Now moving onto the methodologies we have adopted is that first of all we have collected the data

from equinor’s website. It has survey reports, daily drilling reports and other field related data. As it is
important for us to understand the location of the field, about its geology, regarding the formations so
that accordingly we can design our casing policies and develop our field. Talking about the well
inventory, in the next few slide we will come to now about the no. of wells that have been drilled as an
exploratory and development wells along with the aims they were drilled as well as what result has been
deducted from it. In this semester we have included five exploratory wells and four development wells
for study. In the coming slides we will focus on the problems that were encountered while drilling these
wells. So moving onto the next slide as I was talking about, these are five exploratory wells and four
development wells that we have included in our study. Three exploratory wells has established oil
presence in the subsurface whereas one well was drilled dry. And out of the mentioned four
development wells, two are observatory wells, one is water injection well and one is producing well.
Now Ashutosh will further explain about the exploratory wells.

----------------------------------------------------------------break-------------------------------------------------------------------

Talking about the development wells, we have included F1 series development wells. First well
is F-1 well. The F-1 Pilot was targeting a down-flank location within the Volve North-Upside prospect
area, with the objective to prove Minimum Economic Volume. But the problems arises here is that
The well did not encounter the Hugin Formation as planned. The interpretation is that the well drilled
through a fault and that both Hugin and Sleipner Formations are simply faulted out, and not observed at
the well location. And similar to the exploratory wells, tight hole and BHA stuck were the prominent
problems faced. No hydrocarbon presence could be established here, and hence the well did not tested.
The next development well drilled was F-1 A. F-1 A was planned to be drilled to fulfil the missed
objectives of F-1. The initial plan of F-1A of being a water injector was done away with after F-1 missed
proving Oil in the Hugin zone. Now this well has encountered top Hugin formation 52m shallower
than expected. Hugin Fm. was water filled. Formation pressure points in Hugin indicate a separate
pressure regime compared to Hugin Fm. in Volve main field and in the NW segment.
Talking about the next development well F-1 B. It was drilled to be and water injector in the Northwest
segment, and placed in a down-flank location and to support oil production from the Volve Northwest
segment. Here on the contrary to F-1 A well top of Hugin was encountered 20m deeper than prognosed.
Most of Lower Hugin seems to be missing, probably due to faulting. Due to very poor injectivity of this
well and limited fluid communication to the rest of the field even after additional perforations, F-1 B was
permanently plugged and abandoned.
Now talking about the F-1 C well it was drilled with a high inclination through the Hugin formation in
order to connect up different fault blocks. The aim is to establish a water injection well, with the purpose
of draining the eastern area of the Hugin Formation.
Talking about the casing policies we can see the depth the casing has been installed along with the remark
in front of it. So if one focus in F-1 development well of 12 ¼ section, only 10 m is written here. Now
question is why 10m. the reason is stuck up that has been encountered, and therefore only 10m well was
cased and later on plugged off. Method of casing depth.

----------------------------------------------------------overto--------------------------------------------------------