1 Gullfaks Sør, N1/N0 og Gullfaksfeltet Tampen area.
-
Upload
zachary-certain -
Category
Documents
-
view
228 -
download
2
Transcript of 1 Gullfaks Sør, N1/N0 og Gullfaksfeltet Tampen area.
1
Gullfaks Sør, N1/N0 og Gullfaksfeltet
Tampen area
Gullfaks Satelitter Prosjektforslag til Gullfaks Landsbyen 2006
Bruk av multilaterale brønnerpå GFS Statfjord,
3
Gullfaks Sør Statfjord Formation
Discovered in 1979, and part of the Gullfaks Satellites – tie in to Gullfaks field – 10 km
Statfjord formation consist of 134 m oil zone, and gas cap
Statfjord formation
Production start: April 1999
Reservoir depth: 3300 m
Pressure, initial: 476 bar
Temp. @ 3300 m: 128 oC
4
GFS Statfjord Challenge:
• Complex reservoir with low recovery, goal +18% (LTP 2003-2008)
• PDO – 12.6 MSm3. Today 5.4 MSm3
• Increasing GOR -> reduces the oil rates.
Aggressive search to increase recovery factor:
EXTENDING THE LIMITS - STEP BY STEPS
• Additional perforation of G-2 H and F-4 H in lower Statfjord (summer 2003)
• G –1 H with RMC (2003/2004)
• G –2 YH MLT with RMC (2004)
• F –2 YH MLT with RMC (2004)
454000 455000 456000 457000 458000 459000 460000 461000
6778000
6777000
6776000
6775000
6774000
6773000
6772000
6771000
6770000
461000460000459000458000457000456000455000454000
6770000
6771000
6772000
6773000
6774000
6775000
6776000
6777000
6778000
KILOMETERS 0 1 2 KILOMETERS1:30000
D
E
FGLM
2
16
21
3875
30
32Aô
33
G-2T3H
L-3H
L-4H
3302
G-3HT2
E-4H
F4AHT3
G-1H
G-2Y2H
A3
A2
A1
A4
A6
A5
3 50 0
0
065
3
0
9
04 04
51
2
21
3875
3300
L-4H
3343
F-2Y1H
F-2Y2H
FS1
FS2
FS2.1
FS2.5
FS2.3
FS2.3
FS3
FS3.7
FS3.3
FS3.2FS3.1
FS3.4
FS3.5
FS4
FS4.2
FS4.4
FS4.3
FS4.6
FS4.5
FS4.1
FS5.1
FS8
FS8.2FS9 FS8.1
FS8
FS7
FS2.2
FS3
FS5
FS_North_bound
G-3 Y2H
G-3 Y3HG-3 Y3HT2
G-3 Y3HT3 OW
5
Development of GFS Statfjord reservesGullfaks Sør Statfjord
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
PDO 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Date
ST
OO
IP+c
on
d (
MS
m3)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Rec
ove
ry F
acto
r (%
)
STOOIP Oil reserves Recovery Factor
F-4 / G-2
drilledDIACS / MLTG-3 drilled
6
Why MLT and Remote Monitoring & Control?
• Poor reservoir communication and structural complexity More drainage points reduces
the uncertainty.
– The need for more drainage point is clearly based on the STOOIP and estimated volume pr.
well.
– A smart well and MLT well will be more robust for the geologic complexity and uncertainty
in the reservoir.
• More drainage points
– will increase the estimated production pr well
– expose more of the reservoir:
• minimize the drawdown
• extra reservoir penetrations also allows access to reserves that otherwise would be likely
to be left behind.
7
Why MLT and Remote Monitoring & Control?• Production experience.
– Want to keep old wellbore
– Verify contribution from each branch
– Optimize, if possible, the contribution from each branch, different drawdown and GOR
– Adjust production from different zones by surface operated valves.
– Clean-up of well easier with RMC
– More flexibility when co-producing with the other wells
– Natural gas lift
• Limited number of slots
• Aquire more data about pressure communication in the reservoir.
• Smart well technology is an insurance and it provides more data.
• Reduces the need for expensive well interventions
8
Production profile one vs. multiple branches
Extra production each year
-200000.00
0.00
200000.00
400000.00
600000.00
800000.00
1000000.00
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Oil
pro
du
ctio
n S
m3
F-2 H North F-2 H South F-2 H Mlt
F-2 H North cum Cum .F-2 H South Cum. F-2 H Mlt
• Eclipse simulations used for justification of MLT
• Decision tree, evaluating well concept used.
• Increased production and accelerated effect.
• Possible to produce from areas of low productivity which otherwise would be left behind.
• Limited reservoir communication, need for more drainage points.
• Mitigate gas breakthrough.
Gullfaks SatelitterProsjektforslag til Gullfaks Landsbyen 2006
Innfasing av to små satelittfelt
10
Skinfaks/Rimfaks IOR. RES/PRO-seminar, 23.-24.November 2005.
Situation in year 2001:
Rimfaks Brent: Production start year 2000. Spring 2001: IOR possibility documented, 2 infill wells + extra gas handling capacity gives 2.1 MSm3 of extra oil.
GF Sør L+M templates, prod.start Sept.2001. 3 flowlines to GFC for GF Sør Brent gas production. Extra capacity and tie-in possibility at L/M for upsides in GF Sør Field.
Prospects defined in the Brent Gp. and Statfjord Fm. in the Ole, Dole and Doffen (ODD) segments. (Later named Skinfaks.)
The SRI team also matured the Gulltopp (Dolly) discovery to PDO level in 2003
11
RF Lunde
J RF Cook
Skinfaks/Rimfaks IOR. RES/PRO-seminar, 23.-24.November 2005.
J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
2002 2003 2004
DG1(BoK)
DG2(BoV)
DG3(BoG)
PDOdel.
33/12-8SDG1 team establ. Scr.
ph. 1
11 variants of concept ’SRI to GFC via L/M’ (re)evaluated: - 1 or 2 templates, + 1 or 2 satellites, 1 or 2 flowlines.
- Further optimising of subsea wellhead locations and subsea/pipeline cost.- Increased volumes (3.RF well, Skinfaks N1 segment, Skinfaks gas lift)
-Upside volumes quantified, value (risked) calculated.-Selection criteria: NPV (and then IRR and NPV/CAPEX disc.)
Screen.phase 2
Scr. ph. 3
Scr. Ph. 4
To L/M
Recommendation from Project, February 2004: Optimise concept ’2SX’ (1 template, 1 satellite, 2 flowlines) further towards DG2.
’Basis’ well ’Upside’ well
Scr. Ph. 5Feasibility study phase
12
Økt utvinning
• Innfasing av
segment N0 & N1
29/3-1
29/3
33/12
N1 Ness
13
N0 og N1
Geosnitt fra sør mot nord
N0b
14
Innfasing av N0 og N1
•Reserver, produksjonsprofiler
•Antall brønner, produksjonsutfordringer
•Usikkerheter, økonomi
Gullfaks Satelitter Prosjektforslag til Gullfaks Landsbyen 2006
Gel for WC reduksjon i GF produsenterMetodikk
16
Gelling reaction in water phase only
17
Flømming med vann / viskøst vann
18
Gel system- an intermediate system between ’weak’ and ’blocking’
1,E+00
1,E+01
1,E+02
1,E+03
1,E+04
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1Saturation
RR
FRRFw RRFo
Polymers ------ emulsion ----------blocking
19
Gelation time versus formation temperature
Gel viscosity at 90°C
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 1 2 3 4 5Time (hours)
Vis
co
sit
y (
cp
)
E:250/30
E:250/40
E:250/50
E:250/60
Injection of 130 m3 at injection rate of 0.9 m3/minmeans gelation time > 2.5 hours
20
A-16 before/after DPR
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
23-apr-04 12-jun-04 1-aug-04 20-sep-04 9-nov-04 29-des-04
Oil
rate
[S
m³/
sd
], P
I [S
m³/
d/b
ar]
, WH
P
[ba
r]
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
2800
3200
3600
4000
Wa
ter
rate
[m
³/s
d]
Oil rate [Sm³/sd]
PI [Sm³/d/bar]
WHP [bar]
Water rate [m³/cd]
21
Methods for reducing sand production
•A gel will act as glue between sand grains
– Consolidation of loose sand
– Some permeability reduction
– Permeability reduction can be controlled (minimum reduction in
water permeability)
– Increased sand free production rate
•As a result – increased production rate with the potential of reduced
water-cut
22
Oppgave - stikkord
•Typer gel
•Tilbakeproduksjon/miljø
•WC, perm, sonevis
Lagdelte reservoarer
• Injeksjonsvolum
•Ønsket plassering
•Finne egnet brønn på GF