You are on page 1of 31

Gullfaks field

Rune Instefjord
Project leader, Gullfaks IOR

Key data for GF main field


Location: northern North Sea
Discovered: 1978

Gullfaks
Gullfaks

Start production: 1986


Location: northern North Sea
Start
Baseproduction:
oil reserves: 1986
356 Mill. Sm 3
Discovered: 1978
Base
Produced
to date:
327Mill.
Mill. Sm
Sm3
reserves:
356

Expected recovery:
61 %Mill. Sm3
Produced
to date: 327

Recovery pr. 2006: 56%

Expected recovery: 61 %

Initial pressure: 310-320 bar at 1850 m TVD


MHN

Bubble point pressure: ~200-240 bar at 1850 m


3 500

TVD MHN

R a te 1 0 0 0 S m 3 /m o n th

3 000

GOR: ~ 100 Sm/Sm

2 500

2 000

Viscosity: ~ 0.5 1 cp

1 500

Dip angel in western part: 12-15 deg

1 000

500

0
1986

1988

1990

Basis Water

1992

1994

1996

1998

IOR Water

2000

2002

2004

Basis OIL

2006

2008

2010

IOR Oil

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

Start prognosis

Gullfaks Field

-Structural setting and reservoir


performance, Gullfaks Field
Complex fault system

Main fault system trending


north-south: large faults (50 250 m
throw)
Secondary fault system east-west
(10 100 m throw)
Three structual areas

B
C

A major challenge to realise the

IOR potential, is a continuous


improvement of the structural
description by

frequent seismic surveillances


(conventional time lapse and Ocean
Bottom Seismics)
Use of advanced geological and
reservoir simulation models

Structural Depth Map, top Statfjord


Fm. View from south.
A
Vertical scale 4x horisontal
5
km

Post-Jurassic
sediments

Domino System

Accommodation

msl

1000 m

Horst
2000 m

Brent Gr.
Statfj.
Fm.

Tordis
breakaway
fault

3000 m

4000 m

Intra-Teist refl.
5000 m

Low-angle
detachment

6000 m

Basement

7000 m

8000 m

Structural interpretation

Line 736
CDP 400

600

Cretaceous/Tertiary
sediments

800

Base Cretaceous
unconformity

1000

1200

Brent
Group

1400

Statfjord
Fm.

Reservoir Quality

Reservoirs: Brent, Cook,


Statfjord & Lunde

Complex reservoir, very faulted

Porosity: 25-35 %
Permeability:
Tarbert, Etive, good Ness, good
Statfjord and Cook- 3 >1D

Rannoch, poor Ness, poor Statfjord,


Cook-2 and Lunde : 100 mD 1 D

Moderate-to-High Reservoir
Quality

Contrasting layers
Weak formations

DRAINAGE STRATEGY (primary)


Aquifer support
Water injection
Reservoir pressure over bubble point
Injectors in the water zone
Producers high on structure

Drainage strategy
Secondary:
Secondary:
Secondary:
Secondary:
Secondary:
Gas
Gas
injection,
up-dip
Gas
injection,
up-dip
Gasinjection,
injection,up-dip
up-dip
Gas
injection,
up-dip
WAG
injection
WAG
WAGinjection
injection
WAG
injection
WAG
injection

(continues)

Why?
Why?
Why?
Why?
Avoid
Avoid
production
reduction
reduction
when
when
gas
gas
export
is
is
at
its
Avoidproduction
production
reduction
when
gasexport
export
isat
atits
itsis at its
Avoid
production
reduction
when
gas export
maximum
maximum
maximum
maximum
Reduce
storage
costs
costs
and
and
CO
CO
tax
tax
Reduce
Reducestorage
storage
costs
andand
CO222CO
tax tax
Reduce
storage
costs
2
Produce
Produce
attic
attic
oil
oil
Produce attic oil
Produce
attic oil
oil
Reduce
Reduce residual
residual
oil saturation
saturation
Reduce residual oil saturation
Reach
areas
difficult
to reach
with
injection,
Reach
Reach areas
areas difficult
difficult to
to reach
reach
with
with water
waterwater
injection,
injection,
ex.
ex. Ness
Nessex.
by
by LB
LB
Ness
Reach
areas
difficult
to
reach
with
water
injection,
ex.
Ness by LB
injection
injection
by LB injection
injection

Reservoir pressure under bubble point


Reservoir pressure under bubble point

Commingle pressure
production under bubble point
Reservoir

Accelerate
Create
gasproduction
lift, save drilling costs

Commingle production

Accelerate production

Horizontal
Horizontal wells
wells
Horizontal wells

Horizontal wells

Get
Get uniform
uniform drainage,
drainage, decrease
decrease sand
sand production
production
Drain
Drainuniform
Get
by-passed
by-passed
drainage,
oil
oil decrease sand production
Get
uniform
drainage,
decrease sand production
Drain by-passed oil
Drain
Createby-passed
gas lift, saveoil
drilling costs
Create gas lift, save drilling costs

Gullfaks reserves estimates through time

STOOIP (3,6 billion bbl)


Remaining oil

2,2 billion bbls


BASE PROFILE

RESERVES

PRODUCED

Reserves Growth Gullfaks


Sammenligning av prognoser for basis oljeproduksjon
Gullfaks hovedfelt

Mill.mill
Sm3
year
Sm 3per
pr. r

35

In additon, tie-in of
satellite fields has
increased the oil and
gas sales from the
field (1994 Tordis,
1998 GF Satellites
Phase 1, 2001 GF
Satellites Phase 2.

30
25
20

Present prognosis for


economical lifetime:
Year 2018. Ambition:
Year 2030

15
10
5
0

88 Rev PUD

93 Hst

94 Hst

RSP 00

RSP 02

RSP 03

RSP 04

2016

2014

2012

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

Produsert

RSP 96

IOR at Gullfaks
Main reasons for improved recovery
Continuous focus on reservoir description and monitoring
An increased no. of drainage points / wells and the use of superinjectors for
water injection

Supplementary gas injection (WAG) in selected reservoir segments


Increased process capacities where necessary both for water (prod/inj), liquid, oil
and gas

Reduced inlet separator pressure


Use of time-lapse (4D) seismic to map remaining hydrocarbons

Ambitions in Long Range Plan


Produce 400 Mill. Sm oil in the field life time. Corresponding to around 70%
recovery factor on the main field.

Cost reductions and an active IOR implementation is the most important


instrument to reach the ambition.

Lengthening the field life time with several years.


Third parts processing.

Gullfaks Main Field


oil rate prognosis

Gullfaks IOR ambition project

Duration: 2006-2008.
Main goal: mature the undefined IOR ambition volumes (and more?) to RC 5.
Identify specific measures and demonstrate that they may be economical feasible.

Gullfaks Main Field. Improved oil recovery.


Implemented:

Implemented (continued):

Water injection from start

Multilateral wells

Upgrading of water injection capacities

Coiled Tubing drilling

Sand control (screens) in most wells

Through tubing drilling

Designer wells (horisontal, 3D)

Rig assisted snubbing

Extended reach drilling (9 km drilled, 10 km well is beeing

Underbalanced drilling

drilled)

Extensive exploration activity within drilling reach from

Expandable liners
4D seismic

platforms => new volumes

Hydraulic fracturing in low perm reservoirs

Studied, but discarded:

WAG (Water alternating gas) injection

Surfactant injection (pilot)

Huff and puff gas injection

Gel blocking (pilot)

Monobore completions

CO2 miscible injection

Intelligent wells, remotely operated zone isolation valves


Under evaluation:

MIOR (Microbiological IOR)

Water circulation
Main mechanism for IOR at Gullfaks.

1,0
0,9

Done a simulation study with extended

0,7
Rel. Perm.

water injection.

Krw - Referanse
Krw - Sor = 0.2
Kro - Referanse
Kro - Sor =0.2

0,8

Maximum use of platform capacity for all

0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2

phases.

0,1
0,0
0

Residual oil saturation down to 5% from

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

Water Saturation

lab experiments.

0,10
0,09

Drilling infill wells, both injectors and

0,07

R el. P erm.

producers.

0,08

0,06
0,05
0,04
0,03
0,02
0,01
0,00
0,6

0,65

0,7

0,75

0,8

0,85

Water Saturation

0,9

0,95

Water circulation, results


Most important mechanism is the
creeping relative permeability and long
tail production from each well.

One well has historically produced with oil


rate < 100 Sm and wct > 0,9 for 7 years.

H2S is a problem, but nitrate injection


seems to control it.

Water production may be an


environmental challenge.
Added use of todays medicine
gives the highest contribution
to the future recovery.

WCT vs cumulative oil, history and


prediction

Drilling history at Gullfaks


3 platforms with 42, 42 and 52 slots.
Started with vertical wells (less than 60 deg) and 6 sub sea wells.
After 4-5 years drilled horizontal wells.
Water breakthrough gave sand problems:
Gravel packed wells, screen,
Fractured wells with proppants.
Last 5 years
Sidetracks.
Through Tubing Drilling.
Multilateral incl. DIACS in the well junction.

Sand handling project


Assumption:
Kurve for MSR-testing

Most wells on Gullfaks has sand production.


Sand i sandfelle (gram/time)

Wells classified after probability for erosion.


Allow higher sand production rate in the cases
with low erosion risk.
Monitoring erosion progress.
Started at Gullfaks A in 2003 after a pilot at GFA
on 3 wells in 2002.
Installed at all 3 platforms in 2004.
Both accelerate and increase oil recovery.

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

Cumulative gain for ASR in 2003: 216 000 Sm


which gives a daily rate of around 590 Sm3/d

10

Tid (timer etter bunn opp p ny rate)

12

Seismic acquisition on Gullfaks

Surface seismic
1985, 1996, 1999,
2003
Shadow area
OBS acquired
in 2001
OBS acquired
In 2003

Based on 4D/4C seismic


Well B-41A successfully drilled late 2000

Well C-44A successfully drilled


early 2001

After 1996 survey:

Well C-26AT2 drilled in 2003

Well C-15C drilled 2003

After 1999 survey:

Potential new well


location cancelled
Well B-15AT4 successfully drilled 2003

After 2001 survey:

Well B-4A successfully drilled in 1999

After 2003 survey:


Well A-29A successfully
drilled in 2003

Well A-21A successfully


drilled early 2000

Well C-43 under drilling

Well A-46T2 drilled mid-2000

Status 4D
Based on 4D seismic we have drilled more than 10 wells with success.
Top Brent (Tarbert), top Etive, top Cook and top Statfjord are the formations
where 4D has been most valuable.

Ness, Rannoch and lower part of Statfjord is more difficult.


Have seen 4D effects in areas around injectors were the pressure is significance
higher than initial pressure.

All wells have hit their target and most of them produced more than expected in
the Recommendation To Drill.

Flooding map
Reservoir monitoring and management
Simulation
models

Structural
framework
Sedimentology, detailed
stratigraphy

Reservoir
description and
initial volume

Time-lapse
seismic
1985
Top reservoir

OWC

OWC

1999
Top reservoir

Production, injection
rates, RST and PLT

Well position, and


perforation levels

B-8

B-12
B-12

D4A
B-29BT3

B-5AT2

1857

1867

1946

B-29BT3(F4)
B-29BT2

1832

1876

B-27

Flooding map

1822
1820

2035

B-29A
2002

B-17

D3

G5

B-36

B-23(1)

B-23 (3)
B-23

1809

Water flooded

B-21
B-21BB-21A

1902

1966

B-6B-6

1816
1818

B-19

1799

1798

1794

B-31(2)

1811

B-34
B-34

B-13

PBTE41

B-29

B-19A

B-23 (1)

B-9
B-9

B-19T2

1795

B-2
1806

1830

PBTD31

B-30
B-30

1846

1878
1879

B-22A
1882

1789

1867

1817

E4

B-33

1795

B-36AT2
B-36AT2

B-22

1860

B-32
B-32

1850

B-1
B-1

1905

B-29BT3

(2)

H5

B-3
B-3

B-17

B-13AT2
B-13AT2
B-29BT3(F2)
B-29BT2(F1)
B-29BT3(F1)
B-29B(F1)

B-24
B-24(1)

1851

F5

1803

1810

B-16
B-16

B-29BT3

C-30(2)
C-30

B-5

B-15
B-15
B-15T2

1958

B-29BT3(F3)

1809

PBTH53

H3

1790

H4

1798

B-10A

B-7

1801

B-10
1772

1765
1774

H2

A-23
A-23

G4

B-4A
B-4A

1810

Partly water flooded

A-31
A-31

A-21(F)

A-25A

1789

A-25A

A-16A
A-16A

1777

1791

A-14

A-32B
A-32B
1826

A-32A

A-18

1758

A-1H

1771

B-37 (F)

A-45(F)

1820

1866

F4

1898

A-42(F)

A-28

A-30

A-28

A
A

A-38

1778

G2

1771

A-10

A-19

1868

PATF31

A-29

1899

F3

A-24A
A-24A

1973
1864

F2

A-46T2

A-41

1792

1808

Future producer

1783

1851

G1

WAG injector

Oljefylt

A-13

8
1797

A-21A
A-21A

1813

1787
1782

A-15
A-15
A-24

1764
1765

1778

A-35
A-22

1893

1856

A-17
1788

A-22
A-44

A-42(2)

Oil producer A-41A

A-39A
A-39

1772

A-7A
A-7A(F)
A-29

1753

1762

A-17AT2

1856

A-27

1757

1761

A-19

A-30
1771

1745

A-2AH

1765

1773

A-11

1860

1
A-5H

A-26

A-11

1761

A-36

H1
A-26

A-45

A-20A
A-20 A-20A

A-27A
A-27A

A-39A(3)

1756

1760

1780

A-32(F)

1821

E2

1749

1752

A-39A(2)

A-42(1)

Oil filled

A-34/A

A-8R2
A-8

A-42

Gas flooded or
originally in place

A-6A
A-6A

G3

1864

1894

Uncertain flooding
A-9H

A-3H

1779

E3

I1

A-4H

A-33
A-33

1778

A-16

1921

1756

A-12

1790

1985

B-25

1767

1785
1871

A-25

B-4

Vannflmmet

Water injector
Gasskappe

Delvis vannflmm

Delvis gassflmme
Gas injector

Delvis vann- og ga

Delvis gassflmmi

Usikker vannflmm

PATD11

E1
PATE11

Usikker gassflmm
Usikker vann- og g
Usikker gassflmm

Alternative recovery methods


Surfactant pilot in the early 1990s. Full field project stopped due to:
Chemical cost was too high relative too its efficiency.
Remaining oil saturation after water flooding was lower than expected.
Surfactant system efficiency was too little robust.
CO2 MWAG Study last years
Simulations done on Frontsim and Eclipse 300.
Potential of 10-20 Mill. Sm oil identified.
Too high cost totally and therefore a none economic project with to days
framework condition.

AMIOR
Alternative project to reduce residual oil at Gullfaks.
Add nitrate (doing already due to reduction of H2S), phosphate and oxygen to the
injection water.

Reducing surface tension between oil and water and thereby mobilize oil.
BACTERIA + OIL + N + P + O2

MOBILISED RESIDUAL OIL

ENHANCED SWEEP EFFICIENCY

AMIOR
Pilot in well A-41B recommend.
Closed area with steady-state conditions.
Good reservoir understanding.
Good spacing between injector and
producer.

A-36 has an established water cut


growth.

A-41B is perforated in the oil zone.

Prospects
A wide range of prospects in the licence.
Drill from the platforms where possible.
Use existing infrastructure to produce
from the discoveries.

Commercial solutions for prospects


across licence boundary.

Coordinate exploration and production


drilling.

Combine targets where possible.

Conclusions
Recovery of 400 mill. Sm (app. 70% recovery factor).
Lengthening the field life time.
Water circulation is the main IOR method.
Drilling of new and less expensive wells important.
Alternative recovery methods may be a substantial part of the future.
Exploration and third part processing contributes.
Close collaboration between the different technical disciplines is an important
premise to reach the ambition.

Requirements to moving volumes from resource category


7a and 6 to 5a

Requirements to moving volumes from resource category


7a and 6 to 5a, cont

Profitable measure
Assumptions regarding this evaluation are given in Appendix B
Likelihood of implementation equal to or greater than 30 %.
A way of calculating the likelihood of implementation is given in Appendix C.

Prepare plan (studies, eventual technology qualification, manning, budget,) and timing for next phase (when is
the right time to proceed).
The level of detail of such a plan depends on the size of the project/measure.
Documentation shall include;
Production effects (all HC phases) in the targeted reservoir(s)
Simple uncertainty estimation for production effects (low-medium-high)
Is the measure competing with other measures (yes/no which ones)
Evaluate whether the measure has any consequence for process capacities[1] (yes/no which ones)
Cost(Capex and OPEX) estimate for the measure (class A)
Economical evaluation
Plan and timing of next phase

[1] If yes; will the measure displace other measures?