Presentation on theme: "Classification: Statoil internal Status: Draft Skinfaks/Rimfaks IOR – Strong H orses in The Gullfaks Family Sandsli, 8.februar 2005."— Presentation transcript:
Classification: Statoil internal Status: Draft Skinfaks/Rimfaks IOR – Strong H orses in The Gullfaks Family Sandsli, 8.februar 2005
2 Skinfaks/Rimfaks IOR. RES/PRO-seminar, November Skinfaks/Rimfaks IOR (SRI) – strong horses in the Gullfaks family Topics to be covered: Seismic amplitudes in exploration Existing technology to reduce cost and increase reserves Production technology issues Examples of flexibility built into the concept Lessons learned
3 Skinfaks/Rimfaks IOR. RES/PRO-seminar, November Situation in year 2001: Rimfaks Brent: Production start year 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 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
4 Skinfaks/Rimfaks IOR. RES/PRO-seminar, November Proven segments: N2 and N3 Upper Brent Prospects: N4 upper Brent. P(f): 97% N5 upper Brent. P(f): 80% N1 upper Brent. P(f): 90% Prospects: N4 lower Brent. P(f): 56% N1 lower Brent. P(f): 46% (defined in 2004) N1 Statfjord. P(f): 40 % N4 Statfjord. P(f): 90% Exploration well in ’Dole’(N3) and ’Ole’ (N2) segments drilled in spring, 2002
5 Skinfaks/Rimfaks IOR. RES/PRO-seminar, November DG1 (BoK) DG2 (BoV) DG3 (BoG) PDO del. 33/12-8S DG1 team establ. Rimfaks Brent IOR Static (G&G) model used: Dynamic (res.) model used: Elements included in production strategy: 3D IRAP RMS (built 2001) 3D Eclipse 300 (PDO mod.)3D Eclipse 300 (new model, built 2002) - 2 infill wells. - 3 MSm3/Sd ekstra gas pr. - Gas reinjection, blowdown from oct.2010 (PDO strategy) 3. infill well, with DIACS 3 -> 4 MSm3/Sd extra gas prod.rate Skinfaks Static (G&G) model used: Dynamic (res.) model used: Elements included in production strategy: 2D IRAP Classic + GeoX Field analogue + MBAL models 3D Full Field Eclipse 100 (Brent reservoir) - 5 conventional, horisontal wells. - Depletion - Water Injection DIACS compl. 3D IRAP RMS - Gas Injection X X Gas lift Segm.N1 UB incl. in ’basis’ - N1 UB and N4 Statfj. excl. from ’basis’ - Wells: ML + 1 sidetr. Volume reduction (significant!) DG1, DG2 and DG3 are decision gates in Statoils project development model
6 Skinfaks/Rimfaks IOR. RES/PRO-seminar, November A Gullveig Statfjord well was a part of the project in the DG1 and early DG2 phases. Later excluded. DG1 (BoK) DG2 (BoV) DG3 (BoG) PDO del. 33/12-8S DG1 team establ. Feasibility study phase Project feasible. Establish project team. Go on with concept (screening) studies. DG1/BoK concept:
7 Skinfaks/Rimfaks IOR. RES/PRO-seminar, November DG1 (BoK) DG2 (BoV) DG3 (BoG) PDO del. 33/12-8S DG1 team establ. Scr. ph. 1 Skinfaks Rimfaks IOR 4 GF-concepts evaluated: Continue with optimising concept ’D’ for a final concept selection (AP1 – Approval point 1). Screen.p hase 2 Scr. ph. 3 Gulltopp GFA GFC L/M ’A’’B’ ’C’ ’D’ Feasibility study phase
8 Wells and pipelines in a network PROJECT Facility (Subsea) Drilling, Well and Production Technology Petroleum Technology Discipline Leaders: Tools:OLGAGAP/PROSPER ECLIPSE W. NETWORK OPTION Flow assurance ”Nodal analysis” Reservoir simulation For the SRI project: Skinfaks and Rimfaks wells prognosed with very different tubing head pressures Impact on production profiles Decision: Two flowlines instead of one, from the SRI prod.system. Skinfaks/Rimfaks IOR. RES/PRO-seminar, November 2005.
9 The SRI Core Team ”The SRI Technical Forum” ”The Technical Forum”: -Project members from all engineering disciplines (Reservoir, ProTech, Drilling, Completion, Flow Assurance, Subsea, Pipeline,Topside) - A leader was appointed - Meetings were held regularly (every week) Which tasks do the other persons have ? How are my data used ? Possibilities? Limitations? Consequences? Concept screening/selection Design Basis Document Technical solutions
10 Skinfaks/Rimfaks IOR. RES/PRO-seminar, November DG1 (BoK) DG2 (BoV) DG3 (BoG) PDO del. 33/12-8S DG1 team establ. Scr. ph. 1 9 variants of concept ’D’ evaluated: - 1 or 2 templates, 1 or 2 flowlines, with or without smart wells. -Selection criteria: - NPV (and then IRR and NPV/CAPEX discounted) - Robustness (drilling), and flexibility wrt. upside volumes Recommendation, AP1, end of october 2003: Concept ’3S’ (2 templates, 8 slots, 2 flowlines, smart wells (DIACS, one ML): Screen.p hase 2 Scr. ph. 3 Scr. Ph. 4 To L/M Recommendation from Project end of November.2003: Postpone DG2/BoV. Improve concept and economics. BUT: Further work the following weeks weakens the project economy significantly: Cost increase (rock dumping, pilot well in segm.N4), delayed prod.start (Jan.06 => Oct.06). ’Basis’ well ’Upside’ well Feasibility study phase
11 Skinfaks/Rimfaks IOR. RES/PRO-seminar, November DG1 (BoK) DG2 (BoV) DG3 (BoG) PDO del. 33/12-8S DG1 team establ. Scr. ph 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.p hase 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. 5 Feasibility study phase
12 Scr. Ph. 6. Skinfaks/Rimfaks IOR. RES/PRO-seminar, November DG1 (BoK) DG2 (BoV) DG3 (BoG) PDO del. 33/12-8S DG1 team establ. Scr. ph. 1 Screen.p hase 2 Scr. ph. 3 Scr. Ph. 4 Partners approved concept 2SX (AP1/DG2), September 2004 Scr. Ph. 5 Discussion with partners on ’low cost’ alternatives: - Early in the concept selection phase (spring 2003), alternatives for SRI based on re-use of existing infrastructure (I, J, K templates) were briefly reviewed from the operator and put behind for specific reasons, but without any formal process or documentation. - Now, license partners want to compare concept 2SX with other alternatives, making use of existing infrastructure: -38 (!) combinations/variants were evaluated - Screening criterion: NPV. In addition: Relative value (NPV/CAPEX disc.), IRR, technical maturity and risk, and flexibility for realising upside volumes. Feasibility study phase
13 Skinfaks/Rimfaks IOR. RES/PRO-seminar, November Statoil’s Project Development Model, Planning Phase: After AP1, your influence on the concept as subsurface engineers is very much reduced. Formal requirements for uncertainty analysis on volumes and production profiles. At AP1, concept selection point: Important with a good picture of the resource potential in the area. In Statoil’s governing documentation (AR05 ++) the focus on AP1 seems less than on the formal approval point DG2 (provisional project sanction).
Classification: Statoil internal Status: Draft This development benefits from flexibility in existing infrastructure Providing additional connection points for potential future developments at a low pre-investment cost - PDO delivered Dec PDO approved Feb.2005
15 Skinfaks/Rimfaks IOR. RES/PRO-seminar, November NPV in MNOK05 has increased with a factor of 3-4 since the PDO - 1/3 of effect due to increase in oil production volumes - 2/3 of effect due to increased prices on oil and gas Reserves and CAPEX PDO 2020 CCE-2 Upd 2020 Oil (MSm3) 5,716,21 Rich gas (GSm3) 2,582,57 CAPEX (MNOK05) Unit Cut-off year 2020 b.taxa.tax NPV 7%MNOK Break even price, oil USD/bbl9,010,3 IRR%7333 Reserves and CAPEX (cut-off year 2020) (CCE-2 is last project update, per September 2005) Results, CCE2 (upd. cost, plan and volumes)
16 Skinfaks/Rimfaks IOR. RES/PRO-seminar, November Skinfaks/Rimfaks IOR – strong horses in the Gullfaks family Lessons learned: 1. Combining infill drilling (IOR) and new disoveries can make a profitable project. 2. Involve the license group EARLY in the concept selection phase. 3. Document also ‘obvious’ choices wrt. concepts screended out. 4. The focus on the concept selection point (AP1) should be stronger in Statoil’s governing documentation, wrt. line and partner involvement. 5. Create a technical forum for continuous, cross-disciplinary discussions ‘on working level’ (not only at core team level). 6. Define and place the ‘system responsibility’ role early. Make sure that various models (wells - pipeline network) are consistent. 7. Strive to get flexibility included in the concept. It will most certainly pay off!