SPE 77920

The Griffin Development – Flying High on Infill Success

L.J. Workman, T.V. Slate and B.F. Oke, BHP Billiton Petroleum Pty Ltd

Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Melbourne, Australia, 8–10 October 2002.

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.

Abstract
In recent years the successful drilling, completion and tie-back
of three Griffin area infill wells and a re-entry campaign has
resulted in improved production rates and increased reserves.
The Griffin Area Development in the southern Carnarvon
Basin, offshore Western Australia, consists of three oil fields;
Griffin, Chinook and Scindian, tied to the “Griffin Venture”
Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) facility.
First production commenced in January 1994, with a
maximum rate of 85,000 stb/d reached shortly after start-up.
The Zeepaard Formation is the primary reservoir in the
development. It has excellent productivity and strong aquifer
support. In eight years of production, over 100 MMstb of oil
has been recovered through nine vertical wells. Production
began to decline from 1996, with escalating water cuts from
the majority of the wells.
Reprocessing of the 1991 3D seismic data, combined with
reservoir modelling studies, led to the approval and
subsequent drilling of two Zeepaard infill wells in mid 2000,
one in the Scindian Field and the other in Griffin. The results
of the Griffin infill well changed the understanding of
reservoir sweep in that field and led to a re-entry campaign in
late 2000. This was followed by a second infill well in early
2002.
Each infill well has flowed in excess of 20,000 stb/d,
lifting the production potential of the Griffin Venture,
improving the reservoir sweep and accelerating reserves into
field life. In February 2002, the facility was producing at
60,000 stb/d, with 40,000 stb/d of this attributable to the three
infill wells drilled in the area since July 2000.
Fig. 1 – Griffin Development Location Map
Introduction
The Griffin oil and gas development is located in production
license WA-10-L, in the southern Carnarvon Basin,
approximately 68km offshore from Onslow, Western Australia
(Figure 1). The facility was commissioned in 1994 to produce
oil and gas from the Griffin, Scindian and Chinook fields.
Each field consists of two distinct reservoirs - the main
Zeepaard reservoir, which is of excellent quality, and the
overlying Birdrong reservoir, which is of considerably poorer
quality.
The Griffin field was discovered in 1990 by the
exploration well, Griffin-1, which intersected 34 m of oil-
bearing Birdrong reservoir and 65 m of oil-bearing Zeepaard
reservoir. Three further wells, Griffin-2, Griffin-3 and
Ramillies-1, were drilled to delineate the Griffin structure.
The Chinook and Scindian fields were both discovered in
1989. The Chinook-1 exploration well encountered a 19 m oil
column in the Zeepaard overlain by 39 m of gas-bearing
Birdrong. Scindian-1A was drilled in 1990 and discovered a
similar accumulation. The Chinook and Scindian reservoirs
are connected through the Birdrong oil column but are
separate accumulations in the Zeepaard.
2 L.J. WORKMAN, T.V. SLATE AND B.F. OKE
Fig. 2 – Zeepaard Reservoir Top Structure Map. Wells currently
producing from this reservoir are shown in blue.
Following the exploration success, development drilling
was completed and at first production in 1994 there were four
vertical Griffin Zeepaard wells (Griffin-1, -2, -3, and -4), one
vertical Chinook Zeepaard well (Chinook-1), one vertical
Scindian Zeepaard well (Scindian-1A) and three sinuous
horizontal Birdrong wells (Griffin-5(H), Griffin-6/ST1(H) and
Scindian-2/ST1(H)). The location of the wells and the
distribution of oil in each of the reservoirs is shown in Figures
2 and 3.
All nine development wells are subsea, tied back via a
combination of flexible and rigid flowlines to a disconnectable
floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) facility,
the “Griffin Venture”.
The produced oil, water and gas are processed via a three
stage separation process. The oil is stored and sold via
tankers, the produced gas is dehydrated and compressed for
export into the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline and
water is disposed of overboard.
The initial nine well development of the Griffin Area fields
utilised all available flowlines and riser slots. In addition, the
“Griffin Venture” gas handling capacity has been fully utilised
since first production.
Infill development therefore requires manifolding new wells
with existing producers and production prioritisation to
SPE 77920
Fig. 3 – Birdrong Reservoir Top Structure Map. Wells completed
in and currently producing from this reservoir are shown in blue.
account for flowline capacity and “Griffin Venture” gas
handling constraints. These factors, in combination with
conducting rig and vessel operations in a field with extensive
subsea hardware, have increased the complexity of infill
development.
Subsurface Description
The WA-10-L license area straddles the Alpha Arch, a north-
northeast to south-southwest-trending series of horst blocks
that developed in the Early Jurassic. At reservoir level the
Griffin horst dips from east to west and the main bounding
faults merge to the southwest. These faults underwent several
periods of significant reactivation until the Late Cretaceous
and throw by up to 100 m at top reservoir.
The Chinook and Scindian features were developed by
drape over a horst block to the northeast of Griffin. Closure
for both features is independent of large-scale faulting.
The deltaic and marginal marine sandstones of Early
Cretaceous-aged Zeepaard and Birdrong Formations provide
the reservoir section. These reservoirs are sealed vertically
and laterally by shales of the Muderong Formation (Figure 4).
Zeepaard Formation reservoir quality is excellent, with a
net-to-gross of approximately 90 percent and permeability in
SPE 77920 THE GRIFFIN DEVELOPMENT – FLYING HIGH ON INFILL SUCCESS 3

Fig. 4 – Griffin Field Cross-Section.

the range of 800 to 2000 mD. The Zeepaard sequence was

deposited in a fluvial and coastal plain environment and has an
average thickness of 130 m in the Griffin area.
The sequence is subdivided into four sub-units (Figure 5).
The lowermost unit, Unit 4, is a thick sequence of stacked
braided channels. The overlying Unit 3 is a low net-to-gross
interval characterized by bay / lake fill dominated by
bioturbated claystones. It represents the Transgressive
Systems Tract.
Unit 1 and Unit 2 represent the Highstand Systems Tract.
Unit 2 consists of a sequence of stacked meander channels,
characterised by fining upward sand bodies overlain by thin
claystones and coal. The uppermost unit, Unit 1, represents
lower delta plain sediments, consisting predominantly of thick
distributary channel sands. The Zeepaard Formation oil
column in the Griffin Field occurs in Units 1 and 2.
The claystones and coals occurring within Unit 1 and Unit
Fig. 5 – Log Section through Griffin-1 showing depositional
2 are up to one metre thick and represent interchannel description and typical rock qualities of the Birdrong and
floodplain and channel abandonment facies. In general, they Zeepaard Formations.
are poorly correlated between the wells, which are spaced
from 500 m to 2,500 m in the Griffin Field. Accordingly,
these claystones and coals are interpreted to have a mean The Zeepaard Formation is the primary reservoir of the
extent of several hundred metres. The exception is the fields and it receives strong bottom and edge drive aquifer
claystone at the top of Unit 2, which can be correlated field- support.
wide. The Birdrong Formation, however, is primarily edge water
The thick claystone within Unit 3 represents the maximum drive because of the poor vertical permeability of the
flooding surface of the Zeepaard Sequence and has a distinct sequence, preventing communication with the Zeepaard
high gamma and high density response on logs. It can be Formation. Aquifer support is fair in the Chinook-Scindian
correlated to wells outside the field area. fields, but is highly restricted in the Griffin Birdrong reservoir
because of fault isolation.
The reservoir quality of the Birdrong Formation is highly
variable. It was deposited in a shallow marine environment by
storm and turbidity processes. The sequence is lithologically Production Performance and Modelling
complex, composed of interbedded fine-grained sands and
silty claystones with varying proportions of glauconite and First production commenced from the “Griffin Venture” in
siderite. The net-to-gross is approximately 40 percent and the January 1994, at a maximum rate of 85,000 stb/d. Production
permeability of the sandstones range from 0.1 to 1000 mD, began to decline in 1996, with escalating water cut from the
averaging 30 mD. majority of the wells.
4 L.J. WORKMAN, T.V. SLATE AND B.F. OKE
In early 1999, a subsurface team made up of geoscientists
and engineers from the WA-10-L Joint Venture, was formed
to fully evaluate the Griffin Area fields and to identify any
development opportunities that may exist. The scope of work
consisted of:
Re-mapping of key reservoir horizons and revision of the
depth conversion.
Constructing geocellular models of all the reservoirs.
Up-scaling the geocellular models to reservoir simulation
models, which were subsequently history-matched and
used for infill development planning.
Griffin Zeepaard Reservoir. The Griffin Zeepaard reservoir
has been by far the most productive, producing to date in
excess of 100 MMstb.
By early 1999, five years after start-up, over 70 MMstb of
oil had been produced from the Griffin Zeepaard. Griffin-4,
the most down-dip producer, had watered out because of water
influx from the north, and Griffin-2 and Griffin-3 had
developed significant water cuts. Griffin-1, the structurally
highest well, was still producing 25,000 stb/d of dry oil.
The excellent performance from Griffin-1 was, however,
difficult to match with the existing reservoir model which
predicted water breakthrough as early as 1996. Water
breakthrough eventually occurred in July 1999, towards the
end of the remodelling work.
The final matched Griffin Zeepaard model assumed
excellent vertical and lateral sweep throughout the Zeepaard
Fig. 6 – Griffin Zeepaard reservoir sweep model, 1999, showing the expectation of the Griffin-8 infill well.
SPE 77920
Formation. The model assumed a common field-wide oil-
water contact through time, with local coning effects at the
wells, as shown in Figure 6.
To match the historical performance in Griffin-1, the thin
claystones needed to be breached to enable oil in Unit 2 access
to the perforations at the top of the Zeepaard and delay water
breakthrough in Griffin-1. The claystone breaching
mechanism was interpreted to be channel erosion / scouring,
or small-scale faulting that was below seismic resolution.
Updated seismic interpretation indicated that there was a
high probability of an up-dip accumulation to the east of
Griffin-1 (Figure 6), and reservoir modelling indicated that
this accumulation would not be swept effectively during field
life.
Griffin-8 was proposed to access this accumulation and more
effectively sweep the stranded oil between Griffin-1 and
Griffin-2 and the eastern bounding fault.
Chinook and Scindian Zeepaard Reservoirs. Reservoir
modelling indicated that Chinook-1 had been positioned
optimally at the top of the structure, and would drain
approximately 60 percent of the oil reserves initially in place
in the Chinook Zeepaard reservoir. The Scindian-1A well,
however, would only recover approximately 40 percent of the
Scindian Zeepaard reserves, as it is located within a graben of
the Scindian structure.
The Scindian-3 infill opportunity was identified to access
reserves in the Scindian West block, up-dip of Scindian-1A
(Figure 7).
SPE 77920 THE GRIFFIN DEVELOPMENT – FLYING HIGH ON INFILL SUCCESS 5

Infill 2000
The two proposed infill wells, Griffin-8 and Scindian-3, were
drilled and completed in April to June 2000. First oil from
both wells was achieved in July. The infill wells came on at
high rates, producing clean oil, and increased total Griffin area
production from 30,000 stb/d to over 55,000 stb/d.
Griffin-8. Griffin-8 intersected the Top Zeepaard
approximately 19 m low to prognosis, reducing the up-dip
attic to only 1.4 m. The well however, did intersect a 63 m
gross oil column, 43 m greater than expected. It extended the
oil-down-to close to the original oil-water contact.
Griffin-8 MDT pressure data showed differential depletion
had occurred in the Griffin Zeepaard (Figure 8), with
increasing depletion towards the top of the reservoir. There
Fig.7 – Scindian Field Cross Section.
are three significant pressure barriers throughout the sequence.
The lowermost barrier is a thick claystone within Unit 3,
Birdrong Reservoir. Griffin-5(H) and Griffin-6/ST1(H) are occurring within the aquifer. The second barrier is a soil
both sinusoidal horizontal wells draining the Griffin Birdrong horizon identified by core within Unit 2, and is not distinctive
reservoir. Griffin-5(H) started cutting water in May 1996, but from wireline logs. Another significant barrier occurs at the
Griffin-6/ST1(H) has remained relatively dry. The aquifer top of Unit 2, indicating that Units 1 and 2 are not in direct
encroaches upon the reservoir from the north, supplying communication. The MDT indicated that the Unit 1A and 1B
Griffin-5(H) with aquifer support, but not adequately reaching sands appear to be in pressure communication.
Griffin-6/ST1(H). Griffin-6/ST1(H) production has decreased
because of poor aquifer support and declining reservoir
pressure. The two wells are forecast to recover approximately
30 percent of the oil-in-place in the Griffin Birdrong reservoir,
reflecting the poorer reservoir quality and limited aquifer
support.
Scindian-2/ST1(H) is a sinusoidal horizontal well in the
Chinook / Scindian Birdrong reservoir. The well is subject to
both gas and water coning as the high mobility Scindian
Birdrong gas cap is drawn into the well. Scindian-2/ST1(H) is
forecast to recover 15 percent of the oil-in-place.
The WA-10-L Joint Venture is reviewing development
options aimed at increasing recovery in the Birdrong reservoir.
To date these have not proven to be feasible due to a
combination of limited reserves, development cost and
production infrastructure constraints.

Seismic 2D Reprocessing. The HH91A (Griffin) 3D survey

covers approximately 380km2 of production licences WA-10-
L and WA-12-L and was acquired and processed in 1991. No
further processing had been performed on this data until mid
1999 when selected 2D lines were reprocessed (time and pre-
stack depth migration) for optimising the Griffin-8 and
Scindian-3 infill well locations.
The 2D reprocessing demonstrated that significant Fig. 8 – Griffin-8 MDT pressure results showing differential
improvement in the quality of the seismic data was possible. depletion throughout the reservoir.
A most important result of this work was that the Griffin-8
well was relocated from a likely downside fault location, thus
saving a multi-million dollar sidetrack.
6 L.J. WORKMAN, T.V. SLATE AND B.F. OKE SPE 77920

Fig. 9 – A revision of the Griffin Zeepaard reservoir sweep model, 2000, showing the results of Griffin-8 and expected oil-water contacts for
the re-entry campaign.

This result indicated that rather than a single, flat oil-water Re-Entry Program, 2000 / 2001
contact with local coning effects, there is a complex
The unexpected results of Griffin-8 had changed the
movement of the water flood fronts through the Zeepaard
understanding of the reservoir dynamics in the Griffin
reservoir. Thin claystones throughout the Unit 1 sand were
Zeepaard reservoir. The concept of a single oil-water contact
now believed to be more extensive, which has resulted in
moving uniformly through time, with local coning effects at
holding up the vertical movement of oil (Figure 9).
the wells, had to be discarded given the extent of the oil
Griffin-8 was initially perforated in the Unit 2 sands, column found in Griffin-8.
which had not been completed in any of the other Griffin
The structural information from Griffin-8 was incorporated
Zeepaard wells. The aim was to recover Unit 2 reserves and
into a new top structure map. The reservoir model was then
test the interference with Unit 1 Zeepaard production from
matched to the Griffin-8 results by modelling water movement
Griffin-1, 460 m to the southwest, which would confirm the
through Unit 1. The thin claystones within the unit were
extent of the claystone barrier at the top of Unit 2. The plan
sealed and then breached at specific locations to match water-
was to conduct a re-entry program at a later date to shut-off
cut development of all producers and the Griffin-8 MDT
the Unit 2 water in Griffin-8 and recomplete in the uppermost
pressure results.
sands.
This resulted in a bottom water and an enhanced edge
Griffin-8 came on production at 26,000 stb/d, cutting water
water drive mechanism with water moving through the
very quickly and declining rapidly. The production from
reservoir along the top of claystones, leaving behind trapped
Griffin-8 did not impact Griffin-1 production, confirming that
accumulations of oil below the claystones in crestal locations.
Unit 1 and Unit 2 were not in direct communication.
All production wells were studied as possible re-entry
candidates, looking for unswept volumes in Unit 1B and Unit
Scindian-3. As predicted, Scindian-3 intersected a 31 m gross
2, which initially were not perforated in all wells.
hydrocarbon column, with a 3 m gas cap. Scindian-3 was
perforated in the gas, and the small gas cap was blown down The original perforating strategy called for a re-entry into
during the first few months of production. The well started up Griffin-8 as a full oil column was intersected in Units 1A and
at a rate of 10,000 stb/d, which quickly increased to 17,000 1B. Griffin-1 was identified as a second re-entry candidate.
stb/d as the gas-oil ratio of the well decreased. The well Reservoir modelling indicated a high probability of claystones
produced clean oil for six months. To date, Scindian-3 has isolating oil columns below existing perforations. With an
produced 6.5 MMstb of oil. original oil column of 65 m, the sands in the Units 1B and
SPE 77920 THE GRIFFIN DEVELOPMENT – FLYING HIGH ON INFILL SUCCESS
Fig. 10 – A revision of the Griffin Zeepaard reservoir sweep model, 2001, showing the actual oil-water contact depths following the re-entry
campaign.
Unit 2 were targeted for additional perforations. TDT logging
in Griffin-1 would determine oil-water contact depths in year
2000 at a second location in the reservoir and confirm if the
claystone between Unit 1A and 1B was holding up water as
presumed.
Griffin-8 was re-entered in November 2000. Logging
indicated Unit 1 was still full of oil, and Unit 2 had only a few
metres of oil remaining. The existing Unit 2 perforations were
partially shut-off, and perforations were added in Units 1A and
1B.
Griffin-1 was re-entered in the same campaign. The
results confirmed that the thin claystones within Unit 1 were
having a major effect on the production dynamics of the
reservoir. Oil columns were found beneath watered out zones;
a 5.5 m unswept oil column was seen in Unit 1B directly
beneath a 5 centimetre thick claystone, identifiable only by
core. The MDT data in Griffin-8 showed however that sands
in Unit 1 lay on the same pressure gradient. The claystone
was thus interpreted as extending for several hundreds of
metres, trapping oil in the crestal location, but breached by
channel scour within the oil column (Figure 10).
The reservoir sweep was even more complex than
modelled. The oil-water contact in the Unit 1B was 10.7m
shallower than logged in Griffin-8, some 460m to the
northeast. In Unit 2, an 8.5 m unswept oil column was logged;
its oil-water contact 7 m lower than that logged in Griffin-8.
7
Perforations were added in Griffin-1 to both the Unit 1B and
Unit 2 sands.
The re-entry program increased “Griffin Venture”
production by 30,000 stb/d to over 65,000 stb/d.
Seismic 3D Reprocessing
In the Griffin area, depth conversion of seismic two-way time
data is complicated by shallow high velocity carbonates that
are variable in thickness and lateral extent. Where present, the
higher velocities cause pull-up and diminished data quality of
the underlying section. The depth error in Griffin-8 (19 m low
to prognosis despite being only 460 m from Griffin-1)
demonstrated that the current TWT data and depth conversion
had clearly reached their limit of resolution.
Following the drilling of Griffin-8 and Scindian-3 it was
recognised that remaining potential infill opportunities
required significant improvements in seismic data quality and
greater certainty in depth structure mapping to achieve the
robustness required for project sanction and optimum well
placement. There was also potential for the identification of
new opportunities with better quality data.
Value of Information analysis indicated that reprocessing
the Griffin 3D would greatly improve the chances of adding
significant value to the Griffin project. 3D seismic
8 L.J. WORKMAN, T.V. SLATE AND B.F. OKE
Fig.11 – Griffin seismic line before and after reprocessing. The most recent interpretation is displayed on both sections.
reprocessing was significantly more attractive than re-
interpreting the existing data or acquiring a new 3D volume.
Because of the 500 m exclusion zone around the FPSO,
any new 3D seismic acquisition in this area would have to be
acquired via ocean bottom cable, adding significant cost and
delays to acquisition.
The Griffin 3D was reprocessed with 3D pre-stack time
migration in early 2001, and results were impressive. Figure
11 shows a seismic line over Griffin Field before and after
reprocessing. Although this is an extreme example, as not all
the original data was this poor, it does show the degree of
improvement in many of the worst areas.
The reprocessed seismic data has greatly improved seismic
resolution (resulting in a more reliable TWT pick at Top
Zeepaard), reduced the lateral zone of uncertainty for major
faults and allowed the utilisation of advanced workstation
techniques. Its success in providing a superior depth model,
and thus reducing depth error away from well control, could
only be demonstrated by further drilling.
SPE 77920
Infill 2002
The results of the re-entry campaign had provided a better
understanding of reservoir dynamics in the Griffin Zeepaard.
The water is moving through the reservoir along thin shale
layers, with multiple steep oil-water contacts existing between
the wells and throughout the section.
A remodelling program of the Griffin Zeepaard was
undertaken to incorporate the new top structure map
(constructed from the reprocessed 3D seismic data) in an
attempt to match the oil-water contact results seen in the re-
entry program. This work indicated further potential for infill
drilling of unswept oil volumes to the north of Griffin-8, up-
dip of Griffin-2. A further Griffin Zeepaard well, Griffin-9,
was proposed to access these reserves and accelerate Griffin
Zeepaard production.
The subsurface location proved to be a challenge for the
drilling of the well. There were difficulties in drilling a
vertical well, as the rig could not anchor safely over the
existing flowlines. Additionally, a vertical well would result
in an expensive 2-3 km tie-in cost to the un-utilised Griffin-4
flowline. In the end, the well was spudded from a surface
SPE 77920 THE GRIFFIN DEVELOPMENT – FLYING HIGH ON INFILL SUCCESS
location close to the Griffin-4 wellhead. This resulted in a 2.3
km step-out well, drilled at an angle of 55 degrees.
The subsurface location was also very close to the end of
the Griffin-6/ST1(H) horizontal well, which was completed in
the Birdrong reservoir and depleted at this location by
approximately 2000 psi. Drilling through this reservoir at
such a high angle was considered a significant drilling risk.
One upside to drilling a long step-out was that the
intersection of key seismic markers along the well bore
presented an opportunity to evaluate top reservoir structure in
an area of sparse well control. (In fact, Griffin-9 demonstrated
that the area between Griffin-2 and Griffin-4 was up to 20 m
shallower than mapped).
Griffin-9/ST1 was drilled and completed in December
2001, with first oil achieved in February 2002. Top Zeepaard
was intersected 10 m high to prognosis. The well intersected a
38 m oil column (24 m vertical) in Unit 1, with smaller
accumulations in Unit 2. The well came on production at
27,000 stb/d of clean oil and once again increased production
on the “Griffin Venture” to over 60,000 stb/d.
This result confirmed the assumptions used in constructing
the reservoir model. The oil-water contact depth was close to
prognosis, although intersecting the reservoir high had resulted
in a greater oil column than expected and the well had
therefore exceeded expectations. The result has given the
subsurface team confidence they understand the reservoir
dynamics and are modelling the reservoir performance with
reasonable accuracy.
Fig. 12 – Incremental production rate from the Griffin area fields through Infill and Re-Entry operations.
9
Conclusions
Production on the “Griffin Venture” has been boosted
substantially on a number of occasions through the drilling of
infill wells and re-entry operations (Figure 12). The
opportunities for these wells have been identified through:
Production history, which indicated upside potential in the
Griffin Zeepaard reservoir.
Improved mapping of the top structure via the
reprocessing of old seismic data.
The acquisition of reservoir pressure and fluid saturation
data through MDT and TDT logging following 5 to 6
years of production, and the subsequent improved
understanding of reservoir flow dynamics.
Improved modelling of the reservoir geology and effect of
thin shales, identified from core, on reservoir dynamics.
Reacting quickly and efficiently to changing ideas and
unexpected results, thereby taking advantage of further
opportunities, and illustrating the value of
multidisciplinary teams.
The ability to handle the challenges and risks associated
with the drilling and tie-in of subsea wells.
Understanding of the reservoir dynamics has changed
significantly through the drilling of infill wells. With
improved understanding has come the ability to model the
reservoir performance, optimise reserves and forecast
production more accurately.
10 L.J. WORKMAN, T.V. SLATE AND B.F. OKE SPE 77920

Acknowledgements
The management of BHP Billiton Petroleum Pty Ltd and the
WA-10-L Joint Venture partners, Mobil Exploration and
Producing Australia Pty Ltd and Inpex Alpha Ltd, are thanked
for permission to publish this paper. The interpretations
expressed are those of BHP Billiton Petroleum Pty Ltd and do
not necessarily reflect those held by our partners.
Many other individuals in the joint venture have played an
important role in the studies outlined in this paper. Although
impossible to list them all, their contributions, and especially
those of Takeshi Kawai, are thankfully acknowledged. The
authors would also like to acknowledge the significant input of
Martin Edwards, Stuart Nichol, Stephen Hay and Yit-Seng
Chow.

References
1. Curtis, A.A., Mills, P.A., Nichol, S.T.: “Griffin Area
Subsurface Planning, Implementation, and Production
Performance”, paper SPE 28786 presented at the SPE Asia
Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Melbourne Australia, 7-10
Nov 1994.
2. BHP Petroleum Australia Operated Asset Team, “Griffin
Area Infill Development Plan”, August 2000.
3. BHP Petroleum Australia Operated Asset Team, “Griffin
Field Well Re-Entry Plan”, October 2000.
4. BHP Petroleum Australia Operated Asset Team, “Reservoir
Engineering Studies”, January 2000.
5. Slate, T.V.: “Performance and Dynamics of the Zeepaard
Reservoir, Griffin Field”, presented at the FESWA
Conference, Perth Australia, October 2001.