6 Key Considerations and Recommendations - Compress

Marcel&Conrad
Marcel&Conrad for Reservoir Engineering Team B
Wytch Farm Field

development project
Plan, results and key recommendations
March 2012
Marcel&Conrad for Team B
Wytch Farm Field development Project
This page is intentionally left blank

Marcel&Conrad for Reservoir Engineering Team B
Wytch Farm Field

development project
Plan, results and key recommendations
March 2012
Mohammed Alshawaf
Lanray Hammed Bakare
Francisco J. Barroso Viseras
Aristeidis Karamessinis
Ha Nguyen
Shi Su
Health, Safety and Environment statement
Marcel&Conrad’s Health and Safety Policy Statement complies with the Health and
Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
Our statement of general policy is:
 to provide adequate control of the health and safety risks arising from our work
activities;
 to consult with our employees on matters affecting their health and safety;
 to ensure no negative impact of our activities on the environment;
 to provide and maintain safe facilities and equipment;
 to ensure safe handling and use of substances;
 to provide information, instruction and supervision for employees;
 to ensure all employees are competent to do their tasks, and to give them adequate
training;
 to prevent accidents and cases of work-related ill health;
 to maintain safe and healthy working conditions; and
 to review and revise this policy as necessary at regular intervals.
Signed by:
Marcel, Chief Executive
Date: 22th of March 2012

2012
Marcel&Conrad
Petroleum System & Reservoir Characterisation
 Source rock: Liassic Mudstone
 Reservoir rock: Sherwood Sandstone
 Cap rock: Mercia Mudstone

10km
 Oil accumulation: fault trap with
Wytch Farm field within Dorset county migration during the basin extensional
period
Field Development
 Natural mechanisms allow low

recovery
 Water injection strategy
 Environmental constraints
Project economics
Mitigation scheme and recommendations
 Environmental regulations
upheld
 High profitability achieved
 Shrewd reservoir management
practices planned
 Efficient mitigation schemes
designed
Contents
7,492 words
Introduction 9
1. Characterising the reservoir 11
Petroleum system 12
Reservoir structure 12
Description of heterogeneities 14
Rock and fluid properties 16
Reservoir modeling 19
Volumetric estimation and associated uncertainties 22
2. Developing the field 23

Reservoir drive mechanisms 24
Production strategy 25
Drilling strategy 27
Development strategy results 30
Export and surface facilities 31
HSE policy 32
Field abandonment and decommissioning 34
Project lifecycle 34
3. Engineering design 35
Well performance 36
Surface facilities 39
Hydrocarbon export 43
4. Economic evaluation 47
Expenditures 48
Cash flows and economic evaluation 49
5. Uncertainties and risk management 53

Assessing the uncertainties 54
Risk mitigation scheme 57
6. Key considerations and recommendations 61

References 62
Appendices 63
(key figures page)
$735 million
Net Present Value of the project
318 million
Stock tank barrels of recoverable oil
23 years
Production plan
This page is intentionally left blank

Marcel&Conrad for Team B 9
Introduction
Aim & Objectives
The scope of the report is to demonstrate and justify the development proposal for
Wytch Farm field.
The integrity of the project will be ensured by meeting both HSE and economic
constraints while optimising the reservoir management and the surface facility strategies.
This is the third in a series of studies focused on Wytch Farm field. Appraisal,
characterisation and modelling as well as simulation and optimisation were previously
carried out.
Location and context
The Wytch Farm field is located in the southern coast of the United Kingdom. It
lies beneath Poole Harbour and the surrounding Purbeck region of Dorset, and extends
eastward towards Bournemouth. The reservoir, the Sherwood Sandstone, a Triassic
fluvial sandstone, is approximately located at 1,600 m beneath the surface.
Figure 1
Location of the Wytch Farm Field and appraisal wells
10
The field extends from onshore blocks PL089 and PL259, to offshore block 98/6.
As part of the exploration programme, a dataset was acquired to appraise and ultimately
define the recoverable assets of the Sherwood sandstone reservoir.
Environmental considerations are a key aspect in this project. The onshore areas are
designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a Heritage Coast, and the area
have statutory National Nature Reserves and Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
Consequently, any development strategy proposed will assess and try to minimise
any potential adverse impact on this particularly sensitive environment. Specifically, the
location and the size of the surface facilities, the number of wells and their location will
be carefully considered in order to minimise the environmental, economic (tourism),
aesthetic and noise impact among others.
1. Characterising the reservoir

12
Petroleum system
The petroleum system at Wytch Farm comprises a Triassic Sherwood Sandstone

reservoir, Mercia Mudstone seal and a Liassic Mudstone source. The Sherwood
Sandstone and Mercia Mudstone represent an upwardly fining stratigraphic sequence
related to an unsuccessful attempt to open the north Atlantic1. This produced an excellent
reservoir and seal pair. The source rock was formed later during marine transgression and
a successful rift of the central Atlantic. Despite being stratigraphically above the
reservoir, extensive faulting in the region continued creating rotated fault blocks as shown
in Figure 2. This not only enabled hydrocarbons to migrate but also formed traps within
the Sherwood Sandstone.
Figure 2
Wytch Farm petroleum system map showing hydrocarbon migration and traps
SOURCE: adapted from Underhill and Stonely, 1988
Reservoir structure
The structure of the Sherwood reservoir is a fault sealed, 3-way dip closed anticlinal
structure, cut by a series of west-east trending normal faults. The reservoir is
characterised into four zones based upon fluid flow properties for application within a
reservoir model. From the depositional point of view this corresponds to the seven zones
presented in Table 1.
1
Reference 7
Table 1
Depositional characteristics of the zones
Zone Characteristics
Thick, laterally extensive low-permeability, low-porosity,
1 Lacustrine lacustrine/playa deposits of the Upper-Sherwood. In outcrop, seen
as gradational transition into Mercia Mudstone.
Multi-storey A maximum 40 m thick multi-storey channel deposits with thinner
2
channel deposits interbedded floodplain muds, within the oil-pay zone.
3 Floodplain Laterally extensive low-permeability, low-porosity flooding events.
Multi-Lateral Multi-lateral stacked braided channel system of high net-to-gross
4
braided Channels sand, part of principal reservoir within pay-zone.
5 Floodplain Laterally extensive low-permeability, low-porosity flooding events.
Multi-Lateral Multi-lateral stacked braided channel system of high net-to-gross

6
braided Channels sand. Beneath the OWC and not within oil-pay zone.
A maximum 40 m thick multi-storey channel deposits with thinner

Multi-storey
7 interbedded floodplain muds, beneath the OWC and not within the
channel deposits
oil-pay zone.
A reliable top reservoir map (Figure 3) was derived using the following 2-step
approach. First, the 3D seismic survey was processed in order to be zero-phase and to
allow the top reservoir horizon picking. Secondly, based on the geological history of the
area and the checkshots data, time to depth conversion was used to build a velocity
model. The top reservoir horizon picked in the time domain was therefore converted into
the final depth map.
Figure 3
Top Sherwood map from geophysical interpretation
14
Description of Heterogeneities
Structural and sedimentological heterogeneities are both present in Sherwood

reservoir. These heterogeneities affect reservoir continuity and potential sweep efficiency
on different scales, and are analysed in determining reservoir architecture and degree of
compartmentalisation as it is shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Hierarchy and impact of structural and stratigraphic reservoir heterogeneities
Compartmentalisation
Laterally extensive
Flow tortuosity
Barrier
Baffle
Heterogeneity Scale
 
Structural
Sealing Fault Giga
Non-sealing Fault Giga 
Lacustrine muds Mega   
Flood deposit muds Mega   
Abandoned channel
Macro  
Sedimentological
mudstone
Cemented channel lag Macro  
Cross bedding Macro/Micro  
Laminations Macro/Micro  
Mineralogical Micro 
Horizontal stratification within the Sherwood reservoir indicates a layer-cake

reservoir architecture. On the finer scale, structural and stratigraphic heterogeneities are
likely to result in a more jigsaw-puzzle style of architecture.
Structural heterogeneity
In Wytch Farm field two types of fault seals are expected: juxtaposition seals and
fault rock seals. Fault rock seal is expected to be phyllosilicate-framework fault rocks.
Juxtaposition seal would result from juxtaposition of the Mercia formation (mudstone
sequence, low permeability rock) and the Alyesbeare formation (mudstone sequence, low
permeability rock) against the Sherwood sandstone (reservoir unit). These juxtapositions
will seal and act as barriers to fluid flow due to the high clay percentage of 60 and 70%
found in the Mercia and Alyesbeare formations.
Figure 4
Fault surfaces of the major faults within the Wytch Farm field
Sedimentological heterogeneity
According to the reservoir zonation scheme established, lacustrine and flood deposit
mudstones can be recognised as shale intervals which are laterally extensive across the
reservoir. These laterally extensive shale layers are expected to act as barriers to vertical
flow, severely restricting kv and thus resulting in stratigraphic compartmentalisation
within the reservoir.
Depending on their horizontal continuity, heterogeneities within the reservoir can
act as permeability baffles by impeding kh. Examples include mud plugs and cemented
channel lag deposits. Despite this, vertical connectivity and kv within the multi-storey,
multilateral sandstone units is expected to be good.
Abandoned channel mudstones and mud plugs are features synonymous with the
multi-storey and multilateral channel found in the Lower Sherwood. These features
represent local baffles to fluid flow due to their discontinuous nature.
16
Rock and fluid properties
Three appraisal wells were initially drilled and two producing wells followed. They
were used to characterise the reservoir and evaluate its properties by using the following
methods:
Table 3
Tests performed on the exploration wells
Production
Wireline
RCAL
SCAL
RFT
PVT
DST
test
Well
1K-01      
Appraisal
1F-11   
98/6-8   
Production
1D-02   
1X-02  
The initial conditions of the reservoir are the following:
Table 4
Reservoir initial conditions
Initial conditions
Depth (TVDSS) 1585 m
Oil column thickness 39 m
OWC 1620 m
Areal extent 40 km2
Pressure 165 bar
Temperature 66°C
Rock properties: well logging interpretation and core analysis
Borehole logging was used to make a detailed record of the geologic formations
penetrated by the five exploration wells mentioned above. The results were analysed and
provided valuable information about the rock properties of the reservoir.
Also, RCAL and SCAL were performed in order to quality check the results
obtained from the well logging interpretation but also to derive the relationships between
porosity, permeability and water saturation. Furthermore, the sandstone reservoir was
found to be water-wet.
Finally, RFTs were used on three wells so as to confirm the OWC location. As it
can be inferred from Figure 5, the pressure across the field is not the same for every well
and suggests that the field might be compartmentalised. However, the uncertainties
associated to these measurements being important, this assumption cannot be validated
and the pressure behaviour might be the result of the surrounding producing wells.
Figure 5
Repeat formation tester as a quality check for the OWC
Reservoir depth as a function of pressure

Depth (m) Depth (m)
1540 1580
Well 1K-01 Well 98/6-8
1560 Water gradient 0.074 bar/m Water gradient 0.070 bar/m
1600
1580 Oil Gradient 0.11 bar/m Oil Gradient 0.11 bar/m
FWL 1624 m WL 1622 m
1600 1620
1620
1640 1640
1660 1660
1680
1700 1680
165 170 175 180 165 170 175
Pressure (bar) Pressure (bar)
The following table summarises the main parameters obtained from these analysis
and the method(s) used to derive them:
18
Table 5
Summary of reservoir rock parameters
Parameter / Property Method Well average
Top Sherwood (m) Seismic acquisition, logs 1556 ± 15

OWC (m) Resistivity log, cores and RFT 1624 ± 5
Porosity Logs and core analysis 15% ± 2%
Hor. Permeability (mD) Core analysis, DST 112
Water saturation Logs (Indonesian) and cores 40% ± 7%
Net/Gross Cut-offs 68% ± 8%
Fluid properties: PVT and core analysis
Understanding the properties of the reservoir fluids is a fundamental step as it

allows setting the production strategy as well as dimensioning the surface facilities.
The bubble point pressure was determined at 76.5 bar. Because of the large
differential between the bubble point pressure and the reservoir pressure, the oil
behaviour and the production strategy were optimised for a dead oil model.
Composition of the crude, viscosity, formation volume factor and gas-oil ratio were
also determined and are summarised in Table 6.
Table 6
Summary of fluid properties
Fluid properties2
API gravity 38.1° @ 15°C
GOR 320 scf/stb
Formation volume factor 1.21 rb/stb
Oil density 0.74 g.cm-3
Oil compressibility 1.37x10-4 bar-1
Oil viscosity 1.03 cP
It has to be mentioned that the uncertainties associated to these results are

important, as the number of sample available was limited.
2
At reservoir conditions: 165 bar, 66°C
Reservoir modeling
Static model
The reservoir model integrates the geological, geophysical and petrophysical results
obtained from the parts above. The production of a robust reservoir model requires the
integration of core and outcrop observations in collaboration with more stringent
petrophysical, seismic and well test analysis interpretations.
Figure 6
Sand-shale model within the zone 6 after petrophysical modeling
Figure 7
Permeability model within the zone 6 after petrophysical modeling
Parameters such as channels porosity and permeability are only known in a first
step around the wells locations. In our case, as the channels follow a common spatial
pattern through the reservoir, some geostatistical tools were used and the results are
shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7.
20
Dynamic model
Understanding the flow properties of the reservoir being the final purpose, the
detailed static model was coarsened for simulation purposes. The following table
summarises the process:
Table 7
Building a dynamic model
Parameter / Static
Constraint Dynamic model
Property model
value Capture geological and
Grid dimensions 100x100 390x270
petrophysical hetereogeneities
Zonation and 7 zones, 140 Capture vertical
7 zones, 50 layers
layering layers hetereogeneities
Facies N/G Respect the depositional model Most of
Horizontal Honour the channel

kx, ky Arithmetic
permeabilities distribution
Vertical
kz Capture the heterogeneities Geometric
permeability
Honour the channel
Porosity Φ Arithmetic
distribution
The consistency of both dynamic and static models was a key aspect through the
whole coarsening process and many quality checks were performed in order to ensure it:
Figure 8
Horizontal permeability3 in zone 1: fine (left) and coarse model (right) consistency
3
Water breakthrough is expected to occur later for the coarse model as the upscaling process averages
out high permeability streaks, reducing their contribution to the phenomenon. However, at later times,
water production rates for both models converge.
Figure 9
QC of upscaled volumetric properties
QC of upscaled volumetric properties

MMbbl
12,000
10,221 9,932 Fine grid
10,000 Coarse
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000 1,359 1,378

793 799
-
GRV PV STOIIP
A quantitative QC check of the upscaling of the volumetric properties was done by

comparing calculated volumes on the coarse and fine-grid models (Figure 10).
Figure 10
Coarse model consistency: history match
Water and oil production rate history match

Water production rate (stb/d) Oil production rate (stb/d)
180 3,500
160 3,000
140 Simulation
2,500 Simulation
120 Observed data Observed data
100 2,000
80 1,500
60
1,000
40
20 500
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time Elapsed (years) Time Elapsed (years)
To ensure that the model is representative of the real field, production rates have to
match with existing production data. The history match process allows calibrating the
model and fitting parameters coming from incomplete data.
22
Volumetric estimation and associated uncertainties
The values of STOIIP were derived from the static model. The P50 case will be set
as base case and the development strategy presented in the next section is optimised for it.
Table 8
Static model volumetrics: STOIIP and reserves
P90 P50 P10
STOIIP (MMstb) 580 795 1040
Reserves (MMstb) 219 318 412
The key uncertainties affecting the STOIIP estimate were assessed using a
statistical approach4. The varying key parameters were:
 GRV: the uncertainty associated with the total volume is explained by two
parameters: the OWC position and the top Sherwood position derived by seismic
interpretation;
 Water saturation: each cell of the model has an associated value of water
saturation and this value was assumed to be equal to one below the OWC;
 Net/Gross and porosity: the net/gross uncertainty is included in the uncertainty
associated with the porosity. Indeed, each cell of the model has a value of porosity
that is assumed to be nil for the shale cells;
 Formation volume factor: the uncertainty comes from the lab experiments and
from the lack of information available to characterise the oil.
Figure 11
STOIIP sensitivity analysis
Variation parameter
GRV -65% 77%
Sw -22% 11%
PHIE -7% 9%
Bo -4% 3%
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Variation from base case (normalised to a 100%)
4
Monte Carlo repeated random sampling method
2. Developing the field

24
Reservoir drive mechanisms
Producing oil needs energy and that is why the drive mechanism has to be
determined before adopting a production strategy. Material balance was used to determine
whether some of this required energy is supplied by nature.
Before presenting the results, it is important to emphasise that only two data points
were available. Thus, whatever the initial assumption on the drive mechanism may be, it
will be validated5. The two combinations considered are presented in Figure 12: aquifer
with solution gas drive and solution gas with compaction drive.
Figure 12
Drive mechanism determination
Aquifer with solution gas Solution gas with compaction drive

F/Eo [106 stb] F [106 rb]
1000 2.0
800 1.6
600 1.2
N=645 MMstb
400 0.8
N=277 MMstb
200 0.4
y = 0.004x + 644.55 y = 276.81x + 0.3409
0 0.0
0 30,000 60,000 90,000 0 0.002 0.004 0.006
ΔP/Eo [psi.stb/rb] Eo + Ef [rb/stb]
The mechanism that combines the aquifer and the solution gas drive gives initial oil
in place closer to the STOIIP estimate (645 MMstb compared to 795 MMstb for the P50
case). Thus, oil expansion and aquifer drive will be considered as the most plausible
mechanism.
Following that assumption, the size of the aquifer is around 20%6 of the STOIIP
estimate. However, the aquifer does not provide enough energy as the primary recovery
estimates are as low as 4.6%. Consequently, secondary recovery methods are needed and
the presence of the aquifer makes water injection the preferred option7.
5
There is always a straight line between two points
6
Water compressibility is assumed to be equal to 3.10 -6 Pa-1 at reservoir conditions
7
This option will be discussed further in the Production strategy
Production strategy
The production will be supported by water injection below the oil water contact in
order to push the oil out and maintain the reservoir pressure (see Figure 13).
Figure 13
Using water injection to maintain the reservoir pressure
Reservoir pressure profile throughout the field life
Reservoir pressure (bar)
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40 With injection
20 Without injection
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Time Elapsed (year)
Figure 14
Water injection strategy: water source
Composition of the injected water

Percentage of water
100
Pumped sea water
90
80 Produced water
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Time Elapsed (years)
26
Initially, the strategy is optimised for a 25-year production period due to the lease’s
duration. However, as shown in the economic evaluation section, the field becomes
uneconomic after 23 years of production and, hence, the abandonment is considered.
The injection of water will start 14 months after the first oil. Injection water will be
a mixture between the produced water after treatment and the sea water. This solution
was adopted as the produced water is not sufficient to cover the required injection rate, as
shown in Figure 14. The injection is limited to 63,000 bbl/d and is injected at a pressure
that will not fracture the reservoir.
Work-overs will be made at a later stage of the production to detect and shut
perforations producing too much water. Work-over operations will also allow improving
the well performance by replacing the artificial lift systems installed (see Engineering
design section).
The Buckley-Leverett analysis shows a sweep efficiency of 92% reached after 23 years.
Figure 15
Water injection results: high sweep efficiency
Pore volume produced versus pore volume injected
Dimensionless pore
volume produced (NpD)
Theoretical Buckley Leverett
0.6
One-to-one line
1-Swc-Sor
0.5
Simulation
0.4
0.3
0.2
Water breakthrough
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless time (tD)
Drilling strategy
To ensure protection of the natural heritage, the well sites were placed at strategic
locations that will not affect the sensitive ecological environment.
Since offshore drilling is not permitted, extended reach wells are considered to
efficiently maximise production of the field, which will help reducing footprint on land of
production and save cost as platforms offshore will not be required. Directional drilling
gives access to reservoir several kilometres away from the well site. This has also reduced
number of satellite wells, hence conserving the outstanding beauty of the harbour. All the
areas under special protection such as the UNESCO’S world heritage situated on top of
the Jurassic coast have been isolated.
Figure 16
Environmental constraints and well site locations
SOURCE: BP and Google Earth
Production will be ensured by the use of 16 wells including 11 producers and 5

injectors distributed over 2 well sites. Each well site is equipped with one permanent rig
and an extra rig is available and moveable from one site to the other.
Table 9
Well characteristics
Producer (P) Horizontal

Wellsite Type Length (m)
Injector (I) section length (m)
1 1P-01 Horizontal 6,856 2,130

Horizontal 11,305 5,370
1 1P-02
Multilateral 2,700 1,400
28
1 1P-03 Horizontal 3,682 1,300

1 1P-04 Horizontal 3,811 1,400
1 1P-05 Horizontal 2,428 5,00
Horizontal 9,023 6,600
1 1P-06
Multilateral 4,850 2,800
1 1I-01 Horizontal 8,918 3,000
1 1I-02 Horizontal 4,413 2,500
2 2P-01 Horizontal 6,560 3,000
Vertical 1,620 N.A.
2 2P-02
Multilateral 2,150 1000
2 2P-03 Horizontal 3,197 1,100
2 2P-04 Horizontal 3,734 1,190
2 2P-05 Horizontal 3,128 1,100
2 2I-01 Horizontal 5,767 3,800
2 2I-02 Horizontal 4,025 1,750
2 2I-03 Horizontal 5,572 2,500
Figure 17
Well configuration within the reservoir
Drilling schedule
The target is to get the first oil produced on the 1st January 2017. The drilling
schedule is as follows:
Figure 18
Detailed drilling schedule based on the highest rates
Year
Drilling 2016 2017 2018
Oil production Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Water injection J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
1P-01
1P-02
1P-03
1P-04
1P-05
1P-06
1I-01
1I-02
2P-01
2P-02
2P-03
2P-04
2P-05
2I-01
2I-02
2I-03
Some of the highest rate wells are drilled first to get a quick production build up,
then lower rates and higher rates wells are drilled to maintain the plateau for a total
duration of 3 years. Injectors are drilled to start injecting 14 months after the first oil.
The following mud has been used with a weight high enough to withstand the pore
pressure but low enough so that the formation is not fractured. The completions have
been set to get an optimum well performance; all these parameters are justified in the
engineering section.
Table 10
Drilling and completion specifications
Mud type Water based

Mud weight 1.15 sg
Tubing ID 4”
Bottomhole casing OD 7”
Perforations All along the horizontal section, 8 SPF
30
Development strategy results
With the aforementioned production strategy, the following results were achieved for our
three scenarios (optimistic, base case and conservative).
Figure 19
Development strategy results: 3-year plateau achieved
Oil: expected rates and prodcution
Oil produced
Oil rate (stb/d) cumulative (MMbbl)
80,000 450
70,000 400
350
60,000
300
50,000 P90
250 P50
40,000
200 P10
30,000
150
20,000
100
10,000 50
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Figure 20
Development strategy results: 3-year plateau achieved
Gas: expected rates and production
Gas produced
Gas rate (Mscf/d) cumulative (Bscf)
30,000 140
25,000 120
100
20,000
80 P90
15,000
P50
60
P10
10,000
40
5,000 20
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
The development strategy estimates a relatively high recovery factor of 40% for the
base case. Moreover, it has to be mentioned that only water injection methods were used.
The results for the optimistic and conservative case also give high recovery factors.
Table 11
Development strategy results: recovered oil
P90 P50 P10
STOIIP (MMstb) 580 795 1040
Recovered oil (MMstb) 219 318 412
Recovery factor 38% 40% 40%
Export and surface facilities8
The sizing of the surface facilities was optimised based upon a 3-year production
plateau of 76,000 stb/d.
The fluids will be transported from the well heads through a set of pipelines to the
surface facilities. The oil, water and gas mixture is separated in various stages so as to
meet the market requirements. Finally, the export is split as follows:
 Oil: delivered to the Fawley Refinery;
 Natural gas: sent to the high pressure National Grid network pipeline at the
vicinity of Iwerne Courtney;
 LPG: exported by railway, by developing a gathering and loading station aside the
national rail route next to Corfe Castle;
 Water: treated and re-injected.
8
Refer to the engineering section for further details
32
HSE policy
The development plan for Wytch farm field is subject to compliance with several
environmental conventions, i.e. the Purbeck Heritage, Jurassic coast heritage and various
national and scientific interest parks of prominent natural beauty. Hence an in-depth
location planning was developed in conjunction with directional multilateral drilling,
aiming to hide the facilities from the landscape and minimise any environmental impact.
Figure 21
Health risk management workflow: hazard prevention
The operatorship will be characterised by high responsibility policy, compliance to

governmental regulations on health, safety and environment protection (see Figure 21). It
is a company’s commitment to continuously improve HSE performance and comply with
national and European standards on HSE (ISO18000), Quality management (ISO9000)
and Environment (ISO14000).
The main concerns and proposed mitigations are:

 Labour accidents: by compliance to governmental regulations and continuous
improvement management;
 Oil and gas spillage: by monitoring pressure drops and have regular shut down
valves along the pipelines and leak detectors at the facilities site;
 Noise pollution and biodiversity impacts: by planting trees around the facilities
and complying to Control of Pollution Act 1974, Part 3 (ch.40), Environmental
Protection Act 1990 (ch.43), Part 3 and 1995 revision, (ch.25), Part 5;
 Waste disposal and emissions: All produced chemical waste is dispatched by road
to chemical processing plants and CO2 separated from gas is captured. Pollution
control compliance is assured according to Pollution Prevention and Control Act

1999 (ch.24) and the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations 2000 (SI
2000/1973).
Figure 22
Safety risk management workflow: hazard prevention
Figure 23
Environmental risk management workflow: hazard prevention
34
Field abandonment and decommissioning
Proper field abandonment plans are set in place to ensure surface facilities
decommissioning, and well abandonment are executed in a safe and environment friendly
fashion bearing in mind cost effectiveness after 23 years of production.
Following the plans and working closely with the UK authorities will ensure a
successful abandonment of the Wytch Farm field. Permission to decommission and
abandon will be sought by submitting three documents: Cessation of Production
document, Well Abandonment Programme document and Facility Abandonment Plan
document to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the Department
of Trade and Industry (DTI). An approval for all three documents must be obtained to
implement the abandonment plan.
Funds are allocated upfront for field abandonment to guarantee the authorities that
the company is committed to clean up and restore the land and properties to the original
set up and thus imposing no financial burden on the government. Moreover, all wells in
the field will be completely plugged and abandoned from top to bottom using cement to
ensure no seepage from the reservoirs to the surface. In addition, before
decommissioning, the facilities will be depressurised, drained and cleaned prior to surface
facilities dismantlement. Consequently, surface facilities and associated pipelines will be
dismantled in a strictly safe manner fostering an injury-free work environment in line
with authority guidelines and regulations. After all abandoning operations have been
performed the lands will be restored by means of reforestation.
Project lifecycle
Figure 24
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 > 2038 2039 2040 2041
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 > Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Company approval
Planning FDP
Governmental approval
Project management
Front end engineering design
Engineering
Procurement
Construction
Commisioning
Drilling
Production
Decommissioning First oil

Abandonment
3. Engineering design
36
Well performance
Objective
In order to meet the production rates targeted (76,000 stb/day distributed between
11 wells during the plateau), the downhole technology performance was carefully chosen.
Tubing performance design
The casing is designed to have a 7” OD at the bottomhole. Taking this into account,
the intermediate casings are determined based on the traversed formations in order to put
the casing shoes in the consolidated formation: see Figure 25.
Figure 25
Design of the casing and the tubing with the formations
Depth
Formation
(mTVD)
0 ----------------------------------
Unconsolidated sandstone
80 ----------------------------------
Limestone
480 ----------------------------------
Unconsolidated sandstone
503 ----------------------------------
Mudstone
898 ----------------------------------
Sandstone
933 ----------------------------------
Mudstone
1,567 ----------------------------------
Sandstone
1,747 ----------------------------------
These casing specifications are then adapted to the measured depth of each well,
keeping in mind that the 7” casing goes all the way through the horizontal section.
A sensitivity analysis on the perforation density was performed and the optimum
value was 8 SPF9.
Mud weight determination
The completion report of the appraisal well 1F-11 indicates that the pore pressure
follows a pressure gradient of 1.04 sg without variations along depth. The RFT data from
the appraisal wells match with this assumption. The reports also mention leak off tests
which are used to estimate the fracture pressure. Knowing this information, the mud
weight is chosen to be higher enough than the pore pressure to take into account the
measurements imprecisions and lower enough than the formation fracture pressure in
order not to fracture the formation. A mud weight of 1.15 sg is chosen as shown in
Figure 26.
Figure 26
Determination of the optimum mud weight
Depth (mTVD) Pressure (bar)
0 50 100 150 200 250

0
200 Pore Pressure

Fracture pressure
400
Mud pressure
600 RFT 1K-01
RFT 1F-11
800
RFT 98/6-08
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
9
Shots per foot (vertical length). Please refer to Appendix 2
38
Artificial lift
With the completion design presented above, at the beginning of production when
the reservoir is pressurised, there is no need for artificial lift. However, as the reservoir is
depleted, the differential pressure between the reservoir and the bottomhole decreases and
the reservoir liquids cannot flow to the surface anymore (see Figure 27).
Figure 27
Tubing flow optimisation within the tubing: ESP
Tubing performance without ESP Tubing performance with ESP
Bottomhole Bottomhole
pressure (bara) pressure (bara)
180 IPR, Pr=160 bar 160
IPR, Pr=124 bar
160 IPR, Pr=124 bar 140
IPR, Pr=103 bar
140 IPR, Pr=103 bar
120 TPC, ESP 10 stages
120 TPC, No ESP
100
80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Bottomhole flowrate (stb/d) Bottomhole flowrate (stb/d)
Electrical submersible pumps were preferred to gas lift for three reasons:
 Limited gas availability (would incur an overall higher cost);
 ESP has a better performance in deviated wells;
 Gas specific facilities are more complex from an HSE perspective.
The number of stages of the centrifugal pump was selected in order to achieve the
desired production rates as shown above.
Surface facilities
The surface facilities will ensure the transport, separation and storage of the fluids
produced in each one of the two wellsites. The facilities will be mainly10 empowered by
an independent electricity supplier but a back-up power station (gas turbines) will be
installed to ensure the continuity of the production in a blackout scenario. They will be
located 2km southeast of wellsite 2 and a forestation programme is contemplated to
reduce the visual impact.
The fluid transport11 between the wellheads and the gathering station is ensured by
a system of pipelines12.
Figure 28
Surface facilities design (plateau rates)
10
Some of the produced oil (C6+) will also be used as a fuel
11
Assumed isothermal at T=55ºC
12
Refer to Appendix 5 for further details on the design
40
Liquid-gas separation
The pressure at the entrance of the 3-stage separator is set to 14 bar. The number of
stages and the associated pressures were determined so as to maximise the API gravity of
the out coming oil as well as to maximise the volumes produced. The pressure of the oil-
water mixture at the exit of the separator is kept above the bubble point pressure (1.5 bar
at 55ºC) to avoid gas release during the later stages.
Oil-water separation
A mechanical and an electrostatic separator are used to separate the oil and the
water. Like the rest of the facilities, they were dimensioned to support the plateau
production rates13. The processed crude will be sent to a storage tank (2 days of
production capacity) and the water removed from the liquid will be treated to be re-
injected in the wells.
Table 12
Handling of the products
Second separation process to obtain natural gas and LPG. Dispatching by

Gas handling
pipeline and pipeline plus train respectively14
Oil handling Storage in tanks before dispatching via pipeline
Water handling Treatment and sea water mixing before reinjection15
The use of chemicals to ensure the effectiveness of the process is unavoidable.

The environmental regulations will be strictly respected in terms of emissions and
disposal. The products used are the following:
Table 13
Use of chemicals in the surface facilities
Chemical product Effect
Anticorrosion Flow assurance
Common
Antifoam hinders the formation of foam
Demulsifiers Separate oil and water
Avoid formation of asphaltenes /
Oil Asphaltene / WAX inhibitors
WAX
Hydrate inhibitors Reduce formation of hydrates
13
Refer to Appendix 3 for further details on the design
14
Flaring is not an acceptable option
15
The salinity of the sea water being lower than the one of the water of reservoir, there is no need for
desalting
Chemical product Effect

Separate remaining water from the
Glycol dehydratation system
gas
Gas Calcium carbonate CO2 removal
Amine gas treatment Acid gas removal
Water Inhibitors Reduce organic contents
The surface facilities are designed to handle the fluid produced during the plateau.
In the optimistic and conservative cases, the rates are the same but the length of the
plateau is longer and shorter, respectively.
Table 14
Daily fluid flow rates in the surface facilities
P50
Produced oil (stb/d) 76,000

Gas (MMscf/d) 8
LPG (tonnes/d) 126
Injected water (bbl/d) 63,000
Flow assurance
In order to ensure successful and economical flow of hydrocarbon stream from

reservoir to the point of sale, flow assurance was considered.
The bottomhole temperature (68oC) is quite accurately measured and verified from
various well data. The flow in the wellbore till the bubble point pressure indicates a
respective bubble point temperature of around 56oC. This process can be confidently
considered clear of asphaltenes.
However, as fluid pressure and temperature decrease, it nears the Wax and Hydrates
curves, which are subject to larger uncertainty. Two options are considered for reducing
the chance of Wax and Hydrates creation: heating and chemical treatment. The heating
option is dropped, as the fluid will cool down along the pipeline in any case and would
initiate the formation of wax and hydrates. Therefore the proposed solution is injection of
chemical additives (inhibitors) that would set the wax and hydrates's limits far from the
operating conditions region.
42
Figure 29
Phase envelope of the reservoir fluid: flow assurance between reservoir and surface
SOURCE: PVT simulation based on the reservoir fluid composition from well 1X-02
Hydrocarbon export
Table 15
Oil, gas and LPG market requirements
Oil Gas LPG

Fawley refinery
Client National grid LPG processing plants
(Esso)
Product
API 41 o ± 5o CH4 > 96% (vol) C2-C5
Water cut < 0.01% Water cut < 0.01%

Water cut < 0.01%
BS&W16 < 0.02% No liquid phase content
H2S ≤ 5 mg/m3
Contaminants
Specifications
H2S ≤ 5 mg/m 3
H2S ≤ 5 mg/m3
S content ≤ 50 mg/m
17 3
H2 ≤ 0.1% (molar)
O2 ≤ 0.2% (molar)
Salt < 6.0 PTB18
WN19 ≤ 52.85 MJ/m3
ICF20 ≤ 0.48
Conditions
Pressure 1.03 bar

Tie-in Pressure 75 bar Pressure 30 bar21
Temperature 15oC
SOURCE: Oil: Refinery processing design (Esso)

Gas Safety Regulations 1996 (UK Legislation n°551)
LPG transportation & safety standards, client demands
While designing the pipeline path, four main constraints were taken into account:
 To avoid environmentally sensitive areas;
 To avoid urban areas in order to minimise hazards for the local population;
 To ensure smoothest and smallest elevation changes occur in order to minimise
losses and ensure a stable flow along the pipeline;
 To follow the public road path as much as possible in order to ensure the least
number of private stakeholders impeding the project progress.
16
Base Sediment and Water
17
Including H2S
18
Pounds of salt per Thousand Barrels of crude oil
19
Wobbe number
20
Incomplete Combustion Factor
21
To ensure that all transported HC components are in liquid phase
44
The total length of pipeline proposed for crude oil delivery to the Fawley Refinery
is 74.5 km with a maximum elevation difference of 74 meters.
Considering the relatively short distance and small elevation changes, a single
pumping system will be installed at the output of the surface facilities. A pump with a
nominal differential pressure of 10 bar and a 18” OD pipeline will be used for that
purpose22.
Figure 30
Oil pipeline design path
The nearest high pressure National Grid network pipeline point was detected at the
vicinity of Iwerne Courtney, north of Blandford Forum23.
The pipeline designed has a length of 34.1 km and shares common path with the oil
pipeline for more than half of its length (20 km), in order to reduce digging costs and
building time and it similarly follows mainly public roads and rural state properties path
due to licensing concerns. The maximum elevation difference is 110 m, however due to
the low density of gas, the hydraulic head pressure loss is considerably lower than for the
oil pipeline. It will be built according to the regulation T/SP/SSW/22 August 2007 by
National Grid. A compressor with a nominal differential pressure of 78 bar and a 8” OD
pipeline will be used for that purpose and a pressure regulating station will be built at the
tie-in point14.
22
Please refer to Appendix 4
23
Please refer to Appendix 4
Figure 31
Gas pipeline design path
The Liquefied Petroleum Gas will be exported by railway, by developing a

gathering and loading station aside the national rail route next to Corfe Castle, 4 km from
the surface facilities. The transport from the surface facilities to the loading station will be
ensured by pipeline. During plateau, the Wytch farm field will be producing about 126
tonnes of LPG per day24. During the decline, when no more than a single truck per day
would be required, LPG transport will be switched to road.
Figure 32
LPG plant location and pipeline path
24
126 tonnes are the equivalent of 6 trucks which is not economically and environmentally viable.
46
4. Economic evaluation
48
Expenditures
Assumptions, CAPEX and OPEX
The economic analysis on the Wytch Farm FDP was run using P50 case parameters
shown in Table 16.
Table 16
Main assumptions: market and costs
Parameter Value
Discount Rate 15%
Inflation Rate 2%
Price of Oil ($/STB) 15
Price of Gas ($/Mscf) 1.7
Price of LPG ($/Mscf) 12.4
Average Drilling Cost/Well (USD millions) 14.2
Average Drilling Cost/ft 700
First Oil (Year) 2016
GOR scf/STB 320
Part of methane (%) 40%
Part of LPG (%) 52%
All values shown in this analysis are nominal unless otherwise indicated. The
capital expenditure of this project includes infrastructure, pipelines, drilling expenditure
and surface facility which all amounts to $455 million:
Figure 33
Summary of expenditures over the field lifetime: CAPEX
Operating expenditure required to operate the field to optimum conditions include

well maintenance, facility testing, inspection and maintenance, insurance on assets,
operating personnel and field operations:
Figure 34
Summary of expenditures over the field lifetime: OPEX
Cash flows and economic evaluation
As in any project, investment will cause the cash flow to be negative, however,
once production is commenced revenues are gained thus making the cash flow positive.
As mentioned previously, in the field abandonment section, a $100 million will be

set aside for abandonment in a secure account to be used in case the field is abandoned.
This practice is required by the government to ensure that the companies are responsible
for their projects and to ensure that there will be no financial burden put on the
government. This is not a practice in the industry but it proves the commitment of the
company to environmental concerns.
Figure 35 shows the non-discounted nominal cash flow for the FDP alongside the
discounted cumulative net cash flow.
50
Figure 35
Economic viability of the project: cash flows
Cash flows throughout the field lifetime (non discounted)
USD millions
800
600
400
200
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
OPEX
CAPEX Year
(200)
Total Revenue
Abondonment allocation
Abandonment
(400) Return on Abandonment Investment
Cummulative Discounted Net Cashflow
Net cash flow
Utilising the economic model, the pre-tax NPV15% for the base case amounts to
$734 million with an internal rate of return of 39.7% indicating a commercially viable
project. The breakeven price for the project was found to be $6.19.
Moreover, with a price of oil at $15 the payback period is in 5.48 years calculated
from the start of the project. The field will be abandoned after 23 years of production, due
to incurred losses the consequent years. Table 17 below shows a summary of P10, P50,
P90 economic analysis.
Table 17
Economic facts: optimistic, base case and pessimistic cases
P10 P50 P90
Reserves (MMstb) 412 318 219
NPV15%(USD millions) 928 735 442
IRR (%) 41.5 39.7 34.0
Payback in years from start of
5.4 (Q2 2018) 5.4 (Q2 2018) 5.6 (Q3 2018)
project (Date)
Breakeven Oil Price (S/stb) 5.2 6.19 8.35
Production duration (Year of
25 years (2041) 23 years (2039) 19 (2035)
Abandonment)
B/C 2.1 1.7 1
Sensitivity analysis
The spider plots displayed in Figure 36 and Figure 37 exhibits the parameters that
impact both NPV and IRR. The higher the slope of a particular parameter the more
impact it has on NPV or IRR.
For example, from Figure 36, it is evident that discount rate that the company sets
has the highest impact on NPV, followed by oil prices which can be unpredictable due to
frequent fluctuations. However, in the case of IRR, fluctuating oil price have the highest
impact and is the parameter that IRR is mostly sensitive to. Moreover, NPV and IRR are
both sensitive to rate of the plateau as seen in the figure, the sharp curvature observed can
be explained by the effects of time value of money.
Figure 36
Parameters affecting the Net Present Value
Sensitivity analysis on the Net Present Value (NPV)
NPV (USD million)
2,000 Oil Price
1,800 CAPEX
1,600 Plateau
1,400 Discount Rate
1,200
OPEX
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Variation from basecase
Figure 37
Parameters affecting the Rate of Return
Sensitivity analysis on the Rate of Return (IRR)
IRR (%)
60%
50%
40%
Oil Price
30% CAPEX
Plateau
20% Discount Rate
OPEX
10%
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
52
5. Uncertainties and risk management

54
Assessing the uncertainties
Reservoir volume uncertainties
It is fundamental to keep in mind that the process of building both a static and a
dynamic model was done with the final objective of defining a field development strategy
and to estimate its performances. However, the uncertainties are inherently associated
with each step of this process because:
 the available data are never enough to fully characterise the reservoir;
 the interpretation process adds errors;
 a model cannot fully represent the reality.
Thus, it was decided to run a sensitivity analysis that would capture both the static
and dynamic uncertainties. Figure 38 shows for each realisation (dot), the variation with
respect to the base-case cumulative production estimate. Each parameter can be assessed
by looking at the spread of the realisations as well as to the maximum and minimum
values.
Figure 38
Static and dynamic uncertainty assessment
Sensitivity analysis on the cumulative production
Cumulative Base case
production (MMbbl)
GRV
450
Porosity
Kv
400
Sw
Kh
350
Corey O/W
Corey W
300
Sorw
Swcr
250
Swmin
Faults
200 transmissivity
Variation parameter
The tornado chart (Figure 39) presents the parameters according to their impact
into the final volume estimate. Three parameters stand out:
 GRV: as explained in the first section, this error comes from the difficulty to
estimate the exact position of the top of the reservoir as well as the OWC;
 Oil relative permeability: this dynamic parameter has a great impact on the oil
recovery and was poorly estimated because of the available data;
 Horizontal permeability.
Figure 39
Tornado chart presenting the main uncertainties
Variation parameter
GRV -31% 15%
Oil relative permeability -30% 1%
Horizontal permeability -18% 13%
Oil residual saturation -9% 2%
Connate water saturation -8% 1%
Vertical permeability -6% 0.1%
Porosity -4% 3%
Water saturation -2% 1%
Water relative permeability -2% 0.5%
Faults transmissivity -1% 0.5%
Critical water saturation -0.1% 0.5%
-35% -25% -15% -5% 5% 15% 25% 35%

This uncertainty analysis justifies the use of different scenarios (optimistic, base
case, and conservative) as a decision making tool. Moreover, a mitigation scheme based
on a data acquisition plan will be presented in the next section.
Economic value of the field uncertainties
The tornado chart shown in the figure above echoes the results seen in the spider
plots. However, even though the tornado chart does not display the non-linearity of the
economic model, it can outright show the highest parameter with the most impact on the
NPV or IRR, thus it is usually utilised in tandem with spider plots to assess risks and
uncertainty. Discount rate is has the highest impact on NPV followed fluctuation in oil
prices.
56
Figure 40
NPV uncertainty analysis
Variation parameter
Discount rate -60% 19%
Oil price -31% 31%
Downside
Production -30% 8% Upside
CAPEX -25% 3%
OPEX -10% 10%
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Risk mitigation scheme
Data acquisition plan
A shrewd data acquisition plan was developed in order to have a better

understanding of the reservoir and to reduce the uncertainty surrounding the model that
will lead to having a good geological flow model.
Seismic data will be reprocessed to reduce the uncertainty in the estimated GRV.
This is achieved by carefully picking the tops and bottoms of the reservoir and fluid
contacts.
The first three wells in three different reservoir locations will be cored. Extensive
RCAL and SCAL will be run on the retrieved cores to have more accurate measurements
of relative permeabilities and capillary pressure curves for both drainage and imbibition
to improve the geological flow model for a more confident history matching and
prediction.
Moreover, full suite logs will be run on the aforementioned three wells including
NMR and PNL to have independent sources for porosity, permeability and fluid
saturations. The calculated permeabilities from NMR will be used alongside
permeabilities measured from cores to improve and calibrate the permeability model.
Fluid samples will be taken from the first two drilled wells to have a detailed PVT
analysis that will go into the geological flow model.
Furthermore, RFTs will be run on all the wells to evaluate reservoir connectivity,
faults transmissibility, aquifer strength and will be utilised as a tool to aid in history
matching.
Figure 41
Data acquisition plan
Year
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 To 2039
Reprocess Seismic Data
Coring
Fluid Sampling
RFT
Data Acquistion
Full Suite Logs
SBHP/T
Separator/Wellhead Samples
Well Rate Tests
PLT
PNL
Oil Production
Further down the road in the life of the field, shut-in bottomhole pressures and
temperatures will be acquired on a real-time basis using SCADA system. A multiphase
flow meter will be installed on each drillsite to aid in a monthly rate testing of producers
58
to ensure an accurate production allocation system and to aid in material balance analysis.
PLTs will be utilised on producers that have water production to identify the perforations
that needs to be squeezed to reduce that amount of water produced and optimise oil
production.
Finally, wells that are unexpectedly underperforming will be shut-in for pressure
measurements which in turn will be utilised in pressure transient analysis to evaluate
possible problems that could hinder the subject wells and then treat them accordingly.
Following the data acquisition scheme presented above will ensure that the model can
behave as closely as possible to the actual reservoir and it will also ensure that the
reservoir is monitored closely during the production period, thus guaranteeing that the
reservoir is being efficiently optimised for oil production.
Global risk management
The risks for development and operation of the Wytch Farm oil field have been
assessed and split into three main categories:
 Operational: include possible accidents and production related risks throughout
the operational lifecycle of the field;
 Regulatory & Commercial: mainly focused on political and market changes that
may affect the profitability of the operation
 Communal: refer to pressure by local groups and society, as well as workforce
related issues
Figure 42
Risk assessment chart
An in depth planning and risk analysis is required in order to mitigate the potential
threats to the field development and operation. Main threats have been detected and
preventive actions are proposed in Table 18.
Table 18
Risk mitigation scheme
Risk types Risk Mitigation
Flow assurance, regular facilities checks and spill

Oil spill
constraining and cleaning plan.
Operational
Compulsory initial training and regular seminars. Use
Labour
of working gear in every operation, housekeeping,
accidents
regular inspections.
Regulatory Oil & Gas Prepare production plans with reduced production
& Commercial Price during low price periods.
Prepare and present plans for pollution prevention,

Environmental noise reduction and ensure about safety and no effects
Groups on aquifer and sea pollution by re-injecting all the
Communal produced water.
Promise to open work placements for locals, promote
Local
environmental plans in order not to pollute or affect
Community
local tourism and landscape.
60
6. Key considerations and recommendations
The development team throughout the planning phase have demonstrated that:
 health, safety and environmental regulations set by the governmental

authorities are upheld and met to ensure that the proposed plan go ahead as
scheduled;
 proactive reservoir management practices coupled with an effective data

acquisition plan are set in place to optimise the value of the Wytch Farm field;
 risks and uncertainties have been assessed and subsequent mitigation schemes
have been designed;
 the plan will achieve high profitability and economic value.
Thus, the team strongly recommends the development of the field and that the
company should go ahead with the project.
Finally, this team following company values, will always produce this field safely,
reliably and cost-effectively.
62
References
1. ASME. Hydrogen Piping and Pipelines B31.12, ISBN: 9780791831755, 2008.
2. Ayoade MA. Disused Offshore Installations and Pipelines, Kluwer Law International,
2002.
3. BP. Wytch farm Sherwood development Reasons why it was developed as it is, BP for
Imperial College, 2012.
4. Buckley SE, Leverett MC. Mechanism of Fluid Displacement in Sands, Petroleum

Transactions, AIME, 1942; 146: 107-116.
5. Dake LP. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier, 1978.

6. Dall RN, Gilliver RE, Sclater R. Crawford: The first UK Field Abandonment, SPE
25062, 1992.
7. Johnson, H.D. A Field Guide to the Geological Evolution & Controls on Petroleum
Occurrences in the Wessex Basin (southern England), 2011
8. Underhill JR, Stonely R. Introduction to the development, evolution and petroleum

geology of the Wessex Basin, Geological society special publication, 1988; 133: 1-18.
Appendices
64
Appendix 1: List of figures and abbreviations
List of figures
Figure 1 - Location of the Wytch Farm Field and appraisal wells ...................................... 9
Figure 2 - Wytch Farm petroleum system map showing hydrocarbon migration ............. 12
Figure 3 - Top Sherwood map from geophysical interpretation ........................................ 13
Figure 4 - Fault surfaces of the major faults within the Wytch Farm field ....................... 15
Figure 5 - Repeat formation tester as a quality check for the OWC .................................. 17
Figure 6 - Sand-shale model within the zone 6 after petrophysical modeling................... 19
Figure 7 - Permeability model within the zone 6 after petrophysical modeling ................ 19
Figure 8 - Horizontal permeability in zone 1 ..................................................................... 20
Figure 9 - QC of upscaled volumetric properties............................................................... 21
Figure 10 - Coarse model consistency: history match ...................................................... 21
Figure 11 - STOIIP sensitivity analysis ............................................................................. 22
Figure 12 - Drive mechanism determination ..................................................................... 24
Figure 13 - Using water injection to maintain the reservoir pressure ................................ 25
Figure 14 - Water injection strategy: water source ............................................................ 25
Figure 15 - Water injection results: high sweep efficiency ............................................... 26
Figure 16 - Environmental constraints and well site locations .......................................... 27
Figure 17 - Well configuration within the reservoir .......................................................... 28
Figure 18 - Detailed drilling schedule based on the highest rates ..................................... 29
Figure 19 - Development strategy results: 3-year plateau achieved (Oil) ......................... 30
Figure 20 - Development strategy results: 3-year plateau achieved (Gas) ........................ 30
Figure 21 - Health risk management workflow: hazard prevention .................................. 32
Figure 22 - Safety risk management workflow: hazard prevention ................................... 33
Figure 23 - Environmental risk management workflow: hazard prevention ..................... 33
Figure 24 - Project lifecycle ............................................................................................... 34
Figure 25 - Design of the casing and the tubing with the formations ................................ 36
Figure 26 - Determination of the optimum mud weight .................................................... 37
Figure 27 - Tubing flow optimisation within the tubing: ESP .......................................... 38
Figure 28 - Surface facilities design (plateau rates)........................................................... 39
Figure 29 - Phase envelope of the reservoir fluid: flow assurance .................................... 42
Figure 30 - Oil pipeline design path .................................................................................. 44
Figure 31 - Gas pipeline design path ................................................................................. 45
Figure 32 - LPG plant location and pipeline path .............................................................. 45
Figure 33 - Summary of expenditures over the field lifetime: CAPEX ............................ 48
Figure 34 - Summary of expenditures over the field lifetime: OPEX ............................... 49
Figure 35 - Economic viability of the project: cash flows ................................................. 50
Figure 36 - Parameters affecting the Net Present Value .................................................... 51
Figure 37 - Parameters affecting the Rate of Return ......................................................... 51
Figure 38 - Static and dynamic uncertainty assessment .................................................... 54
Figure 39 - Tornado chart presenting the main uncertainties ............................................ 55
Figure 40 - NPV uncertainty analysis ................................................................................ 56
Figure 41 - Data acquisition plan ....................................................................................... 57
Figure 42 - Risk assessment chart ...................................................................................... 58
List of tables
Table 1 - Depositional characteristics of the zones ........................................................... 13

Table 2 - Hierarchy and impact of structural and stratigraphic reservoir heterogeneities . 14
Table 3 - Tests performed on the exploration wells .......................................................... 16
Table 4 - Reservoir initial conditions................................................................................. 16
Table 5 - Summary of reservoir rock parameters .............................................................. 18
Table 6 - Summary of fluid properties ............................................................................... 18
Table 7 - Building a dynamic model.................................................................................. 20
Table 8 - Static model volumetrics: STOIIP and reserves ................................................. 22
Table 9 - Well characteristics ............................................................................................ 27
Table 10 - Drilling and completion specifications ............................................................. 29
Table 11 - Development strategy results: recovered oil .................................................... 31
Table 12 - Handling of the products .................................................................................. 40
Table 13 - Use of chemicals in the surface facilities ......................................................... 40
Table 14- Daily fluid flow rates in the surface facilities ................................................... 41
Table 15 - Oil, gas and LPG market requirements ............................................................ 43
Table 16 - Main assumptions: market and costs ................................................................ 48
Table 17 - Economic facts: optimistic, base case and pessimistic cases ........................... 50
Table 18 - Risk mitigation scheme .................................................................................... 59
66
List of abbreviations
°C Degrees Celsius
ΔP Pressure difference
Φ (or PHIE) Porosity
API American Petroleum Institute
bar / bara 105 Pa / 14.7 psi (absolute pressure)
barg 105 Pa / 14.7 psi (pressure)
bbl Barrel of liquid (volume)
BHT Bottomhole Temperature
Bo Oil formation volume factor
bopd Barrel of oil per day
bpd Barrel of liquid per day
BS&W Basic Sediments and Water
BTU British Thermal Unit
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CCTV Closed Circuit Television
cP Centipoise (10-3 Pa∙s)
Csg Casing
DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change
DST Drill Stem Test
ESD / ESV Emergency Shutdown Valve
ESP Electric Submersible Pump
FWL Free Water Level
GOR Gas to Oil Ratio
GRV Gross Rock Volume
h Hours
HSE Health Safety Environment
ICF Incomplete Combustion Factor
ID Inner diameter (for circular pipes)
in Inches
IRR Internal Rate of Return
ISO International Organization for Standardization
kh Horizontal permeability
kv Vertical permeability
LPG Liquefied Petrol Gas
m Metres
M Thousand (in front of fluid volume units)
MD Measured Depth
mD 10-3 Darcies (permeability)

MM Million (in front of fluid volume units)
N/G Net to Gross ratio
NMR Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
NpD Pore volume of oil produced (dimensionless)
NPV Net Present Value
OD Outer diameter (for circular pipes)
OPEX Operational Expenditure
OWC Oil Water Contact
PLT Production Logging Tool
PNL Pulsed Neutron Log
PPE Personal Protective Equipment
ppm Parts per million
PTB Pounds of salt per Thousand Barrels of crude oil
PV Pore Volume
PVT Pressure Volume Temperature
QC Quality Control/Check
rb Reservoir (condition) Barrels
RCAL Routine Core Analysis
RF Recovery Factor
RFT Repeat Formation Tester
SCADA Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition
SCAL Special Core Analysis
scf Standard (p, T conditions) cubic feet (2.8∙10-2 m³)
sg Specific gravity (mud weight)
So Oil saturation
Sor Irreducible oil saturation
stb Stock tank barrel
STOIIP Stock Tank Oil Initially in Place
Sw Water saturation
Swc Connate water saturation
tD Dimensionless time (pore volume injected)
TPC Tubing Performance
TVD (TVDSS) True Vertical Depth
UK United Kingdom
USD United States Dollar(s)
WN Wobbe Number
68
Appendix 2: Completion design
The perforation density chosen is 8 SPF. A higher density would not increase the
production significantly enough.
Perforation density sensitivity

Liquid
production rate
(stb/d)
15200
15000
14800
14600
14400
14200
14000
13800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Perforation density (shot/ft)
Appendix 3: Gas/ Oil and Oil / Water separator design
Oil/Gas separation
Oil/Gas separation was performed in such a way that the API gravity and the
volumes were maximised. The incoming and out coming compositions were:
Incoming Oil Outgoing Oil Outgoing Gas
No of Mass No of No of
Liq Vol of Vol of Vol of
Com- moles of of moles of mols of
density liq liq gas
ponent liq liquid liq gas
(lb/ft3) (ft3) (ft3) (scf)
(lbmol) (lb) (lbmol) (lbmol)
CO2 1.70E-03 51.3 0.0748 1.46E-03 1.30E-04 1.11E-04 1.72E-03 0.652
N2 2.67E-02 50.5 0.748 1.48E-02 9.09E-06 5.04E-06 2.72E-02 10.3
C1 1.47E-01 18.7 2.36 1.26E-01 9.07E-04 7.77E-04 1.53E-01 57.9
C2 7.06E-02 22.3 2.12 9.50E-02 2.33E-02 3.14E-02 5.84E-02 22.2
C3 1.00E-01 35.2 4.43 1.26E-01 4.98E-02 6.25E-02 7.66E-02 29.1
iC4 2.56E-02 36.5 1.49 4.08E-02 2.22E-02 3.54E-02 1.21E-02 4.61
nC4 6.92E-02 39.0 4.02 1.03E-01 6.61E-02 9.85E-02 2.80E-02 10.6
iC5 2.94E-02 39.4 2.12 5.39E-02 3.46E-02 6.33E-02 6.59E-03 2.50
nC5 3.85E-02 41.4 2.78 6.70E-02 4.71E-02 8.20E-02 7.01E-03 2.66
C6 5.29E-02 41.7 4.56 1.09E-01 7.20E-02 1.49E-01 3.62E-03 1.37
C7+ 4.37E-01 54.3 103 1.91 6.19E-01 2.69 1.00E-02 3.80
Total 9.99E-01 128 2.64 9.35E-01 3.22 3.84E-01 146
Oil/water separator sizing
In order to separate oil and water, two consecutive processes will be used:
 Mechanical separation
 Electrostatic separation
The equipment is sized to receive a maximum liquid rate of 95,000 stb/d (maximum
combined oil and water rate reached).
The separation is assumed isothermal at 55°C.
The mechanical separator’s volume is determined considering the fluid stays 10 min in
the separator.
70
10
𝑉 = 95000 ∗ = 660 𝑏𝑏𝑙 = 105 𝑚3
24 ∗ 60
The electrostatic separator’s area is determined by determining the electrostatic factor.
The water separation velocity is determined graphically knowing our operating

temperature.
Water separation velocity vs temperature

Velocity (Stokes)
10
1
0 50 100 150 200 250
Temperature (deg C)
The separation is thus made at Vs=7.1 Stokes.
The separation velocity is related to the electrostatic factor and is determined as

120 𝑏𝑝𝑑/𝑓𝑡 2 .
So the contact area of the electrostatic separator is
95000
𝐴= = 792 𝑓𝑡 2 = 74 𝑚2
120
The constraints over the operational pressure leaded to the choice of a pressure of 1.5 bar.
Operational pressure determination

Pressure (bar)
25
20 Bubble point pressure
15 Minimum required
pressure
10 Operational pressure
0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Temperature (deg C)
For contingency reasons, the separators are designed 10% larger than required.
Designed Chosen
Mechanical separator
105 116
volume (𝒎𝟑 )
Electrostatic separator area
74 81
(𝒎𝟐 )
72
Appendix 4: Pipeline design
The gas pipeline has been designed to provide a delivery outlet pressure of 75 bar
with a pump outlet pressure of 78 bar. As a result, a pipeline outer diameter of 8” which
delivers a slightly higher pressure has been chosen, knowing that the pressure can be
easily decreased using a pressure control device.
Gas pipeline design

Delivery outlet
pressure (bar)
81
79
77
75
73
71
69
67
65
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Pipeline OD (inches)
The oil pipeline has been designed to deliver oil at stock tank conditions (1.03 bar).
An outer diameter of 18” has been chosen to minimise the cost while targeting our
specifications. The higher pressure delivered can also be controlled by the same means as
the gas one.
Oil pipeline design

Delivery outlet
pressure (bar)
1.06
1.04
1.02
1
0.98
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.9
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Pipeline OD (inches)
Appendix 5: Flowline design
The flowline design adopted is based on a two-by-two step optimisation: the

flowline is optimised for two wells at a time.
Three groups of wells were considered in order to carry on the overall optimisation.
The distance between the two rigs is assumed to be equal to 2km and the distance
between the wells is around 20m.
The pressure at the gathering station is 14 bar and a multiphase booster is used in
the last flowline to ensure this objective is reached.
74
Appendix 6: National Grid gas line
This figure presents the high pressure pipeline of National Grid near the Dorset
region. The selected tie-in location is north of Blandford Forum, at Iwerne Courtney.
Appendix 7: Economics for P10, P90 scenarios
Economic viability of the project: cash flows, optimistic model

Cashflows throughout the field lifetime
USD millions OPEX
1,000
CAPEX
800 Total Revenue
Abandonment Allocation
600 Abandonment
Return on Abandonment
400 Investment
Cummulative Discounted Net
Cashflow
200
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(200) Year
(400)
Economic viability of the project: cash flows, conservative model

OPEX
Cashflows throughout the field lifetime
USD millions CAPEX
500 Total Revenue
400 Abondonment allocation

Abandonment
300
Return on Abandonment
200 Investment
Cummulative Discounted Net
Cashflow
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
(100)
(200)
Year
(300)
(400)
76
Cover page pictures:
Plants and our environment, ThinkQuest Library

Field Engineer with full PPE gear, Schlumberger
Safety signs, HSE UK government website
Natural Gas station road sign, Germany
Sunset at oilfield facilities, Eastern Energy Pvt Ltd, Pakistan
Iran to India Natural Gas Pipeline, Iran
Oil refinery, Earthly Issues website
New unit installations planning, General Electric Energy
Big Ben, London UK

6 Key Considerations and Recommendations - Compress

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

6 Key Considerations and Recommendations - Compress

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marcel&Conrad

Marcel&Conrad for Reservoir Engineering Team B

Wytch Farm Field

Plan, results and key recommendations

This page is intentionally left blank

Wytch Farm Field

Plan, results and key recommendations

Health, Safety and Environment statement

Our statement of general policy is:

Marcel, Chief Executive

Date: 22th of March 2012

Petroleum System & Reservoir Characterisation

 Source rock: Liassic Mudstone

 Reservoir rock: Sherwood Sandstone

 Cap rock: Mercia Mudstone

 Natural mechanisms allow low

 Water injection strategy

Mitigation scheme and recommendations

 High profitability achieved

 Shrewd reservoir management

 Efficient mitigation schemes

2. Developing the field 23

5. Uncertainties and risk management 53

6. Key considerations and recommendations 61

This page is intentionally left blank

Aim & Objectives

Location and context

1. Characterising the reservoir

The petroleum system at Wytch Farm comprises a Triassic Sherwood Sandstone

SOURCE: adapted from Underhill and Stonely, 1988

Multi-Lateral Multi-lateral stacked braided channel system of high net-to-gross

A maximum 40 m thick multi-storey channel deposits with thinner

Structural and sedimentological heterogeneities are both present in Sherwood

Sealing Fault Giga

Non-sealing Fault Giga 

Lacustrine muds Mega   

Flood deposit muds Mega   

Cemented channel lag Macro  

Cross bedding Macro/Micro  

Horizontal stratification within the Sherwood reservoir indicates a layer-cake

Rock and fluid properties

The initial conditions of the reservoir are the following:

Depth (TVDSS) 1585 m

Oil column thickness 39 m

Areal extent 40 km2

Pressure 165 bar

Rock properties: well logging interpretation and core analysis

Reservoir depth as a function of pressure

Parameter / Property Method Well average

Top Sherwood (m) Seismic acquisition, logs 1556 ± 15

Fluid properties: PVT and core analysis

Understanding the properties of the reservoir fluids is a fundamental step as it

GOR 320 scf/stb

Formation volume factor 1.21 rb/stb

Oil density 0.74 g.cm-3

Oil compressibility 1.37x10-4 bar-1

Oil viscosity 1.03 cP

It has to be mentioned that the uncertainties associated to these results are

Facies N/G Respect the depositional model Most of

Horizontal Honour the channel

QC of upscaled volumetric properties

2,000 1,359 1,378