Underwater Technology Conference 2004 Bergen

Subsea Completion Operations Gullfaks Satellites

Jon Ola Juvik Staff Engineer Statoil ASA

Underwater Technology Conference 2004 Bergen

Abstract
The Gullfaks South, Rimfaks and Gullveig fields have been drilled, completed and tied back to the Gullfaks A platform. Production began on 10 October 1998. New technology was adopted from subsea wellhead to platform. With the exception of 3 Gullfaks South wells, the main drilling program was completed in May 2003, and the field is now in a production and maintenance phase. Although the development has proved to be challenging, the Gullfaks Satellites now provide stable production of 13 000 m3 of oil and exporting 10 MM m3 gas pr. day. This field also provide a basis for a longer life for the Gullfaks platforms, with the opportunity for extended infill drilling on the main field. Thus, the development has created added value to the overall Gullfaks area. After a troublesome start, completion operations became very efficient. Tool and equipment failures were siginificant reduced, and overall completion time reduced from 25 days to, in average, 12 days. The first intervention campaign took place last summer, and revealed some new areas that will be focused this year.

The Gullfaks satellites in general

The Gullfaks satellites consist of 3 separate fields; Gullfaks South, Rimfaks and Gullveig, comprising a total of 5 medium sized reservoirs. The fields lie in 135-140 meters of waters mainly in block 34/10. Owners are Statoil (61 %), Norsk Hydro (9 %) and Petoro (30 %). The satellites are tied back to Gullfaks A and Gullfaks C. The fields comprise three major sandstone reservoir formations: Brent, Statfjord and the Cook group. In addition hydrocarbons have been found in the Lunde formation, but production from this formation has not started yet. Development of the fields has been done in 2 phases: Phase I which comprise production of oil and condensate to the Gullfaks A platform started October 10th 1998 from the Gullveig field. Rimfaks followed on February 7th 1999, while Gullfaks South came on-stream on March 18th. In this phase gas was reinjected through the Jtemplate. Phase II comprise production of gas and associated condensate from the Gullfaks South Brent reservoir to the Gullfaks C platform. A total of 34 wells have so far been drilled and completed from 10 templates. Today's estimated production profile is shown if figure 1.

Underwater Technology Conference 2004 Bergen The present reserve estimate is 33 MSm3 oil and 39 MMS m3 gas, with identified upside potentials.

Subsea installations
In 1997-1998, a fourth-generation subsea system with 31 well slots was tied back to the Gullfaks A platform. The subsea systems has been extended to a total of 39 well slots during the Phase II development, with the L and M templates tied back to Gullfaks C. Gullfaks South lies six to 10 kilometers south of GFA and has been developed in Phase I with two four-slot templates to drain the Statfjord formation, one four-slot unit for drainage of the Brent sands and a fourth four-slot template for gas injection into both formations. In Phase II the L and M templates, each equipped with 4 slots, were installed to drain gas and condensate from the Brent sands. Located 16-18 kilometers south-west of GFA, Rimfaks is developed with two four-slot templates to drain the Statfjord and Brent formations. A third five-slot template has been installed for gas injection in both formations. Gullveig lies 11 kilometers south-west of GFA and features one two-slot template. This means that a total of ten seabed templates with 39 slots have been installed for the total Gullfaks Satellites development.

Plan and results

The final decision to build Gullfaks Satellites as a subsea field was taken based upon some presumptions which of two will be discussed here: - A low cost monohull intervention vessel would be available for completion operations and for interventions. - 2 reservoir related interventions pr. well over the well lifetime. - Production logs to be included in all reservoir related interventions. - Underbalanced perforations on coiled tubing. Unfortunately, the low cost monohull vessel did not become a reality in the early nineties, leaving us with 2 cold semi submersible rigs. The Gullfaks South reservoirs proved to be more challenging than expected. This, together with the initial production results that were significantly below budget due to slow drilling and completion progress, put the project under pressure and considerable constraints. A serious incident on Deepsea Trym in December 1998 resulted in a further delay, postponing of coiled tubing operations and further simplifications of operations primarily to boost production and reduce operational risk. Figure 1 shows production profiles estimated in PUD together with production history and estimates pr. October 2003.

GFSAT Prod. Prognosis oil Underwater Technology Conference 2004 Bergen

8.000 7.000 6.000 mill Sm3 5.000 pr Year4.000 3.000 2.000 1.000 0.000 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17 20 18 20 19 20 20

Produced RSP-03 PUD-95

Year

[Fig 1; Production profile] The significant divergence between PDO estimates and historical production is mostly related to reservoir complexity in the main reservoir; Gullfaks South, resulting in significantly lower off takes and reserves than estimated in the PDO. In addition to this, the project struggled with completion efficiency during the first years, which is illustrated by figure 2 and 3. These challenges led to a change in strategy for the field. More emphasis was put on getting Gullveig and Rimfaks on production, and the completion programme was simplified. The data collection programmes were abandoned.

Drilling and overall completion

From the first well was spudded in March 1997 and until October 2002, two rigs were drilling and completing on Gullfaks Satellites. The Transocean Wildcat drilled the wells down to the reservoir, installed 13 3/8 casing and performed a temporary abandonment. The Deepsea Trym was fitted for completion and drilled the reservoir sections and completed the wells. This approach with a dedicated completion rig proved to become very cost effective. In the start, completion operations were hampered by equipment failures, complexity and lack of expertise among the personnel involved. Improvement program led to a substantial reduction in downtime time, ref. figure 2. History has shown that the complexity of this system was underestimated, and it took time and considerable efforts to obtain smooth operations.

Underwater Technology Conference 2004 Bergen

Downtime distribution

Subsea contr Drlg.contr.

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 [Fig 2; Downtime distribution pr year]
Average completion time pr. year
70 60 50 40 Days 30 20 10 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

[Fig 3; Completion time; average pr. year] After Transocean Wildcat went off lease, the Borgland Dolphin was introduced in the field during spring 2002. Deepsea Trym continued working as a drilling and completion rig until May 2003. To drill all well sections, and afterwards carry out the completion work became a challenge for both rigs. The lessons learned from this 5 years period of initial completion can be summarized as follows: The single most important issue is to maintain continuity in personnel in all critical positions such as engineering, supervision, ROV, wellhead/HXT system and rig crew. The wellhead/HXT system proved to be reliable and few misruns were encountered. Successful installation is very much dependant upon skills and expertise both from the suppliers and the operators side.

Quality cost

Underwater Technology Conference 2004 Bergen The subsea pool has monitored quality cost during the last three years, and the main areas of concern based on these analysis are the control- and workover systems.

Quality cost - Tools

2002 2003

WH/TH

HXT

Control system

Workover Intervention system systems

Other

[Fig 4; Quality cost - Tools] With respect to installed equipment our focus is on the tree cap design including the ball valve, and the subsea control modules. During the 2003 intervention campaign, the ball valve caused major downtime at several occations. To operate the ballvalve within required accurancy after several years of service proved to be difficult: Accurate alignment is needed to be able to pull the Crown Plug through the ball valve. The solution last year was to change out the complete Tree Cap module including Ball Valve and Crown Plug before starting downhole operations. At Gullfaks Satellites, frequent change out of Subsea Control Modules has also been experienced. This is due to instrument failures within the SCM.
Quality cost - Installed equipment

2002 2003

Manifold

Tubing hanger / CP

HXT w/ Tree Cap

Topside

[Fig 5; Quality cost Installed equipment]

Wellhead

Subsea control module

Flow control module

Underwater Technology Conference 2004 Bergen

Intervention campaign summer 2003

Last summer, Gullfaks Satellites first major intervention campaign took place. Upon a screening study by our reservoir engineers, planning of intervention with wireline and coiled tubing were planned in four wells: K-2, H-1, G-2 and F4. Due to simultanious operations on other fields, the first generation tension frame was used for CT rigup. This old-fashioned equipment created several HSE concerns, but operations related to this equipment was performed with no serious incidents or near misses. However, the well-known, and for long time used, intervention and permanently installed equipment revealed new challenges to us, although known from other fields through our network: - Latching of Tree Cap Running Tool to Tree Cap. - Leakage in Umbilical Disconnect Frame - Operation of Tree Cap Ball Valve Figure 6 on next page shows the HXT.

Underwater Technology Conference 2004 Bergen

HXM T - HO ST Xm as Tree
[X-sectional view ]

DEBRIS CAP

TREE CAP BALL VALVE TUBING HANG ER

WOV AW V S IV WIV

M ETHANO L LINE

PM V

X OV

AMV

MIV

W ELLHEAD CO NNECTO R
PW V

SERVICE LINE

X M AS TREE W ING HUB

30" CO NDUCTO R HO USING

W ELLHEAD SYSTEM

W OV AMV AW V PMV PW V XO V SIV W IV MIV

W O RK -O VER VALV E AN N ULUS M AST ER VALV E AN N ULUS W IN G VALV E PR O DU C TIO N MASTER VALVE PR O DU C TIO N WING VALVE C R OSS O VER VALVE SC ALE IN HIBITO R VALVE W AX IN HIBITO R VALVE M ETHAN O L INJEC TION VALVE

[Figure 6 - HXT] The most important issue is related to operation and testing of the Tree Cap Ball Valve. In order to pull the Tree Cap Crown Plug to get access to the well bore, the Ball Valve has to be open and in good alignment with the wellbore. From the first well in the campaign, this alignment turned out to become a challenge: In K-2 more than 30 hours were spent on pulling the Tree Cap Crown Plug. The problems were related to both equipment design and operational procedures. Two conclusions stand after this campaign: - The Tree Cap design with a ball valve and a plug is not optimal.

Industriell Dokumentasjon as 001-8457

18 3/4" W ELLHEAD HO USING

Underwater Technology Conference 2004 Bergen The operability of equipment after several years of operation is likely to have deterioted.

Light Well Intervention

During last summer a concept for Light Well Intervention (LWI) was qualified for operations during interventions on three wells. The experiences and the successful results from this job are covered by another lecturer on this conference, hence only a couple of points will be discussed here. First, the LWI does not replace the intervention concept mentioned above as part of the PUD for Gullfaks Satellittes. The reason for this is that the present spread is large and heavy, and a semi-submersible rig is at present the only mean of providing sufficient space and lifting capacity for deploying and installation of the LWI tools on the Xmas tree. The LWI concept will become a competitor to traditional rig interventions if a dynamically positioned rig is available at a competitive rate.

This summer interventions are planned with the Seawell monohull vessel, and other concepts will most likely be tested in the coming years. Our continious effort to test different concepts reflects the fact that an intervention system for subsea wells that can provide well interventions at a sustainable rate has not yet been introduced to the marked.

The Subsea Pool

Most tools have initially been acquired by the big assets like sgard and Statfjord, and gathered in the pool for common use by its members. This cooperation with its sharing of cost has lead to a substantial reduction of tool investments, which has been particular beneficial for the smaller assets which could not carried the cost of a full intervention tool spread by its own. Up till last year, the overall pool was divided into several sub-pools, with own dedicated tools. Between these sub-pools, some tools were identical and some were specific to that particular subpool. To borrow between sub-pools entailed rental cost. An example of this was that Statfjord Nord in the Tampen Area was charged for using equipment in the Gullfaks (Tampen Area)/sgard tool pool. This system became somwhat bothersome and was changed. The new pool agreement include most assets and cater for utilization of all tools without additional cost. The subsea pool keep track of tools and maintenance on behalf of the assets. The actual maintenance of both tools and installable equipment is carried out by the supplier of the equipment. The suppliers are also responsible for preparing installable equipment onshore, and to do the installation job offshore. The onshore work has been carried out on a reimbursable basis. It has proven hard to obtain the

Underwater Technology Conference 2004 Bergen same learning curve and productivity increase onshore as has been seen in offshore operations. As most fields enter into the maintenance/intervention phase and tail production starts to become an important issue for Statoil, more focus will be put on onshore cost related to the subsea tools and equipment.

Networking
In parallell to the mindset that once triggered the subsea pool, a network for Statoils subsea engineers has been operational for several years. This network is administrated from our main office, while the participants are sitting in the various assets. The subsea network is among the most active and succsessful networks within Statoil, with bi-monthly meetings and frequent informal contact between the members. In this network both technical issues and potential collisions between operations have been solved to a mutual satisfaction for the parties involved.

Equipment upgrading
Overall, the equipment has functioned according to specifications, however, some modifications have been initiated based on operational experiences: - S-seal on Internal Tree Cap modified to better withstand forces during setting. - Tree Cap Latch Ring modified with flowby slots to ease cleaning and debris removal during setting. - Tubing Hanger Running Tool modified from 2 to 1 seal at the nose to avoid false indication of correct positioning. - Lower Landing string Assembly modified with improved type Secondary Block system. - HXT Rigidizing Tool installed below Casing Bore Protector to save one trip to wellhead.

Increased Oil Recovery

Statoil has launched a major effort on IOR in relation to existing infrastructure in the Tampen area. These efforts are persued in two major directions: Intervention work in existing wells and exploration drilling into new, smaller prospects in the area. In both areas are the excisting subsea systems on Gullfaks Satellites reducing our opportunities to increase the recovery factor. First, intervention work in excisting wells are very vulnerable to rig rates and cost related to subsea systems. The intervention campaign last summer did, as discussed above, give unexpected downtime related to the HXT system with associated tools. During the last couple of years, two exploration wells have been drilled with great success both operational and discoverywise. However, profitable development of the discoveries is difficult. Rough estimates indicates that drilling and completion stands for 1/3 of the cost, while subsea installations cater for the remaining 2/3. This has lead to planning of one of Statoils most challenging long-reach wells, draining the Gulltopp structure from GFA. Figure 7 on next page indicates a 9 500 m well from Gullfaks A, while drillling with a floater

Underwater Technology Conference 2004 Bergen would have given a 3 400 m long well. The Gulltopp well from Gullfaks A has a considerably higher risk than a subsea solution, but the overall economy is still much better for the long-reach platform well.

Subsea spud

Gullfaks

~ 8700
[Figure 7 The Gulltopp well] This example clearly indicates that subsea developments in shallow waters carries so high cost that it should be alarming for everyone in the business. The investments for both development of new prospects and interventions in exsisting wells are unaxeptably high compared with fixed installations. Low recovery factor and poor reservoir management is the result. The next issue is the availability of good locations for new templates. The Gullfaks Satellites phase I and II development has placed a total of 10 templates in the area, and good template locations from a drilling point of view may come in conflict with anchor patterns from excisting template. Another aspect of IOR is the recovery factor. On our fields with fixed installations, recovery factor has reached well above 50 %, and we are aiming at +60 %. The recovery factor for subesea developments are so far much lower; the Gullfaks Satellites have a recovery factor of 22 %.

Underwater Technology Conference 2004 Bergen

HOST - Hinge Over Subsea Template [with protection structure]

[Figure 8 HOST with protection structure]

Underwater Technology Conference 2004 Bergen

HOST - Hinge Over Subsea Template

FLOW CONTROL MODULE GUIDE POST

UMBILICAL

MANIFOLD

SUBSEA CONTROL MODULE

TRIPLE PORCH

ROV PANEL XMAS TREE PGB MUDMAT

FLOWLINE

CENTRE SECTION

[Figure 9- HOST with HXT]

Underwater Technology Conference 2004 Bergen

SKINFAKS O

RIMFAKS IOR N

[Figure 10 Tampen Area]