Sub-Surface Master Development Plan-Phase 12

Pars Oil & Gas Company
Oil&GasEngineeringManagement
SOUTH PARS GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT
PHASE 12
SUB-SURFACE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
JUNE2008
Pars Oil and Gas Company
Master Development Plan for Phase 12
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
1.1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................1

Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2
Geology, Geophysics and Reservoir................................................................................ 1
1.2.1 Structure ............................................................................................................................. 2
1.2.2 Reservoir Characteristics ............................................................................................... 2
1.2.3 Hydrocarbons in Place .................................................................................................... 3
1.2.4 Reservoir Fluids ................................................................................................................ 3
1.3
Reservoir Development Plan .............................................................................................. 4
1.3.1 Reservoir Simulation ....................................................................................................... 4
1.3.2 Plateau Length .................................................................................................................. 4
1.4
Reservoir Uncertainties ....................................................................................................... 4
1.5
Drilling and Completion ....................................................................................................... 5
GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS...............................................................5
2.1
Geological History................................................................................................................. 5
2.2
Regional Geology .................................................................................................................. 7
2.3
South Pars Stratigraphy ...................................................................................................... 9
2.4
Top-Seal ................................................................................................................................... 9
2.5
Source Rocks ......................................................................................................................... 9
2.6
Geological Setting of South Pars Field.......................................................................... 10
2.7
History of 2D and 3D Seismic Surveys .......................................................................... 10
2.8
Scope of Work for Geophysical Interpretation for Phase 12 of South Pars ........ 12
2.8.1 3D Seismic Interpretation ............................................................................................. 12
2.8.2 3D Seismic Inversion ..................................................................................................... 13
2.8.3 Quantitative Reservoir Characterization Based on Seismic Attribute.............. 13
2.8.4 Interim Report .................................................................................................................. 14
2.8.5 Deliverables...................................................................................................................... 14
2.9
Litho-stratigraphy ............................................................................................................... 14
2.10
Petro-Facies Classification ............................................................................................... 16
2.11
Sedimentary Environment................................................................................................. 17
2.12
Zonation ................................................................................................................................. 19
2.13 Litho-Typing and Permeability Prediction .................................................................... 21

2.13.1
Litho-Typing ................................................................................................................ 21
2.13.2
Permeability Prediction ............................................................................................ 24
PETROPHYSICAL EVALUATIONS .......................................................25
3.1
Methodology and Procedures of Interpretation .......................................................... 25
3.1.1 Multimin Model ................................................................................................................ 25
3.1.2 Lithological Parameter Picking ................................................................................... 26
3.1.3 Petrophysical Parameters ............................................................................................ 26
3.1.4 Selection of Water Saturation Model ......................................................................... 28
3.1.5 Clay Volume Calculations ............................................................................................ 30
3.1.6 Gas Correction ................................................................................................................ 31
3.2
Petrophysical Interpretation ............................................................................................. 31
3.2.1 Depth Matching ............................................................................................................... 31
3.2.2 Precalc ............................................................................................................................... 32
3.2.3 Environmental Correction ............................................................................................ 32
3.2.4 Preliminary Multimin Modeling ................................................................................... 33
3.2.5 Evaluation of Vertical Wells ......................................................................................... 33
3.2.6 Evaluation of Deviated Wells ....................................................................................... 33
3.3
Net-Pay Summation ............................................................................................................ 34
3.4
Scope of Work for Petrophysical Logging for Phase 12 of South Pars ................ 35
STATIC RESERVOIR MODEL ...............................................................35
4.1
Structural and 3D Geological Modeling ......................................................................... 36
4.2
Petrophysical Property Modeling .................................................................................... 37
4.3
Gas Water Contact Surface............................................................................................... 40
4.4
Volumetric ............................................................................................................................. 40
4.5
3D Reservoir Modeling Grid ............................................................................................. 40
4.6
Upscaling Process .............................................................................................................. 41
5
5.1
RESERVOIR ENGINEERING .................................................................41

Introduction........................................................................................................................... 41
5.2
Data Availability ................................................................................................................... 42
5.2.1 Core Data .......................................................................................................................... 43
5.2.2 Well Test Data .................................................................................................................. 43
5.2.3 Reservoir Fluid Data ...................................................................................................... 43
5.3
Reservoir Dynamic Modeling ........................................................................................... 44
5.3.1 Dynamic Model Grid....................................................................................................... 44
5.3.2 Full Field Fluid Model .................................................................................................... 44

5.3.3
Gas Water Contact Definition ...................................................................................... 45
5.4
Gas Initially in Place (GIIP)................................................................................................ 47
5.5
Model Initialization .............................................................................................................. 47
5.6
Reservoir Drive Mechanism.............................................................................................. 48
5.7
Production Scheme ............................................................................................................ 48
5.8
Well Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 48
5.8.1 Well Perforation .............................................................................................................. 49
5.8.2 Well Simulation ............................................................................................................... 49
5.8.3 Well Constraints.............................................................................................................. 49
5.8.4 Reservoir Simulation Results ...................................................................................... 50
DRILLING AND COMPLETION..............................................................50
6.1
Introduction........................................................................................................................... 50
6.2
Appraisal Well ...................................................................................................................... 50
6.3
Development Wells ............................................................................................................. 52
6.4
Risks and Uncertainties..................................................................................................... 52
6.5
Technical Well Specification ............................................................................................ 53
6.5.1 Well Trajectories ............................................................................................................. 53
6.5.2 Casing Design ................................................................................................................. 54
6.5.2.1 32" Drilling Phase 26" Conductor Pipe ........................................................ 54
6.5.2.1 24" Drilling Phase 18" Surface Casing ..................................................... 54
6.5.2.2 16" Drilling Phase 13" Intermediate Casing ............................................ 55
6.5.2.3 12" Drilling Phase 9" Production Casing .............................................. 55
6.5.2.4 8" Drilling Phase 7" Production Liner ....................................................... 55
6.5.3 Cementing Design .......................................................................................................... 55
6.5.3.1 The 26" CP .............................................................................................................. 56
6.5.3.2 The 18" Casing ................................................................................................... 56
6.5.3.3 The 13" Intermediate Casing........................................................................... 56
6.5.3.4 The 9"-10" Intermediate Casing .................................................................. 56
6.5.3.5 The 7" Production Liner ...................................................................................... 56
6.5.4 Completion Design ......................................................................................................... 57
6.5.4.1 Completion Accessories ..................................................................................... 57
6.5.4.2 Wellhead and Xmas Tree..................................................................................... 57
6.5.5 Drilling and Completion Fluid...................................................................................... 58
6.5.5.1 32" Hole Section .................................................................................................... 58
6.5.5.2 24" Hole Section .................................................................................................... 58
6.5.5.3 16" Hole Section .................................................................................................... 58
6.5.5.4 12" Hole Section................................................................................................. 59
6.5.5.5 8" Hole Section ................................................................................................... 59
6.5.5.6 Completion Fluid ................................................................................................... 59
6.5.6 Solid Control Management ........................................................................................... 59
6.5.7 Perforation and Stimulation Strategy ........................................................................ 60
6.5.8 Well Clean-up Strategy .................................................................................................. 60
6.5.9 Well Time Estimate ......................................................................................................... 60

6.5.10 Well Operation Schedule .............................................................................................. 61
6.6
Health, Safety and Environment ...................................................................................... 61
6.6.1 Health and Safety Hazards ........................................................................................... 62
6.6.2 Environmental and Social Impacts ............................................................................ 62
Appendixes
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Tables
Figures
Well Trajectories
Well Programs
1 Executive Summary
1.1
Introduction
The South Pars Gas field is located in the Persian Gulf, at some 100 KM from
shore. Four huge condensate rich gas bearing reservoirs have been identified
(K1, K2, K3 and K4) in this field.
NIOC has envisaged developing this field by phases of some 1000 MMSCFD
wet gas production each. TOTAL / GasProm / Petronas have already
developed two such phases (referred to as "Phase 2" and "Phase3"). NIOC
developed South Pars development "Phase 1".
ENI / PETROPARS consortium developed Phases 4 & 5 and PETROPARS /
STATOIL joint ventures developed phases 6 / 7 /8. Phases 9 & 10 are
developing by NIOC / LG In each contract, respecting phases are integrated
in order to share common facilities and thus reduce the overall cost of the
development.
NIOC is pursuing further development under Phase 11 and "Phases 13 &14"
and "Phases 15 and 16", and "Phases 17 and 18", "Phases 19-21" and
"Phases 22-24" developments which are at tendering stage. It is believed that
developing the whole field will lead to 24 development phases.
This Master Development Plan provides the basic support data involving
geophysical, geological, petrophysical, reservoir and drilling / completion
information for the development of Phase 12 of South Pars development
project.
1.2
Geology, Geophysics and Reservoir
The current state of knowledge on the South Pars field relies on seismic
surveys shot between 1988 and 2003 and 19 exploration / appraisal wells
drilled from 1991 until 2007 together with the information gained through
drilling of development wells in Phases 1 (12 wells), Phase 2 & 3 (20 wells),
Page1
Phase 4 & 5 (24 wells), Phase 6 & 7 & 8 (30 wells) and Phases 9 & 10 (24
wells which are drilling). With the data acquired, the Kangan-Upper Dalan (K1
to K4) reservoirs can be described as structurally simple reservoirs on which
some geological and reservoir unknowns still exist such as the extension of
the reservoir, hydrocarbon source, gas-water level, H2S content in reservoir
fluid at different locations at different reservoir depth levels, etc.
1.2.1
Structure
The field structure is a relatively simple, NE-SW elongated flat dome,

approximately 120KM x 80KM. The reservoir consists of about 400 meters of
limestones and dolomites with subordinate anhydrite, divided into the Dalan
Formation (Permian) and the Kangan Formation (Triassic), which together
comprise the Khuff Formation of Arabian terminology. The Khuff is traditionally
subdivided into 5 main deposition sequences named K1 to K5. These
sequences are also recognized in the South Pars field.
Additionally a tilted gas-water contact towards the east is observed, which is
believed to have been caused by hydrodynamic processes.
A 3 dimensional seismic was acquired covering Phases 4 / 5 and 6 / 7/ 8
areas. In this respect a new seismic interpretation was made by Agip that
indicates rather same structure as the one made by TOTAL in 1999.
With respect to have a complete geological and geophysical knowledge of
South Pars, 3D seismic has been carried out by NIOC in 2005 which is under
processing by Spectrum.
1.2.2
Reservoir Characteristics
Reservoir quality is reasonable for gas, with an average porosity of around 9%

and an average permeability of around 3MD. Regionally, lateral correlation of
the depositional sequences is good. However, even for carbonates, the
Page2
reservoir properties are highly heterogeneous, both vertically and laterally, as

a consequence of early and late diagenetic processes.
The formations are subdivided into five correlatable sequences: K1, K2, K3,
and K4 (reservoirs), and K5 (non-reservoir) comprised of approximately 400M
of limestone and dolomite with subordinate anhydrite. They are dominated by
the development of massive oolite shoals and tidal flat deposits in sequences
of a generally regressive nature, terminated by tidal and supratidal mudstones
and anhydrites.
Development of reservoir quality appears to be controlled by the lateral extent
of the depositional facies and by early and late diagenesis. Major diagenetic
effects include dolomitisation, dissolution (leaching) and cementation. These
diagenetic processes have directly influenced reservoir quality and resulted in
an extremely heterogeneous reservoir, laterally and vertically, with a very wide
range in reservoir properties.
1.2.3
Hydrocarbons in Place
Gas-in-place estimation was conducted using the own interpretation of the

likely GIIP figure for reservoir performance forecast:
Zone
K1
K2
K3
K4
TOTAL
Current GIIP(TCF)
Current
OOIP (MMSTB)
109.82
74.15
117.96
175.83
477.76
3151
3137
4991
7740
19019
1.2.4
Reservoir Fluids
The initial condensate yield for K2, K3 and K4 from what has been produced
over the past couple of years after production start-up of Phases 2 & 3 and 4
& 5 is more than 42SBBL condensate per MMSCF of gas (wellhead
equivalent). It is expected that by introduction of leaner K1 (CGR for this layer
Page3
is about 26SBBL/MMSCF) this figure doesnt change much as K1 has the

least contribution to production from the reservoir.
1.3
Reservoir Development Plan
The Phase 12 development of the South Pars field includes all four reservoir
units K1 to K4. The development is based on an average plateau gas
production rate of 3000MMSCFD.
1.3.1
Reservoir Simulation
Dynamic reservoir models were constructed to establish the likely range in

production performance for the proposed development scheme. These
dynamic models were constructed from fully integrated geological models that
incorporate all data available. The potential impact of adjacent developments
in both Iran and Qatar was taken into account. Technical evaluation indicates
that the required production rates can be achieved with an initial development
phase consisting of 36 production wells, drilled from 3 single wellhead
platforms.
1.3.2
Plateau Length
Plateau length is predicted to be 16.3 years in average, assuming that

development operations consist of 36 wells with a maximum out-step of 3500
meters, and that capacity maintenance operation consists of offshore
compression. Potentially, the plateau duration is reduced by up to 5 years,
when more conservative sub-surface scenarios, covering the lower end of the
uncertainty range are considered.
1.4
Reservoir Uncertainties
Page4
A number of uncertainties are recognized which have an impact on gas-inplace estimate. These uncertainties are as follows, in decreasing order of
importance:
structural definition on the flanks of the field, position and configuration of the
gas-water-contact, actual distribution of the reservoir properties over the field
(rock and fluid), H2S content of reservoir fluid at different locations and depth
levels and its origin, faulting and possible effect on reservoir segmentation.
1.5
Drilling and Completion
The completion studies have shown the interest reducing the pressure losses
in the tubing. A 7" monobore completion is recommended. The following
casing program is only tentative and could be modified depending upon the
well deviation: 26" CP x 18 5.8" x 13 3.8:" x 9.5/8" -10 3/4" x 7" monobore
completion. The casing program and setting depths for reaching the K4 or the
Kangan-Dalan K2 / K3 seem to be identical. Corrosion resistant Alloy (CRA)
should be chosen for the liner lap and the tubing in order to protect against
corrosion during production as H2S and CO2 is expected in the well stream.
On the completion side, the liners will be cemented and perforated and
cleaned. The clean up of the wells will be further completed through matrix
acidizing right after wells are completed at surface. It is recommended to run
matrix acid stimulations using 28% HCl acid and diverting agents through bull
heading.
2 Geology and Geophysics

2.1
Geological History
The South Pars Gas-Condensate Field straddles the Iranian-Qatari maritime

border in the central part of the Persian Gulf. This field and its southern
extension, the North Dome, are located in the interior platform of the Arabian
Shelf structural province and are believed to be the worlds largest gas field
Page5
(120KM * 80KM). South Pars-North Dome Gas field is part of the huge NNESSW trending Qatar-Fars Arch which is one of the major structural elements
in central Persian Gulf area (figure 1).
The main structure of the South Pars / North Field at the Kangan and Dalan
level is an anticline fold. Its axis is elongated and curved from the South (In
Qatar) to the North East and dips 0.5 to the North East. The flanks are
approximately symmetrical, dipping 0.5 to the South East, and 0.6 to the
North West. The minimum Depth lies within the Qatar Portion of the field,
some 25KM from the Iran / Qatar border.
The Qatari part was discovered by Shell in 1971 by the North West Dome-1
(ND-1) well and the South Pars Field was subsequently discovered by NIOC
in 1991 by drilling South Pars-1 well (SP-01) that encountered gas reservoir in
the Permo-Triassic Kangan-Dalan carbonate formations. In 1991-92 the field
was confirmed by drilling three additional wells SP-02, SP-03 and SP-04 in
the original phases (The development of South Pars is being implemented by
subdividing the field into several development areas or phases); further fifteen
appraisal / delineation wells (SP-5 to SP-15, SPD2-04, SPD4-01, SPD10-08
and SPD11-08) which some of them are now as producing wells were drilled
in 1998-2007 on the structure. Also seventy eight development wells of which
eleven wells in phase 1, nine wells in phase 2, nine wells in phase 3, twenty
two wells in phases 4 & 5 and twenty seven wells in phases 6 & 7 & 8 have
been drilled in South Pars area. It must be mentioned that the drilling of
development wells of phases 9 & 10 has been started since the beginning of
2007.
The reservoir consists of about 400 meters of limestone and dolomites with
subordinate anhydrite, divided into the Dalan and Kangan formations
(together comprise the Khuff Formation of Arabian terminology). The latter
formations are separated by Permian-Triassic boundary and are divided into
five main units. The Kangan Formation is divided into K1 and K2 units and
Dalan Formation into K3, K4 and K5 units. K3 and K4 units are called as
Upper Dalan and K5 unit is called as Lower Dalan which is separated from K4
Page6
by a massive anhydrite body known as Nar member. This unit exhibit poor
reservoir characteristic (figure 2). The Dalan and Kangan succession has
been subdivided into significant large scale depositional sequences
representing major 3rd order cycles consisting KS1 to KS4 which are bounded
by distinct stratigraphic surfaces. In general sequence stratigraphic framework
coincides with main reservoir units which are lithological based.
2.2
Regional Geology
South Pars field is located on the Qatar-Fars Arch, one of the major structural
elements of the Central Persian Gulf Area. Persian Gulf is part of what is
referred to in the Plate Tectonic literatures as the Arabian Plate and / or the
Middle East Sedimentary Basin which is approximately 3000KM in length
and 2000KM in width. It is bounded from the north by Turkey Bitlis Suture,
from the west by the Red Sea, from the east by Zagros Mountain (Zagros
Thrust), and from the south by the Gulf of Oman and Owen Fracture Zone in
the Arabian Sea (figure 1).
The major structural features of the area are the results of two major tectonic
phases:
The first tectonic phase is the Amar Collision which was occurred 620-
640 million years ago along the north-south trending Amar weak zone in the
Arabia Shield.
The second tectonic phase corresponds to the Najd Rift System with
about 300 kilometers width and a general northwestsoutheast trend (parallel

to the present Zagros Mountain trend) which took place about 530-570 million
years ago (figure 3).
These two major tectonic events, especially the former one, are responsible
for the formation of the Qatar / Fars Arch High and other similar structures
such as Ghawar High. The Qatar-Fars High, the same as the other northerly
trends, is of Precambrian basement origin and formed about 620-640 million
Page7
years ago. These structures are formed due to the collision along the northerly
trending Amar Suture in the central part of the Arabian Shield. The major
north-south trending features are Qatar / Fars Arch, En Nala Anticline,
Khurias-Burgan Anticline, and Maaqala Anticline. These features have shaped
most of the major oil and gas field structures in Oman, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
southern Iraq, and southwestern Iran and also the Persian Gulf area. The
super giant structures of South Pars / North Dome, Ghawar, Safaniya-Khafji,
and Burgan owe their formation to these north-south structural features.
This region holds over two third of the oil and one third of the gas reserves
discovered in the world. This is due to a combination of some favorable
factors in this region. The most important factor is the prolonged and almost
uninterrupted
sedimentation
history
since
the
Precambrian
time.
Sedimentation of prone source rocks and numerous good quality reservoir

and cap rocks, combined with the presence of super giant structures, salt
halokinesis and the Zagros Orogeny are among the other major favorable
factors.
Qatar / Fars Arch High divide the Persian Gulf sedimentary basin into the
northern
and
southern
basins
with
somewhat
different
sedimentary
environments and even hydrocarbon habitats.

The Persian Gulf-Arabian Plate Basin is an asymmetric basin which its
crystalline basement floor has gentle dip to the northeast (about 2); from the
Arabian Peninsula to the Persian gulf and zagros mountains. The deepest
part of the basement floor is some 14-15 kilometers below the sea level which
is now located under the foot of the Zagros Mountain. The plate boundaries
exhibit all types of tectonic regimes from the sea floor spreading of the Red
Sea in the west to the Zagros collision zone to the northeast. The old
crystalline basement of the Arabian Sheild is exposed in the western parts of
the basin, from the Red Sea coastal area towards the central Arabian
Peninsula. These rocks range in age from 715 to 610 million years and are
composed of crystalline plutonic and metamorphic sediments separated from
each other by weak trends and sutures.
Page8
2.3
South Pars Stratigraphy
Among the exploration / delineation and development wells drilled in this area
to date, only in one well, SP-01, a short penetration of 19 meters was made
into the Faraghan Formation. All the other wells drilled in the South Pars have
been terminated in the upper parts of the Nar Member, as the objective of the
drilling was gas production, reservoir definition and / or fluid contact
identification in the Kangan-Upper Dalan reservoirs. This provided reasonable
stratigraphic knowledge down to the top of the Nar Member of the Dalan
Formation. But, stratigraphic information of the deeper horizons has to come
from the nearby areas of the sedimentary basin. The expected regional
stratigraphic sequence is shown in figure 4.
2.4
Top-Seal
The top seal of the Kangan and Dalan gas reservoirs is provided by the
Triassic Dashtak Formation and especially its Aghar Shale Member (Sudair
Shale) which directly overlies the Kangan formation. This shale is reddishbrown shale and believed to have a terrestrial origin. Additional sealing
capacity is provided by numerous anhydrites and tight carbonates in Dashtak
Formation.
2.5
Source Rocks
The possible source rocks for the South Pars-North Field accumulation are:
The Permo-Triassic rocks themselves
The underlying Silurian and Ordovician shales
Precambrian source rock similar to those encountered in Oman
Based on the recent studies it is accepted here that the most likely source are
Silurian shales of Sarchahn (Qusaiba of Saudi Arabia) Formation.
Page9
2.6
Geological Setting of South Pars Field
The South Pars Gas Field reservoir is shared with Qatar in median line and
the portion, falling within Iranian water, was detected through the seismic
survey shot in 1989 and 1992. Since then, eighteen exploration and appraisal
/ delineation wells (SP-1 to SP-15, SPD10-08, SPD11-08, SPD2-04 and
SPD4-01) have been drilled. The top of reservoir roughly sets around 2700M
from the sea level and the wet gas (gas and condensate) is in a gross rock
thickness of about 400M immediately below the reservoir top.
K1 mainly consisted of dolomite, Packstone-Wackstone limestone and streaks
of shale. There are also three rather thin anhydrite sub layers at the middle
and in the lower half of the layer. K2 mainly consisted of Wackstone,
Packstone and Grainstone limestone interbedded with thick dolomite layers.
K3 mostly consisted of Mudstone, Grainstone limestone interbedded with thick
dolomite layers significant anhydrite interval occurs at the bottom part of K3.
K4 mostly consisted of Packstone, Oolitic Grainstone limestone, dolomite and
rare thin layers of anhydrite.
K1 thickness is about 110M. The rock quality is poor and its average porosity
and water saturation is about 12 and 18 percent. K2 thickness is about 43M.
and its average porosity and water saturation is about 11 and 7 percent. K3
thickness is about 120M. and its average porosity and water saturation is
about 10 and 8 percent. K4 thickness is about 145M. and its average porosity
and water saturation is about 16 and 7 percent respectively.
The difference in GWC at different well locations indicates a tilted gas-watercontact. Based on the available information, there is a tilt in GWC from westsouth-west to east-north-east.
2.7
History of 2D and 3D Seismic Surveys
This field is covered by a number of seismic data acquisitions as follows

(figures 5 & 6):
Page10
The first 2D seismic survey is performed by DELFT Geophysical for
National Iranian Oil Company in 1988-1989 covering an area about 1500

square kilometers.
9
The second 2D seismic survey is executed by DELFT Geophysical for
National Iranian Oil Company in 1989-1990.This survey covers northern part

of South Pars Gas Field.
9
The third 2D seismic survey is carried out by DELFT Geophysical for
National Iranian Oil Company in 1992-1993. This survey covers northern part
of South Pars Gas Field.
9
The first 3D seismic survey is performed by DELFT Geophysical for
National Iranian Oil Company in 1994. This data acquisition covers an area of
85 square kilometers including the area between wells SP-01 and SP-02. This
survey was carried out to improve the structural definition of the field structure
for Phase 1 development area.
9
The second 3D seismic survey is carried out by Global Geo Services
ASA Company (GGS) for AGIP over an area of 1015 square kilometers,
covers phases 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 development areas.
9
The third and the most recent 3D seismic survey is carried out by GGS
for POGC over an area of 2665.90 square kilometers that is under processing
by SPECTRUM.
Main structural results found from seismic interpretation are:
This field is part of a huge shallow elongated northeast-southwest
dome which has a more gentle dip on the southeast flank (0.5) as compared
with the northwest flank (1).
The thickness of the Kangan / U.Dalan (Khuff) reservoir was found to
be almost constant. The K1 top surface varies from a minimum depth of

2580M (MSL) in the southwest part of phases 2 & 3 areas, to a maximum
depth of 2780M (MSL) in the northeast of these blocks.
The Kangan / U.Dalan layers show a gentle dipping towards northeast.
Page11
Unlike the almost constant thicknesses, the internal character of the
Kangan / U.Dalan reservoir has shown a lot of variation from east to west due
to the geological lateral variations.
There are some small graben-like features to the east of Phase 2 & 3,
on the flank of the dome.

There are series of more or less continuous faults of N-S and NE-SW
direction along the edge of the crestal area towards the 3H-1 structure.
Some faults with ENE-WSW orientations are observed to the north of
Phase 2 & 3, at the edge of the crestal area and at the east of the Phases 12
and 8. They are linked to a series of downward faulting to the north that are
observed above the Cretaceous level.
2.8
Scope of Work for Geophysical Interpretation

for Phase 12 of South Pars
There is only one well (SP-13) in the study area with full set logs and VSP
data, but consultant should use well information of adjacent wells SP-05 and
SP-06 in the study. General workflow of the 3D interpretation and inversion for
the Phase 12 of South Pars gas field is as follows.
2.8.1 3D Seismic Interpretation

This part includes the following items:
Seismic data loading: includes 3D seismic processed data, 3D seismic

velocities, VSPs and checkshots, well logs, etc.
Consistency checking: check the consistency between data of different

nature
Well to seismic calibration: generation of synthetic seismograms for all

available wells and well to seismic tie
Page12
Time horizons picking (at least nine horizons)
Fault interpretation
Velocity model preparing using seismic velocities (stacking or migration

velocities) and available VSPs and checkshots
Depth conversion
2.8.2 3D Seismic Inversion

This part includes the following items and will be done for reservoir intervals:
Wavelet extraction, sensitivity analysis and characterization of the

seismic wavelet at target level
Primary model building
Full band and band limited Inversion
Horizon picking revision
Seismic stratigraphy analysis
2.8.3 Quantitative Reservoir Characterization Based

on Seismic Attribute
This part includes the following items and will be done for reservoir intervals:
Attribute extraction and sensitivity tests for reservoir characterization

(Max of 5 attributes)
Inspection of relationships between seismic / inversion attributes and

reservoir properties at wells
Quantitative reservoir property prediction
Generating property cubes / maps
Page13
2.8.4 Interim Report

The geophysical interim report should contain the following items:
Describing the methodology applied for the 3D seismic interpretation

and Inversion as well as quantitative reservoir characterization.
Presenting relevant sections and maps
Describing results of the 3D seismic interpretation, inversion and

quantitative reservoir characterization
Describing structural and stratigraphical results
2.8.5 Deliverables
At the end of the geophysical study, consultant should deliver all generated
data and maps. Deliverables should be including the following items:
Time and Depth horizons in ASCII format
Fault sticks in ASCII format
Inverted data in SEGY format
Mean AI maps for reservoir intervals and Property maps (such as

porosity) in ASCII format
Seismic attribute maps, property maps, etc.
All extracted seismic attribute cubes / maps in SEGY / ASCII format
All generated maps in CGM format (Including generated time and

depth maps, attribute maps and mean AI maps for reservoir intervals)
2.9
Digital database
Litho-stratigraphy
Page14
Table 1 shows the stratigraphic position of the Kangan-Dalan reservoir in the

South Pars Field and the Persian Gulf area. Reservoir is divided into five
reservoir layers, K1 to K5. K1 plus K2 is equivalent to the Kangan and K3 plus
K4 is equivalent to the Upper Dalan. K5 is assumed non-reservoir in the South
Pars and put out of the field. The reservoir layers are separated by
impermeable barriers. Therefore, the field consists of four independent
reservoir layers. In this study, the four reservoir layers are named KG1, KG2,
UD3, and UD4 according to their Iranian nomenclature, Kangan (KG) and
Upper Dalan (UD).
The only direct information available from the sediments underneath the
Dalan Formation is limited to well SP-01. This well penetrates Nar Member,
Lower Dalan, and about 19M of the Faraghan clastics.
The Nar Member is about 174M thick in SP-01. It is composed of tight
anhydrite and dolomite layers, fine-grained and argillaceous, anhydritic to
pseudo-oolitic rocks, associated with argillaceous micritic limestones.
The average thickness of the Upper Dalan Member is about 285M in the
South Pars. It is composed of two major reservoir layers, UD-3 and UD-4 (K3
& K4):
f The average thickness of UD-4 (K4) in the South Pars is about 164M. It
is composed of six litho-units which from bottom to top are as follows:

anhydritic dolomite unit (UD_4-6) grading upwards to tight dolomite
(UD_4-5) and then dolomitic unit (UD_4-4), slightly porous to tight
limestone unit (UD_4-3), highly porous limestone unit (UD_4-2) and
slightly porous to tight dolomitic and / or anhydritic unit (UD_4-1).
f The average thickness of UD-3 (K3) in South Pars is about 121M. This
reservoir layer is tight and shows more facies changes laterally

compared to UD-4. It consists of five litho-units, from bottom to top as
follows: tight anhydrites and porous to tight dolomite unit (UD_3-5), tight
dolomitic anhydritic limestone unit (UD_3-4), tight anhydritic dolomite
unit (UD_3-3), tight dolomite unit (UD_3-2), tight to porous unit
composed of dolomite grading upward to limestone (UD_3-1).
Page15
The average thickness of the Kangan Formation is about 193M in the South
Pars. It consists of two major reservoir layers, KG-1 and KG-2 (K1 & K2):
f The average thickness of KG-2 (K2) reservoir layer is about 43M. It
includes two litho-units that are from bottom to top as follows: porous to
tight limestone to dolomitic limestone unit (KG_2-2) and porous to tight
dolomitic limestone grading upward to dolomite unit (KG_2-1).
f The average thickness of K1 reservoir layer is 111M in the South Pars. It
consists of three litho-units that are from bottom to top as follows: tight
anhydritic dolomite (KG_1-3), porous to tight dolomitic limestone (KG_12) and tight anhydritic dolomite (KG_1-1).
The Nar-Upper Dalan boundary should be picked where the dominant
lithology changes from dolomite dominated to anhydrite dominated. Therefore,
particular care must be exercised for the chronological correlations.
According to the bio-stratigraphic and stable isotope studies performed to
date, the Dalan top (the onset of Triassic age and Kangan Formation) is
characterized with the appearance of a stromatolite / thrombolite unit over a
breccia interval.
Thickness variations of the Upper Dalan and Kangan are minor over the field,
both in the layer-scale and the reservoir-scale as indicated for some of the
vertical wells in table 2.
Review of all available core descriptions indicates that lateral variations of
litho-facies are minor over the field. This is well shown and confirmed by the
correlation of electro-facies (rock types) and petrophysical multi-mineral
evaluations for the vertical wells of the field.
2.10
Petro-Facies Classification
Identification of lithofacies and their interpretation in terms of depositional

environments are based on sedimentological (mineralogy, depositional fabric,
textures, cross-bedding, etc.) and paleontological criteria (components and
Page16
biogenic structures) which is done on several core intervals of Kangan and

Dalan Formations. Accordingly 12 lithofacies (core facies) are defined for the
reservoir interval listed as bellow:
CF1: Massive, nodular or laminated anhydrite with contorted laminations
CF2: Dolomitic / lime mudstone often with fenestral fabric, anhydrite nodule
and evaporate casts
CF3: Dolomitic laminated Stromatolite boundstone with microbial filaments
CF4: Skeletal / peloid wackestone / packstone often associated with lagoonal
fauna and burrows
CF5: Medium-grained skeletal, ooid grainstone with oomoldic porosity
CF6: Coarse-grained skeletal, intraclast grainstone with interparticle porosity
CF7: Fine-grained ooid, peloid grainstone often associated with lagoonal
bioclast and secondary anhydrite cement
CF8: Dolo-breccia with abundant intraclast embedded within pervasive
anhydrite cement
CF9: Bioturbated mudstone to wackestone with commonly burrowed (such as
Rhizocorallum and Zoophycus)
CF10: Fossiliferous mudstone to skeletal wackestone often associated with
fine bioclast such as Echinoids, Sponge spicules and small Forams
CF11: Dark argillaceous mudstone to claystone often associated with
lamination and opaque minerals
CF12: Thrombolitic Stromatolitic boundstone with clotted fabric
2.11
Sedimentary Environment
All studies have proposed the homoclinal carbonate ramp model of

sedimentary environment for the reservoir interval of the KanganUpper
Dalan in South Pars. The carbonate ramps are characterized with low slopes
Page17
(0.5 to 5 seaward) and continuous decrease of energy from the coastline.

Therefore, it is an open shelf in which bioconstructions are rare or isolated so
that the grain size of sediments depends on the relief. The carbonate ramp is
the most suitable model for the KanganUpper Dalan reservoir due to two
particular facts: firstly, according to the local and regional information, the
lateral facies changes are mild specifically to the northeast (basinward).
Secondly, developed reefs are not present.
The facies described and interpreted above have been classified in terms of
overall depositional environment including:
1) Evaporitic supratidal / sabkha
2) Arid tidal flats (intertidal to upper subtidal setting, with several
subenvironments such as beach ridges, intertidal flats, shore face and
tidal channels)
3) Subtidal lagoon (open, restricted and hyper-saline settings)
4) Leeward shoals (subtidal to lower intertidal setting)
5) Oolitic to oobioclastic shoal belts (subtidal to lower intertidal setting; more
energetic tidal inlets, flood and ebb tidal deltas)
6) Seaward shoal with meggaripples
7) Outer ramp (quieter, deeper subtidal setting)
K1 is characterized as a dolomitic body mainly composed of mudstone and
wackstone / packstone facies (CF1 to CF 4) which are considered to be
deposited in pretidal, evaporatic supratidal and mudflats. There are also some
limestone beds which show relative sea level rise during deposition of this
unit. From the K1 through to the K2 there have been significant changes in
platform sedimentation, facies associations and climate consequently different
depositional models need to be created for each of the major stratigraphic
interval (figure 7).
K2 is composed of grain dominated facies with some mudstones intercalation.
The unit include beach and shallow-water thrombolitic facies followed by
Page18
storm generated grainstone which are considered to be deposited during

transsgressive system tract specially the lower limy part of the unit (figure 8).
The K3, an End-Permian unit, is mainly composed of Mudstone / Wackstone
facies (CF2 to CF4 & CF7) with some anhydrite (CF1) intercalations. These
facies successions are interpreted to be deposited in the upper to lower
intertidal and subtidal to lagoonal environments, respectively. Because of this
mud-dominated lithology, this unit shows low porosity and permeability values
and hence has a relatively poor reservoir quality except the upper part which
is composed of grainy dominated grainstone facies (figure 9).
K4 is mainly composed of bioclastic and oolitic transgressive sand complexes.
Cross bedding is a visual sedimentary structure and can be distinguished from
the cores. The unit composed of dolomitic and also limestone intervals but
limestones show the best reservoir quality within the succession. There are
also thin muddy open interval and the unit finally capped by internal
restricted platform conditions (figure 10).
2.12
Zonation
A new zonation was first assessed on wells SP-05 and SP-06 and at any step,
correlations were made to all the other vertical wells to ensure having a full
view over the field. In order to respect the sequence stratigraphy hierarchy,
the new geological-reservoir zonation includes four major zones, which are in
fact the same as those mentioned above (K1 to K4). These four major
reservoir zones are named KG1, KG2, UD3 and UD4 whose prefixes refer to
the Kangan and Upper Dalan Iranian nomenclature. Top and bottom of all
these zones are limited to sequence boundaries, except the boundary
between KG2 and UD3 (K2-K3) that is a maximum flooding surface. This
issue originated from the sequence stratigraphy study of TOTAL, in which no
evidence of sequence boundary is recognized within the Permian-Triassic
boundary interval. Hence the nearest stratigarphic top to the PTB interval has
been used as the startigraphic marker to differentiate the two major units.
Page19
In the new zonation, each of four major zones are subdivided onto minor
zones, so that K1 is divided into 3, K2 into 2, K3 into 5, and K4 into 6 minor
zones. Table 3 presents the hierarchy of the zonation along with the type of
boundaries and dominant lithology of each zone. The nomenclature used for
these 16 minor zones are as follows:
KG1
(KG1-1, KG1-2, KG1-3)
KG2
(KG2-1, KG2-2)
UD3 (UD3-1, UD3-2, UD3-3, UD3-4, UD3-5)

UD4 (UD4-1, UD4-2, UD4-3, UD4-4, UD4-5, UD4-6)
It has to be mentioned that in cases, the sequence stratigraphic boundaries
may not match exactly with the reservoir boundaries (seals and pay-zones).
Therefore, using petrophysical and other data, minor adjustment was applied
to the boundaries to meet the reservoir considerations for the purpose of 3D
geological model and reservoir simulation.
At the next step, the new zonation was correlated to all the vertical wells using
GR log as the basis for isochronous correlation. Other log data were also
compared while correlation, but GR log considered as the reference log. Table
4 shows the marker chart of the geologic-reservoir zones for some of the
vertical wells and table 5 presents the thicknesses of the geologic-reservoir
zones for these vertical wells. As expected, the thickness variations are minor.
This implies the almost the same sedimentary environment had been
prevailing during the sedimentation of each layer over the studied area of the
field.
GR log and petrophysical Multimin results have been demonstrated for each
well. The lithologies are so comparable. This evidence along with other
evidences such as minor thickness variations and comparable electro-facies,
core descriptions and petro-facies, all confirm that lateral variations of
sedimentary environment had been minor over the studied area of the field.
Page20
2.13
Litho-Typing and Permeability Prediction
Litho-typing provides different rock types with specific reservoir and geological
properties necessary for Geo-cellular Modeling. The data required for lithotyping include core data and well logs. To compare the two sources of data,
Petro-facies determination was a prerequisite. An unsupervised litho-typing
applied in this study using a new method called MRGC (Multi-Resolution
Graph-based Clustering).
Permeability prediction is a necessary step of each reservoir characterization
and modeling and MRGC method proved to be the best technique to
permeability prediction in this study.
2.13.1 Litho-Typing
Litho-typing is a method to determine different rock types present in the
reservoir using log and core data in reference wells. The rock types can then
be predicted in all other wells having the same set of log data. This is done
through the data analysis of log and core data and matching the two in the
reference wells. The model built for the reference wells is then used to
analyze the log data for other wells. For each depth the model allocates the
rock type analogous to the log values at the same depth.
Based on the abundance and quality of the data available, Unsupervised
Approach method was applied in litho-typing. In this method the data structure
is analyzed to define the number and the limits of the statistically
homogeneous clusters (electro-facies). Then the defined electro-facies are
having close reservoir and / or lithological characteristics or properties are
merged and finally, the remaining electro-facies are introduced as main types
of the reservoir. Carbonate rocks with different textures, i.e. mudstones to
grainstones, can not be easily differentiated by the responses of the
conventional logs. They mainly differ in porosity, but this is not characteristic
enough for the Supervised litho-typing. The best evidence of the complexity of
Page21
the South Pars Gas Reservoir rocks is the complex and varying relationship
between porosity and permeability.
Among the variety of the methods for electro-facies determination such as
Fuzzy Logic in Fuzzy Logic Module and, Ascendant Hierarchical Clustering
(AHC), Dynamic Clustering (Dyn Clustering) and Self-Organization Map
Clustering (SOM), in Facimage Module in Geolog 6.5, the new method
called Multi Resolution Graph-based Clustering (MRGC), based on the
following advantages, proved to be the most efficient:
The number of clusters is automatically defined using the Kernel

Representative Index (KRI) curve which removes the operator bias.
MRGC begins by making small clusters and after that it merges them to
form larger clusters. This technique produces a number of models for
the data set, each representing a different resolution. Thereby the user
can choose between the models the resolution required for the project.
The optimal clusters are organized in a hierarchical way so that the

clusters of higher resolutions are always sub-clusters of low resolution
clusters. This helps the easier choose of the resolution and ensures
that all the models are consistent and only differ in the level of the
clustering resolution.
MRGC clustering consists of 3 main steps as Create Model, Learning and

Propagation. The Create Model step is where the input data (logs) are
chosen. In the learning step, the method and the parameters is selected to
analyze the structure of the input data. And finally at the Learning step, the
defined clusters are propagated to other wells.
In this study Effective Porosity (PHIE) and gas corrected Neutron Density
(RHOB-CORR) were used as input data for electro-faciec determination. Then
it was necessary to define representative and key wells for clustering. The
vertical wells were considered as representative wells for both litho-typing and
permeability prediction. This is due to both their geographical location in terms
of field coverage, and their better log quality. Cored wells were considered as
Page22
key wells in this study but just some wells could be used to Learning due to
software / hardware limitations.
As twelve core-facies had been already distinguished during the study of core
thin-sections, and considering the wide rang of porosity values, the suitable
number of electro-facies was expected to be about 12 or few more. Different
ranges of maximum and minimum number of clusters were tested and
compared. It was concluded that as MRGC clustering does not take into
account the geological considerations by itself, to improve the conceptual
quality of the litho-typing, some geological concepts had to be applied through
user. To do so, it was decided to create models with more clusters (higher
resolutions) than predicted / required and then merge those that geologically
and at the same time statistically alike.
Among five different clustering models (different resolutions) that MRGC
algorithm made available (31, 35, 40, 43 and 49 clusters), the one with 35
clusters was found the most suitable. Figure 11 illustrates 35-cluster model for
wells SP-01, SP-06 and SP-08. As it is seen, it has reached to enough
resolution in order to separate limestones, dolomites and anhydrites for all the
porosity ranges. Figure 12 illustrates 35-cluster model that is applied to all
vertical wells.
35-cluster model bears a resolution higher than what is required for this study.
Hence, as it is done in most of litho-typing studies, in the next step, clusters
with close properties were merged together. This merging step was performed
with this consideration that the lithological (core-facies) character, while the
character should worth defining a new cluster (electro-facies). This was done
referring to the core data and petro-facies.
After the required suitable merges were applied, the optimal number of
clusters was determined as 16 clusters (electro-facies).
Electro-facies 1 characterizes Anhydrites
Electro-facies 2 defines Anhydritic Dolomites
Page23
Electro-facies 3 to 9 characterize Dolomites with different limited

ranges of porosities so that porosity increases from electro-facies 3 to
electro-facies 9.
Electro-facies 10 to 16 define Limestones with different limited ranges

of porosities so that porosity increases from electro-facies 10 to electrofacies 16.
Figure 13 illustrates 16 electro-facies for vertical representative wells and

figure 14 shows their frequency histogram in these wells. This statistics say
that in terms of main rock types, the reservoir (KG1-1 to UD4-6) is composed
of:
Dolomite
49.38%
Limestone
31.69%
Anhydritic Dolomite
13.76%
Resultant merged clusters should have homogeneous reservoir (i.e.

permeability) and lithological (core-facies) character, while the character
should worth defining a new cluster (electro-facies). This was done referring to
the core data and core-facies.
After definition of the clusters, the resultant electro-facies were compared with
Multimin results in colored facies log layouts. An excellent classic correlation
is observed between the electro-facies and Multimin results that indicates high
precision and accuracy of both the Multimin evaluation and the litho-typing.
This is due to the fact that both of them have been checked and matched with
core data separately.
2.13.2 Permeability Prediction

The best model for permeability prediction is the one using Multimin Porosity
(PHIE), Electro-facies (EFAC) and Flushed Zone Resistivity (RXO) that
indicates the highest correlation coefficient (CC) of prediction. This model was
put to Learning once again using all the cored wells. Then the model was
Page24
applied to all the vertical wells as well as development wells. For Phase 1
wells, due to the lack of RXO data, PHIE & EFAC model was applied. This
model (PHIE, EFAC) was chosen for Phase 1 wells due to its higher CC of
prediction and also due to the fact that both PHIE and EFAC data have been
corrected and quality checked with other wells while other log data in Phase 1
wells show some deviations compared to other wells data. The permeability
log that was predicted this way is called predicted permeability.
3 Petrophysical Evaluations
3.1
3.1.1
Methodology and Procedures of Interpretation

Multimin Model
MULTIMIN method which was used in previous studies to make the

petrophysical model is a methodology that focuses on the responses of the
wire line logging tools to the environment being logged. Response equations
are set up to predict each measurement of the logging suite, given all the
volumes of minerals and fluids that actually influence each sensor. These
volumes of each component are adjusted to give the optimum or most
probable match to the readings of the suite of the log data.From this most
likely solution, the volumes of minerals and fluid volumes, and hence
porosities and fluid saturations are calculated. The MULTIMIN outputs consist
of the followings:
The percentage of different computed minerals
The effective and total porosity
The fluid content (gas, mud filtrate and formation water)
Preliminary modeling with single MULTIMIN model for entire reservoir section
showed that the general model would not provide best fit for the
characteristics of KG1-1, KG1-3, UD3-1, and UD4-5. These reservoir layers
are mainly composed of anhydrite and anhydritic dolomite. In order to
Page25
calculate the volume of anhydrite to be match with cores, another MULTIMIN

model with specific log parameters was arranged and applied to those layers.
According to the main minerals identified by core studies, the minerals chosen
for evaluation by MULTIMIN were calcite, dolomite, anhydrite and illite. The
lithological definition and identification of the gas effect on lithology were
established by constructing the RHOB versus NPHI cross plot.
3.1.2
Lithological Parameter Picking
Log responses to different lithologies should be determined for obtaining the

most accurate evaluation. This step was performed by making frequency plots
of different logs. Frequency plots were constructed for NPHI, RHOB and DT a
frequency plots, different lithologies have different responses that could be
clustered in statistical models. These responses were used for preliminary
MULTIMIN models. Calcite and dolomite are the main lithologies and their
normal responses are shown in the following table.
3.1.3
Petrophysical Parameters
Petrophysical parameters were measured and identified for wells SP-05 and
SP-06 in special core analysis reports (TOTAL SOUTH PARS, Kangan /
Dalan formation, special core analysis, wells SP-05 and SP-06, TOTALFINA,
May 2000). In these reports, the cementation factor m is identified as m=2 for
dolomite. It is stated in the report, that for limestone, 'm' parameter may be as
large as 2.4. Another finding of the report is that, the cementation factor varies
with isostatic stress. To investigate the effect of variable m versus constant
Page26
m on log-derived porosity and water saturation, well SP-06 was used as a

key well. The whole section in this well was selected and water saturation and
porosity were calculated by both variable m and constant m models. The
variable m equation for this test was adopted from TOTAL (2002). The
following conclusions may be drawn from the plot:
Variable m has no sensible effect on the effective porosity calculated

by Geolog6, as expected.
Variable m makes the calculated water saturation to increase. The

rate of the increase is higher in low porosity ranges so that the
difference between the two models of Sw calculation is not
considerable.
Statistically, near 3000 water saturation and porosity values are calculated in
this evaluation for SP-06. The average water saturation for the entire well
interval by constant and variable m is calculated and shown in the following
table.
Considering the 3% porosity cutoff case, the difference between the

calculated water saturation in two models is less than one porosity unit, which
is not considerable. In addition to the results of this test, it is noteworthy that
the variable m equation itself bears much of uncertainty due to insufficient m
measurements for various rock types, different ranges of porosity and
formation resistivity. As the result, we are convinced to use constant m for
water saturation calculation in this study.
The Tortuosity parameter (a) is the last component necessary to decide on
petrophysical evaluation. This specific parameter is assumed to be equal to
Page27
1.0 in all petrophysical evaluations made by other companies involved in

South Pars. In the current study, we found no reason to use other values, and
decided to use the same value a=1.0. Therefore as a final decision, the
following petrophysical parameters were used in this study:
Cementation factor (m) = 2
Saturation exponent (n) = 2
Tortuosity constant (a) = 1
It is worth to note that TOTALFINAELF in petrophysical interpretation of 35

wells assumed the saturation exponent n equal to 2. For cementation factor
m; however two different approaches were selected for two groups of wells
as follows:
For all vertical wells and Phase 2 and 3 wells if the volume of calcite
was over 50%, then the porosity calculated using variable m formula.
Otherwise (if calcite volume was less that 50%), cementation factor m
assumed to be equal to 2.
For deviated wells in such as Development Phase 1, the cementation

factor m was assumed to be equal to 2.
3.1.4
Selection of Water Saturation Model
Core studies show the presence of some shaly and argillaceous intervals in
the South Pars gas reservoir layers. Therefore in petrophysical interpretation,
presence of clay minerals should be taken into account in the model, as a
minor constituent. To model this phenomenon, the Dual Water Model was
chosen for the interpretation. Archie model on the other hand is suitable for
water saturation calculation in clean formations. The advantage of using Dual
Water model versus the other model, Archie, is that, if the formation is clean
(i.e. no clay is present), then the Dual Water formula reduces to the Archie
equation .Another advantage of using Dual Water model is that, this model is
Page28
suitable for brine waters having salinity greater than 20,500 PPM, as it is the
case in the South Pars wells. Archie and Dual Water equations are as follows:
Archie:
Ct = Cw
m
a
S wn
Where:
Cw = Brine Conductivity (S/m)
Ct = Total Rock Conductivity (S/m)
t = Core Analysis Total Porosity (v/v)
Sw = Initial Water Saturation (v/v)
m = Cementation Exponent
n = Saturation Exponent
a = Intercept
Dual Water:
Ct = (1 / a ) tm Swtn {[ Swt Swb ) /( Swt )] * Cw + [Cbw * Swb / Swt ]}

a = Archie Fluid Factor
n = Saturation Exponent = 2.0
t = Total Porosity (FT3 / FT3)
Swt = Total Water Saturation (FT3 / FT3)
Swb = Bound Water Saturation (FT3 / FT3)
Cw = Formation Water Conductivity (MS / M) (Computed based on
temperature and salinity)
Cbw = Clay Bound Water Conductivity (MS / M) (Computed based on
temperature, salinity, CEC, and clay density)
m = Cementation Factor = mDW + CDW (0.258 Y + 0.2 (1-e-16.4Y))
mDW = Dual Water Cementation Factor
Page29
CDW = Dual Water Cementation Factor Constant

Y = Clay Volume (1- Clay Bound Water Fraction) (CECclay *clay) / t
CECclay = Clay Cation Exchange Capacity (MEQ / CM3)
clay = Clay Density (G / CC)
3.1.5
Clay Volume Calculations
The existing model for petrophysical evaluation contains dolomite, calcite,

anhydrite and illite as shale indicator. The gas reservoir layers in South Pars
contain shaly zones and many argillaceous limestones that contain clay
minerals. These shaly / argillaceous intervals are dispersed in all reservoir
layers, especially in K1 and K3. In previous studies the Gamma Ray was used
as the base for clay volume calculations. Whenever NGS log was available
then, potassium and uranium volumes were used as a base for clay volume
calculation. As no X-Ray Differentiation (XRD) analysis is available to identify
clay minerals type another method had chosen to determine the clay type. To
understand the clay type a standard cross plot was used. NGS data is
available for some vertical wells. There are shaly intervals present in these
wells with GR readings, greater than 40 API. POTA-THOR cross plots are
presented for wells SP-01, SP-02, SP-04, SP-07, SP-08, SP-12, SP-14 and
SP-15 as shown in figure 15.
This Figure shows that the clay type is mainly illite for some of the wells such
as SP-01, SP-02, and SP-04 while it shows glauconite as the main clay type
for SP-12. Based on this observation and geological considerations, we
conclude that illite is the most common clay present in South Pars wells.
The cross plots shows that the clay type is mainly illite for SP-01, SP-02, and
SP-04 while it shows glauconite as the main clay type for SP-12. Based on
this observation and geological considerations, we conclude that illite is the
most common clay present in South Pars wells.
Page30
3.1.6
Gas Correction
Gas in the reservoirs affects RHOB and NPHI measurements. This

phenomenon is called the Gas Effect. To determine the real porosity, gas
correction is necessary to remove the undesirable effect of presence of gas
on RHOB and NPHI logs readings. Geolog6 has a deterministic approach for
gas correction. This module applies gas correction to NPHI and RHOB based
on the gas specific gravity. This module was applied to SP-06. The result
showed relatively poor match of log-derived porosity with core-derived
porosity. To resolve the problem of poor porosity match a regression
parameter was applied mathematically to the whole calculated porosity to
make the porosity match acceptable.
Another method instead of trying to match porosity by applying gas effect in
deterministic calculations which proved to be efficient only to a limited extent,
the raw porosity logs are corrected for gas effect and then the corrected
porosity logs are submitted to be used in MULTIMIN modeling.
3.2
Petrophysical Interpretation
In petrophysical interpretation of South Pars wells, the main steps will be;
Depth
Matching,
PRECALC,
Environmental
Corrections,
Preliminary
MULTIMIN Modeling, Evaluation of a sample well, Evaluation of Vertical wells,

and finally Evaluation of deviated wells.
3.2.1
Depth Matching
In wire line logging, logs are recorded in multiple runs, and then different sets
of logs can be recorded off depth from one another for a variety of reasons.
So wire line logs were depth matched to RHOB and GR as base logs. Core
depths were also depth matched to NPHI log as the base (tools sticking, poor
motion compensation, engineer error, etc.). In PEX and LWD logging, all logs
are recorded during the same run so, in these types of loggings there will be
Page31
no need for depth matching. In addition to depth matching for logs, core
depths should also be matched with a base log.
3.2.2
Precalc
The PRECALC module in Geolog6 is used to calculate the following:
Formation temperature and pressure profiles
Down-hole
mud
properties
(Rmf,
Rm,
Rmc)
from
sample
measurements
Salinities of mud and mud filtrate from sample measurements
Mud-cake thickness for both resistivity and porosity tools
Photoelectric absorption cross-section (U)
Conductivity of un-flushed and flushed zones (Ct, Cxo) from measured

resistivity.
3.2.3
Environmental Correction
The environmental corrections are performed with routines available in

Geolog6 software. Such corrections are specific to different logging
companies:
Schlumberger charts for the wells logged by Schlumberger
Halliburton charts for the wells logged by National Iranian Drilling

Company (NIDC)
The logs that need environmental corrections are: Density, Neutron,

Resistivity, and GR. The correction algorithm adjusts the logs for the effects of
temperature, mud characteristics, hole-size, pressure, and formation water
salinity. To check for the extent of the effect of environmental corrections on
the original logs, the corrected values of the logs are compared to the original
uncorrected values for vertical wells. As it is apparent from the cross plots, the
Page32
difference between the corrected and original values is negligible. To check

for the validity of applied environmental corrections, standard cross plots were
also prepared. A sample result is shown in figure 16.
3.2.4
Preliminary Multimin Modeling
Before embarking on full petrophysical evaluation, it is useful to prepare a

preliminary MULTIMIN model to make a number of sensitivity analyses. This
will help to understand the characteristics of the model, with the best fitting of
the well evaluation. The preliminary MULTIMIN model consists of different
minerals, fluid contents, petrophysical parameters, and water saturation
models.
3.2.5
Evaluation of Vertical Wells
The final MULTIMIN model was applied to all vertical wells. Some changes
and adoptions needed to fit the model with special characteristics of each well
to achieve the best interpretation result. Each well was evaluated using the
final model. As mentioned before, the model for each well was adjusted to
achieve the best quality matching with core-measured lithology and porosity
To cross check the validity of single well interpretations, the calculated
lithology of the wells were correlated across the field by creating crosssections. The cross-sections were selected such that all vertical wells to
correlate with each other from different directions.
In figure 17, some of the vertical wells are correlated. The petrophysical
evaluations of the vertical wells were completed by making complementary
evaluations including lithotype determination and permeability prediction.
3.2.6
Evaluation of Deviated Wells
The final model for each vertical well was used as the preliminary model for
petrophysical evaluation of deviated wells clustered around the subject
Page33
vertical well. Deviated wells, which were logged with LWD, show a lower
resistivity when compared to wire line logs. These wells needed adjustment to
match the resistivity of the vertical wells after preliminary evaluation.
The same model as mentioned in previous section was used for the wells that
were logged with PEX tools. No sonic logs were available for wells logged
with LWD also the photoelectric logs ran for these wells found to have poor
quality. Due to lack of sonic log and poor quality of photoelectric logs in wells
logged with LWD, the final model could not directly be run in Geolog6 to
compute all minerals and fluid saturations. To resolve this problem, sonic log
was computed (reconstructed) for each well from RHOB by the GardnerGregory equations. To enhance the accuracy of petrophysical evaluation of
deviated wells, it was tried to adjust evaluation of the deviated wells with the
nearby vertical well(s), drilled from the same platform. This is demonstrated in
different cross-sections made between the vertical well(s) and the nearby
deviated wells.
From the cross-sections, calculated lithologies and porosities show a good
correlation between wells for which PEX has been run and the vertical wells,
but to allow acceptable correlation some adjustments were needed for the
wells having LWD logs. These adjustments were necessary to improve the
calculated lithology and porosity.
3.3
Net-Pay Summation
Average Water Saturation (SWE), Porosity (PHIE), Volume of Calcite,

Dolomite, Anhydrite and Illite for all intervals K1, K2, K3 and K4 must be
calculated. All bad-hole intervals should be identified and discarded to avoid
contribution of low quality results to affect the calculated average
petrophysical results.
Page34
3.4
Scope of Work for Petrophysical Logging

for Phase 12 of South Pars
Logging activities for development wells of phase 12 will be included as

follows:
For each deviated well MWD / GR is suggested to run from KOP to T.D
and CDR / GR is to run from reservoir entrance point and KOP to
surface.
CBL / VDL logging is requested to perform in whole cased hole of each

well.
Full suite logs, including Full-Wave Sonic, TLD, HRLA, HGNS, and
NGS are suggested to acquire for the formations of Kangan and Upper
Dalan for each vertical well under wireline operation.
Full suit logs are suggested to acquire for deviated wells under LWD
operation.
FMI logging for the objective formations including Kangan and upper
Dalan is suggested to perform in all vertical wells.
Full suit logs are suggested to acquire for formations Maddud to

Fahliyan only for vertical wells under wireline operation.
DSI logging is suggested only in one of the vertical wells.
4 Static Reservoir Model

To build the geological model, all initial input data such as seismic maps, well
markers, well trajectories, petrophysical properties, international borders, and
license boundaries were gathered and imported to the project. In summary the
following sequence is adopted for geological model construction and
conclusions:
Page35
Initial data input and manipulation
Structural modeling
3D Grid construction
3D Facies modeling
3D Petrophysical properties modeling (Deterministic)
3D Petrophysical properties modeling (Stochastic)
Initial gas inplace calculations
Up-scaling and post processing to Eclipse 300
4.1 Structural and 3D Geological Modeling

Following sequence stratigraphy and reservoir geology of South Pars gas
field, 16 layers were defined in Kangan and Upper Dalan formations. These
layers were set in the geological model. Therefore, the geological model was
constructed according to findings in geological studies of the field such as, 17
horizons and 16 Isochores were created in the model (table 7).
According to geophysical reviews, the depth map prepared by NIOC
Exploration in 2004 was accepted as the most reliable underground contour
(UGC) map on near top K1. This map was used as the Reference or the
Base, for further adjustments by all existing well markers. The uppermost
interpreted horizon (KG1-1) was created using the reference UGC and all well
markers (figure 18). Based on the uppermost interpreted horizon, the
geometrical characteristics of the wells at lower layers were calculated. It is
worthy to mention that the new surface calculations were performed using the
well trajectories and minimum curvature algorithms. The isochore gridding
for 16 layers were done using TVT data and isochore surfaces of all 16 layers
were built and completely fitted with wells TVT. Stratigraphic Modeling was
done to build calculated horizons using the interpreted horizon for all 16 layers
Page36
(figures 19 & 20). Upon completing structural modeling and quality control
(QC) of the results, 3D geological grid was built with the following
specifications:
Grid type: Stacked Corner point (16 Sub grids)
Rotation angle: 43.66
Number of columns and rows: 188*131*943
Total Number of 3D cells: 23,224,204
4.2 Petrophysical Property Modeling

Property modeling is the process of assigning each cell a value for different
vectors Such as Porosity, Permeability, Water Saturation and etc. All needed
well properties including well trajectories and petrophysical properties were
input to software in 0.5 feet increment. The list of input parameters is shown in
table 8. The created database includes the input data for total of all wells,
including:
Out structure Well 3H-1
Exploration / Delineation Wells
Development Wells
For identifying the cells intersected by the well tracks and giving each cell the
average value of various log properties located in 3D grid cell, Blocking Well
was done. Zone Log (discrete log, in which each sub-zone, the isochors
between specified horizons, is represented by a unique discrete code)
treatment in up-scaling process is shift and scale the logs to match sub
grids. Facies discrete log was up-scaled using weight function to select the
dominant value code to represent each cell. Continuous logs including PHIE,
Perm_Log, SWE, VOL_ANH, VOL_CAL, VOL_DOL and VOL_ILL were upscaled Using arithmetic average and biased to facies log (EFAC_Disc). To
understand the quality of matching between the raw and blocked well data,
Page37
they were statistically compared for main properties such as Facies, PHIE,
SWE, etc.
The priority in a facies model is the treatment of the larger scale architecture.
Studies and measurements show that variability in petrophysical properties is
often greater among bodies of different facies types than among facies bodies
of the same type. The way in which the petrophysical properties vary, is often
the function of the facies type. A proper facies model is therefore required in
order to obtain a sound and possibly detailed petrophysical model for
heterogeneous reservoirs. In the current study, a pixel-based simulation
technique is selected using Facies Indicator module from software for facies
modeling. Then Statistical analyses of facies data in blocked wells were done
considering:
Comparing distribution of facies raw and blocked well data to check the
correct up-scaling process
Distribution of each facies type in any / all sub grids to see the
frequency and presence of facies in the sub grids
Distribution of facies in all directions to see if there is any spatial trend
The results showed that there was good match between raw and blocked well
data but, no specific trend was found in any directions; therefore vertical
proportion curve for South Pars blocked well data was created as shown in
figure 21. The VPC was used as facies trend and volume fractions for the
facies modeling in each sub grid. 16 variorums created for each facies type
and facies stochastic simulation was done using facies indicator module
subsequently (figure 22).
The sequence of stochastic property modeling consists of the following steps:
Data transformation to get the normal distribution
Setting Variogram model
Correlation between two variables
Page38
Adopting a Geo-statistical method to generate data values for each grid

cell
The reverse transformation to back apply the transformed values
The simulation algorithm used for creating the realizations was based on the
assumption that the variable to be modeled has a Gaussian distribution with a
mean value of zero and a standard deviation of one. It was therefore
necessary to make appropriate transformation to the data to remove any
trends and matching distribution requirements. In next step, transformation of
porosity and permeability was applied for each type of facies separately using
the following sequences:
Data and realization truncation
Shift and scale around mean value
Normalization using cumulative density function (CDF)
Histograms before and after transformation of porosity and permeability for

main layers KG1, KG2, UD3 and UD4 as well as main lithotypes Anhydrites,
Dolomites and Limestones are shown in figures 23 & 24.
The variogram modeling was used for porosity transformed data in blocked
wells and performed for each facies type individually. In the South Pars
reservoir rock, the porosity values weakly correlate with permeability.
Therefore, it was decided to associate the porosity and permeability values
simultaneously using stochastic simulation techniques. As petrophysical
properties have significantly different statistical characteristics inside different
facies associations, therefore, Porosity-Permeability correlation for each
facies type is defined independently. The result of porosity-permeability
correlation of all transformed porosity and related permeability values for all
blocked-well data are plotted in figure 25. Stochastic simulation of porositypermeability was performed and the result is presented in figures 26 - 61.
Water saturation is associated with porosity through a model for 16 sub grid
layers and 3 main lithotypes in blocked well data using trend functions.
Page39
Because of absence of number of lithotypes in number of sub grids, 41 trend

equations were achieved. Water saturation modeling was performed using
curve fitting method. The best fitted curve was selected through eligible
Convex / Concave curves based on minimum standard errors, residuals and
best correlation. Table 9 shows the best fitted curve for individual layers and
litho types. The results, of the calculated values for SW are presented in
figures 62 - 78. Comparing SWE values from petrophysical interpretation with
created model values show very good matching of the calculated values the
original values.
4.3 Gas Water Contact Surface

Original Gas Water Contact (OGWC) was determined in 16 wells and the
result is shown in figures 79 & 80.
4.4 Volumetric
One of the main objectives of preparing the 3D geological model is to have
the best estimate of Initial Hydrocarbon Inplace. Different values for the Initial
Gas Inplace (IGIP) were made available using different statistical realizations
results for reservoir properties.
4.5 3D Reservoir Modeling Grid

The prime objective of constructing 3D Geological model is to create upscaled version of the model to be used in reservoir simulation. The up-scaling
process is necessary because the original geological model possesses too
many grid cells such that make the reservoir simulation impractical. Therefore
the number of grid cells must be reduced (Up-Scaled) to be used in reservoir
simulation software. In this study, the geological model was up-scaled to be
used in Eclipse 300 reservoir simulation software.
Page40
4.6 Upscaling Process

3D reservoir grid was exported in the required format to be directly used by
Eclipse 300 as the number of columns and rows have been upscaled from
188*131*943 to 153*78*13. The results, of the property values for porosity,
Permeability and water saturation are presented in figures 81 83.
5 Reservoir Engineering
5.1
Introduction
The South Pars-North Field straddles the Qatari-Iranian maritime border in the
central part of the Persian Gulf. It is believed to be the worlds largest gas
field, with relatively dry, sour gas in the Permo-Triassic Kangan and Dalan
carbonates. The Qatari part of the field was discovered by Shell in 1971 by
the North West Dome-1 well and the South Pars field was subsequently
discovered by N.I.O.C. in 1991 (South Pars#1 so called SP1).
The field structure is a relatively simple, NE-SW elongated flat dome,
approximately 120KM x 80KM of which 3700KM2 is located in Iranian side of
the field. The reservoir consists of about 400 meters of limestones and
dolomites with subordinate anhydrite, divided into the Dalan Formation
(Permian) and the Kangan Formation (Triassic), which together comprise the
Khuff Formation of Arabian terminology. These formations are traditionally
further classified into 5 main deposition sequences named K1 to K5.
Additionally a tilted gas-water contact towards the east is observed, which is
believed to have been caused by hydrodynamic processes.
The reservoir quarelity is reasonable for gas, with an average porosity of
around 8% and an average permeability of around 30MD. Regionally, lateral
correlation of the depositional sequences is good. However, even for
carbonates, the reservoir properties are highly heterogeneous, both vertically
and laterally, as a consequence of early and late diagenetic processes.
Page41
The development of Phase 12 of the South Pars field includes all fourreservoir units K1 to K4 wherever they are available. The development is
based on an average plateau production rate of 3000MMSCF wellhead gas
(1000MMSCF per each platform).
These data have been worked through in-house dynamic reservoir model that
was constructed to establish the likely range in production performance for the
proposed development scheme. This dynamic model was constructed from
fully integrated geological model that incorporate all data acquired over the life
of the field till a year ago. The potential impact of adjacent developments such
as development Phases 13 and 11 has also been taken into account.
Technical evaluation indicates that the required production rates can be
achieved with the proposed scheme consisting of 36 production wells, drilled
from three single wellhead platforms. Subsequent satellite platform and
compression may be required to maintain plateau production that has to be
considered inside the scope of this MDP.
Plateau length is predicted to be 7, 11 and 12 years for Platforms SPD16,
SPD15 and SPD14 respectively without any capacity maintenance operations
(either satellite platform or compressor).
SP-13 has been drilled at the center of the phase 12 area and alleviated some
vague points in this area. On the modeling it has been assumed that there will
be a well delivery strategy that shall aim at drilling and completing of reliable,
fit-for-purpose, high-potential wells, at optimum life-cycle value, in a timely and
HSE-conscious manner and applying field proven technology. For this 7"
nominal monobore completion design has been taken for VLQ calculations
planned with commingled production from the K1, K2, K3 and K4 reservoir
units. On the areas the following nominal casing configuration is considered
as typical: 26" CP x 18 "x 13 "x 9 " 10 " x 7" monobore completions.
5.2
Data Availability
Page42
Along with drilling 19 appraisal wells and more than 80 development wells in
different areas of South Pars, a lot of basic information has been gathered
that would be very helpful in better knowing of reservoir. These data are
classified as:
5.2.1
Core Data
Out of 19 exploration and appraisal / delineation wells of South Pars Gas

Field, 15 wells have been cored in the Kangan-Upper Dalan gas reservoir.
Table 10 indicates the cored wells, cored intervals and their recovery in each
well. SP-6 with 468M and SP-1 with 58M core length have longest and
shortest cored intervals respectively. Core recovery is greater than 90% in
most of the wells.
Different core measurements and studies have been carried out on the South
Pars cores including: Core Description, Petro-sedimentology, Pore Network
Characterization, Routine Core Analysis (CCAL), Special Core Analysis
(SCAL), Wettability Analyses and Geochemical Analyses. Table 11 shows
types of documents available for each cored well.
5.2.2
Well Test Data
Well tests and pressure data provides adequate information for reservoir
characterization and simulation. The available DSTs gathered from appraisal
wells are presented in table 12.
5.2.3
Reservoir Fluid Data
More than 60 samples from individual Kangan / Dalan layers in SP-1 to SP15, SPD2-04, SPD4-01 and SPD10-08 have been collected. The summary of
the available results is as come in tables 13 & 14.
Page43
5.3
Reservoir Dynamic Modeling
5.3.1 Dynamic Model Grid

A full-field 3D reservoir dynamic model for the Kangan and Dalan reservoirs in
the South Pars area of interest outlined based on geological structural and
petrophysical evaluations.
The coarse simulation grid has been imported from the up-scaled static
model. The number of coarse grid-blocks is 153 x 78 x 13. The grid-block X
and Y dimension is 500M * 500M over most of the developed area.
The reservoir properties are directly imported from the up-scaled geological
model:
Average Net to Gross (NTG) ratio: 0.89 (for phases 12: 0.81)
Average Porosity: 0.8 (for phase 12: 0.10)
Average Horizontal Permeability in both X and Y direction (KX=KY):

30MD (for Phase 12: 27MD)
A macroscopic vertical anisotropy ratio KV / KH of 0.03 is applied in

order to obtain a representative vertical permeability.
Average Water Saturation for pay zone: 0.15 (for phase 12: 0.18)
Rock compressibility: 4.6E-6 at datum pressure (5300PSI)
For the 3-phase (Water / Gas / Condensate) relative permeability, Stone

correlation has been used. Also, the endpoint scaling option of the simulator is
used to re-scale the end points of the tabular curves to the water saturation of
the blocks imported from the geological model.
5.3.2 Full Field Fluid Model

Many fluid samples have been collected on the 19 appraisal / delineation
wells. In Some wells such as SP-15 in which all types of samples have been
collected like MDT samples (5 perfect truly reservoir gas samples in K1, K2
Page44
and K3 layers and 3 water samples from K3 and K4 layers), Surface

Separator samples through DSTs conducted in K1, K2 & K3 (commingled)
and K4.
Although some of them have been collected while two reservoirs were tested
as commingle, it can be concluded that:
All the samples collected are similar in term of composition.
The K4 fluid seems to be the richest in condensate (almost %3.3 C5+

content in reservoir fluid), closely followed by K2 and K3 (almost %2.53.0 C5+ content in reservoir fluid). Reservoir K1 fluid is the leanest gas
(almost %2.2 C5+ content in reservoir fluid).
A pseudo-compositional model based on a modified black oil formulation was

used in order to simulate the reservoir behavior under specific production
constraints. It attempts to reproduce the retrograded gas condensate behavior
by allowing oil in wet gas vaporization. The dew point pressure is about
4800PSI.
The EOS used is from Peng-Robinson with the volume correction by
Peneloux. It includes 7 pseudo-components, defined after lumping of the
various components:
H2S and CO2 are lumped together as acid gases
Methane, Ethan and nitrogen are lumped together as dry gas
C3 and C4 are lumped together as LPG
C5+ are split into the four heaviest components and represent the
condensate
The 7 pseudo components and reservoir compositions are shown in table 15.
Also the Peng-Robinson EOS with Peneloux Volume Correction parameters is
shown in table 16.
5.3.3 Gas Water Contact Definition

Page45
There is a significant spread in the observed GWC levels throughout the field,
with the GWC being some 2000FT deeper in the East-Northeast direction of
the field. The GWC was determined from log saturation profiles, RFT / MDT
data and well test data. The uncertainty range on the gas water contact
determination is + 20 meters.
The gas-water contact was firstly determined by using the test data to define
the "gas down to" and 'water up to" limits and then within these limits,
examining the log water saturation profiles. The most westerly well, SP-14
appears to be water-bearing in the K4 and K3 with proven GDT from MDT at
2853MSS in the border of K2 / K3.
Both SP-1 and SP-2 have tested gas in the K4 with, at slightly deeper levels,
reasonably sharp increases in water saturation which was interpreted as
being the presumed gas down to level. The proven GDT in SP-3 is within the
Kangan-Dalan 3 (K3) while the suggested contact from the water saturation
profiles is just above the K4 / K3 boundary.
The level of GWC in SP-14 and SP-15 which were drilled recently showed
that the closure of reservoir is going to be closed in north and west part of field
by SP-15 and SP-14 respectively.
The differing gas-water levels in the South Pars wells do show, however, an
apparent deepening trend eastwards. This could be due to an easterly flow of
aquifer waters which has resulted in the hydrodynamic tilting of the gas-water
contact.
To model the tilted gas water contact the entire pane were segmented into 45
regions to cover the entire reservoir closure. For each segment the
appropriate capillary pressure curve introduced to model the OGWC in correct
position.
The estimated reservoir pressure is based on the RFT / MDT survey carried
out in appraisal wells SP-1 to SP-15, which gives a pressure gradient of
0.114PSIA / FT (figure 84).
Page46
The recorded or extrapolated pressure measured during the production tests

compare satisfactorily with these RFT / MDT data, when taking into
consideration the gauge accuracy. The initial reservoir pressure is calculated
as 5300PSIA at datum depth of 2950MSS. The results of formation pressure
measurements show that all four reservoir layers of KG1, KG2, UD3 and UD4
indicate the same datum pressure. Therefore the above-mentioned initial
pressure is applied for the entire field.
5.4
Gas Initially in Place (GIIP)
The calculation of the Gas Initially in Place (GIIP) volumes for Phase 12 and
South Pars as a whole assumes that the K1 to K4 layers are a single pressure
system and are in pressure equilibrium in the gas phase, and that the tilted
GWC is common to all layers. The distribution of GIIP between the reservoir
layers in the said Phase is shown in following table:
In Place Volume
Reservoir
Kangan
Dalan
Layer
K1
K2
K3
K4
Total
Phase 12
GIIP
Condensate
(TSCF)
(MMSBBL)
5.6
162
4.6
195
6.63
280.5
17.5
773
34.33
1410.5
The expected initial Condensate-to-Gas Ratio (CGR) for the K1 unit is

26SBBL / MMSCF with units K2, K3, and K4 being slightly richer in the range
of 35 to 42SBBL / MMSCF.
5.5
Model Initialization
The model has been initialized in equilibrium conditions with the following
parameters: At GWC depth the capillary pressure is equal to zero and the
static pressure at this level is provided as data (i.e. @ 9514M the initial
pressure is 5300PSIA). The pressure and fluid saturation above the GWC is
Page47
populated following the capillary curves corresponding to each cell, its height
from the free water level and the fluid density. The field also is divided into
four vertical equilibrium regions for different gas compositions in KG1, KG2,
UD3, and UD4 reservoir layers.
5.6
Reservoir Drive Mechanism
The model drive mechanism is assumed to be a pure gas volumetric

depletion, with no effective aquifer support assumed in the model. Hence
reservoir pressure decline over time will be a key point for the final
development strategy decision.
5.7
Production Scheme
Vertical lift curves were implemented for Phase12 with a minimum THP of
900PSIA for onshore compression and a minimum THP of 1800PSIA for no
compression. Formation water production is limited to 2000BBL / DAY per
platform. Gas production is limited to 1000MMSCFD per platform according to
the platform design specifications. Based on individual well gas production
potential, Phase 12 wells are set up in order to achieve contractual area
production target without violating platform constraints.
5.8
Well Characteristics
The wells for the proposed development scheme have the following
characteristics:
Production from the K1 to K3 and partly K4 (for SPD16 the production

would be from K1 to partly K4)
One vertical well per platform
Page48
All other wells deviated and placed on a specific pattern (figure 85) with
a maximum horizontal departure from vertical to TD of 3500M and a
maximum deviation of 64DEG
Completion with a tubing 7-26LB/FT
Acid stimulation
5.8.1
Well Perforation
To maximize the well productivity and condensate recovery, the wells are
perforated through K1 to K4 (Up to GWC) for commingled production from all
reservoir layers.
5.8.2
Well Simulation
In the simulation, the wells have the following characteristics:
Total Skin which is considered for all wells is zero
Turbulence factor which is imposed for reservoir layers is about 4E-5
VFP tables have been calculated by VFPi and are used in ECLIPSE to
monitor the wellhead pressures during the runs and decide the
compression date and end of plateau.
5.8.3
Well Constraints
Well constraints assumed on the modeling are as follows:
Minimum WHP for natural production: 1800PSIA
Minimum Wet Gas Flow Rate: 5MMSCF / DAY per well
A well spacing of 1800M shall be maintained
Well step out from the main platform should not exceed 3500M
Well spacing between well TD's shall be maintained at 1800 meters

Page49
5.8.4 Reservoir Simulation Results

The simulation base case considers the following assumption for Phase 12:
Start production in January of 2012 with 36 wells (12 wells per each
platform) and will be continued in 2024, 2023 and 2019 for SPD14,
SPD15 and SPD16 respectively (when the WTHP of wells in phase 12
reaches 1800PSIA).
Each main platform produces 1000 million cubic feet per day.
Install compression facilities for the platforms of Phase 12 when
averaged Tubing Head Pressure of one the platform reaches 1800PSIA.
Abandonment pressure is assumed 900PSI; however this has to be
investigated more later on.
Main results are summarized in the table 17. Also figures 86 to 90 represent
the production profile of gas and condensate and average well head pressure
of each Platform.
6 Drilling and Completion

6.1
Introduction
The base plan is to drill a total of 36 wells from 3 platforms in Phase 12.
Within mentioned phase drilling operations are planed to be carried out from
the jackets with a temporary drilling deck, using cantilevered jack-up drilling
rigs. At least two rigs will be required, though they could start at different
times, depending on jacket installation timing and rig availability.
6.2
Appraisal Well
The vertical well which in turn is the first well drilled on each platform, shall be
treated as learning well. The following data gathering program is planned for
closer acquaintance with development area in learning wells:
Page50
Cutting and mud analysis: Full geological cutting description,

chromatography and calcimetry, acid gases detection (CO2, H2S), mud
losses and drilling parameters will be required.
Coring: Full core from K1 to K4 is suggested to acquired from the

vertical well of SPD 16
Wire line logging: The program should include the basic logging while
drilling tool (GR and Deep Resistivity). Across the reservoir section
following tools should be run:
Evaluation logging suite including:

o Natural Gamma Ray (including potassium + thorium + uranium)
and Photoelectric Formation Factor
o Neutron porosity + Litho density
o Resistivity including shallow (Micro Spherical), Medium (Lateral
Log) and Deep (Lateral Log)
o Formation Micro-scanner Image (FMI), Dipolar Sonic Image
(DSI) and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) will be run on
specific reservoir sections to be determined.
o Modular Formation Dynamic Tester (MDT): Will be run to record
static pressures across the reservoir interval, fluid gradients and
sampling.
Well test program: Individual production tests for the K1, K2, K3 and K4
reservoirs are planned for these appraisal wells.
Production logging program: Complete suite of production logging will

be required.
Reservoir fluid sampling program: Bottomhole MDT samples and

surface samples from K1 to K4 should be acquired. PVT testing should
be carried out on each sample.
Page51
VSP walkaway program: A well seismic survey will add value by using
new velocity data (the former velocity model was based on regional
geology considerations) to calibrate phase 12, 2D seismic lines and the
South Pars 3D seismic cube. The calibration is required to improve the
success of 3 dimensional volume visualization techniques for reservoir
quality prediction.
A general format of some program would be found in Appendix D.
6.3
Development Wells
A limited data gathering program is proposed for these vertical and the
subsequent deviated development wells. Only data required for adequate well
reservoir evaluation is included in the program as following:
LWD: GR, Resistivity and Porosity measurements are required along

the reservoir section. Possible formation pressure test could be
required.
Wireline logging: A GR inside casing will be acquired for geological

correlation.
Well test program: A limited number of commingled production tests

may be required to confirm reservoir deliverability. A full set of samples
including Gas, Condensate and Water have to be taken during the test.
Production logging: a production logging will be programmed on at

least 2 wells on each platform after completion of the wells.
6.4
Risks and Uncertainties
The following well construction risks and uncertainties have been identified
from the available data:
Page52
Excessive losses and hole instability in the Jahrum formation, could

lead to improper hole cleaning and hole collapse, that could cause
stuck pipe incidents, increasing well durations.
Sulphurous water flows from the Jahrum can be source of well control,
health hazard and corrosion attack.
Losses during cementing of the 18", 13" & 9" 10" casing
strings affect the ability to achieve to full zonal isolation. This may lead
to annular pressure build up and migration to surface of sour gases.
Possibility of salt water flow in Dashtak formation can lead to loss of

time to control the flow, affecting well delivery schedule.
Shale problems especially from the Aghar shales, could lead to hole
problems and extended well durations.
6.5
Technical Well Specification
6.5.1
Well Trajectories
Preliminary well targets will be provided by Company which is based on the

current results from the Company Full Field model. According to present
studies, well departures for the deviated wells could vary from a minimum of
about 2000 meters to a maximum of about 3500 meters.
The final targets, based on the selected well pattern will be identified using:
3D-seismic, reservoir models, offset data from other blocks and information
from the data wells.
Well paths (Appendix C) would be J slant wells, with TD in the K4, round
about 30 meters above expected GWC. The trajectories will be based on:
Maintenance of vertically in 32" hole
Nudge off bellow the conductor to stay outside collision limits and then
build up to 10-15 degrees above the loss zone in the Jahrum
Page53
Build up and line up to the target in the intermediate section
6.5.2
Casing Design
The actual setting depth of the casing may be different for each of the
individual well in the platform. However, the setting depth will be decided upon
the formation encountered.
Despite learning wells, all other wells will be drilled directionally in order to
reach the proposed displacements at reservoir depth. The following is the
proposed well architecture:
6.5.2.1
32" Drilling Phase 26" Conductor Pipe
The 32" section will be drilled vertically with a standard rotary assembly using
a 17" bit followed by a 32" hole opener and the 26" conductor pipe shall be
set and cemented at approximately 70M below sea bed. Conductor hanging
and offline cementing shall be applied.
The size, wall thickness and grade of the conductor is specified as 26" OD,
0.625" wall thickness, RL-4S or equivalent connector and X52 grade material.
6.5.2.1
24" Drilling Phase 18" Surface Casing
The 24" hole will be drilled directionally with two BHAs, with the initial kick-off
in the first run which will drill down to top of Jahrum formation (The Kick off
point will be below the 26" CP). The second BHA, a rotary BHA including
MWD will be used to drill down to the Illam formation, total depth (TD) for the
section.
The 18" casing shall cover this most troublesome hole section where
circulation losses, formation instability and sulphurous water shows are
common problems. The recommended 18" casing is 114LBS/FT and X55
grade with a modified Buttress or equivalent connector.
Page54
6.5.2.2
16" Drilling Phase 13" Intermediate Casing
The 16" hole shall be drilled directionally down to the Hith anhydrite. The 13"
casing shall cover the sometimes thief Cretaceous formations. The casing
shoe shall be set in the competent anhydrite to obtain a good fracture margin
for the next hole phase.
The recommended 13" casing is 68LBS/FT and L80 grade material with a
modified Buttress or equivalent connector.
6.5.2.3
12" Drilling Phase 9" Production Casing
The 12" hole will be drilled down to the top of the Kangan reservoir. The 9"
production casing will be set right at top of the Kangan reservoir, to case off
the Aghar shale in the Lower Dashtak and to allow for drilling into the
reservoir. It will be crossed over to 10" to accommodate the sub surface
safety valve.
The recommended 9" casing is 47LBS/FT and L80 grade material with Vam
Top or equivalent connection. The recommended 10" casing is 55.5LBS/FT
and L80 material with Vam Top or equivalent connections.
6.5.2.4
8" Drilling Phase 7" Production Liner
The 8" hole will be drilled through the reservoir levels (K1-K4) down to the
planned TD. The 7" production liner will be set in the K4 level, 3M above
planned TD. The recommended 7" liner is 29LBS/FT, 28% Cr with Vam Top
or equivalent connections down to the top of K1 level and 7" liner is
26LBS/FT, 13% Cr with Vam Top or equivalent connections to cover K1, K2,
K3 and K4 levels. Top of liner shall feature an arrangement in order to allow
for mono bore 7" production string.
6.5.3
Cementing Design
Page55
The final slurry recipe, slurry volume and operation details will be provided
after field and lab tests results, prior to commence the cementing job, and will
be dictated by the actual operation requirements. The planned TOC for
various casings are listed below:
6.5.3.1 The 26" CP

The 26" CP will be cemented up to seabed (mud line) using an inner string
technique.
6.5.3.2 The 18" Casing

The 18" casing will be cemented up to the surface using lead & tail neat
slurries with the plug technique. Eventual top jobs (through a 1.66" macaroni
string) must be planned in case the cement will not be observed at surface.
The Shoe Track which is containing of 18" float shoe and 18 " float collar
must be PDC drillable.
6.5.3.3 The 13" Intermediate Casing

The 13" casing will be cemented up to the surface in one stage job using
light cement. Track which is containing of 13" float shoe, 1/2 joints of 13"
casing and 13" float collar must be PDC drillable.
6.5.3.4 The 9"-10" Intermediate Casing

The 9"-10 " casing will be cemented up to the surface. The Shoe Track
which is containing of 9" float shoe, 2/3 joints of 9" casing and 9" float
collar must be PDC drillable.
6.5.3.5 The 7" Production Liner
Page56
The 7" production liner will be cemented up to the liner hanger using neat
slurry. The Shoe Track must be contain of 7" float shoe, 1 joints of 7" liner, 7"
float collar, 3 joint of 7" liner and landing collar.
6.5.4
Completion Design
A 7" mono bore completion will be used. The liner will be tied back to surface
by means of 7" 23 26LBS/FT, CRA tubing. A sub-surface safety valve will
be installed near the surface.
6.5.4.1 Completion Accessories

Within the mono bore design the production tubing is just an extension of the
liner.
Completion accessories may comprise the following:
Liner hanger
Liner hanger packer with a tie back extension sleeve
Top isolation tie-back packer with a tie back polished bore receptacle
Seal assembly with extension seals and snap-in / out to be latched

onto a setting sleeve
7" production tubing will be 23 26LBS/FT CRA, 28% Cr with tight gas
connections, type Vam Top or equivalent
Tubing retrievable surface controlled subsurface safety valve
Tubing hanger with backpressure valve profile
Mud line suspension system for vertical (learning) wells
6.5.4.2 Wellhead and Xmas Tree

All wellhead, Xmas trees and associated components will comply with API 6A,
19th Edition. The wellhead body proposed is the split-unitized wellhead type
Page57
(or split multi bowl), which offers the advantages of faster make-up because of
fewer flanged connections thus exposing fewer leak paths and reducing
height and weight. The Xmas-tree would be 7 1/16", single block 90 degree
bend type, rated for sour service PSL 3G, 6500PSI WP. The lower master
valve would be manually operated, while the upper master valve would be
fitted with a hydraulic actuator with wire cutting capability.
6.5.5
Drilling and Completion Fluid
The following mud systems and completion fluid (table 18) are selected for
drilling and completion the wells in the platforms SPD14 to SPD16. However,
the recommended mud types here described are not mandatory, but a
guideline.
6.5.5.1 32" Hole Section

The 32" hole will be drilled with seawater and hi-viscous sweeps. Offset well
analysis does not show any major drilling hazards. The main issue may be
availability of enough drill water.

The section will be drilled with seawater and viscous sweeps. Main section
hazards are down hole losses at Jahrum which causes poor hole cleaning and
leads to pack off and stuck pipe. Other hazards seen from offsets include
sulphurous water flows in Jahrum, stuck pipe in Asmari and Ilam. It is
important to maintain drill water supplies and keep the alkalinity of mud high.
As losses are caused by cavernous formation, treating the losses may delay
drilling operations. Consideration will be given to drilling blind and drilling with
a floating mud cap in severe loss situations.

Page58
The section will be drilled with a KCL / Polymer / Glycol mud system with
additives. The hole section traverses through limestone, clays, chert, marl,
shale, sandstone, siltstone, dolomite and anhydrite. Main hazards are oil
water influx, shale swelling, bit balling, partial to total losses from Kazhdumi
and Fahliyan. H2S may occur in Dariyan and Hith.

This section will be drilled with a KCL / polymer / Glycol drilling fluid from
below the Hith to the Lower Surmeh. At the Lower Surmeh, additional
inhibition by additives is often required to drill the shale to TD.

The 8" hole section is the reservoir section and will be drilled with a mindset
to reduce reservoir damage. The base plan is to use the same mud system
CaCo3 / polymer, allowing the additives left to deplete naturally. This section
will drill through Kangan and Dalan reservoir formations containing the K1, K2,
K3 and K4 reservoirs. No barite or bentonite is allowed in the drilling of
reservoir section.
6.5.5.6 Completion Fluid

The completion fluid inside the 7" liner will be a non-damaging, possibly
treated fluid. It provides the necessary reservoir pressure balance when the
well is gun-perforated, or if killing the well is required is required. The packer
fluid in the annular space between tubing and casing will remain in the well for
years, and will therefore be appropriately treated.
6.5.6
Solid Control Management
Page59
Solids in the mud system shall be kept under control though the most
appropriate use of the solid removal equipment. The optimum, suggested
system solid control system should be composed of:
2 scalping shale shakers (double shale shakers)
4 high performance shale shakers (single deck linear shakers)
Mud cleaner
2 centrifuges
1 vertical basket centrifuge
6.5.7
Perforation and Stimulation Strategy
The strategy for perforation is to achieve deep penetrations inside the

formation with the technology available. Large guns (3 3/8 power jet or bigger
sizes) and deep penetration charges, conveniently phased (60 degrees) and 6
shut per foot perforation will be the basis for achieving this.
Consideration will be given to perforate the wells under-balanced. However all
the wells will have to be acidized through massive stimulation jobs. The wells
will be stimulated using hydrochloric acid and diverter.
6.5.8
Well Clean-up Strategy
Well cleanup will be conducted with the drilling rig on location. The objective
of the well cleanup operation is the removal of completion fluid and spent acid
from the well bore, whilst avoiding contamination of the surface facilities and
the sea. Major hazards associated with well cleanup operations are releases
of sour gas, exposure to heat radiation and spillages.
6.5.9
Well Time Estimate
Page60
Taking the offset performance Timing information and experience based flat
timing gives the following time estimate for a max 3500M displacement
development well (figure 91).
6.5.10 Well Operation Schedule

It is expected that the operator shall arrange for mobilizing at least two jack-up
rigs to drill 36 wells from 3 Jackets namely SPD14 to SPD16. Advantages are
to be made of the benefits of batch drilling as much as reasonably possible. In
order to accommodate topsides installation the rigs will be skidded back. The
schedule allows for simultaneous drilling and production operations. This will
be accommodated by platform design.
6.6 Health, Safety and Environment

The overall strategic objectives of HSE management during drilling,
completion, clean up and testing, operations are:
1.
To ensure the health and safety of personnel casing out well

construction activities.
2.
To safeguard the integrity of wells, facilities and installations.
3.
Prevent adverse effects on the environment and third parties.
4.
As part of the contractor selection process, evaluate the

contractor's management of HSE during well construction activities
and ensure that the HSE-MS is suitable and sufficient.
The HSE-MS system is the management framework for managing HSE,

and covers management of HSE during well construction activities. The well
construction HSE case is a component of the HSE-MS. The drilling and
other service contractors together with the Contractor will produce bridging
documents to assure that the interfaces between the Contractor and the
service contactors' HSE-MS are well understood and managed.
Page61
6.6.1
Health and Safety Hazards
Current major hazards include: exposure to H2S, exposure to heat

radiation, exposure to chemicals, heavy lift operations, boat collisions with
Jacket / Rig; marine movement, blowouts, transport risks, slips, trips and
falls. A full hazard register in the HSE case will address these and will lead
to controls such as journey management, permit to work, contingency,
emergency plan and etc. There will also be a Manual of Permitted
Operations. A full Environmental Social and Health Impact Assessment
(ESHIA) shall be developed by constructor and submitted to POGC prior
to the start of operations.
6.6.2
Environmental and Social Impacts
The main environmental impacts, identified in the preliminary ESHIA,

expected during the drilling and well services operations can be divided into
the following main categories:
Impact of physical presence, transit of vessels and operational safety

zone
Noise impact from drilling and from support operations (including

ships and helicopters)
Impacts to air quality due to atmospheric emissions
Impact from accidental mud discharge and cuttings disposal offshore
Impacts from solid wastes
Impacts from accidental events
Impact from liquid hydrocarbon spills
Impact from spent acid
Impact from heat radiation
The full ESHIA to be completed prior to the start of operations in the field
Page62
will address both drilling and construction related issues. Main hazards,
from a well construction perspective, are related to loss of containment,
from the well, the rig or from manse operations. Hazards will be studied to
evaluate impact and to assess mitigations and recovery plans. An
emergency response exercise will be carried out as part of the spud
preparations.
In addition, procedures / programs for basic drilling operations developed and
maintained by the chosen Contractor shall be referenced as the industry
standards.
Page63

Sub-Surface Master Development Plan-Phase 12

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Sub-Surface Master Development Plan-Phase 12

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Pars Oil & Gas Company

SOUTH PARS GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT

Pars Oil and Gas Company

Master Development Plan for Phase 12

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................1

Reservoir Uncertainties ....................................................................................................... 4

Drilling and Completion ....................................................................................................... 5

GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS...............................................................5

Regional Geology .................................................................................................................. 7

South Pars Stratigraphy ...................................................................................................... 9

Source Rocks ......................................................................................................................... 9

Geological Setting of South Pars Field.......................................................................... 10

History of 2D and 3D Seismic Surveys .......................................................................... 10

Petro-Facies Classification ............................................................................................... 16

Pars Oil and Gas Company

Master Development Plan for Phase 12

2.13 Litho-Typing and Permeability Prediction .................................................................... 21

PETROPHYSICAL EVALUATIONS .......................................................25

Net-Pay Summation ............................................................................................................ 34

STATIC RESERVOIR MODEL ...............................................................35

Structural and 3D Geological Modeling ......................................................................... 36

Petrophysical Property Modeling .................................................................................... 37

Gas Water Contact Surface............................................................................................... 40

3D Reservoir Modeling Grid ............................................................................................. 40

Upscaling Process .............................................................................................................. 41

RESERVOIR ENGINEERING .................................................................41

Pars Oil and Gas Company

Master Development Plan for Phase 12

Gas Water Contact Definition ...................................................................................... 45

Gas Initially in Place (GIIP)................................................................................................ 47

Model Initialization .............................................................................................................. 47

Reservoir Drive Mechanism.............................................................................................. 48

Production Scheme ............................................................................................................ 48

DRILLING AND COMPLETION..............................................................50

Appraisal Well ...................................................................................................................... 50

Development Wells ............................................................................................................. 52

Risks and Uncertainties..................................................................................................... 52

Pars Oil and Gas Company

Master Development Plan for Phase 12

6.5.9 Well Time Estimate ......................................................................................................... 60

Pars Oil and Gas Company

Master Development Plan for Phase 12

Geology, Geophysics and Reservoir

Pars Oil and Gas Company

Master Development Plan for Phase 12

The field structure is a relatively simple, NE-SW elongated flat dome,

Reservoir quality is reasonable for gas, with an average porosity of around 9%

Pars Oil and Gas Company

Master Development Plan for Phase 12

reservoir properties are highly heterogeneous, both vertically and laterally, as

Gas-in-place estimation was conducted using the own interpretation of the

Pars Oil and Gas Company

Master Development Plan for Phase 12

is about 26SBBL/MMSCF) this figure doesnt change much as K1 has the

Reservoir Development Plan

Dynamic reservoir models were constructed to establish the likely range in

Plateau length is predicted to be 16.3 years in average, assuming that

Pars Oil and Gas Company

Master Development Plan for Phase 12

Drilling and Completion

2 Geology and Geophysics

The South Pars Gas-Condensate Field straddles the Iranian-Qatari maritime

Pars Oil and Gas Company