Sie sind auf Seite 1von 18

OTC-25870-MS

ACG Field Geohazards Management: Unwinding the Past, Securing the


Future
1

Andrew W. Hill , Kevin M. Hampson , Andy Hill , Christopher Golightly , Gareth A. Wood , Mike Sweeney and
5
Martyn M. Smith
1
2
3
4
5
BP America, BP International Ltd., Go-Els Ltd., Retired (Formerly BP International Ltd.), BP Azerbaijan

Copyright 2015, Offshore Technology Conference


This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 47 May 2015.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the
written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
The super-giant ACG field lies in the Azerbaijani sector of the south Caspian Sea. The significant complexity of the
geohazards setting over the field was realized in 1993 when negotiations for the PSA to develop the field were still ongoing.
This resulted in the need to understand geohazard risks being recognized in the Minimum Obligatory Work Program terms
set out in the Contract of the Century in October 1994.
Over the last twenty years work to define and refine understanding of the multiple geohazard issues has been ongoing. Work
started in early 1995 with the completion of two deep geotechnical boreholes and a PSA-wide geophysical and geological
geohazards campaign that delivered an early, first pass geohazards stop-light map and supported delivery of the Early Oil
Project (1997).
The results of these two initial pieces of work formed the basis of the first PSA-wide integrated geohazard study that
addressed the threats of individual sources of geohazard to Full-Field Development planning. These included, amongst other
issues: slope instability, mud volcano stand-offs and fault risks, all being included in the first integrated geohazards risk map
of the PSA in 1999.
Since this time, direct experience, in drilling and facilities installation, has driven the need for an ongoing update of data and
improvement in geohazard understanding. New sources of hazard, such as the implications to riser-less drilling from supersaline soils, have had to be assessed and new data acquired to assist in mitigation of the risks identified.
Most recently HR3D data has been acquired across the entire PSA which, tandemed with AUV seabed and shallow profiler
imagery has been used to guide a further series of geotechnical campaigns. These results have been used to drive an update to
geohazards zonation addressing, in particular, slope instability in field areas previously considered too sensitive for
development.
This paper provides a timeline of geohazards activity on the ACG PSA over the past twenty years as a background to other
papers being offered in the technical session that discuss how specific geohazard data acquisition and analysis issues have
been addressed.
Introduction
The super-giant Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli (ACG) field complex, with estimated reserves of 5.4billion barrels oil equivalent, lies
in the Azerbaijani sector of the south Caspian Sea, 130km to the east of Baku in water depths of 95 to 425m (Figure 1).

OTC-25870-MS

Figure 1: Location of the Super Giant Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli field structure offshore


Azerbaijan, Caspian Sea in the AIOC PSA. Note: the Guneshli field to the north-west of the
PSA boundary developed prior to the 1994 PSA and operated by SOCAR.

The field complex, which is made up of three individual structural culminations Azeri, Chirag and Guneshli, with a shared
oil-water-contact, was discovered during the Soviet Union era - prior to Azerbaijan gaining independence in 1991. The northwestern, shallow water, area of the Guneshli field was placed into production prior to independence and continues to the
current day.
Following independence, a number of foreign operating companies were invited to bid for the rights to develop individual
parts of the field complex. As studies continued by the Operators it became clear that the three fields all shared a common oil
reservoir, and that separate development of the structures would be counterproductive to the efficient development of the
total resource. As a result, in early 1993, the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR) initiated consolidation
of negotiations into a single production sharing contract (Williams and Hession, 1997). This culminated in the signing of a 30
year Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) contract, The Contract of the Century, with ten different joint-partner operating
companies in October 1994. Signing of the PSA agreement led to the formation of the joint operating company Azerbaijan
International Operating Company (AIOC).
Since 1995 the ACG complex has undergone phased development by AIOC through: the upgrading of an existing platform,
installation of seven new fixed platforms, three subsea well manifolds, laying of approximately 1200km of subsea in-field
and export pipelines to shore (Figure 2) and the drilling of over 160 wells (Appraisal and Production). Peak production per
day from the field has reached up to 835,000 barrels-a-day.

Figure 2: Current development status of the ACG Complex. West to East: onshore terminal at Sangachal, oil and
gas export and produced water re-injection pipelines, three Deep-Water Guneshli (DWG) subsea water injection
manifolds, DWG Platform Complex (Phase III), Chirag Oil Project (COP) Platform, Chirag Platform (EOP), West
Azeri Platform (Phase II), Central Azeri Platform Complex (Phase I) and East Azeri Platform (Phase II).

OTC-25870-MS

All this has been delivered in the face of an extreme level of marine geohazard complexity that was identified ahead of the
signing of the PSA, recognized in the Minimum Obligatory Work Program (MOWP) in the PSA agreement, and has had
impact upon all drilling and development activity over the past 20 years of ACG activity. Geohazard understanding continues
to be refined to the current day through the acquisition of improved quality data (geophysical surveys and geotechnical
boreholes) and ongoing integrated studies.
Initial Geohazard Evaluations
The ACG field comprises a tightly folded, north-west to south-east trending anticline. The anticline lies along a structural
trend that represents the offshore extension of the Caucasus fold belt.
Fold development is inferred to be controlled by deep thrust faults whose expression propagate upwards and splay to intersect
the main reservoir intervals. The thrusts themselves are the result of the juxtaposition of the Apsheron ridge to the presence
of the subduction of the South Caspian Basin beneath the Mid-Caspian Basin. As a result, seismicity is high, with local
seismogenic sources located beneath the continued uplift of the ACG fold.
The review of potential geohazard complexity across the Chirag and Azeri culminations was started by BP in late 1992 in the
review of the sparse 2D exploration seismic data that was then available for evaluation. The data showed a level of
geohazards complexity at the seabed that, at the time, was unknown outside of the deep-water Gulf of Mexico (Campbell and
Hooper, 1993). There was clear evidence from the data of the presence of: extensional faulting along the anticlinal crest
reaching to, and offsetting, the seabed, and recent slumping and mass transport deposits on a massive scale. There were also
multiple direct hydrocarbon indicators in the shallow section, indirect evidence of seepage, and large, extant, and other
possibly buried mud volcano features. The area also was also known to be characterized by significant earthquake activity.
In early 1993 visits were started to Baku to visit with SOCAR, their technical departments and with academic institutions
with relevant experience and understanding of the geohazard setting across the fields. As a result of the first of these visits,
over a week in January 1993, a cartoon was developed (Sweeney, 1993, Figure 2) to portray to management the complexity
of the setting and the superimposition of differing geohazard issues that had been identified as being of potential impact to
operations across the structure. A summary report of understanding written in February 1993 concluded that: it should be
realized that the level of risk to operations from geohazards faced in the Chirag. areas is of an order of magnitude higher
than anywhere else in the world that BP operate (Hill, 1993).

Figure 3: Cartoon showing understanding of potential ACG field Geohazard complexity


developed after a first visit to Baku, January 1993.

At the time a total of thirteen exploration and appraisal wells had been spudded across the length of the structure that was the
subject of ongoing negotiations: five on Azeri, seven on Chirag and one on the deep-water segment of Guneshli. Of these,
some had experienced problems in the shallow overburden. These problems included direct shallow gas and shallow water
flow issues in drilling, or in annular isolation due to issues with cementation. A single, two-piece, platform had been installed
on the Chirag segment of the field but had yet to be brought into production. A further platform installation had started on the
deep-water part of the Guneshli field but had been abandoned due to problems in installation.
In support of drilling and development activities across the field complex SOCARs Engineering Geology Institute

OTC-25870-MS

(KMNGRU) had undertaken a total of 243 geotechnical/geological boreholes. This, quite remarkable, level of borehole
effort, and allied testing and analysis, compared to a relatively sparse amount of shallow geophysical profiling that had been
acquired to tie the borehole results. At the time this approach was in contrast to the western approach of high geophysical
effort calibrated by relatively sparse, targeted, or site specific, geotechnical borehole effort. Regardless of the philosophical
approach to site investigation, this borehole resource was immediately recognized as being of tremendous value to the
support of future studies. Additionally it was found that the State Geodesy Committee had published a series of good quality
bathymetric charts across the entire PSA. While these were on the basis of single-beam echo sounder data, the detail shown
indicated a relatively high level of acquisition effort. These again were recognized as a valuable potential resource.
From all these efforts it underlined that conditions across the area were equally as complicated as had been considered at first
sight. The remnants of the seafloor ridge, that suggested the presence of the deeper anticlinal structure, which defined the
fields, was heavily disturbed at the seabed. The three culminations of the fields themselves were separated (Guneshli to
Chirag and Chirag to Azeri) by the presence of major extant seafloor mud volcanos. In addition to these two major mud
volcanos, at least one other major mud volcano was recognized to exist on the Azeri structure.
The ridge area of the Chirag field was seen to be heavily effected by extensional faulting that reached to seabed.
On the southern limb, and running the entire length, of the structure was a major scarp defining the edge of major seafloor
slumping of unknown, yet clearly recent, age. On the Azeri structure this scarp was found to be well to the north of the
structural axis of the field.
Other geohazard features were suggested on the limited geophysical or sonar profiles available, while geotechnical analyses
and descriptions suggested a variety of soil conditions, of which the interaction of the presence of the major mud volcanos on
soil behavior was an immediate cause for concern.
At the time, however, the main industry codes were almost non-existent on the topic of marine geohazards management for
field developments with potentially relevant documents having 1% or less content on this topic (Sweeney, 2014). At the
start of the ACG studies, for example, it would be another 14 years before the IOGP published any industry guidance on
marine slope stability analysis (IOGP, 2009). So, at the time, for those working geohazardous seafloor terrains there was
almost no guidance, and appropriate practice had to be created from ongoing experiences.
As negotiations continued towards the signing of the Contract of the Century, in October 1994, background work
continued to put in place an outline program of work to be undertaken to better understand the geohazards complexity
immediately upon entry; to support first appraisal drilling and early field development. As a result of this, delivery of site, or
geohazard, survey requirements were identified directly within MOWP of the PSA contract (Azerbaijan, 1994).
Initial Detailed Studies: 1995-96
The newly formed Azerbaijan International Operating Company (AIOC), a joint-venture into which member companies
contributed staff and expertise, was expected to deliver a number of activities and reviews within a set timeframe. Of these
relevant to site investigation understanding were to:

Undertake a field-wide environmental and geohazards survey of the entire PSA (c450sqKm).
Evaluate the existing Chirag Platform for its potential use in an Early Oil Project (EOP).
Deliver well site specific surveys to support an immediate three well appraisal drilling program.

Separate study strands were led by different participant AIOC partner companies, from the onset BP, initially with Statoil
support, took the lead for site investigation support, while Exxon took the lead on earthquake design criteria - particularly
how this applied to the potential use of the existing Chirag platform.
While it had already been realized, the signing of the PSA brought into stark relief the difficulties of delivering world class
site investigation activities in the Caspian Sea. The unique enclosed nature of the Caspian (Guliyev, 2007), the limited
breadth of entry canals to the Caspian and the seasonal nature of their availability (open May to November only) meant that
simply bringing vessels to deliver the work, as would be the case anywhere else in the world, was not feasible. These issues,
which remain to the current day, are described in detail in allied papers: Dingler et al (2015) on geophysical site investigation
delivery and Hill et al. (2015) on geotechnical site investigation delivery.
Given the requirements of MOWP, the very first offshore operations performed by AIOC was the installation of a cantilever
borehole rig over the side of the existing Chirag Platform to drill a pair of geotechnical boreholes to evaluate the shallow soil
profile. These were performed in late January 1995 only three months after the signing of the PSA. Drilled in 121m of water,

OTC-25870-MS

the paired boreholes, one drill and sample and one drill and CPT, were completed to a depth below mudline (BML) of 150m.
Regardless of the volume of known pre-existing geotechnincal engineering information that existed across the PSA, given a
relative degree of uncertainty on comparability of testing rationales, soil samples from these boreholes were subjected to an
exhaustive, for 1995, set of analyses - to derive both geotechnical engineering parameters and understand the geological
depositional environment and age of the soils encountered (e.g. Figure 4, Simmons, Henton and Lowe 1995). It is notable
that the rigor applied to soils classification in these two boreholes resulted in the definition of eight Soil Units, I through VIII,
for soils present across the ridge of the PSA. This categorization, despite much ongoing study and learnings gained since
1995, has remained solid and largely unchanged to the present day.

Figure 4: Chirag Borehole 1 Analyses - showing properties of the geotechnically defined Soil Units
I to VII, and relative biostratigraphic biofacies, Palyno Zones, Paleo Climate Variation, Depositional
Environments and the 14C age date for sediment just below the current day seabed.

In parallel to the delivery of the Chirag boreholes, the mobilization of a vessel was started to undertake a field-wide
geohazards study. Building on recent experiences from West of Shetlands, UK in 1993-94 (Hamilton, 1996) and recognizing
the complexity of the setting, a Blanket approach was selected to deliver PSA-wide understanding, to support ongoing
studies of processes and general complexity, and to then high-grade the regional approach with site specific geophysical
studies for well and platform locations as these were identified.
The immediate impact of this was the mobilization of a vessel in April of 1995 to undertake the work: starting with detailed
evaluation around the Chirag Platform, verification of individual SOCAR well locations, delivery of regional coverage of the
PSA, initial study of potential export pipeline routes to various landfall locations, and clearance surveys of harbor
approaches. Four months of geophysical field-work followed (Dingler et al. 2015).
The geophysical survey of the PSA, despite the limitation of some of the systems available for use (Orren and Hamilton,
1998) verified the absolute nature of the geohazards complexity across the PSA at the seabed, within the foundation zone and
across the top-hole drilling interval (Figures 5 and 6).

OTC-25870-MS

Figure 5: 1996, Sun illuminated bathymetric model developed from single and multibeam echo sounder data clearly showing
the main seabed geomorphological components: the three main mud volcanos (Guneshli, Chirag and Azeri), extensional
faulting across the Chirag ridge and the Main Headwall Scarp (MHS). The PSA boundary (red) and notional EOP pipe route
alignments (Blue) are shown. Water depths range from 96m to 425m.

The survey showed that, with the exception of areas of prolific hydrocarbon seepage, very high quality geophysical imagery
could be obtained across the whole PSA. This allowed, amongst other things, the identification of:

Three major extant and active mud-volcanos; Guneshli, Chirag and Azeri-1
One major buried paleo mud volcano centre, or throat,
The presence of various other minor mud volcanos and seepage systems at a variety of scales,
Indications of widespread shallow gas anomalies and hydrocarbon migration chimneys,
The style and relative timing of evolution of the different mud volcanos,
The structural style of the shallow overburden,
The varying scales and style of recent slumping, or mass transport systems and,
The capability to make direct seismic tie to each of the eight soil units, defined at Chirag
platform and their extrapolation across the PSA (Hill and Mildenhall, 1997).

OTC-25870-MS

Figure 6: 1995 Regional 2D HR dip profile across the Azeri field showing main structural elements. Compare
quality to more recent 2013 HR3D Pre-Stack Depth Migration data in Figure 14 (Dingler et al., 2015)

Efforts also continued to benefit further from existing in-country knowledge and understanding. A major effort was
undertaken to review the geotechnical borehole inventory and translate the records to western equivalents for comparison to
the results at Chirag. Similarly onshore fieldtrips and sponsored studies continued with Azerbaijani academic geoscience
specialists, such as the Geology Institute of Azerbaijan (GIA). A key focus was developing understanding in onshore mud
volcano form and habitat (Hovland et al., 1997), to be used as analogs in analysis of the offshore setting (Figure 7).

Figure 7: June 1996, Right: two of the authors and translator with mud volcano experts from the Geology Institute of
Azerbaijan (GIA) undertaking field mapping at the Bahar mud volcano. Left: ground effects from a recent eruption and
scale of boulder inclusions in the mud volcano breccia at Bahar.

Discussions with the Department of Navigation and Mapping, of the Azerbaijan Navy and the State geodesy Committee
emphasized the importance of monitoring long-term and seasonal sea-level variations within the Caspian Sea (Dingler et al.,
2015). At the time sea levels were at close to a 15 year high - almost 3m above the late 1970s, but still 25.3m below oceanic
levels. This has been a subject of careful observation by AIOC ever since due to multiple implications to operations and
development.
From the results of the 1995 regional geophysical campaign a qualitative overview of understanding resulted in delivery of a
simple Stop Light map that summarized potential limitations on the PSA developability from the geohazards standpoint
(Figure 8). This made use of the Common Risk Segment approach (Grant et al., 1996) but took into account solely:

Seabed Slope Angle


Seabed Faulting presence
Mud Volcanos at current day seabed
Shallow Gas in the Top-Hole Section

OTC-25870-MS

The proportion of Red, or Stop, immediately evident reinforced the potential complexity and limitations to layout of any
potential Full-Field Development (FFD) solution.

Figure 8: 1996, Stop-Light Geohazard Zonation map produced from a qualitative assessment of the results of the 1995
PSA wide geohazards survey. Green: no perceived obstacle to development to Red: significant impediment to
development or no-go area. The dark blue line is the field oil-water-contact, light blue lines bathymetric contours. Grid
squares are 5x5km.

Appraisal Drilling
The start of appraisal drilling, as required under MOWP, started in 1996 with the spudding of the GCA-1 appraisal well on
the south flank of the Chirag structure, 1km to the west of Chirag Platform.
Top-hole drilling confirmed the presence of thin shallow water flow sands in the Surakhani formation sealed below thin
anhydrite markers. The possibility of shallow water flow risk had been flagged pre-drill on the basis of: pre-existing SOCAR
well issues described within the PSA, and the presence of consistently anomalous high deposition rates from the Miocene to
recent times. However, at the time, as shallow water flow was only just emerging as an issue in the deep-water Gulf of
Mexico (Alberty et al. 1997) and considered, by some, to be special to the Gulf, the problem was initially a surprise in
operational delivery of the well, but did not cause a problem to its safe delivery. The criticality of the correct positioning of
casing shoes to mitigate shallow water flow zones was brought home in 1997 with the requirement to re-spud the GCA-3
appraisal well due to an ongoing shallow water flow from the upper Surakhani. From this point onwards the importance to
drilling of a full understanding of the geohazard setting of each individual well and well center was recognized. It has driven
the adoption of an integrated approach that includes careful geophysical analysis of the setting and the incorporation of
geotechnical engineering properties with pore pressure profiles into top-hole well design and delivery (Al-Khafaji et al.
2015a and 2015b).
All these efforts combined, reviewed in detail by AIOC partner subject matter experts through 1996, provided confidence in
moving forward with EOP and delivery of first oil in 1997. However all the experiences and information gained in the first
two full years of PSA operations, emphasized the need to undertake an in-depth study of individual geohazard subject strands
and to then combine these outputs in a fully integrated study to deliver detailed guidance for FFD.
First Integrated Full-field Geohazard Assessment: 1997-99
Following a detailed review by partners in London in July 1997 it was agreed that an integrated study of geohazard issues
should go forward. This two year study delivered an integrated understanding of shallow geohazards and their implications
for facility and wells layout across the entire field.
It should be emphasized that due to the unique nature of the Caspian, and the facilities available for construction (Luberski et
al., 2008 and Kearney et al, 2008) and installation (Wilson and Munro-Kidd, 2008) of offshore facilities there were, and
remain, certain limitations purely from fabrication and installation to a layout that could be chosen for a development. This
meant that there was a preference to position major, fixed, production facilities in shallower waters, north of the Main
Headwall Scarp, or MHS (Figure 5) in water depths less than c175m (c575 feet) in depth. However, to minimize total drilling
distances from any one platform location it was required, particularly on the Azeri culmination, to position facilities as close
to the MHS as possible from the safety standpoint. This, therefore, emphasized the need for a detailed consideration of the
geohazards implications to the safe positioning of facilities relative to the MHS and the associated safe delivery of drilling
operations.

OTC-25870-MS

The first integrated full-field geohazard assessment, therefore, sought to develop the simplistic entry point common risk
segment approach (Figure 8) to a semi-quantitative assessment of separate contributory geohazard risk elements and to then
combine them into a single spatial understanding for use in guidance of FFD planning.
Key elements of this study included, but were not limited to:

Building a PSA-wide ground model by Fugro,


Geochronology of sediment samples to support the dating of geological features,
Regional Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment by URS,
Slope Stability Evaluation: modelling of a series of cross PSA transects by NGI,
Fault Displacement Hazard Assessment by Geomatrix Consultants, and
Mud Volcano Hazard assessment by Professor B. Voight of Penn State University.

The result of the studies was a series of contributory reports summarized into a single technical summary report (Golightly
and Hampson, 1999). The findings were also summarized in a Facilities Geohazard Study Planning and Development Map
(Figure 9). In comparing this to the output of the 1995 work, the level of detail layered into the chart emphasizes the
development of understanding, and the continued impact of the superimposition of different geohazard challenges to FFD
planning.

Figure 9: 1999, Facilities Geohazard Study Planning and Development Map, produced from the first Integrated Geohazards
Study 1997-1999. Note the increased level of complexity included, multiple sources of risk factors identified and
superimposed atop each other relative to Figure 8. Deeper blue colors, for example, relate to mud volcano stand-off zones.

One conclusion that remained consistent, however, was that the only area that appeared devoid of geohazard complexity was
a slim band of the PSA along its northern flank. On the Azeri field this lay well off the crest of the field structure. As a result
of this, one of the most important deliverables from the integrated study was definition of the safe stand-off distance for
facility locations from the top of the MHS for the Azeri field segment. This work was relied upon to define facilities
locations (four platforms and associated pipelines) for FFD planning. However the results also continued to place low
confidence on the safe placement of facilities below the escarpment and, for this reason, those areas were avoided for initial
development concepts.
The integrated approach towards geohazards assessment on ACG for AIOC development screening was a first within BP.
The approach was exported to the Gulf of Mexico where the approach of acquisition of early blanket geophysical data
coverage followed by targeted geotechnical calibration to develop an integrated geological model was adopted, and further
developed, on the Mad Dog, Atlantis (Jeanjean et al., 2003), Holstein (Liedtke et al., 2002) and Thunder Horse fields
(Horkowitz et al., 2002) before being re-imported for application in the Caspian on the first phase of the Shah Deniz field.
The approach was also applied and improved upon on for the integrated geohazard assessments of Ormen Lange, Norway
(Bryn et al., 2004), West Nile Delta, Egypt (Evans et al., 2005) and Deep Water Angola (Hill et al., 2010).
Full-Field Development 2003-07
FFD was delivered in three separate phases (Luberski et al. 2008). Phase I entailed the siting of the Central Azeri platform
complex and allied export pipelines to shore, Phase II West Azeri and East Azeri platforms and related infield and export
pipelines, and finally Phase III with the installation of the Deep Water Guneshli (DWG) platform complex and three subsea
water injection manifolds.

10

OTC-25870-MS

Each platform location was initially chosen on the basis of the results of the 1999 Integration Study, but then underwent full
geophysical and geotechnical site investigation to refine the final location addressing foundation integrity and top-hole safety.
The drilling platforms were each designed with 48 well slots. To help facilitate rapid ramp up of production at each platform
a 12 slot drilling template was pre-set at each location and wells pre-drilled through the template using a semi-submersible
drill-rig.
It was in the pre-development wells at the West Chirag template that a unique geohazard issue was identified in drilling soils
in Soil Unit VIII when drilling the top-hole section with seawater. Segments of some casings were found to have moved
laterally by more than 1m at a depth only 150m below mudline (BML) creating significant dog-legs (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Exaggerated perspective representation of the pre-drill 20 well


casing profiles at West Azeri Template after discovery of the problem drilling
through hyper-saline soils with low salinity Caspian sea-water. The mauve
wellbore was the most recent of the pre-drills.

The cause was identified as the presence of high pore-pressure, hyper-saline, structured and reactive clays. The salinity of
Caspian seawater is brackish. Fluid of high salinity in the super-saline soils encouraged fresh [drilling] water to flow into the
soil due to an osmotic effect. Such a flow lead to softening of the formation, hole collapse and compromised wellbore
stability. In the West Azeri setting, where Soil Unit VIII turned out to be at its most saline within the PSA, this resulted in the
template having to be abandoned, a new template installed, and practices identified to minimize the possibility of repetition.
Procedures adopted included driving closed end conductors from platforms as deep as possible and use of premium inhibitive
water based mud on drilling out (Al-Khafaji et al. 2015).
For the future delivery of safe and efficient top-hole drilling at existing and new drill centers, it re-emphasized the need for
obtaining a precise understanding of site specific soil and pore-pressure profiles for each platform location. It also confirmed
the necessity of drilling a deep geotechnical borehole to sample the soils and undertaking direct pore-pressure measurements
using a piezoprobe, supported, where possible, with downhole in-situ Hydraulic Fracture Tests (HFT). These, all required
tying back to HR multi-channel seismic data on a well by well basis.
DWG Subsea Manifolds 2004-08
The addition of subsea water injection manifolds to supplement water injection from wells from the DWG platform complex
(Richmond and Barralet, 2008) marked the first time in the PSA that development activities were considered down dip of the
MHS in the deeper waters of the PSA. Two of the manifolds, the South and East manifolds would be placed in relatively
deep-water compared to previous PSA facilities.
In 2004 the geophysical site investigation for these locations adopted a new approach with the acquisition of blanket HR3D,
rather than HR2D, data that included MBES and deep-tow combined sonar and profiler data in a single pass. This resulted in
the first real step change in the quality of shallow geophysical data. The data allowed analysis of full well bore geohazards
analysis of deviated well paths and total flexibility in adjustment of pipeline alignments, and still provide early assessment of
conditions to engineers ahead of detailed geotechnical evaluations.
Chirag Oil Project (COP) 2007-2010

OTC-25870-MS

11

The Chirag Oil Project reached production at the start of 2014 and has been the most recent phase of development within the
PSA. This was the first major phase of development after completion of FFD, with an additional conventional fixed platform
installed to develop resources from the shallower Balakhany VIII reservoir interval.

Figure 11: 2014, current ACG Development status showing the nine different drilling centres (six platforms and three
subsea manifolds) relative to seabed morphology and major geohazard elements

At the start of concept appraisal of the development a location in a near crestal position on the Chirag field was being
considered. In 2007 the project took advantage of the presence of a mobilized Hugin AUV system, working for the Shah
Deniz Phase II project, to acquire detailed seabed and shallow soils imagery of a potential platform location. This included a
VHR3D survey of shallow soils, imaging possible gas seepage plumes resulting from a nearby, pre-PSA well control
incident, and the near seabed shallow faulting style relating both to the anticlinal extensional regime and also secondary
failures behind the MHS (Figure 12). The data aided in the decision to relocate the platform location away from such
complications while minimizing drilling distances to reservoir targets.

Figure 12: VHR3D Binned AUV profiler data (1.5m x 3m bins), Timeslice cutting through the seabed
at ~184m BSL. Left Uninterpreted, Right Interpreted showing extensional faults (red), onset of
secondary failure behind MHS (mauve) and gas plumes (yellow). COP Platform was relocated off to
the mid-right in the image.

Integrated Full-Field Geohazards Assessment Update: 2012 to Present


Acquisition with the Hugin AUV in 2007 was extended to update imagery of the deep-water segment of the Azeri field. This
area had been discounted for immediate development in FFD, due to uncertainty surrounding the stability of the MHS and the
concern that the soils in the embayments below the escarpment, Soil Unit A (Gray et al. 2015), were more sensitive.
However, ultimate development activity in this area had never been fully removed from consideration, and with the success
of the three subsea water injection manifolds on DWG, focus turned to the application of similar development concepts in the
deep-water segment of the Azeri field. Placement of subsea manifolds would allow the drilling of shorter, simpler wells along
the south flank of the field, freeing well slots on the platforms to focus on additional production wells.

12

OTC-25870-MS

The AUV data gathered in 2007 delivered a step change in the quality of imagery of both seabed and shallow soils
morphology, allowing immediate improved understanding of recent geological processes. These data prompted the
acquisition of further phases of AUV data acquisition over the remainder of deep-water Azeri area (2011) and Chirag and
Guneshli (2014) that further improved upon the data of 2007.

Figure 13: AUV Bathymetric Model developed from successive surveys. The increased morphological detail defined across the
entire model, irrespective of water depth, should be compared to the 1995 image (Figure 5). Coverage was extended in 2014 to infill
the deep-water area of Chirag and Guneshli (see Figure 17).

To provide further understanding of the deeper foundation and the top-hole drilling intervals, two phases of HR3D
acquisition were undertaken in 2013 and 2014 to complete a full suite of modern, high quality, multi-spectral, hydrographic
and geophysical imagery across the PSA. This included undershooting each of the platforms to re-confirm top-hole drilling
conditions.

Figure 14: HR3D Pre-stack Depth Migration Image. The quality of image should be compared against the HR2D image (Figure 6) from
a similar location across the Azeri field, which now supports the level and quality of structural and stratigraphic mapping shown.

OTC-25870-MS

13

Combined, these data have allowed development of a refined study of geohazard processes across the PSA. Detailed
integration of these results started in 2012 and enabled delivery of an initial update of the Full-Field Geohazards Assessment
in 2013 (Figure 15).

Figure 15: 2013, Ranked Facilities Geohazard Guidance Map, using a more standardized Common Risk Segment (CRS)
approach to visualization of complexity and impact with existing pipeline and cable development infrastructure overlain.
Note: the area below the MHS continued to largely remain a cautionary color at this time.

With the availability in 2013 and 2014 of new HR3D and AUV data, integration studies have continued to the current day to
refine understanding in the deeper waters initially of the Azeri field before moving onto the deep-water flanks of Chirag and
Guneshli culminations.
Specifically work has been undertaken to model the failures that created the embayments below the MHS in the Azeri sector
of the field. This has, for the first time, made use of the Shear Band Propagation approach to modelling of slope instability
(Gray, Puzrin and Hill, 2015) and to extend this spatially beyond the previous modelling of 2D sections using the Limit
Equilibrium approach, by making use of GIS functionality (Rushton, et al. 2015). For the first time, modelling results have
been able to accurately model the failure styles, the original drivers for the failures, and the sensitivities around the driving
forces that might result in recurrence of failure. All this has contributed to a significant increase in prediction confidence.
Integration of the geoscience data, carefully calibrated by geophysically targeted geotechnical boreholes in 2014, has allowed
the deep-water segment of the Azeri field to be subdivided into areas of similar landslide risk sensitivity due to a combination
of contributory geohazard risk factors (Figure 16) and each risked quantitatively for acceptability.

Figure 16: 2014, Azeri Field Facilities Landslide Risk and Geohazard Planning Guidance
Map. Colours relate directly to severity of Landslide Risk, overlain cross hatching relates to
mud volcano flow risk. Note the existing infrastructure above the MHS: West Azeri, Central
Azeri and East Azeri Platforms and infield and export pipelines.

The GIS approach has been taken further to allow spatial sensitivity analysis of different slope instability events and their
direct implication to different types of development facilities (trees, manifolds, flowlines etc.). GIS functionality now allows
engineers undertaking concept screening to consider these risks spatially. Once coded within the GIS, parametric studies can
be carried out readily to test the sensitivity of the slope stability to uncertainties in the input data. This is extremely

14

OTC-25870-MS

informative in determining those parameters worthy of being constrained further through additional data gathering effort.
In short, for the first time, integrated geohazards study has been able to wind the geological clock back to understand the past
development of the ACG seabed morphology seen today, and to then quantitatively predict the future risks to the installation
and operation of different facility types over the lifetime of production - regardless of concept layout being considered
(Figure 17).

Figure 17: Possible future ACG Development concepts (pink) under concept screening consideration on the
basis of the guidance coming from quantitative spatial Geohazard risk analyses. With the exception of the
possible addition of a fixed platform, concept focus is on additional subsea production or injection concepts.

While geohazards concerns continue to exist and require ongoing study; be they the possible effects of seabed current scour
in the DWG segment (Figure 18) or the ongoing attention to detail, on a well-by-well basis in drilling, understanding has now
been brought to a new level of reliability to support planning.

Figure 17: 2014, sun shaded AUV MBES bathymetric model: Uninterpreted left, interpretation summary right. Middle top: the main
cone of the Guneshli mud volcano. Recent mud volcano flows and subsidiary mud volcano cones (yellow), seabed current related
scour flutes or comet marks (cyan) and carbonate seepage concretions (magenta).

Conclusions
The development of geohazard understanding within the AIOC PSA has been a continuously improving process for the past
twenty-two years to develop, refine and advance models to reduce operational risk to ongoing drilling and developments.
This has supported multiple phases of development and has allowed the production, to date, of **billion barrels of resources
from this super-giant field in a complex geohazard setting.
Delivery has been based upon:

Pre-entry realization of complexity and early communication to management for inclusion in early work
programs.
Utilization of an on-entry blanket approach to geophysical assessment of baseline conditions.

OTC-25870-MS

15

Early geotechnical investigation and calibration by borehole or core to directly assess soil conditions and
provide age dating.
Use of a diverse set of geohazard specialists to deliver an integrated geohazards model.
Recognition of the need to update, or improve on, the geophysical or geotechnical data inventory to support
refinement of geohazard models.
Uptake of cutting edge geophysical or geotechnical technologies in data acquisition or analysis.
A commitment to continually improve understanding to support engineering in its broadest sense.

Over the past twenty years ACG has been used as a laboratory to develop cutting edge approaches to geohazards assessment
that have been exported, refined, re-imported and further developed. The work described here has been a major support to the
development of the general philosophy of industry geohazards study in complex settings (Jeanjean et al., 2005) and its
consideration over the full license life cycle (Hill and Wood, 2015).
Geohazards specialists, involved in study of the ACG area, continue to look to the future to see what the next significant step
forward in geohazard technique may be that will provide further insight and understanding.
Seismic techniques, making use of, for example, ocean bottom receiver cables, or nodes, are already being looked at in terms
of different types of imagery (comparative VP and Vs sections etc.) that they may allow (Hill, Hill and Hill, 2014). Full
Waveform Inversion velocity models have already been developed both to better define mud volcano throat patterns in the
subsurface and also to feedback to assist in improved migration of 3D Data volumes (Tough et al., 2010). With the
availability of field wide HR3D seismic volumes, seismic attributes, such as AVO, are being pursued to test what they may
provide by way of further improvements in the characterization of the overburden for well planning (Gherasim et al., 2015).
Similarly there is focus on continuing improvement of geotechnical tools (downhole piezoprobes or in-situ piezometers).
There remains, currently, another nine years of PSA duration as defined in 1994 by the Contract of the Century. The
platforms that have been installed to date have a total of over 260 slots available for drilling, yet, to date, only about half that
total has been utilized. The approach to the analysis of geohazards in the top-hole section will be needed to support drilling
for the remaining life of the PSA. Life of field economics for each platform requires drilling to be equally successful in
drilling the 1st well from a platform as it is in the 48th well.
The success in addition of extra development facilities will require ongoing accurate description of surface installation
acceptability and drilling safety.
Data therefore will continue to be acquired to improve understanding, or to verify that drilling or foundation conditions
remain unchanged. This will support continued improvements in integrated study and breakthroughs in understanding and
achieve operational integrity to the end of the production life cycle of this super-giant resource.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank: BP, SOCAR (the State Oil & Gas Company of Azerbaijan) and the AIOC partnership
(Chevron, Inpex, Statoil, Exxon-Mobil, TPAO, Itochu and ONGC Videsh Ltd.) for permission to publish this paper.
The cooperation and support over the past twenty years of the Department of Navigation and Mapping, Naval Force of the
Azerbaijan Republic, the Engineering Geology Institute of SOCAR (KMNGRU), the Geophysical Trust of SOCAR, the
Geology Institute of Azerbaijan (GIA) and the State Geodesy Committee of Azerbaijan is recognized for their significant
contribution to understanding - especially in the early days of the PSA.
The authors also wish to recognize all those that have contributed to the development of geohazard understanding of the
ACG field over the past 20 years in the work that has been summarized here.
Nomenclature
14
C
ACG
AIOC
AUV
AVO
BML
BSL
-

Carbon 14 [age dating technique]


Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli
Azerbaijan International Operating Company
Autonomous Underwater Vehicle
Amplitude vs. Offset
Below Mud Line
Below [Caspian] Sea Level

16

COP
CRS
DWG
EOP
FFD
FWI
GCA
GIA
GIS
HFT
HR
KMNGRU MBES
MHS
MOWP PSA
SOCAR VHR
VP
VS
-

OTC-25870-MS

Chirag Oil Project


Common Risk Segment
Deep-Water Guneshli
Early Oil Project
Full Field Development
Full Waveform Inversion
Guneshli-Chirag-Azeri
Geology Institute of Azerbaijan
Geographic Information System
Hydraulic Fracture Test
High Resolution (Seismic with Dominant Frequency in 100-200Hz range)
Engineering Geology Institute of SOCAR
Multi-Beam Echo-Sounder
Main Headwall Scarp
Minimum Obligatory Work Program
Production Sharing Agreement [Area]
State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic
Very High Resolution (Seismic with Dominant Frequency >>1000Hz)
P Wave Velocity
S Wave Velocity

References
Alberty, M, Hafle, M., Minge, J.C., and Byrd, T., (1997): Mechanisms of Shallow Water flows and Drilling Practices for
Intervention, Offshore Technology Conference, May 1997, Houston, Paper 8301,
Al-Khafaji, Z., Hampson, K.M. and Cheng, C-P. (2015a): Challenges Experienced in Drilling the Top-Hole Section within
the ACG Field, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, May 2015, Paper 26023.
Al-Khafaji, Z., Hampson, K.M., Hill, A.W., Sherritt, A. and Yusifov, I. (2015b): Techniques and Best Practices Used to
Manage the Drilling Challenges of the Top-Hole Section within the ACG Field, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
May 2015, Paper 26013.
Azerbaijan, Government of, (1994): Agreement on the Joint Development and Production Sharing for the Azeri and Chirag
Fields and the Deep Water Portion of the Guneshli Field in the Azerbaijan Sector of the Caspian Sea, PSA Contract
Document, October 1994, Baku, Azerbaijan.
Bryn, P., Andersen, E.S., and Lien, R., (2007): The Ormen Lange Experience: Best Practice for Geohazard Evaluations of
Passive Continental Margins, Offshore Technology Conference, 2007, Houston, May 2007, Paper 18712,
Campbell, K.J. and Hooper, J.R. (1993): Deepwater Engineering Geology and Production Structure Siting, Northern Gulf of
Mexico, Offshore Site Investigation and Foundation Behavior, Ardus et al. eds. Society of Underwater Technology, pp375390, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Dingler, J.A., Dingler A., Hill, A.W., Wood, G.A. and Ford, A. (2015): Improving the Focus of the ACG Geohazards Image
- 20 years of data acquisition, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, May 2015, Paper 25912.
Evans, T.G. (2010): A Systematic Approach to Offshore Engineering for Multiple-Project Developments in Geohazardous
Areas, International Symposium Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics Perth, November 2010.
Gherasim, G., Viceer, S., Brusova, O., Naumenko, J., Gullette, K., Dingler, J. and Hill, A.W. (2015): An integrated
workflow for shallow hazard characterization at Central Azeri, The Leading Edge, April, 2015.
Golightly, C. and Hampson, K.M. (1999): Offshore geohazard assessment for facilities development, phase 3, Technical
Summary Report, AIOC PSA Area, Caspian Sea, BP-Amoco Exploration, Upstream Technology Group, Report No.
UTG/016/99, August 1999.
Grant, S., Milton, N., and Thompson, M. (1996): Play fairway analysis and risk mapping: an example using the Middle
Jurassic Brent Group in the northern North Sea, in Quantification and Prediction of Petroleum Resources, Dor, A.G. and

OTC-25870-MS

17

Sinding-Larsen, R. eds., NPF Special Publication 6, pp 167-181, Elsevier.


Gray, T., Puzrin, A. and Hill, A. (2015): Application of the Shear Band Propagation Method to Slope Stability Analysis of a
Palaeo-Landslide in the Caspian Sea, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, May 2015, Paper 25869.
Guliyev, Capt. G. (2007): Naval Force of the Azerbaijan Republic, Hydro International, December 2007, Vol. 11, No. 11.
Hamilton, I. (1996): Geophysical Investigation of Foinaven/Schiehallion, Towards 2000 Metres or the Millennium?
Deepwater Site Investigation, Society of Underwater Technology, London, Proceedings.
Hill, A., Hill, A., and Hill, A. (2014): What is the way forward for improvement in Geophysical and Geotechnical
Integration? Oceanology International 2014, London, 2014
Hill, A., Hampson, K., Prakash, A., Mackenzie, B., Rushton, D., and Puzrin, A. (2015): Geotechnical Challenges in the
Caspian Sea, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, May 2015, Paper 25988.
Hill, A.J., Southgate, J.G., Fish, P.R., and Thomas, S. (2010): Deepwater Angola Part I: Geohazard Mitigation,
International Symposium Frontiers in Offshore Geotechnics Perth, November 2010.
Hill, A.W. (1993): Site Investigation Risks in the Caspian Sea, BP Internal Report, February 1993.
Hill, A.W. and Mildenhall, A.J. (1997): Top Hole Drilling Risk Analysis, Shallow Gas Assessment and Shallow Geology
Structural Assessment Chirag MSP-1 Platform Location, AIOC PSA Area, Apsheron Ridge, Offshore Azerbaijan, AIOC
Internal Report, April 1997.
Hill, A.W. and Wood, G.A. (2015): Managing marine geohazard Risks over the Full Business Cycle, SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference and Exhibition, London, UK, May 2015, Paper 173139.
Horkowitz, K., Thomson, J.A., and Hill, A.W, (2002): Interpretation of Deepwater Depositional Environments for Shallow
Geohazard Assessment Using High-Resolution AUV Imagery, High-Resolution 3D Seismic, and Conventional 3D Seismic,
OTC 14137, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 2002.
Hovland, M., Hill, A., and Stokes, D., (1997): The Structure and Geomorphology of the Dashgil Mud Volcano Azerbaijan,
Geomorphology, 21, p1-15.
IOGP (2009): Geohazards from Seafloor Instability and Mass Flow, International Oil and Gas Producers Association,
December 2009, Report No. 425
Jeanjean P, Hill A. W., Thomson J. (2003): The Case for Confidently Siting Facilities along the Sigsbee Escarpment in the
Southern Green Canyon Area of the Gulf of Mexico: Summary and Conclusions from Integrated Studies, Offshore
Technology Conference, 2003, Houston, Paper 15269.
Jeanjean, P., Liedtke, E., Clukey, E.C., Hampson, K. & Evans, T. (2005): An Operators perspective on offshore risk
assessment and geotechnical design in geohazard-prone areas, First International Symposium on Frontiers in offshore
Geotechnics: ISFOG 2005 Gourvenec & Cassidy (eds.).
Kearney C. Jr., James, M., Nethercott, T. and Tate, G. (2008): ACG Topsides Design and Fabrication, Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, May 2008, Paper 19235.
Liedtke, E.A., Clukey, E.C., Horkowitz, K.O., Hill, A.W, Humphrey, G.D., and Dean, J.R. (2002): An Integrated Deepwater
Site Investigation: Southern Green Canyon, Gulf of Mexico, SUT Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics, London
2002, Proceedings.
Luberski, B., Shaw, N., Brown, M., Luckins, A. and Withers, G. (2008): ACG Programme Performance Enabled Through
a Production Line of Standardised Concepts and Components Delivered at Scale, Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, May 2008, Paper 19235.
Orren, R. and Hamilton, I. (1998): Frontier Geohazard Site Investigations - Experiences for the Caspian Sea, Offshore Site
Investigation and Foundation Behavior 98, Conference Proceedings, Society of Underwater Technology.

18

OTC-25870-MS

Richmond, A., and Barralet, P. (2008): ACG Phase 3 Subsea Water Injection Scheme, Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, May 2008, Paper 19238.
Rushton, D., Gray, T., Puzrin, A. and Hill, A. (2015): GIS-Based Probabilistic Slope Stability Assessment Using Shear Band
Propagation, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, May 2015, Paper 25871.
Simmons, M., Henton, J., and Lowe, S. (1995): Stratigraphy and Sedimentology of the Chirag-1 Shallow Borehole, South
Caspian Basin, Offshore Azerbaijan, BP-Statoil Alliance, November 1995, Internal Report, Reference EXT 70692.
Sweeney, M. (1993): The ACG Geohazards Cartoon, BP, Internal slide, London, January 1993.
Sweeney, M. (2014): Terrain and Geohazard Challenges for Onshore Pipelines in Remote Regions, 15th Annual Glossop
Lecture, Engineering Group, The Geological Society, London, 26th November 2014.
Tough, K., Riviere, M.C., Robinson, N.D., and Watson, P.A. (2010): Improvement in 3D Imaging over the Azeri-ChiragGunashli Field, South Caspian, Azerbaijan, 72nd EAGE Conference and Exhibition, June 2010, Extended Abstracts
Williams, T. and Hession, M. (1997): The consolidation of Azeri, Chirag and Undeveloped Guneshli: Caspian Sea,
Azerbaijan, SEG Annual Meeting, November, Dallas, Texas, Expanded Abstracts Paper INT 2.7.
Wilson, F. and Munro-Kidd, A. (2008): Caspian Challenge for Marine Installation, Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, May 2008, Paper 19237.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen