Field Development Plan

2008/2009
MSc Petroleum Engineering
Heriot-Watt University

Indy Oil Company
Team Z
Adnan Al-Dhahli
Nasser Alteer
Isam Elshibani
Sheriff Faye
Mathee Kiatsakulphan
Pascal Lim
Gabriel Talong


2
Team Z Indy Oil
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 11
2. TECHNICAL SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 13
2.1. GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 13
2.2. PETROPHYSICAL EVALUATION ....................................................................... 13
2.3. PVT ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 14
2.4. WELL TEST ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 14
2.5. RESERVOIR MODELLING APPROACH ............................................................. 15
2.6. ECONOMICS ........................................................................................................... 19
2.7. DRILLING ............................................................................................................... 20
2.8. WELL PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................ 20
2.9. PRODUCTION FACILITIES & ISSUES ................................................................ 21
2.10. FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN ............................................................................. 22
2.11. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND FIELD ABANDONMENT ..... 23
3. FIELD DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................... 24
3.1. STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATION ...................................................................... 24
3.2. GEOLOGY AND RESERVOIR DESCRIPTION ................................................... 24
3.2.1. Depositional Environment ................................................................................ 24
3.2.2. Stratigraphy ...................................................................................................... 26
3.2.3. Source Rock ...................................................................................................... 27
3.2.4. Trap and Seal .................................................................................................... 27
3.2.5. GEOSTATISTICAL DESCRIPTION OF CORE SAMPLES ......................... 27
3.3. PETROPHYSICS AND RESERVOIR FLUIDS ..................................................... 28
3.4. PETROPHYSICS ..................................................................................................... 28
3
Team Z Indy Oil
3.4.1. CORRECTIONS FOR BOREHOLE EFFECTS .............................................. 29
3.4.2. RESERVOIR LITHOLOGY DESCRIPTION ................................................. 29
3.4.3. WELL CORRELATION .................................................................................. 30
3.4.4. WATER RESISTIVITY ................................................................................... 30
3.4.5. POROSITY MODEL ....................................................................................... 30
3.4.6. DETERMINATION OF S
W
............................................................................. 30
3.4.7. PERMEABILITY LOG .................................................................................... 31
3.4.8. MOVEABLE HYDROCARBONS .................................................................. 31
3.4.9. NET-TO-GROSS ............................................................................................. 31
3.4.10. FLUIDS-BEARING ZONES ........................................................................... 32
3.5. RESERVOIR FLUIDS ............................................................................................. 32
3.5.1. PVT Analysis .................................................................................................... 32
3.5.2. Water Analysis ................................................................................................. 33
3.6. HYDROCARBONS IN PLACE .............................................................................. 34
3.6.1. Uncertainties Associated with HCIIP Determination ....................................... 34
3.7. WELL PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................ 36
3.7.1. APPRAISAL WELL TESTING ....................................................................... 36
Extended Production test .......................................................................................................... 36
Drill Stem Test ......................................................................................................................... 37
3.7.2. Well flowing design ......................................................................................... 39
3.7.2.1. WellFlo Analysis .......................................................................................... 39
3.7.3. Wellbore Completion ....................................................................................... 43
3.8. PRODUCTION ISSUES .......................................................................................... 44
3.8.1. Scaling Corrosion ............................................................................................. 44
3.8.2. Wax & Asphaltenes .......................................................................................... 45
3.8.3. Sand Failure Prediction .................................................................................... 45
4
Team Z Indy Oil
3.8.4. Corrosion .......................................................................................................... 45
3.9. RESERVOIR MODELLING APPROACH ............................................................. 46
3.9.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 46
3.9.2. RESERVOIR MODELLING ........................................................................... 46
3.9.2.1. BODY GEOMETRY AND STRUCTURE .................................................. 47
3.9.2.2. PROPERTY MODELLING ......................................................................... 47
3.9.2.3. UPSCALING ................................................................................................ 49
3.9.3. SIMULATION MODELS ................................................................................ 49
3.9.3.1. INITIALIZATION ....................................................................................... 49
3.9.3.2. WELL MODEL ............................................................................................ 49
3.9.3.3. FAULT MODEL .......................................................................................... 50
3.10. SIMULATION RESULTS AND MAIN SENSITIVITIES ..................................... 50
3.10.1. RECOVERY MECHANISM ........................................................................... 50
3.10.2. DRAINAGE PLAN AND WELL LOCATION ............................................... 52
3.10.3. SENSITIVITIES ............................................................................................... 54
3.11. ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLANS CONSIDERED ................................ 56
4. DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................................................... 59
4.1. ECONOMICS AND FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS ....................................... 59
4.1.1. GENERAL ....................................................................................................... 59
4.1.2. INDY OIL COMPANY PORTFOLIO ............................................................ 60
4.1.3. TIE-BACK TO THE CLAIR FIELD (BP)....................................................... 60
4.2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN, RESERVES AND PRODUCTION PROFILES ........... 61
4.2.1. DEVELOPMENT PLAN ................................................................................. 61
4.2.1.1. Base case Development plan ........................................................................ 61
4.2.2. RESERVES ...................................................................................................... 63
4.2.3. PRODUCTION PROFILES ............................................................................. 64
5
Team Z Indy Oil
4.2.4. WATER INJECTION POTENTIAL................................................................ 65
4.3. FIELD MANAGEMENT PLAN (FMP) .................................................................. 66
4.3.1. UNCERTAINTY MANAGEMENT. ............................................................... 66
4.3.1.1. Reservoir Heterogeneity ............................................................................... 66
4.3.1.2. Faults and reservoir compartmentalisation ................................................... 67
4.3.1.3. Deposition of the turbidites .......................................................................... 67
4.3.1.4. Reservoir fluid properties ............................................................................. 68
4.3.1.5. Size of the lower reservoir ............................................................................ 68
4.3.2. Workover, Re-entry and sidetrack potential ..................................................... 69
4.3.3. Artificial Lift..................................................................................................... 69
4.4. Further data gathering ............................................................................................... 69
4.4.1. MANAGEMENT OF RESERVES RANGE ................................................... 71
4.5. DRILLING FACILITIES ......................................................................................... 71
4.5.1. OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................... 71
4.5.2. RIG SELECTION ............................................................................................ 72
4.5.3. PRESSURE PROFILE AND MUD PROGRAM ............................................ 73
4.5.4. WELL CONTROL ........................................................................................... 74
4.5.5. FLUID SELECTION ........................................................................................ 74
4.5.6. BIT SELECTION ............................................................................................. 75
4.5.7. CASING DESIGN ............................................................................................ 76
4.5.8. CEMENTING ................................................................................................... 77
4.5.9. DISPOSAL OF DRILL CUTTINGS AND MUD ........................................... 78
4.5.10. BOTTOM HOLE ASSEMBLY ....................................................................... 78
4.5.11. DIRECTIONAL DRILLING ........................................................................... 78
4.5.12. RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES ..................................................................... 79
4.6. PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING FACILITIES. .............................................. 79
6
Team Z Indy Oil
4.7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ABATEMENT ............................................ 80
4.7.1. NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY .................................................................... 81
4.7.2. ABANDONMENT ........................................................................................... 83
4.7.2.1. Abandonment Requirements ........................................................................ 84
4.7.2.2. Surface Abandonment .................................................................................. 84
4.7.2.3. Subsurface Abandonment ............................................................................. 84
4.7.2.4. Equipment Recovery .................................................................................... 85
4.8. COSTS ...................................................................................................................... 85
4.8.1. TAXATION ..................................................................................................... 87
4.8.2. ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................ 87
4.8.3. ECONOMIC PARAMETERS ......................................................................... 88
4.8.4. CASH FLOW MODEL .................................................................................... 88
4.8.5. ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTIES AND RISK MANAGEMENT ................... 88
5. REFERENCE ................................................................................................................... 91
6. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 91
7
Team Z Indy Oil
List of tables
Table R1: Reservoir and fluid properties for using in reservoir simulation model
Table R2: The initialized parameter in simulation model
Table R3: Recovery factor from the different scenario models
Table R5: Alternative development plan comparison
Table G2: Statistics from well Z-7 core plugs
Table FE1: Wireline logs for each well
Table R7: Hydrocarbon Analysis of Reservoir Fluid Sample
Table R8: Produced water analysis
Table P4: Layer pressure vs Water cut
Table P5: formation water dissolved solids
Table R13: Properties used in simulation model
Table R14: The initialized parameter in simulation model
Table E1: Clair Processing Capacity
Table DVP3: the ranges of recovery factor from model simulation
Table D2: J.W.McLean specifications
Table D4: Drilling Fluids and Additives
Table D5: Bit selection
Table D6: Casing design
Table D8: cuttings volume and disposal
Table D9: Directional drilling overview
Table D10: Drilling Risks and Uncertainties
Table E2: Capital expenditure
Table E4: Operating costs, year 2011
Table E6: Economic assumptions
Table E7: Economics parameters

List of figures
Figure R4: Sensitivity analysis results
Figure R6: Five producers and five injectors position in the field development plan
Figure R7: Expected Production profiles
Figure G1: Core pictures (left: pebbles in sand, right : sand and cemented zone)
Figure P2: Neutron-density cross plot
Figure R9a: STOIIP Cumulative distribution
8
Team Z Indy Oil
Figure R9b: Sensitivity analysis of individual parameters
Figure R9 and Figure R10: STOIIP calculation from the volumetric estimates of HCIIP and
Material balance
Figure R11: The extended well test data
Figure P1: well head sensitivity
Figure P2: Tubing size sensitivity
Figure P3: Deviation angle sensitivity
Figure R12: Reservoir 3-D simulation model
Figure R15: Well positions in three recovery mechanisms
Figure R16: Recovery factor simulated by three recovery scenarios.
Figure R17: the well location from pattern A
Figure R18: the well location from pattern B
Figure R19: Sensitivity analysis results
Figure R20: Six production wells development plan
Figure R21: Fix slot platform and two deviated wells
Figure R22: Alternative development plan comparison
Figure R23: Deviated well sensitivity analysis
Figure R24: FOPR vs time for deviated wells
Figure DVP1: Five producers and five injectors position in the field development plan
Figure DVP2: Development plan and drilling program
Figure DVP4: Production profiles for field development plan
Figure DVP5: Field water injection rate profiles
Figure G3: Effects of cemented zones on vertical permeability
Figure D1 : J. W. McLean semisubmersible
Figure D3: Pressure Profile
Figure EV1: Risk Management Review Committee
Figure E3: Capex breakdown
Figure E5: Opex breakdown for year 2011
Figure E8: Z field Spider Diagram
9
Team Z Indy Oil
List of abbreviations
API American Petroleum Institute
bbl Barrel
BEP Best Environmental Practices
BHA Bottom Hole Assembly
Bo Oil Formation Volume Factor
Boi Initial oil Formation Volume Factor
BOP Blow Out Preventer
BU Build Up
BUR Build Up Rate
BUS Build Up Section
Bwi Initial Water Volume Factor
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
Co Oil Compressibility
Cr Rock Compressibility
DCF Discounted Cash Flow
DST Drill Stem Test
DTI UK Government Department of Trade and Industry
ESP Electrical Submersible Pump
FDP Field Development Plan
FPSO Floating Production and Storage Offshore vessel
GIIP Gas Initially In Place
GOR Gas Oil ratio
HIP Hydrocarbons In Place
HPWBM High Performance Water Based Muds
HSE Health and Safety Executive
IADC International Association of Drilling Contractors
ILD Dual Induction Log
ID Internal Diameter
IOC
IRR
Indy Oil Company
Internal Rate of Return
Kh Horizontal Permeability
Kv Vertical Permeability
Kv/Kh Vertical to Horizontal Permeability Ratio
KOP Kick Off Point
LLD Dual Laterolog
LWD Logging While Drilling
MCO Maximum Capital Outlay
MMSTB Million Stock Tank Barrels
MOD Money of the Day
MWD Measurement While Drilling
NCF Net Cash Flow
NPV Net Present Value
NTG Net To Gross ratio
OBM Oil Based Muds
OPEX Operating Expenditure
10
Team Z Indy Oil
OWC Oil Water Contact
Pb Bubble Point Pressure
PDC Polycrystalline Diamond Compact
PIR Profit to Investment Ratio
Pr Reservoir Pressure
Psi Pounds per Square Inch
PWD Pressure While Drilling
PVT Pressure,Volume,Temperature
QHSE Quality Health Safety and Environment
QRA Quantitative Risk Assessment
RF Recovery Factor
RIH Run In Hole
ROP Rate Of Penetration
ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle
Ro Resistivity of 100% water saturated rock
Rt True Formation Resistivity
Rs Solution Gas Oil Ratio
Rw Water Resistivity
SAC Special Area of Conservation
SBM Synthetic Based Muds
SCAL Special Core Analysis
Scf Standard Cubic Feet
STB Stock Tank Barrels
SSCV Semi Submersible Crane Vessel
STOOIP Stock Tank Oil Originally In Place
Sw Water saturation
TOC Top Of Cement
UKCS United Kingdom Continental Shelf
UKOOA United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
WBM Water Based Muds
WDA Written Down Amount
WHP Well Head Pressure
WOB Weight On Bit







11
Team Z Indy Oil
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Z-field is an oil field located in the North Sea, west of the Shetlands Islands (see
map appendix 1). It is situated near a bigger field named Clair and operated by BP. Seven
appraisal wells were drilled, and various data was gathered to know more about it. Our Field
Development Plan presents our technical interpretation of the data and as a consequence how
we decided to develop the field and produce the reservoir hydrocarbons.
Reservoir characteristics
The Z reservoir is synclined and highly heterogeneous due to the depositional
environment which is a turbidite. The field includes two layers: one main layer containing
around 150 million STB of oil in place (P50, obtained by material balance and by reservoir
geometry) from Early Cretaceous, the oil-water contact being at a depth of around 8900 feet,
and another one located below the main layer. However, data is too small to have a precise
idea of how to develop this layer. For the main one, a recovery factor of around 35-40% is
expected in the most likely case. However, several uncertainties are inherent to the field: how
is the heterogeneity going to affect the permeability? Are there faults? Our development plan
deals with these uncertainties by not letting them having a huge effect on the expected results
before more data is gathered for a better understanding of the reservoir.
Development plan
We chose to develop the reservoir with 5 producers and 5 water injectors. This
development scenario has been tested against several others (natural depletion, polymer
injection), but this one gives the best results. Several drainage patterns were tested, leading to
the optimized results being the base-case of the study. Water injection allows providing
pressure support to keep the reservoir above the bubble point pressure.


12
Team Z Indy Oil
Surface facilities
The Z-field is a marginal deep water field. Quite close to it is the much bigger field
Clair (in terms of production and size) with processing facilities and hydrocarbons
transportation facilities. Therefore, it has been decided to develop our field by tie-backing the
Z-field production to the Clair field. This choice is mainly motivated by economic reasons;
the other scenarios (FPSO or Tension-leg Platform) were giving lower NPVs and less
recovery.
Economics considerations
Furthermore, this tie-back option allows mitigating several uncertainties: the Clair
field is big enough to support a higher production than expected, and a lower production
would simply result in the early abandonment of the field (still profitable). Variations of other
economic factors such as oil price or exchange rate still make this project have a positive
NPV. Therefore, the economic model is quite solid. Furthermore, this development strategy is
in accordance with Indy Oil Company strategy, which is maximizing utilization of core
infrastructures and maximizing the recovery.
Further development
More data need to be gathered in order to know more about the reservoir, especially
the western area, to detect potential faults or assess the reservoir performance. The lower
layer reservoir unit is quite a big uncertainty: how big is it? How hard will it be to produce
hydrocarbons from it? Further development of the Z-field clearly involves the gathering of
more data from this layer. The additional reserves will extend the field life of a few years; our
development plan takes it into account by the possibility to purchase additional processing
and transport facilities on the Clair field if needed.
13
Team Z Indy Oil
2. TECHNICAL SUMMARY
2.1. GEOLOGY
The reservoir structure is characterized by its shape: it is synclined, the strike line of
the two limbs being in a North-West to South-East direction. The shape of the upper layers
(syncline as well) indicates that the deformation occurred after deposition. Core photographs
indicate that the depositional environment is a turbidite going from the southern zone and
spreading like a fan towards the exterior of the structure (it is actually thinning in these
directions, being the thickest at the depositional source). Therefore, a high heterogeneity
characterize the reservoir: there is no clean sand body but a mix of sand, mud and clay with
cemented zones. This raises the uncertainty concerning the reservoir vertical permeability.
Another uncertainty is the presence of faults in the reservoir.
2.2. PETROPHYSICAL EVALUATION
Petrophysical analysis was carried out using an extensive suite of wireline Logs,
SCAL, PVT analysis and RFT pressure surveys, gathered from seven appraisal wells.
In Well Z5, Z3 and Z1, the entire net pay thickness encountered was oil-bearing sand. Well
Z4 was a dry hole, a water bearing sand was found below the OWC of well Z5. Well Z7
encountered two main reservoir sand bodies. GR and SGR were used for lithology
identification and well-to-well correlation. The upper reservoir unit was correletable across
the field.
The upper reservoir unit becomes thinner and the quality of reservoir deteriorates
towards the eastern side of the field. Lithology Log for Well Z6 and well Z7 showed the
reservoir is sandstone dominated, which was confirmed by the Density-Neutron cross plot.
Besides, observation of cores retrieved from Well Z3 and Well Z5 showed heterogeneous
14
Team Z Indy Oil
sand. The petrophysical properties of the reservoir have been computed using many methods
for each well. Well Z1 was no used for analysis because of the insufficient data.
Shale Content was calculated using GR method, porosity was solved with bulk density
logs except for well Z6 where we used sonic Log as there was no density Log. Water
resistivity was computed using the water sampling analysis result of well Z5. Water saturation
(Sw) was calculated using the Simandoux equation. The permeability was determined from
linear regression, using the Core porosity and core permeability derived from SCAL.
2.3. PVT ANALYSIS
Surface and subsurface fluid samples were collected from well 1, 3, 5, and 7 by FIT
(Formation interval test) and conventional DST. The PVT analysis and gas chromatography
were carried out to analyse fluid properties and hydrocarbon composition.
In terms of PVT analysis, the reservoir fluid seemed to be a light oil with API higher
than 31.5 and low GOR (220 scf/STB). The oil properties in the Z-field are characterised as a
highly undersaturated oil with a bubble point around 1050-1120 psia. In addition, the
properties of fluid in upper and lower reservoir appeared to have no significant difference.
They were considered uniform for the entire field. Thus, these results indicated that it will be
possible to produce as commingled fluid from the two zones.
Regarding the reservoir fluid composition, the result showed a very low amount of
hydrogen sulphide (<1ppm), contained in both upper and lower reservoir fluid with around
2% carbon dioxide. Therefore, the corrosion may be an issue and corrosion inhibitors will be
used if necessary.
2.4. WELL TEST ANALYSIS
The production test in well Z-1 was conducted to get a good indication of STOIIP by
using material balance. The oil has been produced for 1 year with a cumulative production of
15
Team Z Indy Oil
751,000 barrels and followed by long time period shut in. As a result of this test, the pressure
was depleted of around 213 psi from the initial reservoir pressure with a PI around 2.89. At
the beginning of this test, the bottom hole pressure dropped rapidly by 286 psi in 21 days at
the early stage of test. Moreover, the reservoir pressure didnt stabilize to the initial reservoir
(3713 psi), although it has been through a long shut in period (3 months). Therefore, the drive
mechanism of this field seems to be depletion with no aquifer support or very small support in
this field. Furthermore, the OIIP which is calculated by material balance is around 120-200
mSTB. This result is based on the fact that no water influx is occurring in the reservoir. The
oil volume by MB equation shows a good consistency with the STOIIP obtained from the
volumetric calculation. Based on these results, it can be concluded that this reservoir has no
large fault to block the pressure disturbance in reservoir.
The DST well testings, which has been conducted in well 2, 3, 5, and 7, show a wide
range of productivity index from the different areas of reservoir. Based on the results, the high
PI zone is situated in the West area (Z-7) with productivity index from 5-7. This result shows
a good agreement with the geological study and core analysis which indicated the high quality
sand with high permeability and porosity in this area. However, the DST testing time from the
other wells seemed to be very short (25-70 hrs), resulting in no late time region observed in
log-log derivative plot analysis. Due to the low quality of data, this problem is needed to be
dealt with and treated as the uncertainty in order to reduce the risk for field development
project.
2.5. RESERVOIR MODELLING APPROACH
Regarding the simulation study, the scenarios will be selected to study the field
recovery efficiency. In addition, natural depletion, water flooding, and polymer flooding
development plan will be simulated. After that, the effect of well positions, number and type
of well (deviated and vertical) will be analyzed to construct the base case model. Lastly, the
16
Team Z Indy Oil
sensitivity analysis will be carried out to study the effects of recovery efficiency from the
reservoir uncertainty. Based on the undersaturated oil in reservoir, the 2phase, 3-D Black Oil
model was used to simulate the area of reservoir by ECLIPSE100. Subsequently, the
reservoir model consists of 56x28x20 cells by grid corner point structure which generated and
exported from PETREL software. In addition, reservoir and initialize properties are shown in
table R1 and table R2 respectively.
Reservoir properties Water Properties
Average temperature,
F 175
Density,
lb/ft
3
65.8
Initial Pressure, psia 3770
Bwi,
rb/STB 1.02
OWC, ft (TVD) 8850
Viscosity,
CP 0.4
Cw, psi
-1
2.46E-06
Oil Properties Rock properties
Density, lb/ft
3
43 Cr, psi
-1
7.50E-06
Boi, rb/STB 1.17
GOR, scf/STB 224
Viscosity, CP
0.97-
1.23
Bubble point pressure,
psia 1122

Table R1: Reservoir and fluid properties for using in reservoir simulation model


Datum, ft
TVD
Pi at
Datum, psia
OWC, ft
TVD
Pc at
OWC, psia
Oil in place,
million barrels
Reservoir initial
conditions 8500 3770 8850 0 140
Table R2: The initialized parameter in simulation model
A coarser grid is then created (31,600 cells) and is used for the properties upscaling
from the fine scaled grid (1,693,440 cells). The vertical transmissibility still is the uncertainty
in this reservoir. It will be treated as an uncertainty and need sensitivity analysis. During
simulation process, the reservoir was assumed to keep the reservoir pressure above bubble
point pressure with constant temperature, resulting in no gas coming out of solution in the
17
Team Z Indy Oil
reservoir. In terms of well modeling, all wells were set up with the tubing 0.67 ft for both
producers and injectors. The location of the new wells tended to be drilled at the high PI zone
near the appraisal well Z-7. Regarding the water flooding and other case scenarios, the
appraisal wells were used as injector and producer for saving cost and rig time. However, the
new wells seem to be necessary to achieve high production and economic rate (2,000 bopd).
Based on the assumption that the reservoir will be produced above bubble point pressure, all
wells were controlled by the bottom hole pressure (1,200 psia), whereas the injectors were
limited at 12,000 psia to keep reservoir pressure constant. The production wells tend to be
perforated in upper zone to avoid early water breakthrough.
Simulation results and main sensitivity
a) Recovery mechanism
By simulation study, the natural depletion scenario had a recovery factor of just above
10 percent after 4,000 days whereas the recovery efficiency in the water flooding case
increased more than 38% during the same period. This result shows that the reservoir needs
some pressure maintenance even at the early stage of production. However, the recovery
factor from the polymer injection was not better than water flooding as expected. This is
because not only the pressure support is an important parameter for improving the recovery
efficiency but also the sweep efficiency that has to be improved to achieve the ultimate
recovery.

Model Water Injection Natural Depletion Polymer Flooding
Recover Factor 38% 10% 28%
Table R3: Recovery factor from the different scenario models
b) Drainage Pattern
The well location experiment was analyzed to compare between the extra injectors in the
middle field (Pattern A) and only the edge water injection (Pattern B). After the simulation
18
Team Z Indy Oil
study, the pattern A (an extra injector in the middle and edge area of the reservoir) appeared
to be the most effective and has been selected as the base case for sensitivity study. In
addition, this case has the following benefits.
- Higher production rate and recovery efficiency
- A number of wells at the high PI zone which allows to produce fluids from two zones.
- The injectors in the center and West area lead to better pressure support for the entire field.
- All appraisal wells were used as injectors or producers, allowing savings on drilling costs.
- Reduction of the risk of the connectivity uncertainty in the case where there are some faults
isolating the high PI area from the other parts of reservoir.
c) Sensitivity analysis
The sensitivity analysis was used to take into account the uncertainty which occurred in
the reservoir simulation. In addition, the reservoir and fluids properties were studied the
impact on the recovery efficiency. The result of the analysis was demonstrated by a spider
diagram in figure R4.

Figure R4: Sensitivity analysis results

d) Alternative Development plans considered
19
Team Z Indy Oil
Two models were developed from the base case and used as the alternative plan.
Firstly, a new producer was added from the base case to increase production. While the
second plan used the two deviated wells instead of the vertical wells in the reference case. The
results were shown in table R5. However, the cost of deviated well will be more important
than for a vertical one, and is more risky. Consequently, the economic and drilling issues need
to be dealt with together to find the optimum length for the ultimate recovery factor during the
production period.
Model Base Case Six production wells Deviated wells
Recover Factor 36% 38% 41.5%
Table R5: Alternative development plan comparison
2.6. ECONOMICS
The economical key issues considered during the financial appraisal of the Z field
were the processing and the disposal of the fluid streams. The development facilities of deep-
water fields are limited to floaters and tie-back to a nearby platform or ashore. The presence
of the Clair platform in the neighbourhood of the Z field was analyzed with the opportunity to
get the Clair owner to be involved in the development as a shareholder, to avoid any sharp
rise in the processing tariff rates throughout the field life. FPSO and Tension Leg Platforms
were the alternatives to a tie-back solution. With the current volatility in commodity markets,
we made the economic rates assumptions related to the development by scrutinizing the rates
fluctuations of the 5 past years. Among the three options available, the tie-back to Clair
Platform was the most attractive scenario, and has the advantage of allowing selling the gas.
The economical risks associated with the Z field development were raised and studied. As a
result of this study, some solutions were outlined to manage them.
20
Team Z Indy Oil
2.7. DRILLING
Semi-submersible rig (J. W. McLean) will be used to drill the new wells. The well will
be controlled by 10,000 psia BOP which will come with the rig. There are no major problems
expected during the drilling since that the field is normally pressurised and there are no
indication of overpressure zones from previous mud logs of the appraisal wells. In the light of
this, two types of bits will be used (roller cone and PDC). Seawater, WBM and HPWBM will
be implemented as drilling fluids at different sections with the appropriate weight (9-10ppg)
and additives. The Common North sea Class G cement will be used and two grades of casing
(K-55 and L-80) will be used with different weights. Two deviated wells will be drilled using
rotary steering system. The cuttings from deep sections will be converted into slurry and re-
injected into one of the appraisal well.
2.8. WELL PERFORMANCE
Summary of analysis
Z field wells will be drilled deviated and will use a 95/8 casing to complete the bottom
hole (along with cement and casing perforation).
The main assumption here is to maintain the pressure above the downhole fluid bubble
point.
Well head pressure will be 250 psi.
All the producing wells will be completed with a 55 tubing string which will be coated or
chromium to prevent corrosion. Corrosion may happen due to the presence of CO2 and
H2S.
The well which will produce from both upper and lower sands will be completed with a
dual completion string 31/2 and 27/8 tubing.
21
Team Z Indy Oil
Gas lift will be required to lift the wells when water cut increases to a level which affects
the wells productivity. Gas lift requirement will be included in the completion design.
The water injecting wells will be completed by a 7 tubing to handle the high injection
rate of 10,000 bbl/day.
Uncertainty
The range of the reservoir parameters (average permeability or skin factor from
wireline logs and well) was obtained for the whole reservoir. However the data available from
the well testing is quite poor due to the shortage and the low quality of well tests. Because of
the reservoir high heterogeneity, these values might not reflect the reality of these parameters.
The productivity index used in analysis was obtained from well test surface rates and
downhole pressure measurements. These values depend on the well conditions (for example
we have DST for different units of the same reservoir, and not for the whole reservoir). The
exact string configuration used during the DST tests could not be reproduced as accurately as
in the real well tests. Therefore, to manage the uncertainties which were introduced above,
sensitivity studies with varying reservoir parameters were carried out to get the best possible
production rate.
2.9. PRODUCTION FACILITIES & ISSUES
Due to the small size of our field and due to the existence of nearby process facilities
which have the ability to receive our produced fluids, the development production plan (DPP)
is to produce our field hydrocarbons via a subsea cluster wells tied-back to the nearest field
(Clair field) which is 20 km away. Five production wells are tied-back to one cluster with a
manifold which is connected through pipelines to the Clair field, as well as injection wells.
Control of the wells is by hydraulic and signal umbilical from platform. Clair field topside
facilities might need to be upgraded if required; such as pipeline end station, oil heating, gas
22
Team Z Indy Oil
and water treating, separator and metering equipment. The development plan is designed to
handle a production of 20,000 b/d and has water injection capacity of 40,000 b/d.
2.10. FIELD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The field is planned to be developed as following: the recovery will be made thanks to water
injection from day 1 with 5 producing wells (2 from already existing appraisal wells, 2 new
deviated wells and 1 new vertical) and 5 water injection wells (4 from appraisal wells and 1
new vertical). All the production and injection will be dealt with the nearby Clair field
operated by BP since the tie-back solution has been chosen (in terms of economics and oil
recovery). The wells will be located as showed in the following figure R6:

Figure R6: Five producers and five injectors position in the field development plan
During the first phase, new producers and injectors will be successively drilled and
put on operation, for an expected plateau phase of around 1600 days. In the next phase, two
injection wells [INJ1 & INJ3] will be shut and one production well [P1] will be converted
into injection well. In the final phase in the project, the injection well [INJ4] will be shut and
P4 will be converted from producer to injector. This final phase will last for approximately
23
Team Z Indy Oil
1400 days. The resulting production profiles (for an economic limit calculated at 2000 bopd)
are shown in the figure R7, for different cases (high, low and most likely).

Figure R7: Expected Production profiles
2.11. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND FIELD
ABANDONMENT
Our environmental statement will be conducted as required by DTI, UK. Our field lies
under the Transboundary jurisdiction of Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgium and
Norway. Our local sensitivities are drilling discharges, produced water, cetaceans, oil spills
and transboundary issues. Drilling mud and cuttings will be treated and re-injected to well 1,
oil spills will be carried out by our emergency support vessel, and produced water will be
treated and re-injected to the sea. Flaring will be kept to a minimum.
IOC will be leasing BPs Claire Platform for our operation offshore, limited surface
abandonment will be carried out at the end of our operations. Sub-sea wells will be abandoned
by squeezing cement to the perforated regions, plugging the borehole and providing a
corrosion cap over the wellhead. Our producing zones will be plugged back with cement with
a minimum thickness of 100 ft above and below the formation.
24
Team Z Indy Oil
3. FIELD DESCRIPTION
The field is situated in the North Sea and its area is around 200-240 million square feet
(see top structure map appendix 2). It is located offshore west of the Shetlands Islands, and is
20 km away from the Clair field operated by BP (see map in appendix 1).
3.1. STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATION
The most useful piece of information we use to determine the geometry of the
reservoir is the seismics shot. The most obvious characteristic of the reservoir is that it is
synclined, the strike line of the two limbs being in a North-West to South-East direction
(see cross section appendix 3). The syncline deformation occurred after deposition: as we can
see on the seismics the layers above are synclined as well; they would be horizontal if the
syncline happened before deposition. Calculation of the structure different dips is possible
thanks to the top structure map (given by seismic shots too): the main dip is 2.7 from the
horizontal towards a 120 clockwise from North direction. The western limb of the
syncline has a dip of 12.3 from horizontal towards NE. The eastern limb of the syncline
has a dip of 10.2 from horizontal towards SW.
3.2. GEOLOGY AND RESERVOIR DESCRIPTION
3.2.1. Depositional Environment
The depositional environment is a critical characteristic of a reservoir because it
allows us to infer the distribution of the main reservoir properties according to the geological
interpretation. Because there is not one and only one interpretation, it is important to define
the different scenarios so that it is possible to mitigate the uncertainty in the development
phase. Several clues relative to the Z-field reservoir can be found in the available data:
seismic studies, logs, core plugs tests, lithology logs, mud logs and core pictures.
25
Team Z Indy Oil
Lets describe the core photographs: We had access to the viewing of the cores for 3
wells (Z-2, Z-3 and Z-5). By looking at them, it is possible to determine the energy of the
deposition: several parts of the cores are poorly-sorted and we can see pebbles (figure G1),
characteristic of a high energy deposition. Furthermore, these pebbles are often at the base of
a fining upwards sequence, which means that the depositional energy decreases gradually.
These sequences are often separated by cemented zones (light grey-white zones, figure G1).
These cemented zones will have a bad effect on the reservoir performance by altering the
vertical permeability. The cementation comes from the invasion of the rocks by calcite,
which is either precipitated (by organisms in marine environment) or initially brought by the
deposition. This invasion is stopped by the oil traces present in some parts of the cores. Are
these cemented zones continuous sheets or just small zones? It is quite difficult to determine
only from the core samples because the samples are just a few inches diameter. One of the
main characteristics we can get from the study of the cores is that it is highly heterogeneous:
it is further confirmed by the mud logs, we dont have any clean sand body; everything is a
heterogeneous mix of sand, clay and mud.










Figure G1: Core pictures (left: pebbles in sand, right : sand and cemented zone)

Cemented zone
Pebbles
Fining upwards
sequence
26
Team Z Indy Oil
The main characteristics we get from the cores are: poorly-sorted, pebbles, high
energy deposition, fining upwards sequence, high heterogeneity and cemented zones. These
parameters are particular of a turbidite deposition in marine environment. We can then
determine one parameter of this turbidite deposition such as the direction of the deposition
thanks to the study of the mud logs and logs, which will give the thickness of the sand body:
the thicker the sand body, the closer to the origin of the deposition. We can then work out
an isochore map from these thicknesses (appendix 3). It is possible to see that the thickest
part is in the middle-south part of the reservoir and the further from this zone, the thinner it
gets. This gives us a major clue about the direction of the paleocurrent (indicated by the
arrows on the figure). The middle-south zone is then the source of the deposition (single
point-source). It is known from the core pictures that there were several successive
depositions. The major uncertainty now is the correlation of these depositions in the wells we
have: How is the turbidite channelized? How can we correlate reservoir properties throughout
the reservoir?
3.2.2. Stratigraphy
One particularity of the reservoir is that it pinches-out on the northern part, which
indicates that the trap is probably stratigraphic. Furthermore, the two limbs of the syncline
lead to the elevation of some parts of the sand with an unconformity on the south west part.
Therefore, one key part of the trapping system can be qualified as structural as well. The
general stratigraphy can be determined thanks to the available mud logs and lithology logs,
correlation between the wells can then be made and the result is shown on appendix 4.
The lower unit is detectable only in the well Z-7; therefore it means that it pinches out
in the east direction. However, nothing more can be inferred about this unit.
27
Team Z Indy Oil
3.2.3. Source Rock
Well test fluid analysis states that we are dealing with an Early Cretaceous type of
fluids. However, due to the lack of data, it is quite difficult to know more about the source
rock.
3.2.4. Trap and Seal
According to the mud logs, there is a layer of Marl located directly on top of the sand.
This layer of marl is present in all the wells. Therefore marl is the cap rock that seals the
stratigraphic trap, keeping the hydrocarbons from migrating further (appendix 4: general
correlation from mud logs).
3.2.5. GEOSTATISTICAL DESCRIPTION OF CORE SAMPLES
Some core plugs taken from the wells are analyzed in a laboratory to determine rock
parameters such as porosity or permeability (horizontal and vertical). The results give quite a
good idea of the quality of the sand at the well location; however it doesnt reflect the real
behaviour of the reservoir because of the heterogeneity of the Z-field. It is still interesting to
statistically study the repartition of the porosities and the permeabilities, in order to know
more about the sand quality. Results show that the cores taken from well Z-7 (both upper: 7U
and lower layer: 7L) are of quite good quality: horizontal permeability is quite high (given by
the arithmetic average) but very heterogeneous; however the vertical permeability is quite low
(given by the harmonic average) and heterogeneous as well. The lower layer seems to be of
much better quality than the upper layer.

Geometric
average
Harmonic
average
Arithmetic
average
Number of
samples
Standard
Deviation Cv
7U KH 2,31 0,09 100,13 47 174,68 1,74
7L KH 12,08 0,13 381,29 90 517,56 1,36
7U KV 0,61 1,17E-05 75,52 47 124,47 1,65
7L KV 1,40 9,00E-06 251,08 90 393,71 1,57
Table G2: Statistics from well Z-7 core plugs
28
Team Z Indy Oil
3.3. PETROPHYSICS AND RESERVOIR FLUIDS
3.4. PETROPHYSICS
Seven appraisals wells wireline data (paper Logs and electronic versions), SCAL, PVT
and RFT were available for petrophysics analysis of Z field. A careful check was conducted
to ensure the consistency between paper logs provided and the composite Logs available from
the software, and correction was performed where discrepancies were observed. All wells
were assumed vertical except well Z7 and Z1 for which deviation surveys were provided.
Well Z1 was not considered for study, as there was insufficient data to carry out analysis.
The set of wireline Logs available for each well are detailed in table FE1 below:
Well Log Type over Reservoir Drilling Mud
Well Z1 CGR/SGR/NPHI WBM
Well Z2
GR/PHID/SONI/CNL/LLS/ILD/LLD/MSFL/CALI/SFLU/Core
/Por/KH/KV
WBM
Well Z3 GR/CNL/DENS/LLS/LLD/MSFL/CALI /Core-Por/ KH/KV WBM
Well Z4 GR/DENS/SONI/PEF/CNL/ILM/ILD/SFLU/CALI/DRHO/Pore core/KH WBM
Well Z5
GR/DENS/SONI/CNL/ILM/ILD/CALI/DRHO/POR-
HEL/POTA/URAN/THOR/KH/KV
OBM
Well Z6
GR/SGR/DT/NCNL/SCNL/FCNL/ILM/ILD/ CALI/SFLU/ Core Por/
KH/RSFL
WBM
Well Z7
SGR/DENS/SONI/PEF/CNL/MSFL/ILM/ILD
/LLD/LLS/CALI/SFLU/DRHO/CGR/TVD/CorePor/KH/KVPOTA/URAN/
THOR/
WBM

Table FE1: Wireline logs for each well

29
Team Z Indy Oil
3.4.1. CORRECTIONS FOR BOREHOLE EFFECTS
There was no information to know whether the Service Company corrected the logs
for borehole and mud filtrate invasion. Therefore, we assumed they have not been corrected
and did so for all the Logs. For each well, the Caliper Log was used to correct for borehole
effects and in addition, resistivity Logs were corrected for mud-filtrate invasion with Tornado
charts. Equally, there was no evidence of the company that performed the wireline logging
service, we assumed Schlumberger though and used theirs charts for correction.
3.4.2. RESERVOIR LITHOLOGY DESCRIPTION
Two reservoir units were identified in Well Z7, the upper and the lower reservoir
units. The upper reservoir unit was highly heterogeneous. Shale identification was made using
gamma ray (GR) and spectral gamma ray (SGR) curves. Equally, Neutron-density cross plots
(figure P2) and the PEF Plot on the Paper composite log were also used for mineralogy
identification. The Cross-plot showed an extensive concentration of calcite in the reservoir,
this was due to the presence of calcite cemented sandstone in the reservoir sand. This was also
confirmed by the observation of cores recovered from Well Z5 and Z3. Mud logs were also
used to further consolidate the abundant presence of calcite-cemented horizons in the
reservoir.








Figure P2: Neutron-
density cross plot
30
Team Z Indy Oil
3.4.3. WELL CORRELATION
Due to the high heterogeneity of the reservoir, it was difficult to distinguish layering in
the reservoir with GR Logs. In order to make the correlation across the field, DST
interpretation, from well test analysis, was used to improve more information about the
connectivity. In addition, by pressure survey data, the upper sand was correlated across the
whole field (see appendix 5).
3.4.4. WATER RESISTIVITY
Water resistivity R
w
used to compute S
w
was determined from water analysis carried
out on twenty-six samples collected in well Z-5. The analysis reported a minor contamination
of samples. We determined an average of representatives values of the water resistivity and
the result was as follows: R
w
= 0.052 @ 175F.
3.4.5. POROSITY MODEL
Density log was available for five of the wells analyzed, and was used for porosity
computation as the neutron porosity showed higher apparent porosity due to dispersed shale
present in the reservoir sand. Equally, core porosity and neutron porosity were similar as both
indicate the total porosity. Core porosity was based on core oven-dried helium porosities and
was therefore very close to "total porosity. Shale corrections were applied to density logs to
determine effective porosity.
3.4.6. DETERMINATION OF S
W

As we have shaly sands in some part of the reservoir, we have used the Simandoux
Method for water saturation computation. This method includes a shale correction for the
saturation calculation. Values used across the field for the tortuosity, cementation and
saturation exponent were a=1, m=1.78, n=2.06, they were derived from SCAL data of well
31
Team Z Indy Oil
Z5. The true resistivity used in Simandoux method for each well was the deep resistivity
corrected for borehole and mud filtrate invasion. Density porosity was used for all the wells
except for Well 2 where sonic porosity was used since density porosity was not available. A
comparative study with SCAL showed a match.
3.4.7. PERMEABILITY LOG
A linear regression relationship (Appendix 6a) between core porosity and core
permeabilities was determined; this was then used to indirectly compute vertical and
horizontal permeability from density porosity Log for each well. The permeability
deteriorated towards the eastern side of the field. A comparison between the permeability
obtained from logs and well testing showed discrepancies, with the permeability obtained
from well test being lower. This was probably due to the large scale of heterogeneity in our
reservoir caused by the presence of shale and cemented zones within the reservoir. In
addition, the well test permeability is the effective permeability measured at the reservoir
prevailing saturation while the core permeability is the absolute one.
3.4.8. MOVEABLE HYDROCARBONS
A study of the reservoir permeability around the wellbore zone was carried out by
computing the moveable hydrocarbon. As result in well Z5, the mud filtrate substituted almost
half of the original fluid in place in the reservoir zone, showing the permeability of the
reservoir (see appendix 6b).
3.4.9. NET-TO-GROSS
A net pay analysis was conducted for all of the wells. We assumed a mobility ratio
threshold of 0.7mD/cp to determine the permeability cut off criteria. Linear regression
relationship between the logarithm of the permeability and , V
Sh
and S
w
respectively were
32
Team Z Indy Oil
used to determine the threshold values of each parameter (appendix 7). The base Cut off
criteria used was as follows: V
shale
> 0.4, Porosity >0.1, S
w
< 0.5, Kh>1mD.
3.4.10. FLUIDS-BEARING ZONES
The LRU and the URU were identified as oil-bearing, with no gas cap throughout all
the six wells analyzed. Resistivity Logs, neutron and density logs were used to identify
reservoir fluids type. Core saturations were employed to confirm log results. An aquifer was
also identified in Well 5 with the OWC at 8892ft. No aquifer was observed below the oil
zone in well Z2 and in the upper Reservoir of well 7.
The table appendix 8 summarizes the properties of the upper sand reservoir obtained for each
well.
3.5. RESERVOIR FLUIDS
3.5.1. PVT Analysis
Surface and subsurface fluid samples were collected from well 1, 3, 5, and 7 by FIT
(Formation interval test) and conventional DST. The PVT analysis and gas chromatography
were carried out to analyse fluid properties and hydrocarbon composition.
In terms of PVT analysis, separator, flash vaporization and differential tests were
carried out to obtain the fluid properties including B
o
, R
s
and P
b
from above to below bubble
point. The samples, both surface and bottom hole, were analysed in various stages of
separator (from 60-150 F and 0-200 psig). Furthermore, fluid viscosity was measured by
rolling ball viscometer at various ranges of temperature and pressure. As demonstrated in
appendix 9, the reservoir fluid seemed to be a light oil with API higher than 31.5 and low
GOR. The oil properties in the Z-field are characterised as a highly undersaturated oil with a
bubble point around 1050-1120 psia. In addition, the properties of fluid in upper and lower
reservoir appeared to have no significant difference. They were considered uniform for the
33
Team Z Indy Oil
entire field. Thus, these results indicated that it will be possible to produce as commingled
fluids from the two zones.
Regarding the reservoir fluid composition, the selected separator gas sample was
determined by gas chromatography until detectable limit. Moreover, the separator liquid was
determined by both low and high temperature fractional distillation. As shown in table R7, the
result showed a very low amount of hydrogen sulphide, containing in both upper and lower
reservoir fluid with around 2% carbon dioxide.
Components Upper reservoir Lower reservoir
Mole Percent Mole Percent
Nitrogen 1.32 1.43
Carbon Dioxide 0.36 0.76
Hydrogen Sulphide 0.00* 0.00
Hydrocarbons
METHANE 15.50 15.89
ETHANE 4.92 5.20
PROPANE 8.68 10.03
ISO-BUTANE 1.00 1.32
N-BUTANE 3.61 5.77
ISO-PENTANE 1.19 2.08
N-PENTANE 1.95 3.30
N-HEXANE 3.59 4.59
Heptanes plus** 57.88 49.63
TOTAL 100.00 100.00
* Less than 1ppm
** Molecular weight of C7+ = 243
Table R7: Hydrocarbon Analysis of Reservoir Fluid Sample
3.5.2. Water Analysis
In terms of water analysis, Produced water was analysed by collecting 26 samples
during the reverse circulation of well Z-5 in DST-1. Three of these samples, which consist
almost entirely of formation water, were tested by API analysis. As a result of this test, it is
evident that these samples were contaminated by sea water by 12%vol. The results of
produced water analysis are shown in table R8.
34
Team Z Indy Oil
Water( well 5) 8896-8926 ft

Sample1 Sample2 Sample3
ppm solid 74750 76640 77010
specific gravity at 60/60F 1.051 1.052 1.052
Resistivity 0.129 0.127 0.127
pH 7.22 7.5 7.24
Hydrogen Sulphide None None None
Table R8: Produced water analysis
Furthermore, oil and water were recovered at 8930 ft by a 1 gall FMT tool.
Subsequently, an API analysis and finger print analysis were performed to analyze oil and
water. As a consequence of these tests, the formation water seems to be contaminated
formation water. In addition, from the chromatogram, the oil consists almost entirely of oil
base mud filtrate.
Based on the summary table, corrosion may happen due to the high water salinity and
high concentrated solid. The corrosion inhibitor will be used and injected into the well if
necessary. Moreover, the corrosion monitoring log should be run to examine the tubing
damage from corrosion.
3.6. HYDROCARBONS IN PLACE
3.6.1. Uncertainties Associated with HCIIP Determination
As depicted in figure R9 and figure R10, the tables show the HCIIP which were
calculated by the volumetric estimation and material balance calculation. Based on the
geometry, the input parameters were obtained from petro-physical data, core, and PVT
analysis. Whereas the MB equation can calculate the initial oil in place by using data from
EWT or extended well testing (see appendix 10). The high and low STOIIP cases for both
geometry and material balance were simulated by Monte Carlo method to account for the
parameters uncertainty. By using the Crystal Ball software, the parameters distributions were
assumed as being normal and triangular distribution (see appendix 10). The results have been
35
Team Z Indy Oil
demonstrated in the probabilistic range with P10, P50, and P90. After that the STOIIP with
P50 was used as the representative base case to construct the reservoir model.
An Estimation of the Z Field STOIIP with volumetric method was obtained using the
Monte Carlo Simulation. The input parameters for the simulation were derived from
petrophysical and PVT analysis. Each of the parameters was modeled using an appropriate
probability distribution function to account for the associated uncertainty. The results are
shown in figure R9 and a distribution of the cumulative probabilities and sensitivities are
shown in Figure R9a and Figure R9b respectively.

Figure R9a: STOIIP Cumulative distribution function Figure R9b: Sensitivity analysis of
individual parameters

Figure R9 and Figure R10: STOIIP calculation from the volumetric estimates of
HCIIP and Material balance

Regarding the results, the STOIIP calculations from Material Balance and geometry
have no significant difference. By integrating the MB equation and geometry, the correct
STOIIP ranges can be confirmed, leading to a reduced risk of uncertainty.
STOIIP calculation
From Reservoir geometry:
P
10
= 196 million STB
P
50
= 157 million STB
P
90
= 124 million STB

STOIIP calculation
From Material Balance:
(Based on no water influx)
P
10
= 200 million STB
P
50
= 152 million STB
P
90
= 123 million STB
36
Team Z Indy Oil
3.7. WELL PERFORMANCE
3.7.1. APPRAISAL WELL TESTING
Extended Production test
A one-year production test in well Z-1 was conducted to get a good indication of
STOIIP by using material balance. As demonstrated in figure R11, the oil has been produced
for 1 year with a cumulative production of 751,000 barrels and followed by a long period of
shut in. As a result of this test, the pressure depleted around 213 psi from the initial reservoir
with PI around 2.89. At the beginning of this test, the bottom hole pressure dropped rapidly by
286 psi in 21 days at the early stage of test. Moreover, the reservoir pressure didnt stabilize to
the initial reservoir pressure level (3713 psi), even if it has a long time shut in period (3
months). Therefore, the drive mechanism of this field seems to be depletion with no aquifer
support or very small support in this field.

Furthermore, the OIIP which was calculated by material balance is around 120-200
mSTB. This result is based on the fact that there is no water influx in the reservoir (see
appendix 10). The oil volume by MB equation shows a good consistency with the STOIIP
which was obtained from the volumetric calculation. Based on these results, it can be
concluded that this reservoir has no large fault to block the pressure disturbance in reservoir.
37
Team Z Indy Oil

Figure R11: The extended well test data
Drill Stem Test
DST has been conducted in well 2, 3, 5, and 7. The main results are shown in
appendix 11. It shows a wide range of productivity index from the different areas of reservoir.
Based on this summary table, the high PI zone is situated in the West area (Z-7) with
productivity index from 5-7 (appendix 12). This result shows a good consistency with the
geological study and the core analysis which indicated the high quality sand with high
permeability and porosity in this area. In addition, the no flow boundaries were suspected
around well Z-7 from build-up analysis in Pansystem software (see appendix 13). The fault
distance from the well test analysis is reasonably close to the big fault (unconformity
boundaries) which is situated in the Western area of the field.
However, the DST testing time from the other wells seemed to be very short period
(25-70 hrs.), resulting in no late time region observed in log-log derivative plot analysis.
Therefore, the well test analysis can only define the effective permeability, skin and average
reservoir pressure by semi-log plot in Build-up analysis (demonstrated in appendix 11). In
addition, the average pressure from the build up analysis is not really different from the initial
38
Team Z Indy Oil
pressure from the production test except for well Z-7. This is because the DST in well Z-7
was conducted after the pressure depletion from production test in well Z-1. Regarding this
result, it would be believed that the reservoir has a connection between these two areas.
Furthermore, by comparing with the static data from core analysis, the permeability which is
obtained from core analysis and well test appeared to be really different in well Z-7 (appendix
14) due to the high heterogeneity in the reservoir. However, this result supports the
assumption that the high permeability zone is situated in the West of the field around well Z-7
area.
Well test analysis of the Lower reservoir
Well test analysis from well Z-7 (west of the field) and log analysis indicated that
there is the another reservoir situated below at 10260-10400 ft (MD). From the DST analysis,
it seemed to be faults or no flow boundary situated in U-shaped around well Z-7. This well
has been test by DST and clearly showed the clean sand with higher permeability and porosity
than the upper reservoir.
Moreover, the radius of investigation calculated from the lower reservoir is around
900 ft. However, the volume of oil in place could not be identified by neither well testing nor
geological structure map because of the lack of data. Regarding the above reason, it appeared
difficult to include the lower reservoir in the simulation model and it will be treated as the
uncertainty. Therefore, it has been suggested that the well test should be conducted in this
area (Z-7) to confirm the reservoir drainage area before development or drill more wells to
gain the information from this reservoir: from the reservoir fluid analysis point of view, it is
showed that it would be possible to produce fluids from two zones at the same time as
commingled.
39
Team Z Indy Oil
3.7.2. Well flowing design
3.7.2.1. WellFlo Analysis
By using the WellFlo software, a good understanding of the relationship between the
inflow and outflow performance has been achieved, as well as the reservoir, the completion
and the well head conditions. Well flow behaviour simulation and performance of the Z field
have been done by using the WellFlo software and by modelling the outflow and inflow of the
appraisal wells.
The data collected from DST, cores, composite logs and fluid properties from wells Z-
2, Z-3, Z-5, and Z-7 were used to build a base model with a PI reflecting the field
characteristics. Getting the best match results with actual data was obtained from DST results.
The base model is then used to run different reservoir possible conditions (sensitivity studies).
3.7.2.1.1. Methodology
The WellFlo base-model was built by using the data available and with the
reconstruction of the DST string which was used for the testing of well Z-3. The further input
of the reservoir data is then used to tune the model and to make it match the actual well test
data. This base-case model is then studied with the modification of various parameters
(sensitivities) under different reservoir conditions. According to this study, it will be possible
to determine the behaviour and performance of new drilled wells anywhere in the reservoir
and under any conditions. The completion string can then be optimized, as well as the
configuration design and downhole completion (including perforations density, phase and
angle deviation, wellhead pressure and facilities options). In a later phase of the field life, the
lifting capacity will decrease along with well production due to the water cut increase;
flowing the well will therefore require artificial lift. Thanks to its availability, gas lifting will
be used rather than ESPs (as explained in the artificial lift section below).
40
Team Z Indy Oil
The correlation which gives the best match
results of the outflow from the base model is
Haggedorn and Brown. The model is then tuned
thanks to the modification of the L-factor, to
more precisely match the flow obtained from the
well test (as shown in appendix 15 and 16).

3.7.2.1.2. Sensitivities
3.7.2.1.2.1 Well head Pressure
By taking into account separator requirements, the optimum well head pressure is 250
psi. Figure P1 and appendix 17 below show the well head pressure sensitivity.
well head sensitivity
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
150 200 250 300 350 400 450
well head pressure psi
f
l
o
w

r
a
t
e

S
T
B
/
d
a
y

Figure P1: well head sensitivity
3.7.2.1.2.2 Well flow design
A generic model for the upper sand was developed with a reservoir thickness of 140ft.
It was assumed that wells will be drilled with zero formation damage thanks to the penetration
Upper
sand
Average PI , STB/D/PSI 7
Bo bbl/STB 1.2
Average layer pressure 3775
Average permeability, k md 130
Bubble point, psi 1100
Well radius, ft .6
Average thickness, ft 140
Viscosity Cp 1.3
41
Team Z Indy Oil
depth of perforations which should be enough to bypass the damaged zone. Furthermore,
reservoir pressure will be maintained above bubble point. Sensitivities were then generated
for various conditions: different tubing sizes, different deviation angles and different
perforations densities with various phases and penetration depths.
3.7.2.1.2.3 Perforations dimensions
As it is shown in the appendices 18, 19, 20, the best perforations density is 4 shots/ft
with a phase of 90 degrees. The penetration is 50 inches.
3.7.2.1.2.4 Tubing size
From WellFlow we can find that the highest production can be obtained from the 5.5
and 5 diameter tubing as shown in the figure P2 and appendices 21. It is interesting to note
that 5.5 is the most common and used tubing diameter in the North Sea area.
Tubing size sensitivity
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
1.99 2.5 3.5 2.9 4.044 4.89
Tubing inside diameter" inche"
f
l
o
w
r

r
a
t
e

S
T
B
/
d
a
y

Figure P2: Tubing size sensitivity



42
Team Z Indy Oil
3.7.2.1.2.5 Deviation
As it is shown in the figure P3 and appendix 22, the maximum production can be
achieved with an inclination up to 75. This inclination will give the best flow rates.
However the well deviation will be limited by the dip of the reservoir layers and by the
length of the deviated bath in the reservoir. Drilling the wells with a 60 inclination gives
adequate flow and also simplifies wireline logging and operations.
Deviation sensitivity
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
deviation angle "dgree"
f
l
o
w

r
a
t
e

S
T
B
/
d
a
y


Figure P3: Deviation angle sensitivity

3.7.2.1.2.6 Layer Pressure and Water Cut Variation
A 5.5 diameter tubing size and a 60 inclination will now be assumed. The table
below shows the prediction of the well performance under different pressures and the
maximum water cut which can be handled under these conditions. As we can see, if it is
assumed that the pressure will be maintained by pressure support both by water injection and
rock compressibility, the well will continue to flow at different water cuts as shown in table
P4 (and appendix 23) below. The economic rate is 500 STB/day with a water cut of 80%.

43
Team Z Indy Oil

Layer Pressure (psia)
Water Cut
(%) 3700 3600 3500 3400 3300 3200 3100 3000
0 4332 3947 3556 3156 2748 2331 1826 1031
10 3857 3486 3108 2718 2318 1907 1299 112
20 3371 3015 2650 2274 1887 1425 720 0
30 2886 2548 2202 1849 1488 957 0 0
40 2417 2101 1773 1436 1039 434 0 0
50 1947 1655 1351 1033 1033 0 0 0
60 1489 1227 954 636 600 0 0 0
70 1053 829 592 303 205 0 0 0
80 646 474 285 73 0 0 0 0
90 286 188 81 0 0 0 0 0
Table P4: Layer pressure vs Water cut
3.7.2.1.3. Artificial Lift Selection & Design
Due to the increase of water cut, natural reservoir energy will not be enough at some
point to lift the fluid to the surface and then to the surface facilities, in this case artificial lift is
needed according to location and reservoir parameters (such as pressure, oil API or GOR). It
will be suitable to consider the gas lift as the method of artificial lift rather than ESP
(electrical submersible pumps). Considering the fact that the field economic water cut is 65
%, artificial lift will be needed to enhance production at 40% water cut. Appendix 24 shows
gas lift design characteristics and operating conditions to produce liquid. For a liquid
production of 8293 bbl (4119 bbl /day of oil), a gas injection rate of 3mmscf/day is needed as
shown in appendix 25 and 26. Economic production rate water cut is then increased to 90% at
500 STB/day. And two dummy valves are to be installed and other accessories as contingency
plan when needed.
3.7.3. Wellbore Completion
As a result of drilling operations the casing of 95/8 will be set at TD, cemented and
perforated with a casing gun that will allow the selection of the flow zones (and avoid water
44
Team Z Indy Oil
zones when needed). The perforation penetration depth should be more than 50 inches with a
phase of 90 degrees to get the best performance as mentioned above. The completion
schematics are shown in appendix 27 and 28 for the wells which produce from the upper sand
and the wells which will produce from the two layers of sand (upper and lower sand as
present in well Z-7).
3.8. PRODUCTION ISSUES
3.8.1. Scaling Corrosion
The formation water has a high concentration of sodium ions and chloride cations
according to the samples of water extracted from the separator to identify scaling issues.
According to the chemical composition of formation water the type of scales anticipated are
calcium sulphates and barium sulphates. Furthermore, incompatibility between formation
water and injection sea water can be a source of scale creation. The table P5 below shows the
dissolved solids in the formation water. Scale Inhibitors should be injected when required to
prevent the scales from building up in the tubing and the production facilities so we can avoid
any tubing plug or flow restriction.
CATIONS ANIONS
Sodium 36.6 Chloride 59.6
Potassium 0.38 Sulphate 0.16
Calcium 1.2 Bicarbonate 1.26
Magnesium 0.38 Carbonate NIL
Barium 0.011 Hydroxide NIL
Strontium 0.29
Total iron 0.027
Total
dissolved
solids
(Mg/L) 76640
Dissolved
iron 0.000013 PH 7.5
Table P5: formation water dissolved solids
45
Team Z Indy Oil
3.8.2. Wax & Asphaltenes
To date, analysis of the wax and asphaltene shows that they are not present. The
operating temperature will be maintained high enough to avoid any formation of wax in the
surface facilities. Reservoir pressure will be kept constant to avoid any chance of asphaltine to
develop due to the pressure drop. In case of wax formation, inhibitors will be injected.
Therefore, inhibitor injection will be included in the production facilities (such as storage
tanks). The wax present in the tubing will be cleaned chemically with acid or mechanically
thanks to coiled tubing.
3.8.3. Sand Failure Prediction
The data obtained during the appraisal stage and from Basic Sediments & Water
(water cut analysis) measurements during DST show no sand production failure. Furthermore,
the cores suggest that the sand of the reservoir is consolidated. Usually the sand production
increases with high rates of production. It will not be the case in our study according to
simulation and well flow prediction of rate.
3.8.4. Corrosion
Corrosion is one of the problems expected during production operations. It would lead
to important costs due to the loss of down hole equipment, casing or surface facility as the
C02 dissolved in the water forms a strong acid and corrodes the steel. Moreover, H2S can
lead as well to metal loss by corrosion. This aspect will be monitored and corrosion inhibitors
will be injected when required. Coated or chrome tubing will avoid any work over to repair
corrosion failures. Monitoring logs can be run to check corrosion if necessary.
46
Team Z Indy Oil
3.9. RESERVOIR MODELLING APPROACH
3.9.1. Introduction
Regarding the simulation study, the scenarios will be selected to study the field
recovery efficiency. In addition, natural depletion, water flooding, and polymer flooding
development plan will be simulated. After that the effect of well position, number and type of
well (deviated and vertical) will be analyzed to construct the base case model. Then the
sensitivity analysis will be carried out to study the effects of recovery efficiency from the
reservoir uncertainty. Based on the results of these simulation studies, the development plan
will be determined with the most suitable scenario and field management. Moreover, the
production profile and field performance will be predicted for further history matching and
economic analysis. However, the data and information which were imported to the model
came from the appraisal stage. Therefore, an amount of assumptions were justified because of
incomplete data and lack of information. These assumptions lead to a lot of uncertainty in
reservoir simulation including the K
v
/K
h
ratio, porosity, and water and rock properties. To
reduce the risk of uncertainty, more data acquisitions are recommended including well testing,
core analysis and history matching to create the representative model in the future.
3.9.2. RESERVOIR MODELLING
Based on the undersaturated oil in the reservoir, the 2phase, 3-D Black Oil model
was used to simulate the area of reservoir by ECLIPSE100. Subsequently, the reservoir model
consists of 56x28x20 cells by grid corner point structure which was generated from PETREL.
In addition, the reservoir model has been created with a total area of 240 million square feet.
Furthermore, the model thickness varies from 70 ft to 650 ft, and thats only the upper
reservoir including the edge water in the East direction (see figure R12).
47
Team Z Indy Oil

Figure R12: Reservoir 3-D simulation model
3.9.2.1. BODY GEOMETRY AND STRUCTURE
The grid cell structures were generated from PETREL by using top structure map,
geological and log data. The top structure contour map is the upper delimitation of the sand
body (correctly adjusted thanks to the definition of horizons corresponding to the sand tops
detected in the logs). The lower delimitation of the sand body is taken from the same contour
map but shifted downwards and adjusted with the definition of the sand bottoms detected in
the logs. In a first step the whole system is finely gridded (1,693,440 cells). The properties are
then distributed in the model thanks to the logs interpretation. A coarser grid is then created
(31,600 cells) and is used for the properties upscaling from the fine scaled grid (see section
below on upscaling). The vertical transmissibility still is the uncertainty in this reservoir. It
will be treated as an uncertainty and will need a sensitivity analysis.
3.9.2.2. PROPERTY MODELLING
The properties in each grid cells including permeability, porosity and saturation water
were created and distributed from log data and reservoir fluid analysis. All properties are in
field units. In addition, the relative permeability and capillary pressure curves were obtained
N
48
Team Z Indy Oil
from the special core analysis in well Z-7. The relative permeability tables were grouped
together in the same type of rock, resulting in two rel-perm tables which were used in
simulation model (see appendix 29). In addition, from Craigs rule of thumb, this reservoir
shows the main characteristic of being oil wet so that a drainage behavior is expected with the
water injection mechanism.
In terms of capillary pressure, the J-function was used, creating the one dimensionless
P
c
curve for generating P
c
in each grid cell (see appendix 30). Moreover, the ENDSCALE
keyword was used to scale the properties such as relative permeability by using end points
scaling method. However, all properties, obtained from special core analysis, come only from
well Z-7. Therefore, it would be suggested to gain more data and information from the other
wells to reduce property uncertainties and risk.
Throughout the simulation process, the reservoir pressure is assumed to never
decrease below the bubble point pressure with constant temperature, resulting in no gas
coming out of the solution in the reservoir. Thus, the gas production can be calculated by
GOR which is obtained from fluid properties analysis. The property used in the simulation
model is shown in table R13 below.







Table R13: Properties used in simulation model
Reservoir properties Oil Properties
Average temperature, F 175 Density, lb/ft
3
43
Initial Pressure, psia 3770 Boi, rb/STB 1.17
OWC, ft (TVD) 8850 GOR, scf/STB 224
Water Properties Viscosity, CP 0.97-1.23
Density, lb/ft
3
65.8 Bubble point pressure, psia 1122
Bwi, rb/STB 1.02 Rock properties
Viscosity, CP 0.4 Cr, psi
-1
7.50E-06
Cw, psi
-1
2.46E-06
49
Team Z Indy Oil
3.9.2.3. UPSCALING
The fine grid model had 1,693,440 cells which have been reduced to 56x28x20 cells
i.e. 31600 blocks for saving simulation run time. As previously mentioned, the properties for
the coarse grid are upscaled from the properties distributed in the fine scale grid (these
properties have been distributed according to the statistical repartition of the interpreted
petrophysical values from the logs). The upscaling method used here is the geometric
average because of the heterogeneous repartition of rocks: this repartition gets close to a
random correlated repartition; therefore the average tends to be geometric. The upscaled
model only represented the upper reservoir because of lack of information in the lower part.
3.9.3. SIMULATION MODELS
3.9.3.1. INITIALIZATION
The model has been initialized with a capillary pressure = 0 psi at the oil water contact
(8850 ft TVD). In addition, the saturation water properties in grid cells were depending on the
capillary pressures which are generated by keyword EQUIL in ECLIPSE simulation. The
datum pressure, 8500 ft (TVD) was set at 3770 psia. And the oil in place has been set at 140
million barrels with no gas cap in the reservoir. The initialization properties table is shown
below.

Datum, ft TVD Pi at Datum, psia OWC, ft TVD Pc at OWC, psia Oil in place, mmbbls
Reservoir initial conditions 8500 3770 8850 0 140
Table R14: The initialized parameter in simulation model
3.9.3.2. WELL MODEL
All wells were set up with the tubing 0.67 ft for both producers and injectors. The area
near wellbore were assumed as zero-skin, based on the low skin factor from well test. The
location of the new wells tended to be drilled at the high PI zone near the appraisal well Z-7.
50
Team Z Indy Oil
However, not only the producer locations but also the injector locations which control the
good effective displacement have to be concerned. Thus, the well location experiment was
analyzed to compare between the edge water injection and the extra injectors in the middle
field. Furthermore, the benefits of horizontal well were analyzed by comparing with the
vertical well. The criterion which was used to justify our choice was not only the incremental
oil production but also the technical and economic issues which should be taken into account.
Regarding the water flooding and other scenarios, the appraisal wells were used as
injectors and producers for saving costs and rig time. However, new wells seem to be
necessary to achieve high production and economic rate. Based on the assumption that the
reservoir will be produced above the bubble point pressure, all wells were controlled by the
bottom-hole pressure (1,200 psia), whereas the injectors were limited at 12,000 psia to keep
reservoir pressure constant. The production wells tend to be perforated in the upper zone to
avoid early water breakthrough.
3.9.3.3. FAULT MODEL
Concerning the faults in reservoir, the model was created based on no big fault which
would block the pressure connectivity, although some faults were observed in the seismic
interpretation and well test analysis. This is because the production test indicated the good
lateral connectivity along the field. Thus, by integrating geological and well test data, this
field was assumed that it does not have big fault situated in the reservoir and the fault model
was ignored in the model simulation.
3.10. SIMULATION RESULTS AND MAIN SENSITIVITIES
3.10.1. RECOVERY MECHANISM
The recovery method of natural depletion, water flooding, and polymer flooding have
been investigated with the simulation model. First, natural depletion plan had only 5
51
Team Z Indy Oil
producers. Secondly, the water drive mechanism consisted of 5 injectors and 5 producers
which mainly produced in the high PI area. Since polymer flooding is more expensive than
water drive, this case was investigated by using 3 injectors and 5 producers in the reservoir. In
addition, the well positions of three recovery mechanisms are shown in figure R15.






Figure R15: Well positions in three recovery mechanisms

Based on production test analysis, the reservoir tends to have no aquifer or very small
aquifer support. Thus, the production by natural depletion drive appeared to be the least
attractive. As depicted in figure R16, by simulation study, the natural depletion scenario had a
recovery factor of just above 10 percent after 4,000 days whereas the recovery efficiency in
the water flooding case increased by more than 38% during the same period. This result had
shown that the reservoir needs some pressure maintenance even at the early stage of
production. However, the recovery factor from the polymer injection was not better than the
one for water flooding as expected. This is because not only the pressure support is an
important parameter for improving the recovery efficiency but also the sweep efficiency that
has to be improved to achieve the ultimate recovery.
Polymer flooding

52
Team Z Indy Oil

Figure R16: Recovery factor simulated by three recovery scenarios.
3.10.2. DRAINAGE PLAN AND WELL LOCATION
According to the above summary, water flooding seems to be the most effective plan
to produce oil in the reservoir. However, the wells location and drainage plan should be
carefully studied; because not only the suitable drainage by producer is an important factor to
achieve the ultimate oil recovery production but also the sweep efficiency influenced by the
injector. Therefore, two drainage patterns and their effect on the recovery factor have been
investigated. These patterns are described in details as following.
Pattern A
This is the base case study for water flooding pattern. It consists of 10 wells, 5
producers and 5 injectors. In addition, six appraisal wells were used as producer and injector.
As shown in figure R17, there are four new wells requiring to be drilled: 1 injector and 3
production wells. All the new producers were drilled in the high productivity area which was
indicated by well test analysis. The new injection well helps to improve the sweep front from
the water edge to the west side area of the reservoir.
53
Team Z Indy Oil

Figure R17: the well location from pattern A

Pattern B
This drainage pattern consists of 8 wells (4 producers and 4 injectors). The new two
injected wells were drilled at the edge of water to get good sweep efficiency. All the
production wells were located on the West side area to prevent early water breakthrough as
shown in figure R18.


Figure R18: the well location from pattern B


54
Team Z Indy Oil
Comparison
After the simulation study, the pattern A appeared to be the most effective and has
been selected as the base case for sensitivity study. In addition, this case has the following
benefits:
- Higher production rate and recovery efficiency,
- A number of wells were penetrating the high PI zone in which the lower reservoir is
located, giving the opportunity to produce fluid from the two zones,
- There is an injection well in the west of the center area, resulting in better pressure
support for the entire field,
- All of the conventional wells were used as injection or production wells which
allowed to make savings on the drilling costs,
- Reduced risk of connectivity if some faults isolate the western area from the other
parts of reservoir.
3.10.3. SENSITIVITIES
K
v
/K
h

The upper reservoir in the Z-field is described as a very heterogeneous structure. It
quite often contains zones of cemented rocks. The vertical transmissibility appeared to be the
unknown parameter for this reservoir. By sensitivity analysis, the base case model has been
justified as low vertical transmissibility with K
v
/K
h
ratio of 0.4. The wide ranges of K
v
/K
h

ratio were used from 0.01 to 1.00 to analyze the effect of vertical transmissibility.
By using a low K
v
/K
h
, the recovery factor seems to be better than high K
v
/K
h
ratio.
The recovery efficiency was changed by 1% from the original recovery factor. However, for
the K
v
/K
h
of 0.01, the recovery factor dropped by 4% from the base case since the vertical
sweep efficiency was ignored in this case. In conclusion, the vertical transmissibility has only
a minor impact on the ultimate recovery in the model.
55
Team Z Indy Oil
Porosity
The porosity in the model was generated from logs and core properties distribution in
PETREL. This process resulted in the uncertainty issue because of the heterogeneity of
reservoir. The sensitivity analysis was simulated by varying the porosity of 15% from the
base case. As a result, the lower porosity appeared to have higher recovery efficient. The
recovery factor varied between 11% from the original case. This is because the water will
break through very early in the high porosity case. Therefore, porosity seemed to have a
significant effect on the field oil recovery.
Rock compressibility
The rock compressibility which obtained from the special core analysis was justified
as an uncertainty since this property was observed only in well Z-7. The property distribution
from well Z-7 to the whole reservoir was assumed to be a layered distribution, although this
assumption appeared to be impossible in heterogeneous reservoir. By using C
r
= 7.5x10
-6
in
the base case, the impact on rock compressibility was studied by used Cr from 4 x10
-6
to 10
x10
-6
psi
-1
. As a consequence of this analysis, the rock compressibility has a small effect on
the recovery factor. In addition, its effect was only of 2% from the reference case.
Water viscosity
The water viscosity is one of the most important parameters for mobility ratio
calculation. The water analysis data was obtained from only well Z-5. However, no water
viscosity information was found. Thus, the water viscosity would be assumed in the range of
2x10
-6
6x10
-6
psi
-1
(reference case = 4x10
-6
psi
-1
). During the sensitivity analysis, the results
showed that the higher viscosity will increase the recovery efficiency (just above 8% change).
Due to the simulation result, it can be implied that water viscosity has an important influence
in the recovery factor. Because the high water viscosity will increase the mobility ratio which
improves the oil mobility in reservoir.
56
Team Z Indy Oil

Figure R19: Sensitivity analysis results
3.11. ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLANS CONSIDERED
The results presented below are compared with the base case (Pattern A) as described
in drainage plan above.
a) Six production wells
A new producer was added from the base case in the West side of reservoir to increase
production (see figure R20 below). The injector pattern is still the same as Pattern A.

Figure R20: Six production wells development plan

57
Team Z Indy Oil
b) Deviated wells
Concerning the technical issues of drilling, three vertical wells which were situated in
the vicinity seem to be a problem in technical terms because the drilling slot prefers to be
fixed at some place rather than be moved every time as a new well is drilled. Thus, this
development plan tried to fix the slot in the P2 area. And then drill the P3 and P5 as deviated
wells along the edge of the reservoir as shown in figure R21 below. Regarding the benefits of
deviated wells, the production performance will be improved because of the changes in pipe
length and drainage shape.

Figure R21: Fix slot platform and two deviated wells

As a result of the simulation study, the recovery factor prediction simulated from
alternative development plan is shown in figure R22 below. Based on model simulation, the
horizontal wells showed a little increase in recovery factor of more than 4% whereas the
recovery factor in 6 production wells case rise above 38% in 4,000 days.
58
Team Z Indy Oil

Figure R22: Alternative development plan comparison
However, the cost of deviated well will be more expensive than for vertical wells and
take a higher risk. Consequently, the economic and drilling issues need to be considered
together to find the optimum length for the ultimate recovery factor during the production
period.
Sensitivity Analysis :
As a result from the alternative plan, the deviated well plan seemed to be the most
attractive plan due to the high recovery factor and the technical feasibility. However, the
drainage area and deviated well performance are different from the vertical wells scenario. So
the sensitivity analysis need to be studied with the same uncertainty as with the vertical wells
scenario, especially with the K
v
/K
h
ratio which has more impact on recovery factor than for
vertical wells. In addition, the deviated well as shown in figure R23 was used as base case for
the sensitivity analysis.
As demonstrated in figure R23, the sensitivity analysis showed the same result as the vertical
wells case. However, in the lowest Kv/Kh of 0.01, the recovery factor was still increased
which is different from the vertical well case. In conclusion, the Kv/Kh ratio uncertainty still
has a minor effect on the recovery factor in deviated well plan.
59
Team Z Indy Oil

Figure R23: Deviated well sensitivity analysis










4. DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
4.1. ECONOMICS AND FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.1.1. GENERAL
With Indy Oil North Sea strategy directed towards exploration opportunities and
maximizing utilization of core infrastructures, the economic strategy for Z field should lead to
a cost-effective development plan that will maximize the recovery from the reservoir and
bring oil to the market as soon as possible. Although the field has been appraised sufficiently

Figure R24: FOPR vs time for deviated wells
60
Team Z Indy Oil
for development, delineation of the upper reservoir in the southwest and size of the lower
reservoir are unknown so any development strategy needs to be able to cope with additional
capacity. In addition to the financial aspect, the criteria used to select the best field
development scenario were the strategy and the goals of Indy Oil, the inherent risks of each
plan and the experience of our peers in the nearby fields.
4.1.2. INDY OIL COMPANY PORTFOLIO
Indy oil is a Canadian company with operations on six continents. Indy Oil engages in
the upstream and midstream of the petroleum Industry. Its upstream activities involve oil and
gas exploration, production and development. The mainstream activities include pipeline
transportation. UK and Canada activities are the key portfolios of Indy Oil. Indy Oil project
portfolio management has recently shifted from the previous mature assets acquisitions
towards high exploration-impact, and geographical spreading with opportunities in South-east
Asia.
4.1.3. TIE-BACK TO THE CLAIR FIELD (BP)
For deep water marginal field, tieback to nearby processing facilities whenever
possible is usually one of the economic viable options to develop marginal field. We then
considered the possibility of process our fluids from CLAIR platform. The processing
capacity of CLAIR platform is detailed in the table E1 below:
Processing Capacity:
Oil ('000 b/d) 100
Gas (mmcfd) 50
Water ('000 b/d) 100
*Courtesy of Wood Mackenzie
Table E1: Clair Processing Capacity
61
Team Z Indy Oil
The present Phase I of Clair production has a plateau of less than half of its capacity.
A second phase development is currently being considered, and the production was
anticipated for around 2014 with uncertainties surrounding that phase. Conceptual studies
were due to begin in the third quarter of 2008, and possible development scenarios include a
further one or two major steel platforms. In this situation, we have considered beginning
negotiations with BP, as they presently have free capacity and our production would start to
decline in 2014. The subsea template tied back to the CLAIR Platform was the most attractive
development scenario giving an NPV of Can$505.64 millions. With water depth of 300m, the
alternatives were limited to floating facilities (FPSO and TLP). They were also considered,
TLP was not economically viable for this marginal field while leasing a FPSO gave a good
NPV (Can$400 millions) but still lesser than tieback. Equally, the FPSO development plan
would lead to field abandonment 2 years earlier. A close look into the PVT data of CLAIR
field showed that oil from CLAIR is of less good quality and will downgrade our own. To
compensate for that, the processing tariff should be negotiated with this in mind.
4.2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN, RESERVES AND PRODUCTION
PROFILES
4.2.1. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4.2.1.1. Base case Development plan
5 Producers - 1 new vertical, 2 new deviated, and 2 from appraisal wells
5 Injectors - 1 new vertical and 4 from appraisal wells
Different scenarios were considered for surface production facilities configuration.
Due to the small size of our field and from an economic point of view, the decision was to tie-
back to the nearby field (Clair field) 22 km away. The plan is to tie all production wells to one
central cluster and transport the production fluids to the Clair field through pipelines.
62
Team Z Indy Oil
Similarly with water injection wells, the water will be imported from the Clair field through a
pipeline connected to the injection wells cluster.
The J. W. McLean semisubmersible rig will be used to drill all the new wells. Four
new wells will be drilled: one injector and three produces. In addition, six appraisal wells
were used as injectors and producers (see figure DVP1).

Figure DVP1: Five producers and five injectors position in the field development plan

The project will start on 1
st
of January when the rig will be on location (Figure DVP2
below gives an overview of the sequence and timing of the development plan). At the
beginning, one vertical injection well (INJ4) will be drilled along the water contact to
maintain good pressure support. Once INJ4 is ready, the water will be injected through all
injection wells (1-5). At the same time, the production will start from wells P1 and P4. Then
the rig will be moved to drill the other three wells from a subsea cluster which can
accommodate four wells. All these three wells will be used as production wells [P5 deviated,
P2 vertical well and P3 deviated]. The deviated wells will enter the production zone at 60
degrees [as explained in the production technology section]. P5 will be drilled first followed
by P2 and finally P3. The production of each well will directly start once its drilling is
63
Team Z Indy Oil
completed. By this stage all the injectors and producers will run simultaneously. This is the
plateau phase in the production profile which will last for around 1600 days. In the next
phase, two injection wells [INJ1 & INJ3] will be shut and one production well [P1] will be
converted into injection well. In the final phase in the project, the injection well [INJ4] will
be shut and P4 will be converted from producer to injector. This final phase will last for
approximately 1400 days.

Figure DVP2: Development plan and drilling program
4.2.2. RESERVES
The range of recovery factors are indicative of the range in sweep efficiency and
residual hydrocarbon saturations and are derived probabilistically from detailed reservoir
simulation studies. In addition, the appropriate reserves and properties are used together in
order to calculate the highest and lowest case for comparing with the expected case (base case
model). The range of oil and gas production from various simulation models were shown in
Table DVP3.

64
Team Z Indy Oil
Low (P90) Exp(P50) High(P10)
Oil recovery factor, % 32 39.5 42
Oil Production total, STB 44.4x10
6
54.9x10
6
59.1x10
6

Gas Production total, scf 9.77x10
9
12.08x10
9
13.00x10
9

Table DVP3: the ranges of recovery factor from model simulation
4.2.3. PRODUCTION PROFILES
The production profiles (Low, Most Likely, and High) in the development plan were
demonstrated in figure DVP4. These production profiles were simulated based on the
assumption that the economic limit rate is 2,000 bopd. In addition, all of these models were
simulated by using water flooding recovery since the simulation analysis showed that this
reservoir has not enough pressure to support to produce by itself. Moreover, the gas
production were calculated by GOR (220 scf/stb) and oil production volume.

Figure DVP4: Production profiles for field development plan
Based on the economic production rate, the low case can be produced for 4,000 days
whereas the expected and high cases were predicted around 4,500 and 5,000 days
respectively.
65
Team Z Indy Oil
4.2.4. WATER INJECTION POTENTIAL
Regarding the assumption that the reservoir has no aquifer support, the water injection
seems to be required at the beginning of the production stage. In order to maintain the
reservoir pressure above bubble point, the water injection rate profiles were determined by
simulation studies as depicted in figure DVP5.

Figure DVP5: Field water injection rate profiles
The benefit of the water injection is the pressure support to keep the reservoir pressure
above bubble point. In fact, the water drive could improve the sweep efficiency and recovery
factor as shown in reservoir simulation section. However, there is a risk that the water will
break through the producers in the early stage of production. To solve this problem,
perforation depths have to be accordingly designed. The perforation depths in all injectors
tend to inject water at the lower part of the reservoir in order to increase the sweep efficiency,
while the producers are designed to be perforated in the upper part to prevent the early water
breakthrough. In conclusion, by reservoir simulation and economic evaluation, the water
injection is required in order to achieve the ultimate recovery in this field.
66
Team Z Indy Oil
4.3. FIELD MANAGEMENT PLAN (FMP)
The objective of the FMP is to manage and develop the individual reservoirs so as to
maximise the economic ultimate recovery factor. To achieve this objective, this project will
try to improve and maintain the overall company and working performance by following
Field development best practice. Moreover, the environment will be conserved and
protected during all the activities.
In order to ensure that the development plan will be successful, the plan will be
updated and reviewed annually. Moreover, by using multidiscipline integration such as
geology, reservoir simulation and well testing, the plan will be improved to ensure the
optimum development. In addition, the flexibility of the development plan makes it prepared
for further opportunities of new technology and development.
4.3.1. UNCERTAINTY MANAGEMENT.
The uncertainties for Z-field which are addressed by the Field Management plan are:
1. Reservoir heterogeneity
2. Faults and reservoir compartmentalisation
3. Deposition of the turbidites
4. Reservoir fluid properties
5. Size of the lower reservoir
4.3.1.1. Reservoir Heterogeneity
As it is mentioned previously, one of the reservoir main uncertainties lies in its vertical
permeability: the core images display zones highly cemented by calcite. However, what is not
known is the size of these zones: are they just boulders or are they spread out in large sheets
(see figure G3 below)? The vertical permeability will be highly affected by these zones and
by their layout: normal vertical permeability if the cemented zones are boulders, small one if
67
Team Z Indy Oil
the cemented zones are continuous sheets. Since the reservoir will be drained by two long
deviated wells, the risk of early water breakthrough can be reduced by completing the wells in
the crestal part of the reservoir (as shown in figure DVP1). In addition, the full shut-off of the
branch or wells can be used if required.

Figure G3: Effects of cemented zones on vertical permeability
4.3.1.2. Faults and reservoir compartmentalisation
According to the seismic shot interpretation (and precision), it is possible to determine
several faults within the reservoir. The smaller faults are almost impossible to detect with
seismic because of the resolution scale. How the presence of faults in the reservoir will affect
its quality in terms of permeability? Well testing results give us a more precise idea of their
distance to the well. However, it does not give any clue on the size or the direction of these
faults (see well testing section). In order to reduce this uncertainty, the producers and injectors
are put in the center and West side of field instead of only at the edge of the oil water contact.
Thus, it can be ensured that the reservoir will have enough pressure support even if some
faults are effectively present in the field.
4.3.1.3. Deposition of the turbidites
It is possible to infer the distribution of the different properties according to how the
turbidite has been deposited. Furthermore, the distance from the source of deposition is an
indication of the sorting of the rocks: bigger boulders will tend to stay near the source of
68
Team Z Indy Oil
deposition whereas smaller grains (sand, silt, mud) will be distributed further. The uncertainty
here is how it is possible to relate this sorting with the quality of the reservoir. Based on this
uncertainty, the multidiscipline integration will be required such as well test and reservoir
simulation, in order to select the most appropriate well position to achieve the ultimate
recovery.
4.3.1.4. Reservoir fluid properties
As mentioned in the reservoir fluid section, the uncertainties of the fluid properties
come from the heterogeneity of reservoir and lack of information. For example, the SCAL
which showed the relative permeability and capillary pressure curves come from only one
well which could not use correctly as representative for the whole reservoir. To reduce this
uncertainty, more data from the other wells need to be gathered and analyzed. Moreover, the
simulation model is required to update the fluid properties by data from the other wells and
history matching.
4.3.1.5. Size of the lower reservoir
Well test analysis from well Z-7 (western part of the field) and log analysis indicated
that there is the another reservoir situated below the main one at 10260-10400 ft (MD). From
the DST analysis, there seems to be faults or no flow boundaries situated in a U-shape around
well Z-7. This well has been test by DST and clearly showed a clean sand with higher
permeability and porosity than the upper reservoir. However, the volume of oil in place could
not be identified neither by well testing nor by geological structure map because of the lack of
data. Regarding the above reason, it appeared to be difficult to consider the lower reservoir in
the simulation model and it will be treated as the uncertainty. Therefore, it has been suggested
that another well test should be conducted in this area (Z-7) to confirm the reservoir drainage
area before development. Furthermore it would be suggested to drill the new wells deeper and
69
Team Z Indy Oil
conduct the test to gain the information from this area. Reservoir fluid analysis showed that it
would be possible to produce fluids from two zones at the same time as commingled which
should increase the production rate of the field.
4.3.2. Workover, Re-entry and sidetrack potential
The main uncertainty in re-entering the old wells is the well path of the appraisal wells
because the drilling surveying has not been conducted for all the appraisal wells. This may
lead to drilling through the casing and thus going out of the track. Therefore, it is essential to
monitor the ROP all the time during the drilling phase.
4.3.3. Artificial Lift
If the production performance of the Z-field indicates that there is no aquifer support
or very small aquifer. It is possible to use the artificial lift i.e. gas lift or ESPs in the wells
located within high PI area. After investigation, both gas lift and ESP were not required in the
base case. Because water flooding can support the pressure in the reservoir and keep it above
bubble point pressure. However, these artificial lift can be used to extend the production
period when the field water cut exceeds 70% but this will have to be justified by economic
evaluation.
4.4. Further data gathering
Seismic information More seismic data is required from the other area of Z-field,
especially the West area which consists of three producers. The seismic interpretation will
give more understanding about well connectivity and avoid the uncertainty of faults.
Open-Hole Logging Intermediate logging will be performed in the first injection
well (INJ4) and production well (P2) to gain more data about the upper and lower reservoir.
In addition both producer and injector will be logged with a conventional logging suite
including calliper/ density/ neutron and resistivity tools.
70
Team Z Indy Oil
The special core analysis the appraisal well had a large core data in order to cover
the main reservoir area. However, the special core analysis including rel-perm and capillary
pressure table were obtained from only one well (Z-7). Thus more SCAL are required for the
other well to cover the main reservoir area and reduce the uncertainty due to heterogeneity of
the reservoir.
Rate Measurements The production test should be conducted in well P2 in order to
confirm the connectivity of the lower and upper reservoir. Moreover, the size of the lower
reservoir should be indicated for the further development plan. During the production phase,
well tests will be carried out to monitor production rate, and water cut for all wells. It is
proposed that early in the accumulation life each producer is tested once per month over a 12
hour period. This testing frequency and duration may be revised once the production
performance of each well has been established.
Bottom Hole Pressure Measurements Permanent bottom hole pressure gauges
with continuous data transmission will be used in all producers. Gauges can measure valuable
early information of reservoir performance and will reduce the initial requirements for BHP
surveys. It is expected that the surveys data will be gathered for material balance calculation
and model history matching.
Leak-off test/ Formation test - In drilling, the pressure profiles can be considered as
main uncertainties since that formation pressure and the leak off test has been conducted in
well 3 only (appraisal well). Moreover, there is no indication of the overpressure zones from
the mud logs of the appraisal wells. This is because there are not enough data to confirm such
zones. These uncertainties could lead to kick and thus unexpected intervention (killing
operations). In order to reduce such uncertainties, it is required to conduct more leakage test
in the new wells. In addition it is important to keep an eye on the early kick indications.
Laboratory Test More fluid samples should be tested from the new wells to
determine the PVT properties and water analysis.
71
Team Z Indy Oil
Conclusion: The Field Management Plan and testing programme as stated above are
used for providing the flexibility in order to achieve the maximum recovery efficiency in Z-
field.
4.4.1. MANAGEMENT OF RESERVES RANGE
There is an imperfect knowledge of the size of the lower reservoir unit and the edge of
the South of the reservoir upper unit. The development plan has mapped out to tackle those
uncertainties as soon as possible. The drilling phase will start by delineating the south side of
the reservoir, and then followed by the lower reservoir unit in the North West.
The uncertainties inherent to volume of oil in place have been addressed technically
and economically. In case the reservoir coming in bigger than expected reserves, the main
challenge is the water injection pumping rate as there is enough free capacity at Clair platform
to process our flow stream. Therefore, a financial provision has been made to upgrade the
Clair platform pumping capability. Equally, the downside risk of having less oil has also been
studied, and as a result the field required to be abandoned earlier. In conclusion, subsea tie-
back offers protection against the downside and upside risk of volume of oil in place.
4.5. DRILLING FACILITIES
4.5.1. OVERVIEW
The mud logs of the appraisal wells show that the field has a formation pressure
gradient of 0.446 psi which is close to the normal pressure (0.465 psi/ft). The pressure
gradient in the reservoir is 0.499 psi/ft. From the leak off test the fracture pressure gradient is
between 0.728-0.754 psi/ft. There is no indication of any overpressured zone. Moreover, there
are no major faults existing in the field. This makes the drilling program of the field less
complex as it will be shown in the following sections. Some parts of the drilling program
72
Team Z Indy Oil
follow the common configuration of the North Sea offshore drilling programs (this will be
pointed where required). [Note the drilling schedule has been illustrated in the field
development plan figure DVP2 and appendix 37].
4.5.2. RIG SELECTION
The new wells will be drilled from semi-submersible rig. The J. W. McLean
semisubmersible rig (figure D1) is chosen for drilling since it meets the main required
specifications (Table D2) such as rating of water depth, pumps, hoisting system, BOPS etc.
The water depth of the field is about 990 ft which is met by the rig specification (1500 ft
WD). The derrick can withstand weights higher than the maximum weight expected to be
exerted on the rig which is about 500,000 lb (weight of the production casing including the
pull off margin). Appendix 31 shows the full specification of the J W McLean rig. The
average day rate is $304,477.27. The drilled wells will be tied back to the subsea manifold
once it is completed and production will start directly.

Figure D1 : J. W. McLean semisubmersible



Max Drill Depth 25,000 ft / 7,620 m
Max Water Depth 1,250 ft / 381 m
Derrick Lee C. Moore 180 ft. dynamic derrick with 40 ft.
x 40 ft. base. Rated 1,300,000 lbs. gross nominal
capacity, with 1,000,000 lb. hook load capacity
with (12) lines.
BOP Cameron Type U Model II, 18 in., 10,000 psi
Riser Tensioners 8 - Rucker Shaeffer MRT's each with (2) 40 ft.
line travel x 80,000 lbs. tensioners, total 640,000
lbs.
Table D2: J.W.McLean specifications
73
Team Z Indy Oil
4.5.3. PRESSURE PROFILE AND MUD PROGRAM
From appraisal mud logs, the formation pressure gradient above the reservoir is 0.446
psi/ft and the fracture formation gradient is 0.754 psi/ft. The formation pressure changes once
the cap rock is reached, at around 7900 ft (RKB), to 0.499 psi/ft whereas the fracture pressure
gradient is 0.728 psi/ft until the bottom of the reservoir [indicated in figure D3]. There is no
indication of any over pressured zone from the appraisal mud logs. However, there are some
shale zones above the reservoir. Based on the mud logs and the leak off test available from the
appraisal wells, the mud weight has been calculated including the overbalance pressure of 200
psi [figure D3]. See mud weight calculation in appendix 32.

Figure D3: Pressure Profile
74
Team Z Indy Oil
4.5.4. WELL CONTROL
Each well will be controlled by 18 inch and 10,000 psia BOP single stack system.
This configuration is commonly used in the North Sea. W J Mclean contains such
configuration [see appendix 31]. Since the maximum pressure which might be experienced at
the surface occurs during an influx of around 4000 psi, the 10,000 psia working pressure of
BOP is more than sufficient to control the well safely. Leak-off test will be conducted at each
casing shoe to gather more information about the fracture pressure, and then to avoid any
possible fracture during the cementing operation. In the case of a kick experienced, one
circulation method will be conducted because of its simplicity and quickness. Sufficient
quantity of barite will be available for increasing the density of the mud (kill mud).
4.5.5. FLUID SELECTION
The major factors which influence the process of selecting the drilling fluid are the
type of the formation (geological section), drilling performance and the related environmental
issues. Based on such factors, Seawater, WBM and High performance water based drilling
fluids (HPWBM) will be used with the additives for drilling the wells of Z field. Polymers
will be added to the seawater in order to increase its viscosity to drill the 36 and 26 hole
sections. The drilling solids will be controlled by using de-silters [comes with the M J
McLean]. The next hole section (17 ) will be drilled using WBM which is the most
preferable in terms of cost and environmental considerations. Since some shale will be
encountered in drilling 17 section, KCL polymer which is used to minimise the problems
associated while drilling through shale sections. The ph level of the mud will be maintained
by adding bentonite and soda. In order to control the fluid loss, clay will be added. The final
hole section (12 ) will be drilled by using HPWBM which can reduce formation damage
caused by the drilling fluid and it will give better cementing job. Since, it is expected that H
2
S
75
Team Z Indy Oil
is present in the reservoir; NaOH will be added to the mud. Table D4 shows a summary of
drilling fluids and the major additives which will be used.
Depth (ft)
RKB
Hole size Drilling
Fluid
Additives Remarks
0 36'' Seawater Polymers Unconsolidated formations
at shallow depths
700
1300 26''
4700 17 1/2'' WBM KCL polymer Shaley zones
7850 12 1/4''
7900 HPWBM NaOH, betonite and soda Reservoir section, presence
of H2S
8900
10300

Table D4: Drilling Fluids and Additives
4.5.6. BIT SELECTION
The main objectives of bit selection are minimizing the drilling time (maximize the
ROP) and keeping the number of trips as low as possible. In order to meet these objectives,
the drilling bits should be selected carefully. The essential elements to be considered in bit
selection are the formation type of the drilled hole and the cost. For the shallow soft formation
(36 hole), a roller cone bits with long, thin and widely spaced teeth (preventing bit balling)
will be used. In 26 hole section, the formations are less soft with some of shale zones.
Therefore, shorter and wider teeth bits are required and so, roller cone bits with insert bits will
be implemented. In the next two hole sections (17 & 12 ), consolidated formation are
encountered and since the operating costs of offshore are high, the PDC bits will be used.
PDC bits provides long bit runs and high ROP, which both are important in the longest
sections (17 & 12 hole section) of the well, which will reduce the number of trips
required and thus minimize the drilling time (which is very important in areas of high
operating costs). Table D5 summaries the bit selection of each hole section.

76
Team Z Indy Oil
Hole () TVD (ft) RKB Bit Type Formation Type
36 700 Roller Cone (milled tooth) Soft formation
26 1300 Roller Cone (insert bit) Moderately hard formation
17 4700 PDC Hard Formation
12 8900 PDC Hard Formation
Table D5: Bit selection
4.5.7. CASING DESIGN
There are three main processes which have been followed in the casing design. The
first step was to determine the casing sizes and the setting depths which depend on the hole
section conditions (formation type). For the surface and intermediate casing strings, the
maximum pressures that can be encountered while drilling which might occur when
circulating out a gas influx has been calculated and compared with the fracture formation
pressure to determine the shallowest depth at which the casing can be set safely. The second
step in the casing design was the definition of the operational scenarios which leads to burst,
collapse and axial loads being applied to the casing. The design scenario which was
considered for collapse of casing is when the casing is fully evacuated due to lost circulation
whilst drilling whereas for burst is when the well is closed in after a gas kick. Finally, the
appropriate weight and grade of casing has been selected after calculation of burst, collapse &
axial loads [see appendix 33]. For the Surface casing API connection will be used because
there are no high pressures expected in the shallow formations. H
2
S is expected to present in
the 17 and 12 hole sections, thus the casing grade L-80 with VAM connection has
been chosen to withstand H
2
S and high pressures. Table D6 presents the casing data which
will be used for the Z field. These data has been derived by the casing design process which
has been mentioned. Appendix D shows the casing schematic diagram.


77
Team Z Indy Oil
Hole
size (in) Casing
OD
(in)
Set Depth
TVD (ft)
RKB Grade
Nominal
Weight
(lbs/ft) Connections Remarks
36 Conductor 30 700 K-55 106.3 API
seal off unconsolidated
formations at shallow depths
26 Surface 20 1300 K-55 106.3 API
seal off any fresh water sands,
and support the wellhead and
BOP Equipment.
17 Intermediate
13
3/8 4700 L-80 72 VAM
isolate unstable shales and lost
circulation zones between the
surface casing and the
production casing
12 Production 9 5/8 8900 L-80 47 VAM
isolate pay zone interval from
other formations

4.5.8. CEMENTING
In order to conduct a good cementing job, centralisers will be used and the casing will
be rotating during the cementing operation. Since, the shallow formation is unconsolidated,
the conductor will be cemented to the seabed. The surface casing will be cemented to the
seabed to provide good support for the casing string. Since there are no expected problems in
the 17 hole section, the intermediate casing will be cemented to 740 ft. The production
casing will be cemented to 6440 ft above the casing shoe in order to isolate the casing from
possible corrosive formation fluids which might be encountered. Cement Class G will be
used (this is the common cement class used in the North Sea). Summary of the cementing
process is showed in table D7 [See Appendix 34 for cementing schematic diagram].
Casing (in) 20 13 3/8 9 5/8
Casing shoe (TVD sea bed ft) 840 4240 8440
TOC (TVD sea bed ft ) sea bed 740 6440
Cement class G G G
Cement density (ppg) 13.1 14.5 14.5
Slurry volume (ft3) 2530 2963 2475
No of sacks 1346 1567 1309
Volume mix water (ft3) 1830 1050 877
Displacement mud (bbl) 465 616 554
Table D7: Cementing process summary
Table D6: Casing design
78
Team Z Indy Oil
4.5.9. DISPOSAL OF DRILL CUTTINGS AND MUD
The drill cuttings of the first two hole sections (36 & 26) will be deposited onto the
seabed. Cuttings of the subsequent sections will be converted into slurry and re-injected in
one of the appraisal wells (well 1). Table D8 gives more details about the cutting volumes and
the appropriate disposal method for each hole section.
Hole Section Volume cu. ft. Disposal
Conductor
1696
Dispose on sea bed
Surface
2212
Dispose on sea bed
Intermediate
5679
Re-injected in well 1
Production
3438
Re-injected in well 1
Table D8: cuttings volume and disposal
4.5.10. BOTTOM HOLE ASSEMBLY
Simple BHA (stabilisers) will be used in the 36 and 26 hole sections because the
ROP in these two holes will be limited by cleaning process of them. For the deviated wells,
the kick off point will be in 12 hole section and thus a rotary steering system with MWD
(for monitoring the inclination) will be used until reaching the target. The rotary steering
system [appendix 35] will allow rotation of the drillstring even when drilling is in the oriented
mode. This will help to transport the cutting to the surface without stuck pipe problems.
4.5.11. DIRECTIONAL DRILLING
Two deviated well will be drilled from the same cluster [see figure R21 p.57 which
show the location of the cluster and the target of the deviated wells]. The Kick off point of the
deviated wells will be around 4800ft (subsea) with 2 degrees/100 ft build up rate. In other
words, the first three hole sections (36, 26 & 17 ) will be vertical. The last hole (12
) will contain the kick off point, build up section and the tangent section which will enter
the reservoir at 60
o
[see Appendix 36]. Table D9 gives overview of directional drilling of the
deviated wells in field Z.
79
Team Z Indy Oil
Hole Section Max. Inclination (deg.) BUR (deg/100ft) TVD ft RKB
36 0 0 700
26 0 0 1300
17 0 0 4700
12
0 Kick off point 4800
60 2 7700
60 0 7900
Table D9: Directional drilling overview
4.5.12. RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES
The main risks and uncertainties to be considered are summarised in table D10:
Risk Comments and possible actions that can be taken
Bad weather could cause a delay in
drilling program
Allowing extra days in the planning of drilling for
weather changes.
Ignorance of the overpressure zones From the logs of the appraisal wells, there are no signs of
overpressure zones. However, the drilling crew should be
prepared in case of such zone detected during the drilling.
The BOP Operational efficiency Regular check up for the pressure
Frequent pressure testing should be carried out
Experiencing a kick which costs time
to do killing operation
A proper mud weight will be used.
Experienced personal who can detect early signs of a
kick.
Drillstring gets stuck in the deviated
section.
The rotary steerable system will be used with
centralizers.
poor cement job Selecting appropriate additives, centralizers. Deciding the
TOC carefully.
Table D10: Drilling Risks and Uncertainties
4.6. PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING FACILITIES.
CHOICE OF PRODUCTION FACILITIES
Different options were considered for identifying the optimum configuration for production
facilities to develop our field technically and economically, these options were:
- Fixed platform with dry wells or subsea wells.
- Floating production, short storage (FPSO) with shuttle tankers for offloading.
80
Team Z Indy Oil
- Subsea wells Tie-back to the nearby field which is located 20 km away (Clair field).
The last option was chosen to develop the field from an economic and technical point of view.
Moreover, the Clair field has the capacity to receive our production fluids (see appendix 38).
4.6.1.1.1. Top Side Facilities
- Export pipe line.
- Treatment facilities for production fluids and water injection.
- Utility facilities such as horizontal separator, chemical injection, instrument and water
injection.
- A two-stages horizontal separator will be used at operating pressure (150 and 50 psi) to
handle 70,000 b/d. the dead oil will be produced by heating the crude oil between the two
separator stages. While some gas production will be used as fuel for power generation,
the rest will be sold.
4.6.1.1.2. Produced Water Treatment Unit
Produced water units objective is to remove all undesirable dissolved solid, bacteria,
gas and oil to meet water specifications of 20 ppm or less .The treated water will be injected
to the reservoir (see appendix 39).
4.6.1.1.3. Metering system
Metering system will provide all data and information about well head pressure at
injection and production wells, flow rate, water production and injection, etc. through
umbilical. These will help in reservoir management to detect well problems and water cut.
4.7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ABATEMENT
Health Safety and Environmental Management
Indy Oil Company adopted a Policy, Planning and Implementation System. Our overall
requirements for HSE management are set for the Best Industry Practise (BIP).
81
Team Z Indy Oil
Our Policy is to continuously provide top quality safety to the people and the environment.
Our Goal
To do minimal alteration to the environment,
To apply 100% working environment,
To have zero tolerance of hazards,
To eliminate HSE risks,
To ensure that Flaring is kept to a minimum.
We are members of national and international association of oil and gas producers.

Figure 3 National & International Association
We provide high level of environmental standards by
monitoring the environment through Risk Management Review
Committee (figure EV1).





Figure EV1: Risk Management Review Committee
4.7.1. NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY
Introduction
Our Environmental Statement has been prepared for the application to develop Field
Z, Block 43 located Northern North Sea near the Clair Fields, UK Continental Shelf. The
purpose of this Environmental Statement is to develop a concept on how to implement,
RISK
MANAGEMENT
REVIEW

ENGINEERING

CONSTRUCTION

OPERATION
82
Team Z Indy Oil
manage, and fulfil both legal and regulatory requirements by the Department of Trade and
Industry, UK Government. This area has been identified by our Environmental Assessment
Committee as Strategic Environmental Assessment Area 3 (SEA 3) and Transboundary
location (see Appendix 40). The Z Field will begin production with group of subsea oil and
gas wells (5 injections and 5 producers) with a tie-back connected to a 20km pipeline to the
Clair Field.
Local Sensitivities key issues
Drilling Discharges mud and drilling cuttings could cause environmental damage if
not treated and discharged to the sea.
Produced Water Discharges untreated produced water could be a major threat if
discharged to the sea.
Animals such as grey seals, crabs, salmon fish and seabirds could be affected by
oil spills, seismic activities, waste, physical presence of Rigs and support vessels.
Oil Spills this could cause accidental events, contamination to the sea and can cause
danger to birds and sea mammals.
Transboundary Issues Transboundaries are the maritime borders with other
countries. Discharge to the sea, waste, seismic activities, drilling discharges and air emissions
could potentially affects the sea and the environment.
Control measures of local sensitivities:
Drilling discharges: IOC will use class G type cement for the casing and Water Base
Mud for drilling fluid. Drilling cuttings will be treated and re-injected to one of the appraisal
wells (well Z-1). The above mentioned operations will have minimum effects to the
environment.
Produced Water discharges: Concerns over produced water to the SEA3 area has
been quantify and water base mud will disperse rapidly with minimal ecological effects. This
will be treated at our treatment plan and re-injected to the reservoir.
83
Team Z Indy Oil
Animals: SEA3 area is reported to have marine mammals such as grey or common
seals; fisheries such crabs, lobsters; and seabirds. However, our report indicates that all the
operations will be conducted in a professional way that there will be limited environmental
impact to the area.
Oil Spills: Oil spills could pose environmental risk to the environment however, IOC
has assessed that the level of risk posed by the type of spill that could occur is very low. We
have some measures implemented to ensure that the effects of any kind of spill will be
controlled easily.
Transboundary Issue: SEA 3 area lies on the continental shelf area under the
jurisdiction of Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Belgium and France (see Appendix 40). Our
study indicates that winds and residual water circulation of the North Sea may result in
transboundary transport of discharges to water (including particles) and atmospheric
emissions. Our water treatment plant will minimise the amount of effects to the area. Flaring
will be kept to a minimum and regular maintenance will be carried out throughout our
operations.
Decommissioning: Decommissioning of the Z Field will be in accordance with the
national and international regulations in force at that time. The Z Field production will range
from 2011 to 2024 and after this period, decommissioning will begin. Thus, a complete
removal of subsea facilities will be carried out.
Conclusions: The results of our environmental assessment to the Z Field are not
expected to have significant effects to the short or long term. Potential effects from local
sensitivities have been incorporated in our mitigation measures.
4.7.2. ABANDONMENT
Production from the Z Field has been forecast to run up to 13 years at which time the
facilities will be subject to decommissioning with complete removal of subsea facilities. As
84
Team Z Indy Oil
part of our plan for decommissioning, our company will prepare a Best Practicable
Environmental Option (BPEO) study which will indentify the technical, environmental and
cost implications of each option, then submit it to the DTI as part of our decommissioning
approval process. After a successful application for decommissioning of offshore facilities, if
granted approval by DTI under the Petroleum Act 1998 (in accordance with OSPAR
Decision 98/3), Indy Oil Company facilities will be decommissioned in accordance with the
national and international guidelines by the Petroleum Operations such as, UKOOA, OSPAR,
IMO in force at that time.
4.7.2.1. Abandonment Requirements
We will shut down production wells and process systems for abandonment.
We will recover all equipment that is placed in the well.
We will ensure that there is no hydraulic communication between the subsurface formation
and the surface.
We will ensure that there is no communication or cross flow between formations down hole.
We will seal off formation with abnormal pressures.
We will ensure minimal seabed obstruction.
4.7.2.2. Surface Abandonment
IOC will be leasing BPs Claire Platform for our operation offshore, limited surface
abandonment will be carried out at the end of our operations.
4.7.2.3. Subsurface Abandonment
IOC followed the guidelines of OSPAR and requirements of Petroleum Act 1998 for
subsurface decommissioning and it is as follows: We will abandon our sub-sea wells by
squeezing cement to the perforated regions, plugging the borehole and providing a corrosion
85
Team Z Indy Oil
cap over the wellhead. Our producing zones will be plugged back with cement with a
minimum thickness of 100 ft above and below the formation.
4.7.2.4. Equipment Recovery
We will remove subsea facilities such as Christmas Trees and Manifolds from the
seabed to make sure that there will be no obstruction to marine and fishing operations. All
casing strings will be cut off to a minimum of 15 ft below the seabed. After our abandonment
operations we will carry out surveys to ensure that no debris is left within 50m radius of the
drilling location and the results will be sent to the DTI so as to obtain a Seabed Clearance
Certificate.
4.8. COSTS
The first phase of our financial analysis was to define the most profitable development
scenario among the three choices technical feasible. Obviously due to the small size of the
field, build our own FPSO or Tension Leg Platform resulted in poor net present value. The
Subsea tie-back scenario gave the best net Present value. As we do not produce enough gas, it
would be to sale to BP during the first years of Production, and may be used later for gas
lifting and Power Generation. Cash flow modelling
Capital expenditure.
Estimated capital costs for the Z field development are detailed in the accompanying table E2.
Year
Drilling &
Completion Subsea Pipeline Decommission
Clair
Upgrade
Provision
(Can$)
TOTAL
(Can$) (Can$) (Can$) (Can$) (Can$)
2009 5.4 3.6 9
2010 288 131.4 36 9 464.4
2011 117 117
2024 216 216
*Costs in mod terms.
Total CAPEX:
2009
394 millions = Can$
2009
708.8 millions
86
Team Z Indy Oil
Table E2: Capital expenditure

The main portion of CAPEX investment is in Drilling and completion followed by
decommissioning. The CAPEX is broken down in figure E3 below in Can$
2009
.

Figure E3: Capex breakdown
Operating expenditure
Annual operating costs for the Z field are detailed in the table below. In addition to
direct operating costs, a tariff of 2/barrel is assumed for using the CLAIR facilities and a
further 0.8/barrel of oil is paid to BP for the use of its 20-inch pipeline to transport oil to
Sullom Voe terminal. Tariffs above were considered with the help of Wood Mackenzie file.
The direct costs have been kept constant until 2021 where the water cut increases sharply.
Operating costs 2011(
2011
millions)
Cost Category millions
Direct Costs 3
Pipeline tariff 4.09
Oil Processing Tariff 10.22
G&A 1
TOTAL 18.31
*Cost in mod terms. Total Opex =
2011
18.31 millions=
2009
17.26 millions
Table E4: Operating costs, year 2011
87
Team Z Indy Oil
The total Opex for the first year of production 2011 is
2009
17.26 millions and the figure
below shows the Opex breakdown for the year 2011 in money of the day. The processing
tariff is the major constituent of the Opex.

Figure E5: Opex breakdown for year 2011
4.8.1. TAXATION
The fiscal regime that will be applied to Indy oil for its oil and gas extraction from the
UKCS Z field consists of two elements: the Ring Fence Corporation Tax and the
Supplementary Charge. Under the ring fence, Indy Oil capital expenditure is qualified to be
fully depreciated in the year incurred, as there is no long life asset. The relief of
decommissioning cost against the RFCT and SC will be carried back until fully offset.
4.8.2. ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS
For the purposes of this analysis, we have assumed the following:
All exploration and appraisal costs have been excluded from the cash flow(sunk costs)
The rates for the base case cash flow model chosen were as following:
Oil Price
US$/bbl
Gas Price
US$/MSCF
$US/
Rate
(Can$)/
Rate
Inflation
Rate
Discount
Rate
Recovery
Factor
61 3 1.6 1.8
3%
10% 39.5%
Table E6: Economic assumptions
88
Team Z Indy Oil
The oil price has been spotted by taking the average price of oil between 2004 and
2007, just before the sharp soaring and deep slump in commodity price. The exchange rates
are the current exchange rates. Our inflation rate is 3% onward, we have assumed this by
scrutinize the UK RPI since 1992 and the forecast on the website www.marketoracle.co.uk
With today volatility in equity market, we have assumed all rates constants over the field
lifetime.
4.8.3. ECONOMIC PARAMETERS
The economic parameters of the projects are detailed in the table below :
NPV[0.10] (Can$
2009
millions) 505.64 Total CAPEX (Can$
2009
millions) 708.80
PIR 2.20 2011 Total OPEX (
2009
millions) 17.26
IRR (%) 42.00 Reserves(million bbl) 52.20
MCO (Can$
2009
millions) 459.88
CAPEX/bbl (Can$
2009
/daily bbl)
[undiscounted]
13.58

Table E7: Economics parameters
4.8.4. CASH FLOW MODEL
As can be seen on the cash flow model (appendix 41), the project will generate a NPV
[0.10] of Can$
2009
505.64 millions.
4.8.5. ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTIES AND RISK MANAGEMENT
UK is a politic stable country, therefore the main sources of uncertainties and the risks
that have a direct economic impact for this project are described as follows:
Management of reservoir Range
There is an imperfect knowledge of the size of the lower reservoir unit and the edge of
the southwest of the reservoir upper unit. The development plan has mapped out to tackle
those uncertainties as soon as possible. The drilling phase will start by delineating the
southwest side of the reservoir, and then followed by the lower reservoir unit. The
89
Team Z Indy Oil
uncertainties inherent to volume of oil in place have been addressed technically and
economically. In case the reservoir coming in bigger than expected reserves, the main
challenge was the water injection pumping rate as there was enough free capacity at Clair
platform to process our flow stream. Therefore, a financial provision has been made to
upgrade the Clair platform pumping capability. Equally, the downside risk of having less oil
has also been studied, and as a result the field required to be abandoned three years earlier. In
conclusion, subsea tie-back offers protection against the downside and upside risk of volume
of oil in place.
Facilities
All companies operating in the UKCS are abided by the Infrastructure code of practice
(ICOP), therefore we may expect to reach a good agreement with the owner of CLAIR field.
Economy
To analyze the economic parameters that could mitigate this project, we have run base
case method sensitivity analysis. A graph showing the results is given in Figure 3 below. The
variables were examined for a variation of 50%. We only considered the exchange rate
Can$/ which directly affected our annually revenue. The results showed that the project is
the most sensitive to a change in oil price. Despite being undermined by a low oil price our
project remained economically viable for an oil price of US$30. Inflation rate Can$/ was the
second major variable to impact our project. With the UK already in recession, a further
slump of exchange rate will affect our project but the project will remain viable at 0.9
exchange rate. However, we may expect a stronger British pound during the years to come.
The effect of first oil being delayed by one year was also examined. This had a large impact
on the development and reduced the NPV [0.10] of the project to Can$ 396 million.
90
Team Z Indy Oil

Figure E8: Z field Spider Diagram.
91
Team Z Indy Oil
5. REFERENCE
1) L.P. Dake, Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering; Elsevier, UK London, 1978.
2) L.P. Dake, The Practice of Reservoir Engineering (revised edition); Elsevier, UK
London, 2001.
3) Michael J. Economides, A. Daniel Hill, Christine Ehlig-Economides, Petroleum
Production Systems; Prentice Hall Inc. Massachusetts USA, 1994
4) Notes in Reservoir engineering, Well testing, and Reservoir simulation, Heriot-Watt
University
5) Roland N. Horne, Modern Well Test Analysis: A Computer-Aided Approach, Petro
Way, USA Jan 1995
6) Ali Danesh, PVT and Phase Behaviour Of Petroleum Reservoir Fluids , Elsevier
(Developments in Petroleum Science) ,7 May 1998)
7) Dye William et al, New Water-Based Mud Balances High Performance Drilling and
Environmental Compliance 2005 SPE 92367
8) http://www.rigzone.com/data/rig_detail.asp?rig_id=384
9) http://www.offshore247.com/projects/rigdetails.aspx?rid=52
10) http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/J-W-McLean-87C77.html?LayoutID=17
11) Geoscience Notes, Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University
12) Formation Evaluation Notes, Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University
13) Petroleum Economics Notes, Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University
14) Drilling Notes, Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University
15) Production Technology Notes, Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University
16) Formation Evaluation Notes, Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

6. APPENDICES
92
Team Z Indy Oil

Appendix 1: Location of the Z-field

Shetlands Islands
Z-field
93
Team Z Indy Oil

Appendix 2: Z-field top structure
94
Team Z Indy Oil














Appendix 3: Z-field isochore map

95
Team Z Indy Oil

Appendix 4: General lithology correlation

96
Team Z Indy Oil
Top Sand
Bottom Sand
7800
8000
8200
8400
8600
8800
9000
9200
9400
9600
9677
SSTVD 2.33 217.89 GR
Top Sand
Bottom Sand
Z-2 [SSTVD]
7800
8000
8200
8400
8600
(8800)
(9000)
(9200)
(9400)
(9609)
SSTVD 2.31 198.00 GR
Top Sand
Bottom Sand
Z-3 [SSTVD]
7800
8000
8200
8400
8600
8800
9000
9200
9400
9518
SSTVD 6.91 256.26 GR
Top Sand
Bottom Sand
z-4 [SSTVD]
7800
8000
8200
8400
8600
8800
9000
9200
(9400)
(9600)
(9709)
SSTVD 2.61 184.94 GR
Top Sand
Bottom Sand
Z-5 [SSTVD]
7800
8000
8200
8400
8600
8800
9000
9200
(9400)
(9600)
(9691)
SSTVD -7.29 207.26 GR
Top Sand
Bottom Sand
Z-6 [SSTVD]
7800
8000
8200
8400
(8600)
(8800)
(9000)
(9200)
(9400)
(9470)
SSTVD 3.16 138.13 SGR
Top Sand
Bottom Sand
Z-7 [SSTVD]
Top Sand
Bottom Sand

Appendix 5: Sand body correlation from logs
97
Team Z Indy Oil

Appendix 6a: Well Z-5 Core Log permeability-porosity linear regression relationship Appendix 6b: Moveable Hydrocarbons
plot

98
Team Z Indy Oil

Appendix 7: Well Z3 Core Log permeability-saturation linear regression relationship
99
Team Z Indy Oil

Well
Top
Sand
(ft)
Bottom
Sand (ft)
Sand
thickness
(ft) Max Min Avge
Geo
Avge
k
h
(mD)
Arith
Avge
k
h
(mD) Max S
w
Min S
w

Arith
avge S
w
N/G
Well Z2 8400 8450 50 0.25 0.1 0.18 17 732 0.26 0.12 0.16 0.3
Well Z3 8334 8530 196 0.25 0.1 0.16 76 120 0.49 0.064 0.16 0.65
Well Z4 9225 9450 225 0.14 0.1 0.12 Water bearing sand
Well Z5 8750 8892 142 0.25 0.1 0.16 74 176 0.5 0.21 0.35 0.44
Well Z6 8900 8932 32 0.28 0.1 0.15 65 112 0.5 0.23 0.3 0.62
Well Z7
(Zone1) 9785 9925 140 0.37 0.1 0.18 368 649 0.49 0.16 0.29 0.67
Well Z7
(Zone2) 10250 10391 141 0.55 0.1 0.2 528 930 0.49 0.07 0.36 0.59


Appendix 8: Petrophysical properties
100


Separator test condition Condition Well 1 Well 3 Well 5 Well 7
Temperature, F To standard conditions 120 to 60 150 to 60 85 to 60 85 to 60
Pressure, psi (60 F and 14.7 psia) 120 to 14.7 58 to 14.7 80 to 14.7 80 to 14.7
Fluid properties
Upper
reservoir
Upper
reservoir
Upper
reservoir
Lower
reservoir
Oil gravity, API at standard conditions 32.7 31.2 32.9 33.1
Bubble point pressure
(P
b
), psi 1104 1055 1120 1104
B
ob
at bubble point pressure 1.175 1.263 1.2 1.203
B
oi
at initial reservoir conditions 1.150 1.232 1.171 1.173
GOR
(1)
above bubble point 251 236 224 228
Oil Compressibility (C
o
),
psi
-1
7.06E-06 7.91E-06 7.90E-06 8.00E-06
Viscosity at bubble point pressure - 1.14 0.75 0.964
at initial reservoir conditions - 1.4580 0.8415 1.2360
Gas specific gravity at standard conditions 1.0010 1.0039 0.9777 0.9553
(1) Gas/Oil Ratio in cubic feet of gas at 14.73 psia and 60F. per barrel of stock tank oil at 60F
(2) Formation Volume Factor is barrels of saturated oil at bubble point pressure and reservoir temperature per barrel of stock tank oil at 60F.

Appendix 9: Fluid properties from bottom hole and surface sample
101


Appendix 10: STOIIP Calculation
From the production test in well Z-1, the cumulative production and date were
obtained to calculate the STOIIP by material balance equation as following.

In addition, this equation is based on the assumptions that there is no water influx and
no gas cap in reservoir. The initial properties (B
o
, C
f
, C
w
, and S
wc
) which were used for
material balance calculation were depicted below.

Figure 1 B
o
Vs Pressure used in Material Balance calculation
Bo(init) Sw(init) Cw Cf
1.1511 0.20 2.3E-06 4.00E-06
Table1 Initial parameters for used in Material Balance Calculation
102


Date
Cumulative
Np, STB P
P, psia Bo (1-Np/N)
N (STB)
Production (P-Pi) rtb/STB see Eq.A
(Np), STB
6-Apr-84 0

3,713 0 1.15108 1.000000


17-May-84 87

3,652 -61 1.15163 0.999691
30-May-84 204
30-May-84
3,249 -464 1.15526 0.997659 1.63E+08
22-juin-84 298
reference
3,315 -398 1.15467 0.997991
05-juil-84 369
point
3,292 -421 1.15487 0.997875
2-Aug-84 369

3,517 -196 1.15285 0.999009
8-Aug-84 405

3,222 -491 1.15550 0.997523
26-Aug-84 411

3,514 -199 1.15287 0.998994
28-Aug-84 432

3,228 -485 1.15545 0.997554
01-sept-84 442

3,197 -516 1.15573 0.997398
01-oct-84 454

3,512 -201 1.15289 0.998984
02-oct-84 459

3,27 -443 1.15507 0.997765
16-nov-84 465

3,534 -179 1.15269 0.999095
6-Dec-84 467

3,542 -171 1.15262 0.999135
12-Dec-84 703

3,274 -439 1.15503 0.997785
15-janv-85 705

3,129 -584 1.15634 0.997056
22-janv-85 748

3,116 -597 1.15646 0.996991
02-mars-85 751

3,415 -298 1.15377 0.998495
25-Apr-85 751

3,46 -253 1.15336 0.998721
10-Apr-85 751

3,496 -217 1.15304 0.998903

Table2 Hydrocarbon in Place calculation from the extended production test in well Z-1







103


STOIIP calculation by Monte Carlo Analysis
Due to the uncertainty of properties used in the material balance equation for
calculating the oil in place, the Monte Carlo method was used to analyse the effect of
uncertainty data. In addition, the simulation was run 100,000 times for the good distribution
representative curve. The range and distribution assumption of properties were demonstrated
in figure 1. And the results of simulation were shown in figure 2.

Figure1 The assumptions used in Monte- Carlo simulation

Figure2 The distribution STOIIP curve from P10-P90 confidential level
104




Well

2 3
5
7
DST 1 DST1 DST 2 DST 3 DST1 DST 2 DST 1 DST 2
Layer
Upper
sand
Upper
sand
Upper
sand
Upper
sand
Upper
sand
Upper
sand
Lower
sand
Upper
sand
Interval(ft) 8394-8456
8488-8518
8462-8478
8400-8423
8425-8438 8368-8390 8896-8926 8724-8864
10260-
10400 9780-9920
Flowing interval, ft 57 46 36 22 30 140 140 140
Flow rate (BOPD) 1260 1098 2021 1500 1720 1820 4079 2103
Main flow period, mins 364.98 294 2942 357 238.31 1060.56 1052.5 745.2
Main Build up, mins 1060 1747 4146 1655 912.6 1525.8 2314.2 1105.8
Bottom hole pressure, psia 3071.7 3021.7 2969.47 2686.84 3258.98 3266.97 2904 3130
PI (Productivity index) 1.74 - 2.70 1.43 3.80 5.89 5.72 7.04
Permeability (k), mD 49.36 - 239.601 68.62 175.781 59.586 130.41 153.729
Average Reservoir
Pressure, psia 3796 - 3717.79 3734.04 3711.82 3576 3616.9 3428.83
Skin 0.5074 12.769 -0.259 12.5 19.4315 2.5694 2.0657
K
h
mD-ft 2813.66 - 8695.85 3773.87 5276.13 7746.18 54768.42 21522.06

Appendix 11: Well test analysis summary
105
















Appendix 12: the high PI area in the Z-field

106


Appendix 13: Well test analysis results

Figure 1 Cartesian Plots from Well Z-2(DST1)


Figure 2 Log-Log Derivative Plots from Well Z-2 (DST1)
107



Figure 3 Semi-Log Specialise Plots from Well Z-2 (DST1)

Figure 4 Cartesian Plots from Well Z-3(DST2A)
108



Figure 5 Log-Log Derivative Plots from Well Z-3 (DST2A)


Figure 6 Semi-Log Specialise Plots from Well Z-3 (DST2A)
109



Figure 7 Cartesian Plots from Well Z-3(DST3)

Figure 8 Log-Log Derivative Plots from Well Z-3 (DST3)
110



Figure 9 Cartesian Plots from Well Z-5 (DST1)

Figure 10 Log-Log Derivative Plots from Well Z-5 (DST1)
111



Figure 11 Semi-Log Specialise Plots from Well Z-5 (DST1)


Figure 12 Cartesian Plots from Well Z-5 (DST2)
112



Figure 13 Log-Log Derivative Plots from Well Z-5 (DST2)

Figure 14 Semi-Log Specialise Plots from Well Z-5 (DST2)
113



Figure 15 Cartesian Plots from Well Z-7 (DST1)

Figure 16 Log-Log Derivative Plots from Well Z-7 (DST1)
114



Figure 17 Semi-Log Specialise Plots from Well Z-7 (DST1)


Figure 18 Cartesian Plots from Well Z-7 (DST2)
115



Figure 19 Semi-Log Specialise Plots from Well Z-7 (DST2)

Figure 120 Semi-Log Specialise Plots from Well Z-7 (DST2)
116



Well Well-test k from kh (mDarcy) Core Kair (mDarcy) Core Kair arithmetic (mDarcy) Distance to boundary (ft) Shape of faults
2 49.36 - - none seen -
3 154.02 76 120.146 none seen -
5 117.69 74 176 none seen -
7 (Upper) 153.73 368 649 270 U-shape
7 ( Lower) 130.41 528 930 145 U-shape

Appendix 14: Permeability comparison from core and well testing data
117



Inflow/OutflowCurves for Z3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300mwater BASE CASE
SensitivityTo: Well and riser flowcorrelation
Operating Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Pressure Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(psia) (STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
2657.603 2575.324 2575.324 0 0.428 0 166.000 Stable
2657.634 2575.236 2575.236 0 0.427 0 166.000 Stable
2654.831 2583.200 2583.200 0 0.429 0 166.000 Stable
2716.795 2407.145 2407.145 0 0.400 0 166.000 Stable
2552.377 2874.301 2874.301 0 0.477 0 166.000 Stable
0
900
1800
2700
3600
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
ia
) a
t M
ID
O
F
P
E
R
F
S
, M
D
9
1
2
3
.0
0
0
ft
10000 7500 5000 2500 0
Total Production Rate (STB/day)
Inflow: All values
Outflow: Hagedorn and Brown (mod)
Outflow: Hagedorn and Brown (std)
Outflow: Beggsand Brill (mod)
Outflow: Beggsand Brill (std)
Outflow: Orkiszewski
Measured data

Appendix 15: Sensitivity study: Well flow correlation
Inflow/OutflowCurves for Z3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300mwater BASE CASE
SensitivityTo: Well and riser flowcorrelation
Operating Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Pressure Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(psia) (STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
2657.634 2575.236 2575.236 0 0.427 0 166.000 Stable
0
900
1800
2700
3600
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
ia
)
a
t M
ID
O
F
P
E
R
F
S
, M
D
9
1
2
3
.0
0
0
ft
10000 7500 5000 2500 0
Total Production Rate (STB/day)
Inflow: Hagedorn and Brown (std)
Outflow: Hagedorn and Brown (std)
Measured data

Appendix 16: shows the correlation match. (Hagedorn & Brown (STD) correlation)
118


Inflow/OutflowCurves for Z3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300mwater BASE CASE
SensitivityTo: Top/start node pressure
Operating Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Pressure Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(psia) (STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
2408.482 3283.148 3283.148 0 0.545 0 166.000 Stable
2539.801 2910.034 2910.034 0 0.483 0 166.000 Stable
2657.603 2575.324 2575.324 0 0.428 0 166.000 Stable
2763.522 2274.379 2274.379 0 0.378 0 166.000 Stable
2857.147 2008.366 2008.366 0 0.333 0 166.000 Stable
2942.594 1765.586 1765.586 0 0.293 0 166.000 Stable
3021.764 1540.643 1540.643 0 0.256 0 166.000 Stable
0
900
1800
2700
3600
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
ia
)
a
t M
ID
O
F
P
E
R
F
S
, M
D
9
1
2
3
.0
0
0
ft
10000 7500 5000 2500 0
Total Production Rate (STB/day)
Inflow: All values
Outflow: 150.000 psia
Outflow: 200.000 psia
Outflow: 250.000 psia
Outflow: 300.000 psia
Outflow: 350.000 psia
Outflow: 400.000 psia
Outflow: 450.000 psia
Measured data

Appendix 17: Sensitivity study: Well head pressure

Inflow/Outflow Curves for Z3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300mwater BASE CASE
SensitivityTo: Shot density(Layer 1)
Operating Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Pressure Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(psia) (STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
2636.338 3725.279 3725.279 0 0.618 0 166.000 Stable
2636.307 3778.999 3778.999 0 0.627 0 166.000 Stable
2636.305 3782.736 3782.736 0 0.628 0 166.000 Stable
2636.313 3766.208 3766.208 0 0.625 0 166.000 Stable
2636.328 3739.849 3739.849 0 0.621 0 166.000 Stable
2636.350 3708.247 3708.247 0 0.616 0 166.000 Stable
0
900
1800
2700
3600
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
ia
)
a
t M
ID
O
F
P
E
R
F
S
, M
D
9
1
2
3
.0
0
0
ft
16000 12000 8000 4000 0
Total Production Rate (STB/day)
Inflow: 2.000 spf
Outflow: All values
Inflow: 3.000 spf
Inflow: 4.000 spf
Inflow: 5.000 spf
Inflow: 6.000 spf
Inflow: 7.000 spf

Appendix 18: Sensitivity: Shot density
119



Inflow/OutflowCurves for Z3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300mwater BASE CASE
SensitivityTo: Shot phasing (Layer 1)
Operating Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Pressure Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(psia) (STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
2636.328 3739.849 3739.849 0 0.621 0 166.000 Stable
2636.358 3698.335 3698.335 0 0.614 0 166.000 Stable
2636.432 3617.947 3617.947 0 0.601 0 166.000 Stable
2636.501 3559.853 3559.853 0 0.591 0 166.000 Stable
2636.580 3503.548 3503.548 0 0.582 0 166.000 Stable
0
900
1800
2700
3600
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
ia
)
a
t M
ID
O
F
P
E
R
F
S
, M
D
9
1
2
3
.0
0
0
ft
16000 12000 8000 4000 0
Total Production Rate (STB/day)
Inflow: 90.000 degrees
Outflow: All values
Inflow: 80.000 degrees
Inflow: 60.000 degrees
Inflow: 45.000 degrees
Inflow: 30.000 degrees

Appendix 19: Sensitivity: Shot phasing

Inflow/OutflowCurves for Z3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300mwater BASE CASE
SensitivityTo: Shot penetration (Layer 1)
Operating Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Pressure Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(psia) (STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
2636.373 3678.980 3678.980 0 0.611 0 166.000 Stable
2636.344 3715.497 3715.497 0 0.617 0 166.000 Stable
2636.330 3736.766 3736.766 0 0.620 0 166.000 Stable
2636.322 3749.377 3749.377 0 0.622 0 166.000 Stable
0
900
1800
2700
3600
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
ia
)
a
t M
ID
O
F
P
E
R
F
S
, M
D
9
1
2
3
.0
0
0
ft
16000 12000 8000 4000 0
Total Production Rate (STB/day)
Inflow: 20.000 in
Outflow: All values
Inflow: 30.000 in
Inflow: 40.000 in
Inflow: 50.000 in

Appendix 20: Sensitivity: Shot penetration
120


Inflow/OutflowCurves for Z3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300mwater BASE CASE
SensitivityTo: Inside dia. of one well node (tubing 1)
Operating Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Pressure Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(psia) (STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
3027.274 2077.182 2077.182 0 0.345 0 166.000 Stable
2839.410 2804.236 2804.236 0 0.466 0 166.000 Stable
2677.816 3429.620 3429.620 0 0.569 0 166.000 Stable
2658.128 3505.813 3505.813 0 0.582 0 166.000 Stable
2653.545 3523.551 3523.551 0 0.585 0 166.000 Stable
2640.967 3572.230 3572.230 0 0.593 0 166.000 Stable
0
3000
6000
9000
12000
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
ia
)
a
t M
ID
O
F
P
E
R
F
S
, M
D
9
1
2
3
.0
0
0
ft
16000 12000 8000 4000 0
Total Production Rate (STB/day)
Inflow: All values
Outflow: 1.990 in
Outflow: 2.500 in
Outflow: 3.500 in
Outflow: 3.900 in
Outflow: 4.044 in
Outflow: 4.892 in

Appendix 21: Sensitivity: Tubing inside diameter


Inflow/OutflowCurves for Z3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300mwater BASE CASE
SensitivityTo: Deviation angle (Layer 1)
Operating Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Pressure Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(psia) (STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
2660.517 2981.908 2981.908 0 0.495 0 166.000 Stable
2660.768 3004.177 3004.177 0 0.499 0 166.000 Stable
2661.254 3046.236 3046.236 0 0.506 0 166.000 Stable
2662.121 3118.193 3118.193 0 0.518 0 166.000 Stable
2663.720 3242.182 3242.182 0 0.538 0 166.000 Stable
2667.029 3471.367 3471.367 0 0.576 0 166.000 Stable
2675.534 3956.204 3956.204 0 0.657 0 166.000 Stable
2685.728 4425.840 4425.840 0 0.735 0 166.000 Stable
0
900
1800
2700
3600
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
ia
)
a
t M
ID
O
F
P
E
R
F
S
, M
D
9
1
2
3
.0
0
0
ft
16000 12000 8000 4000 0
Total Production Rate (STB/day)
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Inflow: 10.000 degrees
Outflow: All values
Inflow: 20.000 degrees
Inflow: 30.000 degrees
Inflow: 40.000 degrees
Inflow: 50.000 degrees
Inflow: 60.000 degrees
Inflow: 70.000 degrees
Inflow: 75.000 degrees 9

Appendix 22: Sensitivity: Deviation angle
121


Inflow/OutflowCurves for Z3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300mwater BASE CASE
SensitivityTo: Layer pressure (Layer 1) and Water cut (Layer 1)
Operating Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Pressure Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(psia) (STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
2636.656 4342.160 4342.160 0 0.721 0 166.000 Stable
2720.866 4299.650 3869.685 429.965 0.642 10.000 166.000 Stable
2806.217 4244.698 3395.758 848.940 0.564 20.000 166.000 Stable
2890.612 4184.844 2929.391 1255.453 0.486 30.000 166.000 Stable
2978.987 4090.655 2454.393 1636.262 0.407 40.000 166.000 Stable
3068.312 3970.091 1985.046 1985.046 0.330 50.000 166.000 Stable
3158.734 3812.572 1525.029 2287.543 0.253 60.000 166.000 Stable
3253.720 3575.113 1072.534 2502.579 0.178 70.000 166.000 Stable
3344.810 3298.157 659.632 2638.526 0.109 80.000 166.000 Stable
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
ia
)
a
t M
ID
O
F
P
E
R
F
S
, M
D
9
1
2
3
.0
0
0
ft
16000 12000 8000 4000 0
Total Production Rate (STB/day)
g
g g g g g g g g g g
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
Inflow: 3700.000 psia and 0 per cent
Outflow: 3700.000 psia and 0 per cent
Inflow: 3700.000 psia and 10.000 per cent
Outflow: 3700.000 psia and 10.000 per cent
Inflow: 3700.000 psia and 20.000 per cent
Outflow: 3700.000 psia and 20.000 per cent
Inflow: 3700.000 psia and 30.000 per cent
Outflow: 3700.000 psia and 30.000 per cent
Inflow: 3700.000 psia and 40.000 per cent
Outflow: 3700.000 psia and 40.000 per cent
Inflow: 3700.000 psia and 50.000 per cent
Outflow: 3700.000 psia and 50.000 per cent
Inflow: 3700.000 psia and 60.000 per cent
Outflow: 3700.000 psia and 60.000 per cent
Inflow: 3700.000 psia and 70.000 per cent
Outflow: 3700.000 psia and 70.000 per cent
Inflow: 3700.000 psia and 80.000 per cent
Outflow: 3700.000 psia and 80.000 per cent
f
g

Appendix 23 Sensitivity: Layer Pressure and Water Cut
Gas Lift Valve Positions - Z3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300mwater BASE CASE
Unloading Objective
Valve MD TVD Casing Tubing Temperature
No. Pressure Pressure
(ft) (ft) (psia) (psia) (degreesF)
1 2574.875 2574.875 1250.204 471.784 157.545
2 4000.000 4000.000 1247.100 778.295 160.772
10000
7500
5000
2500
0
T
r
u
e
V
e
r
tic
a
l D
e
p
th
(
ft)
6000 4500 3000 1500 0
Pressure (psia)
200 150 100 50 0
Temperature (degreesF)
Objective Tubing Pressure: Qliq = 10000.000 STB/day
Temperature: Qliq = 10000.000 STB/day
Unloading Casing Pressure, 1200.000 psia
Operating Casing Pressure, 816.764 psia
Unloading sequence
Design operating valve

Appendix 24 : Gas lift valve positions

122


WellFlo Performance Analysis for Z3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300mwater gas lift
Operating Rate vs Lift gas injection rate
0
1250
2500
3750
5000
6250
O
p
e
r
a
tin
g
R
a
te
(
S
T
B
/d
a
y
)
20 15 10 5 0
Lift gasinjection rate (MMSCF/day)
Base case


Appendix 25: Operating rate vs lift gas injection rate
Inflow/OutflowCurves for Z3.FIELD 1Ly.Cr. 300mwater gas lift
SensitivityTo: Water cut (Layer 1)
Operating Liquid Oil Water Gas Water
Pressure Rate Rate Rate Rate Cut GOR
(psia) (STB/day) (STB/day) (STB/day) (MMSCF/day) (per cent) (SCF/STB)
2360.024 8386.772 7548.095 838.677 1.253 10.000 166.000 Stable
2500.943 8006.320 6405.056 1601.264 1.063 20.000 166.000 Stable
2577.148 8088.905 5662.233 2426.671 0.940 30.000 166.000 Stable
2656.146 8162.187 4897.312 3264.875 0.813 40.000 166.000 Stable
2736.299 8239.479 4119.740 4119.739 0.684 50.000 166.000 Stable
2897.730 7428.862 2971.544 4457.317 0.493 60.000 166.000 Stable
2973.712 7479.552 2243.866 5235.687 0.372 70.000 166.000 Stable
3050.272 7537.571 1507.514 6030.057 0.250 80.000 166.000 Stable
3126.287 7626.539 762.654 6863.885 0.127 90.000 166.000 Stable
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
ia
)
a
t M
ID
O
F
P
E
R
F
S
, M
D
9
1
2
3
.0
0
0
ft
24000 18000 12000 6000 0
Total Production Rate (STB/day)
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
f
Inflow: 10.000 per cent
Outflow: 10.000 per cent
Inflow: 20.000 per cent
Outflow: 20.000 per cent
Inflow: 30.000 per cent
Outflow: 30.000 per cent
Inflow: 40.000 per cent
Outflow: 40.000 per cent
Inflow: 50.000 per cent
Outflow: 50.000 per cent
Inflow: 60.000 per cent
Outflow: 60.000 per cent
Inflow: 70.000 per cent
Outflow: 70.000 per cent
Inflow: 80.000 per cent
Outflow: 80.000 per cent
Inflow: 90.000 per cent
Outflow: 90.000 per cent
f
g

Appendix 26: Gas lift production rate
123


Completion Schematic
















Appendix 27: Completion Schematic of well produce from upper sand



Gas lift mandrels
Top of reservoir
Wire line set permanent packer
S.S.D.
9 5/8 casing shoe
Tubing hunger assembly
S.S.S.V
5.5" tubing
124


Dual Completion Schematic (Z-7)



















Appendix 28: Dual Completion Schematic of well production from both upper & lower sand

Tubing hunger assembly
top of upper sand
Top of lower sand
Wire line set
permanent packer
Tubing hunger assembly
Gas lift mandrels
2 7/8" tubing
3 " tubing
S.S.S.V
Wire line set
permanent packer
blast joint
125


Appendix 29: Relative Permeability

According to special core analysis report from Core LAB, six plug samples were
scheduled to undergo steady-state water-oil relative permeability analysis in the restored state.
These tests were performed using the 1.5 centipoise refined mineral oil and the sulphate brine.
These two fluids were tested simultaneous through each sample at different flow ratios. When
the pressure differential across the samples appeared to have stabilized, indicating that wetting
equilibrium has occurred, permeabilities to oil and brine were determined.
Based on the results, six rel-perm tables were grouped to two tables which represent
the average rel-perm table for the upper and lower reservoir (see figure1).



Figure 1 Relative Permeability for upper and lower reservoir from Steady state test
126


Appendix 30: Capillary pressure and J-Function
For air-brine capillary pressure test, thirteen plug samples were used as representative
data. The samples were evacuated and pressure saturated with simulated brine. After that, the
fully saturated plugs were placed in a porous plate cell and desaturated by introducing
humidified air at increasing incremental pressures up to 180 psig.
However, the reasonable correlation is needed to change the air-brine capillary
pressure to the oil-water capillary pressure (multiply by 50/72). Moreover, the J-Function was
used to normalize all P
c
curves to one modified table as shown in figure 2.
This J-function can use as the representative capillary pressure function for this reservoir
which P
c
is the function of porosity, permeability, and saturation water in the reservoir.

Figure 2 Modified Leverett J Function curves.

J-Function
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sw
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
127


Appendix 31: J. W. McLean Specifications
J. W. McLean
The J. W. McLean is a Zapata SS-3000 class semisubmersible, a propulsion assisted twin hulled sea
barge catamaran with six stabilizing columns and a water tight working platform
Rig Type Other Floaters

Design Zapata SS-3000
Builder
Year Built 1974/1991/1996
Classification 1A1 Column Stabilized
Flag Marshall Islands
Accommodation Air-conditioned to accommodate 100 people
Helideck 'D' value 22.5 m (72.8 ft.) 84 ft. x 83 ft. (25.6 m x 25.3 m) designed to DNV
/ Norwegian rules, to accommodate Sikorsky S-61.
Moonpool 21 ft x 21 ft
Station Keeping Moored (Propulsion Assist)
Max Drill Depth 25,000 ft / 7,620 m
Max Water Depth 1,250 ft / 381 m
Operating Conditions 55-knot winds, 30-foot waves at 10 seconds, current 1.4 knots
Storm Conditions 123-knot winds, 100-foot waves maximum at 3 seconds, current 0.5 knots
Technical Dimensions
Length 367 ft 112 m
Breadth 210 ft 64 m
Depth 25 ft 8 m
Operating Draft 80 ft 24 m
Ocean Transit Draft 25 ft 8 m
VDL - Operating 3,829 st 3,475 mt
128


Capacities
Liquid Mud 3,332 bbls 18,708 cu ft 529 cu m
Drill Water 8,000 bbls 44,916 cu ft 1,271 cu m
Potable Water 2,700 bbls 15,159 cu ft 429 cu m
Fuel Oil 10,000 bbls 56,145 cu ft 1,589 cu m
Bulk Mud 8,970 cu ft 254 cu m
Bulk Cement 10,350 cu ft 293 cu m
Sack Material 4,000 sacks
Drilling Equipment
Derrick Lee C. Moore 180 ft. dynamic derrick with 40 ft. x 40 ft. base. Rated
1,300,000 lbs. gross nominal capacity, with 1,000,000 lb. hook load capacity
with (12) lines.
Drawworks Oilwell E3000 with Crown-O-Matic and Baylor model 7838 electro-
magnetic brake, sandline spool with 18,000 ft. of 9/16
Motion Compensator Rucker Shaffer DSC-25-500
Top Drive Varco TDS 4S complete with PH 85 and Raised Backup System (RBS), Hi-
Torque GE 752 motor
Rotary - Oilwell A-495, 49-1/2
Pipe Handling 1 x Varco AR3200 Iron Roughneck
Mud Pumps Three (3) Oilwell 1,700 PT triplex mud pumps rated at 1,700 hp and at 120
SPM
Shale Shakers 4 - Derrick Model 2000 with Hi G motors
Desander None
Desilter 20 x 4-inch cones mounted above a shaker
Mud Cleaner One shaker configured as a mud cleaner
BOP Cameron Type U Model II, 18 in., 10,000 psi
LMRP Shaffer Type Annular 5K WP
Diverter Regan/KFDH, 500 psi WP, Bore size 24.5 inches
Control System Koomey Type 80 with 500 gallon reservoir
129


Riser Vetco MR-6C 20-1/2 (21-1/2-inch OD)
Riser
Tensioners
8 - Rucker Shaeffer MRT's each with (2) 40 ft. line travel x 80,000 lbs.
tensioners, total 640,000 lbs.
Guideline
Tensioners
4 x Rucker Shaffer, 12.2m stroke travel & 7.3MT
Podline
Tensioners
None, lines are suspended off angel wings
Choke & Kill Cameron 3-1/8-inch x 10K
Cementing Halliburton HCS-250
Machinery
Main Power 4 - EMD Model 16-645-E8 marine diesel engines rated ABS continuous
1,950 bhp at 900 rpm each skid mounted unit includes: 1 EMD Model A20
AC alternator ABS rated and certified for 1,400 kw 2,000 KVA, for SCR
system application
Emergency Power 1 - Cummins turbocharged engine w/ 600 kw Marine AC Generator
Power Distribution 6 x Ross Hill SCR, plus 1 Bauteil SCR
Deck Cranes 1 - National OS-435, 41-ton, 10-m, 1 each Amclyde 35000, 68-ton, 10-m
Thrusters N/A
Propulsion Propulsion assist, 2 x 10 dia. propellers w/ Kort nozzles ea. driven by 4 x
850 hp electric motors
Mooring Equipment
Winches 10 x Skagit rated for 159 mt
Wire/Chain 10 x 3 inch stud linked ORQ, usefull length - 3608 ft
Anchors 10 x Stevpis MKV each weighing 15mt



130


Appendix 32: Mud program

Depth (ft) RKB Formation
gradient (psi/ft)
Formation
Pressure (psi)
Expected LOT
Pressure Gradinet
(ppg)
Fracture
Pressure
(psi)
Mudweight
(psi)
Mudweight
(ppg)
0 0.447 0 14.5 0 0
1100 0.447 491.7 14.5 829.4
7850 0.447 3508.95 14 5714.8 3708.95 9.1
7900 0.499 3942.1 14 5751.2
10300 0.499 5139.7 14 7498.4 5339.7 10.0
Mud program Calculations

The pore pressure gradients in the formations from surface are
ppg psi/ft
0-7850 ft 8.6 0.447
0-10300 9.6 0.499
Required Mudweight:
at psi/ft ppg
7850 0.473 9.1
10300 0.519 10.0
Summary of mud programme
131





Hole size
(in)
Casing
OD
(in)
Casing
ID (in)
Set
Depth
TVD
(ft)
RKB
Calculated
Collapse
Load (psi)
Calculated
Burst Load
(psi)
Selected
Casing
Burst
Load*
(psi)
Selected
Casing
Collaps
e Load*
(psi)
Grade*
Nominal
Weight*
(lbs/ft)
Connec
tions
Remarks
36 Conductor 30 - 700 - - - - K-55 106.3
API

seal off unconsolidated formations at
shallow depths
26 Surface 20 19 1300 581 1795 2410 770 K-55 106.3
API

seal off any fresh water sands, and
support the wellhead and BOP
Equipment.
17
Intermediat
e
13
3/8
12.347 4700 2100 3900 5380 2670 L-80 72 VAM
isolate unstable shales and lost
circulation zones
between the surface casing and the
production casing
12 Production 9 5/8 8.681 8900 4443 3900 6780 4750 L-80 47 VAM
isolate pay zone interval from other
formations

*Schlumberger i-Handbook has been used to select the appropriate casing
Appendix 33: Casing Design
132

Appendix 34: Casing and Cementing






















The casing and the cementing schematic diagram

TOC 6640
840
TOC 740
240
4240
8440
TOC seabed
133

Appendix 35: BHA
Rotary steering system (Courtesy of Baker Hughes Inteq)
[taken from John Ford Drilling Engineering notes 2008]



134

Appendix 36 : Directional Drilling

Directional Drilling




135

Appendix 37: Drilling Schedule
136


Appendix 38: Process plant
137


Appendix 39: Water treatment plant
138


Appendix 40: Transboundary map
BLOCK 43
139

Year
Oil prod Oil rev Gas prod Gas rev Tot Rev Opex Capex Tax NCF NCF(real)
Cum
NCF(real) DCF[0.1]
10^3
bbls/d millions 10^6 scf/d millions millions millions millions millions millions millions millions millions
0 2009 5.00 -5.00 -5.00 -5.00 -5.00
1 2010 258.00 -258.00 -250.49 -255.49 -227.71
2 2011 14 194.84 4.2 2.30 197.14 18.31 65.00 0.00 113.84 107.30 -148.18 88.68
3 2012 18 250.51 5.4 2.96 253.47 22.40 0.00 40.96 190.12 173.99 25.80 130.72
4 2013 18 250.51 5.4 2.96 253.47 22.40 0.00 115.54 115.54 102.65 128.46 70.11
5 2014 17.5 243.56 5.25 2.87 246.43 21.89 0.00 112.27 112.27 96.85 225.30 60.13
6 2015 15 208.76 4.5 2.46 211.23 19.33 0.00 95.95 95.95 80.35 305.66 45.36
7 2016 13 180.93 3.9 2.14 183.06 17.29 0.00 82.89 82.89 67.40 373.05 34.58
8 2017 11.6 161.44 3.48 1.91 163.35 15.86 0.00 73.75 73.75 58.22 431.27 27.16
9 2018 11 153.09 3.3 1.81 154.90 16.74 0.00 69.08 69.08 52.94 484.21 22.45
10 2019 9.8 136.39 2.94 1.61 138.00 15.52 0.00 61.24 61.24 45.57 529.78 17.57
11 2020 7.6 105.77 2.28 1.25 107.02 13.27 0.00 37.20 56.55 40.85 570.64 14.32
12 2021 5 69.59 1.5 0.82 70.41 10.61 0.00 0.00 59.80 41.94 612.58 13.36
13 2022 2.2 30.62 0.66 0.36 30.98 9.25 0.00 0.00 21.73 14.80 627.38 4.29
14 2023 2 27.83 0.6 0.33 28.16 9.04 0.00 0.00 19.12 12.64 640.02 3.33
15 2024 120.00 0.00 -120.00 -77.02 562.99 -18.44

52.82 15845 448.00 688.87
NPV 280.91
*Currency in mod terms NPV=280.91millions=Can$505.64 millions
Appendix 41: Summary of the cash flow model