SPE 121976

Reservoir Management Challenges and Improved Hydrocarbon Recovery

Activities on Kvitebjørn HPHT Gas Condensate Reservoir
Saifullah Talukdar, Janikke Rasmussen, Kjell Erik Wennberg, and Linda Storetvedt Lien; SPE, StatoilHydro ASA

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 8–11 June 2009.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract Introduction
The Kvitebjørn medium rich gas condensate field in the The HPHT Kvitebjørn Field is located in block 34/11 in
Norwegian North Sea is characterized as a high pressure the southeastern part of the Tampen Spur area of the
high temperature (HPHT) reservoir with 770.5 bar Norwegian North Sea (Fig. 1). The field is currently
pressure and 150oC temperature at about 4000 m TVD owned 58.55% by StatoilHydro, 30% by Petoro, 6.45% by
MSL. Despite high temperature and depth, the average Enterprise Oil and 5% by Total. StatoilHydro is the
reservoir properties are reasonably good. The main operator.
reservoir is Brent Group of Middle Jurassic age which is Block 34/11 was awarded in the 14th concession round
extensively faulted. in 1993. The field was discovered in 1994 by the
One of the main challenges is the drilling in depleted exploration well 34/11-1 (Fig. 2), which encountered a gas
reservoir. The strategy to mitigate the problem has been to condensate column of 175 m in the Brent Group. A gas-
put the field on reduced production and/or to actively water-contact (GWC) at 4139 m TVD MSL was observed
manage reservoir pressure by producing more from areas in this well. Another appraisal well (34/11-3T2) was
far away from the drilling locations. Advanced drilling drilled in 1996-97, which confirmed a gas condensate
technologies have also been developed to improve column of 160 m in the same formation.
drillability. A plan for development and operation (PDO) of the
Several improved oil/gas recovery methods are field was approved by the authority in 2000. The main
currently under consideration, which include infill drilling, drilling program started in October 2003 and the
process capacity upgrading, low pressure-production and production commenced on 26th of September 2004. The
gas recycling. Infill drilling is challenging due to reservoir development plan consisted of a platform having a 20.7
depletion. Capacity upgrading is to be implemented to MSm3/d production/processing capacity with three stage
expedite hydrocarbon recovery. Gas recycling has some separation, one drilling rig and living quarters. The water
potential for improved condensate recovery, but the depth at the Kvitebjørn platform is 190 m TVD MSL. The
project economy is poor. Low pressure production appears drainage strategy was chosen to be pressure depletion by
to be a very attractive option. A compressor concept has 11 production wells.
been selected based on thorough evaluation of space and The export products from the Kvitebjørn platform are
weight limitations on the platform, possibility for future wet gas and stabilized condensate. The wet gas is
drilling and intervention operations, explosion hazard, tie- transported to Kollsnes through a separate pipeline for
in of other prospects and future export facilities etc. final processing, while the condensate is transported to
Subsurface challenges include uncertainties related to well Mongstad via Kvitebjørn oil pipeline and Troll oil pipeline
integrity and productivity, reservoir communication, 2. Produced water and cuttings are injected into the Utsira
reservoir volumes, etc. formation through a dedicated well. Nine out of eleven
The purpose of this paper is to present the challenges production wells have been successfully drilled, completed
related to development and management of this HPHT gas and set on production. One well (A-2) was plugged and
condensate reservoir, the strategies to overcome the abandoned due to heavy mud loss during drilling. The last
challenges and the methods to improve gas and condensate PDO well (A-3) has recently been drilled and completed
recoveries from this field with special focus on the low and awaiting for production start-up. Kvitebjørn has so far
pressure production and gas recycling. produced approximately 15 GSm3 of gas and 7 MSm3 of
condensate, corresponding to approximately 11% of the
reseves. The field is still on plateau production of 20.7
2 SPE 121976

MSm3/d. A capacity upgrade project to increase the gas are different from the predefined consistent PVT data on
processing capacity to 22.7 MSm3/d is in its completion Kvitebjørn and there is probably no initial thermodynamic
phase. The Kvitebjørn production history is shown in Fig. equilibrium. The average fluid on Kvitebjørn has a dew
3. point pressure of 480 bars, initial GOR of approximately
The experiences gained from the first five years of 2200 Sm3/Sm3 and maximum condensate drop-out of
production on Kvitebjørn together with the evaluation of 12% relative to the dew-point volume.
low pressure production and gas recycling would be of The expected gas initially in-place (GIIP) and stock
great interest for the petroleum industry as a whole. tank oil originally in-place (STOOIP) based on remodeling
done in 2005-06 are 136.7 GSm3 and 66 MSm3
Reservoir Description
respectively. The corresponding recoverable reserves are
The Tampen Spur area was formed as a result of rifting
75 GSm3 of gas and 27.5 MSm3 of condensate
within the northern Viking Graben during the late Jurassic
respectively.
extensional period. The rifting created a series of major
fault terraces with easterly dipping bounding faults and Reservoir Management
westerly dipping stratigraphy. The Kvitebjørn Field sits on The main reservoir management objectives on Kvitebjørn
a horst block located at the deepest part of these fault have been to maximize profit for the owners, exploit
terraces, flanked by the Valemon graben area to the west resources to a highest level, secure safe and long term
and southwest and the northern Viking Graben in the workplace, and execute activities without causing any
south, east and north. A geological cross-section in the damage to people, environment and the installations. For
west-east direction through A-6 and A-10 wells depicting this geologically complex HPHT reservoir, the reservoir
main faults and reservoir units is shown in Fig. 4. management strategy has been directed towards collecting
The Middle Jurassic Brent Group is the main reservoir relevant geologic, petrophysical and fluid data to minimize
of the Kvitebjørn Field. The reservoir is located at a depth uncertainty, monitoring fluid movement, pressure
of approximately 3920-4150 m TVD MSL and is capped alteration and well performance in order to adopt
by Heather and Draupne Formations. The thickness of the appropriate and effective recovery methods which
group varies from 70-175 m and consists of the Broom, maximize economic recoveries.
Rannoch, Etive, Ness, and Tarbert Formations (Fig. 5). The seismic and well data have revealed a complex
The Broom Fm. fan delta deposit is not present on structural picture with numerous faults. Reasonably good
Kvitebjørn. The sand-dominated Rannoch, Etive and lateral communication is observed on the main field, but
Tarbert Formations were deposited at the delta front. The large uncertainties are associated with the communication
sandstones and mudstones of the coal-bearing Ness paths vertically and horizontally. MDT/RFT pressures
Formation accumulated on the delta plain with an overall show variable depletion ranging from no depletion (initial
increasing marine influence towards the delta margin. pressure) to several hundred bar depletion in different
The reservoir quality in the Brent Group is quite good reservoir units at various fault compartments. As a result,
considering the high temperature and depth of the prognosing the reservoir pressure along planned well paths
reservoir. The average porosity and permeability are 18% is quite challenging. Variable reservoir and fluid properties
and 60 mD respectively. The preservation of porosity and in different reservoir units/compartments further
permeability is attributed to clay coating of the sand emphasizes the reservoir complexity. Furthermore, the
grains, which has inhibited quartz cementation. In volumes associated with the prospect areas are also
addition, dissolution of feldspar has created significant somewhat uncertain. Therefore, adopting an optimum
volumes of secondary pores. All intervals except the drainage strategy exploiting the existing infrastructures is
Rannoch Fm. are influenced by these features. The Brent challenging.
Group reservoir zonation and average properties of The drilling experiences from A-2 well show that
different zones are shown is Table 1. drilling in depleted reservoir is technically challenging.
A new discovery was made in 2006 in the production This well was drilled in an area with 140-170 bar
well A-6 consisting of gas in the lower Jurassic Cook depletion. It suffered heavy mud loss and had to be
Formation. Four wells have so far been drilled through the plugged and abandoned. These drilling experiences
Cook Formation, which reveal that the thickness of the marked the end of the traditional drilling program as no
formation is approximately 60-70 m. The upper part of further drilling would be possible unless a method could
Cook is a good quality reservoir again related to clay be found to safely operate within Kvitebjørn’s narrow
coating of the sand grains. drilling window between reduced formation pore pressure
The fluid properties are relatively consistent on and fracture pressure (Fig. 6).
Kvitebjørn with some exceptions. The depth specific As the field depleted, large part of the field was falling
samples taken from two exploration wells (well 1 and 3) below the safe drilling margin. It was therefore, a time
can be described by a compositional gradient for Ness and critical issue to finish the main drilling program as well as
Etive and perhaps also for Tarbert. But the sample taken in exploit the prospect areas. Managed pressure drilling
Cook in well A-6 cannot be described by the same (MPD)1,2 offered a solution for the remaining wells on the
gradient. The sample contains richer gas. On the contrary, main drilling program to be drilled. In this technique, a
the A-10 sample contains leaner gas. The samples from A- reduced mud weight and surface controlled back-pressure
12 show richer gas in Tarbert than in Ness. These samples is used to manipulate the downhole pressure profile. A
SPE 121976 3

safe drilling window is created by precisely controlling the Since the Kvitebjørn platform is not equipped with an
bottom-hole pressure and holding it just above the highest export gas compressor, the abandonment pressure is
pore pressure. The developed MPD technique on governed by the required process inlet pressure at
Kvitebjørn enables safe drilling up to a pressure depletion Kollsnes. With 92 bars at Kollsnes, the minimum tubing
of 170 bars. The technology was implemented on A-13 head pressure at Kvitebjørn is estimated to be 110-120
well in 2007 and further successfully used on A-12 and A- bars in the tail production phase. On plateau, the necessary
3 wells. tubing head pressure is 130-140 bars with export from
In combination with the MPD, a Cs/K-Formate drilling both Kvitebjørn and Visund in the shared rich gas pipeline.
fluid system3,4 containing particles to act as a tool for The highest benefit from reduced tubing head pressure
formation fracture gradient enhancement was used in the comes in the tail production phase, but it also helps to
last two wells for the reservoir drilling. The purpose of the prolong the plateau rate and/or reduce the decline and thus
particles is to increase the drilling window and reduce the accelerate production.
risk for lost circulation. In addition, the continuous Possible ways to achieve a reduction in the tubing head
circulating system (CCS) was used to reduce pressure pressure is to install a compressor, either at the Kvitebjørn
variations on the formation during connections while platform or at Kollsnes to allow a lower inlet pressure.
drilling. Low pressure production during tail production period was
Maintaining an acceptable production level without considered in the PDO. Accordingly, flexibility was
depleting the prospective well locations below the safe introduced in the platform construction. In order to install
drilling margin is a delicate balancing act for the asset the compressor, the idea was to remove some drilling
team. An active pressure management scheme is needed to equipment which would not be required after the drilling
maintain safe drilling pressure. As part of this strategy, the program is executed.
field was set on half production in the first half of 2007 Due to improvements in technology, it appears that
and zero production in the second half of 2007. Further, very low wellhead pressures can be achieved by
excessive depletion was avoided at the planned/potential compressor installed on the platform without removing the
well locations by prioritizing production from wells necessary drilling equipment. Three different compressor
located far away from these areas. Accordingly, the solutions on the platform have been studied. These include
production in 2007 was mainly from southern wells in (a) a 28 MW single stage compressor in a new module
order to be able to drill the northern wells (A-13 and A- beneath the flare, (b) an integrated 8 MW compact
12). Conversely, the southern part of the field was shut-in compressor placed on the pipe deck, (c) a 28 MW 2 stage
in 2008 in order to be able to drill A-3 which was planned compressor in a new module to be placed in the drilling
in the southwest. The strategy had worked and the drillable mud module area. In the last alternative, the mud module
pressure was maintained, which otherwise would not have would have to be removed. The selected concept is the 28
been possible. The pressure developments with and MW single stage compressor placed beneath the flare (Fig.
without this strategy are shown in Fig. 7. 10). This compressor will be able to take the wellhead
In addition to developing advanced drilling techniques, pressure down to approximately 40 bars. A solution to
efforts have been directed towards improving reservoir install a second compressor stage, when the well head
understanding by collecting various data, interpreting and pressure has reached 40 bars, is also under investigation.
including them in the reservoir models. To name a few, the With this extra stage, it will be possible to reduce the
data collection efforts include repeated streamer and ocean wellhead pressure to approximately 15 bars.
bottom seismic (OBS) surveys, MDT pressure, bottom- The most important limitations and criteria used for
hole gauge pressure, core, well log and well test data, fluid selecting the compressor concept can be summarized as
sampling, production, PLT and well completion data. This follows (a) weight and space limitations on the platform,
has resulted in progressive improvement of the reservoir (b) safety, (c) cost of the compressor solutions, (d)
models and better history match. The history match is maintaining flexibility for drilling and well interventions
primarily based on open hole logs (permeability, porosity, and (e) efficiency of compressor and the corresponding
NTG etc.), RFT formation pressures, build-up well tests, potential for extra reserves.
flowing bottom hole pressures, PLT log, etc. As for The installation of compressor is evaluated within the
examples, the flowing bottom hole pressure match for A- framework of two different start-up dates, different
15 and RFT pressure match for A-13 are shown in Fig. 8 production scenarios and different concepts.
and 9 respectively. The history-matched model is A thorough uncertainty analysis involving 128
routinely used for input to pressure and production statistical combinations of low and high values of nine
prognoses, production optimization and improved uncertain parameters has been performed to generate the
gas/condensate recovery studies. yearly gas and condensate production rates. The uncertain
parameters are in-place volumes, reservoir
Low pressure production
communication, number of producers, well collapse,
The current drainage strategy, namely, depletion by 11
productivity index development, well regularity, well
wells combined with production constraints will result in a
hydraulics, process regularity and export capacity
significant fraction of the resources not being recovered.
limitations. The yearly rates from 128 full field
By reducing the abandonment well head pressure using an
simulations are then provided to the regression input for
export compressor, part of the remaining hydrocarbons can
be recovered.
4 SPE 121976

the Monte Carlo simulation. The regression process filters 3 wells. A combination of A-6 and A-10 wells provided
out unimportant effects. A distribution is defined for each the highest incremental condensate recovery. Sensitivities
of the uncertain parameters which go to the Monte Carlo have been performed on 6 MSm3/d/well and 3
simulation. The risked profiles show that only the single MSm3/d/well export gas injection. 6 MSm3/d/well export
stage compressor has the potential to increase the overall gas injection in this well-pair provides the highest
gas recovery factor from 55% to approximately 70%. The incremental condensate recovery. A reasonably good
economy of the project is extremely positive. sweep can be achieved in most of the reservoir units and
When depleting an HPHT field, compaction and large hence this combination has been used in the subsequent
stress changes will occur in the reservoir and in the gas injection simulations.
overburden over time. These changes may influence The potential for incremental condensate recovery from
communication in the reservoir and well integrity. On injection of nitrogen, dry gas (methane) and export gas
Kvitebjørn, the objective is to build a 3D rock mechanical from Kvitebjørn have been studied. Sensitivities have been
model that can be used to predict these changes, allowing performed on 9, 18, 36 and 54 GSm3 gas injection on both
necessary precautions for well construction and reservoir black-oil (Eclipse 100) and compositional simulators. The
management5. network option in Eclipse (GRUPTREE and GRUPNET)
There are a few discoveries and prospects around the has been used to simulate pressure loss in the pipelines
Kvitebjørn, which can be either developed from or tied-in from wellbore to Kollsnes. After a quality control of the
to the Kvitebjørn Field. The most important discovery is early results, a bug was discovered in the network option
Valemon (Fig. 11). Due considerations are given to the in Eclipse. The GRUPTREE and GRUPNET keywords did
possibility for tie-in during concept selection for the low not initiate for the prediction runs when they restarted
pressure production. from a restart report at the end of the history simulation.
The Kvitebjørn Field has adopted a zero discharge As a result, the tubing-head pressure went below its limit.
philosophy (environmental impact factor of zero) meaning The problem can be avoided by putting a dummy network
systematic reduction of harmful discharges and risk of in the history file or by including history in the prediction
environmental impact towards zero. Combustion of natural run. Although it is more computationally expensive, the
gas from gas turbine fuel and flaring are the largest last workaround has been used in the simulations. Another
contributors to emissions of CO2 and NOX. The process problem encountered in compositional simulation was that
has been designed such that export compression is not in some instances all wells on Kvitebjørn stopped
needed until the well head pressure falls below the prematurely at a later time while it was not the case in the
required export pressure, thus keeping the turbine fuel corresponding black-oil simulations.
consumption low. Furthermore, the export compressor to The incremental condensate recovery from nitrogen,
be installed will employ Low-NOx technology to methane and export gas is plotted against the amount of
minimize emissions of Nitrogen Oxides. gas injected in Fig. 12. The low pressure production is not
included in these simulations. The results from 1998 and
Gas recycling 2005 are also shown for comparison purposes. As can be
The mechanism for increased condensate recovery by dry seen, the incremental condensate recovery from nitrogen is
gas injection is to displace rich gas and thereby increase much lower than that from methane or export gas. The
condensate reserves. Other benefits may be partial re- lower condensate recovery by nitrogen injection can be
vaporization of dropped-out condensate and reduction of explained as follows: when the injected nitrogen mixes
possibility for productivity impairment due to condensate with the Kvitebjørn reservoir gas, the phase diagram of the
blocking. The process is dependent on the amount of dry mixed gas is changed and the dew-point pressure is
gas injected into the reservoir. In addition, reservoir increased. For example, when the Kvitebjørn reservoir gas
parameters, drainage strategy, injection start-up, available is mixed with 30% nitrogen, the resulting phase diagram
wells, injection facilities are all important factors. gives a dew-point pressure of 756 bar at the reservoir
Two gas injection studies were performed on temperature of 150oC. This results in a much quicker
Kvitebjørn previously, one in 1998 and the other in 2005. condensate drop-out with nitrogen injection. Another
Both studies showed some potential for increased negative factor for nitrogen injection is the handling of the
condensate recovery by gas recycling. However, the nitrogen after break-through.
project economy was not satisfactory. A thorough re- Dry gas or methane injection also provides much lower
evaluation has been done in 2008-09 to verify whether the incremental condensate than the export gas which also can
conclusions from the previous studies are still valid. In the be explained as above. Furthermore, source of methane is
latest study, emphasis has been given for gas injection for not readily available. Therefore, the most viable option is
a limited period prior to start of the low pressure the export gas injection from Kvitebjørn or from
production. The compressor has to be built for gas neighboring Valemon discovery.
injection and then it is to be converted for gas export. It is evident in the figure that the incremental
A large number of simulations have been performed in condensate recovery is lower in 2008 study compared to
compositional formulation (Eclipse 300) to optimize the both 1998 and 2005 studies, which can be attributed to the
injection points. Optimization of injection points is done differences in models used in different studies. The model
by simulating dry gas injection in one well at a time and effects and the compositional effects are illustrated in the
then combining the most promising wells in groups of 2 or figure.
SPE 121976 5

Compositional simulation shows some lower potential potential to increase overall gas recovery factor from
than its black-oil counterpart. A black-oil model may 55% to at least 70%.
significantly over-predict oil recovery due to • Relatively low and somewhat uncertain incremental
compositional effects that are not properly treated in a condensate recovery potential from gas injection.
black-oil model. It is due to the fact that the oil • The business opportunity by gas injection is an
vaporization is generally over-estimated in a high pressure unprofitable measure due to delayed sale of injected
gas injection. The reason for this is most likely that the gas.
vaporization is only pressure dependent in a black-oil
model while in a compositional model the remaining oil
will be more and more difficult to vaporize as it becomes Acknowledgment
heavier with time. Therefore, compositional modeling is The authors gratefully thank the Kvitebjørn Field operator,
considered to be more accurate to model this effect and is StatoilHydro ASA and the partners Petoro, Enterprise Oil
specifically recommended for gas recycling below dew- and Total for permission to publish this paper. The authors
point pressure6. would also like to thank all colleagues in StatoilHydro
Alternative scenarios with and without the inclusion of who have directly or indirectly contributed to this paper.
the low pressure production have been studied in both
black-oil and compositional formulations. The results References
show that some incremental condensate can be recovered 1) Syltøy, S., Eide, S.E., Torvund, S., Berg, P.C., Larsen, T.,
by gas injection compared to both depletion and low Fjeldberg, H., Bjørkevoll, K.S., McCaskill, J., Prebensen,
pressure production. The simulated potential varies from O.I., Swaco, M-I, and Low, Eric: “Highly Advanced
0.1–0.2 million Sm3 of incremental condensate per billion Multitechnical MPD Concept Extends Achievable HPHT
Sm3 gas injected depending on the amount of export gas Targets in the North Sea,” paper SPE/IADC 114484
presented at the 2008 SPE/IADC Drilling and Underbalanced
injected and the type of simulator used. Fig. 13 shows an
Operations Conference and Exhibition held in Abu Dhabi,
example of export gas and condensate from 18 GSm3 UAE, 28-29 Jan. 2008.
export gas injection compared to depletion and low 2) Solvang, S.A., Leuchtenberg, C., Gil, I.C., and Pinkstone, H.:
pressure production. “Managed Pressure Drilling Resolves Pressure Depletion
Despite some incremental condensate recovery, the Related Problems in the Development of the HPHT Kristin
project economy is highly negative. The main reason is the Field,” paper SPE/IADC 113672 presented at the 2008
delayed export of the injected gas. It is generally a SPE/IADC Drilling and Underbalanced Operations
challenge for any gas recycling project on gas condensate Conference and Exhibition held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 28-29
field to be economically viable unless very favorable Jan. 2008.
3) Pedersen, B.K., Pedersen, E.S., Morriss, S. and Constable,
conditions exist. The high gas price further aggravates the M.V., Vissapragada, B., Sibbit, A., Stoller, C., Almaguer, J.,
situation. Delayed sale of the injected gas plays a critical Evans, M., Shray, F., Grau, J., Fordham, E., Minh, C.C.,
role on the project economy. Scott, H. and McKeon, D.: “Understanding the Effects of
In additional to poor economy, several other factors Cesium/Potassium Formate Fluid on Well Log Response-A
make the gas injection on Kvitebjørn an unattractive Case Study of the Kristin and Kvitebjorn Fields, Offshore
proposition. The most critical factors are: (1) Relatively Norway,” paper SPE 103067 presented at the 2006 SPE
low and somewhat uncertain potential for incremental Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San
condensate recovery from gas injection, (2) Source of Antonio, Texas, 24-27 September 2006.
injection gas is not readily available. Injection of 4) Berg, P.C., Pedersen, E.S., Lauritsen, Å., Behjat, N.,
Hagerup-Jenssen, S., Howard, S., Olsvik, G., Downs, J.D.,
Kvitebjørn own export gas reduces export and is not Harris, M., and Turner, J.: “Drilling, Completion, and
feasible as an alternative to low pressure production or as a Openhole Formation Evaluation of High-Angle Wells in
stand-alone project, (3) Installation of an additional High-Density Cesium Formate Brine: The Kvitebjørn
injection compressor together with the export compressor Experience, 2004–2006,” paper SPE 105733 presented at the
is not possible due to space and weight limitations on the 2007 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in Amsterdam,
platform, (4) low maturity on topside technical aspects of The Netherlands, 20-22 Feb. 2007.
gas injection project will possibly delay current plans for 5) Wendt, A.S., Kongslien, M., Sinha, B.K., Vissapragada, B.,
start up of the low pressure production, and (5) gas Newton, A., Skomedal, E., Renlie, L. and Pedersen, E.S.:
injection may postpone gas volumes beyond technical “Enhanced Mechanical Earth Modeling and Wellbore
Stability Calculations Using Advanced Sonic Measurements-
lifetime of the installation. A Case Study of the HP/HT Kvitebjørn Field in the
Norwegian North Sea,” paper SPE 109662 presented at the
Conclusions 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held
• Reservoir management on Kvitebjørn is challenging in Anaheim, California, 11-14 November 2007.
due to reservoir uncertainties and drilling in depleted 6) Fevang Fevang, Ø., Singh, K. and Whitson, C.H.:
reservoir. “Guidelines for Choosing Compositional and Black-Oil
Models for Volatile Oil and Gas-Condensate Reservoirs,“
• Active reservoir pressure management and advanced paper SPE 63087 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual
drilling technique have been useful to maintain Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas,
drillability. 1–4 October 2000.
• Installation of compressor for gas export has a
6 SPE 121976

Table 1 – Average reservoir properties of the Brent reservoirs.

Formation Thickness Net-to- Porosity Sw Permeability

(m) gross (frac) (frac) (mD)
Tarbert 2 10.49 0.88 0.18 0.29 95.48
Tarbert 1 18.52 0.61 0.18 0.31 76.13
Ness 3 14.06 0.27 0.17 0.40 144.47
Ness 2 18.30 0.68 0.18 0.27 89.66
Ness 1.2 12.55 0.68 0.19 0.21 232.95
Ness 1.1 10.95 0.32 0.15 0.41 64.78
Etive 13.13 0.96 0.20 0.25 171.26
Rannoch 42.30 0.74 0.17 0.33 23.70

Figure – 1: Location of the Kvitebjørn Field.

A-16

A-12
A-15 A-13

A-6 A-14 A-9

3 T2
A-11 Brent eroded,
A-5 Cook/Statf. pot

A-7 Central
1

A-4 A-10

A-3 A-2
5S

Figure – 2: Map of Kvitebjørn reservoir showing main field,

flank prospects and well locations.
SPE 121976 7

Figure – 3: Kvitebjørn production history.

Figure – 5: Brent Group stratigraphy and reservoir properties.

Figure – 4: Geological cross-section in west-east direction

(through A-6 and A-10 wells) showing the main faults and
reservoir units.
8 SPE 121976

Figure – 6: Fracture and pore-pressure gradients with 170 bars

depletion.

Depletion limit for safe drilling

Current pressure
development as a
result of reduced
production in 2007
and 2008
If production was
not reduced in
2007 and 2008

Figure – 7: Maintaining safe drilling pressure by active pressure

management.
SPE 121976 9

A-15
BHP
measured

750 Simulated

700
B H P [b a r]

650

600

550

500

450
1.8.05 8.1.06 17.6.06 24.11.06 3.5.07 10.10.07 18.3.08 25.8.08 1.2.09 11.7.09 18.12.09
Date
Figure – 8: Flowing bottom-hole pressure match for A-15.

• A-13

Tarbert

Upper Ness

Lower Ness
123 bar depleted

Tarbert 15 bar
Upper Ness 4-50
bar
Etive
Lower Ness 123 bar
116 bar
Etive 116 bar
Rannoch Rannoch 90 bar

Figure – 9: RFT pressure match for A-13.

Compressor module

Figure – 10: Module compressor solution for low pressure production.

10 SPE 121976

Field and prospect map

PL 193, Block 34/11

New field area PDO

Nøkken Gas
Prospect

Relinquished area
Exploration well
Gas producer

Jade

Kvitebjørn
nord

KVITEBJØRN

34/11-3 T2

Seg 3
34/11-1
Seg 9
34/11-5 S
34/11-4 T2 34/11-A-2

VALEMON

Figure – 11: Discoveries and prospects around Kvitebjørn Field.

9
1998 study (black-oil)
Difference between
8
previous and current
Incremental condeate produced [M Sm3]

2005 study (2002 black-

7 models oil model, open faults)

6 Difference between 2008 study (2006 black-

oil model)
black-oil and
5 compositional 2008 study (2006
compositional model,
4 models export gas)
2008 study (2006
compositional model,
3 methane)
2008 study (2006
2 compositional model,
nitrogen)

1 2005 study (2002 black-

oil model, closed faults)

0
5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75
Gas volume injected [G Sm3]

Figure – 12: Incremental condensate recovery from nitrogen,

methane and export gas vs. cumulative gas injected.

7.00
Gas Depletion
Low pressure production (LPP)
Yearly production (GSm3 gas/MSm3 condensate)

6.00 Gas injection followed by LPP

5.00

4.00

3.00
Condensate
2.00

1.00

0.00
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year

Figure – 13: Gas and condensate export profiles from an

example gas injection case compared to depletion and low
pressure production.