SPE 25353 Society of Petroleum Engineers

Optimal Oilfield Development of Fields With a Small Gas Cap

and Strong Aquifer
Peter Behrenbruch and L.T. Mason, BHP Petroleum
SPE Members
Copyright 1993. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference & Exhibition held in Singapore. 8-10 February 1993.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper.
as presented. have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The matenal. as presented. does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. its officers. or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledg-
ment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Librarian. SPE. P.O. Box 833836. Richardson. TX 75083-3836. U.S.A. Telex. 163245 SPEUT.
ABSTRACT
Production practices for oil fields with gas caps usually
centre around conservation of the gas cap (energy) to
maximise oil recovery. A less conventional but effective
reservoir management approach involves an early gas cap
blowdown phase in situations where the gas cap is small
and a strong aquifer is present.
This paper describes the critical parameters and the
benefits from a less orthodox depletion plan. After
discussing this subject from a general point of view, the
reservoir management plan for the Skua Field, located in
the Timor Sea, is cited as a successful application.
INTRODUCTION
In developing oil fields the aim is usually to maximise
ultimate (oil) recovery and at the same time minimise
capital expenditure (Capex) and operating expenditure
(Opex) , the optimum plan resulting in a maximum Net
Present Value (NPV).
To achieve this goal, oil fields may be produced in a
variety of ways, constraint by the physical situation,
commercial considerations and government regulation.
In terms of reservoir considerations, the most important
factors tend to be initial (reservoir) conditions, that is
pressure, temperature and depth; and fluid and formation
(and rock) properties.
Overall, of these the dominant reservoir drive
mechanism(s) and its effect on pressure maintenance and
sweep efficiency (effectiveness of pushing oil towards the
producing wells) are often the chief criteria for
implementing the chosen subsurface development plan -
the number, type and location of wells and production
policy.
Drive mechanisms may be natural - (gas in) solution
drive, (primary) gas cap drive, aquifer drive and
compaction drive; or the reservoir energy and sweep
efficiency may be supplemented by injecting fluids -
commonly water or gas, or more exotic substances,
leading to enhanced oil recovery (EOR).
In this paper the above mentioned natural drive
mechanisms are reviewed for the purpose of comparing
the benefits from a primary gas cap and a natural aquifer.
In other words, when is the size of a primary gas cap
more important than a certain aquifer? More specifically
it is shown by means of a field example, the Skua Field
located in the Timor Sea, how the ultimate recovery is
being maximised by "blowing down" the primary gas cap!
Figure 1 compares the latter production strategy utilised
for the Skua Field Development with a more conventional
approach.
RESERVOIR ENERGY
One measure of the relative importance of the various
drive mechanisms is the intrinsic energy of the different
substances, more specifically the compressibility-volume
product, which compensates for reservoir voidage
(production) in maintaining reservoir pressure.
307
In order to appreciate the wide range of compressibilities,
Figure 2 shows these for an "average" situation.
Assuming some typical reservoir volumes for a small oil
field, the following compressibility-volume products, at
initial conditions, may be considered:
2 Optimal Oil Field Development of Fields with a Small Gas Cap and a Strong Aquifer SPE 25353
OiILec
GuCop
F.-.1ica W.r
Rock
AAPfor (W_r A Rock)
Onp..-lbllll)'
(1'" kPa' , 1'" ,.r')
2.9 .31
43 .300
0.43.3
O.l8.4
1 .7
46.2000
11 6000
1 SlO 'lIOOOO
a-wI.
VaI_
(M"", MMrII)
16 .100
3.2.31
UI.,.I0000
In this case, a gas cap which is 20 percent the size of the
oil leg (m=0.2) has approximately one tenth the
instantaneous expansion capacity (potential pressure
support energy) as an aquifer which is 100 times the size
of the oil leg.
In reality, the gas cap would initially be more effective
being in close proximity to the producing wells. The
aquifer, on the othe hand, would be slow to respond due
to the greater distance through which it has to act. A
more rigorous analysis can be carried out in terms of
drive indicators; this aspect is further treated in the
Appendix.
In the end, the one critical question is - can the aquifer
maintain reservoir pressure (sufficiently close to initial
pressure)? This question cannot be answered unless one
knows not only the size of the aquifer but also how well
it is connected to the oil leg. In this respect the
permeability thickness product (kh) is important as well as
the encroachment angle.
FLUID DISPLACEMENT
The second major aspect to consider is fluid displacement.
Assuming the presence of a primary gas cap, the
following need to be considered:
aquifer strength
primary gas cap size
availability and value of (make-up) gas (and cost of
reinjection)
residual oil saturation to water and gas displacement
oil resaturation losses
reservoir management (including well completions and
recompletions )
dynamic factors - coning and cusping
reservoir geometry and heterogeneity
308
Aquifer strength has to be sufficient (size and
connectivity) to sweep the oil at elevated pressure (ideally
close to initial, bubble point pressure). It is the relative
aquifer size, by comparison to the oil leg (and gas cap)
that is of importance (see Appendix).
Unfortunately, aquifer strength is usually not proven
before development takes place but the chance for a
strong or sufficient aquifer is accessed based on regional
geology. This aspect is particularly important in offshore
situations where pre-investment into a water injection
plant(l) has to be considered if the chance of a sufficient
aquifer is relatively 1()lW'.
As already discussed above, the size of the gas cap is
primarily important for its expansive energy (ability to
keep up pressure) and possibly its commercial value.
The injection of gas may be stipUlated by regu1ation. If
this is not the case, the value of gas, including possibly
make-up gas, and the cost of injection will have to be
balanced against possible benefits which may be realised
from additional oil recovery in cases where the residual
oil saturation after gas displacement is considerably less
than that after water displacement. Laboratory
experiments indicate that residual oil saturation is typically
less (i.e. higher recovery) after gas displacement than
displacement by water.
In terms of initial completion intervals, provided the
aquifer is strong and the primary gas cap is small, the
simplest strategy is to place producing wells near the crest
of the structure, even into the initial gas zone. The use
of horizontal wells can further aid the maximisation
(and/or acceleration) of oil recovery.
The primary gas cap size is also important when
considering the aspect of oil resaturation. As the aquifer
pushes oil crestally into the primary gas cap, the gas cap
pore space is being saturated with oil which may
subsequently be reduced again by the following aquifer
water. Nevertheless, part of the oil contained originally
in the oil zone may be spread over part of the gas cap
pore space and be lost as a residual oil saturation (after
water displacement). These potential losses have to be
balanced against other factors such as the cost of reservoir
management and possibly a crestally smaller remaining oil
rim at the end of the project when compared to the
alternative situation in which the abandonment oil rim is
closer to the center of the original oil column.
Balancing an oil rim by a combination of completion and
production policies and possibly gas (re)injection can be
very costly if drive mechanisms fall outside the predicted
range and wells have to be recompleted to optimise
SPE 25353 P. BehrenbnJch and L. T. Mason 3
drainage from an ever decreasing oil rim or, alternatively,
unplanned fluid injection has to be implemented. This
situation is particularly true in case of subsea development
wells where recompletion costs are high, typically several
million dollars per well. In the placement of wells
(perforated interval), dynamic factors - coning and
cusping, are often important. Due to the greater mobility
of gas when compared to water, gas coning and cusping
can be a problem. Provided the gas cap is not excessive,
(i.e. contains considerable energy), it may be futile to
prevent gas coning as this will either limit oil rates
unnecessarily or result in the placement of non-optimal
perforations (too low), leading to recompletion
(perforating higher in the interval) to capture the final oil.
Finally, reservoir shape can have a considerable impact
on optimising the depletion of the diminishing oil rim. A
reservoir of dominant apex shape and with a small gas
cap is ideally suited for initial gas cap blowdown.
NUMERICAL MODEL AND EXAMPLES
General Fonnulation
There are an infinite number of combinations involving
available reservoir energy, production policy, perforation
depths and dynamic effects affecting the evaluation of the
feasibility for a gas cap blowdown.
For a strong waterdrive reservoir (like the Skua Field), it
is envisaged that during gas cap blowdown from the
crestal wells, the active aquifer would push the oil column
upward and resaturate most of the original gas cap
volume. Part or all of this oil (So,J may not be
recoverable as it remains as oil saturation. It is assumed
that So,& is the average oil saturation at abandonment,
including part of the (original) gas that may remain in the
attic. Generally, (l-S..J S So,& S S"".
The volume of oil loss due to resaturation of the gas cap
is given by (in stb):
5
V 0.1 =
. " ~
5 0 "
(1-s ... )
GB" S"" =
(1-s ... ) s:-
(1)
The possible benefit from gas cap blowdown can be
accessed by comparing the above loss volume to that
incurred by an alternative production policy, e.g. an
abandonment oil column of 10m. (It is also assumed that
S"" = S .... ). In a strong water drive, this 10m column is
closer to the original GOC (gas-oil contact) whereas in a
309
weak water drive, the 10 m column is closer to the
original owe (oil-water contact). In the case of a solution
gas drive or weak aquifer, it would beadvisable to avoid
blowing down the gascap in order to maintain reservoir
energy. In these situations, the recovery from the field
may be very dependent on the abandonment pressure.If
V.
1o
is the pore volume of this 10 m abandonment column
in reservoir barrels, then the amount of oil left (stb) at
abandonment is:
Depending on reservoir geometry, this 10 m volume is
typically significantly larger towards the base of the
reservoir than the crest. In this case and in case of the
weak aquifer/solution gas drive it may be advantageous to
inject water down dip and blowdown the gascap.
For the gas cap blowdown case, V.
1o
would be swept by
water and the remaining oil by comparison would be V.
1o
S....)Bo. The remainder of the original oil volume is
assumed to be swept equally (S""=S ..... ) in both scenarios.
The total amount of oil left behind following a gas cap
blowdown would be:
(2)
The advantage of gas cap blowdown in a reservoir under
strong water drive can be evaluated by comparing the oil
loss due to resaturation of the gascap to the remaining
volume of the 10 m abandonment column without gascap
blowdown.
For a gas cap blowdown to be favourable, the reservoir
must be under active aquifer drive and
< _V..;...I_O;;,<1_-5_ ... _)
Bo(;Jbft)
Numerical Model
(3)
A numerical model was assembled from a volume versus
depth table, PVT (Glaso correlation), aquifer model
(Gajdica(2) et al), material balance (extended material
balance) macros of Workbench(3). Additional output
vectors were created to:
4 Optimal Oil Field Development of Fields with a Small Gas Cap and a Strong Aquifer SPE 25353
(1) Calculate the four drive indices (gas cap expansion,
solution gas drive, water drive and formation
water/rock) .
(2) Correct for the OWC (oil water contact) movement in
the original gas cap zone, associated with a different
residual oil saturation in the gas cap to water sweep.
(3) Generate instantaneous GOR from the following
formulation
GOR = R. + KS lJ}3o
~
where
KS
(
1
- ( ri:)r [
1
- ( ri.J]
(ri:f
(4)
(5)
R" J.Lo, J.L" B
o
' B, and So are function of pressure and
production history.
The above formulation is by no means the only GOR
predicting formular. The relative permeability
component KS can have many other alternative forms.
The above formulation was chosen as it provides
calculation stability for time steps of between 30 to 90
days. At each time step the material balance marco
provides all the parameters (pressure, saturation, PVT
properties, aquifer influx, free gas volumes) required
to generate the production data for the next time step.
(4) To allow blowdown of the gas cap by producing ~ of
the remaining free gas volume at each time step.
Combining loop control statements with the above macro
commands allows the output of one material balance
calculation to be the input for the next calculation. The
output contained all the necessary reservoir properties on
which to generate the next input data. The material
balance proceeds iteratively until an abandonment
condition such as a 10 m (30 ft) abandonment column or
abandonment pressure is reached.
Example
For the geometry given in Figure 3a, the iterative material
balance suggests that for m < 0.1, gas cap blowdown
would result in better recovery when compared to
310
abandoning a 30 ft oil column. This is illustrated in
Figure 3b.
For the simple case, this conclusion can also be obtained
algebraically, as follows:
Consider the follwoing gas blowdown situation (Figure
3a):
h = 30ft
S_ = 0.2
S_ = 0.3
So" = 0.5
Bo-Bo(tbIJ
Considering equation (3), one has
hA So" + 30A S_ = 30A (1-S....)
0.5 h + (30) (0.3) = 30 (0.8)
or
and
h = 30
m= h = 0.1
~
This is exactly the same as the numerical solution. For
more complex geometries and varying gas cap blowdown
rates, the numerical approach will be useful for
production planning in optimising recovery.
The above example demonstrates, that in the case of a
strong water drive, the most important criteria for a gas
cap blowdown is the balance between resaturation losses
and the volume left at abandonment by an alternative
production policy.
THE SKUA FIELD
General Description
The Skua Field is located in the Timor Sea; the location
map is shown in Figure 4.
The Field commenced production in December of 1991
from three wells (Skua-4, -8 and -9), connected to a
Floating Production, Storage and Offloading Facility
(FPSO), Figure 5. The catenary mooring-riser system can
accommodate up to 6 wells.With a capital cost of A$180
million, the project is not only marginal, but is critically
dependent on a strong aquifer which was inferred from
the regional geology. Wells were perforated crestally for
SPE 25353 P. Behrenbruch and L. T. Mason 5
maximising ultimate oil recovery and to minimise future
workover costs (the need to recomplete wells had the
original perforations been more conventionally placed
near the middle of the oil column).
The field consists of a tilted fault block of Jurassic age(3).
The Plover formation consists of massive, high
permeability sandstones. Figure 6 shows the areal field
map and Figure 7 shows a schematic cross-section.
Reservoir and fluid properties are given in Table 1.
The oil initially-in-place is estimated to be 5-8 Mm
3
(30-
50 MMstb), with a recovery factor of 30 to 45 percent.
Considerable uncertainty in the ultimate oil recovery
remains, particularly on the flank, as this region has to
date not been fully appraised.
Cumulative production to date (end October) has been 1.1
Mm
3
(6.8 MMstb) and historic production profiles for the
total field are given in Figure 8. As evident, the gas cap
blowdown phase lasted approximately 2 months.
To aid the production analysis, simulation models were
utilised to predict the likely future reservoir behaviour and
Figure 9 shows an early pressure prediction as a function
of aquifer strength. To better understand the gas cap
response, the predicted elevation of the GOC was also
simulated, and Figure 10 clearly indicates that the
predicted rising GOC for the strong aquifer scenario is the
only one that matches the observed field response. Based
on the gas rate history, the small (m - 0.1) initial gas
cap, with a volume of 60 Mm
3
(2 Bscf), was confirmed.
Early field monitoring(5) was critical in confirming a
strong aquifer and a small initial gas cap.
The Skua Field Gas Cap Blowdown
For the Skua field the volume loss due to resaturation of
the gascap is (2,000,000 rb), or in surface volume (stb):
2,000,000
Bol So.r
(6)
Bol in this case is 1.47, and So., - 0.25 (some attic
gas remains).
Assuming a strong aquifer, the corresponding volume
of the abandonment column of 10 m is 5,600,000 rb,
or in surface volume (stb):
5,600,000 (l-S",,")
B02
(7)
311
Consider now equation (3), the left hand side (LHS) is
given by (in rb)
LHS = , 6 0 0 , ~ S.,... + 2,000,000 So" = 1,620,000
(S .... = 0.20, So" = 0.25)
and the right hand side (RHS) is given by (in rb)
RHS = 5,600,000 (l-S-> = 4,592,000
(S_ = 0.18)
Assuming BOI - B
ol
, the abandonment oil volume for the
oil rim scenario is approximately three times that for the
gas cap blowdown case. Even with some differences in
volume factor, for Skua the gas cap could have been at
least two times as large (m = 0.2), and the oil recovery
would have been greater with the blowdown policy than
with a conventional oil rim scenario. Furthermore, fewer
wells and savings in recompletion make the blowdown
case clearly the more attractive of the alternative
production scenarios.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Oil production and recovery may be maximised from
a reservoir with a small primary gas cap by blowing
down this gas cap during the initial production phase,
provided a strong natural aquifer exists.
2. Reservoir management and operating costs
(workovers) tend to be minimised for the situation
described. This is particularly true for subsea well
developments.
3. It is safe to say that for m < 0.1 (any geometry) and
in the presence of a strong water drive, gas cap
blowdown will result in better recovery compared to
a 10 m abandonment column. In many cases the gas
cap can be even larger (m - 0.2) and a gas cap
blowdown scenario is still the preferred case.
NOMENCLATURE
Variables
A - cross sectional area of reservoir, ft2
B - volumetric factor, rb/stb
c - compressibility, psi/psi
E - expansion factor, rb/sef
F - total voidage (production in reservoir volume)
G - gas in-place (standard conditions), sef
GOR - gas-oil ratio, sef/stb
h - thickness of oil rim, ft
KS - relative permeability function
LHS - left hand side of equation
6
Optimal Oil Field Development of Fields with a Small Gas Cap and a Strong Aquifer SPE 25353
m - relative reservoir gas cap volume (compared to
reservoir oil volume), ratio
N - oil in-place (standard conditions), sth
P - reservoir pressure, psi
R - gas in solution ratio, sef/stb
S - reservoir saturation by a fluid (oil, gas or
water), fraction
S - average saturation, fraction
V - volume
W - water (or aquifer) volume
4 - incremental change (del)
p. - viscosity
Subscripts
g - gas
gi - gas initial, sef
h., - hydrocarbon
j index
o - oil
0i - oil, initial, stb
Or - oil, residual, fraction
0" - oil, residual - after displacement by gas, fraction
0,., - oil, residual - after displacement by water,
fraction
o,g - oil in gas cap
OCilla) - oil at abandonment
p - production
s - solution
Si - solution, initial
w - water
q, - pore
q, - pore and water (formation)
q,JO - pore space of 10 m oil rim
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the Management of BHP Petroleum and
the Skua Joint Venture Participants: Santos, Ampolex,
Command Petroleum, Norcen International and Minora
Resources for permission to publish this paper.
REFERENCES
1. Behrenbruch, P. "Offshore Oil Field Development
Planning: Project Feasibility and Key Considerations",
SPE 22957, Presented at the SPE Asia-Pacific Conference
held in Perth, Australia 4-7 November, 1991.
2. R.J. Gajdica, R.A. Wattenberger and R.A. Startzman.
A new method of matching Aquifer Performance and
determining original gas-in-place. SPE 16935 presented
at Dallas Texas September 27-30, 1987.
3. The Workbench computer package is a general
purpose reservoir engineering calculation and problcm
solving programme from Exploration and Production
Consultants (Australia) Pty Ltd.
4. Osborne. M. "The Exploration and Appraisal History
of the Skua Field. ACIP2 - Timor Sea". The 1990 APEA
Journal 30: 1. 197-211.
5. Chapman. G.J. "Reservoir Managcment of Subsea
Development Fields in the Timor Sea" . To be presented
at the 1993 APEA Conference.
APPENDIX
MATERIAL BALANCE AND
DRIVE INDICATORS
1. Compressibility
In producing any reservoir the voidage created win be
taken up by expanding reservoir fluids and the
shrinking pore space. both the consequence of a
reduction in pore pressure. This compressive
behaviour is given by the definition of compressibility
(in reservoir terms), as follows:
(_) 1:. IlVJ ., (_) 1 IlBJ
V
J
AP S; AP
(AI)
The negative sign implies expansion of fluids with
decreasing pore pressure. Only the pore
compressibility is positive.
2. Material Balance
312
In deriving the general material balance equation. one
may simply consider volume changes (due to
compressibility) with reduction in pore pressure.
More specifically:
for oil
(A2)
solution gas
(A3)
free gas
SPE 25353 P. Behrenbruch and L. T. Mason 7
4V, .. G(B,-B,,)
mNB
.. .. (B -B )
~ , "
"
where the relative gas cap size (m) is given by
GB"
m '" 1nf:
..
pore space
hydrocarbon pore space
furthermore
or
also
v ..

and therefore
(l+m)NB ..
( 1-s_)
4V/t& .. -(l+m)NB .. (ct_'S:)Ap
(A4)
(A4a)
(AS)
(A6)
(A7)
(AS)
(ASa)
(A9)
(AIO)
(All)
Furthermore, production in terms of underground
withdrawal (voidage) is given by
oil and solution gas N,Bo + N,(R,-R.)B,
water W,B.,
Summing all production (F)
and equating voidage with changes in volume due
to expansion/contraction
F .. E 4V
J
'"' N(Eo+mE,+E .... ) +W)3 ..
J
(A13)
where the E
j
= are defined by equations A2, A3,
A4a, and All.
W = influx of water measured in surface volume.

3. Drive Indicators
313
Dividing equation (AI3) by F results in
1 = N E + Nm E + N E + W. B
7
0
7' 7 .. 7"
(A13a)
where the drive indicators can now be defined as
follows:
oil and solution gas
;Eo = ; (Bo-B .. ) + (Rn-R.)B,
free gas
~ E , .. ;B .. ( : ~ l )
pore volume and connate water
aquifer (simplistically)
;B .. '" (c .... )W,Ap
(AI4)
(AIS)
(AI6)
(AI7)
The above expressions are fractions which sum to
unity. For a very strong aquifer WJ!..,IF>O.9. For
a depletion drive situation with a large gas cap,
NmE IF will be the dominating term. In most cases ,
NE . .,IF is small or negligible.
General (Initial Conditions)
Datum Depth
Pressure at Datum
Temperature at Datum
Average Formation Dip
Oil-Water Contact
Gas-Oil Contact
Water Salinity (NaCl)
Fonnation and R.ock Properties (Averages)
Area
Gross Thickness - Gas
- Oil
Net-to-Gross
Porosity
Hydrocarbon Saturation
Residual Oil Saturation
Residual Gas Saturation
Fluid Properties (Initial Conditions)
Oil Relative Density
Oil Formation Volume Factor
Oil Viscosity
Oil Compressibility
Gas-Oil Ratio
Gas Expansion Factor
Gas Viscosity
Water Viscosity
R.ecovery (Average, Expected)
Main Drive Mechanism
Size of Aquifer
Microscopic Sweep Efficiency
Volumetric Sweep Efficiency
Formation Permeability
Expected Abandonment Pressure
Oil-in-Place (P + P)
Recovery Factor
Table 1
2286.5 m ss
22.86 MPa (3315 psia)
96 C (205 OP)
18S SE
2333 m ss
2286.5 m ss
110,000 mgll
0.5 km W, 4.8 km L
28m
46.5 m (TVD)
0.5
0.21
0.82
0.20
0.15
0.815 (42
0
API)
1.48 m
3
/m
3
(rb/stb)
0.30 cP
2.87 x 1<r kPa-
1
160 m
3
/m
3
(900 scf/stb)
200 m
3
/m
3
0.021 cP
0.35 cP
Edge water drive
Large (moderate to strong)
0.80
0.40-0.60
360-1700 md
High, aquifer drive expected
5-8 Mm
3
(30-50 MMstb)
0.30-0.45
Skua Field - Reservoir and Fluid Properties
(pb2441.joh)
314
SPt2535J
Nl1AL IESERYOIR SITUATION
CONVENTIONAL OIL RIll DEVELOPMENT
FINAL RESERVOIR SITUATION
-eope--.t
_01 lint
__ t
b)
c)
GAS CN' .LOWDOWN DEVELOPMENT
FINAL RESERVOIR SITUATION
__ GAS CAP
Olin ... RESATIlRATED ZONE
ZONE
10000
2000
1000
20
10
15
2
o
SPE25353
"
TEMPERATURE 232" F
'"

FREE GAS
0=0.75, Air:1)
"',
"
,
4


ATURATED)
FORMATlONW CONSOLIDATED ROCK
10j,.
2Oez.
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
PRESSURE (pal.)
Flgur. 1 SkUll field Development. R ... rvolr Menllgement Concept. Flgur. 2 Typical Compr ... lbllltie. of R ... rvolr Fluid. and Rock
h 11 au Column
t.
&orw.O.3
awc.o.2
S1rang ,\qui ....
Flgur. 3a Reservoir Geometry and Paramet.r. for exampl.
315
f
0.65,.-----------------..,
0.60
....
...... ' ......
. ...
...... ' ......
. ...
...... ..... ......
--.-..
Economic CuD"'. ... ...
........ .... ...
-055
I
----p ... ': '
050
Hunterlclll atIona
'..r: --:- -
"
".
..................................................... L......; .......
.... 0.25 1Gri_0..30 a.t.O.l "IMn.CaUm ....
3O.-.c.um ".-.c.um __ _
- .
0.45 L.. __ ....L ___ ...L.. ___ L-. __ ....L __ ---J
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 020 025
M FIICtOr (Fraction, Ga, c.p Size)
Flgur. 3b Ga. Cap Blowdown Effect of Ga.cap Sia on Recov.ry
TIMOR ()
c;!I)
TIMOR
SEA
ACIP6
/'
,/
NTIPB .,...,
4 \\
WA-36-P \
\
Figure 4 Skua Field Location
PROCESS SKIDS
FLARE TOWER -
\
\
\
HAWSER
TANDEM ANCHORS
SPE25353
I 0""
SHUTTlE
TANKER
FLOATING CRUDE
PRODUCT HOSE
-- SUBSEA WELLHEAD
MID-DEPTH BUOYS
Figure 5 Skua Field Development - Schematic of Disconnectable FPSO Facility
316
o ICC) 400 100 100 1000
; ; Zf?hNls; ;
Figure 6 Skua Field -Intra Valanginian Unconformity Depth
A'
............. _______ J L ~ . . a . _
2286.5mSS
SKUA
FIELD
Figure 7 Skua Field - Schematic Cross-Section
100
,
SPE25353

...

a.-
.01 .1
I "
...... :., . .,. :
i-
Ia.-
J.
ur
t"
;I
i
.I".
g 16

0'.
,.
'.
-
......,.,
,,_
_V.
, ........
,-.
Figure 8 SkUll Field Production PerforlMnce (Weekly Averegee)
l
!.
J
1
f
.4r---------------------------------------------------------,
Loweal CalaJlated Pr .. sure (Multirate Testing)
...... ..-i: ............... .
Strq Aquller
.....
....
.. i- .................... .
' ...... ,-
'. -,
.... '---
.. -- - w
.. ,-.....
...
1-'. ... ....
-...
1, _. __ __ ._ - - __ ._ ..
'.
Oo
,. -........................ ..................
'4
' .
........ -......... -.-...... -.---........ ..... -....... .
VoIumetric
". __________ __________ -L __________ ____________ __ -'
.. '00
, ..
PRODUCTlOH DAYS
Figure g Skue Field Meterlel aelenee Preeeure Prediction tor Dlft.rent Strength Aqul"re
.... ----.... ------.... ----.... ------.... --....
zno .. ....
i : :
E ....a .a - - .1. Intermediate AquHer
i ..... j Os 1= --- ......
Iii 2300 !-o .............. :h ........................ :
CI j ......... ....
23'0 !-o . J .... :::::::: ... ::::::::: ........ .
No'Aquiler
__ -
__________ L-__________ L-__________ __________ __
50 '00 '50 200
PRODUCTlOH DAYS
SPE25353
Figure 10 Sku Field Meterlel Belenee GOC Movement Prediction for Different Strength Aqul"re
318