Volve Field Development Plan Project (MEng)

Lateef Akanji, Roozbeh Rafati

Yingfang Zhou, Amer Syed, Hossein Hamidi
Yukie Tanino, Jan Vinogradov, Prashant Jadhawar
Amin Sharifi, Kejian Wu
Petroleum Engineering
School of Engineering
University of Aberdeen
with special thanks to Equinor for the Volve field dataset

January 6, 2021
UoA Task 1 - Project framing

Task 1
The Volve field is located in Block 15/9 in the central part of the North Sea. It was discovered in 1993, and
the plan for development and operation (PDO) was approved in 2005 and put on stream in 2008. The field
produced oil from sandstone of Middle Jurassic age in the Hugin formation and Triassic age in the Skagerrak
formation, with water injection for pressure support. The field was operated by Statoil, now Equinor, and
the production started in 2008. At plateau, Volve produced 8,900 sm3 per day and delivered a total of 10
million sm3 (Figure 1). It was decided to shut it down permanently after 8.5 years in operation in 2016.
A total of twenty-four (24) wells were drilled along with a substantial amount of capital (approximately
$500 million) investment. The validated recovery factor achieved by the operators is 46% mainly by water
injection.

Objective
The objectives of this work are to:

1. Describe the scope of the Volve field development project as a brown field

2. Evaluate alternative techniques for enhancing recovery from the Volve field

3. Capture the regional setting, engineering infrastructure and the business environment for the redevel-
opment and decommissioning of Volve field North Sea area

Material
ˆ Data mining, quality assurance (QA), quality control (QC) and profiling process highlighting

– number of geological formations, exploration, appraisal and development wells

– petrophysical, pvt data
– historical data

ˆ Presentation slide packs

ˆ Volve field data pack

Suggested workflow
Make sure you are clear on the content of the final design deliverable. The required FDP report contents will
follow the format recommended by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) are as follows:

(A) Executive summary

(A1) Overview of the development scheme

(A2) The development schedule
(A3) Quantities of petroleum to be produced
(A4) Decommissioning plan

(B) Field description

Task 1 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 1 of 36

UoA Task 1 - Project framing Task 1 (continued)

(B1) Regional geological summary

(B2) Reservoir description
(B3) Petrophysics and reservoir fluids
(B4) Hydrocarbons in place and uncertainty analysis
(B5) Reservoir drive mechanism
(B6) Dynamic modelling
(B7) Well placement and completion design
(B8) Uncertainty identification and management
(B9) Upside opportunities

(C) Development and sustainability plan

(C1) Regional geological summary

(C2) Reservoir description
(C3) Petrophysics and reservoir fluids
(C4) Hydrocarbons in place and uncertainty analysis
(C5) Reservoir drive mechanism
(C6) Dynamic modelling
(C7) Well placement and completion design
(C8) Uncertainty identification and management
(C9) Upside opportunities

(C) Development and sustainability plan

(C1) The development programme

(C2) Reserves
(C3) Production profiles
(C4) Drilling facilities
(C5) Production and process facilities
(C6) Project schedule and planning
(C7) Project costs and economics
(C8) Sustainability
(C8.1)) HSSE – the Safety Case
(C8.2)) Socio-economic impact
(C9) Decommissioning

(D) Conclusions and recommendations

(E) References

Task 1 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 2 of 36

UoA Task 1 - Project framing Task 1 (continued)

Figure 1: Volve field formation map (Source: Equinor 2018) .

Deliverables
The final deliverable is a business case for the Volve development to the UK Oil and Gas Authority (OGA).
The document encompasses the technical and commercial reasoning behind your optimised development
plan, your consideration of the associated risks and uncertainties including the safety case and the ultimate
decommissioning plan and the justification for the OGA awarding the production licence to your company
rather than your competitors. Your judgement and submission must be guided by your company portfolio.

The Volve field opportunity

Review the dataset in the folders. This is a summary of the historical events associated with the licence (the
exploration and appraisal programme) and supporting contextual information concerning the field.

ˆ Ensure you have a common understanding of the exploration, appraisal and development history of
Volve

ˆ Write the synopsis of the field setting constituting section B1 of the final FDP document

Figure 4 tells the reader that adjacent with Volve there is the Loke, SLE Hugin, Gamma, My and Gunge.
This is useful as these fields will have very similar formations, properties and problems as Volve. A series

Task 1 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 3 of 36

UoA Task 1 - Project framing Task 1 (continued)

Figure 2: Seismic crossline 491 through the 15/9-19 SR well. Note the B.C.U. pick before and after drilling
and reversal of fault at approx. 680 (Source: Equinor 2018)
.

of tests were conducted on all of these fields through their formations. The two formations of note are the
Hugin and Skagerrak as these are the two confirmed oil producing formations. (Equinor, 2018)The free water
level for Volve as determined by 3 wells is depicted in Table 1. Figure 2 shows the sesimic crossline 491
through the 15/9-19SR and Figure 3 shows the profile of the three (3) discovery wells.

Figure 3: Profile of the three discovery wells (Source: Equinor 2018)

The Volve field contains an undersaturated oil characterised by high content of asphalt (2 − 6%), sulphur
(2%), and aromatic components (52%); a is relatively uncommon occurrence relative to other North Sea

Task 1 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 4 of 36

UoA Task 1 - Project framing Task 1 (continued)

Table 1: Summary of Volve fluid contacts.

Field Well Logs contact (m) Contact type FWL (m) Formation
15/9-19 SR 2879 ODT 3120 Hugin
15/9-19 A 3101.5 ODT 3120 Hugin
Volve
3120 OWC 3120 Sleipner
15/9-19 BT2 3147.5 WUT 3120 Hugin

oils. The oil derives from type II-S kerogen, which was detected in the upper part of the Draupne formation.
This has a very high content of organic matter and is considered a very rich source rock. Worthy of note is
that this type of kerogen matures and becomes oil at significantly lower temperatures than other kerogens.
The formation of oil in this system started about 10 million years ago and began to migrate to the Volve
structure about 5 million years ago. This migration is believed to have taken place via sandstone layers in
the upper Jurassic package. The gas/condensate migration took a much longer route from Sleipner Vest and
Gunge (Equinor, 2018).

[email protected] Page 5 of 36
UoA Geology and petrophysics : Log and core evaluation Task 1

Task 2
Geological and petrophysical analysis of well data obtained from logs and core in combination with the
fluid analysis (Task 3) and the seismic interpretation is undertaken by the geoscientists and engineers to
build reservoir models. The in-place volumes (e.g. STOIIP and GIIP) are usually estimated from ‘static
model’. The workflow outlined in this Task 2 and reservoir fluid properties (Task 3) will generate numbers
which you will use in the calculation of STOIIP (Task 5). The evaluation of historical data from Volve
field, the distribution of permeability in combination with the well test analysis (Task 4) will be used
to develop the ‘dynamic model’ (Task 7). The dynamic model will be critically evaluated to determine
strategic redevelopment plan, addition recoverable oil, the method to be adopted in order to achieve the
target additional recovery.

Objective
1. Use log and core data to generate a petrophysical interpretation of logs from exploratory and appraisal
wells.

2. Estimate the Free Water Level (FWL or fluid contact) using and the fluid pressure data and the log
interpretation.

3. The log curves interpreted with IP (Vshale, porosity, permeability, net and water saturation) with
form the basis for 3D property modelling in the geological static model built with tNavigator software
package. The layer average values (taken above the fluid contact) will allow you to generate quicklook
volumes using the STOIIP equation.

4. Uncertainties in data acquisition, handling, interpretation and estimations will be investigated and
mitigating measures will be assessed.

Material
ˆ Data Pack 2 – Volve discovery data summary

ˆ A list of layer (zone) tops and bases for each well in a spreadsheet.

ˆ LAS files of raw log curves for wells: 15/9-19SR, 15/9-19A,15/9-19BT2, 15/9-F-1, 15/9-F-4 (only depth
and one curve KLOGH), 15/9-F-11, 15/9-F-12, 15/9-F-14

ˆ Core data from three wells 15/9-19S and SR, 15/9-19A, and 15/9-19BT2.

ˆ Laboratory Conventional Core Analysis (CCA) spreadsheets, Special Core Analysis (SCAL) spread-
sheets for well 15/9-19SR.

ˆ RFT pressures from wells in Table 2 will be provided

ˆ Deviation surveys for all selected wells

– 3 discovery wells
– 2 appraisal wells (out of a total of 7)
– 3 development - 1 injector, 2 producers - wells (out of a total of 11)

Task 2 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 6 of 36

UoA Geology and petrophysics : Log and core evaluation Task 2 (continued)

Table 2: Volve field well description

Well name Type Date operation started Available data for petrophysical interpretation
15/9-19SR Discovery –/12/1993 Interpreted logs, core, deviation, pressure
15/9-19A Discovery –/08/1997 Interpreted logs, deviation
15/9-19 BT2 Discovery –/01/1998 Interpreted logs, deviation
15/9-F-10 Appraisal/Petrophysics Eval 25/05/2009 RFT
15/9-F-15 Appraisal/Petrophysics Eval 30/11/2008 RFT
15/9-F-14 Development 14/06/2008 RFT, KLOGH, Deviation
15/9-F-4 Development 16/01/2008 RFT, KLOGH, Deviation
15/9-F-5 Development 30/07/2008 RFT
15/9-F-15A Appraisal/Petrophysics Eval 03/01/2009 RFT
15/9-F-15B Appraisal/Petrophysics Eval 13/01/2009 RFT
15/9-F-15C Development 13/02/2009 RFT
15/9-F-15D Development –/05/2014
15/9-F-12 Development 27/08/2007 Complete Logs set to interpret, Deviation, RFT
15/9-F-1 Appraisal/Petrophysics Eval –/08/2013 Complete Logs set to interpret, Deviation
15/9-F-1A Appraisal/Petrophysics Eval –/08/2013
15/9-F-1B Development –/09/2013
15/9-F-1C Development –/03/2014
15/9-F-11 Appraisal/Petrophysics Eval –/05/2013 Incomplete log set, Deviation
15/9-F-11A Appraisal/Petrophysics Eval –/05/2013 RFT
15/9-F-11B Development –/06/2013
15/9-F-11-T2 Appraisal/Petrophysics Eval –/05/2013 RFT
W-F-7 Water Production –/10/2007
W-F-9 Water Production 07/09/2008
W-9A Water Production 08/07/2008

– There are 4 injector wells only 3 of which went into operation and 7 producer wells all of which
produced at varying extents

ˆ Well tops for Hugin and Skagerrak formations.

ˆ Drilling mud type, composition and properties

ˆ Bottom hole temperature

ˆ True resistivity- Rt

Suggested workflow
There are two different reservoir units to consider, the Jurassic Hugin formation and Triassic Skagerrak
formation. You will need to handle them separately in the interpretation process.

1. Load well position (surface x, y UTM coordinates, RKB, and trajectory) from logs headers (x, y) and
deviation surveys

2. Load log curves

3. Log correction. In real life the logs come from multiple runs, they were recorded from boreholes with
different diameters and drilled with different drilling muds sometimes investigated with different tools
assembly

ˆ Logs from different runs merge

ˆ Erroneous values elimination called despike
ˆ Correction from different artefacts, for example Horn effect

Task 2 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 7 of 36

UoA Geology and petrophysics : Log and core evaluation Task 2 (continued)

Table 3: Calibration coefficients

Well Zone GRmin GRmax ρma ρf l m n
Hugin
15 9-19 SR
Skagerrak
Hugin
15 9-19 A
Skagerrak
Hugin
15 9-19 BT2
Skagerrak
Hugin
15 9-F-1
Skagerrak
Hugin
15 9-F-4
Skagerrak
Hugin
15 9-F-11
Skagerrak
Hugin
15 9-F-12
Skagerrak
Hugin
15 9-F-14
Skagerrak

4. Prepare and load all data necessary for interpretation

5. Interpretation

6. Uncertainty evaluations

7. Make a table where record all the data provided

The Triassic Skagerrak Formation sandstones represent thin-bedded heterogeneous reservoirs deposited
in a dryland fluvial–lacustrine setting. Fluvial-channel facies are typically fine–medium grained and charac-
terized by a low clay content, whilst lake-margin terminal splay facies are finer grained, more argillaceous
and micaceous. Lacustrine intervals are mud-dominated. Primary depositional textures retain a primary
control on porosity evolution through burial. Optimal reservoir quality occurs in aerially and stratigraphi-
cally restricted fluvial-channel tracts on the Drake, Greater Marnock, Puffin and Gannet terraces, and the
J-Ridge area. These primary textural and compositional controls are overprinted by mechanical compaction,
the development of early overpressure and diagenesis. Anomalously high porosities are retained at depth
in fluvial sandstones that have a low degree of compaction and cementation, including chlorite. Forward
modelling of reservoir quality using TouchstoneTM software has been validated using well UK 30/8-3 where
reservoir depths are .16 000 ft TVDSS (true vertical depth subsea).

In order to track your workflow, it is advisable that you build a spreadsheet to summarise the calibration
coefficients that you generate (see Table 3). The wells 15/9-19 A, 15/9- SR, 15/9-19 BT2 have cores from
the interval 3821.6223m to 4131.0m.

ˆ Volve: Hugin and Sleipner formation: m = 1.865 × k−0.0083

ˆ Skagerrak formation: m = 2.02

The task can be subdivided into a number of smaller tasks each of which is discussed below. The
workflow is described in detail, with the equations written for you. The equations are hard-wired into
standard petrophysical evaluation software but this task is structured such that you can do the calculations

Task 2 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 8 of 36

UoA Geology and petrophysics : Log and core evaluation Task 2 (continued)

in a spreadsheet. It is recommended to start the log interpretation with 15/9-19A as this is the key well
which has core analysis data used to calibrate the log interpretation parameters.

(Q1) Vshale calculation - used independently or as combination for VSH modelling and calculation of ra-
dioactive content required for Vsh calculation can be Linear (will be used here), Larinov, Steiber,
Clavier et al.

ˆ Load the log data into a spreadsheet and use the tops file to identify the geological intervals of
interest (Hugin/Skagerrak).
ˆ Calculate a basic Vshale curve using the gamma ray log and the simple linear relationship:

γ − γm
Vs = (1)
γM − γm
ˆ Vs is the volume of shale (Vshale), and γ is the gamma ray value, γm and γM are the minimum
(GRmin ) and maximum gamma ray (GRmax ) values respectively.
ˆ Pick the values of GRmin (GR Clean in IP) and GRmax (GR Clay in IP) from the log data (or
approximately from the log plots). GRmin will be almost the lowest value of GR in the layer.
GRmax will be the very highest value of gamma in the zone. The wells did not encounter 100%
Vshale, so you may wish to fix a value for GRmax higher than the maximum in the section.
ˆ Compare the results from one well to the next to check for consistency. You will need to pick
different values of GRmin and GRmax for each well. You may wish to pick different GRmin and
GRmax for the Hugin and Skagerrak

(Q2) Porosity calculation

The porosity calculation suggested for this exercise uses the density curve, ρB . In order to perform the
calculation, you need to specify the end-members of matrix and fluid density. These can be derived by
integrating the porosity data from conventional core analysis with the logs in the workflow described
below, but have also been provided in Table 1. The workflow is here purely as description

ˆ The core porosity and permeability data has been integrated with the wireline log data in the
LAS file for 15/9-19 A.
– Crossplot core porosity (corrected as above from 0 – 1) against wireline log density (from 3
to 0)
– Make a fixed point regression from core porosity = zero to log density = the ρma value. The
extrapolation of the line to 100% porosity represents the fluid density, ρf l . These two values
can then be put into the total porosity (φT ) calculation, where ρb is the log density:

ρma − ρb
φ= (2)
ρma − ρf l
ˆ Total Porosity (PHIT) can include clay-bound porosity which is not part of the integrated pore
network where conventional hydrocarbons will sit. Therefore a small correction to PHIT is made to
get ‘effective porosity’, PHIE. This process uses the Vshale curve to obtain PHIE from PHIT. We
recommend you use a shale density value of 2.55g/cc. Consult your notes from the log evaluation
module to make the necessary correction.

Task 2 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 9 of 36

UoA Geology and petrophysics : Log and core evaluation Task 2 (continued)

ˆ As a quality and sense check, calculate porosity using the sonic log, DT and the Wylie time
average equation:

DT − DTma
φ= (3)
DTf l − DTma
ˆ where:
– DTma = 55us/ft (sandstone), 48us/ft (limestone), 44us/ft (dolomite)
– DTfl = 190us/ft (water), 220us/ft (oil)

(Q3) Saturation calculation

Using the Archie equation, calculate saturation:
s
2
aRw
Sw = (4)
φm Rt

ˆ Porosity is calculated from density log (using the method shown above)
ˆ Rt is the deep resistivity curve value
ˆ Rw , water resistivity, is determined using water analysis from 15/9-19 A and temperature infor-
mation. The water analysis in the laboratory gave an equivalent NaCl salinity of 55 ppm and a
water resistivity of 0.1478 ohmm @ 60 o F. The reservoir temperature is believed to be 240 o F
ˆ The Rw needs to be corrected to reservoir temperatures using the following equation:

Tlab + 6.77
Rwres = Rwlab (5)
Tres + 6.77
ˆ a, m and n can be found from the Special Core Analysis data (SCAL)
– The SCAL spreadsheet contains the results of electrical experiments on brine-filled core.
– The values of a and m are derived from the measurements of porosity and formation factor.
In a crossplot of the logarithm of porosity (decimal) vs. the logarithm of formation factor the
slope of the trendline is –m and the intercept is a. The value of a is generally fixed to be 1
(i.e. using a fixed regression). Using the crossplot provided in the spreadsheet, find the value
of m for both the Hugin and Skagerrak rocks.
– The value of n is derived from the Resistivity Index measurement as a function of brine
saturation. In a crossplot of the logarithm of saturation (decimal) vs. the logarithm of
resistivity index, the slope of the line is -n. Using the crossplot provided, derive n for the
Hugin.

(Q4) Permeability prediction

ˆ Using the core analysis data build a crossplot of porosity against log permeability and derive a
relationship between the two using a trend line in excel. Think about whether you wish to use a
single regression for the whole well or one for each geological unit.
ˆ Generate a permeability curve from the log porosity by applying the trend line equation. In well
15/9-19A, compare this curve against the core values.
ˆ You will observe that the trend has some scatter, you may need to use this uncertainty range
when handling permeability in the reservoir model

Task 2 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 10 of 36

UoA Geology and petrophysics : Log and core evaluation Task 2 (continued)

(Q5) Pick net cut-offs

ˆ Net sand is determined by applying threshold values of Vshale and porosity, above which the
reservoir is considered to be ‘net’ and capable of containing hydrocarbon.
ˆ The default value of 50% Vshale is often used and is recommended here as a first-pass (Net =
Vshale < 0.5). The porosity threshold is often estimated by examining the porosity/permeability
crossplot from core analysis, whereby a porosity value equivalent to 1mD permeability is taken as
a cut-off.
ˆ Using the calculated Vshale and porosity curves determine cut-offs for net sand. Use the relation-
ship between porosity/permeability to derive the most appropriate value for the Hugin.
ˆ There is insufficient data for the Skagerrak to define a cut-off. We recommend a net porosity
cut-off of 5% should be used s a starting point (you can review this later when you have more
fully evaluated field performance sensitivities).

(Q6) Free water level and fluid distribution

ˆ From your log interpretations make picks of ODT (oil-down-to) or WUT (water-up-to) depths (in
TVDSS)
ˆ Plot the RFT pressures from well listed in Table 2 (hint: plot reservoir pressure against TVDss).
Determine a free water level (FWL) from the intercept of the oil and water pressure gradients.
ˆ How does the FWL pick compare with the log picks and available well-test data? Look at the
variability in the data and think about the likely uncertainty range in the FWL

Table 4: Volve wells with pressure data

Wells Pressure data Date
15/9-F-4 yes Apr-08
15/9-F-5 yes Jul-08
15/9-F-11A yes May-13
15/9-F-11T2 yes May-13
15/9-F-12 yes Feb-08
15/9-F-14 yes Jun-08
15/9-F-15A yes Jan-09
15/9-F-15B yes Jan-09
15/9-F-15C yes Jan-09
15/9-19 BT2 yes Jan-98

ˆ Using the FWL pick, calculate the net thickness above the FWL – this is an alternative method
to derive pay without using a SW cut-off. Determine the average SW above the FWL – you can
use this number in the quick-look STOIIP calculation.
ˆ After you have undertaken Task 3, return to the RFT data and check your fluid gradients are
sensible and consistent with the PVT.

(Q7) Present the results

ˆ Build a ‘sums and averages’ table in Excel of the average layer properties in a similar manner to
the template below
ˆ Create charts of the different properties to compare them from one well to another

Task 2 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 11 of 36

UoA Geology and petrophysics : Log and core evaluation Task 2 (continued)

ˆ Generate computer processed interpretation (CPI) plots of your results

ˆ Export a las file of interpreted curves (Vshale, Porosity, Water Saturation, Net sand, Net Pay,
Permeability)
ˆ Note that the ‘NTG’ in the STOIIP calculation uses Net SAND above FWL
ˆ Discuss your results with your colleagues; are there any inconsistencies with their interpretations?
ˆ Which of the STOIIP parameters (PHI, NTG, SW, FWL) has the greatest uncertainty?
– This can be checked by changing the values of GRmin/max or RHOma/RHOfl, m/n/Rw in
the basic log analysis
– FWL uncertainty can be checked by moving away from a regression through the data points
and forcing the gradients through selected points

Table 5: Layer average summary

Well Zone MD from ft MD To ft TVD From ft TVD To ft Gross ft Net ft Pay ft NTG HCPV ft Average Net PHIE Average total PHIE Average Net PHIT Average Pay SW

(Q8) SW-height
When building static models, a Saturation versus Height function is commonly used to distribute fluid
saturations through the model grid. The Sw − H function should be similar to the logs at the wells.
Further, the dynamic model uses a Sw − H function that has been converted to a set of capillary
pressure curves in order to provide initial fluid saturations in the reservoir model. Here, we will show
how to generate a Sw − H function for Volve. However, the Volve static model that you will be
using in Task 5 is already pre-loaded with average saturations to calculate volumes. Therefore, you
do not need to complete this question to undertake Task 5. We however, recommend that you give it
a try as it provides necessary information about fluid distribution when developing the dynamic model.

It is possible to use the calculated saturation curve obtained from well log data in building the static
model. However, it is not straightforward to calculate values between the wells. Therefore, a Sw − H
functional relationship above free water level (FWL) provides a more effective solution. It links the
change in saturation with height above a free water level as a function of capillary pressure. A simple
workflow to use and manipulate the log data to derive a function is described below.

ˆ Export log curves of saturation, TVDSS and net to a spreadsheet for wells 15/9-F12 and 15/9-F1
ˆ Sort the data on ‘net’ and remove all intervals where net is below 5 feet. This will remove all
non-net and thin beds from the data
ˆ Check that units of measurement is consistent with that of the tNavigator models. If necessary
use conversion factor: 1 ft = 0.3048 m
ˆ Using the FWL depth you identified in Q6, generate a ‘height above free water level’ (H) curve.
Remove all data points where H is negative
ˆ You should now build a crossplot of saturation (x-axis) against H (y-axis), using a different colour
for each well

Task 2 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 12 of 36

UoA Geology and petrophysics : Log and core evaluation Task 2 (continued)

ˆ Fit a simple function to the data in the form:

Sw = 1 − a × 1 − e−b×H



(6)

ˆ a will be in the range 0.5 – 0.8

ˆ b will be in the range 0.03 – 0.07
ˆ Hint: generate a predicted curve using the equation above and start by inputting a mid-point
guess for Swirr and c. Show this curve on the Sw versus H crossplot. Adjust values of a and c to
obtain the most likely fit
ˆ Supply your final function to the reservoir engineer and geologist for implementation into static
and dynamic models.

[email protected] Page 13 of 36
UoA Reservoir fluid properties : (PVT) hydrocarbon fluid Task 2

Task 3

Objective
The objectives of this work are to:

1. Evaluate the PVT data obtained from the wells penetrating reservoirs in the Volve field

2. Use laboratory PVT data from the appraisal wells to characterise the hydrocarbon fluid

3. Prepare the PVT data output for use in future simulation work

Material
ˆ Laboratory PVT reports for the wells.

ˆ Tabulated data for this exercise has been extracted and is presented in an Excel workbook (Task3 -
PVT.xls).

References
ˆ Fundamental of Reservoir Engineering, L. P. Dake, Elsevier, 1978. Chapter 2.

Suggested workflow
Sample pvt analysis from DST # 1, 2A and 2B from the discovery well 1519-19A is provided.

Laboratory PVT from simulation experiments were also performed on Hugin and Skagerrak fluid samples
from the following regions / wells: PVT region 1 (SR 19,F-12,F-14); PVT region 2 (SR19,F-12,F-14); PVT
region 3 (-19A); PVT region 4 (-19A); PVT region 5 (-19A); PVT region 6 (SR19,F-12,F-14); PVT region 7
(-19A); PVT region 8 (SR19,F-12,F-14); PVT region 9 (19A); PVT region 10 (SR19,F-12,F-14); PVT region
11 (-19A); PVT region 12 (SR19,F-12,F-14); PVT region 13(-19A).

Determine the following:

(Q1) How, and under what phases, were the fluids sampled for the identified wells? Comment on fluid
sampling techniques with regards to the validity of the experimental results, indicating which methods
are most representative of reservoir conditions.

(Q2) Plot the mole% versus component for the reservoir fluid from all the wells and comment whether the
fluids from the three reservoirs vary significantly in their component mixture.

(Q3) Determine the laboratory measured bubble point pressures (or saturation pressure) and sampled tem-
perature for each of the wells in the reservoir.

(Q4) Evaluate the variation of the oil formation volume factor, gas-oil-ratio, viscosity as a function of pressure
considering constant composition expansion, differential liberation, separator test and comment on
the variation these properties. Could the fluid properties be considered different? Comment on the
geological characteristic of the reservoir fluid in the different regions of the reservoirs

Task 3 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 14 of 36

UoA Reservoir fluid properties : (PVT) hydrocarbon fluid Task 3 (continued)

Figure 4: Phase envelope for Volve fluid sample

(Q5) Evaluate the initial RFT pressure survey obtained from the discovery wells and determine whether the
oil density obtained from the laboratory PVT study is consistent with that from the RFT

[email protected] Page 15 of 36
UoA Welltest analysis : DST interpretation Task 3

Task 4
One drill-stem test (DST # 1) was performed in the Hugin sandstone in exploratory well 15/9-19A within
the Volve field. The test was planned and performed with two separately perforated zones, 2A and 2B. First,
2A was perforated and produced. Then, 2A + 2B commingled. The details of the tested Hugin formation
are as follows:

ˆ Top Hugin formation in well 15/9-19A was encountered at 3015.6 mTVDRT and bottom at 3126.3
mTVDRT

ˆ Perforated interval zone 2A: (3885.5 - 3888.5 mMDRT (3095.6 - 3098.3 mTVDRT)

ˆ Perforated interval zone 2B: (3826-3865 mMDRT (3041.9 - 3077.1 mTVDRT)

A representative water sample was obtained from the deeper Sleipner formation with

ˆ Perforated interval zone 1: (3952-3958 mMDRT (3155.5 - 3160.9 mTVDRT)

The test results indicate an oil-bearing formation with very good production capacities. Table 6 shows a
summary of the results from the testing phase and the analysis.

Objective
The objectives of this task therefore includes:

1. To analyse the welltest data obtained from the DST as highlighted in Tables 7-8. This analysis will
yield information on reservoir properties (permeability and skin) which is required to support simulation
modelling and forecasting.

2. To evaluate how the interpretation of this data could provide some insights on the possible complexity
of faulting in the near-well region and the minimum connected volume.

3. Derive the necessary reservoir quality required as a matching point for subsequent simulation work.

Material
ˆ The down-hole pressure data and conventional core analysis data

ˆ DST well test data provided (wellt estd ata.xlsx) available in ...Datapacks/spreadsheets

ˆ Well test report 15/9-1 9A PL046 - Test 1 and 2A & 2B (W ellT estReportn r − 20.pdf ) available in
folder .../Datapacks/Otherm aterialsr eports

Suggested workflow
ˆ Load the pressure data to Excel package and also directly into the KAPPA software package - the PVT
data to be used is as defined in Task 3.

ˆ Carry out the following analysis using both analytical (Excel and mathematical equations) and numer-
ical (KAPPA software) approaches:

Task 4 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 16 of 36

UoA Welltest analysis : DST interpretation Task 4 (continued)

Table 6: Results from the DST1 testing phase and analysis.

Formation Hugin
Interval 4316-4338m MD RKB
2863.6-2880.5 m TVD MSL
Fluid type Oil
Oil density 0.883
GOR 97-130 Sm3 /Sm3
Max. rate 1358 Sm3 /d
Flow capacity, kh 20066 mDm
Test permeability 914 mD
P* 327.7 bar
Pwf 318.6 bar
Reservoir temp. 106.2 °C
PI 144 Sm3/d/bar
Skin 1.7

Table 7: The rates, pressures and flow periods

Flow period Choke WHP Qo Qg GOR
(mm) (kPa) (Sm3 /d) (Sm3 /d) (Sm3 /Sm3 )
First clean up flow 12.7 11740 679 66500 98
Second clean up flow 15.88 11256 914 88600 97
Third clean up flow 2x15.88 90260 1358 134000 99
Clean up build up
Wireline operation/
BHS operation
Sampling flow 4.76 12220 75 11700 156
First main flow 12.7 11860 660 65300 99
First main flow 2x 15.88 9020 1290 168000 130
Main build up
Well killed

– Analyse the initial build-up using the semi-log and log-log (derivative) plots.
– Estimate the reservoir permeability-thickness and well skin and compare your results with the
results obtained from the historical analysis.
– Comment on the complexity of faulting in the near well region seen in the well test; is it consistent
with the mapped faults?
– Estimate the minimum connected volume as seen by the test.
– Calculate the average core permeability over the tested interval and comment on the comparison
of core to well test permeability.

ˆ Compare the results obtained using the analytical solution approach and numerical simulation ap-
proach. Discuss any observed differences in the results.

[email protected] Page 17 of 36
UoA Welltest analysis : DST interpretation Task 4

Table 8: Input parameters used for the analysis.

22.1 %
0.904 (mPas)
3.38 × 10E − 6 (1/kPa)
1.4374 (Rm3 /Sm3 )
0.108 (m)
22 (m)
106.2 (o C)

[email protected] Page 18 of 36
UoA Volumetrics : (STOIIP) Uncertainties Task 4

Task 5

Objective
The main objectives of this task are to:

ˆ Determine the original fluid in-place resource (STOIIP) for each reservoir unit in the Volve field using
volumetric technique

ˆ Estimate a range of volumetric uncertainty associated with the estimates.

ˆ Calculate original fluid in places using the Excel-based material balance calculators

ˆ Perform statistical analysis to identify the most feasible fluid in places

ˆ Estimate original oil in place using tNavigator software

ˆ Use tNavigator to perform statistical analysis to identify the most feasible fluid in places

ˆ Compare your hand calculations with the software results and select the best approach based on your
company profile

Material
ˆ Petrophysical data

ˆ Appraisal results

ˆ Geological interpretation model

ˆ Material balance calculator (Excel-based for gas and oil)

ˆ Fluid characterisation model

ˆ tNavigator model

Suggested workflow
Before using the tNavigator software, it is useful to build your own estimate of STOIIP using a simple
spreadsheet calculation. This will provide you with a sense-check of a realistic volume. Additionally, you
can adjust the input values (i.e. gross rock volume, average porosity etc.) to gauge the sensitivity of different
rock properties.

(Q1) Use the top reservoir contour map, combined with your estimation of fluid contact to generate a rough
estimate of HBGRV (Hydrocarbon-bearing gross intervals). Work in million cubic metres.

(Q2) Calculate an initial STOIIP using these HBGRVs by combining with your petrophysical sums and aver-
ages. Convert into million stock tank barrels (STOIIP in MMstb). Note: this requires an interpretation
of the field-wide formation volume factor based on your PVT analysis.

Task 5 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 19 of 36

UoA Volumetrics : (STOIIP) Uncertainties Task 5 (continued)

Figure 5: Equilibrium data specification window

(Q3) Use the tnavigator model to calculate simple layer-based gross rock volume calculations for the reser-
voir. These should be hydrocarbon-bearing gross rock volumes only (HBGRV), and therefore need to
be constrained to your chosen fluid contact(s). To set up a fluid contact in Tnavigator go to the fluid
properties/equilibrium data specification/ (see 5).

(Q4) Run the model in tNnavigator and calculate STOIIP for Volve (see 6). Do this in two steps:

ˆ Do a first run using the sums and averages layer properties; this is to ensure you have no error
in running volumes in tNavigator. The result should be the same as in your material balance
calculator
ˆ Do a second run using the NTG, porosity and saturation tNavigator model. Compare with your
material balance calculator. The numbers will be different because the tNavigator model capture
spatial variation in reservoir properties, and also honour facies dependency (the geology). Make
sure you understand why the two STOIIP numbers differ – this needs to be explained in your
presentation and final report.

(Q5) Make any adjustments you feel are appropriate to the tNavigator property models based on your own
log and core evaluation. The need for adjustment can be established by checking the statistics of
the tNavigator NTG, porosity and saturation models (you can use histogram comparison) versus your
statistics from the log or core evaluation. Statistics are available as raw numbers and as interactive
histograms. (see Figures 7 and 8).

Note: there is not a set ‘correct’ answer to this – it depends on your interpretation of the numbers.
Are the wells an appropriate sample of the reservoir? If yes, then perhaps the sums and averages are a
fair reflection of the average properties for the whole reservoir. If the wells are not a reasonable sample
then how should each of the properties differ? Do you expect average reservoir properties to be higher
or lower than the sums and averages? Why?

(Q6) Ranges
The steps above allow you to generate any number of STOIIP cases using tNavigator or Excel.

Task 5 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 20 of 36

UoA Volumetrics : (STOIIP) Uncertainties Task 5 (continued)

Figure 6: Fluid in place calculation

Figure 7: Statistical information of the petrophysical data

Task 5 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 21 of 36

UoA Volumetrics : (STOIIP) Uncertainties Task 5 (continued)

Figure 8: Histogram of the petrophysical data

Having done a few runs and established a feel for volume sensitivities, determine a reasonable low-high
range for Volve STOIIP.
You can do this:

ˆ Deterministically, by defining low and high cases for the property variations in the field.
ˆ Probabilistically, using Crystal Ball, or Monte-Carlo routine in Excel.
ˆ Both.

(Q7) Some companies use probabilistic techniques, some deterministic, and either way can be valid if done
properly. The key is to define uncertainties clearly and be able to justify your selection of low and high
parameters.

(Q8) Remember: when we define ‘low’ and ‘high’ resource estimates these are understood to be ‘reasonable’
highs and lows, not simply the lowest and highest numbers imaginable. The industry generally works
on the P90-P10 principle, that is: the low-high range you end up with defines the range within which
you are 80% confident the truth lies.

(Q9) Justifying the input parameters you used for resource estimation is crucial in any presentation of
STOIIP and showing an understanding of the associated uncertainties and how these lead up to your
low-high STOIIP figures is equally important. Commercial decisions often hang on estimations of
resource ranges.

[email protected] Page 22 of 36
UoA Well type : (design) Optimisation Task 5

Task 6

Objective
In this field development plan project, it is required that the initial discovery, appraisal and development
wells are critically examined in terms of design and field integration into the reservoirs. The main objective
of this task is to design production and/or injection wells that would be required in the dynamic model build
and production forecasts. The number of well and geometries should be chosen and arranged for the upper
and lower completion strings. This requires model optimisation.

The objectives of this task include:

ˆ To select casing setting depth using pore pressure and fracture gradient data.

ˆ To estimate hole geometry using standard bubble maps

ˆ To select the proper type and density of drilling fluid in drilling of each section by considering the
geological information of the field.

ˆ To evaluate existing well data and design new production and injection wells required for the dynamic
model build and running production forecasts.

ˆ To optimise the number of wells already planned for drilling considering upper and lower completion
strings.

Material
ˆ General stratigraphic column (type log)

ˆ Pore pressure gradients and formation break-down pressure curvesfracture gradients of the formations

ˆ Well-log interpretations

ˆ Well test data

ˆ Well completion design

ˆ Well completion reports

Suggested workflow
Well planning is a systematic process. It requires that some aspects of the plan be developed before designing
other items. Well log interpretation and reservoir geological modeling are usually developed before any
drilling process. Then, casing setting depth and hole geometry selection must be developed before the
drilling fluid design. Using the provided information and data about the formations in Volve field, the
following aspects are expected to be considered:

ˆ Casing setting depth selection

ˆ Hole geometry selection

Task 6 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 23 of 36

UoA Well type : (design) Optimisation Task 6 (continued)

ˆ Drilling fluids design

(Q1) Casing setting depth selection One of the most important parts of the well plan is selecting the depths to
which the casing will be run and cemented. The drilling engineer must consider geological conditions
such as formation pressures and fracture gradients, hole problems, internal company policies, and,
in many cases, a variety of government regulations. Unfortunately, many well plans give significant
considerations to the actual casing design yet give only cursory attention to the setting depth of the
casing.
Many wells have experienced engineering and economic failures because the casing program specified
setting depths too shallow or too deep. Applying a few basic drilling principles combined with a basic
knowledge of the geological conditions in an area can help determine where casing strings should be
set to ensure that drilling can proceed with minimum difficulty.

Setting depth selection should be made for the deepest strings to be run in the well and then successively
designed from the bottom string to the surface. Although this procedure may appear at first to be
reversed, it avoids several time-consuming iterative procedures.

(Q2) A good starting point is select casing setting depth for any of the exploration (15 − 9 − 19SR, 15 − 9 −
19A, 15 − 9 − 19BT 2) and appraisal wells (15 − 9 − F 1, 15 − 9 − F 4) previously drilled and consider
modifications or improvements that would make the production wells simpler and cheaper to drill, or
changes that are required to improve well performance (see Figure 9.

(Q3) Hole geometry selection Bit and casing size selection can mean the difference between a well that must
be abandoned before completion and a well that is an economic and engineering success. Improper size
selection can result in holes so small that the well must be abandoned due to drilling or completion
problems. The drilling engineer (or well planner) is responsible for designing the hole geometry to avoid
these problems. Typically, the well geometry design starts from the reservoir section requirements which
is selected based on flow requirements and completion design.

(Q4) Drilling fluids selection A complete and comprehensive mud plan must be included in the well planning
process. History has proven that an incomplete mud plan will cost the operator many hours of rig time,
potentially result in failure to drill to the final geological target and may mean even be the difference
between a productive or non-productive well.

”Drilling fluids” also historically known as “drilling mud” describes a broad range of fluids, both
liquids and gases, used in drilling operations to achieve specific purposes. The fluids may be air,
natural gas, water, oil, or a combination of liquids used with special chemicals and additives. Drilling
fluids are designed to solve or minimize many drilling problems and, as such, an identification of these
trouble areas will help the drilling engineer successfully prepare a mud program, which when followed
will ensure offshore personnel use proper mud types and fluid additives to drill a successful well. In
addition to developing a fluid programme in order to manage wellbore hazards, strict environmental
legislative requirements will also need to be followed.
To meet the above objectives, the following design and operational considerations need to be made

ˆ Mud density to provide hydrostatic pressure

ˆ Base fluid type (i.e. oil versus water)

Task 6 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 24 of 36

UoA Well type : (design) Optimisation Task 6 (continued)

Figure 9: Trajectories for discovery wells 159 − 19S/SR, 159 − 19A, 159 − 19B/BT 2

ˆ Addition of lost circulation material to minimise losses and limit formation damage
ˆ Minimize pipe sticking

(Q5) Well trajectory

Consideration needs to be given to the geometry of development wells being drilled, particularly their
orientation across the target intervals. Figure 9 shows the well trajectory profiles for the exploratory
wells.

ˆ Choices will be affected by the overall field development concept (e.g. drilling deviated from a
central surface platform or vertically from subsea locations), the various factors influencing the
expected flow performance (e.g. horizontal vs. vertical wells) and hence the predicted well rates
which contribute to the field production forecast.
ˆ The general guideline for improved recovery from horizontal versus vertical wells can be evaluated
using the productivity improvement factor concept

(Q6) Well completion

(Q7) Consideration will have to be given to the arrangements in the upper and lower portions of the com-
pletion strings in both producers and injectors.

(Q8) Any particular completion arrangement will need to be supported by statements which clearly ex-
plain the rational for selection. A balance between costs, well integrity and requirements to achieve
production/ injection improvement is always a main challenge.

(Q9) For fraccing, a broad guideline to the likely improvements to be achieved is:

Task 6 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 25 of 36

 UoA Well type : (design) Optimisation Task 6 (continued)

(Q10) Note: any decision to select more complex well designs (fraccing, acid stimulation, smart completions
etc.) will incur an incremental development cost. You should research and estimate such costs.

(Q11) Real-world costs change month-by-month, especially for non-standard items, and you are asked to
make your own estimations of the likely cost increment based on your current research (the basis of
your costing should be included in your reporting).

Notes:

ˆ Well design must be carried out without compromising safety.

ˆ Begin by deciding your required casing size over the reservoir interval(s) and work back up the
well to surface.
ˆ Options for multiple completion strings may be considered.
ˆ Detailed drilling and completion reports are provided and highlights of any specific drilling chal-
lenges experienced will be listed in there. These should be carefully considered in your production
well drilling plans.
ˆ Design drilling fluids and cementing jobs, and estimate the costs of such operations for wells.

[email protected] Page 26 of 36
UoA Dynamic model : concept selection forecasting Task 6

Task 7

Objective
1. The main objective of this task is to run and modify tNavigator simulation models for the Volve field
and use this in the concept selection and forecasting.

Materials
ˆ Reservoir grid and original static properties, upscaled to simulation grid.

ˆ Petrophysical properties.

ˆ Production history data.

ˆ Range of uncertainties of the original reservoir model.

References
ˆ TNavigator Simulator User Manual, Rock Flow Dynamics

ˆ TNavigator AHM and Uncertainty Guide, Rock Flow Dynamics

Suggested workflow
(Q1) Examine and run the model provided.

ˆ Review how the tNavigator software links data into simulation cases.
– Properties ’dynamic model’ grid (NTG, PORO, PERMX/Y/Z)
– Rock data (compaction and saturation models)
– Fluid data (black oil PVT and initial conditions)
– What is the residual oil saturation
– Aquifer model, what is the oil-water contact, how big is the aquifer
– Well and completion data
– Sample development strategy
ˆ Export and run the given simulation cases, inspect the model pressure vs. time in a function
window compared to the observed data:
– Check the model runs properly; there may be a number of ’comments’ and ’warnings’, but
few ’problems’ and no ’errors’ or ’bugs’.
ˆ Is the model drawdown greater or less than observed? Some ideas for discussion . . .
– Is the difference significant? What magnitude of modification is required to make the model
match observations?
– What geological cause(s) might explain the situation?

Task 7 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 27 of 36

UoA Dynamic model : concept selection forecasting Task 7 (continued)

– If you have a range of options in mind, which of these may lead to the greatest difference in
oil recovery? Is this test highlighting a critical uncertainty?
ˆ Design multiple simulation cases to consider the given uncertainty of the static properties and
petrophysical properties and run these simulation cases.
ˆ Compare the results from simulation cases and production history and find the history matched
case, justify your history matched reservoir model.
ˆ Discuss and agree potential development plans
– What is a reasonable range of initial rates for the type of wells planned?
– How many producer wells are indicated for the reference case STOIIP?
– What happens in the event of low or high case STOIIP?
– For an injection scheme, how many injection wells might be needed?
– What does the selection of injection wells depend on?

(Q2) Inspect the example forecast cases a simulation case.

ˆ Review and run the history matched case and inspect the results (summary data in Function
windows, grid data in 3D view)
– Review its development strategy
– Plot the field oil rate and water cut development for the case
– Individual forecasts of well performances (oil rate, water cut, cumulative oil) . . . which wells
are under performing? Could this development plan be improved?
– In 3D view, inspect pressure and saturation solution arrays . . . is the oil being produced by
depletion or displacement?
ˆ Evaluate the economic indicators for the cases
– Export the field oil rate sampled as yearly averaged data
– Import the results data into the economics spreadsheet tool.
– Import the costs into the economics spreadsheet tool.
– Review economic metrics (NPV, IRR, UTC etc) and the Cash Flow chart.
ˆ Review and run the other cases
– Compare the model results for the cases Cumulative oil of the reference realisation versus
development plans Cumulative oil of a development plan vs. different realisations
– Evaluate the economic indicators for the cases as required, noting that each case should have
costs / phasing assigned appropriate to the plan.
ˆ Experiment with modifying the development strategy using the ’Development Strategy’ method.
– Consider potential sensitivities for the development plan.
Capacity constraints Well selection
Well timing or phased development
Completion - tubing size and/or presence of gas lift
– Evaluate the economic indicators for the cases as required, noting that each case should have
costs / phasing assigned appropriate to the plan.

(Q3) Make a recommendation of your development strategy.

[email protected] Page 28 of 36
UoA Concept selection and economics : (Volve case) Plan Task 7

Task 8

Objective
1. The objective of this task is to use the reservoir development schemes built in Task 7, and the resource
range defined in Task 5 to select your optimal redevelopment concept and to test this against commercial
and sustainability criteria.

2. Considering the fact that Volve field is a brown field, it is required that your concept selection encom-
pass the recommended history matched reservoir production mechanism, the average production rate,
number and type of wells, the production facility choice and the corresponding life of field production
profiles and reserves.

3. The forecasts should be in the form of an expectation case, constrained by history matched model with
associated sensitivities run to test the low-high range outcomes.

4. The key objective will be to consider a range of options required to extract remaining recoverable
oil by choosing the best fit for the scenario. Options will include improved or enhanced oil recovery
techniques.

5. The number of wells and additional resources to be utilised in this concept selection should be factored
into the economics model.

Material
ˆ All the information and your interpretations from Tasks 1-7

ˆ Excel-based economic screening tool for a tax-and-royalty fiscal regime

ˆ Guidance on commercial criteria from your individual company profiles

Suggested workflow
There are three steps to this analysis, and the steps need to be repeated as alternative schemes are iterated
and tested commercially to determine an optimum plan.

(Q1) Future performance prediction

ˆ Using the tNavigator simulation model built in Task 7, and the subsurface knowledge gained
though the appraisal and development programme.
ˆ The following should be taken into consideration when evaluating the production forecast:
– Choice of production mechanism
– Aquifer drive (attach a numerical aquifer) or
– Water injection scheme
– Placement, number and type of wells
– Drilling sequence: consider the sweep pattern and the time frame for drilling
– Wells should be completed only on one formation at a time e.g. Hugin or Skagerrak

Task 8 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 29 of 36

UoA Concept selection and economics : (Volve case) Plan Task 8 (continued)

– Consider developing the highest productivity formation first

– Well specification: vertical, horizontal or inclined
appropriate choice of tubing sizes
minimum flowing tubing head pressure and minimum flowing bottom hole pressure should be
considered based on historical performance
– Water injection, if chosen, should be controlled by voidage replacement
– Consider the drilling sequence of producers and injectors (only one rig), or would you consider
a two rig programme?
– The result of the above is a production profile. This can be entered onto the economics
screening spreadsheet on an annualised production basis.

(Q2) Surface facilities: consider the following in the redevelopment scenario

(a) Cost up a standard steel jacket with a platform-based drilling rig to start. Work out which
modules are required for your chosen development mechanism.
(b) Start by costing one module at a time and calculate the module tonnage required
(c) Sum up the total topside tonnage; make reasonable estimates for the POB (number of people on
board) to size the accommodation module.
(d) Work out the jacket weight based on the topsides the jacket is to support.
(e) Work out the capital cost based on this tonnage and the steel price provided.
(f) Add the well costs based on your chosen well type; increment this cost reasonably for complex
well designs (note: cost assumptions will be challenged)
(g) Add in costs associated with exporting produced fluids to market.
(h) The total capital costs – facilities and wells (CAPEX) - can be entered on the costing spreadsheet.
Note: these should be sensibly phased (including phasing of the drilling costs, dependent on your
proposed drilling schedule).
(i) You should decide on how long your company production forecast will run for. The reserves profile
will be later truncated in the economic analysis, the year in which the production revenue drops
below the operating expenditures (OPEX).

(Q3) Commercial screening

ˆ The Volve economic screening tool.xls contains the workings of the current UK tax and royalty
scheme. Only cells highlighted in yellow and grey should initially be changed to reflect your
company position. The cells highlighted in orange reflecting fiscal rates can later be changed to
quantify how robust your cases are to potential fiscal policy changes.
ˆ Does your scheme make money at all? If not, iterate your choices for wells and the size of facilities
(the maximum throughput is controlling size and hence facilities cost). Optimise the scheme. Once
the particular concept case is as good as you can get it, test other options to find the best system
that meets your company’s metrics.
ˆ The above process will lead you to a preferred development concept option, which then needs
to be stress tested against the high and the low cases volumes and production forecasts. This
involves iterating back to step 1 and the process may actually push you to re-evaluate your original
assumptions.

[email protected] Page 30 of 36
UoA Risk and uncertainty : (Volve case) Project Task 8

Task 9

Objective
1. Distinguish between project risks and project uncertainties, identify critical risks and uncertainties for
your specific development option and determine avoidance and/or mitigation plans for the project.

Material
ˆ Your analysis from Task 8

ˆ Background knowledge accumulated from Tasks 1-7

ˆ Bratvold & Begg, 2010. Making Good Decisions, SPE. Chapter 1

ˆ Bernstein, 1996. Against the Gods. John Wiley and Sons.

Suggested workflow
Having gone through the process of iterating the various inputs above, you will have an optimised FDP. It
is now important to assess the main issues around successful delivery of the project.

(Q1) Companies do this in various ways, but there are underlying considerations common to all. A key is to
distinguish risks from uncertainties, and to distinguish issues which are controllable from ones that are
not. Ones that are controllable can be designed for; ones that cannot can nevertheless be mitigated.

ˆ Reflect on all you know about the Volve opportunity and list out the aspects that you regard as
the key technical uncertainties impacting on the success of the project. These aspects should be
specific. Listing ‘hydrocarbon resource’ is too broad, the question is “what aspect of hydrocarbon
resource is the main uncertainty” – fluid contacts, porosity, top structure . . . . etc.
ˆ Rank the uncertainties in terms of their impact on the project. You can do this subjectively or
(better) quantitatively. The latter may require some model iterations to assess the sensitivity of
the project metrics to the uncertainties you identify.
ˆ Ensure the key uncertainties are reflected in your high and low case forecasts.
ˆ Identify key risks to the project success. What could cause the project to fail? Recall: the
distinction between risk and uncertainty is that risks are context dependent and specific (“we are
uncertain about . . . . “ but “there is a risk of . . . .”). The context in this case is the risk of the
project failing to meet the commercial project hurdles. What could cause that to happen?
ˆ Once key risks are identified what are the mitigations that can be put in place to reflect a downside
or upside case? Think through “what would happen if . . . ?”

(Q2) A tool that may be useful to illustrate these complexities, especially for defending you project, is a
risk matrix that helps give an impression of the impact of any occurrence and the probability that it
could happen.

Task 9 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 31 of 36

UoA Risk and uncertainty : (Volve case) Project Task 9 (continued)

(Q3) List out the key risks and decide how their likelihood of happening compares with their impact. Lay
them out on a simple cross plot, with probability of occurrence (high/low) on one axis and impact
(high/low) on the other.

(Q4) This process, if undertaken methodically, should help you to identify potential weaknesses in your
chosen development concept and show how you plan to exclude or mitigate against them.

[email protected] Page 32 of 36
UoA Sustainability and HSE : (The safety case) Volve Task 9

Task 10

Objective
1. A safety case aims to show that specific safety claims are substantiated and that risks are kept ’As
Low As Reasonably Practicable’ (ALARP). The review of safety cases is an important activity in the
safety engineering process, performed throughout development, operation and maintenance, in which
the safety case argument and evidence are scrutinised and challenged.

ˆ The task is to examine your proposed FDP concept and identify the areas that represent the greatest
safety and probable environmental hazard during the life of the project.

ˆ For each of these areas, the teams are required to describe the nature of any safety incident(s) and
their possible environmental impact, and specify the procedures that would be initiated in the event
of any such incident occurring.

Material
ˆ All information and previous tasks related to your preferred development plan.

ˆ Website: http://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/safetycases.htm

Suggested workflow
A ‘Safety Case’ is a structured argument, supported by evidence, intended to justify that a system is
acceptably safe for a specific application in a specific operating environment. Safety cases are often required
as part of a regulatory process, a certificate of safety being granted only when the regulator is satisfied by
the argument presented in a safety case.

(Q1) Review the information and publications on the Health & Safety Executive website given above. There
are several guideline documents available that should provide useful background reading and will help
to explain the nature and content of safety cases, e.g. Offshore Installations (safety case) Regulations
2005; Guidelines on risk assessment for offshore installations.

(Q2) The choice of the proposed FDP will be scrutinised, particularly as to whether HSE has been com-
promised in order to minimise cost. Why has this FDP option been selected in preference to any
others?

(Q3) Your company should be able to provide supporting evidence on items such as:

ˆ The design and operating conditions of the facility in relation to issues such as fatigue, corrosion
life etc. Is your proposed development concept tried, tested and fit for purpose? What evidence
can you provide to back this up?
ˆ The expected scheduling for maintenance, inspection and testing of safety critical elements (SCE’s)
– what are these SCE’s? For example, have you consulted existing records of measured and
monitored corrosion rates on similar installations and plant? What concerns might exist regarding
structural loading? Are their plans for regular emergency shut-down (ESD) valve closure tests
etc.?

Task 10 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 33 of 36

UoA Sustainability and HSE : (The safety case) Volve Task 10 (continued)

ˆ Suitability of escape, evacuation and rescue (EER) designs – can you describe the installation
escape, evacuation and rescue arrangements in the event of an emergency?
ˆ Location and suitability of fire and gas detection systems – are you able to explain the philosophy
and logic around the deployment of these systems and their limitations e.g. detectable leak sizes
etc.
ˆ A download of ‘A guide to the offshore installations (Safety Case) regulations 2005’ can be obtained
from the HSE Executive website and will provide comprehensive information about the subject.

Scope
ˆ You are not expected to produce a full-blown safety case for your FDP. The intention is to
raise awareness of the importance of the safety issues related to operating offshore oil and gas
installations, as well as the rigorous demands on compliance.
ˆ Your company should aim to cover the main areas for concern and reasonably justify your approach
to safely extracting hydrocarbons and operating the facilities option you are proposing.

[email protected] Page 34 of 36
UoA Cessation of production : (CoP) Decommissioning Task 10

Task 11

Objective
1. After some years of additional production, Volve field will reach at such a declined production rates
that further continuation of the production, hence the operating expenditure (OPEX) / costs would
be commercially unattractive. Teams involved in this FDP project are required to analyse their de-
velopment plans and provide a statement on the field conditions, ultimate economic recovery and base
case assumptions relating to their expected cessation of production (COP). This should also include
some discussion around the sensitivity and uncertainty in the various factors impacting the COP.

2. The decommissioning plan for the Volve Field should be outlined, including an estimation of associated
decommissioning costs. This completes an analysis of the full lifecycle FDP. To accompany this, the
definition of a ‘Safety Case’ (Task 9: Sustainability +HSE) for the asset is required as part of the FDP
documentation.

Material
ˆ Online search material (analogue Maureen Field, NW Hutton Field, Brent Field etc.)

ˆ Field production profile history and forecast

ˆ Choice of production facilities from Task 8

ˆ Economic forecast and screening indicators from Tasks 8&9

ˆ Safety case from Task 10

Suggested workflow
(Q1) Field production conditions at COP (including economics)

(Q2) Use your production forecasting and economic modelling to determine the field conditions that will
signal COP. Your company should also discuss the technical and commercial options for deferring the
COP – why might this be worthwhile or not?

(Q3) Production well abandonment

(Q4) In the eventuality of COP, outline the requirements for abandoning wells (producers & injectors) and
summarise the steps for a generic well abandonment programme.
This should include an estimated time schedule for the operations and expected costs.
You should also comment on any technical and environmental safety risks associated with your plans,
as well as avoidance and/or mitigation strategies.

(Q5) Production facilities decommissioning plan

(Q6) You should include an outline for decommissioning the fluids processing plant in your selected devel-
opment concept, whether fixed, floating or sub-sea etc. Think about all the major component parts

Task 11 continued on next page. . . [email protected] Page 35 of 36

UoA Cessation of production : (CoP) Decommissioning Task 11 (continued)

of the system and what the challenges might be – look for analogous production systems that have
already been decommissioned as a benchmark for your plans.
Check your provisions against those described in the OGA guidelines.
Include an estimated time schedule for the operations and expected costs, and a statement of the
technical and environmental safety risks.

(Q7) Infrastructure decommissioning plan

Consider your liability for decommissioning any associated infrastructure in addition to the fluid pro-
cessing plant that was used for the export of Volve production.

(Q8) For example, have you passed your fluids through other 3rd party installations and systems? Do you
have decommissioning liabilities related to these? Could their life expectancy negatively impact the
Volve Field COP?

[email protected] Page 36 of 36