases were considered. For burst pressure determination, this will be shut-in process after gas
kick inside the well bore and for collapse pressure calculation, it will be full evacuation of casing
string due to lost circulation. In addition, performance of casing gets worse with time because of
corrosion and wear. Because of that, safety factor is used for each calculation. Burst and collapse
pressure calculations is provided in Appendix C.3. [21]
37
Table 14: Casing types and their properties [28]
Casing Burst Collapse
Depth Weight Connection ID Capacity
size Grade pressure pressure
(ft) (ppf) type (inch) (bbl/ft)
(inch) (psi) (psi)
20 K55 0-3000 133 BTC 18.73 0.34079 3036 1500
3000-
20 K55 169 BTC 18.376 0.32803 3230 2500
4267
13.375 P110 0-4930 85 BTC 12.125 0.14282 8750 4690
9.625 L80 0-10000 58.4 VAM top 8.435 0.06912 8650 7890
HCL- 9500-
7 26 VAM top 6.276 0.03826 7240 7800
80 10700
Cement design
Cement is applied as a seal between casing and borehole. The main functions of cement are to
support casing string, protect casing from corrosive formation fluids and avoid fluid flow from one
formation into another or to the surface via annulus. In order to do correct cement design, firstly
annulus, open hole and shoe track volume calculations will be done for each casing string. By
determining volumes, proper amount of cement will be known. Then required mix water will be
determined as well. Also, properties of cement such as density will be considered for each
formation type. Cement operations should be carried out per standard steps of service companies
and API practices. Cement properties for each casing type were discussed below. Also, cement
volume calculations were shown in Appendix C.4. [21]
Table 15: Cement properties
Casing size (inches) 20 13-3/8 9-5/8 7
Hole size (inches) 26 16 12-1/4 8-1/2
API class C G G G
Density (ppg) 10 11 14 11.25
Yield (ft3/sk) 1.32 1.15 1.15 1.15
Mix water requirement (gal/sk) 6.3 5 5 5
500 ft up from 500 ft up from
TOC Surface TOL
previous shoe previous casing
Excess cement volume 20% 20% 20% 20%
Surface casing
Surface casing will be cemented till the surface to support the casing due to the fact that high
loads will be applied by the weight of BOP and wellhead. In addition, water break through from
fresh water zones to the surface by annulus will be avoided. Class C cement will be applied for
that section because this type of cement becomes hard very quickly and it will avoid any
contamination with formation fluid.
Intermediate casing
13-3/8’’ casing will be cemented with G class cement. G class cement is competitive with most
type of additives and can be applied in different pressure and temperatures. Its thickening time
should be taken into account as well. 2-3 hours is the usual thickening time.
Production casing
38
Again G class cement will be used. Only density will be changed by additives. 500 ft up from
previous casing shoe and main problematic area. For reducing the strength retrogression silica is
added to the cement slurry.
Production liner
Liner will be cemented over its entire length. G class cement will be used and tricalcium aluminate
additive will be used to improve sulfate resistance.
Cementing equipment
Centralizers will be used for centralization of the casing in the wellbore. Correctly placed
centralizers will lead good cement job. As a result, isolation of hydrocarbons from surface will be
achieved. 1 centralizer for each joint through reservoir section should be used. Also one joint
should be located immediately above the shoe. For upper sections, 1 centralizer should be used
for every joint on the bottom 3 joints and 1 centralizer every 3 joints elsewhere. In addition,
appropriate selection of float collar and casing shoe will lead unproblematic cementing and drill
process. Material and type of shoe is the main parameters. Elastomer material float shoe will be
used for casings because of its easy drill ability and enough hardness. [21]
Directional drilling
All wells will be drilled from one platform that is why wells will be deviated. Production wells will
be J-shape because J shape is the most simple and common trajectory. Build and hold wells
consists of 3 parts: vertical, build up and tangent parts. Firstly, target depth was obtained from
static model of the reservoir and all wells will be drilled to 10300-10800 ft. Horizontal distance
between target depth and the platform was measured from top structure map. Generally, shallow
kick-off point is selected in order to obtain low inclination. In addition, it is suitable to start the kick
off below the surface casing. Moreover, it is better to drill deviated section through competent
formations. [21] In X field, there are claystone and siltstone until 8900 ft and our surface casing
will be set at 4267 ft which means shallow kick off can’t be selected. Parameters for well X-3 was
described below. Moreover, optimum KOP was selected to be at 4300 ft. Build up rate will be 3
degrees per 100 ft. Tangent angle is kept lower than the 60 degrees to apply wireline tools easily.
(0, 0) coordinates in graph below is considered as platform location. In addition, trajectory of that
well was shown below. Calculation process was given in Appendix C.5.
Table 16: Directional drilling
Well name X-3
TVD of target (ft) 10700
Horizontal displacement (ft) 3281
KOP (ft) 4300
Build up rate per 100 ft (degrees) 3
Radius (ft) 1909.86
Tangent angle (degrees) 29.06
MD till tangent (ft) 5268.59
TVD till tangent (ft) 5227.60
Horizontal displacement till tangent section (ft) 240.39
Measured depth till target (ft) 11528.98
39
Platform 0
Horizontal displacement (ft) location 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
-50 950 1950 2950 3950 -500
0
South(-) North(+), ft
2000 -1000
4000
TVD (ft)
-1500
6000
8000 -2000
10000
-2500
12000 West(-) East(+), ft
Figure 32: X-3 well trajectory
Drilling fluid selection

26’’ hole: Drilling fluid was selected based on type of formation. Based on figure 2, upper part
consists of siltstone and claystone. Water based mud (WBM) will be used for drilling top section
till the end of surface casing setting depth. WBM is environmentally friendly and cheaper than
other mud types. Also, KCl and PHPA will be used as an additive in order to avoid clay swelling.
Main problems which may occur are gas kick and water breakthrough. As the gas is insoluable in
water, it can be detected easily. Also, lost circulation material can be used for avoiding water
breakthrough. Drilling process will start with 9 ppg mud weight, and it will be increased 9.9 ppg
approaching to the end of section. [19]
17.5’’ hole: In this section any significant change in formation was not observed that is why WBM
with KCl additive (higher concentration) is used. However, as the pore pressure increases, MW
will be increased from 10 ppg to 11.9 ppg till the end of section.
12.25’’ hole: As shale content of formation increases, mud type is changed to oil based mud
(OBM) to control clay swelling. Also, OBM is better lubricator for decreasing frictional forces acting
on PDC bit. This section is over pressured, and it means that MW should be controlled carefully.
MW should increase from 12 ppg to 14 ppg till 6562 ft and then it should continue with that mud
weight while approaching 10000 ft depth. Also, Chalk group will be encountered at 9500 ft depth
and some fractures may occur due to natural properties of chalk. It means that LCM should be
added to mud in case of lost circulation. In addition, calcium ions within the chalk formation may
reduce viscosity of bentonite within the mud. Soda ash will be added to dissolve calcium ions.
Calcium content of the mud can be monitored by PH value of drilling fluid. [19]
8.5’’ hole: Reservoir section will be drilled by specially treated OBM and this section should be
drilled properly for not causing formation damage. Kimmeridge clay may cause clay swelling
which will lead to BHA stuck. So, properties of mud should be controlled carefully. MW range
should be between 10.8 and 11.2 ppg.
40
BHA design and Bit type
Bottom hole assembly is lower and the main part of drill string. Several equipment on BHA will be
used for drilling various sections. BHA and bit type will be described for each section. Bit type will
be chosen based on type of formation. [21]
Surface casing (300-4297 ft)
Table 17: BHA design
26’’ milled roller cone bit
Near bit stabilizer To obtain vertical direction
Non-magnetic drill collar To avoid magnetic disturbance for MWD
Non-magnetic sub connection
MWD tool To receive real time data
String stabilizer To protect MWD tool
Drill Collar To apply weigh on bit
Jar To free drill string in case of pipe stuck
Drill Collar To apply weight on bit
Cross over sub For altering size
Heavy weight drill pipe (HWDP) To apply weigh on bit and keep upper section in tension
Bit selection
Soft to hard formation was observed in the upper part based on predicted geology. Milled tooth
roller cone bit is the best option for relatively soft formation. Medium teeth and enough spacing
will allow to drill faster in a short time. High offset angle will allow to achieve high ROP.
Table 18: Bit specification
Bit Offset and WOB
Size Bit type Jets Drill (ft) RPM
number pin angle (klbs)
1 26’’ 2-1-3 Open 3997 medium 20-50 100-150
Intermediate casing (4297-4960 ft)

17.5’’ milled roller cone bit
Rotary steerable system (RSS) To drill deviated well
Stabilizer To obtain straight string
Bit selection
This section is soft and medium hard shale formation. This section is relatively small that is why
milled tooth roller cone bit can be used in that section as well.
41
Table 20: Bit specifications
Bit Offset and WOB
1 17-1/2’’ 2-1-3 Open 663 medium 20-50 100-150
Production casing (4960-10000 ft)

12.25’’ insert roller cone bit
Steerable mud motor To drill deviated well
Stabilizer To obtain straight string
Bit selection
This section consists of various type of formations such as sandstone, chalk and shale. Insert bit
will be suitable for that formation. In addition, PDC bits can be applied as back up option based
on bit performance.
Table 22: Bit specifications
Bit Offset and WOB

1 12-1/4’’ 6-2-7 Open 5040 low 10-30 100-150
Production liner (10000-10700 ft)

8.5’’ PDC bit
Rotary steerable system (RSS) To drill deviated well
Bit selection
PDC bit will be used for drilling reservoir section. Reservoir section is hard and consolidated sand.
42
Table 24: Bit specification
Bit number Size IADC Drill (ft) WOB (klbs) RPM
1 8-1/2’’ M612 3997 10-20 100-120
BOP configuration
BOP stack will be located on surface casing before drilling 17-1/2’’ section as a secondary well
control equipment. It will be applied for drilling reservoir section as well. BOP stack consists of
ram and annular type preventers. Pressure limit will be appropriate for each operation and
safety margin will be taken into account as well. [15]
Risk and hazards

Table 25: Risk and hazard
Risks Effect Mitigation

Use suitable MW and shale inhibitors, ream tight
Unstable shale Pipe stuck, tight spot
spot, use jar as a BHA component
High degree
Not drilling through target Use RSS and MWD tools for maintaining trajectory
deviation
Inappropriate casing Insufficient shoe strength Use centralizer, provide hole cleaning before
setting depth for proper drilling POOH
Ensure max. 200 psi overbalance (below fracture
High mud weight Loss circulation
gradient), monitor drilling parameters carefully
Casing pack-off, pipe
Achieve optimum ROP, RPM and flow rate
Poor hole cleaning stuck, fracturing, loss
circulation
Have good pre-determined well barrier diagrams,
Abnormal pressured
Blow out, kick, long NPT have appropriate primary and secondary well
zone
control [18]
43
Production Engineering
Production Tubing Design
Diameter sensitivity and determination of operating point
Choosing diameter of production tubing is very crucial before to do any other sensitivity analysis
because all production will happen through tubing. Too small tubing size may result in extremely
high fluid velocity within the tubing. Too large tubing size should also be avoided as pressure will
not be sufficient enough to lift the produced fluid. In overview file we are given obtained data for
4 exploration wells. However, it is not good option to optimize X field based on those wells as the
data are obtained at certain skin value. More exactly, whether Darcy or PI model have to be used
to do sensitivity analysis. In these models, it is not favorable to include PI values of exploration
wells as an input since they are obtained at skin values and all newly drilled wells will not have
the same PI even if they are located in the same compartment of the reservoir. Therefore, we
have done all further optimization based on newly drilled (production) wells. By using permeability
distribution model firstly Productivity Index for 11 production wells are calculated by the following
formula.
𝑘∗ℎ
𝑃𝐼 = 𝑟 (13)
141.2𝜇𝐵 (𝑙𝑛 𝑟𝑒 − 0.5 − 𝑆)
𝑤
K – permeability
h – thickness
𝜇 – viscosity
𝑟𝑒 – external radius
𝑟𝑤 – wellbore radius
Thus, by using above formula productivity index of all 11 production wells are calculated.
Table 26 PI of production wells
1st compartment 2nd compartment
Well numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
PI (ideal) 71 59 53 95 124 71 87 62 148 36 83
After founding PI values of production wells, production tubing value sensitivity analysis is done.
Sensitivity analysis is done for well 10 and for all other wells it is done in the same way.
44
Figure 33 Tubing diameter selection
As it is seen from the figure, 6 diameter values (3.5”, 3.8”, 4.1”, 4.3”, 4.7” and 5”) are set for
production tubing and corresponding oil flowrate is obtained.
From the plot and production rate values, it is determined that until the diameter value of 4.4”
production increase is more than linear. But when tubing size is increased from 4.4” to 4.7”, oil
production increases but this increase is a bit less than increase form 4.1” and 4.4”. Between 4.7”
and 5” this increase is smaller than linear. For this reason we take tubing size as 4.7”. However
it could be possible to take optimum diameter as 5”, because it produces more than the case of
4.7”. But from the other point of view, although production is more in case of 5” ID diameter, in
the further life of the field water cut will increase as injected water will start to be produced after
breakthrough time. In that case, it will be harder to produce oil with larger ID tubing than smaller
ID tubing. Also, as reservoir is depleted, it will be favorable to produce with smaller diameter pipe
in the further field life. Thus, 4.7” is considered as acceptable tubing size diameter. After adjusting
it to API standards (shown in next section) operating point for well 10 is also determined which is
that 26038 STB/day of oil.
Figure 34. Operating point for Well 10
45
Well types
Production wells are all deviated wells. Firstly, deviated wells have more exposure to reservoir,
therefore for producing the same amount of oil less number of deviated wells are necessary,
although the cost of one deviated well is more than one vertical well. Moreover, by drilling deviated
well, we reduce surface footprint which is important factor in all offshore fields. Also, by drilling
deviated wells it possible to locate wellheads close to one another which means only one platform
is enough to drill all production wells however, in case of vertical well it wouldn’t be enough.
Furthermore, deviated wells have greater productivity index, which means that for given
production rate they will have less pressure drawdown than vertical wells which causes delay of
water encroachment.
Bottom Hole Completion
To determine completion type, firstly static uniaxial compressive strength of reservoir rock (UCS)
is determined by using Brinnell’s hardness test that was conducted during core analysis for
appraisal well 5. By determining dynamic and static Young modules according to Geertsma, UCS
is found to be 408 MPa. [22] According to Engineering Rock Classification Table of Carmichael
(1989) rocks with uniaxial compressive strength of higher than 220 MPa are categorized as ones
having high strength. It should be mentioned that strength test was done only for well 5 and may
not be representative of whole reservoir, however due to high values of UCS it may still be implied
that strength of formation rock is high. Moreover, from the six drill stem tests performed in 4 wells,
only one of them showed sand production of 4lbs/1000 bbl at production rates of around 4500
bbl/day. Tests performed in the other wells were carried out at much higher flow rates 20,000-
25,000 bbl/day and did not show any sand production. The allowed sand production limit at flow
rates of below 5000 bbl/day is 30lbs/1000 bbl of fluid.
According to living with sand approach 30lbs/1000 bbl sand level is allowable for light oil if the
production rate remains lower than 5000 bopd. [23] The production test revealed API gravity of
39. API values higher than 31.1 correspond to light oil.
Until here, above mentioned facts suggest us to choose open hole completion as sand production
will not be problem because rock strength is quite high. However, our reservoir has very weak
aquifer support, which means that after some time we will have water injection to maintain
reservoir pressure. Injected water will enter to wellbore after breakthrough time. In case of
choosing open hole completion, it will not be possible to isolate inflow of undesirable fluid (water)
unlike to cased hole. Having zonal isolation allows us to have production of less unwanted fluid,
but for open hole as zonal isolation is not possible more water can be produced which in turn
causes increase in hydrostatic pressure within the wellbore as water has higher density than oil.
This fact negatively affects Vertical Lift Performance (VLP) of the well, therefore earlier artificial
lift is required. That is the biggest disadvantage of open hole and outweighs all other facts. Mainly
for this reason, it is reasonable to choose cased and cemented hole rather than open hole.
Moreover, this will create an ability to control the depletion of individual zones. Plus, we can skip
46
production from those zones where there is higher water saturation by not perforating those part,
however in case of open hole completion it wouldn’t be possible. Workover process and
abandonment of open hole is also difficult.
Perforation
Wireline conveyed through tubing perforation is applied in this field. This type of perforation is
chosen to avoid from well killing operation which is necessary when casing guns are applied as
it is used prior to completion of the well. Well killing operation itself is potential danger for formation
damage. Reservoir temperature is 250 ℉ (125℃). RDX explosive type is good option for this
temperature. [24] As phasing decreases, productivity ratio increases. However, 0° phasing is
exception as tortuous fluid flow creates extra pressure loss and causes decrease in production.
60° phasing is chosen here which provides good approximation for radial flow. From core data,
we find that we have quite high vertical permeability, as 𝑘𝑣 /𝑘ℎ = 0.85, thus there is no need very
high perforation density. 8 shots/ft of perforation is good option. Retrievable gun is chosen
because it is less liable to damage during running operation, it is possible to run it very fast and
charges are isolated from well impacts (pressure, temperature, fluids). Moreover, there is no
debris left within the hole after perforation. Gun clearance is important parameter that impacts
perforation length. 4” perforation gun diameter is chosen because gun clearance is less in this
case. When there is high gun clearance, length of perforation in one direction (where clearance
is larger) will be less compared to other direction, which causes ineffective perforation. As there
is no gas cap detected, gas encroachment problem is not risk here. Although, aquifer water
support is less, it is not favorable to perforate close to OWC. For well10, almost the whole
reservoir will be perforated starting from 10300ft till 10650ft depth.
Production Well Completion
Production well completion design is shown below and detalied explanation is given in the next
section.
47
Figure 35. Production well completion design (Production Technology 1, Tutorials, Chapter 2,
Conventional Completion, Single Zone with gas lift)
Downhole completion elements

Sub-Surface Safety Valves
Under normal operating conditions isolation and closure is achieved from the surface by
Christmas tree. However, Xmass tree can be removed for repair or accidental damage may occur
to it. Moreover, during workover process it can be removed. In all these cases, there is need for
downhole closure of flow. Remotely controlled SSSV is controlled from the surface via control
system, whereas direct controlled SSSV is designed to close when pressure varies from
predetermined interval. MMS regulations state that SSSV depth shouldn’t be less than 100 ft
below mud line. [25] In our case, medium depth is chosen for SSSV which states that it should
be between 1000ft and 2000ft below surface. [26] The reason why SSSV is not deep set, packer
set or below packer set is that at those depths, there is very high pressure which is danger for
hydrate formation. SSSV can be tested beforehand based on API standards. For instance, if gas
leakage is more than 0.5 scfm, then SSSV fails the functional test and shouldn’t be used. [27]
Nipple
Nipple has internal locking profile which means that it creates ability to set some elements within
tubing. For instance, in the field life, plugging of tubing will certainly be necessary in order to have
workover or during hydraulic packer setting process. Moreover, ported devices cannot be installed
without nipple. Downhole gauges (temperature and pressure) are also installed by using nipple.
Side Pocket Mandrel
Side Pocket Mandrel is device which allows fluid flow between tubing and casing tubing annulus.
Chemical injection will be done to remedy wax and also scale inhibitors will be used to prevent
48
scale accumulation in X field development. Moreover, gas lift will be applied throughout the field
life. As packer is set between tubing and casing, there is now connection between tubing inside
and casing tubing annulus. Side pocket mandrel allows to carry out all above mentioned
operations. The main point is to determine how many mandrels are needed and in which depth
they should be located. In order to determine that, we have taken the following parameters from
similar problems.
• Static fluid: Seawater with 0.45 psi/ft gradient
• Gas lift supply pressure: 2000 psig
• Gas gradient: 0.05 psi/ft
• Flowing gradient (objective gradient): 0.15psi/ft
• Packer Depth: 10250 ft.
Moreover, having 150 psi casing pressure drop per valve and 100 psi drop per each valve is
assumed. Assuming static fluid as seawater is the worst case, which means that the valve depth
found based on seawater will be useful for all other cases when fluid inside of tubing is oil (0 water
cut) or oil- water mixture (different water cuts). Because, seawater has more density than oil and
oil-water mixture, if injected gas is able to lift higher dense fluid (seawater), undoubtedly it will
also lift lower dense fluid (oil-water). Gradients are plotted in Excel and valve depth are found.
Figure 36. Valve depths

From the figure, it seen that 3 valves will be located in the depth of 4000 ft, 6700 ft and 9000 ft
respectively. The fourth valve could also be located, however its depth would be very close to the
third valve and also injecting to more depth requires more compressor pressure in the surface,
thus installing 3 valves are considered enough.
Flow Couplings
Nipple creates internal restriction within the tubing, which cause divergence and convergence
flow effects. This, in turn causes high turbulence effect and very high velocity occurs. This high
velocity within entrance and exit of nipple may be too abrasive and erode tubing wall. Particularly,
49
in the beginning of X field production clean up sand is observed, which can erode tubing wall
before and after nipple. Flow couplings which have increased wall thickness are installed above
and below nipple and act as flow straightening device.
Annular isolation
In X field we have used casing and cemented single string completion design. Production is
through tubing and casing tubing annulus is isolated from tubing by packer. 𝐶𝑂2 and 𝐻2 𝑆 is
present within produced fluids and they are highly corrosive. Packer doesn’t allow fluid production
through annulus and prevents casing from corrosion. In well 10, packer is located at 10250 ft.
Wireline Entry Guide
It is located on the end of tubing string and allows easy access of logging tools.
Tubing Stress Analysis and Material Selection
The main idea for choosing production tubing is that the burst and collapse pressures should be
taken into account. Therefore, based on formation pore pressure, reservoir pressure, gas gradient
and etc. tubing burst and collapse pressures are determined. In calculation packer fluid density is
taken to be 10 ppg. Calculation is done and obtained values are given in Appendix D. Looking
through API standards for tubing and comparing burst and collapse pressures, it is determined
that LS-65 grade of 5.5” OD is optimum for our case. [28] Its internal diameter is 4.78” which is
very close to obtained value from sensitivity and burst and collapse pressures are more than
calculated values. Due to presence of 𝐶𝑂2 and 𝐻2 𝑆 acidic corrosion and sulfide stress cracking
can be problematic. Therefore, metallurgy selection chart is also used where based on partial
pressure of 𝐶𝑂2 and 𝐻2 𝑆 tubing material is chosen. Partial pressure calculation and selection
chart is given in Appendix D. Thus, C-90 13Cr is selected. The calculation is also done for injection
well and results are shonw in Appendix D. T95 tubing material is chosen for injection well tubing,
as its burst and collapse pressure is higher than designed tubing burst and collapse pressure.
Outflow Performance (Vertical Lift Performance - VLP)
Two main curves determine to choose optimum value of necessary parameters and optimize
production. One of them is Inflow Performance which is related to reservoir parameters while the
other is Outflow Performance which means vertical lift performance. VLP is affected by many
parameters that can be controlled by engineers. To make optimization, some sensitivity analyses
have been done that affect VLP. One of those analyses is observation of oil production by different
GOR and reservoir pressure values. The next table contains that alaysis results.
50
Table 27. Oil Production at different GOR and Reservoir pressure
Reservoir Pressure (psig)

5700 5160 4620 4080 3540 3000
GOR
Oil Production (STB/day)
(scf/STB)
0 27640 17803 4551 N/A N/A N/A
400 26210 17435 5473 N/A N/A N/A
505 26038 17593 5950 N/A N/A N/A
800 25630 18253 7965 N/A N/A N/A
1200 25000 19060 11337 N/A N/A N/A
1600 24088 19233 13185 N/A N/A N/A
The X field has GOR of 505 scf/STB. From the table it can be seen that with this GOR reservoir
pressure shouldn’t decrease to 4080 psi and below as there is no production corresponding to
that pressure. It means that in order to maintain reservoir pressure injection is necessary. What
to do if injected water is not able to maintain the pressure is explained in Artificial Lift section.
Moreover, future production at different GOR is also given in the table and can be used for further
calculations.
Until this part no water cut is considered as in exploration wells data it is given that water cut is
zero. Although reservoir itself naturally has poor water aquifer support, to maintain its pressure
water is injected. There is no doubt that after breakthrough time injected water will be produced
with oil, which means increase in water cut will be observed. That’s why the next point to consider
is prediction of oil production at different water cut. Moreover, PI value of 36 is calculated for well
10 for the case of no skin. However, due to certain reasons (well geometry, completion, formation
damage and etc.) undesirable positive skin may reduce PI value. Thus, the next table shows oil
production at increased water cut and decreased PI values.
Table 28 Oil production at different water cut and PI values
PI
36 28 20
Water cut Oil Production (STB/day)
0 26729 23795 19697
20 19279 17122 13987
40 12750 11147 9028
60 7118 6191 4898
Injection wells location is very important as water breakthrough time is tried to be delayed as
much as possible. For the same pressure maintenance if breakthrough occurs earlier it can result
in reduce or even quit of production. Therefore, oil production corresponding to various water cut
and reservoir pressure is the next sensitivity figures.
51
Table 29 Oil production at different water cut and reservoir pressure
Reservoir Pressure (psig)

5700 5160 4620 4080 3540
Water cut Oil Production (STB/day)
0 26382 17413 5284 N/A N/A
20 18965 11219 N/A N/A N/A
40 12491 5993 N/A N/A N/A
60 6936 1675 N/A N/A N/A
From the table it is obvious that even at zero water cut reservoir pressure should be maintained
at least at 4620 psig for having oil production. If injected water increases water cut to 20%, but
cannot maintain pressure above 4620 psig, it is futile to inject water from that place as the
pressure is not able to lift hydrocarbons to the surface. The same thing is also for other water cut
level. For instance, if most of injected water is produced and water cut level reaches to 60%, even
at 4620 psig of reservoir pressure, no oil is produced. In these cases, when production is less the
only way of solution is artificial lift. Gas lift will help to reduce density of fluid within the production
tubing and VLP curve will move down which means IPR and VLP curves will cross at higher
production rates, this in turn means oil production increase.
Artificial Lift
As it seen from table 27 above, when reservoir pressure decreases to 4080 psi, there is no
production. That’s why gas lift should be applied. It is true that water is injected to maintain
reservoir pressure. But as the worst case scenario, we assume that injected water is not able to
maintain reservoir pressure and as an artificial lift we will use gas lift. To determine the gas
injection rate, iteration is done and corresponding oil production values are determined. For the
value of 10% water cut and 4080 psi reservoir pressure, oil production values are obtained and
the following graph illustrates how oil rate changes with injected gas amount.
Oil production vs Gas injection rate

22000
Oil RAte (STB/day)
19000
16000
13000
10000
3 6 9 12 15 18
Gas injection (MMscf/day)
Figure 37. Oil production change with respect to injected gas (Reservoir Pressure=4000 psi)
52
From the graph, it is seen that there is almost no need to inject gas rate more than 9 MMscf/day
as it doesn’t increase production so much. Therefore, optimum injection rate for water cut of 10%
for reservoir pressure of 4080 psi is 9MMscf/day. From the table 27 above, it is seen that before
gas lift starts there is oil production of 5950 STB/day and GOR value is given to be 505 scf/STB.
Thus, flowrate of gas that is extracted from the well is calculated and found.
𝐺𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 505 ∗ 5950 = 3𝑀𝑀𝑠𝑐𝑓/𝑑𝑎𝑦
After calculation of produced gas before the start of gas lift, it is considered that although
9MMscf/day is optimum injection rate we will use 6 MMscf/day. Because after applying gas lift
operation to other wells, not all of the produced gas is injected to them as gas lift, as a result some
of the gas is remained. We will use that remained gas in this well. The reason why we don’t inject
optimum amount is that, extra gas should be bought by other field and for that construction of
pipeline is necessary, however it is not economically feasible. In Appendix D, sensitivity analysis
for gas lift at different pressures and water cut are shown.
Water Injection
To maintain reservoir pressure, water is injected into reservoir to the depth of OWC (transition
zone). As it is mentioned in Geology section, X field reservoir consists of two compartments and
1 injection well at each compartment of reservoir is designed. Permeability in injected zone is not
too less, that’s why we aim not to fracture the injected zone. Thus, the following formula is applied
to determine maximum (injection) top node pressure.
𝑃𝑡𝑛 + 𝑃ℎ𝑦𝑑 < 𝑃𝑓𝑟 (14)
• 𝑃𝑡𝑛 – top node pressure, 𝑃ℎ𝑦𝑑 – hydrostatic pressure of water, 𝑃𝑓𝑟 – fracture gradient of
reservoir rock at injection depth
Injected water is taken as seawater, in calculation related to the first compartment OWC is taken
to be 10845 ft, while for the second compartment it is 10560ft. Fracture gradient of reservoir rock
in corresponding depth is taken from PPFG plot in Drilling section. After calculation (shown in
Appendix D) it is found that the maximum injection pressure can be 1585 psi. Corresponding to
maximum injection pressure maximum injection rate is found and plot is given.
The below plot shows maximum injection rate, if water is injected with more than that, then
formation will fracture, which is undesirable in our case. It is determined that injection rate can be
reduced until 5650 STB/day, as IPR and VLP curves doesn’t meet below this value. The injection
rate is determined by Reservoir engineer and it must be between 5650 STB/day and 31615
STB/day.
53
Figure 38. Maximum water injection rate
Flow Assurance
Chemical incompatibility is a common problem during production and it has a negative impact on
production. So, it is necessary to define sources of problem and prevent it by taking reasonable
actions.
Wax and Asphaltene.
Well test results indicated that there is a low asphaltene content of the oil with approximately
0.4%wt and during DST (Drill Stem Test) asphaltene deposition was not observed. Therefore, it
does not require any prevention. On the other hand, there is a relative high wax content with
nearly 6.1%wt. Wax are solids deposited from reservoir fluid and makes oil semi-solid when
temperature is below the cloud point. Wax crystal modifiers which inhibits wax crystal growth are
used to prevent wax deposition in X field wells. Chemical injection is also applied to prevent and
eliminate wax deposition. Toluene can be used as injection chemical, however as it is expensive
it has to be located in the vicinity of wax deposition. Wax can also be deposited in surface
pipelines as the pipelines from offshore to onshore are under the water which means high
temperature reduction. Pigging operation will be done inside of pipeline as it doesn’t require
stopping of fluid flow. Pipes should also be insulated to prevent much reduction in temperature.
Scale Formation.
Formation water obtained from well X2 was analyzed, and it was clear that there were high
dissolved solids and low barium sulfate concentration. By using the filtered seawater and
formation water, compatibility test was performed and small amount of scale formation
(approximately 2ppm) was observed. In order to avoid scale accumulation, scale inhibitor
treatment will be applied. Concentration of cation and anion revealed that possible scale type can
be sodium chloride which can be dissolved by water and Calcium Carbonate by hydrochloric acid.
Otherwise, accumulation of high amount of scale will cause reduced production. On the other
hand, for surface facilities, insulating material should be provided in order to achieve desired
temperature and prevent scale formation.
54
Corrosion.
Production test revealed concentration of Hydrogen Sulfide and Carbon Dioxide with 10ppm and
1.5% respectively. As they are corrosive, corrosion inhibitor will be used in terms of protecting
facilities against corrosion and during tubing material selection it is taken into account.
Emulsion.
Emulsions are formed when oil and water are mixed and have high viscosity. It is overly hard to
remove it from formation due to its low mobility. Therefore, fluid compatibility is very essential to
prevent emulsion formation. Pre-screening laboratory test should be carried out and source of
emulsion formation should be determined. If necessary, demulsifiers should be added.
Surface Facilities
This part of the report covers relevant surface facilities selection.
• Separator. A successful separation of hydrocarbon maximizes production of oil or
condensate and improves its properties. In field, this is achieved by means of stage
separation. Stage separation of hydrocarbon is carried out with a series of separators
which are operated at consecutively decreased pressures. Liquid is flowed from a higher-
pressure separator into the lower-pressure separator. The aim of this separation process
is to get maximum liquid hydrocarbons recovery which is coming from the wellheads and
value of pressure is selected to minimize GOR and formation volume factor of oil 𝐵𝑜 . As it
is stated in overview file, condition for the first stage separation is 300 𝑃𝑠𝑖𝑎, 200 ℉ and for
the second stage is 30 𝑃𝑠𝑖𝑎, 80 ℉. Wellhead presure is taken as 52 bara (754 psia).
• Pump will primarily be used in transportation of oil to nearby existing Forties pipeline
system and to pump water during the injection. Centrifugal pump may be good choice for
oil transportation with high flow rate and low viscosity.
• Compressor is used for gas-lift operation and provide transportation of gas by means of
increasing pressure up to required level.
• The purpose of using water treatment unit is to remove suspended solids by using filter
system. Oxidation is done to remove majority of the heavy metals and both volatile organic
and inorganic compounds. Low pressure in water treatment unit may cause to insoluble
scale formation. Solution to the problem is obvious; utilize scale inhibitor at high pressure.
• Power generation. The gas turbine is installed for power generation (electricity is
generated from natural gas by the help of gas turbine) with considering both economic
and environmental factors. Advantages of using such a power generation are reduction in
both capital and operational expenditures. In this case, Gas Turbine Generator (GTG) with
different categories is very common.
• Flare System. This flare system or flare stack is installed and used to burn excessive or
toxic gas which cannot be sold or processed. It is very essential to have flare system in
terms of protecting environment and gas release to atmosphere is strictly prohibited.
55
Economics
Investment in any project, especially as high in risks as offshore oil production requires sound
economic reasoning. Several methods were used in this particular case to estimate the
profitability of the field development. Sensitivity of the project development plan to such
parameters like number of wells drilled, oil price variations, several cost variations etc. was tested
to choose best available option. All the data given and assumed will be shown below.
Cash Flow model construction
6 development plans were prepared for the project. They differ in numbers of producer and
injector wells drilled, and consequently annual production rates. Project screening was performed
for each of the plans in order to find out best economically fit option. Firstly, cash flow models
were constructed for each scenario. All the calculations were done in the money of the day terms.
Overall, analysis of cash flows running in the projects starts with determining the positive and
negative streams. Table E1 from Appendix E contains the input data concerning some economic
factors that was given in the overview beforehand.
Assumptions
Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) of the X-field project encompasses costs of drilling and jack-up
lease for the period of drilling operations. CAPEX was calculated on the basis of drilling costs
table provided in the field overview. Calculation was conducted for each year of drilling taking into
the account number of producer and injector wells drilled annually. On average, each project year
took somewhat above £100 million. Assumptions were made to set an abandonment cost, and
based on the data of several other North Sea fields [29], an average of £35 million was determined
reasonable. CAPEX also included the price of a jack up lease for the period when new wells were
being drilled. After that periods the mentioned costs were counted as part of Operating
Expenditure.
Operating Expenditure (OPEX) of the project in subject includes jack-up lease for the period after
drilling processes stop as mentioned above, as well as FPSO lease, surface equipment and gas
lift costs. It is worth to mention that OPEX was taken in per barrel terms and the assumption of its
exact value was made based on that in several other similar North Sea fields [29].
Figure E1 in the Appendix E represents a dependence between OPEX per daily barrel and
cumulative production in 2000 terms. Considering that the project startup year is set to 2001, and
the location of the X-field is also in North Sea, it was deemed reasonable to use this figure as a
reference. Across all the development plan options the cumulative production values are ranging
between 500-750 mstb, and the corresponding OPEX value was chosen to be 3.5 $ per daily
barrel.
Taxation. Assumption is made that it consists of Corporation Tax only for this particular case. Tax
of 30% is applied to the annual revenue to acquire the overall taxation value.
56
Revenue is apparently the only positive flow. It is worth mentioning that revenue was calculated
in pounds converting oil price given in dollars. The same applies to OPEX, which was also given
in dollar terms per barrel.
Selection of a field development plan
Using the above listed assumptions and given data, cash flows for each of 6 field development
options were generated. Output parameters acquired such as Payback Period, Profit to
investment ratio, Maximum Capital Outlay (MCO), Terminal Cash Surplus (TCS), Net Present
Value (NPV) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) are tabulated in Table E2 in the Appendix E.
The decision on which development option to go with was made by plotting each case with its
corresponding NPV on the Figure 39. It is evident that the point at figure when NPV curve starts
to decline is the case when drilling more wells becomes economically not recompensing. This
point on the Figure 39 coincides with the case 4 where 11 producer and 9 injector wells are drilled.
Therefore, based on the sensitivity analysis between production wells numbers and NPVs, option
4 is the best choice.
400,00
Producer wells number vs NPV ($)
350,00 340,28
322,50 322,25
300,00
276,42 286,35
250,00
NPV ($)
200,00
150,00
128,26
100,00
50,00
0,00
0 5 10 15 20
Number of producer wells
Figure 39. Sensitivity analysis based on number of producer wells and NPVs
Analyzing other economic parameters reveals that Case 4 holds highest PIR (6.68) as well. From
Table E2 Appendix E it is evident that Case 1 with 19 producer and 18 injector wells has poorest
difference between IRR and discount rate and therefore is the riskiest. It has also the lowest value
of NPV and PIR, which makes it the worst candidate. Among all the development plan cases the
common trend is 5-6 years of payback period, which is considered acceptable and NPV ranging
between about 275-350 $ (except Case 1). Overall, the economic parameters presented in Table
E2 Appendix E support the result obtained from sensitivity analysis in Figure 39 by declaring Case
4 (11P/9I) the best development plan from financial perspective.
Economic parameters of the project
The Cash flow model of the chosen option is as below:
57
Net Cash Flow (£ million)
200,00
150,00
NCF (£ million)
100,00
50,00
0,00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
-50,00
-100,00
Years
Figure 40. Project Cash Flow Diagram

The plot of Cumulative Cash Flow was also developed and is as shown in the figure below:
Cumulative Cash Flow (£ million)

1000,00
800,00
CCF (£ million)
600,00
400,00
200,00
0,00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
-200,00
Years
Figure 41. Cumulative Cash Flow
However, most important economic parameters of the project are NPV and IRR. As it was already
mentioned above, NPV of the X-field was determined to be 340.28 £million. As this value is
positive, project can be considered economically worthwhile. It should be mentioned that such
low NPV value may be due to small size of the field, low production rates and the fact that
reference year is set to 2001. IRR was obtained by plotting discounted NPV’s against interest
rates (Figure 42).
Project NPV is equal to zero at the point when discount rate is equal to 0.32, therefore project
IRR is equal to 32 %. Considering the fact that the given discount rate is equal to 10 %, risks of
project IRR falling below this value are not as high. Generally, the obtained IRR value is
reasonable for North Sea wells [30].
58
IRR
400,00
350,00
NCF (£ million) 300,00
250,00
200,00
150,00
100,00
50,00
0,00
-50,00 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3 0,35 0,4
Interest rate
Figure 42. Project IRR
Probabilistic evaluation
Further, to better analyze the chosen development plan, worst and best case scenarios were
developed by the probabilistic approach. The summarization of obtained values is in Table 30.
Table 30. Probabilistic evaluation results
Producer/Injector Payback Period NPV
Scenario MCO TCS PIR IRR
wells (years) (£million)
11 P/10 I Ideal 6 -152.57 938.39 6.15 355.88 0.32
11 P/10 I Base 6 -140.64 940.07 6.68 340.28 0.32
11 P/10 I Worst 7 -179.20 771.94 4.31 219.18 0.23
The table illustrates what values economic parameters will hold, in cases of productivity index
being at its lowest, highest and 50 % (base case). Table 30 shows that even in the worst case of
productivity index, selected field development option will hold positive NPV and have considerable
difference in IRR and discount rate.
Sensitivity Analysis
In order to apply a sensitivity analysis to the particular chosen development plan, it was decided
to analyze how changes in several parameters impact the value of the project. Based on that,
assumptions have been made for each of the variable parameters regarding the upper and lower
limits of their possible change. Table E3 in Appendix E represents the assumptions made and the
NPV values corresponding to each variation in a parameter value. It should be noted that they
were adapted from the information from Foinaven field, the year 2000 [29].
The plot of all these parameters called Spider diagram (due to its looks) is a base for sensitivity
analysis (Figure 43).
59
Spider Diagram
1000,00
800,00
Oil Price
600,00
CAPEX
NPV ($)
400,00
OPEX
200,00
Taxation
0,00
0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 Exchange rate
-200,00
Inflation rate
-400,00
Change fraction
Figure 43. Spider Diagram - Sensitivity Analysis
Slopes of the parameter curves represent the degree that project’s NPV is sensitive to changes
in them. Grey line of OPEX has considerable slope which means that this parameter has some
influence on the project value, and as it can be changed to meet the needs, gives some liberty
over the sensitivity. The greatest slope however is with the Oil Price line, which means that its
fluctuations will considerably affect the project. Apparently, rises in oil price will increase the
project value, and if the price drops for some reason, this may lead to decreased profits or even
a negative balance. Considering the huge impact of price, a figure was plotted to estimate its
value (breakeven price) at which the project stops being economically profitable, i.e. when the
NPV is equal to zero.
Breakeven price
1000,00
800,00
NPV (£ million)
600,00
400,00
200,00
0,00
0 5 10 15 20 25
-200,00
-400,00
Oil Price ($)
Figure 44. Breakeven price
Interpolation allowed to determine that where the curve intercepts with the X-axis (NPV=0) the oil
price equals 12 $. This means that if oil price will fall to or below 12 $, the project will not be
profitable anymore. Considering the fact that current oil price is 15 $, the risks associated with it
are high.
60
Health Safety and Environment
Health, Safety and Environment issues are essential in all industries, but negligence in their
regard can result in catastrophic consequences in some processes more than others. Offshore
oil and gas operation is a good example of this. Firstly, the processes associated with it are
exposed to increased hazards in comparison with the same onshore, due to complexity of
installations and harsh weather conditions. Second of all, the already mentioned constraints in
terms of more innovative constructions imply higher investment in offshore industries than any
others. Health and safety of the personnel, environment and the finances are subject to hazard.
Therefore, all hazards should be recognized at early stages and an inherently safe design should
be implemented. This section will address HSE issues relevant to the X-field project.
UK HSE Regulations for Offshore Oil and Gas Processes
As a first step in giving an HSE overview of the project, it is in order to review laws and regulations
available. As the X-field is located in the UK sector of the North Sea, the UK offshore regulations
are used as a legal reference. Offshore petroleum operations in UK are regulated by an
independent body called Health and Safety Executive. It was established in 1975 and regulates
work place health and safety matters in all industries [31].
There are following two important pieces of UK legislation regarding offshore processes [32]:
- Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is a primary legislation piece among UK HSE
laws. It imposes responsibility on the employer, to provide employees with safe and healthy
working conditions. The provisions of the act touch on matters such as safety maintenance of
equipment, plants and systems; safety of handling dangerous substances; required HSE training
for staff and many more.
- Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations 2005 place an obligation upon the duty
holder to develop a safety case for every installation (mobile or immobile) that has to be approved
by Health and Safety Executive before the operations start up at the facility.
Other pieces of legislation in this category will be simply listed below, as their names are self –
explanatory [33].
- Diving at Work Regulations 1997
- Offshore Installations and Wells (Design and Construction, etc) Regulations 1996
- Pipelines Safety Regulations
- Offshore Installations and Pipeline Works (Management Administration) Regulations 1995
- Offshore Installations (Prevention of Fire and Explosion, and Emergency Response)
Regulations 1995
- Borehole Sites and Operations Regulations 1995
- Offshore Safety (Repeals and Modifications) Regulations 1993
- Offshore Safety Act 1992
- Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989
- Offshore Installations and Pipeline Works (First-Aid) Regulations 1989
61
Legal body responsible for environmental protection in offshore petroleum processes in UK is
Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC). It regulates offshore oil and gas processes
across all their stages from licensing to decommissioning as well as oil spills. Pieces of legislation
under DECC activities are:
- Petroleum Act 1998
- Pollution, Prevention and Control Act 1999 [34]
ISO standards
Environmental Management System ISO 14001
Development of the X-field will be conducted in accordance with ISO 14001 standards that allow
to adopt an Environmental Management System. That way, environmental performance of
operations shall be improved and amount of discharged waste reduced. This standard executes
Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle approach where environmental goals are set, processes are
implemented in the planned manner, environmental monitoring and reporting, acting to improve
the performance and then this cycle is repeated again [35].
Occupational Health and Safety ISO 45001
Another international environmental standard used in X-field operations will be ISO 45001, which
sets requirements for adoption of occupational health and safety management systems. It helps
to make processes safer and to decrease the number of workplace risks [36].
Environmental considerations
Oil and gas industry is one of the biggest contributors to overall environmental problems via
contamination of air, surface and subsurface waters, soil and depletion of ozone layer. Therefore,
all sources of pollution and other harm inflicted on environment should be identified and measures
to prevent and mitigate them should be decided on.
Waste management
• As it was decided to use oil based mud (OBM) for development drilling in X-field, it must
be taken into account, that this type of drilling fluid contains harmful ingredients such as
mercury and cadmium that can pollute the seawater and air. Generally, all drilling fluids
contain barite and bentonite clays. Environmental monitoring in waters of many offshore
fields show increased content of barium. Therefore, it is not allowed to discharge the used
muds to the sea, and the accepted practice is to ship the spent oil based drilling fluid to
the onshore, where it can be properly treated and disposed of [37].
• Disposal of the drilled cuttings is also under strict supervision. They usually have drilling
fluid content, which makes the discharge of the drilled cuttings into the sea not advisable
for the same reasons as with drilling fluids. They should be first treated to meet the
specifications and then either injected to the disposal well or shipped to the shore [37].
• Completion fluids are used for several purposes such as cleaning the wellbore, flow
stimulation etc. Usually these fluids contain solids, acids, hydrocarbons, glycols, drilling
62
mud residue and so on. It is best to avoid the discharge of such substances to sea, so it
is decided to ship the gathered and contained workover fluids to onshore treatment
facilities prior to their disposal [37].
• Rock strength calculations revealed that the formation is of high strength with minor
regions of friable sandstone present. In any case, regardless of the rock strength some
amount of produced sand will be found within the oil produced to the surface, and should
be separated from it, as hydrocarbon containing sand is harmful and can’t be discharged
into the sea. It is decided that considering small amount of expected sand production, it
can be sent to the shore for future treatment and disposal.
Water management
• Study of the reservoir revealed that a water cut up to 70 % is expected in late stages of
the field development. Moreover, according to the plan, water injection wells are drilled
and exploited in X-field from the start of its life. Considering all that, the disposal of
produced water is of great environmental importance for the project. This water will
contain in itself organic and inorganic components, chemicals etc. and therefore is a
pollutant. The water for injection will be treated in a surface water treatment unit, and any
leftover wastewater will be sent onshore for further treatment.
• In addition to water produced from the reservoir, offshore unit will also generate other
types of waste waters such as sewage water from accommodation and catering facilities,
water used for heating and cooling, drainage water etc. All this water waste should be
treated in accordance with appropriate guidelines [37].
Air emissions
• Processes in X-field like in any other offshore oil and gas operation are susceptible to air
and fugitive emissions which may include such gases as CO2, H2S and others. Possible
sources of these emissions are power generation turbines, pumps, compressors, leaking
tubing, valves and so on [37]. In order to reduce the amount of such emissions to
acceptable level, thorough design of equipment is done along with installation of metering
and alarm systems on it [38].
• Gas produced along with the oil is of small amount according to the calculations, however
it was deemed sufficient for use in gas lift. Therefore, planned flaring of the gas will not
be implemented in the X-field contributing to the reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
However, venting and flaring system will be installed for safety reasons.
• Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) sourcing from the oil and gas operations are
responsible for 21 % of overall GHG emissions. These gases trap heat in the atmosphere
and contribute to the global warming. Namely these are water vapour, CO2, methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) etc. [39]
63
Noise pollution
• According to researches, Central North Sea area is abounding with such marine mammals
as minke whales, killer whales, pilot whales, white-beaked dolphins, harbour porpoises,
harbour seals, grey seals etc. as well as many fish species [40]. These representatives of
marine wildlife are very susceptible to high levels of noise and vibration produced by
offshore oil and gas operations such as construction, installation of structures, seismic
processes, drilling, production and so on. As dictated by environmental guidelines [36],
noise and vibration of these operations should be reduced as much as possible, and
thorough research of marine environment should be conducted before the field
development. The guideline also prohibits the construction and seismic operations to be
conducted less than 500 meters away from the area of marine wildlife congregation.
Spill hazard
• Oil spills are among the biggest impact hazards to offshore oil and gas industry. Spill of
oil from installations can occur due to several reasons such as human error, equipment
incompetence, design mistakes and so on. Special spill response plan should be
developed with proper risk assessment. Prevention procedures include installation of
blowout preventers, subsea shutdown valves, leak detectors, proper maintenance of all
responsible equipment and so forth [37].
Decommissioning
• According to the field development plan the project is scheduled for a 16-year period. After
stopping of all the operations, the decommissioning should be done in compliance with
all the standards. A decommissioning plan encompassing abandonment of the wells,
elimination of hydrocarbons from the flow lines, disposal of all facilities and equipment in
safe and environmentally friendly manner will be developed and carried out when required.
Health and Safety considerations
Health and Safety of the employees is of highest importance in any operations. All possible risks
and hazards should be defined and assessed. X-field operations will execute permit to work
system in order to get better control of all hazardous operations, communication between staff
members and proper authority recognition.
Fire and explosion
• Flammable nature of hydrocarbon liquids and gases, high pressure/high temperature
operations and complexity of the processes all contribute to the high fire and explosion
hazards on an offshore platform. Therefore, all the required passive and active fire
protection and fighting equipment will be installed on the facility.
Contaminated air
• Personnel may be exposed to contaminated air due to high portion of emissions. Main
hazardous components found in air due to oil and gas activities are carbon dioxide (CO2),
64
nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
particulate matter (PM). The effects of routine exposure to these substances are various.
Long term inhalation of nitrogen oxide may result in lung disease, susceptibility to asthma,
loss of smelling ability etc. SO2 also leads to respiratory dysfunction and even premature
death when inhaled routinely and in considerable quantities. Particulate matter is the most
dangerous component for human health. It may differ in molecular size by which it is
determined where in the human respiratory system these particles will settle, further
leading to mutations in DNA, heart attacks, and lung cancer. Considering short and long
term health problems caused by all the mentioned air pollutants sourcing from oil and gas
processes, appropriate gas detection and ventilation systems shall be installed and
properly maintained at all relevant equipment [41].
Hazardous materials
• Staff of the platform is in constant danger due to handling hazardous substances that
may contain toxic chemicals. They may source from fuels or some workover substances.
For that reason, all chemicals should be taken account of, hazardous ones tried to be
reduced to minimum, and people handling them should be equipped with personal
protective equipment.
Blowout hazards
• Drilling operations carried out under high pressure may be subject to blowout hazards.
For that reason, Blowout Preventer stacks (BOP) should be installed at the wellhead to
close and prevent any uncontrolled flow of drilling fluids up the drill string.
• The hazard of reservoir fluids surging on the surface under the high pressure is relevant
at production stage as well. The measure to prevent it is installation of Subsurface Safety
Valve (SSV) as a part of completion string. Another hazard would be if the SSV doesn’t
close in the emergency case, which will have disastrous effects. Therefore, proper
maintenance should be carried out, as SSV is a passive safety measure and is not used
on the constant basis.
Perforation risk
• Completion operations also hold perforation risk. This may happen in the case when due
to malfunctioning some of the detonations remain unexploded, and when perforation
charge is removed it can damage the whole equipment. When exploded on the surface it
presents danger to human safety and life. Therefore, the requirements for safe perforation
process are radio silence at the site, no welding processes during perforation, having
safety shut down system etc. [42]
Employee safety training and personal protection
All employees involved in the activities should be provided with appropriate safety training
encompassing the correct and safe procedure of operations, emergency response scenarios,
65
firefighting, offshore life protection means etc. Moreover, the transport of employees to the
offshore facility is planned to be carried out by means of helicopters, and relevant training on this
should also be provided. All employees are obliged to wear personal protective equipment (PPE).
This should include head, body, foot, respiratory, hand and ear protection as well as safety belts
and harnesses [38].
Risk Assessment
Correct evaluation of risks is essential for any project, regardless the scale. Very simple tool in
achieving that is qualitative risk assessment done by means of risk evaluation matrix. Examples
of this matrix are ranging with great abundance. The one presented below is in basic form with
colour coding used.
Table 31. Risk matrix [43]
Impact
Probability 1) Minimal 2) Low 3) Medium 4) High 5) Extreme
1) Very unlikely 1 2 3 4 5
2) Unlikely 2 4 6 8 10
3) Feasible 3 6 9 12 15
4) Likely 4 8 12 16 20
5) Very likely 5 10 15 20 25
Risk rating Minimal 1-2 Low 3-9 Medium 10-15 High 16-20 Extreme 25
Using this table, it is possible to prepare a risk assessment for X-field project
Table 32. Risk Assessment

Probability Impact Risk
Earthquake 2 5 10
Tsunami 1 5 5
Oil spill 3 3 9
Fire 2 4 8
Explosion 2 4 8
Vessel collision 1 3 3
Wave activity 4 3 12
Lost circulation 3 3 9
Injury 4 4 16
Casualty 1 5 5
Blowout 2 5 10
Helicopter accident 2 4 8
Safety system failure 2 4 8
Uncontrolled water disposal 2 2 4
66
References
1. Kimmeridgian Shales Total Petroleum System of the North Sea Graben Province, By
Donald L. GautierBulletin.
2. North Sea Oil and Gas Reservoirs II, Proceedings of the 2nd North Sea Oil and Gas
Reservoirs Conference organized and hosted by the Norwegian Institute of Technology
(NTH), Trondheim, Norway, May 8-11, 1989, Edited by A.T. Buller, E. Berg, O.
Hjehneland, J. Kleppe, O. Tors2ter and J.O. Aasen
3. Sedimentology and sequence stratigraphy of paralic and shallow marine Upper Jurassic
sandstones in the northern Danish Central Graben, Peter N. Johannessen, Geological
Survey of Denmark and Greenland Bulletin 1, 367–402 (2003)
4. Kaspersen, H.-M. (2016). Reservoir Characterization of Jurassic Sandstones of the
Johan Sverdrup Field, Central North Sea. Oslo: University of Oslo.
5. Crain, E. R. (2015, January 1). Calculating net pay with cutoffs. Retrieved from Crain's
Petrophysical Handbook: https://www.spec2000.net/16-netpay.htm
6. "Correlations for Fluid Physical Property Prediction", M.E. Vasquez and H.D. Beggs, JPT
968 - 70, June 1980.
7. “Building A 3D Geological model using Petrel Software for Asmari Reservoir, South
Eastern Iraq”, Buraq A. Al-Baldawi, Iraqi Journal of Science, 2015, Vol 56, No.2C, pp:
1750-1762.
8. Onur, M. and Reynolds, A.C., "A New Approach for Constructing Derivative Type Curves
for Well Test Analysis," SPE Formation Evaluation, March 1988, pp. 197-206.
9. Buckley, S.E., and Leverett, M.C., “Mechanism of Fluid Displacement in Sands”, Trans.
AIME 1942.
10. Arps, J. J. (1945, December 1), “Analysis of Decline Curves”, Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
11. “Depletion and Decline Curve Analysis in Crude Oil Production”, Mikael Höök, Global
Energy Systems Department for Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, May 2009.
12. “Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering”, L. P. Dake, 1998, Chapter 3, Page 71-74.
13. “Linking Risk and Uncertainties to Field Development Planning In Challenging
Environments”, Stephen S. Kuo, Society of Petroleum Engineers Distinguished Lecturer
Program, 2011.
14. RAHMAN S.S & CHILINGARIAN G.V , “Casing design theory and practice”, Elsevier,
1995.
15. Jones RD; Rose J; Lurie P; Hibbert ED, “Design, Planning, Implementation &
Management of a Multi-Lateral Well on the BP Forties filed: A North Sea Case History”,
SPE 38494, 1997.
67
16. Denholm J.M, “North Sea Development Drilling South East Forties: A Case Study”, SPE,
1987.
17. Stewart D.J, “Diagenesis of the Shallow Marine Fulmar Formation in the Central North
Sea”, Mineralogical Society, 1986.
18. Hough R.B & Coumans H, “Drilling Performance: The Struggle to improve”, SPE, 1985.
19. Medley E.L & Dent W.F, “Review of drilling operations- Montrose field”, SPE, 1979.
20. Valenti N.P & Buckles R.S, “Numerical Simulations of the North Sea Fulmar Oil Field:
Evaluating Reservoir Depletion Strategies”, SPE 15871, 1986.
21. Heriot-Watt University. (2012). Drilling Engineering. Edinburgh
22. Crain, E. R. (2015, January 1). Calculating elastic constants/mechanical properties.
Retrieved from Crain's Petrophysical Handbook: https://www.spec2000.net/10-
mechprop.htm
23. Chapter 5, Sand Management. (2016). In Heriot-Watt University, Production Technology
2 (p. 156). Edinburgh
24. Chapter 2, Perforating. (2016). In Heriot-Watt University, Production Technology 2 (p.
46). Edinburgh
25. Subsurface Safety Valve Basics. (2017, December 10). Retrieved from Production
Technology: https://production-technology.org/subsurface-safety-valve/#more-1503
26. Safety Valves. (2015). Retrieved from Wiper Trip:
http://www.wipertrip.com/completion/design/54-safety-valves.html
27. American Petroleum Institute. (2005). API Specification 14. Specification for Subsurface
Safety Valve.
28. Casing Data Sheet. (2014). Retrieved from Drilling Formulas:
http://www.drillingformulas.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Casing-Data-sheet.pdf
29. Heriot-Watt University. (2016). Energy and Petroleum Economics, G10EE. Edinburgh:
Heriot-Watt University.
30. Nystad, A. N. (1981). Economic Analysis of the North Sea Oil and Gas Region. Journal
of Petroleum Technology.
31. Delefosse, M. R. (2017). Marine mammal sightings around oil and gas installations in the
central North Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom,
1-9.
32. Det Norske Veritas for the Health and Safety Executive. (2001). Offshore Technology
report. Marine risk assessment. London: Det Norske Veritas.
33. Falck Nutec BV. (2008). Basic Safety Offshore. Revision 005 NL.
34. Healthy Working Lives. (2014, July 16). Health and Safety Legislation. Retrieved from
Healthy Working Lives: http://www.healthyworkinglives.com/advice/Legislation-and-
policy/Workplace-Health-and-Safety/health-safety-legislation
68
35. Heriot-Watt University. (2016). Production Technology 2. Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt
University.
36. International Organization for Standardization . (2015). Introduction to ISO 14001:2015.
Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
37. International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 45001. Geneva: International
Organization for Standardization.
38. Jancovici, J.-M. (2007, August 1). What gases are greenhouse gases? Retrieved from
https://jancovici.com/en/climate-change/ghg-and-carbon-cycle/what-gases-are-
greenhouse-gases/
39. Offshore health and safety law. (n.d.). Retrieved from Health and Safety Executive:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/law.htm
40. Oil & Gas UK. (n.d.). The Statutory Regime. Retrieved from Environmental Legislation
Website: https://oilandgasukenvironmentallegislation.co.uk/contents/pages/statutory.htm
41. The Health and Safety Consultancy. (1999). Management of Health and Safety at Work
Regulations . Retrieved from The Health and Safety Consultancy:
http://www.thehealthandsafetyconsultancy.co.uk/guides/riskrating.asp
42. World Bank Group. (2015). Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines Offshore Oil
and Gas Development. World Bank Group.
43. World Health Organization. (2013). Health effects of particulate matter. Copenhagen:
World Health Organization.
44. Rowan Drilling. (2014). LeTourneau Technologies Super Gorilla Class Jack-Up.
Retrieved from Rowan Companies.
69
Appendix
Appendix A
Figure 1. Composite log of well X1
70
71
72
73
74
75
Figure 7. Lithological Correlation of Well X2, X1, X5
76
Figure 8. Lithological Correlation of Wells X4, X6, X3
77
Pressure(psi)
5600 5650 5700 5750 5800 5850 5900 5950 6000
10400
10500
10600
10700
TVD(ft)
10800
10900
11000
11100
11200
Figure 9. RFT for X1
Pressure(psi)
5600 5650 5700 5750 5800 5850 5900 5950
10000
10200
10400
10600
10800
TVD(ft)
11000
11200
11400
11600
11800
12000
78
Pressure(psi)
5500 5550 5600 5650 5700 5750 5800 5850
10000
10100
10200
10300
10400
TVD(ft)
10500
10600
10700
10800
10900
Figure 12. Saturation Distribution
79
Figure 13 Porosity Distribution
Figure 14 Net to Gross (NTG) Distribution
80
Figure 15 Thickness Distribution
Figure 16 Permeability Distribution
81
Appendix B
Relative
Gas
oil Bo below
P expansion Bg
volume at Pb
factor
P and T
(psia)
1895 1
1729 0.9812 1.399714693 99.7 0.0100
1444 0.9497 1.354778887 82 0.0122
1160 0.9196 1.311840228 65 0.0154
875 0.8893 1.268616262 48.4 0.0207
591 0.8569 1.222396576 32.1 0.0312
306 0.817 1.165477889 16.3 0.0613
170 0.7867 1.122253923 9 0.1111
110 0.7688 1.096718973 5.7 0.1754
14.7 0.701 1
Table 1. PVT analysis
Pressure Bo Pressure Relative Volume

VBP at 250F =
psia psia 1.00
5722 1.32306 6000 0.949
5400 1.328824 5500 0.953
5300 1.330619 5000 0.958
5200 1.332417 4500 0.963
4800 1.339631 4000 0.968
4700 1.341441 3500 0.974
4100 1.352351 3000 0.984
4000 1.354178 2500 0.989
3900 1.356007 2000 0.997
3500 1.363349 1813 1.000
3400 1.365191 1700 1.030
3000 1.372583 1600 1.062
2900 1.374437 1500 1.100
2800 1.376294 1000 1.453
2700 1.378153 800 1.754
2100 1.380015 600 2.294
2000 1.381879 400 3.445
1900 1.387487 200 7.064
1800 1.389362 150 9.528
Viscosity Viscosity
Pressure Pressure
(X1) (X2)
psia centipoise psia centipoise
5849 0.48 6000 0.50
5419 0.47 5700 0.49
4995 0.47 5000 0.47
4566 0.46 4280 0.45
4139 0.45 3570 0.43
82
3712 0.45 2860 0.42
3286 0.44 2150 0.40
2859 0.44 1863 0.39
2432 0.43 1720 0.39
2005 0.43 1440 0.41
1895 0.43 1150 0.44
1579 0.44 870 0.46
1152 0.47 585 0.54
868 0.5 300 0.58
583 0.54 160 0.61
299 0.59 14.7 1.26
14 0.67
Figure 1. Monte Carlo Simulation Matlab Code
Figure 2. Porosity distribution (bird eye view)
Figure 3. Porosity distribution (cross sectional view)
83
Figure 2. Water saturation distribution (bird eye view)
Figure 5. Water saturation distribution (cross sectional view)
Figure 6. STOIIP distribution (bird eye view)
84
Rel Perm curve
0,900
0,800
0,700
0,600
0,500
0,400
0,300
0,200
0,100
0,000
-0,1000,000 0,200 0,400 0,600 0,800 1,000 1,200
Krw Kro
Figure 7. Rel.perm. curve for first and second compartments
Semi log plot

1000
100
10
Kro/Krw
y = 1884,8e-16,25x
1
0,1
0,01
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7
Sw
Figure 8. Rel. perm. Ratio vs. Water saturation
Figure 9. DCA Matlab Code
85
Figure 10. Material Balance Calculations (Base case)
Field plan (Best case)

300 7000
250 6000
Rate (mstb/day)
Pressure (psia)
200 5000
4000
150
3000
100 2000
50 1000
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Years
Oil production Water production Water injection Pressure
Figure 11. Field Plan (Best case)
86
Field plan (Best case)
300 8000
Rate (mstb/day)
250
Pressure (psia)
6000
200
150 4000
100
2000
50
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Years
Oil production Water production

Water injection Pressure
Figure 12. Field Plan with new injection rates (Best case)
Field plan (Worst case)

250 7000
6000
200
Rate (mstb/day)
Pressure (psia)
5000
150 4000
100 3000
2000
50
1000
0 0
0 5 10 15 20
Years
Figure 13. Field Plan (Worst case)
Field plan (Worst case)

350 7000
300 6000
Rate (mstb/day)
Pressure (psia)
250 5000
200 4000
150 3000
100 2000
50 1000
0 0
0 5 10 15 20
Years
Figure 14. Field Plan with new injection rates (Worst case)
87
Appendix C
Appendix C.1: Pressure profile
Pore pressure data was taken from Central North Sea pressure profile and RFT data. Hence,
Eaton’s method was used to calculate fracture pressure.
𝜎𝑓𝑟 – fracture pressure, 𝑣 – Poisson’s ratio, 𝜎𝑜𝑣 – overburden pressure, 𝜎𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑒 – pore pressure
Poisson’s ratio was taken from the graph below for different formations type.
Figure C.1.1: Poisson’s ratio for different formation types
Overburden pressure gradient was taken as 1 psi/ft. Central North Sea pore pressure values and
fracture pressure values which obtained from above equation were shown below.
Table C.1.1: Pore and fracture pressure
Pore pressure Overburden Poisson Fracture pressure

Depth (ft)
(psi) pressure (psi) ratio (psi)
270 119.36 270 0.17 150.214

3280.84 1450.377 3280.84 0.17 1825.291
4593.176 2320.603 4593.176 0.25 3078.127
4921.26 2900.754 4921.26 0.31 3808.518
6233.596 4061.056 6233.596 0.31 5037.124
6561.68 4641.206 6561.68 0.31 5504.028
8202.1 5511.433 8202.1 0.31 6720.283
8858.268 5801.508 8858.268 0.28 6990.248
9842.52 6236.621 9842.52 0.28 7638.915
10000 6300 10000 0.28 7738.889
10100 5570 10100 0.1 6073.333
88
10200 5600 10200 0.1 6111.111
10280 5640 10280 0.1 6155.556
10400 5650 10400 0.1 6177.778
10500 5685 10500 0.1 6220
10550 5705 10550 0.1 6243.333
10565 5710 10565 0.1 6249.444
10600 5720 10600 0.1 6262.222
10700 5775 10700 0.1 6322.222
10800 5820 10800 0.1 6373.333
11100 5920 11100 0.1 6495.556
As pore pressure, fracture pressure and overburden pressure is known, PPFG plot can be easily
determined. All obtained pressures were converted into gradient and plotted as graph. Also, 0.5
ppg safety margin was added due to the fact that all pressure values were taken from general
pressure values of Central Graben.
Pressure gradient (ppg)

6,00 8,00 10,00 12,00 14,00 16,00 18,00
0
2000
4000
Depth (ft)
6000
8000
10000
12000
Pore pressure Fracture pressure

Pore pressure safety margin Fracture pressure safety margin
Figure C.1.2: PPFG plot
Appendix C.2: Kick imposed pressure analysis

For determining correct surface casing setting depth kick imposed pressure analysis was done
by below equation.
89
𝑃𝑘 𝐷𝑖
= 𝑆𝑀 ( ) + 𝐺𝑝𝑓
𝐷𝑠 𝐷𝑠
𝑃𝑘 -kick imposed pressure; 𝐷𝑠 -setting depth of surface casing; 𝑆𝑀- safety margin; 𝐷𝑖 -setting depth
of intermediate casing; 𝐺𝑝𝑓 -formation fluid gradient
It was assumed that safety margin is 0.5 ppg. Setting depth of the next intermediate casing, pore
pressure and fracture pressure were taken from PPFG plot. Below table illustrates all required
data and kick imposed pressure values.
Table C.2.1: Kick imposed pressure determination

Surface casing Intermediate Fracture
Pore pressure Kick pressure
setting depth casing setting pressure
gradient (ppg) gradient (ppg)
(ft) depth (ft) gradient (ppg)
1000 4921 8.46 10.77 10.92
2000 4921 8.46 10.77 9.69
3000 4921 8.46 10.77 9.28
4000 4921 9.81 12.88 10.42
5000 4921 11.35 14.81 11.84
6000 4921 12.50 15.58 12.91
7000 4921 13.46 16.15 13.81
8000 4921 12.12 15.77 12.42
9000 4921 12.12 15.19 12.39
Appendix C.3: Casing grade and weight selection
For determining casing grade, burst and collapse pressures were calculated for each casing
string. However, these calculations are longer, that is why calculation process was provided only
for surface casing. Results were given for other casings as well.
Surface casing
Table C.3.1: Data for calculations
Casing size 20 inches
Setting depth 4267 ft
Pore pressure above 3700 ft 9.5 ppg
MW in which the casing is to be run 9.9 ppg
Depth of next (17-1/2’’) hole 4930 ft
Max. pore pressure at bottom of 17-1/2’’ hole 11.4
Frac. Pressure gradient at the 20’’ shoe 12.1
Expected gas gradient 0.1 psi/ft
90
Burst design:
Internal load: It was assumed that gas influx has happened and well is occupied with gas to
surface.
1) Pore pressure at bottom of open hole = 11.4x4930x0.052=2922.5 psi

2) Pressure at surface = Pressure at bottom of 17-1/2’’ hole – pressure of gas kick
= 2922.5 – (0.1x4930) = 2429.5 psi
3) Pressure at casing shoe = 2922.5 – 0.1x4267 = 2495.8 psi
4) Leak off test pressure at 20’’ casing shoe = 12.1x4267x0.052 = 2684.8 psi
It can be seen that fracture pressure is higher than the pressure at casing shoe that is why
maximum pressure at the casing shoe will be taken as a 2495.8 psi.
External load: It was assumed that pore pressure is acting at the casing shoe.
1) Pore pressure at the casing shoe = 9.5x4267x0.052 = 2107.9 psi

2) Externally applied pressure at the surface = 0 psi
Table C.3.2: Summary of burst pressure
External Internal Net Design

pressure pressure pressure pressure
Depth (ft) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi)
0 0 2429.504 2429.504 2672.454
4267 2107.898 2495.804 387.906 426.6966
Collapse design:
Internal load: It was assumed that casing is totally empty due to loss circulation.
1) Pressure at surface = 0 psi

2) Pressure at casing shoe = 0 psi
External load: It was assumed that pore pressure is applied at the casing shoe.
1) Pore pressure at the shoe = 9.5 x 4267 x 0.052 = 2107.9 psi

2) Pressure at surface = 0 psi
91
Table C.3.3: Summary of collapse pressure

Depth
(ft)
(psi) (psi) (psi) (psi)
0 0 0 0 0
4267 2107.898 0 2107.898 2107.898
Casing selection
Pressure (psi) Pressure(psi)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000
0 0
1000 1000
Depth (ft)
Depth(ft)
2000 2000
3000 3000
4000 4000
5000 5000
External load Internal load Net load External load Design load
Design load K55, 133 lb/ft K55, 169 lb/ft K55, 133 K55, 169
Figure C.3.1: Burst design Figure C.3.2: Collapse design
Table C.3.4: Surface casing characteristics
Collapse Burst pressure

Size (inches) Depth (ft) Grade Weight (lb/ft)
pressure (psi) (psi)
20 0-3000 K55 133 1500 3036
20 3000-4267 K55 169 2500 3230
Intermediate casing
Burst design:
Internal load: It was assumed that gas influx has happened and well is occupied with gas to
surface.
External load: It was assumed that pore pressure is acting at the casing shoe.
92
Table C.3.5: Burst design
External Internal Net load Design

Depth (ft)
load (psi) load (psi) (psi) load (psi)
0 0 3321.637 3321.6368 3653.8
4930 2491.819 3814.637 1322.8176 1455.099
Collapse design:
Internal load: It was assumed that casing is totally empty due to loss circulation.
External load: It was assumed that pore pressure is applied at the casing shoe.
Table C.3.6: Collapse design
External Internal Design

Depth Net load
load load load
0 0 0 0 0
4930 2922.504 0 2922.504 2922.504
Casing selection
Pressure(psi) Pressure(psi)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000
0 0
1000 1000
2000 2000
Depth(ft)
Depth(ft)
3000 3000
4000 4000
5000 5000
6000 6000
External load Internal load Net load External load Design load
Design load P110, 85 lb/ft P110, 85 lb/ft
Figure C.3.3: Burst pressure Figure C.3.4: Collapse pressure
Table C.3.6: Intermediate casing characteristics
Size (inches) Depth (ft) Grade Weight (lb/ft) Collapse Burst pressure
13-3/8 0-4930 P110 85 4690 8750
93
Production casing
Burst design:
Internal load: It was assumed that leakage encountered in the tubing at the surface and closed in
tubing pressure was measured at the surface. CITHP will act on the packer fluid column and this
pressure acts only till top of liner.
External load: It was assumed that pore pressure is applied at the liner depth.

Depth (ft) pressure pressure pressure pressure
0 0 4131.456 4131.456 4544.602
10000 5853.9 9071.456 3217.556 3539.312
Collapse design:
Internal load: It was assumed that casing is fully empty because of gas lift process.
External load: It was assumed that maximum pressure is applied on the casing.

0 0 0 0 0
10000 6718.4 0 6718.4 6718.4
Casing selection
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0 0
2000
2000
4000
Depth(ft)
6000 4000
Depth(ft)
8000 6000
10000
8000
12000
10000
Design load L-80, 58.4 lb/ft
External load Internal load 12000
Net load Design load L-80, 58.4 lb/ft
94
Table C.3.9: Production casing characteristics
Size (inches) Depth (ft) Grade Weight (lb/ft) Collapse Burst pressure
9-5/8 0-10000 L80 58.4 7890 8650
Production liner
The same scenarios were considered for production liner as production casing.
Burst design

0 0 4114.32 4114.32 4525.752
10700 5601.96 5689.32 87.36 96.096
Collapse design

Depth
(ft)
0 0 0 0 0
10700 5689.32 0 5689.32 5689.32
Casing selection
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0 0
2000
2000
4000
Depth(ft)
6000 4000
Depth(ft)
8000 6000
10000
8000
12000
10000
Design load HCL-80, 26 lb/ft
External load Internal load 12000
Net load Design load HCL-80, 26 lb/ft

95
Table C.3.12: Production liner characteristics
Collapse Burst pressure

Size (inches) Depth (ft) Grade Weight (lb/ft)
7 9500-10700 HCL-80 26 7800 7240
Appendix C.4: Cement design

Table C.4.1: Required data for cement design
Casing size 20'' 13.375'' 9.625'' 7''

Previous casing ID 28 in 18.376 in 12.125 in 8.435 in
Previous casing shoe
350 ft 4267 ft 4971 ft 10927ft
depth MD
Casing setting depth 10427-
4267 ft 4971 ft 10927 ft
MD 11529 ft
Rathole length 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 20 ft
Shoetrack length 60 ft 60 ft 60 ft 60 ft
Table C.4.2: Cement volume calculations

Casing size 20'' 13.375'' 9.625'' 7''
Annulus volume
733.04 259.81 88.97 60.40
casing/casing
Annulus volume casing/open
7075.73 586.83 2238.42 91.61
hole (20% excess)
Rathole volume (20% excess) 132.73 60.13 49.11 9.46
Shoetrack volume 108.26 46.88 23.28 12.89
Total volume 8049.76 953.66 2399.78 174.36
Number of sxs. cement 6098.30 829.27 2086.76 151.61
Mixwater volume 5135.93 554.29 1394.80 101.34
Sample calculation for surface casing (20’’) :
Table C.4.3: Required data for calculation
Casing setting depth 4267 ft

Previous casing shoe depth 350 ft
Excess 20%
Hole size 26’’
Rathole length 30 ft
Shoe track length 60 ft
96
Yield of cement 1.32
Mix water 6.3 gal/sk
282 −202 𝜋
1) 30’’ Casing/ 20’’ Casing annulus volume = ∗ 350 ∗ = 733 𝑓𝑡 3
144 4
262 −202 𝜋
2) 26’’ open hole/ 20’’ casing volume(20% excess) = ∗ (4267 − 350) ∗ ∗ 1.2 = 7076 𝑓𝑡 3
144 4
262 𝜋
3) Rathole volume (20% excess) = 144 ∗ 30 ∗ 4 = 133 𝑓𝑡 3
18.1882 𝜋
4) Shoetrack volume = 144
∗ 60 ∗ 4 = 109 𝑓𝑡 3
5) Total slurry volume = 8050 𝑓𝑡 3
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑦 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 8050

6) No. Sxs cement = 𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
= 1.32
= 6099 𝑠𝑘
𝑔𝑎𝑙
7) Mixwater requirement = 6099 𝑠𝑘 ∗ 6.3 𝑠𝑘
∗ 0.133681 𝑓𝑡 3 = 5136 𝑓𝑡 3
Appendix C.5: Directional drilling design

X-3 well trajectory calculation:
TVD of target =10700 ft
Horizontal displacement of target 3281 ft
Kick off point (KOP) = 4300 ft
Build up rate/100ft = 3 degrees
Figure C.4.1: Naming of parameters
3 100
1) Radius of curved area = 360 = 2𝜋𝑅 → 𝑅 = 1909.86 𝑓𝑡
𝑑−𝑅 3281−1910
2) 𝑥 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 ( 𝐷
) = 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 (10700−4300) = 12°
97
𝑅𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑥 1909.86∗𝑐𝑜𝑠12
3) y = 𝑠𝑖𝑛−1 ( 𝐷
) = 𝑠𝑖𝑛−1 ( 10700−4300
) = 16.97°
4) 𝛼 = 𝑥 + 𝑦 = 29°
2∗𝜋∗1910∗29 10700−5227.6
5) Measured depth till target = 4300 + + = 11529 𝑓𝑡
360 cos(29°)
Appendix D
Table D.1.1 Given and some assumed data
tubing length (ft) 10500

gas gradient (psi/ft) 0.012
reservoir pressure (psi) 5720
overbalance(psi) 200
packer fluid(psi/ft) 0.52
Injected water gradient (psi/ft) 0.447
Maximum injection pressure (psi) 1585
Table D.2.1 Burst pressure determination for production well
Burst
Depth External Internal Net Design
Surface 0 5794 5794 7532.2
Shoe 5460 5920 460 598
Table D.2.2 Collapse pressure determination for production well
Collapse
Surface 0 0 0 0
Shoe 5460 0 5460 6142.5
𝑃𝐶𝑂2 = 0.166 ∗ 1800 = 29.88 𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑎
𝑃𝐻2 𝑆 = 0.9 ∗ 10−6 ∗ 1800 = 0.00162 𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑎
98
Figure D.1.1 Production tubing material selection chart
Table D.3.1 Burst pressure determination for injection well
Burst
Surface 0 1585 1585 2060.5
Shoe 0 6432.715 6432.715 8362.5295
Table D.3.2 Collapse pressure determination for injection well
Collapse
Surface 0 0 0 0
Shoe 5639.4 0 5639.4 6344.325
99
Figure D.2.1. Sensitivity analysis for gas injection rate, water cut and oil production at 4000 psi
reservoir pressure
Figure D.2.2 Sensitivity analysis for gas injection rate, water cut and oil production at 3500 psi
reservoir pressure
100
Figure D.2.3 Sensitivity analysis for gas injection rate, water cut and oil production at 3000 psi
reservoir pressure
Maximum top node determination for 1st compartment:
𝑃𝑡𝑛 + 𝑃ℎ𝑦𝑑 < 𝑃𝑓𝑟
𝑃𝑡𝑛 + 0.447 ∗ 10845 = 11.4 ∗ 0.052 ∗ 10845
𝑃𝑡𝑛 =1585psi
Thus, maximum injection pressure is 1585psi.
Maximum top node determination for 2nd compartment:
𝑃𝑡𝑛 + 𝑃ℎ𝑦𝑑 < 𝑃𝑓𝑟
𝑃𝑡𝑛 + 0.447 ∗ 10560 = 11.6 ∗ 0.052 ∗ 10560
𝑃𝑡𝑛 = 1650𝑝𝑠𝑖
Thus, maximum injection pressure is 1650psi.
101
Figure 3 Maximum water injection rate for the second compartment
102
Appendix E
Table E3. Input Data

Item Units Value
Inflation rate % 3
Oil price $/bbl. 15
Exchange rate $/£ 1.5
Oil tariff rate £/bbl. 0.6
Discount rate % 10
Taxation % 30
Figure E1. OPEX per barrel in UK North Sea for 2000 ( Heriot-Watt University, 2016)
Table E2. Output parameters
Producer/Injector well Payback

Case MCO TCS PIR NPV (£million) IRR
numbers Period (years)
1 19 P/18 I 6.00 -140.64 419.65 2.98 128.26 0.22

2 15 P/15 I 6.00 -140.64 761.86 5.42 286.35 0.30
3 13 P/13 I 6.00 -140.64 787.56 5.60 322.25 0.31
4 11 P/9 I 6.00 -140.64 940.07 6.68 340.28 0.32
5 9 P/9 I 6.00 -140.64 898.09 6.39 322.50 0.33
6 7 P/7 I 5.00 -135.31 778.60 5.75 276.42 0.32
103
Table E3. Sensitivity parameters
Base case Upper Limit Lower Limit
Parameters
Value NPV Fraction Value NPV Fraction Value NPV
Oil Price ($/bbl) 15.00 340.28 1.33 20.00 917.65 0.67 15.00 -237.10
CAPEX (£ million) 727.14 340.28 1.25 908.93 391.75 0.90 654.43 211.60
OPEX ($/bbl) 3.50 340.28 1.43 5.00 536.69 0.71 2.50 45.65
Taxation (%) 30.00 340.28 1.10 33.00 414.51 0.90 27.00 266.04
Exchange rate ($/£) 1.50 340.28 1.15 1.73 456.35 0.90 1.35 204.01
Inflation rate (%) 3.00 340.28 1.50 4.50 496.97 0.50 1.50 202.33
104

FDPGroup4FinalReport PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FDPGroup4FinalReport PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

School of Engineering & Physical Sciences

B.Eng. Petroleum Engineering

Field Development Project

Academic Year 2017-2018

Section Responsible Person

Supervisor: Elkhan Ahmadov

Figure 1. X-Field Top Structure Map

Figure 2. 2D Seismic profile for Well X-1

Capilary Pressure & Water Saturation

1200 Por 22.6%, Perm 100mD

Por 19%, Perm 1mD

Por 18.8%, Perm 8mD

Por 16.2%, Perm 1mD

Por 27.4%, Perm 3600mD

Figure 3. Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure for well X5.

Shale cut-off Porosity cut-off Saturation cut-off

Figure 5. Cross section of field for wells X2, X1 and X5

Bo (R B/STB) 1.323 1.395

Oil compressibility (10-6 Psi -1) 10.4 18

Table 4. Average reservoir fluid composition

𝐵𝑜 = 𝐵𝑜𝑏 exp (𝑐𝑜 (𝑃𝑏𝑝 − 𝑃)) (7)

Figure 7. Bo vs. Pressure relationship (well X-1)

Figure 8. Bg vs. Pressure relationship (well X-1)

Figure 9. Viscosity vs. Pressure relationship (well X-1)

Viscosity vs. Pressure

Figure 10. Viscosity vs. Pressure relationship (well X-2)

Figure 11. Relative volume relationship (well X-2)

1,34 × 0,71 × 0,24 × (1 − 0,23)

Table 8. Deterministic STOIIP values

Table 9. Three cases output

Figure 15. P10, P50 and P90 analysis

Figure 17. Permeability distribution (bird eye view)

Figure 18. Permeability distribution (cross-sectional view)

Figure 19. Well locations (green-producer, blue-injector)

Figure 20. Fractional flow curve

0,4 360 days

Figure 21. Water saturation profile for first well

Well Tbreakthrough (years) Well life (years)

Field Development Plan

𝑁𝑝 (𝐵𝑜 + (𝑅𝑝 − 𝑅𝑠 )𝐵𝑔 )

Figure 22. Well schedule

Field Plan (Base case)

Oil production Water production Water injection Reservoir pressure

Figure 23. Field development plan (Base case)

Field Plan (Base case)

Figure 24. Alternative field development plan (Base case)

Figure 25 Risk matrix for a field development plan

Figure 26: Location of rig

Pressure profile of X field

Figure 27: Lithology of Fulmar field

Figure 28: Pressure profiles of Central Graben and Montrose field

Figure 29: Pressure profile of X field

Pressure gradient (ppg)

Pore pressure Fracture pressure

Figure 30: Casing setting depth selection

Figure 31: Kick imposed pressure analysis

Casing weight and grade determination

Drilling fluid selection

Intermediate casing (4297-4960 ft)

Production casing (4960-10000 ft)

Bit Offset and WOB

Production liner (10000-10700 ft)