Baku Higher Oil School

Petroleum Engineering Department

Field Development Project Report

Group № 6
Jala Ibrahimova
Nuriya Karimova
Toghrul Tahirov
Yusif Guluzade
Ramiz Mammadrahimzade
Albina Ayapbergen
Aigerim Zhumanalina
Rafael Gurbanov

Supervisor: Rauf Nadirov

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 06.05.2022
Declaration of Originality
We thus certify that the accompanying investigation is all our own. We are conscious
about Baku Higher Oil School plagiarism policies and embrace our responsibilities. We
certify that each component of this study, along with all data and illustrations, is properly
acknowledged and referenced with appropriate reference listings.

Jala Ibrahimova

Nuriya Karimova

Toghrul Tahirov

Yusif Guluzade

Ramiz Mammadrahimzade

Albina Ayapbergen

Aigerim Zhumanalina

Acknowledgement
First and foremost, we want to express our gratitude to Mr. Rauf Nadirov, our supervisor,
for his unwavering assistance, constructive input, and wonderful technical skill. His
invaluable guidance and in-depth professional expertise allowed us to make tremendous
improvements throughout the process.

1|P ag e
Contents
Summary .............................................................................................................. 6
Scope Of work & Responsibilities ..................................................................... 7
Geology ................................................................................................................ 8
Introduction ......................................................................................................... 8
Central Graben ................................................................................................... 8
Basin Evolution ................................................................................................... 9
Petroleum System ............................................................................................ 12
Structural Configuration.................................................................................... 14
Stratigraphic Investigation ................................................................................ 14
Log Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 16
1.Well Log Interpretations ............................................................................. 16
2.Well Log Correlations ................................................................................. 18
Formation Evaluation ........................................................................................ 21
Depositional Environment and Core Analysis .................................................. 21
Porosity Calculations ........................................................................................ 22
Permeability Calculations ................................................................................. 23
Saturation Calculations .................................................................................... 25
Net Pay Calculations ........................................................................................ 25
Reservoir Heterogeneity Evaluation ................................................................. 26
RFT Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 29
References ......................................................................................................... 31
Appendix ............................................................................................................ 32
Appendix B2: Determination Of Cut Off Values ............................................. 35
Reservoir Static Modelling ............................................................................... 36
Reserves Estimation ........................................................................................ 36
Deterministic STOIIP Calculation ..................................................................... 39
Probabilistic STOIIP Calculation ...................................................................... 41
Field Drive Mechanisms and Ultimate Recovery Factor Studies ..................... 42
Analysis of SCAL Data ..................................................................................... 44

2|P ag e
 Analysis of PVT Data ....................................................................................... 45
Property Distribution Maps and Possible Well Locations ................................. 48
References ......................................................................................................... 50
Appendix .......................................................................................................... 51
GRV Calculation ............................................................................................ 51
Probabilistic STOIIP ...................................................................................... 54
Drilling ................................................................................................................ 58
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 58
Geological Prognosis ................................................................................... 58
Pressure Profile ................................................................................................ 61
Directional Drilling Module................................................................................ 63
Casing Design .................................................................................................. 64
Cementation ..................................................................................................... 67
Drilling Fluid Consideration .............................................................................. 68
Drill Bit Design .................................................................................................. 70
BHA Design ...................................................................................................... 72
Bop Design ....................................................................................................... 73
Drilling Rig Type ............................................................................................... 73
Uncertainties and Risks.................................................................................... 74
REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 76
APPENDIX D1: PPFG and Pressure Profile .................................................... 78
Appendix D2: Casing Design ........................................................................... 81
Production Technology .................................................................................. 105
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 105
Summary of Production Technology .............................................................. 105
Options for Field Development ....................................................................... 106
Well Performance ........................................................................................... 106
Tubing Sizing .................................................................................................. 107
Tubing Stress analysis ................................................................................... 109
Perforatìon Program ....................................................................................... 109

3|P ag e
 Sand Exclusion Technique ............................................................................. 111
Completion String Functionality ..................................................................... 111
Completion Components Description ............................................................. 112
Wireline Re-Entry Guide ............................................................................. 112
Connections of Tubing ................................................................................ 112
Nipples ........................................................................................................ 112
Subsurface Safety Valve ............................................................................. 113
Tubing ......................................................................................................... 113
Packers ...................................................................................................... 113
Material Selection ........................................................................................... 115
Flow assurance .............................................................................................. 116
Articifial Lift ..................................................................................................... 118
Surface Facilities ............................................................................................ 120
Appendix ........................................................................................................ 122
Appendix E4: Tubing Stress Analysis ............................................................ 123
Dynamic Reservoir Analysis .......................................................................... 123
Material Balance ............................................................................................. 124
Case analysis of Production scenarios .......................................................... 127
Sensitivity analysis ......................................................................................... 130
Field life monitoring ........................................................................................ 130
References ..................................................................................................... 131
Appendices ..................................................................................................... 131
Economics ....................................................................................................... 137
Assumptions ................................................................................................... 137
Economic Evaluation ...................................................................................... 139
Sensitivity analysis ......................................................................................... 142
References ..................................................................................................... 144
HSE ................................................................................................................... 150
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 150
Management System ..................................................................................... 150

4|P ag e
 HSE Regulations Offshore in UK ................................................................... 151
HSE Main Principles....................................................................................... 152
Fire and Exploision PRevention and Control .............................................. 152
Spills ............................................................................................................ 153
Well blowouts .............................................................................................. 153
Venting and Flaring ..................................................................................... 154
Occupational Health .................................................................................... 154
Emissions to Air........................................................................................... 155
Drilling Discharge ........................................................................................ 155
Noise Pollution ............................................................................................ 155
Risk Assessment ............................................................................................ 155
Abandonment/Decommissioning ................................................................... 157

5|P ag e
 Summary
Nowadays, developing a well-planned design for petroleum fields is quite difficult and
necessitates the usage of reliable information from cutting-edge technology. Acquiring
and assessing data, as well as producing a well-organized perspective of any field on the
basis of that data, is the most difficult procedure. We, a group of five persons, engaged
themselves in this project and did all we could to complete it as precisely and effectively
as possible. The project is often separated into six areas, which are geology, reservoir
engineering, drilling engineering, production engineering, economics, and health, safety,
and Health, Safety and Environment. The objectives assigned to us for the first semester
included determining the geological structure of the X-field, evaluating the basin of the X-
field, determining reservoir attributes, determining field capacity, and determining the first
planned specifications for the drilling phase.
The following paper highlights studies on the development strategy for X field which is
situated in the Central North Sea and has a water depth of up to 81 meters. Information
from six appraisal wells was evaluated to determine the field's dynamic and static
responses. The existence of all of the essential petroleum play elements has been
detected in this area, indicating a considerable level of hydrocarbon deposit. Two X-field
compartments, the south and north compartments, have been discovered using detailed
formation examination. The primary goal of this stage is to examine the contents of
reservoir fluids and core samples in order to gain insight into the fundamental driving
mechanisms of reservoir. Additionally, ultimate estimates for STOIP estimations are
completed using several methodologies in order to better comprehend the project's profit.
Performing this technique assists us in completing the field's long-term development plan,
which includes determining reliable reserves and building production and injection wells,
among other things. The design of production and injection wells is critical, and it is
dependent on the values that are obtained in the first and second stages of the process.
Since a result, the design step should be completed with care and precision, as any
incorrect calculations might result in the project being damaged.
Both deterministic and probabilistic volumetric analysis reveal considerable volumes of
hydrocarbons accumulating in the oilfield, with STOIIP for both compartments equaling
889 MMStb, of which approximately half of it is considered recoverable. A reservoir
modeling process is then undertaken; static and dynamic models, porosity and
permeability maps are all produced to select the most advantageous reservoir site for the
drilling phase to precede.
Ultimately, a pressure profile for the X-field is generated using data from surrounding
fields and the broader Central Graben's experimental pressure measurements. The
primary goal of the PPFG profile is to extract detailed notions about X-field formations
that will assist us in developing design methods for casings, drill bits, drilling fluids, and
other drilling equipment.

6|P ag e
Scope Of work & Responsibilities
To achieve the aforementioned objectives, all relevant activities were divided into six
functionalities: geology and formation evaluation, reservoir static modelling, drilling -
design and cost of completion, well performance and completion, reservoir dynamic
modelling and production profiles, economics and HSE (health, safety and environment).
All tasks were separated into two sections for the first and second semester. During this
semester, we mainly focused on the examination of all geological and petrophysical data
in order to determine the quantity of recoverable hydrocarbons from field X, as well as
conventional well designs and drilling plan. The task allocation among 5 team members
is summarized in the table below.

Module Module Lead Contributors

Geology&Formation Nuriya Karimova Jala Ibrahimova
Evaluation Toghrul Tahirov
Reservoir Static Toghrul Tahirov Jala Ibrahimova
Modelling
Drilling Yusif Guluzade Ramiz Mammadrahimzade
Production Technology Jala Ibrahimova
Reservoir Dynamic Toghrul Tahirov Nuriya Karimova
Modelling Aigerim Zhumanalina
Economics & HSE Ramiz Mammadrahimzade Yusif Guluzade
Albina Ayapbergen

7|P ag e
 Geology
Introduction
This field development planning
(FDP) project is focused on
developing of the X-field, which is
situated in the North Sea, more
precisely, in Central Graben in
the UKCS 22/12 block. Figure 1
(1) illustrates different oil and gas
fields in North Sea. To
investigate geology of the X field,
geographical area, a cross
section and top structure map
obtained from Seismic 2D data,
as well as wireline and core log
data collected from the
presented executive summary
Figure 1.Oil and Gas fields in North Sea.
file, indicates that six appraisal
wells have been drilled into the oil-bearing Jurassic reservoir, with two of them drilled
vertical position and the rest drilled with a 25-degree deviation.

Central Graben
When it comes to collected hydrocarbons, the North Sea Graben is an oil and gas
province where the majority of the accumulated hydrocarbons are discovered to have
been generated from shale deposition that happened throughout the geological epoch
between the Late Jurassic and early Cretaceous eras (1). The exploration of petroleum
accumulations, on the other hand, is carried out in the vicinity of structural sites and is not
dependent on geological time changes. According to the World Energy Project, the
province has been separated into three geographic evaluations based on the differences
in geological and topographic advancement across the province. Central Graben is the

8|P ag e
term given to the southern-most section of the basin system, which has a southern-
northwest-trending geological trend. With respect to the sub basin, the majority of the
hydrocarbons have been deposited within Mandal Formation shales (which are largely
composed of organic matter with total organic carbon (TOC) less than 12 weight percent),
which correlate to upper Kimmeridge Clay zones. In the Central Graben, burial has taken
place more quickly than in the other assessment units in the area. The Zechstein
Lithological Group underneath the basin has also been subjected to considerable marine
evaporite deposition, which has had an influence on migratory pathways.

Generally, the fields are being grouped based on the reservoir and migration
classification. Post-rift sandstone reservoir is also taken as this type of group. There are
some fields named as Cod, Forties, Gannet and Montrose fields which are located near
the X field, that involves submarine fan deposition. The typical porosity values within
sandstone reservoirs is found as ranging between 20-30%. Mudstones belonging to the
Tertiary period provide the effective seal for the reservoirs.

Basin Evolution
The field is located on the western side of the South West Central Graben, on the outskirts
of the town of South West Central. Figure 2 depicts a map of the Central Graben, which
is located in the North Sea. Tectonic activity (2) in the field itself was the result of three
primary tectonic activities: (1) halotectonics; (2) syndepositional reactivation of
Caledonian basement faults; and (3) syndepositional through post-depositional shifts
along the neighboring fault of Auk horst, which is located nearby. In order to comprehend
oil and gas generation in the North Sea petroleum sector, it is necessary to study vast
tectonics as well as failed rifting processes that happened throughout the most recent
Jurassic and early Cretaceous ages. Rifting systems are characterized as a sequence of
faults that span across a large region of land and are formed by the movement of magma.
The Viking Graben, Moray Firth, and Central Graben are the three major rifting structures
in the North Sea, all of which were generated by crustal extension and uplifting of the
North Sea oil zones during the latter Jurassic and Cretaceous ages. As described in
published publications, the geological history of the Central Graben zone may be split into

9|P ag e
three periods, each of which corresponds to rifting processes, which were responsible for
the creation of petroleum in the region. (3):

1. Pre-rift - the stage comprising of activities that take place before rifting, the

2. Syn-rift - the stage that includes the processes that are involved during rifting

3. Post-rift - after
rifting, the era includes
depositional and structural
activities.

Pre-rift period

The matured rocks in the

Central Graben were
largely formed at this stage,
from the late Triassic to the
early Jurassic eras, and
Figure 2.Map represents the location of the Central Graben in the North Sea
they serve as a source rock
element for the petroleum play. Mudstone and siltstone rocks formed over the salt during
the Triassic period. Marine transgression created a persistent connection between the
Boreal Sea and the Tethys throughout the late Triassic and early Jurassic periods,
eventually leading to Triassic sedimentation. Shallow-marine environments controlled the
majority of the North Sea Basin throughout the Early Jurassic era.

Early in the Jurassic, the sea level rose, making room for the formation of marine shales.
Volcanic activities, rising, and widespread erosion of late Triassic to early Jurassic
depositions occurred throughout the Middle Jurassic era. This unconformity was even
more covered by sediments from rivers and estuaries, as well. Located near the Central
Graben, the North Sea Rift Dome is an extensional rise. It was formed by coal-bearing
river sandstones accumulating over time. The Moray Firth/Witch Ground and the Central
Graben are next to simple-roofed sediments at the start of rift basins at this point in
Central Graben. About a thousand meters of non-marine rocks were placed in the Central
Graben, which is in the middle. It was also moving south into the southern North Sea.

10 | P a g e
Syn-rift period

This epoch is primarily concerned with the events that led to the formation of primary
reservoir rocks related with the reservoir system's trap. Acceleration of extension and
subsidence processes caused marine transgression across the North Sea Graben by the
end of the Jurassic period, which lasted until the early Cretaceous. However, the most
extensive sedimentation was seen around the reservoir's fault system in the late Jurassic.

The depositional environment separates succession into two types due to sea alteration:
1) shallow marine sandstones – Fulmar formations, and 2) deep marine sandstones –
Magnus formations. The creation of accomodation area varies throughout the basin. Two
different sandstone reservoirs named submarine and retro-gradational shelf sandstones
with various thicknesses control syn-rift play.

Post-rift period

The actions that took place over this time

period, which began in the Cretaceous,
resulted in the maturation of source rocks,
the formation of seal rocks, and the
migration of petroleum that was generated
in the Jurassic, among other things.
Because the temperature gradient of the
rifting decreased and marine mudstones
were frequently generated in conjunction
with the presence of abyssal fans, thicker
layers of sediment accumulated during the
early Tertiary period. Chalk deposits were
critical in the formation of effective caprock
for Central Graben hydrocarbon-bearing Figure 3. Rifting Model in the North Sea: A Conceptual Model
zones, such as the Fulmar and Auk
reservoirs, which are both located in the Graben. The Tor and Ekofisk formations are
chalk reservoirs that contain hydrocarbons, whilst developed Hod formations are
characterized by a variety of strange occurrences. Because the geothermal gradients

11 | P a g e
related to extensional tectonics rapidly diminished, the regional trend shifted to one of
gradual cooling and corresponding subsidence, with post-rift sediments accumulating to
form the thickest layer.

Salt tectonics – halotectonics – had occurred in the Central Graben due to isostatic
variations. This isostatic variance was caused by erosion of elevated rocks combined with
rapid sedimentation in sub-basins throughout the Holocene period.

Petroleum System
Source rocks generated in the Central North Sea region have an equivalent lithological
characteristic and are found in a thin stratigraphic unit that is referred to as a particular
system because of their location in the thin stratigraphic unit (1). KSTPS of the North Sea
Graben Province encompasses all of the oil-prone fields in this region, which are referred
to as the Kimmeridgian Shales Total Petroleum System (KSTPS). The reason for using
this definition is because it is simple, and there have been no extensive examinations into
the link between source rock and hydrocarbon in the setting of conventional time and
temperature exposure.

Source rock

As previously stated, shale formation in the North Sea is critical in the formation of source
rocks, and the shale is differentiated in terms of age, beginning in the early late Jurassic
and continuing into the early Cretaceous, with highly organic carbon rich recesses found
at various stratigraphic heights throughout the North Sea (1). The total organic and
organic carbon content of these facies ranges from 2 to 15% of the total organic and
organic carbon content. Kimmeridgian Shales kerogen is classified as having "type II"
features, which refers to a mix of planktonic aquatic and degraded terrestrial origins in the
same rock formation. The thermal maturation of source rock is thought to have occurred
during the early Cretaceous and Neogene epochs, according to current thinking.

Reservoir rock

Because the reservoir rocks in the Central Graben are not dispersed uniformly, they have
a variety of properties and contribute to the geological complexity of the fluids
disseminated in the area. Reservoir units in the North Sea's petroleum fields were

12 | P a g e
categorised based on the time of major rifting processes, which were studied in detail.
Sync-rift period sands from the Middle and Upper Jurassic eras have been discovered in
two nearby fields, notably Fulmar and Ula, and have been identified as the principal
producing sand. Lower Cretaceous age sands were also created as a result of processes
that occurred after the rift period. In terms of the adjacent renowned Forties field, it
comprises reservoir sandstones that were formed from submerged deposits that date
back to the Paleogene period.

Seal

In the North Sea area, a diversification relating to the seal and trap formation mechanisms
was noticed in comparison with the Southern part of North Sea. Particularly, in Fulmar
and Ula fields of the Central Graben, Kimmeridgian Shales have a major role in the
formation of caprock, and those fields have the similarities with the X field. In further
hydrocarbon deposits formed in the syn-rift period of Cretaceous as well as Claymore
field, mudstones and fine-grained chalks make the main seal components. From the
investigation of the log and seismic cross section data, it is found that sealing elements
of the given field are the wide chalk deposits.

Timing of oil migration and entrapment

In the majority of the North Sea Graben, the source rocks have encountered burial and
constant subsiding by the deposition of those rocks. The extensive petroleum formation
was occurred up to Eocene. Subsidence and burial processes of the source rocks have
been happening up to today in most areas of the Graben. Currently, source rocks are
their maximum limit burial depth temperature.

Trap

Structural and stratigraphic traps are characteristics in the most part of the Central
Graben which are shaped by processes of the syn-rift period. Seismic cross section data
and log data show the existence of these traps in the X field, as well. Four-way dipping
anticline and tilted faults have a role as structural traps in the formation of the main
reservoir elements. Non-permeable chalks sealing the producing sandstones make
stratigraphic blockades for the migration of hydrocarbons in upward direction.

13 | P a g e
Structural Configuration
The structural configuration has been identified using a seismic cross section and a top
structure map. From both representations, it is possible to see anticline structure. In
addition, there is a minor inclination to the north-east. The reservoir, on the other hand,
has a large south-west inclination. The reservoir's dip angles might be determined using
elevation and distance disparities, taking into consideration opposing sides. As a
consequence, the South-West dipping angle was estimated to be about 17 degrees,
whereas the North-East dipping angle was estimated to be 6 degrees. As of yet, the
deepest site of the trap, which is also the spill point, has been reported to be 11,100 feet
below sea level, whereas the peak of the anticline is suitable for 9,900 feet below sea
level.

𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (0.4𝑘𝑚)
𝑆𝑜𝑢𝑡ℎ − 𝑊𝑒𝑠𝑡: Ө = tan−1 = 17 𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑠;
𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒(1.3 𝑘𝑚)

𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (0.4𝑘𝑚)
𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑡ℎ − 𝐸𝑎𝑠𝑡: Ө = tan−1 = 6 𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑠;
𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒(3.8 𝑘𝑚)

It is suggested by the RFT data that there are two different fluid contact zones, which in
turn shows the presence of a fault. The presence of faults is also proven when the log
correlation is taken into consideration, which indicates disparities in the oil water contacts
of the wells. In particular, the results revealed significant disparities between wells
numbers 5 and 6, indicating that they had been separated by faults. However, because
of the low reliability of the well test data, it was not possible to determine the precise
geometry or position of the fault; as a result, it was placed somewhere in the middle of
the two wells. As an additional point of reference, the X field, which was accumulated
during the upper Jurassic era, and anticlines are connected with the existence of faults
during that geologic era [2], respectively.

Stratigraphic Investigation
The use of the chronostratigraphic framework of the Central Graben (figure 4) and cross
section of the X-field are required for the investigation of stratigraphic continuity. In order
to begin, it is preferable to examine an image that depicts data on the rock layers age and

14 | P a g e
lithology in the North Sea area as a starting point for discussion. Fulmar field, in particular,
was well-represented.

Due to its significance as a geologic border between the syn and post rifting episodes,
the Base Cretaceous unconformity is an important geologic landmark. This study
demonstrates that the deposition of the X-field generating sands occurred during the late
Jurassic and syn-rifting events, confirming previous findings. Dense chalk may be found
across the field, but ribble sand is thinner and does not interbeam with the shale strata
and is found only in some areas.

Deep-water sandstone deposits are also taken into consideration in the preceding
section. Since the early stages of the Permian Age, the fault occurrence and down
warping in the Central Graben field have triggered the rifting process. To summarize, the
deposition of sand has happened as a result of all rifting, transgressive, and temporal
processes that have taken place. There were ribble and main sand deposits trapped there
as a result of faults forming as a result of salt withdrawal and rifting. By examining the
deposition and arrangement of main and ribble sand, it was determined that the Fulmar
field was likely to exist.

In order to take use of the chronostratigraphic framework of the area study, it has been
carried out on the seismic cross section of the Fulmar field with the goal of determining
stratigraphy and lithology of the formation. The positions of all five wells have been
included to the structural map, which is the first step towards completing it. However,
despite the fact that this seismic result is of rather low quality, it is still feasible to discern
that the reservoir is in the form of an anticline curve. The following layers have been

15 | P a g e
identified and highlighted on the accompanying image:

Figure 5. Seismic Cross Section

All of the outcomes that might be acquired from the analysis of the seismic illustration
have been listed in the following section:
• The structural map enables the reservoir to be seen as an anticline in nature.
• The base Cretaceous unconformity is depicted with a red line, and it plays a boundary
role between syn-rift transition and post-rift subsidence, as illustrated in the diagram. It is
ensured by the unconformity that deposition occurred throughout the syn-rifting
processes.
• The blue picture depicts the continuous and thick deposit of chalk that seals the
reservoir's top.
This supports the similarity between the X-field and the Fulmar field in terms of the
deposition of ribble and major sand layers, which are depicted by green and yellow lines,
respectively.
The architecturally complex zones that characterize Central Graben are the most notable
features of the region, and these types of places are mostly related with the underlying
geological processes. As demonstrated by the brown lines, they might be interpreted as
faults, which allow hydrocarbons to accumulate in their vicinity.

Log Data Analysis

1.Well Log Interpretations
The log data for six appraisal wells drilled in the X field was provided. It was discovered
that 5 wells were dug using potassium rich water-based mud, which significantly affected

16 | P a g e
gamma ray measurements and resulted in some zones being very shaly in nature. All
associated composites logs are included in the report's Appendix A1 section, which may
be found here.

• Well X1: Five distinct stratigraphic zones were identified in the well 1, including
Kimmeridge clay, Ribble sand, and a shale layer within the Kimmeridge clay
section, which overlies Main sands of the Fulmar formation, and a Triassic shale
layer at the bottom of the well. With more precision, the top of the sand was
identified as 10222 ft TVDSS, and the oil-water contact was defined as 10822 ft
TVDSS, which corresponds to the top of the reservoir. Although we see around
100 ft thick shale layer from 10252 to 10350 ft which has not responded in other
logs. Most likely, some aspect of tool production had an impact on measurements
during this time period - this was taken into account in the subsequent
computations.
• Well X2: the same five staraigrahical intervals were interpreted for this well as well;
the top of the sand interval was defined in the Ribble sand zone at 10622 ft TVDSS
with the oil-water contact at 10860 ft TVDSS. • Well X3: the same five
staraigrahical intervals were interpreted for this well as well. Following this zone,
the primary sand zones were discovered to be a water-bearing structure.
• Well X3: Three separate stratigraphical units were found for this well, including
Chalk deposits on top of Kimmeridge clay and Main sand deposits beneath the
clay. The top of the sand zone corresponds to the top of the hydrocarbon zone,
which was discovered at 10260 feet TVDSS and the oil-water contact was
discovered at 1051 feet TVDSS.
• It has two stratigraphical units, both of which are chalk and sand deposits, with the
top of the sand deposit located at 10336 feet TVDSS and the oil-water contact
located at 10851 feet TVDSS.
• Using the well X5, three stratigraphical units were identified, including the chalk
group, the Main sand, and the Triassic shale at the bottom of the well. Despite the
fact that the top of sand is assumed to be 10030 ft TVDSS, there is a 50-6-thick
shale lens inside the Main sand interval that is taken into consideration throughout
the computations. However, because to a lack of continuous data from the

17 | P a g e
 resistivity log, the oil-water contact was determined based on the readings from
the neutron and density logs, which resulted in a value of 10577 ftTVDSS for the
oil-water contact.
• This well was classified into four stratigraphical units, which were identified as
Kimmeridge clay overlying Main sand and Triassic-aged shale deposits at the
bottom. • Well X6: four stratigraphical units were identified as being present in this
well, namely Kimmeridge clay overlying Main sand and Triassic-aged shale
deposits at the bottom. Unlike the others, this well was drilled with oil-based mud,
hence an induction instrument was used instead of lateral logs to determine the
depth of the well. The top of the hydrocarbon-bearing sand zone is located at
10085 feet TVDSS, and the oil-water contact is located at 10548 feet TVDSS,
respectively.

2.Well Log Correlations

• Wells 2-1-5
All three wells contained Triassic shale, which was deposited during pre-rift events in
the Central Graben and served as a marker bed for the geologic time period.
Tremendous sand accumulations were discovered in all three wells, within which
three-four regression-transgression cycles of varying time period could be
distinguished – this is represented by distinguishable funnel-shaped serrated
characteristics (coarsening upward trend), which are thought to specify individual
sections within the Fulmar formation. Because of the obvious shaliness in the sands
of well X5, the sands of well X5 in the northeast seem to be thinner and of poorer
condition. The wester flunk of the field, on the other hand, has high-quality
sandstones. In two blocks split by a fault, this is most likely a sign of distinct
depositional settings. Last transgression activity in the sand layer was the
accumulation of Kimmeridge clay, through which a series of sea level decrement
indicates the deposition of Ribble sand unit, which pinches out in the north-eastern
direction and vanishes in well X5. The absence of Kimmeridge clay in well X5 may be
linked to the fact that the western border of the reservoir is fundamentally greater than
the eastern flank, making it more sensitive to sea level variations in respect to the
likelihood of particular formations being subjected to erosion. The seismic examination

18 | P a g e
 reveals huge chalk deposits covering the Kimmeridge clay layer; however, these
deposits are lacking from well records 1 and 2, despite the fact that the chalk block
was indicated in the cross-section map of the area under investigation.

Figure 6. Cross-section of Well 2-1-5

• Wells 3-6-4
• The base of the Fulmar formation sands was selected as the marker bed for this
particular series of wells. Overall, as was the case with the aforementioned wells,
there are three to four clearly visible regression-transgression phases within sand
deposits, which are characterized by characteristic funnel shaped serrated
patterns. Sands in the fundamentally higher well X6 are of significantly lower
condition when contrasted to wells in the southern compartment, owing to the fact
that they are heavily interbedded with certain shale layers. The Kimmeridge clay
portion is once again lacking in the eastern half of the field (well X4), most likely as
a result of erosion, despite the presence of huge chalk deposits in all three wells.
In addition, the Ribble sand unit inside Kimmeridge clay is lacking from all three
wells. The following cross-section maps were created solely based on the

19 | P a g e
 interpretations and correlations that were put into effect. Please refer to Appendix
A2 for the layouts of associated wells.

Figure 7. Cross-section of Well 4-6-3

20 | P a g e
 Formation Evaluation
Depositional Environment and Core Analysis
The characteristics of the depositional environment are investigated in detail, and the
results of this analysis are used to measure the characteristics of the reservoir sand.
Additionally, the information gathered during this step will be used throughout the phases
of well positioning and placing the wells.

By examining the depositional environment, it is possible to gain information on the quality

of the reservoir. Additionally, the horizontal and vertical continuity of the lithology is critical
in making judgments about reservoir management. The qualities that are highlighted are
also used in well spacing. Several materials are available for the aim of examining the
depositional environment. These contain analyses of surrounding fields (Fulmar, Forties,
and Nelson), core representations of the Well 5, and log results from the whole set of
wells.

All three wells, X1, X4, and X5, had core data obtained during the drilling stage, and the
samples are being analyzed now. The core sample taken from the X5 well is depicted for
the aim of evaluating it. Core samples were obtained from a depth ranging of 10690 feet
to 11520 feet, depending on how deep they were acquired. Grain size varies from fine to
medium, grain sorting is moderate to excellent, and color changes from grey to brown.
Sedimentary features, primarily low angle planar laminations, are also seen in general
inspection of core samples. Based on the sorting, color and size of the grains, it is clear
that the pay zone sand is very well-
consolidated. A result of the upward
movement, it is becoming coarser. On
the surface of the laminae, it appears to
be caused by storm waves, which may
be seen in shallow maritime
environments. The images of core
samples also show slumps, bioturbation,
and mud clasts, among other
Figure 8: Sample 1

21 | P a g e
characteristics. See the next section for a characterization of two samples that were
tested.

• 1st Sample: When the structure is seen to be in laminar shape, with extremely tiny
grains and a grey tone, it is determined to be mudstone that has been impacted by
clay mineral. The presence of bioturbation is shown by red cycles.
• 2nd Sample: The pattern is laminar containing medium to fine grains and a brown
colour indicative of sandstone
containing feldspar and quartz
minerals. The red cycles indicate
bioturbation, whereas the blue cycles
indicate slump caused by seismic
activity. By combining all log and core
information, it is possible to conclude
that the field was deposited in a
shallow to deep marine environment
with high-quality formation sands,
implying a greater probability of future Figure 9: Sample 2

field deployment projects being likely to

succeed.

Porosity Calculations
Porosity is basically characterized as the proportion of the rock that is void; it is critical to
establish accurate porosity estimates as this is one of the major factors for STOIIP
calculations. Porosity may be determined in a variety of methods, including from specific
porosity logs (such as density, neutron, sonic, and so on) and also by combining porosity
logs, which is typically employed to account for complicated lithologies. Traditional
practice in industrial process comprises calculating porosity from logs and then calibrating
log porosity to core porosity, assuming that cores and logs are depth corrected. After that,
laboratory results are modified to reservoir conditions.

Effective total stress technique was used to alter core porosity to reservoir stress
conditions, as recommended by Nieto et al. In this extensive research on porosity
22 | P a g e
corrections for North Sea oilfield, many available correction methods were assessed and
determined the abovementioned one to be the most reliable. To calculate stress, the
aforesaid approach needs five inputs: primary vertical and horizontal stresses, pore
pressure, and the Biot alpha factor.

𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙,𝑚𝑖𝑛 + 𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙,𝑚𝑠𝑥 + 𝑆𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙

𝑠̿𝑒𝑓𝑓 = − 𝛼𝑃𝑖 (3.3)
3

Typically, the neutron and density log pairing is employed to estimate log porosity since
it is generally independent from lithology impacts:

2 2
𝜑𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 + 𝜑𝑛𝑒𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑛
𝜑=√
2
(3.4)
Where, 𝜑𝑛𝑒𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑠 and neutron porosity which is taken from log data, while
𝜑𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 is calculated by equation below:

where 𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑟𝑥 is density of matrix (depends on lithology), 𝜌𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 is density of fluid just
immediately next to borehole and 𝜌𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 is density log reading (see Appendix for all
𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑟𝑥 − 𝜌𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑘 (3.5)
𝜑𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠 =
𝜌𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑥 − 𝜌𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑

relevant constants). Finally, in o calibrate log porosity to core porosity adjusted for
reservoir stress conditions, an Artificial Neural Network was constructed and developed
to correlate log porosity to core porosity.

Permeability Calculations
Permeability of the formation is a critical quantity to take into account when deciding
whether to complete and bring a well on production; it is certainly a crucial component of
reservoir development and management. There are several ways available for estimating
permeability, including empirical correlations, clustering, regression techniques, well test
and log data, and machine learning-based methods. Given all current information, the
regression approach was chosen and used to cored wells X1 and X5, resulting in two

23 | P a g e
poro-perm correlations in exponential function with coefficients of identification of 0.843
and 0.837, respectively.

Well 1 Poroperm
5000.0
4500.0
CORE PERMEABILITY, MD

4000.0
3500.0
y = 0.0274e0.3981x
3000.0
R² = 0.8343
2500.0
2000.0
1500.0
1000.0
500.0
0.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
CORE POROSITY,%

Well 5 Poroperm
5000.0
4500.0
CORE PERMEABILITY, MD

4000.0
3500.0
3000.0
2500.0
2000.0 y = 5E-05e0.65x
1500.0 R² = 0.8737
1000.0
500.0
0.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
CORE POROSITY,%

Typically, core permeability should also be adjusted for stress and the Klinkenberg effect;
nevertheless, research shows that these adjustments may be ignored at higher permeability
levels. Two correlations were employed: the X5 well poroperm was used to estimate the
permeability of X5 and X6 wells in the northern block, while the X1 well correlation was used for
wells in the southern block. Poroperm of the X4 well was excluded owing to the terrible
match between two variables (R2 equal to 0.23 was acquired).

24 | P a g e
Saturation Calculations
All estimates of water saturation are performed primarily via a resistivity log and Archie's
equation or variants thereof. Consider the following formula:

𝑎 ∗ 𝑅𝑤 1⁄𝑛
𝑆𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 = ( )
𝑅𝑡 ∗ 𝜑𝑚

where 𝑅𝑤 is formation water resistivity, 𝑅𝑡 is true formation resistivity taken from log, 𝜑 is
porosity, 𝑎 is tortuosity factor, 𝑛 is saturation exponent and 𝑚 is cementation exponent.

R t was obtained explicitly from log, and the constants a, n, and m were obtained from
the list of coefficients (see Appendix). At surface circumstances, the suggested coefficient
value of R w corresponding to 0.06 ohmm generated excessively high water saturation
readings. As a result, considering observed water salinity and bottom hole temperature,
one of Schlumberger's charts was employed to adjust water resistivity to reservoir
conditions. The findings on adjusted water resistivity values are summarized in the table
below:

Name of Well 1 2 3 4 5 6
Rw 1,ohmm 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066
Rw 2,ohmm 0.0167 0.0019 0.0205 0.01785 0.0213 0.018
Table 1. Water resistivity

After adjusting for formation water resistivity, all computations were carried out in line with
the aforementioned formula; the outcomes are shown in composites logs. Due to the fact
that complete resistivity log readings for well X5 were not known, missing water saturation
values were calculated using provided porosity, density, and sonic log data.
Name of Well 1 2 3 4 5 6
Oil Saturation 0.768 0.571 0.713 0.804 0.556 0.606
values
Table 2. Oil Saturation

Net Pay Calculations

Another key element in STOIIP computations is the Net-to-Gross ratio, which is calculated
as the proportion of net pay of the reservoir to gross sand interval. This ratio is utilized to

25 | P a g e
calculate the STOIIP. Gross sand refers to the entire reservoir gap between the top and
bottom of the reservoir; in our instance, the top corresponds to the top of the hydrocarbon
column and the bottom corresponds to the oil-water-contact point in the reservoir.
Generally speaking, net pay is defined as the proportion of an interval that contributes to
commercial production; this parameter is primarily formed by taking into account the
imposition of shale, water saturation, and porosity cut-offs on gross intervals in order to
remove non-productive intervals. In the industry, there are a variety of approaches for
determining cut-off values to consider. The hydrocarbon column approach, on the other
hand, was chosen for this project because of its resilience and simplicity. According to
the method's basic idea, which is based on the elbow approach, it is intended to find a
threshold value for an independent variable by doing several trials, after which any
changes that occur do not have an effect on the independent variable. Here, the
independent factors are porosity and shale volume, and the goal variable is net pay, while
the dependent parameter is water saturation. In accordance with the estimation of cut off
values, average shale volume cut offs were around 0.7-0.8, average water saturation cut
offs were approximately 0.5-0.6, and average porosity cut offs were approximately 0.1-
0.17. The table given below illustrates all results gained for all wells:

Well Reservoir OWC, ft Gross Net Pay, ft Net-to-

Name Top, ft (TVDSS) Interval, ft Gross, %
(TVDSS)
X1 10222 10822 600 487 0.81
X2 10622 10860 238 132 0.55
X3 10260 10851 591 540 0.91
X4 10336 10851 515 501 0.97
X5 10030 10577 547 513 0.94
X6 10085 10548 463 293 0.63

Reservoir Heterogeneity Evaluation

The assessment of reservoir heterogeneity is another important step in the reservoir
characterization process. The depositional and diagenetic impacts that occur at various
scales are the primary causes of reservoir heterogeneity. There are multiple different

26 | P a g e
techniques by which heterogeneity may be calculated; in the instance described,
unordered and ordered Lorentz plots, as well as data on the horizontal/vertical
permeability ratio, were utilized to estimate heterogeneity. Schalmazz and Rahme
devised a Lorenz parameter coefficient for the Lorentz plot, which is dimensionless and
has a range of values between 0 and 1. 1 represents a completely heterogeneous system,
on the other hand. The figure shown below was created by combining the core data from
all three wells (Fig. 3-3).

The graph depicts the degree of heterogeneity present in all three wells, which is
somewhat high. Well X5 has the greatest value since the reservoir quality is inferior when
compared to the other wells in the same area. The degree of heterogeneity was
determined using a numerical approach, which was also employed in this study. The
Lorenz coefficient is used to describe the region between the normal curve and the curve
of heterogeneity in a distribution. A set of mathematical functions for heterogeneity curves
was developed by the use of polynomial regression. After that, the area was calculated
using a straightforward integration between 0 and 1. The visual assessment is ensured
by the following ramifications:

Ordered Lorenz PLot

y = -12.291x6 + 34.319x5 - 33.753x4 + 14.609x3 - 5.1854x2 + 3.2832x + 0.013
1
R² = 0.9999

0.8 y = -6.6111x6 + 21.915x5 - 27.326x4 + 16.357x3 - 6.4074x2 + 3.0652x + 0.0066

Transmissivity, fraction

R² = 1
0.6

0.4 y = -7.9036x6 + 27.319x5 - 36.945x4 + 25.171x3 - 10.325x2 + 3.6741x + 0.008

R² = 1
0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
X1 normal X4 X5 Poly. (X1) Poly. (X4) Poly. (X5)
Storativity, fraction

X1 X4 X5
Lorenz Coefficient 0.526 0.53 0.73

Table 3-2: Lorenz coefficient summary

27 | P a g e
In terms of unordered Lorenz plot, it is mainly used to assess spatial heterogeneity based
on stratigraphic layers and identify various units supporting the flow. The below provided
graph was plotted for each of three wells:

Unordered Lorenz Curve

1
0.9
Transmissivity, fration

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Storativity, fraction

X1 normal X4 X5

Figure 3.Unordered Lorenz Plot

As shown in figure 2.4, clear layering was observed in each well, but well X1 was less
subjected to this process compared to the two other wells, furthermore, it was followed
by well X4. The highest degree of layering process was noticed in well X5 due to the
separation of the reservoir into two units with different capacities for flow contribution.

In the final part, for well X1 and well X5 the permeability analysis was conducted by using
core data obtained from relevant measurements. The meaning of permeability anisotropy
is the variations in horizontal and vertical permeability values which means in the ratio of
kh/kv. This permeability ration is an important factor having effects on success of
secondary and tertiary recovery mechanisms by controlling the propagation of
underground fluids. Several factors can affect the permeability anisotropy namely,
presence of barriers to flow, orientation of grains, precipitation and dissolution processes
and so on (3). In order to evaluate permeability anisotropy of two wells, linear regression
analysis was conducted and for both wells coefficients were determined as 0.96 and 0.94

28 | P a g e
which clearly shows isotropic behavior with regards to the permeability; illustrated by
below graph:

X1
4500
4000 y = 0.9303x - 70.683
R² = 0.9697
3500
3000
Kv, mD

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 4500.0 5000.0
Kh, mD

Figure 4.kh/kv Ratio Analysis

RFT Data Analysis

RFT is a highly useful data source in order to determine pressure distribution and fluid
contacts in the reservoir. For the examined field, RFT was implemented in three wells
which were X1, X2 and X5. The consequences are provided in the table below:

X-5 X-2 X-1

TVDSS Pressure TVDSS Pressure TVDSS Pressure
(ft) (Psi) (ft) (Psi) (ft) (Psi)
10,050 5,550 10,280 5,640 10,450 5,650
10,100 5,570 10,550 5,705 10,600 5,720
10,200 5,600 10,780 5,780 10,700 5,775
10,400 5,650 10,828 5,790 10,800 5,820
10,500 5,685
10,565 5,710
10,565 5,710 10,829 5,790 10,828 5,790
10,700 5,720 11,900 5,920 11,075 5,900
10800 5,820

29 | P a g e
 Table 2-1: RFT Data Summary

The major approach used for this study was a quality check on data points using linear
equations in the range of 0.99 and 1, as well as gradients drawn from density figures of
well test data (0.3 psi/ft for oil and 0.46 psi/ft for water) to determine the consistency of
data points. When it comes to wells like well 5, which did not have resistivity log data for
the whole depth interval, this type of study becomes critically significant. Aside from well
log interpretations, RFT data from wells X1 and X2 were also utilised in the case of these

Pressure(psi)
5500 5550 5600 5650 5700 5750 5800 5850
10000
10100
10200
10300 y = 3.3468x - 8531.8
R² = 0.9959
TVDSS(ft)

10400
10500
10600
10700
y = x + 4980
10800
R² = 1
10900
two wells.
Figure 2-9: Well X5 RFT data

Figure 2-9 depicts the consequences gained from RFT data analysis for well X5. From
this graph OWC was determined, at a depth of about 10577 ft TVDSS. From calculations
of gradients, oil gradient was found around 0.3 psi/ft, while water gradient 0.47 psi/ft for
this well and these obtained values are similar to the well test results.

In the analysis of gradients in well X2, solid data did not provided, so as it can be seen
from the graph, water gradient could not be found. The oil gradient was evaluated as 0.28
psi/ft.

30 | P a g e
References
(1) UK oil and gas fields: an overview, G. Goffey*, J. Gluyas & N. Schofield, University
of Aberdeen. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344713246_UK_oil_and_gas_fields_a
n_overview/figures
(2) Gautier, D. L., 2005. In: Kimmeridgian Shales Total Petroleum System of the North Sea
Graben Province. Virginia: USGS - science for a changing world.

(3) Gray, J., 2013. Petroleum Prospectivity of the Principal Sedimentary Basins On
The United Kingdom Continental Shelf. pp.10-15.

(4) Wills J.M., (1990). North Sea Oil and Gas Reservoir II. Graham & Trotman Limited.
1st edition. Page (26 – 45).

31 | P a g e
Appendix

32 | P a g e
33 | P a g e
APPENDIX B1: RESISTIVITY CORRECTION

34 | P a g e
 APPENDIX B2: DETERMINATION OF CUT OFF VALUES
Shale Volume cut-off:

Porosity cut-off:

Water Saturation cut-off:

35 | P a g e
 Reservoir Static Modelling
This chapter of the report consists of five main subsections and predominantly pertains
to the static analysis of the field from the reservoir engineering perspective. The below
listed points are thoroughly discussed and the necessary data and calculations provided:

- Reserves Estimation
- Field Drive Mechanisms and Ultimate Recovery Factor Studies
- Analysis of SCAL Data
- Analysis of PVT Conditions
- Potential Well Location Evaluations

The bulk of the calculation steps and graphs are provided in the form of appendices at
the end of this section. It should also be noted that this study will be pursued further to
include Dynamic Reservoir Analysis as well.
Reserves Estimation
The initial reserves to be accounted for are accounted for using the industry standard
STOIIP equation which takes the following form when given in field units (Stock Tank
Barrel - STB):

𝐺𝑅𝑉 ∗ 𝑁⁄𝐺 ∗ 𝜑 ∗ (1 − 𝑆𝑤 )
𝑆𝑇𝑂𝐼𝐼𝑃 = 7758 ∗
𝐵𝑜

Where,

Parameter Description Unit

𝑆𝑇𝑂𝐼𝐼𝑃 Stock Tank Oil Initially In-Place STB
𝐺𝑅𝑉 Gross Rock Volume Acre-feet
𝑁⁄ Net-to-Gross Ratio of the reservoir rock ratio
𝐺
𝜑 Porosity ratio
𝑆𝑤 Water Saturation ratio
𝐵𝑜 Formation Volume Factor for Oil 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑟 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑙
𝑆𝑇𝐵

36 | P a g e
As has been discussed in the earlier sections of the report, aside from the core samples
taken from the already drilled wells, we have no method for peering into the subsurface
and taking direct measurements of the parameters under scrutiny. Petrophysical methods
of porosity and water saturation, seismic and drilling methods for reservoir extent
determination, and PVT techniques used for assessment of the reservoir to surface fluid
parameter changes, such as 𝐵𝑜 , have their respective uncertainties from the perspective
that they are regarded as indirect measurements. These errors tend to accumulate,
analogous to compound interest, and can result in significant prospecting errors. To
mitigate such errors, there have been methods developed which are prevalently referred
to in the industry. For our purposes in this study, we have used two of such techniques,
namely, Deterministic and Probabilistic STOIIP Calculation. Deterministic method relies
on the input from the side of the engineer regarding the lowest, upmost and baseline
parameter values expected to be present in the subsurface. The narrower the span of this
range, the more marginal are the errors expected.

With regards to the Probabilistic STOIIP Calculation, Monte Carlo probability simulation
method was used. In this simulation, inputs are in the form of probability distributions of
each parameter where the probability density function, mean and standard deviations are
defined by the engineer. Simulation performs predefined number of random walks (10000
steps in this case) across the probability plains of all variables and computes the value of
the provided equation (STOIIP) during each random walk.

As far as the physical boundaries of the reservoir are concerned, extensive studies on
the geological, petrophysical and RFT data in collaboration with the geologists point to
existence of 2 compartments in the north and in the south with their individual fluid
contacts, and fluid and rock properties. These compartments are codenamed as
compartment A in the south and compartment B in the north. STOIIP calculations are
done on a per-compartment basis and are summed up to yield the final result. The areal
data of these compartments can be found in the appendices of this section.

37 | P a g e
Figure 3. Compartment B-GRV Map

Figure 4. Compartment A-GRV Map

38 | P a g e
Deterministic STOIIP Calculation
As has already been mentioned, the uncertainty ranges for the included parameters play
a crucial role with this method, thus, explanations regarding the error sources are also
provided.

• 𝑮𝑹𝑽 – the Gross Rock Volume calculations were conducted based on the depth-
area-thickness method which has two main steps:
o Estimation of the area – for this purpose areas occupied by each thickness
interval (referred to as “block” from now on) outlined by the contour lines of
the top structure map were calculated separately via the counting squares
method. This method boasts high accuracy with decreasing area of each
square the block is divided into. For this reason, usage of a programming
language called Python was the preferred method over manually counting
the squares. The provided top structure map was converted into an image
with the dimensions of 2698 x 2200 pixels. This formatting choice presented
added convenience in that it was now possible to simply count the pixels
each block contained. With each pixel being approximately 1⁄96 in. in
lengths and width, this method is inherently less error prone. The algorithm
coded for this purpose is provided in the appendices in Python syntax.
o Volumetric Calculation – this step follows the trapezoid rule and was
preferred over the triangle mode for its increased accuracy. The method
depends on an identical intuition as the geometrical representation of
integrals.
Computational steps and the respective formulae are present in the appendices.
Considering the errors this variable holds, there are two major sources of
uncertainty related to the above defined steps. As far as estimation of the block
area is considered, the results can at most be as good as the quality of the top
structure map. Additionally, we have errors on the part of counting squares as
converting pixel values to physical dimensions also involves rounding
deprecations.

39 | P a g e
 • 𝑵⁄ – Net-to-Gross calculations were discussed at an earlier section. With regards
𝑮
to errors present here, the porosity, permeability and saturations cut-offs must be
mentioned as they are based on log interpretation and interval selection, where
both processes include marginal uncertainties.
• 𝝋, 𝑺𝒘 , 𝑩𝒐 – as discussed earlier, indirect measurements of physical rock properties are
error-prone in their nature. The nodes where accuracy loss occur include, device
calibration, calculation and interpretation.

Calculation of 𝝋, 𝑺𝒘 , 𝑩𝒐 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑵/𝑮 have already been discussed in previous sections, however as
we move on with deterministic calculation of STOIIP, what we need is the thickness averaged
value of the parameter. This is obtained as follows:

∑𝑛𝑖=1 ℎ𝑖 𝑥𝑖
𝑋̅ =
∑𝑛𝑖=1 ℎ𝑖

Where,

Parameter Description
Denotes the property being averaged, in this case 𝜑, 𝑆𝑤 , 𝐵𝑜 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑁/𝐺 for
𝑥𝑖
the specific depth interval (thickness)
ℎ𝑖 The thickness to which a specific property value pertains

Regarding the formation volume factor, 𝐵𝑜 , values are taken from the PVT data
analysis. The final datasheet for each compartment and the overall results can be found
below.

Compartment A (South) STOIIP

Parameter Minimum Base Max unit
GRV 811191.16 827746.09 836023.55 acre-ft
N/G 0.76 0.90 0.98 frac
phi 0.16 0.21 0.25 frac
Sw 0.43 0.29 0.20 frac
Bo 1.350 1.348 1.345 bbl/stb
STOIIP 326.19 653.49 931.04 MMstb

Table 1

40 | P a g e
 Compartment B (North) STOIIP
Parameter Minimum Base Max unit
GRV 188393.39 192238.15 194160.54 acre-ft
N/G 0.56 Table 20.90 0.99 frac
phi 0.24 0.25 0.27 frac
Sw 0.44 0.42 0.39 frac
Bo 1.350 1.345 1.340 bbl/stb
STOIIP 78.99 145.91 178.17 MMstb

Table 2

Minimum Base Max unit

Total STOIIP 405.19 799.40 1109.21 MMstb

Table 3

Probabilistic STOIIP Calculation

As has already been stated, the Monte Carlo simulation method is used for random
sampling of the probabilistic distributions defined by the reservoir engineer in order to
form a probabilistic estimation of STOIIP. For compartment A, all the parameters of the
STOIIP equation were estimated to fit a normal (Gaussian) distribution curve, whereas 𝐵𝑜
parameter of compartment B was estimated to be incompliance with a uniform probability

Figure 5. Compartment A – Probabilistic STOIIP

41 | P a g e
density function as there was nearly no variation for this variable. Distributions for each
variable can be found in the appendices, whilst the results of the simulation are noted
below

As can be observed in the above figure, P10, P50 and P90 for the STOIIP of
compartment A are 964.15, 751.50 and 570.30 MMSTB respectively.

Figure 6. Compartment B – Probabilistic STOIIP

When it comes to compartment B, P10 = 153.90, P50 = 137.50 and P90 = 121.46
MMSTB.

Overall, we have:

Compartment P10 P50 P90 unit

A 964.15 751.50 570.30 MMstb

B 153.90 137.50 121.46 MMstb

Total 1118.05 889.00 691.76 MMstb

Field Drive Mechanisms and Ultimate Recovery Factor Studies

Having conducted the STOİİP calculations, we have a good estimate of the volume of
hydrocarbons present in the reservoir. However, it is not possible to extract the full
contents of our reservoir due to the porosity and permeability limitations, capillary

42 | P a g e
pressures and decisions regarding the production strategy. Thus, it is imperative to
assess the energy supply capabilities of our reservoir, called drive mechanisms.

Evaluation of the processed field and pressure data suggests that the reservoir is
saturated, and hence, gas cap and solution gas drives fall out of the equation. The
injectivity tests and SCAL data revealed that there is weak connectivity with the aquifer.
In conclusion, the only drive mechanism that seems plausible is rock and fluid expansion
drive which has been proven to yield very little productivity over time keeping the
Recovery Factor at minimum. For this reason, inclusion of secondary recovery
mechanisms seems inevitable. Considering the connectivity issues resulting from long
transition zone at the OWC, the only sensible option is water injection into the transition
zone to support the natural energy of the reservoir.

After reviewing the development histories of the nearby wells such as Beatrice,
Highlander, etc. as well as referring to the global expertise on development of similar
fields, the expected recovery factor is in the range of 30-55% of the STOIIP. Thus we can
compute the available reserves through:

𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑠 = 𝑅𝐹 ∗ 𝑆𝑇𝑂𝐼𝐼𝑃

43 | P a g e
Analysis of SCAL Data
Provided data also include the capillary pressure from wells X1, and X5 from
compartments A and B, respectively. This data was analyzed and processed to obtain
the capillary pressure data for on a per-sample basis. The preprocessing step included
conversion of the capillary data from experimental mercury-air basis to oil-water basis
which reflects the subsurface conditions.

𝜎(𝑂𝑖𝑙⁄𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟) ∗ cos 𝜃(𝑂𝑖𝑙⁄𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟)

𝑃𝑐 (𝑂𝑖𝑙 ⁄𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟) = 𝑃𝑐 (𝐴𝑖𝑟⁄𝐻𝑔) ∗
𝜎(𝐴𝑖𝑟⁄𝐻𝑔) ∗ cos 𝜃(𝐴𝑖𝑟⁄𝐻𝑔)

The only parameters not readily available to us are the contact angles of the mentioned
phases which, upon further inspection of the data at hand, were determined to be
impossible to compute. For this reason, it was decided to use the universally accepted
values for the two-phase systems under scrutiny. This reduces the above equation to:

𝑃𝑐 (𝑂𝑖𝑙⁄𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟) = 𝑃𝑐 (𝐴𝑖𝑟⁄𝐻𝑔) ∗ 0.09524

The results for both wells are depicted below:

Cappilary Pressure Curve (X1)

160
140
120
Pc (psia)

100
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Water Saturation (%)

Figure 7

44 | P a g e
 Capillary Pressure Curve (X5)
Sample 1
80
Sample 22

60 Sample 56
Pc (psia)

Sample 89
40 Sample 119
Sample 148
20
Sample 150
Sample 185
0
0 25 50 75 100 Sample 219
Water Saturation (%) Sample 254

Figure 8

Considering the data for X5, samples 1, 22, 56, 89, 119, 148 and 150 were obtained from
non-productive (non-pay) zones with sample no. 150 belonging to shale. These specific
samples present poor quality sand.

When it comes to well 1, however, the sand quality seems to be consistently good across
all samples nearly uniform transition zones which indicate no inhibition on the part of
water displacing the oil.

Regarding the permeability data, well 1 showed significantly better results than well 5,
where some samples from the latter indicated alarmingly high connate water levels. All
samples were deduced to be water-wet based on Caig’s cut-off claim of water saturation
being above 50%.

Analysis of PVT Data

In this section the main target is estimation of the hydrocarbon’s Pressure-Volume-
Temperature properties based on the available data. This will provide the means to
establish the possible fluid behaviors in the reservoir during production. Here we are
predominantly interested in fluid density, viscosity, bubble point pressure, formation
volume factor and the fluid compressibility. These parameters are obtained through the
following testing methodologies:

• Differential and Flash Vaporization

45 | P a g e
 • Viscosity Measurement
• Separator Tests

Unfortunately, the provided PVT data samples only the compartment A and are from
Wells 1 and 2 with no data present for compartment B. That is why the assumption to be
made will be compatibility of PVT regimes in both compartments.

The initial PVT test data is as follows:

PVT Parameters Initial conditions Bubble point

Pressure (psia) 5722 @ 10500 ft 1800
Temperature (° F) 250 250
Bo (Res B/STB) 1.323 1.395
Rs (SCF/STB) 505 505
Viscosity (cP) 0.49 0.41
Compressibility Co (10-6 Psi -1) 10.4 18
Table 4

Pressure - Relative Volume (X2)

10.0
Relatove Volume (cc)

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0 1863 psia, 1.000 cc

0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Pressure (psia)

Pressure vs Relative Volume plot is used to determine the bubble points This is taken as
the change in the slope. The underlying science behind this methodology is that above
the saturation pressure there almost no volume change as the fluid is incompressible. It
should also be mentioned that 1863 psia of pressure for bubble point was chosen from
the provided data as the point of slope change sharp enough to be registered as the
bubble point. So this analysis is only as accurate as the provided data.

46 | P a g e
Regarding viscosity, the same graphing technique was used to determine the saturation
point and the fluid viscosity at this point. The resultant data indicate around 0.43 cP of
viscosity at 1895 psia saturation pressure for X1, and 0.39 cP at 1893 psia for X2.

Viscosity vs Pressure (X1)

0.7
0.65
Viscosity (cP)

0.6
0.55
1895 psia, 0.43cP
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure (psia)

Figure 9

psia saturation pressure for X1, and 0.39 cP at 1893 psia for X2.

Viscosity vs Pressure (X2)

1.40

1.20
Viscosity (cP)

1.00

0.80
1863 psia, 0.39 cP
0.60

0.40

0.20
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure (psia)

Figure 10

47 | P a g e
Computation of the gas formation volume factor was conducted based on sample data
from well 1 at a temperature of 245 F. This property quantifies the change in volume as
the fluid is transported from reservoir PVT conditions to surface (standard) conditions and
is denoted as the ratio of volume of fluid in reservoir barrels to the volume of fluid in
standard barrels. It should be noted that there is n additional gas cap present in neither
of the compartments.

Gas Volume Factor VS Pressure

Gas volume factor

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Pressure, psia

Figure 12

Oil Formation Volume Factor Undersaturated Oil

Oil Formation Volume

1.4
Factor, rb/stb

1.38
1.36
1.34
1.32
1.3
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
Pressure, psia

Figure 11

Oil formation factor was provided as a part of the field study data while gas formation
volume factor was determined through above graphs.

Property Distribution Maps and Possible Well Locations

In order to identify potential well sites, it is necessary to analyze property distribution
maps. The maps of porosity, permeability, saturation, and net-pay thickness were created

48 | P a g e
using the Python software program. The approach was founded on the convergence

Figure 14.Porosity Map Figure 13. Saturation map

interpolation method, as seen in the following illustration:

Figure 15. Thickness map

49 | P a g e
References
- Pack, R., 2022. The Estimation of Petroleum Reserves. [online] onepetro.org. Available
at: https://onepetro.org/TRANS/article/57/01/968/159939/The-Estimation-of-Petroleum-
Reserves
- Pack, R., 2022. The Estimation of Petroleum Reserves. [online] onepetro.org. Available
at: <https://onepetro.org/TRANS/article/57/01/968/159939/The-Estimation-of-Petroleum-
Reserves>.
- Fernando, S. and Ley, H., 2022. Chapter 11 Oil and Gas Reserve Estimation Methods.
[online] /www.sciencedirect.com. Available at:
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376736109701347>
- Al-Saddique, M., Hamada, G. and Al-Awad, M., 2022. State of the Art: Review of Coring
and Core Analysis Technology. [online] sciencedirect. Available at:
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1018363918307098>

50 | P a g e
Appendix
GRV Calculation

Bottom Area Compartment A Volume Compartment A

TVD km2 ft2 acre ft3 acre-ft

Top 9770.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Layer
9800.00 931588.71 21.39 13973830.69 320.91
1 0.0865789
Layer
9900.00 4155135.50 95.42 254336210.70 5840.87
2 0.386165
Layer
10000.00 10309936.47 236.77 723253598.50 16609.63
3 0.9581725
Layer
10100.00 16312749.91 374.62 1331134318.73 30569.70
4 1.5160548
Layer
10200.00 21898580.81 502.90 1910566535.88 43876.44
5 2.0351841
Layer
10300.00 27476661.97 631.01 4378941187.85 100563.04
6 2.5535931
Layer
10400.00 35593536.36 817.41 3153509916.69 72420.82
7 3.3079495
Layer
10500.00 43665878.63 1002.79 3962970749.80 91010.21
8 4.0581672
Layer
10600.00 52217548.40 1199.18 4794171351.79 110098.86
9 4.852932
Layer
10700.00 60299259.77 1384.78 5625840408.49 129198.26
10 5.6040204
Layer
10800.00 71102056.87 1632.87 6570065831.77 150882.54
11 6.6079979
OWC 10845.00 7.1829401 77288435.15 1774.94 3338786070.41 76675.72
TOTAL 39.06 420319779.84 9652.71 36043576180.60 827746.09
Table 5. Compartment A - GRV

51 | P a g e
 Compartment A - South
0.0E+00 1.0E+07 2.0E+07 3.0E+07 4.0E+07 5.0E+07 6.0E+07 7.0E+07 8.0E+07
9700
9800
9900
10000
10100
10200
10300
10400
10500
10600
10700
10800

Figure 16. Compartment A – GRV

Bottom Area Compartment B Volume Compartment A

TVD km2 ft2 acre ft3 acre-ft

Top 9770.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Layer 1 9800.00 0.019414136 208896.10 4.80 3133441.55 71.96
Layer 2 9900.00 0.151690406 1632188.77 37.48 92054243.48 2114.04
Layer 3 10000.00 0.445224402 4790614.57 110.02 321140166.62 7375.03
Layer 4 10100.00 0.677785542 7292972.43 167.48 604179349.64 13875.07
Layer 5 10200.00 0.934748723 10057896.26 230.98 867543434.56 19923.26
Layer 6 10300.00 1.193786617 12845143.99 294.99 2013811642.03 46247.48
Layer 7 10400.00 1.502112335 16162728.73 371.18 1450393636.12 33308.51
Layer 8 10500.00 1.824950282 19636465.04 450.95 1789959688.26 41106.69
OWC 10560.00 1.990980919 21422954.69 491.98 1231782591.78 28288.07
TOTAL 8.72 93840964.47 2155.07 8370864752.49 192238.15
Figure 17. Compartment B – GRV

52 | P a g e
 Compartment B - North
0.0E+00 5.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.5E+07 2.0E+07 2.5E+07
9700
9800
9900
10000
10100
10200
10300
10400
10500
10600

Figure 18. Compartment B – GRV

53 | P a g e
For the code regarding GRV calculation, refer to this github repository

Probabilistic STOIIP

Figure 19. Compartment A – GRV Distribution

Figure 21. Compartment A – Water Saturation Distribution

Figure 20. Compartment A – N/G Distribution

54 | P a g e
 Figure 22 Compartment A – Porosity Distribution

Figure 23 Compartment A – B_o Distribution

Figure 24 Compartment B – GRV Distribution

55 | P a g e
 Figure 25 Compartment B – Water Saturation Distribution

Figure 26 Compartment B – N/G Distribution

56 | P a g e
 Figure 27 Compartment B – Porosity Distribution

Figure 28 Compartment B – B_o Distribution

57 | P a g e
 Drilling
Introduction
This section of given report is based on drilling module of field development program with
respect to the X field within the North Sea. The current project of drilling program consist
of several procedures including PPFG plot anaysis, the design and cementation of
casings, evaluation of drilling fluid, appropriate designs of bit, BOP and BHA design. The
calculations are carried out with the help of Excel based program. The prominent aim of
the drilling plan is shown below:

⚫ Drilling wells have to be completed to TD by following minimal CAPEX and NPT(non-

productive time)

⚫ To comply with environmentally sensitive behavior and HSE requirements,

⚫ To guarantee that the most secure environment possible is created,

⚫ Selection of most thorough methods feasible with the aim of saving drilling time as
much as possible

⚫ To guarantee that selected designs can be capable of withdrawing all predicted

construction and service loads throughout the life of well.

Geological Prognosis
Eco-friendly, safe, and economical procedures are realized while the enhanced
information related with drilling formations are supplied beforehand that has a great
impact on the drilling procedure. Drilling engineers are provided by vital plans associated
with underpressurized and overpressurized zones, and formation classifications to
accomplish innocuous procedures in the drilling operation. All these considered, the
interpretation of formations in the whole reservoir parts is very highly essential.
Consequently, analyzation of RFT data should be realized for the entire reservoir
segment and adjacent field information overhead reservoir. The location of our field is in
Central Garden and due to some analyzations related with adjacent fields to Central
Graben, maps have been found out that of Forties, Nelson, Montrose, and Fulmar fields.

58 | P a g e
By utilizing the data that is associated with these fields, the stratigraphic data of X field
can be clarified. According to the data of Fulmar Field, the lithostratigraphic sequence is
up to 12830 ft. The geological column of the Central Graben field’s succession sequences
is up to 6000 m that is highlighted in the second picture. The following picture shows the

succession sequences of Clyde being at 14000 ft.

59 | P a g e
Figure 0-14: Generalized geological column for Central Graben (right), general lithostratigraphy for Fulmar Field (left).

According to the pictures highlighted above, it is

observed that soft grey claystone and siltstone
are located above from sea-base approximately
8500 ft. Subsequently, substitution occurs in
tertiary Montrose marlstone and stratigraphic
clay being at 9000 ft. Beforehand
accomplishment of reservoir part, drilling
procedure of chalk and clay layer should be
realized in 700 ft and 500 ft, accordingly.

Additionally, more beneficial information can be gained by analyzing data of adjacent

fields that has a great influence on the cementing and drilling fluid deliberations, bit
selection, plus casing plan:

➢ 0.466 psi/ft is considered as the value of gradient of normal pore pressure

➢ Because of compressed shale layers that are trailed by “thief-zone”, the value for
abnormal pressure interval is 1.1 – 3.1 km
➢ Instant penetration rate is up to 900 ft/hr
➢ Above 6500 ft formations and reservoir sand are hard while till that point that is
soft
➢ The value for differential sticking is between 8000 – 10000 ft while that for
sloughing shales is 5000 – 8000 ft
➢ The most faced serious drilling issues are related with abnormally pressurized
clays, the sensitivity of water, and shales between 5000 – 8100 ft

60 | P a g e
 Pressure Profile
PPFG(Pore Pressure Fracture Gradient) graph is mainly utilized with the intention of
determining casing depths and weight which are necessary in order to drill
wells.Estimation of of PPFG plot is considered to be vital component of drilling procedure
and precision in this task will contribute to have a rapid and secure drilling process,
which will be beneficial to the bottom line. As a consequence, in this section, we fully
investigated neighbouring field data with the view to determine the ideal layout with

Figure 0-15: Generalized pressure profile for Central Graben (right), detailed pressure profile including some drilling associated
problems in Central Graben (left).

respect to our field, because the data for reservoir area (RFT) is very limited. We can
identify our PPFG PLOT with the help data from surronding field, particularly from
Montrose Field and Central Graben.

Pore pressure, fracture gradient, and mud weight are typically included in a PPFG plot.
The section related to the pore pressure was derived by using data from Montrose[10]
and Central Graben. Followingly, the fracture gradient has been calculated with the help
of the Ben Eaton method by utilizing pore and overburden pressures[11].

𝝂
𝑷𝑭𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 = 𝑺𝑻 + 𝑷𝑷𝒐𝒓𝒆 + (𝑷𝑶𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒃𝒖𝒓𝒅𝒆𝒏 − 𝑷𝑷𝒐𝒓𝒆 ) ∗
𝟏−𝝂

61 | P a g e
 Where,
𝑃𝐹𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 – Fracture Pressure in psi,
𝑆𝑇 – Tectonic Stress in psi,
𝑃𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑏𝑢𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑛 – Overburden Pressure in psi,
𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑒 – Pore Pressure in psi,
𝜈 – Poisson`s Ratio.

Equialent mudweight (EMW)

Pressure Gradients
8 10 12 14 16
0
1000
2000
3000 Pore Pressure
4000 Pore Pressure with SF
5000 Fracture pressure
Depth

6000 10.88461538, Fracture pressure with SF

6076
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000

Figure 0-16: PPFG Plot and Casing Points

The input parameters with respect to the Ben Eaton computation are considered to be
pore and overburden pressures. The value of overburden pressure and tectonic stress
were taken as 1 psi/ft and zero respectively. As far as Poisson's ratio are concerned [12],
data analysis of neighbouring field has been carried out and mean value for each
formation types has been used.Generally, in the case of drilling new section, it is often
suggested to perform leak-off tests in order to identify exact fracture pressure. The
determination of pressure profile and plotting of PPFG are fulfilled at the conclusion,
required data and graphs are included in Appendix D1. In consequence, it can be said
that there is a quite similarity between acquired results and nearby field. For instance, at
62 | P a g e
roughly 9000 feet[3], the maximal fracture gradient is obtained as 0.77 psi/ft, and obtained
the similar outcomes with appropriate input and computations.

In order to make estimation of secure margin with regards to our selection point of casing
depth, 0.5 ppg overbalance for pore pressure and 1.0 ppg underbalance for fracture
pressure have to be considered. As it was mentioned before, our graphic is mainly
constructed according to the investigations and assumptions of surrounding field, these
safety features have been added. Prominent aim of using safety factors is to reduce the
certain misassumptions which will be observed later. (Detailed info in Appendix D1).

Directional Drilling Module

Directional drilling module is highly needed for all wells drilling procedures both injectors
and producers because in the chosen platform entire aims should be drilled with minimum
expenditure and NPT. According to the static and dynamic prototype of reservoir of X
Field, the precise well’s locations should be clarified. The well trajectory scheme for
injectors and producers are permanently same called as Build and Hold module. The
selection of Build and Hold kind of well trajectory is associated with module’s cost, working
uncomplicatedness, and fewer perils.

The location of the constructed well is 4250 ft far away from the platform horizontally. The
most beneficial information can be gained from the table highlighted below. The depth of

the KOP is approximately 5800 ft being in Intermediate Casing 2 9 5/8” while the failure
and unpredictability risks are owned by the shallow formations. The entire results of

63 | P a g e
directional drilling module are highlighted in the table below containing the whole setting
depth and the length of casings (Comprehensive information in Appendix D5).

Casing Design
This module contains 2 crucial procedures: the description of operating situations that is
resulted with casing collapse and burst, setting of depths and assorting casing size, and
selecting suitable weight and casing grade related with the scale of loads computations.
The casing design module plays a major role in the well succession representing for
approximately one fifths of the entire drilling procedure expenditures. This module has 2
crucial goals to achieve: firstly, in the life expectancy of the well joining well’s intentions
and permitting secure drilling procedure by way of struggling any circumstances to
enforce upon it. Therefore, the major objectives of casing itself are to retain integrity of
well-hole, to accelerate completion instruments, and to offer a drain used for production.
Various casing sizes should be applied due to pressure variations in the entire hole
section. This module begins with the selection of appropriate setting depth by referring to
PPFG diagram by considering safety margin and determination of the casing size using
data of North Sea Casing Design. Then, reflecting various sticking analyzing, kick
imposed measurements, kick tolerance and fracture pressure, the precise value for each
string of casing setting depth is figured out. And after all these, to define the grade of
casing collapse and burst loads measurements are realized.

30” Conductor Casing – the initial casing string should be located. This putting in a place
procedure is realized by a hammer to avert collapses by way of fastening unconsolidated

64 | P a g e
locations being at narrow depths setting to 400 ft. The usage of 30” conductor casing is
faced in North Sea.

20” Surface Casing – this installation is realized at 26” hovel drilling by subsequent
conductor setting. In order to insulate fresh water areas and weak siltstone formations,
and avoiding washing it by circulation of the mud, the setting depth is in 1200 ft. Another
intention of this casing is the provision of BOP stack and wellhead. Due to last fact that,
it is located at approximately 500 – 1500 ft below surface.

13 3/8” Intermediate Casing-1 – the location of this casing is in the deeper parts where
drilling becomes insecure in lick tolerance formations. By using this casing alleviation of
well uncertainties can be easily realized. Furthermore, setting depth of this casing is
realized in two principles. At the beginning, minimal setting depth is found out by
preformation of kick imposed analyzing for this type of casing being roughly 3700 ft and
detailed information is highlighted in the Appendix C.2. After this, making of the kick
tolerance, that is the max kick volume circulating out from the formation with nonbreaking
down, analyzing is realized. According to the analyzation of both of them, kick imposed
pressure is lower than fracture one and the value for setting depth is 5500 ft.

9 5/8” Intermediate Casing-2 – this casing installation is realized at the 12.25” hole
diameter against the sealing off abnormal pressurized areas and troublesome areas.
Setting depth for this casing is approximately at 10100 ft, at the upper part of the zone
called as thief. By the aim of determination of casing setting depth limit the kick tolerance
is analyzed. Moreover, this location is also responsible for kick off point.

7” Production Liner – this casing is applied to make an isolation in the production areas.
7 in. sized liner is utilized that has no connection with the ground and it is related with
beforehand casing with liner hanger in order to diminish expenditures.

Additionally, various sticking analyzing has conducted in the whole casing string plus
various pipeline sticking risk is zero according to the Appendix D2. Consequently,

65 | P a g e
collapse and burst loadings are figured out plus according to these calculations
appropriate grades of casing is defined:

With the aim of fulfilling secure operations within the burst computation, design factor is
considered to be 1.1. The outcomes and chosen grades are demonstrated in above
section. It is worth to note that there is quite a similarity between casing design for
production and injection wells. Whereas in the injection procedure occurrence of leakage
to the annulus is determined as operating worst case procedures in the casing design of
injection wells. Thus, by contemplating of injected fluid hydrostatic pressure and wellhead
injection one, calculations are realized for liner and intermediate 2 casings, and this
design in other casing is permanently the same.

66 | P a g e
Cementation
The cementation job is fundamentally carried with the intention of limiting the influx of
fluid, corrsion of casing string and lost circulation, as well as to support the casing weights.
The procedure of cementing is mainly completed in four phases. With regards to both
surface and intermediate casings, multi-stage cementing process is mainly conducted in
order to decrease the times of long pumping (pump life, cost), higher pump, extreme
hydrostatic pressure within the formation. In addition, the Stinger Cementation method
was chosen to be operated, which involves cementing a tubing string with a cement
stinger unit rather than the casing itself.

67 | P a g e
This technique enables to minimize long pumping times and excessive pump pressure
due to the surface area of casing. The cementation of production linee all the way to the
top of liner will be fulfilled with the help of single stage cementing process. G class cement
is preferred for processes owing to the fact there is an uncertainty in lithology of formation
and bottomhole temperature. In addition, in North Sea fields, G class cement is frequently
utilized due to they being suitable with chemical additions.

With the intention of reducing mud pollution, spacer will delivered within the turbulent flow
between cement slurry and mud in each of the types of cementation . Cementation job
has to be carried with preferable standoff so that centralizers will be operated( elaborate
information with respect to the cementation tools is provided in Appendix D6). Production
liner and intermediate casing will be rotated amidst cementing job in order to achieve
effective mud removal.In the terms of computation of open hole, a 20% surplus cement
capacity has to be taken into account. IBS and USIT cement logs will be utilized with the
view to estimate actual TOC. With the aim of reducing the viscosity of cement slurry,
friction reducers can be operated to generate turbulence and reduce friction pressure
loss. Furthermore, the calculations related to the cementation and "cementing pressure
& fracture pressure" investigation are demonstrated within the section of Appendix D3.
As a consequence of these analysis, we can finalize that cementing process has not
increased the danger of fracture formation.

Drilling Fluid Consideration

Drilling mud selection and design play an integral role on the drilling job efficiency. The
highlighted considerations below should be taken an account during drilling mud design:

• Applied drilling mud should be well-matched with not only formation rock but also
formation fluid. Thus, it should protect wellbore stability by making overbalance
condition to decrease the occurrence of kicks without formation fracturing process.
Additionally, selected mud should diminish formation damage by also decreasing
probability of the skin.

68 | P a g e
 • Utilized drilling mud should realize lubrication and cooling of the bit and an
appropriate hole cleaning process without sticking of the pipes. Moreover, this mud
should be selected can endure with the greater wellbore temperature and
pressure.
• The highlighted 2 paragraphs above should be realized with ecofriendly and less
expenditure.
Coming to the pressure factor, in the various sections of the well various pressure values
will be observed and considering this fact for each section drilling mud should be chosen
separately:

• Surface casing (400-1200 ft depth, 20”) – in order to diminish influences on the

environment of fresh-water areas and expenditures this section is drilled by
applying 10.1 ppg water based potassium chloride/polymer mud. This highlighted
additive is aimed at to limit mud invasion to the shale areas according to the ability
of the constraining clay hydration by mechanism of ion exchange. In this
mechanism, potassium ion will enter clay section.[13]
• Intermediate casing 1 (1200-5500 ft depth, 13.375” hole) – drilling process in this
section is realized by the application of 11.17 ppg water-based potassium
chloride/polyacrylamide mud (PHPA). This mud type is called as shale controller
mud, and it surrounds the surface of shale to inhibit degeneration of clays by the
influence of water. [14] The usage of this mud type is regulated according to the
drilling history of this area that shows a clay swelling incident. Moreover, the
application of oil based mud is not efficiently due to economic and environmental
factors.
• Intermediate casing 2 (5500-10100 ft, 9.675” hole) – due to occurrence of
reactive shales and chalk, in this section 11.97 ppg oil based mud will be applied.
According to the history of drilling, clay swelling process was faced due to
utilization of water based mud. Moreover, due to occurrence of the chalk in
formation, wellbore instability problems can be faced with chalk solution by the
influence of water in the mud.
• Production liner (10100 – 11200 ft depth, 7” hole) – drilling in this section is
realized by the application of 11.75 ppg oil based reservoir drilling mud. The main
69 | P a g e
 reason for applying this mud type is related with lithology that consists of shale
being higher sensitive to water and sands. Thus, in this section the probability of
the formation damage should be permanently low. The main pros of this mud type
are creation of an impermeable filter cake on the wall, cleaning the hole, and
avoiding alteration in the wettability that can protect the formation from fluid
invasion. [15]

Drill Bit Design

In the terms of drill bit design, selection process is mainy carried out with respect to the
formation to be drilled, fundamental component of bit design focusing on finding a
reconciliation amid bit durability and aggressivity. As the drilling history and lithology of
formations were mentioned before, X field primarily made up of chalk, siltstone, claystone,
Kimmeridge clay. By considering the review which is related to the drilling history in
neighbouring fields, formations within the upper sections up to approximately 4500ft are
taken as soft whilst lower zone consist of hard formations. Hence. detailed design of the
bit is provided within the part of Appendix D8.

30” hole section-Hammering of 30” conductor to seabed is carried out with the help of
special techniques. Bit begins to drill from 26” section.

26” hole section – ranging between 400 and 1200 ft, it is suitable to utilize T11 roller
cone bit (by NOV RV) which consist of longer, widely spaced teeth and has a higher offset
angle in order to fulfill fast drilling process with lower cost. Furthermore, high offset angle
provides effective skidding-gouging action, hence penetration rate is enhanced even in

70 | P a g e
the case of excessive teeth wear and the teeth of the roller cone are widely spaced to
clean the bit effectively to prevent bit balling in softer formations, therefore, bit life is
improved. Jet nozzles are also improve cleaning action of hole and reduce the increased
temperature of bit.

17 ½” hole section- formation from 1200 to 5500 ft is soft, therefore, SR1GRC roller
cone bit (by Halliburton) is operated. It comprised of medium teeth and offset angle.
These characteristics again will provide enhanced rate of penetration and effective
cleaning action. In addition,drilling data from surrounding fields indicates high ROP is
observed up to about 5000 ft. If the roller cone bit is underperforming beyond this point
where drilling of relatively harder formations is expected, FXG75s PDC drill bit can be
functioned as intervention type. Nevertheless, operation of PDC bit is not economically
appropriate at soft formations.

12 ¼” hole section –f this section from 5500 consist of relatively hard formations such
as chalk, clay, shale, hence, PDC bits with OBM(oil based mud) are more suitable to
utilize. With respect to this zone, long-lasting steel body M324 GeoTech PDC
(Halliburton) which comprised of 13/16 mm cutters and 6 blades. Steel body makes bit
more durable by providing high strength material. Blades and cutters of bit enables to
remove greater proportion of rock from face of bit by maximizing cut depth and minimizing
wear, as a result, drilling process is carried out effectively with more robust bit by providing
high penetration rate. This bit is equipped with MDOC mechanism which prevents
exposure of bit into formation in case of drilling the harder formations with softer formation
sequences under high WOB.

8 ½” hole section – depth from 10100 to 11000 ft is drilled by 8 1/2 in matrix body XR616
Smith Bit with MDOC, drill bit is equipped with 6 blades and 16 mm cutters which are
rotated aggressively compared to former bit. Crushing and shearing actions are
enhanced to improve efficiency of cutting by providing high ROP comparison with
conventional PDC. In addition, a wear flat is prevented with the help of 16 mm rotating
cutters, hence durability capacity of bit is increased by maintaining cutter sharpness.

71 | P a g e
BHA Design
26” hole section – In the process of hammering conductor, BHA of next section is
undergo with it to drill 26” section in less time. The drilling of this section will be carried
out with the help of conventional BHA assembly including HWDP, jar stabilizer, anti-wall
stick drill collar. LWD and MWD technologies are required to run with BHA to get elaborate
data about drilling procedure and lithology.

72 | P a g e
17 ½” hole section – Drilling of this zone will be carried in the
same technique as former section has.

12 ¼” hole section – the kick-off point is positioned at 5800 ft,

by considering this, directional drilling devices which is Geo-Pilot
XL by Halliburton will be utilized(Appendix D8). Bottom Hole
Assembly is equipped with stabilizers, jars & accelerators,
reamers, HWDPs, LWD/MWD and DCs. The prominent issues
of this sections is probability of confronting differential sticking,
however the analysis of differential sticking demonstrates no risk
about it. Although, uncertainties due to the pore pressure
generates a threat, accelerators & jars and OBM system will be
utilized. Geo-Pilot will also be used with the aim of determining
any variations in the pore pressure data, however, LWD/MWD
sensors near the bit and InSite real-time reservoir monitor is
available in the tool.

8 ½” hole section – again, this section will be drilled by using Geo-Pilot and BHA
simultaneously as the same with previous section. (Elaborate info in Appendix D6 )

Bop Design
For X field at the surface the highest predicted pressure of the well regarding to the PPFG
data is 7808 psi. In order to withdraw the presence of kick, BOP stack, that consists of
pipe, blind and shear rams, and hydrail to work under higher pressure, will be utilized with
10000 psi pressure. The application of BOP stack is realized after setting surface casing.

Drilling Rig Type

There are numerous factors influencing the drilling rig selection such as stratigraphy,
costs, weather conditions, reserves amount, experience related with nearby fields, and
water depth. According to the comparison between X filed and Montrose field, in spite
less reserves occurrence in the Montrose field, fixed platform type has been applied in
the alike water depth. Due to this comparison, the application of the same structure is
realized in our field.
73 | P a g e
The drilling rig capacity can reach TD and realize in safer environment due to the
presence of drilling rig in the fixed platform. The highlighted table gives overall information
related with the applied rig(more info in Appendix D7):

Uncertainties and Risks

Well expenditures and NPT increase by the contribution of ambiguity in the drilling
process interval. These doubts with mitigation and prevention techniques have been
designated in this part:

The formation features have a great influence on the drilling procedure. Moreover, mud,
bit, and cement collection features, in one word, drilling operation components will be
affected by the inadequate lithology information. One part of the Borehole Assembly, the
Logging While Drilling tools can be an adequate solution for the prementioned problem.

Exploration wells can be highly injured by the less information related with fracture
gradient and pore pressure prediction. Moreover, it has also a great influence on the
casing and mud designs. All these issues can be solved by realizing formation integrity
and leak-off studies and boosting temperature and pressure assessments.

74 | P a g e
 Serious Results Solutions
problems

Differential This issue can result with losing In order to solve this undesirable
Sticking control of casing string. issue, overbalance pressure
Additionally, implementation of should be dimished.
side-track is highly required which
results with delays of efficient time
interval.

It can influence the pump pressure Modifications of mud properties

by increasing trend and impractical should be realized, for example
Shale
circulation may occur. Addition to in order to make a barriers with
Instability
this, it has also negative impact on formation, the application of oil
the mud particles. based mud is the most optimal
way.

Corrosive Well integrity can be affected Anticorrosive components

Fluids negatively due to injuries on the should be added to the drilling
mud.
Occurrence

75 | P a g e
 casing by the influence of
corrosive fluids in the formation.

REFERENCES

[1] J. M. Wills, "The Forties Field, Block 21/10, 22/6a Drilling Review," Geological
Society, pp. 301-308, 1991.

[2] A. Buller, E. Berg and O. Hjehneland, North Sea Oil and Gas Reservoirs-II, London,
1989.

[3] C. Stockbridge and D. I. Gray, "The Fulmar Field, Blocks 30/16 & 30/llb," Geological
Society, 1991.

[4] P. E. Crain, Petrophysical handbook, SONIC TRAVEL TIME, 2013.

[5] D. A. Stevens and R. J. Wallis, "The Clyde Field, Block 30/17b Drilling Review , UK
North Sea.," Geological Society, 1991.

[6] T. BRENNAND, B. V. HOORN and K. JAMES, Historical Review of North Sea

Exploration, London UK, 2000.

76 | P a g e
[7] G. M. Holm, "Distribution and origin of overpressure in the Central Graben of the
North Sea," Abnormal pressures in hydrocarbon environments, 1998.

[8] E. L. Medely, "Review Of Drilling Operations Montrose Field," Society of Petroleum

Engineers, 1979.

[9] Steiger, R. Ewy, G. Ross and M. Gast, "North Sea Case Histories of Wellbore
Stability Predictions for Successful High-Angle Nelson Field Wells," Society of
Petroleum Engineers: North Sea Technical Conference, 1994.

[10 Crawford, R. Littlefair and R. W. Affleck, "The Arbroath and Montrose Fields, Blocks
] 22/17, 18, UK North Sea.," Geological Society, 1991.

[11 E. Kozlov, I. Garagash, J. Wang, N. Baransky, D. Dopkin, N. Ivanova and A. Lowrie,

] "Fracture Pressure Prediction With Improved Poisson’s Ratio Estimation," in 2005.
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 2005.

[12 J. L. Ji, "Integrating 4D seismic data into dynamic characterisation of an HPHT

] reservoir," 2017.

[13 O'Brien DE; Chenevert ME, "Stabilizing Sensitive Shales with Inhibited Potassium-
] Based Drilling Fluids," in Journal of Petroleum Technology 25, 1973.

[14 R. Clark, R. Scheuerman, H. Raoth and H. V. Laar, "Polyacrylamide-Potassium

] Chloride Mud for Drilling Water Sensitive Shales," in Journal of Petroleum
Technology 28, no. 6, 1976.

[15 V. Z. Ryan, H. David and P.-B. Tanche-Larsen, "Engineering Drill-in Fluids to

] Improve Reservoir Producibility," in SPE European Formation Damage Conference,
Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 2011.

[16 B. Lamik-Thonhauser and J. H. S. (. a. V. G. |. C. S. K. (. a. V. G. |. A. M. A. (. G.

] Limited), "Correlation Between Drilling Parameters and Lithology - The Hidden
Geological Information of Drilling Data," 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/SPE-192916-MS. [Accessed 24
December 2020].

[17 P. Jon Jincai Zhang, "Recent Advancement in Petroleum Geomechanics," 18 April

] 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://www.spegcs.org/media/files/files/95b90158/J_Zhang.pdf. [Accessed 24
December 2020].

[18 G. M. Holm, "Distribution and origin of overpressure in the Central Graben of the
] North Sea," Abnormal pressures in hydrocarbon environments, 1998.

77 | P a g e
 APPENDIX D1: PPFG and Pressure Profile

The highlighted formula that is called as Ben Eaton formula will helps us to determine
fracture pressure.

Poisson’s Ratio and pore pressure

variables of this formula will be gained
from nearby fields. After this reference,
we could easily determine fracture

pressure figures that are highlighted in the table. Additionally, the assumption of 1 psi/ft
is realized for the Overburden Pressure gradient.

78 | P a g e
Calculation for PPFG gradients can be done properly after finding out fracture pressure
values by applying the Ben Eaton formula. After all calculation to get safer environment
in the assortment of casing depth for fracture pressure values 1 ppg underbalance and
for pore pressure values 0.5 ppg overbalance should be added. All these considered, the
main aim of these additions is to diminish uncertainties because of utilization of nearby
field data.

Table 0-2: Pore & Fracture gradients with safety margin, and selected Drilling Fluid
Density

79 | P a g e
 PPFG
-2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Pressure
Overburden Pressure
2000
Fracture Pressure
Hydrostatic Pressure
4000
Pore Pressure
Depth

6000

8000

10000

12000

Figure 0-17: Pressure Profile for the X Field

Equialent mudweight (EMW)

Pressure Gradients
8 10 12 14 16
0

1000

2000

3000 Pore Pressure

4000
Pore Pressure with SF
5000
Depth

6000 10.88461538, Fracture pressure

6076
7000
Fracture pressure with
8000 SF
9000

10000

11000

12000

Figure 0-18: PPFG Plot for the X Field

80 | P a g e
Appendix D2: Casing Design
The main part of drilling process is the determination of casing depth. Allotted money for
nonproductive interval and material can be diminished by appropriate depth selection.
This selection is realized by considering well circumstances whereas selection of
number and size of casing strings that are applied is the first target in this design part.
Prementioned casing size can be found out by the application of PPFG plot considering
fracture and pore pressure, ECD and surge pressure safety margins. After all these
determinations, by the aid of intermediate casing kick imposed analysis depth selection
process can be determined properly. After placing surface casing, following casing is
intermediate casing 1 by the application of BOP stack. While a gas kick circulation is
realized, in the open hole part the maximum pressure should be determined. Coming to
the surface casing depth, in this section kick imposed analysis is not required.

Kick Imposed Pressure Analysis

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000 500 1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500 7500
10000
Pressure in Psi
Frcature pressure Imposed pressure

Figure 0-19: Kick Imposed Pressure Analysis for Intermediate Casing

81 1| P a g e
Due to some interpretations, the formula changes to this form that is highlighted above.
The lower intermediate casing 1 setting depth is 3710 ft according to the plotted graph
above whereas considering getting safer environment, this depth has been chosen being
5500 ft. Moreover, Kick Tolerance is another concern of setting depth of casing.

For Intermediate Casing 1 & 2 Kick Tolerance Analysis

The highest amount of kick without failure at the formation circulation of the kick through
hole in safer circumstances is called as kick tolerance. Following steps should be followed
to get the target:

Step 1. Determination of kick volume

The assumption will be given for kick volume being at 25 bbl. This volume is responsible
for gas kick.

Step 2. Determination of kick volume in annulus section

The amount of expanded gas kick should be figure out that has circulated out of the
wellbore. This calculation is realized properly by following equation:

This equation can be seen appropriate whereas temperature factor has not been
considered in this formula. Thus, the temperature influences negatively the amount of
kick.

Step 3. Determination of kick height in annulus

82 | P a g e
In this calculation drill pipe open hole section has been taken an account without
considering HWDP and collar. This assumption is totally proper till collar and HWDP
diameters are less than drill pipe diameter.

Step 4. Determination of pressure at the casing shoe section

Differential Sticking Analysis

Determination of sticking possibility in the casing string is realized by applying following

formula:

𝑃𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 = (𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑚𝑢𝑑 − 𝑃𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑒 ) ∗ 0.052 ∗ 𝐶𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ

83 | P a g e
According to this analyze table, casing stuck possibility is 0.

Considerations of Burst and Collapse Loads

The calculations of loads exposed by each casing should be done appropriately after
getting casing string depth and size. Defining these loads can be realized by
investigation of the worst scenarios.

Operational scenarios

84 | P a g e
Surface Casing (20” @ 1200 ft)

Burst Design – Drilling: Example Calculations

Internal Pressure at Surface = 0.052120011.73 − (0.11200) = 611.952 psi

85 | P a g e
Internal Pressure at Shoe: 0.052120011.73 = 731.952 psi

Expected Gas col.Pressure from next hole:

Surface: 0.052 5500 10.38 − (0.1 5500) = 2418.68 psi

Casing Setting Depth: 0.052 550010.38 − (0.1 (5500 − 1200)) = 2538.68 psi

Next Hole Section 0.052 550010.38 = 2968.68 psi

Collapse Design – Drilling: Example Calculations

Pore Pressure at shoe= 0.0521200 9.27 = 578.448

Intermediate Casing-- 1 (13 3/8” @ 5500ft)

86 | P a g e
Intermediate Casing – 2 (9 5/8” @ 10100 ft)

87 | P a g e
Production Liner (7” @ 10900 ft)

88 | P a g e
Summary of Producer Casing Design

Injection Well Casing String Design

It is almost same design with production well but only intermediate casing 2 and liner
have vairous operational procedures: with respect to the burst design , injection
pressure rate is added(injection whp= 2000 psi)

Intermediate Casing – 2 (9 5/8” @ 10070 ft)

89 | P a g e
Injection Liner (7” @ 10900 ft)

90 | P a g e
Summary of Injection Casing Design

APPENDIX D.3: CEMENTING CALCULATIONS

91 | P a g e
The procedure of Cementing Calculation is provided underneath. Multi-stage cementing
is applied to 3 out of all casing strings while one of them is carried in stinger
cementation way. Liner cementation is applied only to the top of the liner.

Table 0-3: Summary of Cementing Program

Results

Cementation Calculation Example: Surface Casing 20”

Slurry Volume between casing and hole
Annular capacity = (IDOH2-ODDP2)/1029.4=(262 − 192 )/1029.4=1.505
Total Volume of slurry (20%) = 1.505 × 400 × 1.2 = 722.6 𝑓𝑡 3
Slurry volume in the rate hole
Annular capacity = (IDOH2-ODDP2)/1029.4=(262 )/1029.4=3.678
Total Volume of slurry (20%) = 3.678 × 20 × 1.2 = 106 𝑓𝑡 3
Mixwater requirement=Water requirement×Total Volume= 1550.47/1.94 = 799.2 𝑓𝑡 3

Total No. SXS Cement=Total Volume/Yield of Cement=1550.47/2.62 = 592 𝑓𝑡 3

92 | P a g e
93 | P a g e
94 | P a g e
APPENDIX D4: BOP

APPENDIX D5: DIRECTIONAL DRILLING

Kop is selected at 5800 ft in Intermediate Casing 2. Its horizontal displacement is 4250

ft. TVD is 10800. Computations are provided underneath

45
𝑇𝑉𝐷 𝑝𝑓 𝐵𝑈 𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = × 100 = 1800 𝑓𝑡
2.5

𝑅𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐵𝑈 𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 1800/ sin(45°) = 2545.6 𝑓𝑡

2545.6
𝐴𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑒 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝐵𝑈 𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = ∗ 45 ∗ 𝜋 = 1999.2 𝑓𝑡
360

𝐻𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑝. 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 4250 − 2545.6 + (2545.6 ∗ sin(45°)) = 3504.4 𝑓𝑡

𝐴𝐻𝐷 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑡 = (10800 − 1800 − 5800)/ cos(45°) = 4587.1 𝑓𝑡

95 | P a g e
APPENDIX D6: BOTTOM HOLE ASSEMBLY & DOWNHOLE TOOLS

In the below section, BHA program is demonstrated for directional drilling. Drill Pipe
number is optional.

Tool Target
1000 Drill Pipes Drill Pipes
to soak up the strains being transmitted from the rigid Drill
100 HWDP
Collars to pliable drill pipe.
1 XO (x-over) to link up HWDP and Stabilizer
to make available WOB and boost bit life span by lessening
1 Stabilizer
wobble.
to offer WOB and maintain drill string in stiffness thus
7 Drill Collar
lowering bending strains (positioned at Neutral Point)
1 Accelerator If BHA got stuck, free it (run Jar)

96 | P a g e
 3 Drill Collar To offer WOB and placed between Jar and Accelerator
1 Jar If BHA got stuck, free it (run Accelerator)
1 Float to initiate under-reamer to apply ball
10 Under-Reamer to expand a wellbore its previous drilled size
10 Drill Collar to supply WOB
in order to get orders from surface, Batteries and RSS
10 Battery/Pulser
Control device (Geo-Pilot)
10 Battery/MWD MWD Tool and its batters
1 Sensor (RES) resistivity sensor
measurement of coring and drilling properties of nearby bit
1 Sensor (WOB, TQ)
location
1 Roller Reamer to expand wellbore by sustaining the gauge hole
10 Rotary Steerable directional drilling tool
1 Sensor (GR) Finding out formations & undulations
1 Bit to drill

97 | P a g e
 Table 0-4: Liner Hanger Considerations

RIG FEATURES AND BIT SPEC SHEETS

98 | P a g e
99 | P a g e
100 | P a g e
101 | P a g e
102 | P a g e
103 | P a g e
APPENDIX D8: DIRECTIONAL DRILLING TOOL

104 | P a g e
 Production Technology
Introduction
According to the current headlines, the production plan that will be used in order to grow
the field in the most effective manner will be detailed. Generally speaking, the purpose of
any production engineer is to design production activities and construct all infrastructures
in such a way that hydrocarbon recovery is maximized while remaining within reasonable
economic limitations. In order to attain this aim, the preceding tasks must be completed
in the proper order:
• The selection of the most acceptable field development option, with a particular
emphasis on economics, operational condition, as well as field location
• An evaluation of well performance followed by layout of the well and flow conduit,
which would reveal details on inner and outer diameters, as well as materials used
and accessories.
• Choosing the best well completion approach is an important consideration.
• Pressure maintenance approach, as well as the necessity for artificial lift, are all
taken into account.
• Development of surface facilities that are capable of handling specified production
rates as well as flow chemistry
• Transportation of industrial fluids must be carefully planned.

Summary of Production Technology

The number of producer and injector wells is one of the most critical choices that must be
taken during the course of an oil and gas project's existence. After analyzing all of the
available data on reservoir features and well performance, three production scenarios
were proposed: 8 producers and 8 injectors (base case), 10 producers and 7 injectors,
and 10 producers and 10 injectors (additional scenarios). After thoroughly examining all
of the scenarios in terms of their productivity as well as their economic benefits, it was
discovered that increasing the number of injectors and producers resulted in increased
productivity, as well as resulting in increased economic benefits. As a result, the 10/7
scenario was proposed as a potential future growth strategy.
The plateau rate was projected to be equivalent to 150000 stb/day, which had an impact
on the construction of the surface storage facility. Because sea water is easily accessible,
it was decided to use it as a reservoir pressure management technique. The water will be
piped to the oil leg in order to compensate for the lack of support from the aquifer. Artificial
lift can be avoided with proper water injection assistance, according to the findings of the
study; nevertheless, gas lift should be included as a backup strategy in the event that
water injection fails.
A steel jacket platform was presented as a field development alternative, taking into
consideration cost restrictions as well as operational circumstances. It was recommended
that for oil transportation, preexisting pipeline infrastructure – the Forties pipeline – that

105 | P a g e
is already in place and adjacent be used rather than establishing a new fully-dedicated
pipeline that would lead in superfluous capital expenditures. Concerning gas
transportation, an existing Fulmar pipeline can be installed to carry extra gas generated
in field X.

Options for Field Development

Offshore fields are often established using one of three methods: dedicated platform,
floating production and storage offloading (FPSO), or semi-submersible platform. If
project finances do not compensate for increased operating expenses, dedicated platform
will be the most feasible alternative among the offered solutions. Dedicated platform has
the greatest CAPEX but the lowest OPEX when opposed to the other choices. Regarding
the depths of water and extreme weather circumstances in the North Sea, on the other
hand, it is still preferable to use a platform. High-amplitude waves will pose major
instability difficulties for floating production, storage, and offloading (FPSO) and semi-
submersible platforms that float on ocean surfaces. This will be especially troublesome
when installing surface processing facilities.
After taking into consideration the economics, as well as the field location and operational
circumstances, a steel jacket platform with 24 slots will be placed again. A study of
surrounding fields reveals that fields with similar economics and environmental factors
also chose steel-jacket platforms, so confirming the appropriateness of the selection once
more.

Well Performance
It is necessary to understand various reservoir properties before IPR data can be created,
due to the possibility that the reservoir would be complex. Because of this, before
conducting Well Performance Prediction using software such as Prosper 11.5, certain
input data must be pre-determined, such as reservoir pressure of 5722 psi at the start of
production, reservoir temperature of 250 F, GOR of 505 scf/stb, and others, before the
simulation can be carried out. For accurately estimating performance, the software makes
use of the PI Entry Reservoir Model, and for the perforation program, it makes use of the
Darcy Model, both of which are available in the software. Because of this, in order to
detect IPR in the PI Entry Model, PI values must be selected, which in this case are
determined by the flow capacity as well as the k and h values in this specific situation.
Table 9.PI values depending on varied flow capacity in producers.

Well k h k*h PI

1 150 150 22500 29

2 300 100 30000 39
3 500 50 25000 32
4 450 150 67500 88
5 300 120 36000 47
6 420 140 58800 77
7 300 110 33000 43
8 300 125 37500 49

106 | P a g e
Darcy Law has been used to establish three distinct PI values: the lowest, maximum, and
most likely instances (calculations is in Appendix: PI values). The PI index is calculated
as 35 STB/psi for the most probable option with a flow capacity of 36000 mD*ft, 28 for the
least case, and 46 for the maximum case. The IPR versus VLP correlations for these PI
Values are depicted in the picture below. When it comes to the Injectivity Index, the
injectivity values that have been achieved range between 30 and 50.

Figure 35. The relationship between IPR and VLP was investigated using three examples with PI values of 27, 35, and
46 stb/psi.

Tubing Sizing
A sensitivity study with a base PI value of 46 STB/d/psi was conducted out as a way of
monitoring variations in production rate within the reservoir decline with a 0 percent water
cut. The results of the assessment were used to develop a production rate forecast.
Various inner diameters of tubing were employed in this investigation, with the inner
diameters of 2.4, 3.2, 3.8, 4.2, 4.8, and 5.5" being the most common.

107 | P a g e
Figure 36. Sensitivity analysis of tube diameters at different pressure values of 4700, 4500, 4000, and 3500 psia (wc=0
percent) with different tubing sizes

It can be obviously observed in the diagram above that the production rate decreases
when the reservoir pressure is reduced prior to the beginning of water injection. The
production rate for 5.5" tubing, on the other hand, is originally greater, but as the pressure
lowers, the rate quickly declines and eventually stops altogether. This early high rate
necessitates the use of greater spare capacity, which results in the need of more
sophisticated surface equipment to deal with the massive volume of hydrocarbon.
Because the liquid rate is quickly reducing as a result of the pressure fall, more competent
surface facilities will not only be necessitated later in the operating period, but will also be
expected earlier in the operation period. Furthermore, in 5.5" tubing, the operational
points are susceptible to being moved to an unsteady production zone. This instability
zone has the potential to advance at a faster pace if the producing GOR is greater than
the predicted value of the zone. Additionally, despite the fact that steady manufacturing
in 3" and 4" tubes has been achieved, the production rates for these cases are rather low.
Water cut sensitivity study for 4.2, 4.8, and 5.5" tubing at 0 percent and 50 percent water
cut under 4700 pressure is presented in the table below. With the information provided
by this sensitivity analysis, it is simple to evaluate flowrates with varying water cut rates,
which once again validates the abovementioned reasons, such as the rapid fall in output
rate for 5.5" tubing, that have been discussed. Taking all of this into consideration, 4.8"
tubing is the most optimal choice.

108 | P a g e
Figure 37. At wc ranges from 0 to 50% and pressures of 4700psia, we conducted water cut sensitivity tests on several
tubing string combinations.

Furthermore, an Appendix has a more in-depth comparison of 4.8" and 4.2" tubing strings
at various wc percents, as well as a table of results. According to the results of the
research, 4.8" is capable of producing hydrocarbon at a rate of around 80 percent
weighted average.

Tubing Stress analysis

Stress analysis may be performed on the 5" tubing that has been chosen for the flow
conduit at bottomhole completion in order to build tubing that can readily resist pressures
during all activities, from production to a probable workover. It has been determined that
the right thickness, weight, and API grade of both production tubing and injector tubing
can be determined via tube stress analysis. It was mostly burst and collapse calculations
that were used, and the findings are displayed in the table below, with the computations
for each being detailed in the Appendix section.
Tubing type OD (in) ID (in) T (in) Weight / ft
Producer 5.5 4.892 0.315 17
Injector 5.5 4.892 0.304 17

Perforatìon Program
Since a result, tube-conveyed perforating is the most extensively employed method in the
Sea-UKCS, as it incorporates the best characteristics of both tubing and casing gun
perforating processes. Furthermore, shaped charge perforators will be employed for the
perforating process in this project. To ensure that the perforating guns land into an
adequate well sump, the tubing-conveyed perforating equipment must be installed.

109 | P a g e
The use of large gun sizes with high shot densities, as well as perforation under
unbalanced conditions, will be encouraged since tube delivered perforating systems
provide all of these benefits. Dynamic-Underbalance Perforating (DUP) will be employed
in all wells of the X Field, in addition to conventional perforating. The needed
underbalance pressure is found using Tariq techniques [2], and the formula for calculating
it is provided in the Appendix on Perforation. It is estimated that the needed underbalance
pressure is around 325 psi, which is consistent with Behrmann's requirements [4].
Because of its temperature stability [3,] the HMX-high molecular weight explosive type
will be employed, and it has been frequently used in conjunction with tube deployment
perforation in the North Sea (for more see Appendix on Perforation). An additional
radioactive sub is used in the completion string to correlate the tubing conveyed
perforating arms with their respective perforating arms. It will be possible to establish the
precise location of perforating weapons in respect to the pay zone by employing a GPS
recording approach.
The Perforation Program is depicted in further details in the following table. The
information was gathered through the use of the Prosper 11.5 program. According to the
findings of the sensitivity analysis (Figures 6.4 and 6.5), perforating with 90 degree shot
phasing, 15 in. penetration, and 12 spf. will deliver the optimum technological and
financial outcomes in both the short and long term.
Table 10. Perforation Program

Perforation technique DUP – Dynamic Underbalance Perforating

Required Underbalance Pressure 375 psi
Diameter 0.411 in
Shot Density 12 spf.
Phasing 90 degree
Penetration 12 in
Explosive type HMX

The primary point of discussion was whether to use a shot density of 12 or 16 spf and a
shot phasing of 600 or 900 for the final product. Regardless of the fact that a greater rate
has been attained in 16 spf when compared to 12 spf and 600 when compared to 900,
12 spf and 900 have been selected for the perforation program due to cost considerations.
This is due to the fact that in both situations, just a very tiny increase in output rate has
been recorded.

110 | P a g e
Figure 38. The effect of shot density on the liquid rate and the length of the perforation

Figure 39 The effect of shot phasing on the liquid rate and the length of the perforation.

Sand Exclusion Technique

The well consolidation of the X field reservoir is represented via the core sample
examination. The result of the drill stem tests conducted din appraisal wells reveals that
sand production limit has not been exceeded yet. The maximum sand production rate
observed was 4 Ibs/ 1000 bbl for 4500 bbl/d production rate. That is why it is not preferred
to design sand control design as a first step in X field wells, since it may restrict the flow
area in an uneconomical way. Throughout late development of field expandable sand
screens which require less expenditure can be positioned.

Completion String Functionality

The wells of X field are completion wells with long life that can produce approximately for 10-15
years. The target of that field completion will be accurate design of completion string which meets
certain operational requirements. The completion design should provide the perfect condition of

111 | P a g e
flow via protecting corrosion of the string by fluids; making the downhole injection possible;
allowing reservoir monitoring; undergo the pressure integrity test; alleviate erosion problem in the
internal side of tubing string; accommodation of well barrier installation; making strong suspension
of tubing string and preventing formation damage while the well kill operation.

Completion Components Description

For the production wells, tubing string should be tensioned in order to compensate tubing’s
thermal expansion caused by hot produced fluids. The selected suspension device for tension
pipe will be in the ram form.
With regards to the injection well, compression is needed to apply to the completion string to allow
movement of pipes since cold fluids are injected into the string. For mandrel compression tubing
hanger device will be preferred.

Wireline Re-Entry Guide

A mule shoe guide (i.e., a 45-degree shoulder) will be installed to provide for simple
entrance into the tubing string and to lead the tubing into the 7" production liner when it
is installed.
Connections of Tubing
Premium metal-to-metal seal connections (e.g., VAM) can be utilized in X-field wells to
provide high pressure seal integrity while maintaining a low cost of operation.
Nipples
Numerous landing nipples will be employed to safeguard a lockable mandrel in the tubing
string, as well as to fulfill as a setup juncture for plugs that will be used for pressure testing
and hydraulic setting of completion tools, and to serve as a configuration juncture for the
wireline retrievable insert safety valve in the occasion that the tubing retrievable safety
valve is unable to operate. A perforated junction in the lower tubing string will be made
during the usage of P&T gauges to allow for bypass flow when the gauges are in
operation. For further information on the positions of nipples, please see below:
Table 11.Locations for nipples

Tubing Hanger To remove BOP and run X-mas tree

Part of a downhole safety valve For setting SSSV

Sliding sleeve To actuate the sleeve

Above a packer To test the integrity of the tubing prior to

setting a packer.

Below a packer For setting of the packer

In a tailpipe below perforated joint For setting of memory gauges

112 | P a g e
Subsurface Safety Valve
All drilled wells in the X Field will have retrievable surface controlled subsurface safety
valves (TRSCSSV) with self-equalizing valves. To determine the maximum fail closure
setting depth and necessary Surface Pressure to open the valve, the calculations are
presented in the Appendix.
Table 12.Subsurface safety valve

Name of the company Schlumberger

Depth for setting 1500 ft
Maximum working pressure 15000psi
Operating temperature 4-149degC
Hydraulic Control Line Alloy 825
Self-equalizing valves Inconel 718 flapper
Nipple bore 4.5in
Surface Pressure to open SSSV 5700psia

Furthermore, in the scenario that a well must be shut down promptly, equilibrium will be
performed before the valve can be released to prevent flooding. [1] The difficulty is that
the tube pressure operating on the flapper produces a greater force than the hydraulic
control line working on the smaller area piston. Due to the pressure difference across the
flapper (pressure build-up below the closed safety valve, and pressure bleed-off above
it), control lines, the flapper, and the safety valve's life can be shortened. Self-equalizing
valves will be used in order to assure dependability while also providing amazing
adaptability and versatility. It is a tiny area poppet that is used to equalize the flapper
before the main flapper is opened.
Tubing
The tubing hanger will make an acceptable foundation for the Christmas tree available,
as well as provide access to annulus "A." When retrieving trees from wells, it is important
to consider the well plug, which is guaranteed by the wireline nipple profile within the bore
of the tubing hanger. Suggestions include the drilling of holes for the control line of a
retractable subsurface safety valve, the wiring of downhole electronic gauges, and the
chemical injection line. The most important issue when selecting a tubing hanger is the
amount of tension or compression that will be applied to the tubing string as it is hauled
down. It is designed to use a compression tubing hanger to finish wells for water injection
once they have been completed. Producer wells, on the other hand, will be completed
using tension tubing hangers of the ram type.

Packers
Packers are parts of production tubing string which are fixed to protect the casing having 9-5/5 in
diameter from reservoir fluids which may cause corrosion. Mainly, permanent packer is used by
which operating pressure and temperature are exceeded. However, there is another method
called milling that can be used recover those packers impairing 9-5/8 in protection casing.

113 | P a g e
The advantage of permanent packers is that they are capable of holding greater ratings compared
to the same size of retrievable packers ( Δ𝑇 > 300 ℉ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 Δ𝑃 > 5000 𝑝𝑠𝑖). In this circumstance,
sand control workovers and water shut-off processes are needed to be completed below packers
since in the opposite case, they may require removal of those packers.
Another type of packer named as removable, has already been invented which is basically like a
combination of permanent and retrievable packers and this can make milling technique much
simpler. Hence, for X-field wells permanent retrievable packers will be used.
Also, it is a need to construct permanent retrievable packers on tubing string and they will be
regulated by pressure differential or absolute well pressure. This type of packers has the same
function as permanent ones and they can be retrieved without applying milling operation.
Additionally, when packers are fitted hydraulically, the adjustment of them can be done after the
installation of X-mas tree. These types of packers are favorable for the case of deviated wells.
There are several steps should be followed while selecting the type of packers:

• There is no protection for the severe conditions in the well ( Δ𝑇 < 300℉, Δ𝑃 <
5000 𝑝𝑠𝑖, 𝐶(𝐻2 𝑆) < 10%).
• Workover operations make the removal of packers necessary for an upcoming decade.
• Remarkable axial tension can be noticed.
In order to avoid the restrictions in production operations, packer should be assembled above the
liner.

Side pocket mandrels

SPMs is a passage tubing sub, where valves (gas lift or chemical injection) can be placed
by wireline at the specific depth.

Sliding sleeve
This is used for completion of selective stimulation or production by installing of
communication between the tubing string and the casing annulus «A».

Downhole chemical injection mandrel

This will be built on tubing string chemical injection, that is used to stop formation of
asphaltenes, corrosion and gad hydrates. Monel is selected as line material for chemical
injection.

Pressure Maintenance Strategy

Water injection was selected as the reservoir maintenance strategy. The parameter that
should be under the control is the injection pressure, because otherwise it can exceed
the reservoir fracture pressure or fall below the reservoir pore pressure. Two of these
cases should be avoided and necessary injection rates have to be selected. However,
there is another case of exceeding the fracture pressure, when the expenses added. One
of the most important is to conduct accurate calculations of the injection rates. By
considering bottom hole pressure between the safe range, it means between the pore
and fracture pressures, below given data were received, where an injection pressure is
1200 psi:

114 | P a g e
Table 66: Injection Rates Summary

Well Number Reservoir Pressure, psi Q, stb/day

1 5722 39650

2 5537 41663

3 5400 42760

4 5155 44140

5 5103 46120

6 5022 48538

7 4921 50133

8 4865 51987

9 4712 53760

10 4654 55880

From the given 10 injectors 2 injectors will be conducted in the Northern compartment
with the injection pressure of 1500 psi.
Material Selection
According to the results of the production tests, a small quantity of "sour" and "sweet"
gases are contained in the reservoir fluid. These gases, particularly hydrogen sulfide
(H2S), can cause a number of corrosion issues, involving pitting corrosion and
microbiological corrosion, among others. As a result, consideration should be given to the
appropriate materials for both downhole equipment and surface facilities, as well as the
treatment of these gases at the surface, in order to prevent difficulties connected with
corrosion and the environment. According to the Appendix, the most suited material for
these specific reservoir qualities is 13Cr, which takes into consideration sour gas, sweet
gas, pH of reservoir fluids, salt concentration, and chloride content.
Additionally, it has been chosen to integrate chemical injection mandrels in the completion
design as a method of operating regular corrosion inhibitors injection into the downhole,
which would prolong the life of downhole equipment and tubing strings while also
improving corrosion resistance. Overall, with the use of frequent inhibitor injection via
chemical injection mandrels, as well as the application of chemical oxygen scavengers in

115 | P a g e
the water injector wells, corrosion in the downhole system may be eliminated for the
duration of the X Field's operating life.
When taking into consideration the bottomhole temperature, completion fluids, oilfield
chemicals, and reservoir fluids, elastomeric seals in packers (as well as blowout
preventers in drilling operations) should have adequate resistance to ensure safe
activities are performed. The rubber compound Nitrile will be chosen for use in
elastomeric sealing applications based on the information provided. Non-elastomeric
seals, such as metal-to-metal seals in the tubing string, on the other hand, should be used
in both injectors and producers, as well as in other applications.

Flow assurance
Flow assurance in the oil and gas industry is a methodological approach that is being
used to certify the efficient and cost-effective flow of hydrocarbon fluids from the reservoir
to the end user during the course of a project's life cycle. A complex process, hydrocarbon
production involves interactions between injected or produced fluids and installed
equipment under varying pressure and temperature conditions. These interactions can
result in the formation of gas hydrates, wax and asphaltenes, inorganic scale, and
corrosion, among other things. Potential challenges related to producing in field X, as well
as various mitigation methods, will be discussed more fully in the next section of this topic.
Gas Hydrates
In the petroleum industry, the development of gas hydrates, which occur when water and
gas mix under high pressure and at moderate temperatures, is one of the most serious
issues. Because the well will be exposed to cold sea water on a frequent basis throughout
the shut-in and start-up phases, it is predicted to exhibit these characteristics. As a result,
it should not be carried out as part of a continuous operations cycle. Pipe insulation paired
with heating, as well as injection of inhibitors and anti-agglomerates, are all possibilities
for addressing the issue at hand.

Organic Scale, Wax and Asphaltenes

In the reservoir fluid up to 6.1 wt. percent of wax content was discovered by well test data,
that can relate to the danger of the production concerns associated with wax blockage,
especially given the North Sea's lower temperatures. It is necessary to take the following
precautions in order to avoid this: insulation of the flow line and injection of inhibitors
Nevertheless, if this problem will develop certain commercial solvents should be
employed since mechanical removal and heat treatment both result in major production
failures, which is notably visible in the offshore business. In addition, test data suggests
that asphaltene concentrations are less than 1 percent; nevertheless, this is not expected

116 | P a g e
to occur in the near future in the field; yet, if it does occur, chemical treatment is strongly
suggested owing to the reasons stated above [9].

Inorganic Scale

The data that was taken from the formation water analysis displayed existence of barium,
calcium, sulphate and carbonate ions which by the changing of pressure and temperature
conditions can imply to the risk of inorganic precipitation during the life of the field.
Moreover, if injected sea water is incompatible with formation water, then it will lead to
the scale deposit, particularly, salt. This can affect on the production by causing various
problems such as: damage, blockage of perforations, tubing strings etc.

The following steps should be done in order to avoid such problems:

1.Conduct an accurate laboratory study, which will provide information about the
compatibility of sea water with formation water;
2. Prior to injection, sea water should be thoroughly cleaned and cleansed to ensure that
it is free of any solids.
3. Chelating compounds and various types of inhibitors can be used to avoid crystal
agglomeration and precipitation; re-perforation or acidizing treatment may be performed
if deposition has occurred, depending on the chemical composition of the scales as well
as the economics of the treatment.

Corrosion

Hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide content were found in the reservoir fluids through
the filed data overview. This can be reason of corrosion in pipelines which results in
significant damage to equipment and deterred production. As a result, it's important to
choose corrosion-resistant materials for tubing design (13Cr, as mentioned above) and
surface facilities. Moreover, annular packers are established in order to prevent damage
to production casing/liner.

In addition, if there is any damage in piping elements, careful timely inspections are
needed such as with Multifinger Caliper tools by Baker Hughes. In this case injection of
anti-corrosive fluids or inhibitors used as overcoming actions. Side pocket mandrels will

117 | P a g e
be inserted as part of the completion process to give accessibility to downhole equipment
in the situation that it is required [7].

Articifial Lift
Gas lift and ESP [5][6] are the two most favoured solutions for offshore oil installations.
In our situation, the gas lift method was chosen since it would withstand sand formation
and would be favorable at deeper depths. The VLP curve will move lower after gas lift is
supplied to the well, switching the intersection point of the IPR and VLP curves in the right
direction, resulting in higher production rates. As shown in Figure 6-7, when P=4000 psi
and water cut>40 percent, oil production is terminated when the well's PI is 46 barrels per
day per percent of pressure. This is due to the fact that it is at this stage that the artificial
lift is supposed to be used.

Figure 40. At 40% wc, a sensitivity analysis of reservoir pressure was conducted.

Using the following figure, we can see the sensitivity of injection depth at 60 percent and
40 percent water content. This shows that the optimal orifice depth is approximately 6000-
7000 ft in order to get a higher rate.

118 | P a g e
Figure 41.At wc=60%, the effect of injection rate and injection rate on production rate was investigated.

Figure 42. At wc=40%, an investigation into the effect of injection rate on prod rate was conducted.

The Prosper 11.5 program was used to do the research, which found that an orifice valve
at a distance of 6158 feet would offer the best gas lift performance. The depths of the
valves, as well as their graph, are shown in the figures below.

119 | P a g e
Figure 43. Gas Lift Valve Depths

The following figures depict the results of a sensitivity study of the gas injection rate at
various water cuts on the oil production rate, as well as a synopsis of the gas lift design.

Figure 44. Gas lift Design

Tubing Size 5.5”

Gas Injection Rate 6 MMscf/day
Gas Injection Depth 6200 ft
Wellhead Pressure 450 psi
Valve Number 2 unloading, 1 orifice

Surface Facilities
As the field data summary indicates, a two-stage separation procedure is envisaged, with
a high-pressure separator operating at 300 psi and 200 F and a low-pressure separator

120 | P a g e
working at 30 psi and 80 F, respectively, in the high-pressure separator. The wellhead
pressure is set at 350 psi in order to transport generated fluids into the separator
efficiently. [10] Three-phase horizontal separators are used as primary separators
because of their compatibility for predicted GOR and cost-effectiveness when opposed
to their vertical equivalents. A test separator has also been installed for the purposes of
metering and production testing. Furthermore, cyclones will be constructed as part of the
sand management system due to the possibility of sand production in the future of the
field's existence.
Artificial lift, involving the gas lift technique, is anticipated to be used in the future of the
project; the demand will be met by produced gas, which, in addition to simple separation
and dehydration, will necessitate the installation of compressors in order to achieve the
required pressurized pressure. Because the results of the well tests did not reveal a large
presence of sour gases, there will be no need for gas sweetening activities. In specifically,
the water treatment process, whose principal aims are to treat water prior to disposal or
injection procedures, stands out as being very significant (see simplified diagram). Solids
should be removed from disposed water, as well as any other technically harmful
components such as disproportionate volumes of oil and gas, in order to minimize
environmental damage and to ensure compliance with regulatory safety laws.
Furthermore, injected water is cleaned of particulates and treated with chemicals before
entering the reservoir to avoid formation damage and guarantee good oil sweep, as well
as prevent formation damage and ensure correct oil sweep.
Pumps and heat exchangers have been erected on the platform to handle a variety of
pumping and heating/cooling activities, respectively. It goes without saying that the entire
system will require electricity to function properly, which will be provided by gas turbines
that use generated gas as a fuel source to do so.

References

• 𝐽𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝐵𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑦, (2009). 𝑊𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛, 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 56 1𝑠𝑡 𝐸𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

𝐷𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑑 𝐷𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑠, (2010). 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑇𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑛𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑒𝑠

• 𝐹𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 𝐽𝑎ℎ𝑛, 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑘 𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑘 𝐺𝑟𝑎ℎ𝑎𝑚, (2009). 𝐻𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
• 𝐷𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑍ℎ𝑢, (2005). 𝑃𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑢𝑚 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑆𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑠 2𝑛𝑑 𝐸𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
• 𝐴𝑙𝑖 𝐻𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑧, (2005). 𝐹𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐺𝑎𝑠 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑡 𝐸𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔: 𝑊𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛
𝑇𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 1𝑠𝑡 𝐸𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
• 𝐺𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 𝑇𝑎𝑘𝑎𝑐𝑠, (2005). 𝐺𝑎𝑠 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑡 𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙

121 | P a g e
 • 𝐻𝑊𝑈, 2016. 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑇𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑛𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑦 1. 𝐸𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑏𝑢𝑟𝑔ℎ: 𝐻𝑊𝑈 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠.

• 𝐻𝑊𝑈, 2016. 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑇𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑛𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑦 2. 𝐸𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑏𝑢𝑟𝑔ℎ: 𝐻𝑊𝑈 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠.

• 𝐻𝑊𝑈, 2017. 𝑂𝑖𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐺𝑎𝑠 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐴. 𝐸𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑏𝑢𝑟𝑔ℎ: 𝐻𝑊𝑈 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠.

• 𝐻𝑊𝑈, 2017. 𝑂𝑖𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐺𝑎𝑠 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐵. 𝐸𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑏𝑢𝑟𝑔ℎ: 𝐻𝑊𝑈 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠.

Appendix
The Darcy's Law equation was used to get the PI values for three different variables.

Input Values
Oil FVF 1.3 rb/stb
Viscosity 0.5 cP
Area 20 ∗ 10^6 ft2
Skin 5
Ca 22
y 1
rw 0.43 ft
Table 0-13: Input values for calculating the least, most likely, and maximum PI values for well studies based.

Fail close setting depth calculations:

𝑷𝒗𝒄 − 𝑷𝒎𝒄 𝟏𝟓𝟎𝟎 − 𝟐𝟎𝟎

𝑫𝒎𝒂𝒙 = = = 𝟐𝟓𝟎𝟎 𝒇𝒕
𝝆𝒇 𝟎. 𝟒𝟑𝟑 ∗ 𝟏. 𝟐

Where, 𝑫𝒎𝒂𝒙 − 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙 𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑡,

𝑷𝒗𝒄 − 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑣𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 1500 𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑎,

𝑷𝒎𝒄 − 𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛 𝑜𝑓 200 𝑝𝑠𝑖 (𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑟 ).

𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝝆𝒇 − 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑠 𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 1.2 𝑠. 𝑔. (𝑜𝑟 0.433 ∗ 1.2 𝑓𝑡
).

Required Surface Pressure to open the valve:

𝑷𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒆 = 𝑷𝒗𝒐 + 𝑷𝒕 + 𝑷𝒎𝒐 − (𝑫𝒔𝒆𝒕 𝝆𝒇 )

𝑷𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒆 = 𝟏𝟖𝟎𝟎 + 𝟑𝟓𝟐𝟓 + 𝟓𝟎𝟎 − (𝟐𝟎𝟎 ∗ 𝟎. 𝟒𝟑𝟑 ∗ 𝟎. 𝟖𝟕) = 𝟓𝟕𝟓𝟎 𝒑𝒔𝒊𝒂

122 | P a g e
 Where, 𝑷𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒆 − 𝑅𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑣𝑒,

𝑷𝒗𝒐 − 𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 1800 𝑝𝑠𝑖,

𝑷𝒕 − 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑠ℎ𝑢𝑡 − 𝑖𝑛 𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 3525 𝑝𝑠𝑖 𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ,

𝑷𝒎𝒐 − 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛 𝑜𝑓 500 𝑝𝑠𝑖 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑛 ,

𝑫𝒔𝒆𝒕 − 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 1500 𝑓𝑡 (𝑀𝐷),

𝑝𝑠𝑖
𝝆𝒇 − 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙 𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦𝑜𝑓 0.87 𝑠. 𝑔. (𝑜𝑟 0.433 ∗ 0.87 ).
𝑓𝑡

Appendix E4: Tubing Stress Analysis

Table 0-14: Tubing stress analysis for producers at the depth of 10650 of perforations.:

Burst Design - Drilling Collapse Design - Drilling

Max Pore Pressure at Production Zone 7753 Internal Pressure at surface 0 psi
Tubing Head Pressure 7670 Internal Pressure at shoe 0 psi
Pressure at the top of Liner 12142
Pore Pressure at shoe 6036 psi
External pore pressure at top of packer 5655 External Pressure t surface 0 psi
Eternal pressure at surface 0

Summary of Burst Loads Summary of Collpse Loads

External Internal Net Design External Internal Net Design
Load Load Load Load Load Load Load Load
Surface 0 7670 7670 8437 Surface 0 0 0 0
Bottom 5656 12142 6486 7135 Bottom 6035 0 6035 60354

123 | P a g e
 Dynamic Reservoir Analysis
Material Balance
As we have already conducted the static reservoir analysis the output of which was the
STOIIP of the entire field, we now need to establish how exactly our reservoir will respond
to the different production scenarios as the field is being developed. This is a crucial step
in understanding and assessing the possible field development options. The metric of
utmost importance that we are trying to optimize in this part is the Recovery Factor,
defined as the ratio of the cumulatively produced hydrocarbons (referred to as HCs from
now) to the calculated STOIIP.

For this purpose, we need to ascertain the relationship between the pressure drop during
production and how exactly the reservoir rock and the reservoir fluids will respond to the
decreasing subsurface pressure. This is important as the relationship determines the
withdrawal performance of the HCs. The industry standard Material Balance Equation is
the perfect tool for this job as it accounts for the mentioned properties and can be used
in both a step-wise (time dependent) manner to estimate the production and the
remaining reserves any time during production, and in the abandonment stage to calibrate
for the initial assumptions and for history matching purposes. The general form of the
equation is as follows:

𝑁𝑝 ∗ [𝐵𝑜 + (𝑅𝑝 − 𝑅𝑠 ) ∗ 𝐵𝑔
(𝐶𝑓 + 𝑆𝑤𝑐 𝐶𝑤 )
= 𝑁 ∗ [(𝐵𝑜 − 𝐵𝑜𝑖 ) + (𝑅𝑠𝑖 − 𝑅𝑠 ) ∗ 𝐵𝑔 + (1 + 𝑚) ∗ 𝐵𝑜𝑖 ∗ ∗ ∆𝑃
(1 − 𝑆𝑤𝑐 )
𝐵𝑔
+ 𝑚𝐵𝑜𝑖 ∗ ( − 1) + 𝑊𝑒 + 𝑊𝑖 𝐵𝑤 + 𝐺𝑖 𝐵𝑔 ]
𝐵𝑔𝑖

Where,

𝑵𝒑 Cumulative Production
𝑁 STOIIP based on the P50 value
𝐵𝑜(𝑖) Oil Formation Volume Factor (initial)
𝐵𝑔(𝑖) Gas Formation Volume Factor (initial)

124 | P a g e
 𝐵𝑤(𝑖) Water Volume Factor (initial)
𝑅𝑝 Cumulative Produced GOR
𝑅𝑠(𝑖) Solution Gas Ratio (initial)
𝑚 Initial Gas Cap volume to Initial Oil Volume ratio
∆𝑃 Pressure Depletion
𝐶𝑤 Water compressibility
𝐶𝑓 Formation Rock Compressibility
𝑊𝑝 Cumulative Water Production
𝑊𝑒 Cumulative Water Influx from Aquifer
𝑊𝑖 Cumulative Water Injection
𝐺𝑖 Cumulative Gas Injection
𝐺𝑝 Cumulative Gas Production

As has already been mentioned, the main reservoir drive mechanism for our case is
aquifer expansion with no gas cap contribution. This leads to a series of simplifications in
the material balance equation resulting in the final form below:

𝐵𝑜 − 𝐵𝑜𝑖 𝑐𝑤 𝑆𝑤𝑐 + 𝑐𝑓
𝑁𝑝 𝐵𝑜 = 𝑁𝐵𝑜𝑖 [ + ∆𝑝] + (𝑊𝑒 − 𝑊𝑝 )𝐵𝑤
𝐵𝑜𝑖 1 − 𝑆𝑤𝑐

In order to carry out the material balance analysis the MBAL software included in the
Petroleum Expert software package was used. For this analysis the below inputs were
necessary:

- PVT data
- IPR and VLP curve results
- Initial Reservoir Pressure
- Relative Permeability Curves
- STOIIP
- Average Formation Rock Properties

125 | P a g e
To conduct analysis of different production scenarios and carry out sensitivity analysis, a
single tank model was used as illustrated below:

The initial flow rates used in the model were defined with the help of the Prosper Software.
The following were used as inputs for this purpose:
𝑆𝑇𝐵
𝑑𝑎𝑦
- Productivity Index: 25 – 45 𝑝𝑠𝑖

- Initial Reservoir Pressure: in the range of 4500 to 5720 psi

- Water cuts: in the range of 0 to 10 %

From the probabilistic analysis the P50 result for the initial flow rate was acquired to be
30300 STB/day.

Following this a base scenario of 60 days of drilling time and the above mentioned initial
oil flowrate was used to evaluate the performance of an 8 producer and 8 injector well
configuration. This is showcased below:

126 | P a g e
As is lucid from the above graph, the water injection rate sits at around 15 MSTB/day
considering that injection will start from a certain Pressure Decline point during the lifetime
of the field. This is an acceptable value considering that the rock’s fracture gradient also
needs to be taken into account when planning for a water injection operation.

If we analyze the diagram, we can see that water injection is promising considering the
rise of the tank (reservoir) pressure from below 4500 psi. However, the wellhead
restrictions which put a restraint on the possible Flowing Bottomhole Pressure (FBHP)
result in a much less prominent increase in tank pressure as injection rate increases. The
uppermost value for the injection rate can be taken as 23 MSTB/day.

Case analysis of Production scenarios

During this stage 5 different producer-to-injector combinations were analyzed:

- 8 Producers to 8 Injectors
- 8 Producers to 10 Injectors
- 10 Producers to 7 Injectors
- 10 Producers to 8 Injectors

127 | P a g e
 - 10 Producers to 10 Injectors

After evaluating both the technical and the economic value of these 5 scenarios, 7 Injector
and 10 Producer case was determined to be the best performing as far as the Recovery
Factor (46.6 %) and the plateau rate (around 150000 STB/day for 18 months) are
concerned. The increased production rates easily justify the higher CAPEX the greater
well count configuration requires. For this configuration the abandonment year was found
out to be 2042, when build-up is set to start in 2022, due to economic reasons. As far as
the production prediction is concerned, the profile is as below for the mentioned time
period:

Below we can also observe the graph for cumulative oil production versus cumulative
water injection for the same 10x7 well pattern:

128 | P a g e
It is also noteworthy to note that the efficiency of injection seems to be dropping towards
the end of life of the field as the increase in cumulative water injection brings about a
lower rate of uprise in cumulative production over the years.
Looking at the below graph for average oil rate vs average water rate from a well we can
see that as more and more injection wells are added the produced water rate also climbs.
However, as time progresses, we can see the produced water rates also falling alongside
the oil rates.

129 | P a g e
Sensitivity analysis

During the initial analysis of the production curves for different cases as mentioned above
the productivity index was taken to be 40 and 30, with the base case sitting at 36.
However, PI seem to be varying between 25 and 45 upon investigation of the IPR curves.
All the analysis was done with the 60-day drilling routine in mind.

Keeping the PI at the base level and varying the drilling time seemed to have been
affecting the overall Recovery Rate severally. Increased drilling time led to shorter plateau
period and sooner abandonment time both of which are undesirable from the RF and
economics perspective.

Field life monitoring

Monitoring the reservoir during the entire life of the field is as important as the initial
planning as it entails adjusting the initial reservoir flow model and history matching to as
new data is available more accurately predict the future rates and make better fit-for-
purpose decisions regarding the EOR activities.

Production logging tools have been gaining increased popularity as of late and have been
proven to be a highly effective source of data as long as sand management poses no
issues. Also of interest are different types of well tests, permanent bottomhole gauges
etc. For our filed build-up and drawdown tests were set to be carried out once a well is
drilled and is ready for production to analyze the apparent productivity index and the skin
factor of the reservoir.

Shut-in periods are always a part and parcel of the life of any oil field. It is important to
reduce the NPT during these time periods and to make a better use of the downtime PTA
(pressure transient analysis) can be carried out to evaluate the flow boundaries and their
behavior.

Considering more routine analysis methods, time-saving bottomhole pressure surveys

are set to be conducted to match against the expected pressures which will allow to
pinpoint any emergent source of problem. This includes pressure checks from the

130 | P a g e
wellhead pressure gauges and looking out for any abrupt changes. In the cases of severe
errors in the predicted pressures as opposed to the actual pressures a drawdown test is
to be executed to shed light upon the downhole conditions.

References
- Vargas, C., 2022. A Discrete Model of Oil Recovery. [online] Academia.edu. Available at:
<https://www.academia.edu/78093716/A_Discrete_Model_of_Oil_Recovery> [Accessed
2 May 2022].
- H. Hu, Y. Pu and X. Guan, "Oil Field Crude Oil Production Level Prediction Method
Based on AHP-PSO-BP," 2020 IEEE 8th International Conference on Information,
Communication and Networks (ICICN), 2020, pp. 214-218, doi:
10.1109/ICICN51133.2020.9205072.
- hazem, H., 2022. Reservoir Drive Mechanisms and Producing Characteristics
[PTRL13H05/EAX_6_293] Enhanced Hydrocarbon Recovery. [online] Academia.edu.
Available at:
<https://www.academia.edu/10397253/Reservoir_Drive_Mechanisms_and_Producing_C
haracteristics_PTRL13H05_EAX_6_293_Enhanced_Hydrocarbon_Recovery>
[Accessed 2 May 2022].
- Marinovska, Eva & Ilieva, A.. (2017). 3D RESERVOIR MODELING AND
SIMULATION: APPLICATION AND ADVANTAGES IN OIL AND GAS E&P.

Appendices
Table 15Tank Model Results

Time Tank Oil Oil Gas Water Water

Pressure Recovery Rate Rate Rate Inj Rate
Factor
(date
m/d/y) (psig) (percent) (STB/day) (MMscf/day) (STB/day) (STB/day)
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
05/01/2022 5722 0 30578.8 15.4423 0 0
07/01/2022 5653.02 0.188839 59965.8 30.2827 0.00328155 0
09/01/2022 5515.15 0.565227 57583.4 29.0796 0.0316022 0
11/01/2022 5384.5 0.920832 55325.9 27.9396 0.0849676 0
01/01/2023 5258.76 1.2625 79729.7 40.2635 0.239411 0
03/01/2023 5082.78 1.73872 74969.9 37.8598 0.446089 0
05/01/2023 4911.16 2.2017 93677.8 47.3073 0.92156 27684.2
07/01/2023 4745.52 2.7802 109516 55.3054 3.22886 42674.3
09/01/2023 4566.34 3.4676 101311 51.162 7.82978 74789.9
11/01/2023 4466.16 4.09324 115850 58.5042 22.2702 83847.4

131 | P a g e
 01/01/2024 4347.89 4.80867 126732 63.9999 49.4906 94540.8
03/01/2024 4224.78 5.57848 117943 59.5612 82.5656 129631
05/01/2024 4183.17 6.30683 114881 58.0147 144.699 160145
07/01/2024 4204.07 7.01627 132769 67.0484 289.811 157841
09/01/2024 4177.89 7.84963 130362 65.8329 448.158 187514
11/01/2024 4211.81 8.65468 132673 67.0001 702.797 209316
01/01/2025 4280.03 9.474 154758 78.1527 1228.5 199289
03/01/2025 4276.78 10.3984 170724 86.2156 1885.71 199767
05/01/2025 4234.78 11.4527 165371 83.5123 2483.72 231684
07/01/2025 4263.6 12.4739 166702 84.1844 3420.86 252130
09/30/2025 4356.66 14.0097 172762 87.245 5513.53 234370
12/30/2025 4373.12 15.6013 170537 86.1211 7825.97 230650
03/31/2026 4380.86 17.1723 166674 84.1706 10544.5 228900
06/30/2026 4390.16 18.7079 162156 81.8888 13712.2 226798
09/29/2026 4401.18 20.2017 157021 79.2955 17302.3 224308
12/29/2026 4413.89 21.6483 151109 76.3098 21234.1 221434
03/30/2027 4429.13 23.0404 144785 73.1163 25462.9 217990
06/29/2027 4445.94 24.3742 138104 69.7425 29889.6 214191
09/28/2027 4464.06 25.6465 131116 66.2135 34396 210094
12/28/2027 4483.57 26.8545 123843 62.5406 38838.9 205685
03/28/2028 4504.8 27.9954 116697 58.932 43200.1 200885
06/27/2028 4526.38 29.0705 109692 55.3944 47367.8 196008
09/26/2028 4548.08 30.081 102586 51.8057 51115.8 191102
12/26/2028 4571.46 31.0261 95979.5 48.4696 54637.5 185818
03/27/2029 4594.17 31.9103 89777.4 45.3376 57838.5 180684
06/26/2029 4615.99 32.7374 83936.2 42.3878 60672.9 175753
09/25/2029 4637.21 33.5107 78521 39.6531 63188 170957
12/25/2029 4657.52 34.234 73534.3 37.1348 65408.5 166365
03/26/2030 4676.75 34.9115 68950.1 34.8198 67350.6 162018
06/25/2030 4694.9 35.5467 64631 32.6387 68918.8 157517
09/24/2030 4711.57 36.1421 60542.8 30.5741 70082.8 152488
12/24/2030 4725.46 36.6999 56482 28.5234 70580.4 148298
03/25/2031 4741.05 37.2202 52971.4 26.7506 71139.7 143594
06/24/2031 4754.41 37.7082 49731.2 25.1143 71442.4 139565
09/23/2031 4767.31 38.1664 46782.5 23.6252 71607.4 135674
12/23/2031 4779.44 38.5974 44042.1 22.2413 71565.9 132016
03/23/2032 4791.31 39.0031 41586 21.0009 71503.5 128433
06/22/2032 4802.1 39.3862 39337.9 19.8656 71346.9 125178
09/21/2032 4812.28 39.7486 37292.2 18.8326 71148.2 122108
12/21/2032 4821.73 40.0922 35418.6 17.8864 70900.8 119257
03/22/2033 4830.6 40.4185 33701.4 17.0192 70621.1 116582
06/21/2033 4838.9 40.729 32122.2 16.2217 70313 114077
09/20/2033 4846.7 41.0249 30667.2 15.4869 69984.1 111724
12/20/2033 4854.04 41.3074 29306.8 14.8 69600 109511
03/21/2034 4861.14 41.5774 28037.6 14.159 69180.8 107370
06/20/2034 4867.96 41.8357 26867.8 13.5682 68771.8 105311
09/19/2034 4874.34 42.0832 25779.4 13.0186 68351.9 103387

132 | P a g e
 12/19/2034 4880.4 42.3207 24768.2 12.508 67934.2 101560
03/20/2035 4886.12 42.5489 23825.3 12.0318 67515.4 99834.1
06/19/2035 4891.55 42.7684 22945.1 11.5873 67099.3 98196.3
09/18/2035 4896.7 42.9798 22121.6 11.1714 66685.9 96642.3
12/18/2035 4901.6 43.1836 21349.9 10.7817 66276.7 95164.6
03/18/2036 4906.26 43.3803 20625.5 10.4159 65872.1 93758.2
06/17/2036 4910.7 43.5703 19944.4 10.0719 65472.8 92417.8
09/16/2036 4914.94 43.754 19303.1 9.74807 65079.2 91138.9
12/16/2036 4918.99 43.9318 18698.4 9.44267 64691.7 89917.2
03/17/2037 4922.87 44.1041 18127.3 9.15428 64310.5 88748.9
06/16/2037 4926.57 44.2711 17587.3 8.88157 63935.7 87630.5
09/15/2037 4930.13 44.4331 17076 8.62337 63567.6 86558.7
12/15/2037 4933.54 44.5904 16591.3 8.3786 63206.1 85530.8
03/16/2038 4936.81 44.7433 16131.3 8.14629 62851.3 84543.9
06/15/2038 4939.95 44.8919 15694.1 7.92554 62503.1 83595.6
09/14/2038 4942.97 45.0365 15275 7.71388 62148.1 82683.6
12/14/2038 4945.94 45.1772 14876.9 7.51285 61804.6 81788.8
03/15/2039 4948.78 45.3143 14497.3 7.32113 61466.3 80931.6
06/14/2039 4951.53 45.4478 14135.4 7.13839 61136 79774.8
09/13/2039 4953.12 45.578 13762.3 6.94995 60675.8 78506.2
12/13/2039 4953.67 45.7048 13381.2 6.75751 60097.8 78068.9
03/13/2040 4956.22 45.8281 13071.1 6.60092 59801.6 76039.3
06/12/2040 4954.53 45.9485 12668.4 6.39755 58962.5 77386.2
09/11/2040 4961.44 46.0652 12501.4 6.31322 59279.8 71894
12/11/2040 4950.53 46.1804 11900.2 6.00959 57245.4 80404.2
03/12/2041 4975.67 46.29 12210.1 6.16609 60034.8 60580.1
06/11/2041 4927.44 46.4025 0 0 0 87368.2

Table 16. Production Well Prediction Results

Time Tank FBHP Oil Gas Water Water GOR

Pressure Rate Rate Rate Cut
(date m/d/y) (psig) (psig) (STB/day) (MMscf/day) (STB/day) (percent) (scf/STB)
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
05/01/2022 5722 4193.06 30578.8 15.4423 0 0 505
5.47237e-
07/01/2022 5653.02 4153.88 29982.9 15.1414 0.00164077 006 505
5.48806e-
09/01/2022 5515.15 4075.56 28791.7 14.5398 0.0158011 005 505
11/01/2022 5384.5 4001.35 27662.9 13.9698 0.0424838 0.000153576 505
01/01/2023 5258.76 3929.92 26576.6 13.4212 0.0798038 0.000300278 505
03/01/2023 5082.78 3833.27 24990 12.6199 0.148696 0.00059502 505
05/01/2023 4911.16 3740.18 23419.4 11.8268 0.23039 0.000983746 505
07/01/2023 4745.52 3650.33 21903.1 11.0611 0.645773 0.00294823 505
09/01/2023 4566.34 3553.16 20262.2 10.2324 1.56596 0.00772787 505
11/01/2023 4466.16 3500.56 19308.3 9.7507 3.7117 0.0192196 505
01/01/2024 4347.89 3442.31 18104.6 9.14284 7.07009 0.039036 505

133 | P a g e
 03/01/2024 4224.78 3381.74 16849 8.50875 11.7951 0.0699557 505
05/01/2024 4183.17 3361.56 16411.5 8.28781 20.6712 0.125797 505
07/01/2024 4204.07 3372.45 16596.1 8.38105 36.2263 0.217806 505
09/01/2024 4177.89 3360.33 16295.3 8.22911 56.0198 0.342602 505
11/01/2024 4211.81 3378.21 16584.2 8.37501 87.8497 0.526928 505
01/01/2025 4280.03 3413.44 17195.3 8.68363 136.5 0.78757 505
03/01/2025 4276.78 3413.74 17072.4 8.62156 188.571 1.09247 505
05/01/2025 4234.78 3395.5 16537.1 8.35123 248.372 1.47969 505
07/01/2025 4263.6 3412.99 16670.2 8.41844 342.086 2.01082 505
09/30/2025 4356.66 3465.28 17276.2 8.7245 551.353 3.0927 505
12/30/2025 4373.12 3481.31 17053.7 8.61211 782.597 4.38767 505
03/31/2026 4380.86 3494.77 16667.4 8.41706 1054.45 5.95 505
06/30/2026 4390.16 3510.82 16215.6 8.18888 1371.22 7.79686 505
09/29/2026 4401.18 3529.56 15702.1 7.92955 1730.23 9.9254 505
12/29/2026 4413.89 3552.18 15110.9 7.63098 2123.41 12.3209 505
03/30/2027 4429.13 3577.89 14478.5 7.31163 2546.29 14.9564 505
06/29/2027 4445.94 3605.97 13810.4 6.97425 2988.96 17.7921 505
09/28/2027 4464.06 3636.5 13111.6 6.62135 3439.6 20.7816 505
12/28/2027 4483.57 3670.16 12384.3 6.25406 3883.89 23.8742 505
03/28/2028 4504.8 3705.32 11669.7 5.8932 4320.01 27.0174 505
06/27/2028 4526.38 3741.08 10969.2 5.53944 4736.78 30.1591 505
09/26/2028 4548.08 3779.58 10258.6 5.18057 5111.58 33.2566 505
12/26/2028 4571.46 3818.38 9597.95 4.84696 5463.75 36.2758 505
03/27/2029 4594.17 3856.1 8977.74 4.53376 5783.85 39.1817 505
06/26/2029 4615.99 3892.94 8393.62 4.23878 6067.29 41.9565 505
09/25/2029 4637.21 3928.66 7852.1 3.96531 6318.8 44.59 505
12/25/2029 4657.52 3962.81 7353.43 3.71348 6540.85 47.0758 505
03/26/2030 4676.75 3995.25 6895.01 3.48198 6735.06 49.4132 505
06/25/2030 4694.9 4027.15 6463.1 3.26387 6891.88 51.6053 505
09/24/2030 4711.57 4058.44 6054.28 3.05741 7008.28 53.6517 505
12/24/2030 4725.46 4090.15 5648.2 2.85234 7058.04 55.5478 505
03/25/2031 4741.05 4120.5 5297.14 2.67506 7113.97 57.3194 505
06/24/2031 4754.41 4148.54 4973.12 2.51143 7144.24 58.9587 505
09/23/2031 4767.31 4175.36 4678.25 2.36252 7160.74 60.4844 505
12/23/2031 4779.44 4201.4 4404.21 2.22413 7156.59 61.9039 505
03/23/2032 4791.31 4225.87 4158.6 2.10009 7150.35 63.2274 505
06/22/2032 4802.1 4248.68 3933.79 1.98656 7134.69 64.4595 505
09/21/2032 4812.28 4270.08 3729.22 1.88326 7114.82 65.6104 505
12/21/2032 4821.73 4290.14 3541.86 1.78864 7090.08 66.6866 505
03/22/2033 4830.6 4308.99 3370.14 1.70192 7062.11 67.695 505
06/21/2033 4838.9 4326.73 3212.22 1.62217 7031.3 68.6414 505
09/20/2033 4846.7 4343.45 3066.72 1.54869 6998.41 69.5313 505
12/20/2033 4854.04 4359.5 2930.68 1.48 6960 70.3693 505
03/21/2034 4861.14 4375.04 2803.76 1.4159 6918.08 71.1602 505
06/20/2034 4867.96 4389.77 2686.78 1.35682 6877.18 71.9073 505
09/19/2034 4874.34 4403.68 2577.94 1.30186 6835.19 72.6133 505
12/19/2034 4880.4 4416.89 2476.82 1.2508 6793.42 73.282 505

134 | P a g e
 03/20/2035 4886.12 4429.42 2382.53 1.20318 6751.54 73.916 505
06/19/2035 4891.55 4441.33 2294.51 1.15873 6709.93 74.518 505
09/18/2035 4896.7 4452.66 2212.16 1.11714 6668.59 75.0904 505
12/18/2035 4901.6 4463.47 2134.99 1.07817 6627.67 75.6354 505
03/18/2036 4906.26 4473.77 2062.55 1.04159 6587.21 76.1549 505
06/17/2036 4910.7 4483.62 1994.44 1.00719 6547.28 76.6506 505
09/16/2036 4914.94 4493.03 1930.31 0.974807 6507.92 77.1242 505
12/16/2036 4918.99 4502.04 1869.84 0.944267 6469.17 77.5772 505
03/17/2037 4922.87 4510.68 1812.73 0.915428 6431.05 78.0109 505
06/16/2037 4926.57 4518.96 1758.73 0.888157 6393.57 78.4266 505
09/15/2037 4930.13 4526.91 1707.6 0.862337 6356.76 78.8254 505
12/15/2037 4933.54 4534.55 1659.13 0.83786 6320.61 79.2082 505
03/16/2038 4936.81 4541.89 1613.13 0.814629 6285.13 79.5762 505
06/15/2038 4939.95 4548.96 1569.41 0.792554 6250.31 79.9301 505
09/14/2038 4942.97 4555.86 1527.5 0.771388 6214.81 80.2707 505
12/14/2038 4945.94 4562.53 1487.69 0.751285 6180.46 80.5991 505
03/15/2039 4948.78 4568.96 1449.73 0.732113 6146.63 80.9155 505
06/14/2039 4951.53 4575.17 1413.54 0.713839 6113.6 81.2207 505
09/13/2039 4953.12 4580.93 1376.23 0.694995 6067.58 81.5118 505
12/13/2039 4953.67 4586.28 1338.12 0.675751 6009.78 81.7891 505
03/13/2040 4956.22 4591.86 1307.11 0.660092 5980.16 82.0631 505
06/12/2040 4954.53 4596.38 1266.84 0.639755 5896.25 82.3143 505
09/11/2040 4961.44 4602.53 1250.14 0.631322 5927.98 82.584 505
12/11/2040 4950.53 4604.8 1190.02 0.600959 5724.54 82.7897 505
03/12/2041 4975.67 4614.45 1221.01 0.616609 6003.48 83.099 505

Time Tank FBHP Water Cum Wat.

Pressure Inj Rate Injected
(date m/d/y) (psig) (psig) (STB/day) (MMSTB)
------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
05/01/2025 4234.78 4663.82 25742.6 0
07/01/2025 4263.6 4683.82 25213 1.41327
09/30/2025 4356.66 4747.28 23437 3.47822
12/30/2025 4373.12 4757.54 23065 5.39771
03/31/2026 4380.86 4762.36 22890 7.28673
06/30/2026 4390.16 4768.16 22679.8 9.16142
09/29/2026 4401.18 4775.02 22430.8 11.0189
12/29/2026 4413.89 4782.95 22143.4 12.856
03/30/2027 4429.13 4792.44 21799 14.6695
06/29/2027 4445.94 4802.92 21419.1 16.4549
09/28/2027 4464.06 4814.22 21009.4 18.2091
12/28/2027 4483.57 4826.37 20568.5 19.9297
03/28/2028 4504.8 4839.61 20088.5 21.6143
06/27/2028 4526.38 4853.06 19600.8 23.2596
09/26/2028 4548.08 4866.59 19110.2 24.8649
12/26/2028 4571.46 4881.16 18581.8 26.43

135 | P a g e
 03/27/2029 4594.17 4895.31 18068.4 27.9518
06/26/2029 4615.99 4908.91 17575.3 29.4316
09/25/2029 4637.21 4922.13 17095.7 30.8711
12/25/2029 4657.52 4934.8 16636.5 32.2712
03/26/2030 4676.75 4946.78 16201.8 33.6337
06/25/2030 4694.9 4957.43 15751.7 34.9607
09/24/2030 4711.57 4965.72 15248.8 36.2507
12/24/2030 4725.46 4972.62 14829.8 37.4996
03/25/2031 4741.05 4980.38 14359.4 38.7141
06/24/2031 4754.41 4987.02 13956.5 39.8902
09/23/2031 4767.31 4993.43 13567.4 41.0332
12/23/2031 4779.44 4999.46 13201.6 42.1444
03/23/2032 4791.31 5005.37 12843.3 43.2256
06/22/2032 4802.1 5010.73 12517.8 44.2775
09/21/2032 4812.28 5015.79 12210.8 45.3027
12/21/2032 4821.73 5020.49 11925.7 46.3027
03/22/2033 4830.6 5024.9 11658.2 47.2795
06/21/2033 4838.9 5029.03 11407.7 48.2343
09/20/2033 4846.7 5032.91 11172.4 49.1686
12/20/2033 4854.04 5036.56 10951.1 50.0836
03/21/2034 4861.14 5040.09 10737 50.9805
06/20/2034 4867.96 5043.48 10531.1 51.8598
09/19/2034 4874.34 5046.65 10338.7 52.7223
12/19/2034 4880.4 5049.66 10156 53.5691
03/20/2035 4886.12 5052.51 9983.41 54.4008
06/19/2035 4891.55 5055.21 9819.63 55.2185
09/18/2035 4896.7 5057.77 9664.23 56.0227
12/18/2035 4901.6 5060.21 9516.46 56.8142
03/18/2036 4906.26 5062.52 9375.82 57.5936
06/17/2036 4910.7 5064.73 9241.78 58.3615
09/16/2036 4914.94 5066.84 9113.89 59.1184
12/16/2036 4918.99 5068.86 8991.72 59.8648
03/17/2037 4922.87 5070.78 8874.89 60.6012
06/16/2037 4926.57 5072.63 8763.05 61.3281
09/15/2037 4930.13 5074.39 8655.87 62.0458
12/15/2037 4933.54 5076.09 8553.08 62.7547
03/16/2038 4936.81 5077.71 8454.39 63.4552
06/15/2038 4939.95 5079.28 8359.56 64.1476
09/14/2038 4942.97 5080.78 8268.36 64.8323
12/14/2038 4945.94 5082.25 8178.88 65.5094
03/15/2039 4948.78 5083.67 8093.16 66.1793
06/14/2039 4951.53 5084.48 7977.48 66.8421
09/13/2039 4953.12 5083.96 7850.62 67.4955
12/13/2039 4953.67 5083.79 7806.89 68.1385
03/13/2040 4956.22 5082.96 7603.93 68.7778
06/12/2040 4954.53 5083.51 7738.62 69.4006
09/11/2040 4961.44 5081.26 7189.4 70.0344

136 | P a g e
 12/11/2040 4950.53 5084.54 8040.42 70.6232
03/12/2041 4975.67 5076.64 6058.01 71.2817
06/11/2041 4927.44 5073.06 8736.82 71.7779

Economics
In this part of the project three development scenarios will be explored in order to decide
which is the greatest and most cost-effective option for X field
Reserves and production predictions from reservoir and production engineering modules,
as well as drilling and completion data from the drilling module, have all been received.
After all of the data was gathered, Net Cash Flow modeling was used to analyze all of the
possibilities in terms of profitability metrics such Net Present Value, NPV, and Internal
Rate of Return. As will be revealed at the conclusion of the report, sensitivity analysis has
been performed for one specific scenario, describing all calculations for the creation of
project cashflow, and sensitivity in the Appendix portion.

Assumptions
A cash flow model requires certain assumptions, which are detailed in the table below:

Table 0-1: General Assumptions Summary for Economic Analysis of Development

Scenarios

137 | P a g e
Reference year
The starting year for field development is anticipated to be 2020, and all economic
projections are based on that year.

Inflation

While the rate of inflation is based on the buying power of the currency, which fluctuates
over time, the amount is adjusted to 3% since this figure is appropriate for the UK during
the project's expected duration.

Oil & Gas Price

The price of gas is considered to be today’s value and do not change during the lifetime
of project. However, price of oil alters annually with respect to the several factors,
including oil consumption & production, its quality, political reasons etc. With respect to
the expectations of experts, average price will be 60,74$/bbl within next two decades.

Exchange rate

Oil is often sold in dollars, while overall revenues and expenditures are tallied in pounds.
It appears that expressing the conversion rate as either dollar or pound sterling is a need.
Based on average exchange data from 2020, the exchange rate for this project is set at
1.33 £/$.

Discount factor

One of the most essential qualities for economic evaluation appears to be the discount
factor, which is also one of the aspects that causes project risks. Based on debt-to-income
ratio (DTI) and economic analyses in the North Sea, Xenon field operator uses 10% as
an indicative amount for project screening.

Cost escalation

In this project, the cost escalation factor is ignored and considered to be 0%.

138 | P a g e
Transportation cost

Tariffs are negotiated with corporate representatives since the hydrocarbons generated
are transported via Forties pipelines operated by BP. In actual terms, the tariff rates for
oil and gas are set at 0.6 £/bbl and 0.5 £/MScf, respectively, and are expected to remain
constant throughout the project's life.

Taxes

By 1993, the Petroleum Revenue Tax (PRT) and Supplementary Petroleum Duty (SPD)
taxes were no longer part of the UK tax system; the only one that was included into an
economic model was Corporate Taxes (CT). CT is expected to be responsible for 30% of
net proceeds on an annual basis[3]. Furthermore, the falling balance method of capital
allowance was used to determine taxable income, with a 20% declining rate, as is the
case in the United Kingdom.

Economic Evaluation
CAPEX and OPEX are the two most common forms of cost estimating used to evaluate
capital and operating expenses. CAPEX analysis begins with the assessment of each
producer and injector well using Questor's database, which drew on past data from
surrounding fields to illustrate expenditures on various types of equipment in the X-field
overview file. All expenditures involved with the installation of platform structures, ground
structures for processing raw materials, wells, and pipelines for both oil and gas
transportation are included in the cost estimate. Furthermore, the cost of drilling producer
and injector wells includes all expenditures connected with drilling, completion,
professional services, and platform operations,

Since oil and gas revenues are a petroleum company's only source of profit, Cash Flow
modeling is used to evaluate the company's asset in this industry. Before doing sensitivity
analysis on a small number of crucial variables, "the best guess" values of the variable
are employed. The project cash flow is calculated by subtracting CAPEX, OPEX, taxes,
and tariff charges from revenue in each year of the project's life. Following that, the
cumulative cash flow is computed using NCF data until the net cash flow for a single year

139 | P a g e
becomes negative, indicating that sales income does not cover all manufacturing
expenses.

The first two years of the Cash Flow model are allocated to the construction of platform
buildings, surface amenities, and the building of two oil and gas transporting pipelines. In
2022, the production is planned to begin. As previously stated, the artificial lift is projected
to be used in the future, and its expenses have been factored into both OPEX and
CAPEX. Another point to mention about the artificial lift approach is that cash flow
modeling takes into account importing gas when adequate gas is not produced from the
field during the use of gas lift.

In considerations of taxation, fiscal expenditures such as OPEX and capital allowances

should be computed first. Capital allowances are not a cash flow item and are solely
calculated to establish taxable income. [2]. The falling balance approach is used to
compute capital allowances, which are a defined amount of unrecovered asset value at
the end of each year. Tax is taken from taxable income by multiplying the tax rate by the
amount of taxable income (30 percent).

𝐟𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬 = 𝐎𝐏𝐄𝐗 + 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞

𝐭𝐚𝐱𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 = 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐮𝐞 − 𝐟𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬

Since all needed cash flow elements have been computed, net cash flow for each year
and cumulative cash flow may now be calculated. Following that, relevant economic
profitability measures are utilized to evaluate and rate development possibilities in order
to determine which choices are worthy of consideration. Net Present Value (NPV),
Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Profit-to-Investment Ratio (PIR) and Payback Time
(Payback Time) are the following metrics [1].

In total, numerous scenarios have been carried out in simulation and analyzed by taking
into account numbers of production and injection wells. Hence, 3 cases which are most
profitable became main focus of our analysis. These cases have been analyzed in details.
The production calculation is demonstrated in Appendix F1.

The profitability of economic analysis for various cases are illustrated below:

140 | P a g e
Table 0-2: Profitability of economic analysis

By analyzing the table in advance, we can say that 1 st case is not considered to be
preferable for our project development because of lower values of NPV, IRR & ROI
compared to remained cases. With respect the second and third case, their recovery
factor and IRR rates are almost the same. Hence, we continue our comparison according
to the calculated numbers of NPV & ROI values. So, third case is the most appropriate
choice for project development.By application of this case, company will take profit of 7,5
billion dollars at recovery of factor of 46,6% by drilling 10 production and 7 injection wells.

The results of cash flow for third case is demonstrated within the graph underneath.

141 | P a g e
Figure 7-1: Cash Flow Analysis

Economic Limit

Figure 7-2: Economic Limit within production profile for third case

Throughout the period, requiring cost with the aim of keeping system operating flawlessly
exceeds our profit after some point. This point is mainly called economic limit of project
which means that we will begin to lose money. In order to determine economic limit cash
inflow and outflow curves are constructed with respect to the time. Cash flow is basically
implies the main profit from oil production, whilst cash outflow consists of tariff changes,
corporation tax and OPEX. The point of intersection of these two curves will become
production termination. The plotted chart above demonstrates intersection of trends of
operation cost and oil production income within last years-2041. Therefore, time of
abandonment should be about two years before economic limit.

Sensitivity analysis
With the aim of measuring the whole impact of economical risks and the overall
effectiveness, the best beneficial method is the conduction of sensitivity analysis.

142 | P a g e
Figure 7-3: Sensivity analysis of third option to illustrate how %variations input
values affect net present value.

This method shows that: Firstly, in order to forecast the degree of variation influence
(±15% & ±30%) in the CAPEX, oil price, production, discount rate and so on, this analysis
is carried out. According to the graph that is highlighted above, the NPV is affected
significantly by the tax, production rates and oil price. Thus, NPV values will go up while
there is an slightly rising trend on the production and oil price values. Moreover, NPV
value will be affected inversely by the increasing taxes. After all these considering, it is
enough that the rising trend in oil price being at 15% will cause the 36% rising in the NPV
that is approximately 2.5 billion dollars.

143 | P a g e
Risk Mitigation
There is an essential role of risk analysis and mitigation within the project's decision
making and determination of further stages. By considering the lack of information
acquired at his phase of project, the only method utilized to assess and reasoning the
risks is sensivity analysis. More advanced techniques, including detailed DTA, Monte
Carlo simulations, and additional value of data approaches, can be used to evaluate
different types of risks and assess the worth of acquiring additional information. After risk
analysis is completed, risk mitigation strategies should be established to address risks
identified. The investigation of a number of criteria reveals that exchange rate is most
essential component within project, and that a comprehensive investigation is needed to
identify risks. Several ways are available to deal with risks. Transfer of risks to an
insurance provider at predetermined annual rates is a common method. Another regular
and customary technique is to invite other oil companies to participate in project with the
objective of sharing risks. Because Xenon is project's operator and largest stockholder
at that point, calling to partnerships for field development and spreading inherent risks
appears to be prudent at that point and can help company secure its cash flow, allowing
it to engage in other oil FDPs within zone.

References
1. Byrne, J. P., 2000. E&P Business, and Economics. Edinburgh: s.n.
2. Frank Jahn, M. C. M. G., n.d. Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production. 2nd
Edition ed. 1998: Elsevier Science.

O'Neill, M., 1993. Petroleum Revenue Tax. s.l.:s.n

144 | P a g e
Appendix F1: Economic Section

Table 7.3 Drilling Cost of producer well

145 | P a g e
Table 7.4 Drilling Cost of injection well

146 | P a g e
Cash flow analysis

Table 7.5 Case 1 Cash Flow Analysis

147 | P a g e
Table 7.6 Case 2 Cash Flow Analysis

148 | P a g e
Table 7.7 Case 3 Cash Flow Analysis

149 | P a g e
 HSE
Introduction
It is critical to use a method that is well-controlled in order to maintain greater standards
of health and safety. It is generally advised that HSE management be implemented from
the very initial stages of the FDP and that this aspect be maintained during whole duration
of the project. In the HSE section, it is necessary to take into consideration the placement
of the platform, the calculation of potential hazards in the operations, the operational
arrangements, the analysis of the abandonment plans, and the safety performance. The
implementation of an HSE Management System looks to be critical in X-Field DP in order
to ensure that components of HSE regulation are implemented correctly and consistently.
The goal of this Management System is to implement HSE regulations in order to protect
the environment and human health on a national and global level.
Management System
As discussed in the previous section in the introduction, the HSE Management System
has a significant influence on the X-Field DP operation. The System takes into account
potential hazards that might result in environmental damage, economic difficulties, and
injury to employees. HSE preparation aids in the reduction or total elimination of risks
through the implementation of measures, as well as the management of risks during
upcoming activities. An appropriate example of such a system would be one that reduces
the risks associated with health, safety, and the environment. There are a lot of
components that may be questioned and upgraded in order to mitigate those hazards.
Three factors in specific tend to be the most critical, and they are listed below:
1.Risk management. In order to maintain a high degree of managerial performance, risk
management must be in place. Employees may be certain that the organization will
continue to practice strong HSE management as a result of comprehensive risk
management.
2. Implementation of new policy. Once new policies are implemented, it becomes
possible to determine the success or failure of a certain policy. It is widely believed that
organizations with innovative leadership behaviors in the beginning policies of HSE
demonstrate what distinguishes the most outstanding corporations from the rest of the
group in terms of performance.
3. Commitment and leadership: Professional health and safety is founded on three
fundamental principles: commitment, leadership, and communication. Successive
leadership based on stated objectives will result in the implementation of new policies
that can be beneficial in reducing the risks associated with occupational safety and health.
Despite the fact that an efficient HSE Management System is mostly relies on individuals’
capabilities, putting ideas into action is equally important. Organizations can engage in
housekeeping as a means of risk management and the enhancement of their current HSE
Management System. Housekeeping is extremely essential in the prevention of hazards
that might be encountered in industries and offices. This phrase is not limited to risky
industries, but is used to describe a wide range of other sorts of enterprises. In any of

150 | P a g e
those industries, poor housekeeping can create dangers in the workplace and increase
the possibility of HSE concern.
HSE Regulations Offshore in UK
Many pieces of legislation approved by the government of the United Kingdom have been enacted
to address the health, safety, and security hazards associated with petroleum industry operations.
API (American Petroleum Institute) and OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration)
have both imposed regulations on offshore operations (Occupational Safety and Health
Administration):

• Risk management processes should be implemented to ensure that personnel are working
in safe conditions
• In conformity with all applicable offshore rules and regulations
In order to reduce the hazards that workers in the offshore petroleum industry may encounter, the
UK government has developed a number of pieces of legislation that are currently being
considered. Most importantly, these rules seek to maintain safe working conditions while also
reducing environmental and occupational hazards.
Everyone involved in the petroleum industry is required to follow safety regulations. Listed below
are a few of the rules for which they are held accountable:

151 | P a g e
Figure 1. Employer and Employee Responsibilities
Employees are responsible for the following tasks and duties:

• Workers should be provided with personal protective equipment

• Workplace health and safety should be assured
• People should be trained and monitored in order to ensure a safe working environment
• Occupational health, safety, and security actions of employees should be monitored and
regulated in line with national and international standards for workplace health, safety, and
security
• The transportation, storage, processing, and production of the oil platform have all been
determined to be safe based on risk assessment
Employee Responsibilities include the following:

• It is critical to warn project managers of any potentially hazardous conditions that may
emerge over the course of a project's execution
• Employees must wear personal protection equipment (PPE)
• Participate in regular safety training
• Comply with all applicable health, safety, and environmental standards in order to
guarantee a safe workplace environment

HSE Main Principles

Offshore facilities must be developed with the purpose of reducing or eliminating potential hazards
as much as possible. It is also critical to establish a number of objectives in order to achieve the
most basic requirements. It is necessary to adhere to a set of regulations in order for the X field
to evolve properly.

• Occupational hazards should be prioritized as accidental risks in the context of an offshore

facility's risk assessment, according to the International Organization for Standardization.
• The selection of appropriate facility materials, as well as the implementation of an effective
monitoring plan, are both critical in averting corrosion issues.
• API Technical Standards must be adhered to during the design of the facilities.
• The Health, Safety, and Environmental Management System is in charge of assuring the
safe functioning of the entire facility.
• It is necessary to conduct an environmental impact assessment in order to examine the
probable ecological consequences of a proposed development.
In the course of preparing for health and safety management, it is necessary to uncover
systematic and coordinated ways for managing offshore health and safety. As a result,
precautions have been put in place to mitigate hazards to the greatest extent practicable.

Fire and Exploision PRevention and Control

Prevention of the release of hazardous materials is critical to the success of early detection
operations. Caustic materials and flammable items must be stored at a safe distance from one
another to avoid an explosion. In order to mitigate this risk, the position of the vent is crucial.
Some of the proper fire and burst prevention and management measures for offshore facilities
have been demonstrated in the examples below.

• As long as there's enough airflow.

152 | P a g e
 • Make certain that the lodging modules are safe.
• Installing fire suppression systems.
• Avoid creating suffocating atmospheres in confined spaces.
• There are signs that a leak is about to occur.
• Anti-incendiary measures have been implemented.
• Fire safety education should be made available.

Spills
Spills that are observed during offshore field development might be indicative of a range of issues,
including facility failure, human mistake, and accidental release of oil. General Health, Safety, and
Environmental Guidelines (HSE Guidelines) must be followed in order to provide
recommendations on how to avoid or limit leakage from facilities.
There are additional spill prevention and management procedures that should be undertaken ar
ound offshore oil and gas operations in addition to those listed above, and they should be done
as soon as possible.

• When it comes to offshore units, a spill risk assessment should be carried out.
• Investigate to see if enough corrosion allowances have been established for the estimated
lifespan of the amenities in question.
• Improve the efficiency of maintenance and monitoring activities in order to maintain the
integrity of the facility.
• Provide a mechanism of identifying leaks if one exists.
• Training should be provided to all personnel on leak prevention, containment, and
response procedures.
• Evaluate the likelihood of a leak occurring in offshore units.
• Establish a corrosion allowance that is commensurate with the estimated lifespan of the
facility's amenities.
• Maintaining the integrity of the facility is accomplished through the improvement of
maintenance and monitoring methods.
• Ascertain that leaks can be made visible to the general public.
• All staff should get appropriate training throughout the leak prevention, containment, and
response phases.

Well blowouts
An unimpeded stream running through the whole wellbore could cause a blowout if there is not
enough control over the well. As a result of the aforementioned circumstance, it is possible that
unwanted flow will escape into the surrounding environment.
A technique for shutting down the entire structure must be in place in order to avoid causing
environmental problems. The fire alarm system is activated when a threat is recognized by
signaling alarm units, which are located throughout the building. All production lines and facilities
are then depressurized as a result of this procedure.
For the purpose of preventing kicks, the Blowout Preventer (Triple Ram BOP stack) is employed
throughout the drilling and completion phases. An additional recommendation is a BOP with a
maximum working pressure of 10,000 psi for locations with excessively high pressure.

153 | P a g e
They must be utilized to close down the production conduit in the event of a dangerous situation
occurring throughout the course of a working day. Various types of valves are employed to
regulate the flow of exploited and injected fluids, among others.
The possibility of a blowout must be taken into account specifically during the forecasting process,
necessitating the development of a risk assessment and an emergency plan. In the event of an
emergency intervention, a detailed analysis of the intervention time and requirements for well
control, such as oil leak recovery and capping instruments, is carried out before any action is
taken.
Ultimately, the primary purpose of an emergency evacuation plan is to move employees to a safe
place as quickly as possible. An element of the approach will be the incorporation of evacuation,
escape, and rescue training given by the United Kingdom. For this reason, life jackets and rescue
boats must be readily available at all times during offshore activities, and their use should be
constantly demonstrated and practiced.

Venting and Flaring

When crude oil is extracted, vent and flare systems are utilized to dispose of the gas that is
created as a byproduct. The measures described above also contribute significantly to
greenhouse gas emissions, which is a major source of concern. While flaring and venting are
important safety precautions, they are not always used. In addition, hydrocarbons must be
disposed of in a manner that is safe in the event of an accident or other emergency.
When implementing flare and vent disposal systems, it is important to take the regulations of the
Global Gas Flaring Reduction Partnership into consideration. Instructions are governed by the
legislation alluded to above in order to limit the amount of natural gas disposed of in landfills.

Occupational Health
Personal protective equipment (PPE) is essential for procedures that include the use of chemicals
or other potentially hazardous items in order to ensure the safety of employees. The graphic to
the right depicts items that are more general in nature. Before the right usage of personal
protective equipment can be determined, a risk analysis must be carried out (PPE). Personal
Protective Equipment (PPE) at Work Regulation 1992 specifies the tasks and responsibilities of
employers and employees in order to guarantee that PPE is used properly at all times.

Figure 2. Personnel Protective Equipment

154 | P a g e
Emissions to Air
When drilling and installing equipment in the X field and producing oil, pollutants like as hydrogen
sulfide and carbon dioxide are emitted into the atmosphere. Other pollutant and dangerous gases
are also released into the atmosphere. Using diesel-powered generators during drilling and
production can result in the release of hydrogen sulfide from some shallow deposits, as well as
the emission of carbon dioxide. In order to limit gas emissions into the atmosphere, the following
procedures should be taken: Reduce emissions by doing the following:

• Reducing the quantity of electricity consumed by diesel generators

• The mud that contains dangerous gases should be stored in closed systems to avoid
contamination.

Drilling Discharge
The presence of toxic combinations in the drilling fluid used in the X field well drilling process
poses a harm to marine life and should be avoided. In order to eliminate drilling regulations, the
following steps must be taken:

• Drilling mud should be disposed of on land rather than in the water.

• Rather of disposing of drilling waste in the ocean or river, it should be transported to a
land-based facility for disposal.

Noise Pollution
For example, rotary drilling equipment, pumps, energy generators, and cranes are all responsible
for a significant amount of the noise generated on drilling platforms. The loudness has an adverse
effect on both the health of the workers and the health of the ecosystem's marine life. In order to
reduce the negative impacts of noise on humans and marine life, the following measures should
be taken:

• Drilling equipment that makes less noise should be purchased by the firm.
• Workers should not be subjected to high levels of noise on a continuous basis.
• If the noise level is too high, workers can protect their ears by wearing ear plugs.

Risk Assessment
A variety of causes contribute to the deterioration of environmental and human health in the oil
industry. A risk evaluation system is developed in order to lower the amount of risk or eliminate
the threat, as well as to provide a more secure working environment. There are several steps that
are included in the risk assessment process, including:

• Identify the potential dangers.

• Take a look at the risks (recurrence and effects of risks).
• Identify and assess the threats (qualitative and quantitative).
• Hazards are dealt with through the employment of control measures.
• An assessment of the risks that may be present.
Risk frequencies and consequences can be determined by the use of quantitative and qualitative
chance evaluation methods, respectively. There are five levels of danger that can be classified
as follows: practically certain, reasonable, imaginable, and impossibly unlikely. The severity of
risk outcomes can be ranged from minor to catastrophic, with the least serious being the least
serious and the most serious being the most serious. In order to determine the Risk Priority
Number, it is necessary to combine the probability and outcome values of the risk. The Risk

155 | P a g e
Assessment Matrix depicts the implications of various actions.

RPN ≤ 4 = Small jeopardy,

RPN 5 – 9 = Intermediate jeopardy,
RPN ≥ 10 = Extreme jeopardy rate.

156 | P a g e
Abandonment/Decommissioning
The abandonment of an oil field is required when an oil field has reached the end of its useful life.
Remove the equipment in a safe manner so that the procedure can be finished without
endangering the environment's health or safety. The X field must be decommissioned in
accordance with UK and international legislation. The suspension and abandonment of wells is
governed by regulations established by the Offshore Operations Association and the International
Maritime Organization. The abandoning process is geared toward the X-shaped area:

• It is planned to remove subsurface components such as production tubes in order to

recycle them, as well as the surface processing and treatment facilities.
• Cement plugs will be discovered and analyzed in the vicinity of permeable hydrocarbon-
bearing formations, freshwater aquifers, and all of the casing shoes in order to determine
their location and condition (within 100 feet of the wellbore).
• It must be guaranteed that no high-density cement is introduced into the well system.
• There will be no additional hydrocarbon export pipes laid beneath the ocean's surface in
the future.
• In order to dismantle the fixed platform, it will be transported to the beach.
Decommissioning is planned to take approximately 30 days. The layout of an abandoned well can
be observed in the illustration.

157 | P a g e