Mature Field Initiative

ENSPM Course (12/11/2007)

 Program of the day

ƒ Mature fields and mundial energetic challenges

ƒ The maturity world

ƒ How to secure developped reserves : example of Alwyn asset

ƒ Redevelopment of new reserves : example Mandji Asset

ƒ Conclusion : engineering and re-engineering are two different sports

2 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Program of the day

ƒ Mature fields and mundial energetic challenges

ƒ The maturity world

ƒ How to secure developped reserves : example of Alwyn asset

ƒ Redevelopment of new reserves : example Mandji Asset

ƒ Conclusion : engineering and re-engineering are two different sports

3 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Two mundial “risky” meetings

2020 – 2030 : the “peak” oil meeting

ƒ Mundial oil production beginning to decrease

ƒ Oil demand exceeding oil offer

ƒ Strong impact on oil prices

ƒ Unexpected economical, political and social consequences

2040 – 2050 : the “reserves exhaustion” meeting

ƒ 2040 for the 1P reserves

ƒ 2050 for the 2P reserves

ƒ 2060 with heavy oil

ƒ 2070 to 2080 for gas

4 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 World Mature Field Stakes : production
World daily production (Mbopd)
150 Peak oil
in 2030

100
Projects (517) Exploration (172)
50
IOR & EOR
Basement (278)
2007 2017 2027 2037 2047
North Sea production (Mbpd) 2000
2005 to 2020
?
4

75 85 95 05 15
Technology has always so far allowed to delay decline
5 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
 World Mature Field Stakes : reserves & ressources

1000 Gbbls produced since 1900 • OOIP = 6600 Gbbls

• 1% recovery = 66 Gbbls
1200 Gbbls remaining (conventional only)

Remaining explo = 250 Gbbls

Average recovery factor 0,33
< 4% additional recovery
Cumulative discovery (Gbbls)
1 Gbbls
800 U 1 Middle East 870
Gbbls l 2 South Am erica 265
Total ultimate 2155 t 3
600 CIS 250
i
4 Africa 250
Total produced 1000 m
a 5 Asia 160 Creaming
400 Total remaining 1155 t 6 Europe 110 curves
3 2 e 7 North Am erica 250
200 4
5
6 7

10 20 30
Cumulative number of exploration wells (x1000)

6 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 World Mature Field Stakes : recoveries
Recovery factor (%)

Oil recovery is the main

mature stake for oil

Reservoir size
Recovery factor (%)
100
Gas in place is the main
mature stake for gas
50

Reservoir size

7 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 The ideal recovery chain

Short term : 2 years Medium terme : 5 years Long term : 10 years

<30% 35% 40% 50%

Re-develop
Sécure/optimise without modifying Change recovery
developped reserves recovery mechanism Méchanism & artificial
and production and artificial lift lift method
method

Sécurise recovery Optimise recovery Ensure secondary recovery Ensure full tertiary recovery

Asset intégrity Field gardening Debottleneck In fill EOR DOWS Ass. gas and gas cap

8 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 The « world » production curve
World daily production (Mbopd)
100
Redev (176) Gardening (117)

50
EOR

Basement (278)

2007 2017 2027 2037 2047

RF (%)
Sécure &
EOR
NP optimise

Basement 33,0 Re-develop

Gardening 117 Gbbls 179 Gbbls

Redevelopment 4,2 176 Gbbls

EOR 4,2
9 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
472 Gbbls
 Decomposition of future world production
Daily production (Mbopd) Daily production (Mbopd)
2%
140 EOR + re-development 140
1,5%

100 1% 100 Gbbl/yr 0,7

1
60 60 1,5
55 yrs
Basement + projects + explo
1Pconv
20 20 2Pconv
Unc.

07 12 17 22 27 32 70 90 10 30 50 70

Conclusions
¾ Base + projects + explo not sufficient to satisfy demand in 2030
¾ Required re-development and EOR on existing fields
¾ Consumption growth to be maintained below 1,5 %/y

10 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Improvement of basement recovery : costs
Main hypothesis
ƒ Basement : fixed 2007 flat OPEX + variable OPEX
ƒ Gardening : CAPEX + variable OPEX only
ƒ Re-development : CAPEX + fixed 2007 flat OPEX + variable OPEX
ƒ EOR : CAPEX + fixed 2007 flat OPEX + variable OPEX
ƒ Actualisation & abandonment costs not considered

Gardening
OPEX (G$)
EOR
200 Redevpt

Basement
2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032

400 CAPEX (G$)

200 Redevpt
EOR
Gard.

2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032

11 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
 Improvement of basement recovery
Technical costs

Basement
30
Gard
Rdvpt

EOR
10

2010 2020 2030

$/bbl Re-development EOR peak

30
peak

20
CAPEX
10
OPEX

2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032

12 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
 Re-development vs developement : advantages &
drawbacks

Advantages Drawbacks

Better static geosciences knowledge Worse dynamic knowledge

Smaller investments (25% to 40% of Small size of many mature fields.

initial CAPEX) Critical size ?

Available cost oil (uplift +PA) Higher cost/bbl compared to new

projects
Reduced time schedule allows to use
less conservative economical Small incremental production
hypothesis
Problem of contractual visibility (end
High barrel price allows new and of licence)
expensive technologies

13 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Program of the day

ƒ Mature fields and mundial energetic challenges

ƒ The maturity world

ƒ How to secure developped reserves : example of Alwyn asset

ƒ Redevelopment of new reserves : example Mandji Asset

ƒ Conclusion : engineering and re-engineering are two different sports

14 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 The Maturity “World” : which criteria ?

Age
Agecannot
cannotbe
bean
anabsolute
absolutecriteria
criteriaof
ofmaturity
maturity

Very
Veryoften
often: :maturity
maturityassociated
associatedwith
withthe
thedecline
declinephase
phase

33main
maincriteria
criteriato
todefine
definematurity
maturity

1. Reservoir maturity

Progressive degradation of asset integrity

Progressive inadaptation of ressources to needs

15 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Reservoir maturity
Primary causes Ekofisk Khariaga
Ekofisk Khariaga
Less pressure 400 40 Pressure (bar)
More water

Oil rate (Kstb/d)

Oil

Water-Cut (%)
1
More gas 250
200 20
Stress release 2
210

Secondary effects Water-Cut 170

Kr oil decreases
Oct-99 Oct-03

RWI degraded GOR Cusiana

WI
Cusiana
Water rate (Kstb/d)

800 80 Oil rate

VLP degraded GOR (kscf/stb)

GOR (100*scf/stb)
(kbopd) Water rate (kbpd)
100
Tools GOR

400 40 20
Water injection Oil
50
Water 10
Artificial lift

Others (R&D) 72 80 88 96 04 01/04 01/05

16 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Progressive degradation of asset integrity
Asset integrity = Economically
Economically==OPEX
OPEXcontrol
control
optimising
production & recovery Under
UnderHSE
HSE&&sut.
sut.dev.
dev.constraints
constraints

Equipment
Obsolescence
9 Conception
1. Old technology 1. 9 Maintenance
1.Technical
Technical
2. No spare parts 9 Modifications
3. No maint. compet. 9 Obsolescence

Update
Three main reasons 9 PID, plans Mature
fields
of the degradation of 2.
2.Methods
Methods 9 Logigrams cumulates

integrity 9 Procedures
9 Certif/calib

Competences
9 Training
3.
3.Human
Humanresources
resources 9 Turnover

ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

9 Motivation
17
 Major risks when using obsolete equipment
Rupture collecteur
de lubrification
Rupture des 4 goujons de
fixation de la bielle

Dégradation vilebrequin
Rupture du bâti
Echauffement vilebrequin

9 Main cause
Lack of lubrication of a gas lift
compressor following the wrong
functionning of a PSL

9 Consequence
Strong increase of the temperature
with high risks of ignition

9 Risk of escalation
Uncentralised information have
delayed discovery of problem and
induced a late intervention

18 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Gabon : Production disaster following OPEX cutting
50 Production (Mbbl/y)

40 Decline

30
96 98 00 02 04 06

300 Post 2000

Number of
inspected securisation period
capacities 253
238
200 182
156
Pre 2000 147
decline period
100
46 31 44
25 21 28 34

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

19 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
 Bloc 3 : positive correlation between production and
Breakdown Unp. Sfls
HSE indicators
Gas Lift Power
ppm Cont. Syst.
Mechanics
60 Others Wells
OIW 8%
8% 31%
40 10%

20
Technical cost ($/bbl) 02 03 04 05
20% 24%
Benchmark
effect Mbbls/year
3 Environment 10 60
SF
2 Costs Production

1 Safety 5 PROD

40
01 02 03 04 05 5 02 03 04 05
20
kbpd Light well
LTIFr Interv.

02 03 04 05 10

1
2
20 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
00 01 02 03 04
 Progressive inadaptation of ressources to needs.
Exploitation and redevelopment bottlenecks
Process

Pumping
Gas flaring
Initial functionning envelope
Current operating envelope

Electric power Compression

Operational bottlenecks Re-developement bottlenecks

Process Process

Compression
Pumping Gas flaring Flaring

Elecric power Compression Slots

Nominal functionning envelope Accommodation
Mature operational envelope Mature operational envelope
Degraded functionning envelope Redevelopment operating envelope
Exploitation bottleneck
21 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007 Re-development bottleneck
 Exploitation UK bottleneck : accomodation
Hrs/year Alwyn 2/cabin
1000
Alwyn
(3/cabin) 2007
500 (2/cabin)
Elgin Alwyn 3/cabin

07 08 09 10 11 12 Dunbar

Hrs/year Alwyn 2/cabin

500
2008
Dunbar
250 Elgin Alwyn 3/cabin
Available

07 08 09 10 11 12 Dunbar

700 Hrs/year Elgin Alwyn 2/cabin

2009
350

Available Elgin Alwyn 3/cabin

07 08 09 10 11 12 Dunbar
22 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
 Exploitation bottlenekking : gas lift Bloc 3
No P No P
(MSm3/d)
1,8

1,4
GL required 2C 1C 2C 1C

1,0
2003 2007

2 pipes
0,6 1P 1P
no pipe No P No P
0,2

03 05 07 09 11
2C 1C 2C 1C

BUF F1
2009 2011
PAC F4
1P 1P
COBP1

P = pipe
C= compressor
23 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
 Re-development : new extensive needs

Satellite Re-development Near By Explo

Drilling slots

Space Process

Initial envelope

Electric power Compression

Water injection

24 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Surface debottlenekking : Dunbar Blow down
Drilling slots

Space Process

Compression
Water injection

Electric power

kbopd Reduced gas content

Msm3/d
60 Blow 6
down Sent O&G separately
40 4
Inject liquid to reduce GLR
20 2
Change MPP cartridge

06 10 14 18 22 Full process on Dunbar

25 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Tunu on-going development (phases 11 to 15)
Drilling slots

Space Process

Compression 800 m
Water injection

Electric power 1600 m

Tertiary 800 m Initial 1600 m

Killed well Secondary 1100 m

Remote WHPF
Initial WHP

New WHPF
flow lines
GTS
platform
ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
prolongation
26
 Surface debottlenekking + tie back of a satellite
Drilling slots

Space Process

Tie back Libondo

¾ µphase oil towards Yanga via Kombi

Compression
Water injection ¾ Water inject. from Yanga via Kombi

Kombi
Electric power
Yanga

Libondo

Gas injection in N’Kossa

¾ 2 injectors on NKF2
N’Kossa
¾ Gas pipe NKF1 – NKF2

27 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Long term strategy : EOR
Miscibility effect CH4, C02
Temperature < 70°C
Viscosity effect Polymers
Salinity < 30 mg/l
Capillarity effect Surfactant Shear rate <
Thermal effect on µ Steam, combst.

Wettability change ? Fresh water

Viscosity (cP) LIPO Oil Water

Recovery (%)
HYDRO
5.6 CIBA SOR
700 ppm 0.4
σo/w=30
SNF dyne/cm
4.6 0.3
Ashland
0.2
3.6
σo/w=10-3
CYTEC 0.1
dyne/cm
Fresh water
2.6
25 52 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2
Salinity (g/l)
Capillary Number

28 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Worsening factors
Natural
ƒ Abnormal pressure and temperature
ƒ Specific fluid composition (oil –wax, asphaltens-, gas (sour-, water –barium)
ƒ Abnormal contrasts : pressure, permeability, stresses
ƒ Rock type : tight, unconsolidated, soft
ƒ Heterogeneous and faulted reservoirs

Methods and regulations

ƒ Rules imposed by referential
ƒ New regulations : environment (OIW, flaring)

Contractual conditions and barrel price

ƒ Low barrel price
ƒ End of licence
ƒ Specific PSA constraints

Logistics and communication constraints

ƒ Lack of transportation means
ƒ Lack of accomodation space
ƒ Availability of intervention means

29 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Long term strategy : Electrical Submersible Pump
M$
Main problematics 4
Work-over
¾ Corrosion : ok but impact on cost
Production losses
¾ Temperature : low (elastomer - 140°), 3
Cable + connexions
medium (mixed elasto/metal - 180°C), Pump 2
high (metal – 205°)
¾ Gas : conventional (20%), medium 1

standard (40%), µPOSEIDON (80%)

ESP world and Total On-shore Off-shore Subsea DW

¾ 100 k in world (65 k in Russia) HELIPS

¾ Total : 140 (2000), 150 (2006)
¾ No switch gaslift ESP

Cost and reliability ¾ Launched 1999

¾ Conventional 150 k$ to 400k$, HT 1M$
¾ Initial project : ENI, Watherford, Shell
¾ Cost of W/O is the killing factor
¾ Today : ENI (partner) + Bertin
¾ MTBF : 2 years
¾ Need a pumping company (Hall ?)
Helips
¾ Linear ESP
¾ Moving parts « wire line retrievable »
30 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
 Long term strategy : Downhole Oil/Water Separation
Static cyclone (2$/bbl) Dynamic cyclone (OPTISEP)
Oil
Total Patent
Electrical
Submersible Oil exit
Pump (ESP)

Downhole
Separator
Water exit

2006 work: DYNAMIC

(R&D)
Water
(PWRI) From prototype to
Injection development

zone Partnership with

Schlumberger
Electric
motor Build full size
« prototype »,
good mechanical
design
Oil + Producing
water Hydraulic performance
zone testing in progress

Inlet fluid

¾ Static cyclone for high BSW (>80%) and low flow rates (<2000 bopd)
¾ Dynamic cyclone efficient for low BSW (till 50%) and high flow rates (15 kbpd)
¾ OPTISEP project in collaboration with Schlumberger (Total patent)
¾ Re-injection formation very often the killing factor

31 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Cherry on the cake : valorise gas

Today = Flaring zero objective

Tomorrow
1
Valorise gas
G
Gas lift
b Gas re-injection
+
e

p Connexion to conventional LNG

/
Fuel gas
Development of mini LNG
+ y

e
µ GTL (Velocys project)
a
Flaring r Local electricity market

32 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Redevelopment & stop flaring : OML 100
Drilling slots
BONNY -
EDIKAN LNG

Space Process

OPD2
FSO

ODP1
Compression
Water injection ODUDU
AFIA
New HP Pipes
Electric power IME
New BP Pipes

¾ Integrity & duration of installations (securisation OML 99,100, 102 – 184 kbopd)
¾ Quality of water disposal
Meet nigerian enviromental regulations
¾ Stop flaring
¾ Valorisation of gas (23 Mboe)
50 Mbbls
¾ Valorisation of Edikan reserves (22 Mbbl) 935 Mus$
¾ Additions reserves (Odudu, Afia & Ime – 4 Mbbls) 19$/bbl

33 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Rio del Rey & stop flaring project
80 k Fuel gas
Rio del Rey m
LIMBE C3/C4 export
Sanaga C5+ export
500 Mcfd?
Nigeria

60 km
Gas to
250 Mcfd
Alba POWER Plant
T1 : 3.7 Mtpy / mid 07 510 Mcfd
Need 20 MMScfd
T2 : 4.4 Mtpy / 2011-2012
Feed gas : 1250 MMSCFD
MALABO LNG

MMscfd Mcfd 20 years

160 Mboe 250 Mcfpd
100 200

60
100

20

1 5 10 15 20 25 5 15 25
Rio del Rey profile Global marginal profile
34 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
 Litchendjili : mini GNL offshore (250 MMcfpd)
MMscfd bopd

0 Km Qg (MMscfd)
2 20
Pointe-Noire Qliquid (Cond + GPL)
200
Litchendjili
Qcond (bopd)
10

10 20 30 40
Time (year)

35 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Program of the day

ƒ Mature fields and mundial energetic challenges

ƒ The maturity world

ƒ How to secure developped reserves : example of Alwyn asset

ƒ Redevelopment of new reserves : example Mandji Asset

ƒ Conclusion : engineering and re-engineering are two different sports

36 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

Secure developed reserves : Mature Management System
Goal : reliable production target through optimization and
prioritization of protection CAPEX & mitigation plan

Unreliable CAPEX & Secured CAPEX &

Mature Management System
Production forecats Production forecats
Year n Risks Mitigation Year n+1…
LTP assessment Action plan LTP

Method : vulnerability/impact/risk through analysis of key systems

1. Segmentation 2. Vulnerability 3. Impact 4. Risk 5. Mitigation

MFI group + subsidiary (3 months) Subsidiary

Defensive strategy : secure reserves & production

MMS
Offensive : undeveloped, PVR, POTEX

37 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Vulnerability Impact
Protection
Oil export : whole oil production

System Power generation : whole production

Gas export : whole gas production

Water injection : production impacted

Vulnerabilty
System identity
X Risk = vulnerability * impact
system protection

2. Vulnerability 3. Impact 4. Risk 5. Mitigation

Impact Risk Mitigation

Maturity Capacity Prot 1 Prot 2 Prot 3
(boel/d) (boe/d) (M$)

Man. (boepd, Not

System

Techn HR
system reserves, integrated
Identity card
HSE) in MMS
Protection cards

38 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 MMS project milestones

Project was launched mid may

Contributors
ƒ MFI team
ƒ Alcimed (industry survey)
ƒ SBC as the facilitator
ƒ Pr Alain Bernard (Ecole Centrale Nantes) expert in vulnerability theory
ƒ Ph. Chervi (consultant for FOI)
ƒ PETRIS
ƒ TEP UK and DIG EN

Method consolidated in June/July in workshop mode and with various

experts of DGEP (TDO/TEC, EXP, FP, Geosiences)

Two missions in Aberdeen (July and September) to fill the Alwyn matrix

Debriefing session with subsidiary and DIG on 26th september

39 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Calculation of composite vulnerability
Protection (P)
Maturity (M) Capacity (C ) Composite Vulnerability (V)
Techn HR Managt
Composite
P1 P2 P3

1.537
Ranking 1 to 5 No ranking for (M x P)
max weight 5 Reservoir full scale#0 to 100

Ranking 1 to 5 Ranking 1 to 5 Ranking Ranking Ranking P1x(P2+P3)/2x4/25 MxCxP

max weight 5 max weight 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 max weight 4 full scale#0 to 100

Ranking 1 to 5 Ranking 1 to 5 MxCxP

max weight 5 max weight 5 full scale#0 to 100

Composite vulnerability (%)

50 Highlights

Wells and facilities • Vulnerability between 0 % (all components equals 1)

and 100% (all components equals 5)
30
• Typical values between 1 % (good) and 20% (degraded)

10 • Formula different for reservoir (no capacity component)

• Interpretation from values and/or colours scales

1 2 3 4
Equal individual contribution

40 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 General segmentation choke and support systems
Power generation
INJECTION

PWRI DUNBAR
O/W/G
process PWRI

MPP

Fuel gas

ELLON
Control ALWYN OIL Gas
Accommodation & command HSE process

ST Fergus
Gas Terminal

Gas export

NUGGETS

Logistics
ALWYN GAS
Gas flaring

Gas condensate
process Sullom Voe
FORVIE Control Oil Terminal
Accommodation & command HSE

Oil export

41 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007 GRANT

Typical MMS questionnaire
Comments (details,
Item Questions 5 4 3 2 1 Overall
constraints…)
Is the oil content in the water leg within specifications? Only a separation problem on the
X
Dunbar/Alw yn separator
Is exported oil within specifications?
-Water content
X
-Salt content
-RVP
Is the liquid in gas within specifications?
-Oil content X
Oil & produced -Water content
water treatment Is Oil Treatment a major source of containment losses? 2
-High % of overal containement losses X
-Significant % of overall spill volume
Is the Oil Treatment a major source of unplanned shortfalls?
X
-High % of overal unplanned shortfalls
Is the OIW in specifications? (30ppm specification) Alw yn produced w ater treatment
X penalised by chemicals injected in the
multiphase pipe of Dunbar
Is the weight of hydrocarbon released in specifications? X Largely under quota thanks to PWRI
Is the outlet gas quality for fuel gas within specifications? Quality of gas feeding turbines affected
-Water Content X by cold w ells at restart. Main issue for
-If applicable, H2s and Co2 content fuel gas is temperature.
Is the outlet gas quality for commercial gas within specifications?
-Water Content At present gas export specification is met
X
Gas Treatment -If applicable, H2s and Co2 content 2 in spite of
-LHV
Is the quality of the gas treatment responsible for indirect shortfalls (e.g. gas lift
X
shortfalls)?
If applicable, is the gas treatment responsible for non respect of gas contract? X
Is the inlet Fluid quality within specifications? Gas liquid ratio higher than the
X
average designed ratio
Is the current performance of the compressor close to its nominal performance? Performance is very bad because
-Pressure X mechanical probems mainly
-Flowrate (bundel vibrations and seals)
Dunbar Multi Is the reliability (unplanned downtime) of the compression system acceptable?
Phase Pumps -Green>92% X
4 79% for pump A, 90% Pump B,
avergae availability at 84%
-Red<85%
Is the availability (Total downtime) of the compression system acceptable?
Global availability depends on
-Green>92% X
reliability
-Red<85%
42 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
Do you have low risk of obsolescence? X
 Mature Management Matrix
Vulnerability Impact Risk
System
% kboepd kboepd
MPP Cartridge replacement
R Nuggets 6 20,64 1,22
e Grant 4 12,82 0,50 MPP problems & trips
s Alwyn Triassic 9 8,71 0,80 MPP cooler scaling
e Alwyn Statfjord 8 18,13 1,44
r Forvie 3 11,56 0,37 MPP management
v Alwyn Brent 11 3,15 0,36 100 300 500
o Dunbar water injection 20 13,00 4,70 Unplanned
i Dunbar depletion 13 29,90 1,64
r
shortfalls (kboe)
Ellon 16 3,67 0,58

W
Nuggets 2 20,64 0,32 MPP shortfalls > 1,5 Mboe in 2006
Grant 5 12,82 0,60
e Alwyn Brent 18 3,15 0,57 Risk estimated by MMS at 2 Mboe
l Alwyn Statfjord Trias 14 26,84 3,87
l Forvie 3 11,56 0,36
s Ellon 9 3,67 0,32
Dunbar 16 36,90 5,90 Among four turbines
F Oil & water Treatment 2 32,26 0,76 • Turbine A out of service since 04/07
a Gas Treatment 2 83,32 1,96 • Turbine D out of service since 09/07
c Export gas compression 9 83,32 7,82
i Water injection 23 13,00 3,05
l MPP 14 40,56 5,71 Alwyn area currently with two turbines
i Multiph pipe 18 40,56 7,14
t Oil export pipe 2 32,26 0,57
i Gas export pipe 2 83,32 1,47
e Oil Export 2 32,26 0,76
s Electrical Generation 7 115,57 8,14

43 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Production risks ranking
Impact (kboepd) Risk (kbopd)
40
R Dunbar
E Dunbar (cumul)
30 6
S
R Nuggets

Statfjord

Nuggets
20 Statfjord
V
Grant

Trias
O

Forvie
Grant
Ellon
Triassic

Brent
I 10 Forvie 2
Brent
R Ellon
10 20
7
Dunbar
Dunbar
W 30 Statfjord
5
E & Trias
Nuggets Statfjord&
L Trias
3

Nuggets
L Grant

Grant

Forvie
Brent
S

Ellon
10 Forvie Ellon Brent 1

5 10 15
150 10
F Export MP
A gas pipe
Power
C

Gas process
100 MPP
Gas process

Gas pipe
I

Oil process
Export gas

Oil Export
L Gas pipe 5

Oil pipe
I WI
50 MPP MP
T Oil process
Oil export pipe
I Oil pipe WI
E
10 20 Power
44 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007 Vulnerability (%)
 Reservoir vulnerability

Colour is
vulnerability

Size is impact

Forvie, Nuggets Alwyn

Triassic/Statfj. Dunbar Alwyn
Grant Brent

Link with Jura Primary recovery

2nd recovery
Artificial lift Tertiary recovery :
recovery chain Hild No artificial lift
& wat. inj. field blow down

45 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Vulnerability of facilities

Conception
Degraded Limit of capacity

obsolescence

Lack of
maintenance

46 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Dunbar reservoir : vulnerability analysis

• Most downhole gauges HS

• Surface monitoring to be improved
• Seismic to be reprocessed
• Poor availability of test separator

• Slugging (high BSW)

• Complex PVT. GOR not anticipated
• Injection below target
Poor model (update) • Sweeping efficiency questionable
• Unreliable pressure values
Very poor reallocation • Questionable blowdown mechanism
• Permeability contrasts
• Scaling in the reservoir
47 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
 Vulnerability of Dunbar facilities
• Gas liquid ratio higher than the average designed ratio
(pump functioning out od design window)

• Bad performance because of mechanical probems

(bundel vibrations and seals

• 79% for pump A, 90% Pump B, average availability at 84 %

• 1 Mboep losses in 2006

• Poor quality of injected water limit injection

• Water pipe injection system strongly pulluted

• Reliability of vaccum pump questionnable (problems of

internal of the deoxygenation tower)

• Injection pumping system not too degraded

Vulnerability Impact Strategy

Very mature reservoir 1. Restore water
Insufficient water injection injection and delay
Current Very degraded technical 40 kboepd blow down
protections 2. Stop injection
Unreliable MPP earlier and begins
Unknown blow down blow down
behaviour 3. Strategic decision
Future 180 Mboe
Questionable behaviour of between MPP or full
MPP at high GLR process on Dunbar

48 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Export gas and power generation

• Very mature system close to obsolescence • Reliable and available system (98 %)

• Large overcapacity (4 turbines vs 2) • Slight overcapacity today

• Under capacity coming soon with Jura and Hilde

49 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Alwyn area risk analysis : summary
¾ Dunbar is a highly risky system
Forecasts - Realisations
9 Reservoir : complex, mature, blowdown uncertainty
9 Unreliable modelling (on going progress) (kboepd)
IB 40,9
9 Lack of monitoring & interventions (POB/ space) 2007 36%
CF 30,1
9 Degraded water injection system PLT 2007 35,7
9 Unreliable MPP with heavy shortfalls 2008 43%
IB 25

¾ Facilities : two additional risky systems

9 Gas export : good availability limit of capacity
9 Electric power : system oversized (4vs2) but degraded
Dunbar Pipe
(104)
Alwyn/Dunbar Ageing
¾ PLT on-going actions Dunbar MPP 7 Living Quarter
49
Alwyn CGL Triassic 24 10 (7)
Alwyn CGL Brent 29
Alwyn
Alwynarea
areadefensive
defensiveactions
actions Alwyn LLP 42
(excluding Dunbar pipe)
(excluding Dunbar pipe) 5
=======
=======
125
125M£
M£ Dunbar LP Project 31

Statfjord Trias

Multiph pipe
reservoir

Water inj
MPP

Generation
(source
(sourceUK
UKPLT
PLT07)

compression
Scale mitigation 16 Dunbar

Electrical
Export gas
07)

wells

50 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Program of the day

ƒ Mature fields and mundial energetic challenges

ƒ The maturity world

ƒ How to secure developped reserves : example of Alwyn asset

ƒ Redevelopment of new reserves : example Mandji Asset

ƒ Conclusion : engineering and re-engineering are two different sports

51 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 ILE MANDJI The

Mandji

Asset

52 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Thermodynamic maturity of Mandji
Three examples of recovery mechanisms
Grondin sector Torpille field Anguille field
Main data Main data Main data
9 Low depletion level 9 High depletion level 9 Medium depletion level
9 High BSW 9 Low BSW 9 Low BSW
9 Low GOR 9 High GOR 9 Low GOR

Reservoir mechanism Reservoir mechanism Reservoir mechanism

Active aquifer Active gas cap + WI Water injection

300
Flow (km3/d) P (bar)
Pressure (bar) 12
230
Oil 200
8 Press (bar) 160
210 Gas
WI
4 80 100
Natural Water
190
Ayol depletion Injection
79 84 89 95 00 06 70 80 90 00
75

85

95

05

53 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Export

To sea Cap
CLIENTS
Lopez

Anguille

Ile Mandji

Torpille
To sea Grondin
54 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
 Goals and hypothesis
Goals
ƒ Maximum flexibility for any future redevelopment
ƒ No more flaring
ƒ Possibility to re-inject fresh (EOR) and produced (PWRI) water
ƒ Reduction of OPEX
ƒ Reduction of personnel 60-64
Men
55-59 Women
50-54
45-49 127

40-44
35-39
Means : several schemes envisaged 30-34
ƒ Similar design / equivalent replacement 25-29
<25
ƒ Maximum off-shore centralisation 40 80 120

ƒ Maximum on shore centralisation

Example of ideal qualitative scheme
with switch GL/ESP Most aggressive but number of limitations
studied later !

55 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Anguille
PG2/ Cap
Lopez

Torpille
Grondin
56 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
 Anguille
PG2/ Cap
Lopez

Torpille
Grondin
57 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
 Anguille
PG2/ Cap
Lopez

Gas
cap

Torpille
Grondin
58 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
 CLIENTS

Anguille
PG2/ Cap
Lopez

Gas
cap

Torpille
Grondin
59 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
 Export

CLIENTS

ESP

Anguille Disposed
PG2/ Cap
Lopez

Gas
cap

Torpille ESP
Grondin
60 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
 Export

CLIENTS

ESP

Anguille Disposed
PG2/ Cap
Lopez

Gas
cap

Torpille ESP
Grondin
61 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
 Export

MP CLIENTS

ESP

Anguille Disposed
PG2/ Cap
Lopez
HP

Gas
cap

Torpille ESP
Grondin
62 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
 Export

MP CLIENTS

ESP

Anguille Disposed
PG2/ Cap
Lopez
HP

ESP

Gas
cap
Export

Torpille ESP
Grondin
63 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007 Disposed
 Export

MP CLIENTS

ESP

Anguille Disposed
PG2/ Cap
Lopez
HP

ESP

Gas
cap
Export

Torpille ESP
Grondin
64 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007 Disposed
 Export

MP CLIENTS

ESP

Anguille Formation
water
Sea
Fresh water water
HP

ESP

Gas
cap
Export

Torpille ESP
Grondin
65 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007 Disposed
On-shore centralisation with ESPs meets objectives
Should significantly reduce OPEX and personnel
Re-injection in Torpille gas cap has numerous advantages
ƒ Should allow to reach a full non flaring policy
ƒ Should improve Torpille oil recovery factor
ƒ Could open to a future gas market
Possibility to reinject sea, fresh and production water (PWRI)
Interest of treating Grondin independently

Electric power Compression Water injection

Decreasing installation & logistic costs
Minimised planned losses
Decreasing personnel
Advantages
Better availability and easier evolutivity
Heavy duty low cost possible Facilitate non flaring policy Sea/fresh & prod water
30% imp. efficiency Easier heavy treatments
New cables required Aband. operational equipment Picking sea wat. near the coast
Additional 10% electric losses Impact on power to be studied
Drawbacks
Impacted availability of LP gas
Higher risks in case of dysfunction

66 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 ESP decision center (CVX + Schlum)

espWatcher*
Surveillance
• Prevent failures
• Reduce downtime
• Find opportunities
LiftPro*
Outflow Analysis
• Pump efficiency
• Pump wear, sizing
• Outflow constraints

Inflow Analysis
Production Improvement • Formation damage
• Estimate extra BBLS • Reservoir pressure
• Recommend Action • Flood Pattern Optimization

Based
Basedon
onone-year
one-yearexperience
experienceglobal
globalESP
ESPsurveillance
surveillancehas
hasallowed
allowed: :
ƒƒ 10%
10%ofofincrease
increaseproduction
production
ƒƒ 57%
57%ofofwells
wellscan
canbenefit
benefitfrom
fromoptimization
optimizationofofthe
thelifting
liftingsystem
system

67 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Survey of existing wells : half of wells closed
Goals On going work
ƒ Potential of improvement PI ƒ Step 1: collect of well data
ƒ Possible side-tracks (done)
ƒ ESP potential
ƒ Step 2: analysis & screening
ƒ Work over (integrity)
of interventions (on going –
ƒ Recovery of slots to be completed end 11/07)

50

293 wells

142 closed
30

10
M
M
M

M
M

O
E
EM
B M

G M
M
M
M

TN E

SW
E

LO

SM
SM

YM

W
G M
M

IM
LO
PO

TC

TO
N
S
N

ST
YL

SS
N

EN
D
A

A
G
R

PA

VN
PS
TR

TC
G

TC
A

C
A
D

A
B

H
M

B
B
G

G
A

M
A

M
68 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
 Program of the day

ƒ Mature fields and mundial energetic challenges

ƒ The maturity world

ƒ How to secure developped reserves : example of Alwyn asset

ƒ Redevelopment of new reserves : example Mandji Asset

ƒ Conclusion : engineering and re-engineering are two different sports

69 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Mature Fields : general proposed methodology

Sécure/optimise Foggy
Foggy area
area Re-develop

Exploitation Re-développement
Bottlenecks Bottlenecks

Conventional
Re-engineering
(M&I, NRW) CAPEX CAPEX
No add. reserves Add. reserves

1. Mature Management 2. Mature Management 3. Preliminary 4. Conceptual

System (static) System (dynamic) global Part of the asset

“Defensive” strategy “Offensive” strategy

70 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007

 Conclusion & summary
Mature fields can be defined from three criteria
ƒ Reservoir maturity
ƒ Degradation of the asset integrity
ƒ Maladjustment between mean and needs

Mature fields can strongly impact the two risky meeting

ƒ through production acceleration
ƒ through recovery improvement

Engineering of new projects vs re engineering of mature fields

ƒ Two very different sports
ƒ Do not follow the same rules

Management of mature field follows a chronologic schadule

ƒ Static view of the asset to secure developed reserves
ƒ Dynamic view to integrate all opportunities
ƒ Preliminary global re-engineering studies
ƒ Conceptual local studies
71 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
72 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007
73 ENSPM course – 12/11/2007