SPE 87000 An Attractive Raw Deal Novel Approach to Barton Oilfield Water Injection

Steven Kiong-Hooi Lee, SPE; Thiam-Guan Tan, SPE; Andrew Vaughan, Shell Malaysia Exploration & Production

Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Modelling for Asset Management held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 29-30 March 2004. This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

gravity segregation with moderate aquifer support. Primary depletion currently delivers 35% recovery factor. The development team was faced with the challenge of redevelopment using pressure maintenance in a significantly depleted field. The field is also complex with significant heterogeneity (permeabilities ranging from 100 mD to 5000 mD) and faulting (risk of compartmentalization as seen in some wells). The team inherited an original plan of installing a conventional water injection system (fine filtration and deaeration system), which required a new jacket to house the water injection system. This was mooted at a time when water cut levels in the field was still low and views of the reservoir were still immature. The project needless to say met difficult economic challenges, in part because the subsurface risks were not completely assessed. A value assurance review (VAR) held in mid-2002 on the original selected concepts was subsequently held which prompted a revisit of the subsurface understanding and a relook of the engineering solutions. The result after about 14 months of intense subsurface and surface studies was a slashing of engineering costs by about 60% alongside improved subsurface understanding albeit reducing expectation reserves by about half. Project economics has markedly improved and the project is on its way to being implemented. The key technology enabler was the use of minimally filtered and treated seawater injection (MFSI) which also known as raw seawater injection in some quarters. This reduced the topsides requirement (by some 300 metric tonnes) such that the existing processing platform could be modified to accommodate the required facilities. Project Planning Challenges In a conventional opportunity realization process, subsurface studies and surface concept selection generally tends to be sequential; the latter following once there is a good level of maturity of subsurface work. For Barton, the recognition that a radical change would be needed in project scope and economics prompted an approach that promoted the early, systematic identification and paralleling of integrated surfacesubsurface concepts (Realise the Limit RTL methodology opportunity framing, options identification & screening, scenario modelling, options vs. scenario selection). Novel technology/solutions where identified will naturally take longer time from assessment stage to application, hence early identification and pursuit needs to take place (global and regional peer assist, R&D engagement). For the Barton water

Abstract This paper describes the integrated subsurface/surface concept generation and challenge process which delivered a novel water flood project (raw seawater injection), slashing 60% off the original engineering Capex, while still addressing key subsurface uncertainties, and keeping within the normal project timescale. It also attempts to identify the key factors and processes that helped to deliver this innovative solution in spite of the challenges. The processes described in this paper allow for early surface/subsurface/well engineering engagement in order to promote creativity and manage uncertainties in challenging E&P projects. Managing such creative, parallel processes has allowed the Barton team to be better integrated in finding an optimal and novel solution to a complex situation, hence positioned to deliver higher value within a reasonable timescale. The team acknowledges the value of a structured process to generate widely divergent solutions (which look like chaos at the time), and the creative tensions and discomfort that accompany shifting through this chaos to deliver an innovative solution. It also described the means in which the team had built stakeholder support for new ideas through engaging global expertise. Introduction The Barton Field is one of the mature oil fields located offshore Sabah, Malaysia approximately 220-km northeast of Labuan Island at a water depth of 130 ft. The field operates within the production sharing contract (PSC) environment and in a joint-venture partnership with another company. It largely contains medium 32o API oil, with initial reservoir pressure of 1058 psia (73 bara) at a reservoir datum of 2000 ft (610 m) tvss. Primary depletion has depleted the reservoir pressure to 550 psia after some 20 years of production, through some 20 production wells. The drive mechanism is primarily good

www.petroman.ir

SPE 87000

flood project, the process was helped considerably by the teams ability to have good access to and working in collaboration with internal and external experts globally. A virtual peer assist (VPA) using internet and telecommunication technologies helped to hook up the groups waterflood experts residing worldwide to engage in integrated technical discussions. At the same time the expectations and views of a range of stakeholders, who varied from being supportive to being sceptical, had to be effectively managed (workshop on commercial, organizational and socio-political issues held). Over 10 milestone technical and value assurance reviews (VAR) were held between internal and external stakeholders to ensure quality decision-making and full stakeholder buy-in. Not least the subsurface work to understand the full range of subsurface uncertainties leading to optimal development strategies had to be started. This encompasses new 3D geophysical interpretations and analyses, full field geological modelling, 3D full field dynamic simulations (historymatching and predictive runs) all done in support of a multiple-scenario modelling approach. To this end, through an interactive process (described as 3D all the way approach) between static and dynamic modellers, some 8 static models were finally selected for dynamic history-match from a pool of even greater numbers of static realizations (models). Of the 8 static models, 5 were successfully dynamically historymatched for predictive simulation purposes. Parallel Processes in Opportunity Realisation Paralleling and integration of all the above processes was crucial that the Barton project delivers on its promises and on time. In particular the integration between subsurface development and well/surface engineering options was dynamic in nature hence carrying several options late into the decision making process was not uncommon. For example, not long prior to the final concepts being selected, 2 possible surface concepts exists (water injection and gas injection), 4 different well concepts were carried for the injector wells (all catering for different uncertainties) whilst interpreting the significance of different history-matched models to the final solutions. Figure A-1 (appended) demonstrates the timing of the key processes involved in this project. The key enabling elements in Bartons Realise the Limit opportunity realisation process are described as follows: - Opportunity Framing - Options Identification and Screening (Technology Evaluation) - Scenario Modelling (3D all the way) - Options vs. Scenario Assessment These are broadly illustrated below: (Figure 1)

Figure 1

3D all the way Scenario Modelling

Opportunity Framing

Global and regional peer assist (Group R&D, VPA, regional sharing) External learnings other operators Technical and Value assurance

Options v Scenarios assessment Optimal Concept Selected

Option Identification & Screening Technology Evaluation

Fracture, Souring, Raw Seawater Injection modelling and studies

Realise the Limit - Opportunity Framing Briefly, this Opportunity Framing was a session held to identify all the opportunities and risks associated with the project scope and to ensure that mission, objectives, project governances, tools, resources, processes, etc. are all aligned to manage the risks and opportunities identified. This was important for the Barton project in view of the expectation at the beginning that project reserves will be significantly reduced from the previous understanding hence may require a different engineering solution. A project road map is typically produced at the end of the session to collate the various aspect of opportunity realisation. A sample for Barton is shown in Figure A-2 (appended). Realise the Limit Options Identification Post opportunity-framing exercise, the first Options Identification workshop was primarily aimed at ensuring sufficient divergence in options (brainstorming) so that all possibilities remain included. This is a multidisciplinary effort involving the surface and surface folks in the project. Typically the broad considerations on the technical or decision issues are captured here and translated into an options identification matrix shown below (Figure 2)
Figure 2

Surface Options Identification

Options A B C

Key Issues:

Specific Themes

Maximum Recovery (Block B, C, D, E) Low Capex

Robust against Low Case (connectivity & STOIIP) Low Opex

Gas injection.

What do we inject

Number of wells W here do we inject

W ell type

Injection rate

Option 3.0 Hybrid Option 4.0 Aquifer Produced water, Aquifer. (Gas and water W ater injection simultaneously) 0 new wells (use existing wells), injector-producer pairs?, Need more injection & Some W O wells Existing wells. number of new slots on platform, strap-on conductors, no producer wells required.Possible limted to number of wells, additional slots on existing new wells (on platform strap-on) to improve sweep Extended reach, W O, New horizontals, Number of strings: Highly deviated wells ESP wells W orkover. dual vertical or multilaterals, W OSTR, Spliter wellhead, very likley slim/monobore Existing water of 3000 bwpd, Additional water from other 10 MMscfd gas and Constraint by well Optimum injection rate: 6 sources (3-40 kbpwd); Existing gas of 3-4 MMscfd, 20 kbwpd and ESP design kbpd. Produced water for Additional from other sources (4-20 MMscfd) current Barton production, 3 kbpd.

Gas, seawater, PW , export water, aquifer water (ESP, etc.), CO2, steam, W AG (hybrid), polymer, surfactant, microbs

Existing wells.

Less W orkover.

10 MMscfd (670 psig)

Energy supply

Seawater, PW , Aquifer (ESP), Gas from other fields SF, SJ, EW

PW and top up with May have issues seawater, BT gas and with supply top up from nearby fields (SF, SJ) Big bang approach Gas from SF Require phasing Non

Reinjection of Produced water, Aquifer (ESP).

Gas supply from nearby fields.

Do you want to phase project Interface with other fields Platform type

Pilot on E and Phased on B/C, W I Big Bang on all Blocks, Gas Injection Big Bang; Phased gas injection Synergy with SF30 W I: single water processing facility (hub/mobile); Standalone; Gas supply priority Jacket, Jack-up, Floater, Complex or single, Isolated or linked to current platform, extension on existing platform Excess gas from other fields, future increase in water production from BTW I

Pilot water injection, phasing. Non Use existing platform with deck extension Non for gas. Produce water disposal via reinjection. Reduce loading in LCOT. Modify separator from existing 2-phase separator to 3-phase separator to separate the oil and water. Sand removal.

No phasing. Source of gas SF compression (SFKA) MEE for Barton is met in terms of gas disposal. CI/Dehydrate

Synergy with environmental issue

Pipeline from SF, New Strap-on and production facility some deck extension Gas and water PW will increase disposal with W I

Fluid quality/conditioning

W ater: See no. 1, no deaeration, filtration (Y/N); Gas: dehydration (Y/N)

Required

None if no compatibility issues

Injection type (matrix vs. fractured)

Cost (Opex/Capex), HSE, Sweep Efficiency

matrix

matrix

Frac.

Matrix

The above matrix illustrates the initial cataloguing of engineering processes for different key thematic requirements. The selected themes are used to steer the high level possibilities that needs to be taken to the next screening stage.

www.petroman.ir

SPE 87000

The matrix gets developed further with improved design parameters and definitions as illustrated by the tabulation in Figure A-3 (appended). Using the tabulations, options are then better scoped out and tested against a reference dynamic simulation model to validate reserves recovery for the foreseeable options. The options are then screened for economic viability (typically using UDC, UTC or NPV). Realise the Limit - Scenario / Realisation Modelling In managing the subsurface uncertainties, 5 history-matchable dynamic models (representing the different reservoir realisations) were reached covering the possible range in STOIIP and UR. The ability to get to a reasonable history match with these models at a well level suggests us treating them with equal probability of occurrence and this is carried in the decision making process when finalising the base case. Figure A-4 (appended) demonstrates the generic building blocks for defining the different static realisations. The scenarios that were built in Barton are as follows: (Figure 3)
Figure 3
Model 0 Existing model Matched low stoiip 146
(MMstb)

development strategies. Realise the Limit Options vs Scenario Assessment The possible multiple reservoir realisations are then matched against the key development options identified by at the Options Screening stage. A strategy table shown below (Figure 4) contains a generic value indicated for the various development options against generically different realisations or outcomes (eg. High STOIIP, Low Connectivity Model as one realisation). This matrix could then be used to map out the optimal development option given the uncertainties based on the value-metric (eg. UDC, NPV).

Low STOIIP High Connectivity (Old Model)

DEV ELOP M ENT OPTIONS

Big Bang W ater Injection Big Bang Gas Injection Phased Gas Injection Pilot for E block

M M H H M M M M M

M M H M M M M M H

L L M H M L M H H

Model 5

Model 6.5

Complex structure, 345 degrees Matched mid stoiip 167

(MMstb)

Matched highest STOIIP 200

(MMstb)

Model 10 Model 18 255 degrees Deterministic channel model medium Matched Matched mid stoiip 156
(MMstb)

Model 19 Deterministic Extended NW On-going high stoiip North West extension mid conn.

Min. Facs. Phased W ater Injection

15kb/d fixed 15-30-40 kb/d (Build Up)

Hybrid W I / GI Phased Dumpflood (ESP) Shallow Aquifer Seawater

mid stoiip 167 (MMstb) mid conn.

high conn. Restraining strike-slip, major faults only, highly layered

mid conn. high conn.

mid conn.

Clay diapirsm structure, Channel dimensions W 600' T 20' 345 degrees - channel orientation Diff. Channel

orientation
167.00 200.00 156.36

Layered correlations 167.00

Layered Extended NW structure 217.00

L M H

V a lu e L o w V a lu e M id V a lu e H ig h

STOIIP

146.00

Figure 4

3D all the way modelling The challenge faced by the Barton team was obviously the usual triangular tensions of quality, time and cost where business pressures were always bearing on early delivery of the project yet having to deliver to minimum standards of quality in technical work. Through the use of 3D all the way methodology, good time was made in delivering the 5 history matched models representing the full range of uncertainties and outcomes for evaluating development strategies. This involved the early use of material balance and sector simulation models to steer initial static model building; followed by a couple of 1st pass static models and historymatch to refine further static models and provide early engineering input; before arriving at the final suite of history match models for finalising development strategies. The different stages in this 3 cycle approach allowed for early decisions to be made at the various project stages and has proved to be handy in management milestones reviews, steering engineering output, managing management expectations (an important stakeholder aspect) and planning

Technology Evaluation The early opportunity framing exercise spotted potential opportunities in pursuing special studies in fracture simulation and raw seawater injection including souring modelling. The option identification exercise where all reasonable options were still being considered was also another checkpoint for identifying specific technologies for evaluation. This has proven worthwhile for the team even though some of these ideas were dropped at a later stage, for example produced water re-injection (PWRI) and ESP dumpflood. Peer Assist A key enabler The ability to tap into a large database of good insightful knowledge on matters pertaining to waterflood and souring allowed the Barton team to gain confidence into their solutions. This is indeed the strength of large global companies with significant R&D facilities and large database of best practises. Besides direct studies held in collaboration with researchers, a best practice virtual peer assist (VPA) session was also held with the group waterflood experts residing in several places around the world. The advent of fast internet and telecommunication facilities allowed the hook up

www.petroman.ir

High STOIIP High Connectivity H H H M M H H M M

High STOIIP Low Connectivity

Low STOIIP Low Connectivity

SPE 87000

of some 10 panel of experts residing in some 5 countries to engage with the team and one another on critical issues associated with the project. This VPA is becoming a more common feature as travel restrictions and costs become prime considerations these days. Regional sharing of waterflood concerns were captured through joint companies workshops in this region, again to look at best practices. Technical and Value assurance Reviews Major project technical milestone reviews have been a feature of the project management processes in many companies around the world, of which the worth of these reviews have been reasonably well established. The Barton MFSI project had undergone similarly established checkpoints both internally and with the joint venture partner and the PSC governing authorities. However, in addition to these the project underwent Value Assurance Review milestones to ensure quality decisions making at various stages of the opportunity/project realisation process. These also provide assurances to management and stakeholders that the project is robust against any commercial, societal and environmental outcomes. The Barton team conducted a VAR at the optimum concept selection stage (ie. final FDP stage) and will be undergoing another VAR at the project everything in place to ensure success stage before serious money is to be spent. The value of these technical and value assurance reviews have been to steer the Barton team to make the right decisions on the way to proceed and to stay focus on what is important to the company. Stakeholder Management A specific session on stakeholders management was also held early in the project management phase in view of the many stakeholders involved in the project internally and externally. This facilitates an early identification of issues and concerns of stakeholders, identify action plans to address those issues and timing of those plans. Particularly with the detour from conventional water injection to MFSI, early engagement with group R&D and waterflood experts was important to ensure early and the right level of buy-in into the solution proposed. The PSC environment and JV partnership also meant a continuous dialogue on the way forward with the respective parties in making plans work. Optimal Concept Selected The final concept selected is a water injection scheme that has minimally filtered and treated seawater as the injection medium, delivering some 40,000 b/d of water for injection into 2 to 3 water injectors. Coarse filtration of some 40 microns and no de-oxygenation of the seawater has allowed the entire MFSI system to be housed within the existing main processing platform through deck extensions. This has enabled the 60% Capex savings on facilities compared against a new injection platform associated with a conventional water injection system. Fracture injection is the key design feature to allow for coarse filtration and to cope with potential bio-mass build-up resulting from oxygen-rich seawater and subsequent treatment. Nitrate and THPS biocide injection are key souring mitigating steps to reduce risk of souring. The injection

facilities and injector wells have to be corrosion resistant in design in view of the corrosiveness of oxygen rich seawater. The project is also optimally phased to manage the remaining subsurface uncertainties in the field, both in terms of wells to be drilled and the facilities to be installed. Conclusions The Barton water injection project is a success story worthy to be told largely because of the important technology step out in implementing the MFSI or raw seawater injection through a considered process where all facets of realising an opportunity or project are adequately addressed. The strength of such a process comes from a corporately managed governance process that sets the minimum global standards such that individuals or teams are allowed to be creative yet giving management assurances that global best practices are being captured in delivering the project. Acknowledgements This paper is written on behalf of the Barton FDP team (other members include: A. Widjiastono, F. Kandau, K. Cunningham, J. Leong, B. Hii, K. Hedeir, B. Rueda, S. Sathyamoorthy, P. Priyandoko, K. Flatval, F. Yusof, A. Bulang and H. Pit) who had all worked extremely hard to make this novel water flood project work. In addition, J. Nieuwerf, RTL consultant Shell, is to be thanked for his guidance on the project. The authors also wish to thank the management of SM-EP, PCSB and PETRONAS for kind permission to publish this paper. Nomenclature ECOP Economic, Commercial, Organisational, socio-Political (review categories) ESP Electrical Submersible Pump Eng/Ops Engineering/Operations FDP Field Development Plan G&G Geophysical & Geological MFSI Minimally Filtered Seawater Injection NPV Net Present Value PCSB Petronas Carigali Sdn. Bhd. PSC Production Sharing Contract PWRI Produced Water Re-Injection RTL Realise The Limit SDE Senior Discipline Expert SM-EP Shell Malaysia Exploration & Production STOIIP Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place UDC Unit Development Cost UR Ultimate Recovery UTC Unit Technical Cost V2V Volumes to Value VAR Value Assurance Review VPA Virtual Peer Assist
References 1. S. Sathyamoorthy et al, 2003.: Radical Approach to Water Injection Scheme for Barton, SPE 84885, SPE International Improved Oil Recovery Conference in Asia Pacific, Oct 2003.

www.petroman.ir

SPE 87000

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Dan Needham, 2002.: Asset Development Effectiveness. IPA Inc. Upstream Industry Benchmarking Conference 2002. Mohamud Zaver, 1998.: An integrated Approach to Project Management, Wainwright West Project, SPE 49064 SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept 1998. Steffenson, I. And Karstad, P.I.: Norne Field Development: Fast Track From Discovery to Production, JPT (April 1996) 296-339 Palsson, B. et al : A Holistic Review of the Water Injection Process, 2003, SPE 82224 European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague May 2003 Flatval, K, B. Hofland, R. de Kruijf, S. Ligthelm, D.: Building the case for raw-seawater injection in Barton, Nov 2003, SPE ATCE Houston 2004 - paper in preparation.

www.petroman.ir

SPE 87000

Appendices Figure A-1

Original Concept New Platform required 2002 1st VAR3 Jun Jul RTL - Opportunity Framing G&G review
Aug Sep Oct Nov Planning review

Stakeholder Mgmt workshop 3D all the way Scenario Modelling 2003 2nd VAR3 G&G Closeout Dynamic review Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Eng/Ops FDP review Review Surface development concept reviewed and selected (Shell R&D assisted) Optimal Concept Selected: 60% cost reduction on topsides.
Virtual Peer Assist

RTL Options Identification

Technical Reviews

Commence Shell R&D studies

Value Assurance Reviews

Figure A-2

16

Barton Near-Term Activity Plan & Deliverables - Subsurface

-

Time Stakeholder Mgmt

OCT

NOV - JAN
PCSB/PMU milestone reviews (G&G, PP)

FEB - JUN
PCSB/PMU milestone reviews (Dynamic)

JUL - SEP
PCSB/PMU FDP Review

Decision Decision Executive: Asset team Makers With SDEs

Decision Executive: Go ahead jointly made with Asset Mgmt/SDEs

Decision Executive:Go ahead jointly made with Asset Mgmt/SDEs

Decision Executive: Asset Mgmt

V2V Sep 2002

Deliverable SDE workplan review

Confirm scope for IOR Select static models Infill Potential 1-DAY Tollgate

Full range of uncertainties Identify development options Scenario table

SDE RE, PT reviews I BSP , PCSB, T&OE VPA V2V Phase 3

Submit base proposal (CA03)

SDE PP, G&G, RE reviews II SDE PT & WE Reviews

Concept Selection FDP

VAR3

Milestones

T&OE visit ECOP RtL

SDE PP, G&G Material Balancereview to assess STOIIP upside potential. Focus Items Bubble Plots to assess presence of intra-faults.

Work on updating and wrapping up

Upscaling, intialisation & QA\QC History Matching two

static models.

Finalising static models Static-Dynamic Iterations Establish new NFA

IOR FDP
Prepare for internal (and/or external) Quality Assurance Risk & Opp. Register Finalising reserves and economics Concept selection report Prelim PEP HAZID

2D sector model to establish

upscaling discount factor.

Dipmeter study
incorporated into Barton Southern Extension GBV estimate. Tornado Plot PT and WE issues Engage regional and global experience/expertise SEPTAR studies

forecast Establish IOR forecast

Evaluate devmt strategies Finalise Fracture Injection Finalise Raw water injection SDE reviews

Turnado Plot to establish sensitivity in static models.

Finalize all potential geological

realizations. Fastrack review for MPQ &

Southern Extention. High-level cost estimate for various IOR schemes

SHELL MALAYSIA E&P

www.petroman.ir

SPE 87000

Figure A-3
Definitions of subsurface realisations Low case: Low STOIIP Low Connectivity (B + C) Medium case: Medium STOIIP, Medium connectivity(B, C & part of E) High case: High STOIIP High Connectivity (B, C, E ext., part of D & E.) Surface facilities Gas compression Fluid treatment

Options

Dev scenarios

Energy supply Platform

Deck extension

Others

Existing facilities modifications Strap-on BTMP-B

A.1

Max recovery (high case) Max recovery (medium case) Max recovery (low case) Low Capex

Hybrid GI/WI

4-legged jacket

Not required

Gas from SF + other sources.

Lift pump, coarse, deaeration tower, injection pumps

A.2

Hybrid GI/WI

jacket - water treat., pipeline fr. SF jacket - water treat., pipeline fr. SF Fit in existing platform. BTMP-B ext. for gas pipeline Deck extension to house transformers, power gen d May be required Gas from SF or other sources. None Lift pump, coarse, deaeration tower, injection pumps ESP W ellhead mods, deck ext.

A.3

Hybrid GI/WI

Aquifer water

Tie-ins - pipings, power upgrades

Robust against low case

Produce water, Fit in BTMP-B Aquifer Fit in BTMP-B

None

Sand removal required for produced water

Low opex

Gas injection

May be required.

No compression on Gas scrubber for BTMP-B gas from incoming gas from SF. SF. Lift pump, coarse & fine filters, deaeration tower, injection pumps

Gas pipeline from SF.

Tie-in of new gas pipeline.

Slim platform/ Minimum facilities

Gas/water

Slim straight legged jacket (similar to D35JT-C) Slim straight legged jacket (similar to D35JT-C)

None

Tie-ins - pipings, power upgrades

Slim platform + deck extension

Gas/water

Deck extension on BTMP-B

Lift pump, coarse & W I equipment to be fine filters, deaeration spread out between new tower, injection pumps platform and new deck extension on BTMP-B. None Sand removal. Injection Full blown: Lift pump, coarse & fine filters, deaeration tower, injection pumps Same as base case but phased out. Helideck Modify 2-phase to 3-phase sep.

Doability & fastrack (mid case) Capture upside case (Base case)

Produced water Fit in BTMP-B injection Treated Seawater 4-legged jacket

May be required.

None

None

Tie-in modifications required.

Build-up option (phased injection)

Treated seawater

New platform/deck extension

Potential deck extension to BTMPB Deck extension on BTMP-B

None

Reduce equipment sparing, reduce capacity.

Tie-in modifications required.

No new platform Filtered seawater Minimally injection treated seawater

None

Coarse filters, lift & injection pumps

No fine filtration and deaeration.

Tie-ins - pipings, power upgrades

Figure A-4 Realisations

Uncertainty Area
Indicates the specific parameter of the Key Reservoir Issues where uncertainty exists Structure faullt position & compart. (# faults, sealing/non-sealing) Channel W/T ratio Intra-shale extent NTG Porosity Perm Saturation Contacts (OWC, GOC)

1 Low Case Description

Minus Error Grid (PSDM) all faults Low W/T ratio extensive intra-shale low NTG low porosity then predicted low perm then predicted revisited

Uncertainty Statements 2 Current View / Mid Case

PSDM structure maps As many faults as dynamically reconciled (bubble plots) Average W/T ratio

Model 1

Model 2 medium stoiip

Model 3 high stoiip

3 High Case Description

Plus Error Grid (PSDM) major faults

low stoiip

low conn.

mid conn.

high conn.

2 High W/T ratio 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

only confident intra-shales are isolated intra-shale correlated field-wide average NTG seen in wells high NTG medium porosity medium perm revisited high porosity high perm revisited

www.petroman.ir