You are on page 1of 10

EUROPEAn

OFFSHORE
EUR 166 "PETROLEum
MONTROSE FIELD RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT conFEREnCE
I EXHIBITion

by Morad Bishlawi, Amoco Europe Inc.;


Robert L. Moore, Amoco (UK) Exploration
Company

Copyright 1980, European Offshore Petroleum Conference and Exhibition


This paper was presented at the European Offshore Petroleum Conference and Exhibition held in London, England, October 21-24,1980. The material is subject to correction by the author.
Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words.

ABSTRACT (50,000 bwpd).

The Montrose Field, one of the earliest oil dis- Oil is transported from the Field by tankers load-
coveries in the UK sector of the North Sea, was put on ed offshore via two loading buoys, each of which are
production in 1976. The Field is operated by Amoco connected to the platform by a 1.6 kilometre (one-mile)
for the Amoco/Gas Council Group, a group of companies long subsea pipeline. Neither the loading buoys nor
comprised of the British Gas Corporation, Texas Eastern the platform contain significant oil storage facilities
and' Amerada Hess in addition to Amoco. Extensive reser- and thus whenever weather conditions become too severe
voir pressure data collection from the start of produc- for the tanker to remain moored to the buoy, production
tion enabled the Amoco/Gas Council Group to develop a is shutdown. Production downtime averaged 20 percent
reservoir depletion policy that was by no means obvious in 1979.
from reservoir studies completed prior to the start of
production and is believed will result in the maximum The Montrose Field reservoir is a sequence of
recovery of oil. The reservoir pressure data gathered deep water turbidite sandstones and minor shales of
included conventional bottomhole shut-in pressure build- Paleocene age. The structure is a low-relief double
up surveys plus, in all wells drilled since 1977, anticline with local structural highs and lows related
Repeat Formation Tester (RFT)* pressure surveys; a tool primarily to the areal distribution of sandstone and
which has only recently been found to be a strong aid shale in the top parts of the Paleocene Sand. The
in reservoir evaluation and in developing a sound reser- reservoir oil column is underlain by water. RFT pres-
voir management policy. sure measurements in wells drilled after the start of
production indicate that vertical communication exists
INTRODUCTION between the aquifer and the oil column.

The Montrose Field is located in 9l.4m (300 feet) The water injection programme was designed for
of water in the UK sector of the North Sea approximately injection into the aquifer beneath the oil column,
209 kilometres (130 miles) east of Aberdeen, Scotland rather than along the edge, in the belief that better
(see Figure 1). The Field was discovered in 1971 with pressure maintenance and a higher waterflood sweep
the drilling of Well 22/18-2 and overlaps two UK Blocks efficiency would result. Subsequent pressure surveys
(22/17 and 22/18) both of which are licensed to the and the results of a reservoir simulation study have
Amoco/Gas Council Group**. A centrally-located, 24 well- increased the Group's confidence in this decision, and
slot steel platform was installed in 1975 and to date reservoir performance to date has substantiated the
20 wells, 16 producers and 4 water injection wells, have correctness of the injection policy.
been drilled. Production started mid-1976 and in 1979
averaged 4452 cubic metres of oil per day (28,000 bopd) This paper reviews the reservoir management policy
and 238 cubic metre of water per day (1,500 bwpd). A formulated for the Montrose Field and, in particular,
water injection program was initiated in March, 1978 the importance of RFT reservoir pressure data in the
with an injection capacity of 7950 cubic metre per day making of the policy.

*Repeat Formation Tester and RFT are trademark names for GEOLOGY AND RESERVOIR PROPERTIES
tool developed and marketed by Schlumberger.
The Paleocene sandstone/shale sequence is believed
**The Amoco/Gas Council Group is comprised of Amoco (UK) to have been deposited in deep water by a prograding
Exploration Co., Gas Council (Exploration), North Sea, suc/marine fan sourced from a delta system situated in
Inc., (the UK affiliate of Texas Eastern) and Amerada the region of the present day Moray Firth. A structura
Hess .. Amoco is operator for the Group. map of the top of the Paleocene Sand at Montrose Field
is given in Figure 2. The predominant structural fea-
tures are two elongated, northwest-to-southeast trendin~
References and illustrations at end of paper.
205
lohes,commonly called the East Flank and West Flank of of the development drilling programme, the Amoco/Gas
the reservoir. These are separated by a depression Council Group conducted an extensive reservoir data
containing a shaly facies which isolates the oil col- gathering programme to monitor the performance of the
umns in the East and West Flanks from each other. This Montrose reservoir. The programme included periodic
is evidenced by the different oil properties and pro- shut-in bottomhole pressure build-up surveys; pro-
duced gas-oil ratio (GOR) found in each flank. The duction logging; falloff pressure tests in injection
shalyfacies does not penetrate the full thickness of wells; and, in all wells since A6, RFT pressure sur-
the aquifer and it ,is believed that the aquifer is veys as part of the open hole logging programme prior
common to both flanks of the reservoir. This is illus- to a well's completion.
trated ~nFigure 3; an east~west cross section of
the Field. The RFT l ,2 is an advance wireline testing device
run in open hole to collect formation fluid samples
The cross section also shows the five layers de- and measure formation pressure at different depths.
vised for the reservoir. The top section of the reser- As used at Montrose, the RFT tool can be modified to
voir (Layer 1) is a massive sandstone with relatively run a second pressure gauge in place of the fluid sam-
high permeability (11 md to 250 md), low clay content ples to cross check the pressure measurement. The
and low water saturation. Its thickness ranges from tool can be set any number of times during a run in the
11.9 metres (39 feet) to 25.5 metres (84 feet) in the hole, and thus a large number of pressure measurements
East Flank and 2.1 metres (7 feet) to 8.8 metres can be made at different depths resulting in a pres-
(29 feet) in the West Flank. This section is underlain sure-depth profile. The tool also gives a reasonably
by a shaly interval, Layer 2, which ranges from 12.2 direct reading,i.e. not subject to pressure transient
metres (40 feet) to 18.2 metres (60 feet) thick in the analysis, of the pressure that exists at the sample
East Flank and 3 metres (10 feet) to 10.6 metres (35 point at the time the well is drilled. Thus in a
feet) thick in the West Flank. The Lay~r 2 section is developmetlt drilling programme that is done in con-
readily identifiable on well logs and can be correlated junction with production from the reservoir, RFT pres-
within each Flank, but it is not possible ~o obtain a sure measurements give a geographic, depth and time
confident correlation of the individual shales within distribution of pressure that would not otherwise be
the Layer 2 section. For this reason, the shales are obtained.
not believed to be continuous.
The first RFT pressure profile was obtained from
Layer 3 is a thick sandstone section with inter- Well A6 in April 1977. The seconf RFT survey obtained,
bedded shales of varying thickness. The sandstones shown in Figure 4, was from well A8 which penetrated
in Layer 3 have a higher clay content than the Layer 1 through most of the aquifer. The well A8 RFT pressure
sandstones and thus the permeability of the La-yer 3 profile revealed that pressure depletion had occurred
sandstones is lower, ranging from 20 md to 100md. in the main oil section (layers 1 and 2) in which
The oil-water contact in both the East and West Flanks wells drilled earlier in the 'East Flank had been com-
is found ,in the Layer' 3 interval. The OWC is not pleted. The pressure profile also indicated that
found consistently at the same elevation from well to pressure depletion had occurred in the layers below
well, but var~es significantly between the East and those in which the offset wells were completed; the
West Flanks and even within the Flanks themselves. The first proof that the aquifer is in direct, vertical
cause of this variation in the oil-water contact has communication ~ith the oil; column and thus that shale
not been conclusively demonstrated but is believed to barriers seen between the bil sands and the aquifer
be related to local shalinessin the contact zone and are not continuous across ~he Field.
the thinly bedded nature of the sandstones.
The successful operation of the RFTtool in wells
Layers 4 and 5 are further identifiable sequences A6 and A8 and the significant results obtained from
of sandstone and shale deposits with an overall thick- the survey convinced the Amoco/Gas Council Group to
ness of 122 metres (400 feet) to 183 metres (600 feet). make it standard practice to obtain an RFT pressure
The two layers are entirely water-bearing and have beer. survey on all subsequent wells drilled in Montrose.
fully penetrated by only a small number of wells. The resulting vertical pressure profiles, plotted for
the East Flank in Figure 5 and the West Flank in
Porosity in the sandstones in Layer 1, 2 and 3 Figure 6 reveal a great deal about the character and
determined by log and core analyses ranges from 18% performance of the Montrose reservoir.
to 28% and averages 23%. Permeability varies with
porosity, but as noted above, ,also varies with the The first thing apparent from inspection of
clay content of the sandstone. A small increase in Figures 5 and 6 is that the vertical pres~ure profiles
clay content can drastically reduce porosity and can be used in the development of a geological model
permeability. An analysis of otherwise similar core of the Field, segregating the strata into the distinct
samples revealed that a difference in clay content of geologic layers most useful for reservoir simulation
2% (from 4% to 6%) reduced porosity from 27% to 22% purposes and for understanding the mechanics of pro-
and permeability from 265 md to 43md. duction. The sharp increase in pressure found in
most wells below the top, clean sand readily identi-
The reservoir oil bubble point pressure is 18.8 fies the Layer 2 shale sequence. The pressure drop
MPa (2730 psi) in the East Flank andl6 . 2 MFa (2350 across the Layer 2 shales indicates that these shales
psi) in the West Flank and thus was undersaturated act as a partial (but not complete) barrier between
at the initial reservoir pressure of 25.7 MPa (3730 the Layer 1 oil sand and the oil and water sands be-
psi). The solution gas-oil ratios are 128 m3 /m3 (720 low in Layers 3, 4 and 5. Other conclusions made
SCF/bbl) and 107 m3 /m3 (600 SCF/bbl) in the East and from inspection of Figures 5 and 6 are:
West Flanks respectively.
The East Flank Layer 1 sands have good
MONITORING OF RESERVOIR PERFORMANCE vertical and lateral pressure communi-
cation.
From the start of production and during the courSE

206
The West Flank Layer 1 sand, which is itself.
thinner than in the East Flank, is being
rapidly depleted and is possibly of The RFT pressure data demonstrated that vertical
limited areal extent. communication exists between the various geologic
layers at Montrose. For this reason, a three-dimen-
Pressure depletion, resulting from pro- sional, three-phase model was used to simulate reser-
duction from Layers 1, 2 and 3, extends voir performance. The model was composed of an areal
to the lower part of the aquifer, pene- grid of 330 (22 x 15) blocks and five vertical layers;
trated by wells A13, AlB, A19 and A20. the layers corresponding to those identified by geo-
logic and RFT pressure data. A no flow boundary be-
RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT POLICY tween the East and West Flank in the top three layers
was used in the model to represent the separation in
Reservoir studies performed prior to the develop- the oil reservoirs seen in the Field performance. The
ment of the Montrose Field and based on the results of no flow boundary was not extended into Layers 4 and 5
exploration drilling outlined the reservoir management since the aquifer in these layers is believed common
approach taken at Montrose. It was knowns that the to both flanks of the Field. The objective of the
oil column was underlain by a large aquifer, but the history match was for the model to match all pressure
presence of numerous shales in the stratigraphic column data - RFT vertical pressure profiles and build-up
inferred taht the aquifer would probably give only pressures - taken in the Field, with historical oil
limited, if any, pressure support to the oil reservoir. rates used as given input parameters to the model.
Water injection facilities were thus initially included
in the platform design. It was also known that there Major changes to the original assigned reservoir
is an extreme variation of permeability between the rock properties were required to match the extensive
layers of the reservoir rock and thus that the vertical pressure data. The most effective changes made in
sweep efficiency of a waterflood would probably be achieving the history match were in the areal and
low. It was believed that depletion of the reservoir vertical transmissibility between the grid blocks.
pressure significantly below the bubble point pressure Transmissibility, as used in the model, is the product
would be detrimental to ultimate oil recovery and that of permeability, area open to flow, flow path length
a pressure maintenance scheme of some nature would be and tortuosity between the grid blocks. Scarce data
necessary. is normally available on transmissibility within the
reservoir, particularly in areas between and outside
It was obvious that water injection would be re- of well control. It was not surprising that the ini-
quired to boost and maint~in reservoir pressure, but tial assumptions of transmissibility required drastic
it was not obvious wheth~r peripheral (edge) water modification to achieve the history match.
injection into the oil~bearing layers (1,2 and 3) or
bottom water injection into the aquifer in Layers 4 An interesting result of the history match was
and 5 would result in max~mum oil recovery. Edge the value for vertical permeability required to achievE
water injection would give the most immediate boost the history match. Reservoir vertical permeability in
to reservoir pressure, but could result in early water a sandstone/shale sequence cannot be measured on core
breakthrough in the high permeability sands. Bottom samples as a core does not represent the areal distri-
water injection would not result in early water break- bution and extent of the shales which act as barriers
through, but the vertical permeability between the to vertical flow. Vertical flow is along a tortuous
point where the water would be injected and the pro- path, between gaps in the horizontal shale layers, and
ducing zones could be solow that little pressure thus vertical permeability can only be measured by
support may be realised by the water injection. using in situ data. This data was available from the
RFT pressure-depth-time relationships. The adjustment
The vertical pressute profiles obtained by the of vertical permeability in the three-dimensional
RFT, proving communication between the aquifer and model to match the RFT pressures was a calculation of
the oil column, decided the Group on bottom water in- vertical permeability in its most accurate form, and
jection. This was implemented with the drilling of the vertical permeabilities determined in this manner
injection well All in December, 1977, followed by ranged from 0.2 md to 0.002 md, much lower values than
injection wells A12 and A17 in 197B and well AlB in were originally assumed.
1979. The bulk of the water injection is devoted to
the East Flank, which experienced the greatest degree SUMMARY
of pressure depletion prior to the start of injection.
The construction of the Montrose reservoir model,
The effectiveness of the water injection programmE founded on the extensive pressure data gathered in
is being monitored through the use of RFT and pressure the Field, provides the Amoco/Gas Council Group with
build-up measurements of reservoir pressure and by a powerful tool for evaluating future decisions to
periodic production logging in selected wells to optimise oil production from the Field. The model
watch for a rise in the oil-water contact. Reservoir is being used to evaluate future development well
performance and the results of a reservoir simulation locations, in particular a subsea well location in
study seem to vindicate the decision to use bottom the area north west of A13; artificial lift alterna-
water injection. tives and the future distribution of water injection.
Model forecasts indicate that bottom water injection
RESERVOIR SIMULATION was the correct alternative over peripheral injection
to maximise oil recovery. This conclusion is support-
The RFT pressure data provided unique information ed by recent reservoir performance. As shown in Fig-
for the reservoir simulation study of the Montrose ure 7, the East Flank, where most of the water is in-
Field. Having available a series of pressure-depth jected, is responding to water injection and reservoir
relationships at different locations in the reservoir pressure is increasing. The West Flank pressure
at different times greatly improved the quality of (Figure B) is continuing to decline and future empha-
the history match and hence the quality of the model sis may be on redirecting the water to the West Flank

207
to arrest this decline. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The gathering of a large quantity of good pressure The authors wish to thank the member companies
data early in the 1ieof afield is important to the of the Amoco/Gas Council Group for their permission
development of a sound reservoir management policy. to publish this paper. We also wish to acknowledge
Bottomholepressure build~up data are useful for moni- the contribution and participation of Mr. N. Haigh in
toring the trends in reservoir pressure as a function the preparation of this paper and the contributions
of time. Vertical pressure profiles obtained with the made by Mr. A.E. Robinson and Mr. R. G. Deane to our
RFT tool during development well drilling coincident understanding of the geology of the Montrose Field.
with production provide a very accurate measurement
of the pressure-depth-time relationships in the reser- REFERENCES
voir and form a strong foundation for constructing a
numerical reservoir model. With this information and 1. Schultz A.L, Bell W.T., and Urbanosky H.J.,
data in hand, reservoir engineers can perform the Advancements in uncased-Hole Wireline - Formation -
planning required for effective reservoir management. Tester Techniques", SPE 5035, 1974.

2. Smolen J.J., and Litsey L.R., "Formation Evaiuatior


Using Wireline Formation Tester Pressure Data",
SPE 6822, 1977.
o
, ,
50
,
100 Miles

MAGNU~ \
o
, ,
50
,
100
,
150 km
THISTLE '~/MURCHISON
DUNLlN~'tSTATFJORD
TER~~
CORMORANT ., BRENT
HEATHER~~.
Shetland HUTTON I-NI~IAN
Islands
'\
\
BRUC! JF~IGG
BERYL' ' HEIMDALL

Orkney p
ISlandS~~
~
/
I
\t(1
I
(
-
CLAYMORE
, PIPER

TARTAN

ANDREW
\ '\

FORTIES \.

IMONTROSEl [!] )
LOMOND
, COD

/
W. EKOFIS \ _, TOR ./'
JOSEPHINE--e .
FULMAR--' EDDX
".
la~EKOFISK
'-ELDFIS~
/'
.
A0K f \.t-;:;<ALHALL

'--.'"."'" D:N .r--.


ARGYLL'\ HOD

-:---)
.
I ',,-...1

FIG. 1 LOCATION OF MONTROSE AND PRINCIPAL


NORTHERN NORTH SEA FIELDS
RESERVOI R PRESSURE psig
GR /0 fJ /0 sw /0
o 100 0 50 100 0 2500 3000 3500 4000

TOP PALEOCENE

8100
ORIGINAL
LAVER I PRESSURE
GRADIENT

LAYER II
2500

LAVER III
en
(1) +-J
:lo-
...... Q)
Q)
Q,)
'-l-
E

2550
J:
:I: I-'-
t- o..
Q. w
W 0
C LAVER I\'
c:e
w
w en
en CQ
r::o ::::>
:::J en
en
-J
....J
<C

U
U 2600
I-
i= 0::
ce:: W
W
> >
w
w ::::>
:::J 0::
IX l-
t-

LAVER \'
2650

8800

14 16 18 20 22 24 26
RESERVOI R PRESSURE MPa

FIG. 4 RFT RESULTS MONTROSE FIELD WELL 22/17 -A8


Tested January 1978
RESERVOI R PRESSURE ps i 9
_ - - - _ - - - - 3 _ 0 - 0 0 - - - _ - - - - 3 2...0-0-----.-----3...,4,..00-----.----. 8000

2450

Original Pressure
Gradient 8100
A17

2500 8200

~
-
en
(1)

(1)
E
8300
.......
(J)
(J)
"l-

2550

8400 I
::I: I-
~ a...
Q. w
W 0
C
<{
cd: w
w
V) 8500 C/)
CCl
~
::J
::> 2600 C/)
V)

-l
...J <!
cd: U
U 8600
I-
~ CC
cc: w
W
> >
w
w 2650 ::J
::> 8700 cc
cc: I-
~
SYMBOL WELL NUMBER DATE

0 22/17 -A6 5 APR, 1977)

A8 (27 JAN, 1978)


8800
0 A11 (20 DEC. 1977)

2700
X
A15
A17
( 15 AUG, 1978)
( 2 NOV. 1978)
Cl A18 (28 MAR. 1979)
8900

....... --1 ...&.... ....... -"""'-- ..... 9000


18 20 22 24 26 28
RESERVOI R PRESSURE MPa

FIG. 5 RFT PRESSURE DATA MONTROSE FI ELD (EAST FLANK)


RESERVOI R PRESSURE psi 9
3000 3200 3400
8000

2450

Original Pressure
Gradient 8100

A19 A9
4-
~
/
2500
8200

en
~
+-I
Q)
8300 Q)
Q,) ~

2550

8400 :r:
::I: I-
t- 0-
0.. UJ
UJ 0
C

c:::e

UJ
LLJ 8500 en
en CO
CO
2600 ::::>
=>
en
en
--l
...J

u
u 8600
l-
t- 0:
CC UJ
LLJ >
> SYMBOL WELL NUMBER DATE
LLJ
=>.
cc:
2650 ... 22/17 -A9 7 SEP, 1977 ) 8700
UJ
::::>
0:
.... 0 A10 2 NOV, 1977)
l-

A12 (11 APR: 1978 )


bJ. A13 ( 7 JUN, 1978)

0 A14 (15 JUL. 1978 ) 8800


X A16 (24 SEP. 1978 )

2700
0 A1A (19 DEC. 1978 )
X A19 (27 MAV 1979 )
-1- A20 ( 11 NOV. 1979) 8900

. . . . - - - - -.......----_---.ll.- .a-.. ....a.- ....... 9000


18 20 22 24 26 28

RESERVOI R PRESSURE MPa

FIG. 6 RFT PRESSURE DATA MONTROSE FIELD (WEST FLANK)


Cl
Vl
0-
A3
o A4
o
LU
0:: 09
I
A3

A6

0::
3000 o A3
0 o A5

I
A15 A5
0 0 0
A5 tI.6
A3 A8%A3
0 %
o 0 A8
0
A3

~
A4
A4

~ E

:s:
o2ll

ZUj
Of-
-
t;cr:
:::J
OZ
~~

~~
6~

FIG. 7 PRODUCTION AND PRESSURE HISTORY - MONTROSE FIELD EAST FLANK


C'l
<Jl
0-

A2
o
W A2 A7
IX
<:> <:> A2
A16

~
<:> <:>
A9 A10
<:>
<:> <:> A10 <:>A13 A14
IX
0
<:>
A9 ~ <:> 8
A14
~ A7

~ A1A
~ <:>
2500

40
6000

IXC 5000
We.
I-r:o 30
~~

oi!ll 4000
oi!ll

6:::
6~
::J
OZ
~ ~
2000
e.g
-I,

1000 6 z

FIG. 8 PRODUCTION AND PRESSURE HISTORY - MONTROSE FIELD (WEST FLANK)