Gullfaks field

Rune Instefjord
Project leader, Gullfaks IOR
 Key data for GF main field
Location: northern North Sea
Discovered: 1978
Start production: 1986
Location: northern North Sea
Start
Baseproduction:
oil reserves: 1986
356 Mill. Sm 3
Discovered: 1978
Gullfaks
Gullfaks
Base reserves:
Produced 356
to date: 327Mill.
Mill. Sm
Sm3

Produced
Expected recovery: 61 %Mill. Sm3
to date: 327
Recovery pr. 2006: 56%
Expected recovery: 61 %
Initial pressure: 310-320 bar at 1850 m TVD
MHN
Bubble point pressure: ~200-240 bar at 1850 m
3 500

3 000
TVD MHN
R a te 1 0 0 0 S m 3 /m o n th

2 500
GOR: ~ 100 Sm/Sm
2 000

1 500
Viscosity: ~ 0.5 1 cp
1 000
Dip angel in western part: 12-15 deg
500

0
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Basis Water IOR Water Basis OIL IOR Oil Start prognosis
 Gullfaks Field
-Structural setting and reservoir
performance, Gullfaks Field
Complex fault system
Main fault system trending
north-south: large faults (50 250 m
throw)
C
Secondary fault system east-west B
(10 100 m throw) C
Three structual areas
B
A major challenge to realise the A

IOR potential, is a continuous

improvement of the structural
description by
frequent seismic surveillances Structural Depth Map, top Statfjord Fm. View from south.
A
(conventional time lapse and Ocean
Bottom Seismics) Vertical scale 4x horisontal
Use of advanced geological and msl
reservoir simulation models Post-Jurassic
5
km
sediments
1000 m
Accom-
Domino System modation Horst

2000 m
Brent Gr.

Statfj. 3000 m
Fm.

Tordis 4000 m

break- Intra-Teist refl.

away
5000 m
fault
Low-angle
detachment 6000 m

Basement 7000 m

8000 m
Structural interpretation

W Line 736 E
CDP 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Cretaceous/Tertiary Base Cretaceous Brent Statfjord

sediments unconformity Group Fm.
Reservoir Quality
Reservoirs: Brent, Cook,
Statfjord & Lunde
Complex reservoir, very faulted
Porosity: 25-35 %
Permeability:
Tarbert, Etive, good Ness, good
Statfjord and Cook- 3 >1D
Rannoch, poor Ness, poor Statfjord,
Cook-2 and Lunde : 100 mD 1 D

Moderate-to-High Reservoir
Quality
Contrasting layers
Weak formations
DRAINAGE STRATEGY (primary)
Aquifer support
Water injection
Reservoir pressure over bubble point
Injectors in the water zone
Producers high on structure
 Drainage strategy (continues)

Secondary:
Secondary:
Secondary:
Secondary:
Secondary: Why?
Why?
Why?
Why?
Gas
Gas
Gasinjection,
injection,up-dip
injection, up-dip
Gas
Gas
WAG
injection,
injection,
injection
up-dip
up-dip
up-dip Avoid
Avoid
Avoid
Avoidproduction
production
production
production reduction
reduction
reduction
reductionwhen
when
when gas
gas
gasexport
when export
export is
is
isat
gas export at
atits
its
itsis at its
WAG WAG
WAGinjection
WAG injection
injection
injection maximum
maximum
maximum
maximum
Reduce
Reduce
Reducestorage
storage
storage costs
costs
costs and
and CO
CO
andand tax
tax
CO222COtax tax
Reduce
Produce
Produce
storage
attic
attic oil
oil
costs 2
Produce attic oil
Produce
Reduce attic oil
Reduce residual
residual oil
oil saturation
saturation
Reduce residual oil saturation
Reach
Reach areas
Reach areas difficult
areas difficult
difficult to to reach
to reach
reach with with
waterwater
with water injection,
injection,
injection, ex. Nessex.
ex. Ness by
by LB
LB
Ness
Reach areas difficult
by LB injection
injection
injection to reach with water injection, ex. Ness by LB
injection

Horizontal Get
Get uniform
uniform drainage,
drainage, decrease
decrease sand
sand production
production
Horizontal wells
wells
Horizontal wells Drain
Drainuniform
Get by-passed
by-passed
drainage,
oil
oil decrease sand production
Horizontal wells Get uniform drainage,
Drain by-passed oil
decrease sand production
Reservoir pressure under bubble point Drain
Createby-passed
gas lift, saveoil
drilling costs
Reservoir pressure under bubble point Create gas lift, save drilling costs

Reservoir
Commingle pressure
production under bubble point
Create
Accelerate
gasproduction
lift, save drilling costs

Commingle production Accelerate production

 Gullfaks reserves estimates through time

STOOIP (3,6 billion bbl)

Remaining oil

2,2 billion bbls

BASE PROFILE

RESERVES

PRODUCED
 Reserves Growth Gullfaks
Sammenligning av prognoser for basis oljeproduksjon
Gullfaks hovedfelt
35
In additon, tie-in of
satellite fields has
30
increased the oil and
year

gas sales from the

25 field (1994 Tordis,
pr. r

Present prognosis for

1998 GF Satellites
Sm 3per

economical lifetime:
20 Phase 1, 2001 GF Year 2018. Ambition:
Satellites Phase 2. Year 2030
Sm3

15
Mill.mill

10

0
1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016
Produsert 88 Rev PUD 93 Hst 94 Hst RSP 96
RSP 00 RSP 02 RSP 03 RSP 04
IOR at Gullfaks
Main reasons for improved recovery
Continuous focus on reservoir description and monitoring
An increased no. of drainage points / wells and the use of superinjectors for
water injection

Supplementary gas injection (WAG) in selected reservoir segments

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

Reduced inlet separator pressure

Use of time-lapse (4D) seismic to map remaining hydrocarbons
 Ambitions in Long Range Plan
Produce 400 Mill. Sm oil in the field life time. Corresponding to around 70%
recovery factor on the main field.

Cost reductions and an active IOR implementation is the most important

instrument to reach the ambition.

Lengthening the field life time with several years.

Third parts processing.
Gullfaks Main Field
oil rate prognosis
 Gullfaks IOR ambition project
Duration: 2006-2008.
Main goal: mature the undefined IOR ambition volumes (and more?) to RC 5.
Identify specific measures and demonstrate that they may be economical feasible.
Gullfaks Main Field. Improved oil recovery.

Implemented: Implemented (continued):

Water injection from start Multilateral wells
Upgrading of water injection capacities Coiled Tubing drilling
Sand control (screens) in most wells Through tubing drilling
Designer wells (horisontal, 3D) Rig assisted snubbing
Extended reach drilling (9 km drilled, 10 km well is beeing Underbalanced drilling
drilled) Expandable liners
Extensive exploration activity within drilling reach from 4D seismic
platforms => new volumes
Hydraulic fracturing in low perm reservoirs Studied, but discarded:
WAG (Water alternating gas) injection Surfactant injection (pilot)
Huff and puff gas injection Gel blocking (pilot)
Monobore completions CO2 miscible injection
Intelligent wells, remotely operated zone isolation valves

Under evaluation:
MIOR (Microbiological IOR)
 Water circulation
Main mechanism for IOR at Gullfaks. 1,0

0,9 Krw - Referanse

Krw - Sor = 0.2
Done a simulation study with extended
0,8
Kro - Referanse
0,7 Kro - Sor =0.2
0,6
water injection.

Rel. Perm.
0,5

0,4

Maximum use of platform capacity for all 0,3

0,2

phases. 0,1

0,0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
Residual oil saturation down to 5% from Water Saturation

lab experiments. 0,10

0,09

Drilling infill wells, both injectors and

0,08

0,07

0,06

R el. P erm.
producers. 0,05

0,04

0,03

0,02

0,01

0,00
0,6 0,65 0,7 0,75 0,8 0,85 0,9 0,95 1
Water Saturation
 Water circulation, results
Most important mechanism is the
creeping relative permeability and long
WCT vs cumulative oil, history and
tail production from each well. prediction

One well has historically produced with oil

rate < 100 Sm and wct > 0,9 for 7 years.
H2S is a problem, but nitrate injection
seems to control it.
Water production may be an
environmental challenge.
Added use of todays medicine
gives the highest contribution
to the future recovery.
 Drilling history at Gullfaks
3 platforms with 42, 42 and 52 slots.
Started with vertical wells (less than 60 deg) and 6 sub sea wells.
After 4-5 years drilled horizontal wells.
Water breakthrough gave sand problems:
Gravel packed wells, screen,
Fractured wells with proppants.
Last 5 years
Sidetracks.
Through Tubing Drilling.
Multilateral incl. DIACS in the well junction.
 Sand handling project
Assumption:
Kurve for MSR-testing
Most wells on Gullfaks has sand production. 100
90
Wells classified after probability for erosion. 80
Allow higher sand production rate in the cases

Sand i sandfelle (gram/time)

70
60
with low erosion risk. 50
Monitoring erosion progress. 40
30
Started at Gullfaks A in 2003 after a pilot at GFA 20
on 3 wells in 2002. 10
0
Installed at all 3 platforms in 2004. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Tid (timer etter bunn opp p ny rate)
Both accelerate and increase oil recovery.

Cumulative gain for ASR in 2003: 216 000 Sm

which gives a daily rate of around 590 Sm3/d
Seismic acquisition on Gullfaks

Surface seismic
1985, 1996, 1999,
2003

Shadow area

OBS acquired
in 2001

OBS acquired
In 2003
 Based on 4D/4C seismic

Well B-41A successfully drilled late 2000 Well C-44A successfully drilled
early 2001
After 1996 survey:
Well C-26AT2 drilled in 2003

Well C-15C drilled 2003

X After 1999 survey:
Potential new well
location cancelled
Well B-15AT4 successfully drilled 2003
After 2001 survey:
Well B-4A successfully drilled in 1999

After 2003 survey:

Well C-43 under drilling

Well A-29A successfully
drilled in 2003

Well A-46T2 drilled mid-2000

Well A-21A successfully
drilled early 2000
 Status 4D
Based on 4D seismic we have drilled more than 10 wells with success.
Top Brent (Tarbert), top Etive, top Cook and top Statfjord are the formations
where 4D has been most valuable.

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

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

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

Simulation Structural
models framework
Sedimentology, detailed
stratigraphy

Reservoir
description and
Time-lapse initial volume
seismic
1985

Top reservoir

OWC
OWC

Well position, and

Production, injection
1999
perforation levels
Top reservoir
rates, RST and PLT
 B-8
1832

D4A B-12
B-12 3 1876
B-27
B-29BT3 1946 1867 1857 B-5AT2
B-29BT3(F4) 1809
B-29BT2
PBTH53 C-30(2)
C-30 (2)
B-15 B-5
B-15 1803
1958
B-15T2
1810

Flooding map
B-16
B-16
1822
1820
B-29BT3
B-29BT3(F3)
H5
2035 B-24 B-32
B-32 B-33
B-24(1)
B-29A B-17 B-3
B-17 B-3 1795 1789
2002 1851 1850
1867

B-13AT2 B-1
B-1
B-13AT2 4
G5 B-36 1846 B-30
B-30 1795 B-19T2
F5 B-22
B-36AT2
B-36AT2 B-2
B-19A
1860 1817 B-19
1799
1878 1798
B-29BT3(F2) 1905 B-22A 1879 1806 1794
B-29BT2(F1)
B B-23 (1)
B-29BT3(F1) E4 1882 B-9
B-9 B-23(1)
B-29B(F1) B-29BT3 B-23
B-23 (3) B-31(2)
1809

D3
1830
1811
1790
H3
PBTD31 B-13 B-34
B-34
PBTE41 H4

Water flooded
B-29 B-21 1798
1902
B-21BB-21A B-6B-6
B-10
B-10A
1966
1816
B-7 1772
1801
1818 1765
1774

A-23 H2 B-4 B-25

A-23
G4
B-4A
B-4A 1767 1756
1810
I1
5 1785

Partly water flooded A-21(F)

1871 A-31
A-31
1790
1778
A-12

A-33
A-33 A-3H
A-4H

A-25 A-16 A-34/A 1749

A-25A
A-25A
1789
1777
1985
A-16A
A-16A A-6A
A-6A 1758 1752
1791
A-14 A-1H
1921
A-32B 1771
A-32B 1779
A-39A(3)
1826
A-32A A-18
B-37 (F) 1756
1761

1864
G3 A-39A(2)
E3 1894 1760

Uncertain flooding A-8R2

A-8 A-36

A-32(F)
A-45(F)
1780
H1 1 A-2AH 1745

A-42 A-26 A-5H 1757

A-42(1) A-26 1753

Oil producer A-41A

A-45 A-38 A-39A
A-9H 1821 A-27A
A-27A
A-20A
A-20 A-20A 1778 1762
A-39
A-11 1773 1765
1866 1860 A-11 A-17 1792
1820
1898 F4 G2 1764
A-41

Gas flooded or
1771 1765
A-10
A-42(F) A A-17AT2 1778
A
A-28 A-30 A-19 1761
1788
1808
A-30 A-19
A-28
1771
1772 Future producer
originally in place A-27
1856

A-7A
A-7A(F) A-22
A-35

1868
A-29
A-29 PATF31 A-44
A-22
1787
1813
WAG injector
A-24A
A-24A Oljefylt
1899 F3 1782
A-13
1893 8 Vannflmmet
Water injector
Oil filled
1783
1797
Gasskappe
A-42(2) A-15
A-15 G1
E2 1856
Delvis vannflmm
A-24 1851
A-46T2
A-21A Delvis gassflmme
1973
A-21A
Gas injector
1864
Delvis vann- og ga
F2
Delvis gassflmmi
Usikker vannflmm
PATD11
Usikker gassflmm
Usikker vann- og g
E1
Usikker gassflmm
PATE11
 Alternative recovery methods
Surfactant pilot in the early 1990s. Full field project stopped due to:
Chemical cost was too high relative too its efficiency.
Remaining oil saturation after water flooding was lower than expected.
Surfactant system efficiency was too little robust.
CO2 MWAG Study last years
Simulations done on Frontsim and Eclipse 300.
Potential of 10-20 Mill. Sm oil identified.
Too high cost totally and therefore a none economic project with to days
framework condition.
 AMIOR
Alternative project to reduce residual oil at Gullfaks.
Add nitrate (doing already due to reduction of H2S), phosphate and oxygen to the
injection water.

Reducing surface tension between oil and water and thereby mobilize oil.

BACTERIA + OIL + N + P + O2

MOBILISED RESIDUAL OIL ENHANCED SWEEP EFFICIENCY

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

A-36 has an established water cut

growth.

A-41B is perforated in the oil zone.

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

Commercial solutions for prospects

across licence boundary.

Coordinate exploration and production

drilling.

Combine targets where possible.

 Conclusions
Recovery of 400 mill. Sm (app. 70% recovery factor).
Lengthening the field life time.
Water circulation is the main IOR method.
Drilling of new and less expensive wells important.
Alternative recovery methods may be a substantial part of the future.
Exploration and third part processing contributes.
Close collaboration between the different technical disciplines is an important
premise to reach the ambition.
Requirements to moving volumes from resource category
7a and 6 to 5a
Requirements to moving volumes from resource category
7a and 6 to 5a, cont
Profitable measure
Assumptions regarding this evaluation are given in Appendix B
Likelihood of implementation equal to or greater than 30 %.
A way of calculating the likelihood of implementation is given in Appendix C.

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

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