Enhanced Oil Recovery Case Study Report 2

MUN Reservoir Solutions

Engineering 8926

Submitted by: Mike Mosher 200816593 Nicholas House 200814127 Christopher Furlong 200931863 Evan Hipditch 200738284

Enhanced Oil recovery Case Study Report 2 By MUN Reservoir Solutions

Engineering 8926 Mechanical Design Project II

Executive Summary
This document highlights the second phase of the design work that MUNRS has undertaken towards achieving their goal of testing a new method of enhanced oil recovery. This method, in which produced gas is separated into light and heavy components, for both gas lift and gas injection respectively, is being modeled through industry-standard simulation techniques. Once MUNRS had proven that the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) of the produced gas and the reservoir fluids were not similar (i.e. the produced gas would not be effective for gas injection in its current state), the group made effective use of a two-phase oil and gas separator. By optimizing the temperature and pressure of the first stage of the separator, and effectively removing the right quantity of light components from the fluid, MUNRS was able to remove a composition of rich gas from the separators second stage that when tested, had an MMP that was very close to the pressure of the Norne reservoir the reservoir for this case study. Since these were roughly the same pressure (297.8 and 298 bar respectively), it was determined that a developed miscibility would be possible with this fluid. Once the injection composition was determined, MUNRS then modeled the Inflow Performance Relationship (IPS) and Vertical Lift Performance Curves (VLP) using production equipment standards found in modern oil and gas installations. This detailed analysis confirmed that gas lift will be of great benefit to the production from wells in the case study, and that the test case well was functioning properly.

The final step undertaken in this design phase by MUNRS was to model a base case block model of a homogeneous reservoir so that the pre-determined fluid compositions and lift analysis could be tested in the context of a real oil and gas reservoir. This model will show results, as they would be obtained from an oil and gas reservoir in industry. Moving forward, MUNRS has decided to focus on using the reservoir block model, with the refined inputs of fluid composition, and gas lift analysis to obtain final results for the improved performance of the case study. An economic analysis will then be completed, showing a large-scale breakdown of the costs involved with using a new technology such as this, in a modern oil and gas facility.

Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 PROBLEM DEFINITION 3.0 DESIGN SPECIFICATION AND CONSTRAINTS 3.1 TIME 3.2 RESEARCH 3.3 SIMULATION AND MODELING 4.0 MINIMUM MISCIBILITY PRESSURE AND FLUID SEPARATION 4.1 MMP TEST 4.2 RECOMBINATION TEST 4.3 SEPARATOR TEST 5.0 SEPARATOR OPTIMIZATION 5.1 MODELING THE RELATIONSHIP P,T AND MMP 6.0 VERTICAL LIFT PERFORMANCE 7.0 RESERVOIR SIMULATION 8.0 PROJECT PROGRESS AND MANAGEMENT 81 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 8.2 CHANGES IN SCOPE 8.3 MOVING FORWARD 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 5 6 8 8 11 14 19 19 19 20

Table of Figures
Figure 1 - Response Surface of Intial MMP Optimization...................................................................... 9 Figure 2 - Response Surface for Refined MMP Optimization ............................................................ 10 Figure 3 - ProsperTM IPR Curve ..................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4 - ProsperTM VLP Curces .................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 5 - Block Model ..................................................................................................................................... 18

List of Tables
Table 1 MMP Volumes for Intial Seperator ............................................................................................. 7 Table 2 Refined Table of MMPs from Refined Seperator Test ..................................................... 10 Table 3 Constant Properties....................................................................................................................... 15 Table 4 Reservoir Fluid Components ..................................................................................................... 15

Appendices
Appendix A Updated Gantt Chard Appendix B Selected Values from PVTsimTM Appendix C Table of values used in ProsperTM

1.0 Introduction
ENGI 8926 Mechanical Design Project II is the second of two capstone design courses in the Mechanical discipline. Building on skills developed in the first, student teams each choose a unique design challenge and then proceed to generate a solution. MUNRS (Memorial University Reservoir Solutions) is a group of four mechanical engineering students from Memorial University. This term, they have been tasked with the design goal of testing a new method of enhanced oil recovery. This new method will make use of produced gas for both gas injection and gas lift, in the most effective way that the group sees possible by splitting the valuable fluid into two, more effective compositions. This document will focus on the progress MUNRS has made towards accomplishing the prescribed goal. MUNRS is being co-supervised this term by Dr. Lesley James, and Dr. Thormod Johansen. Supervision will consist of weekly meetings, and communication through email.

2.0 Problem Definition

The problem that MUNRS has been tasked with this term is to simulate the overall effect that a new form of enhanced oil recovery has on an oil and gas reservoir. The main focus of the technology is to separate produced gas into light (lean) gas and heavy (rich) and use those two compositions for gas lift and gas injection respectively. If successful, the group will be able to demonstrate precisely how the technology works, along with evidence of how effective the results are, in terms of oil recovery enhancement. The team will make use of various pieces of software such as ECLIPSE, PROSPER, and PVTsim for reservoir modeling, gas lift modeling and fluid characterization, respectively. The available software should allow us to demonstrate the results of the work that we have done, in the same way that they would be presented in the oil and gas industry. These simulation software packages are industry standard, and made available to MUNRS through Memorial University.

3.0 Design Specification and Constraints

The following is a brief overview of the design specifications and constraints that have been considered this term, by MUNRS

3.1 Time
For this reporting phase of the project, time is a significant design constraint, with a full reporting and presenting stage due the week of March 7 . One time constraint is the availability of Teaching Assistants who will help us with the technical nature of the project. Lab availability will also be a time constraint, as we are sharing
th

computer time with other Teaching Assistants and graduate students.

3.2 Research
With any project, there will be new information that the team must cover, learn, and become familiar with. There is research involved with the early stages of this project, to learn how all of the relevant software works, and to become familiar with working in an oil and gas environment.

3.3 Simulation and Modeling

The simulations and modeling aspects of the project make up the majority of the work required for this project. These simulations will allow MUNRS to see real results from hypothesized ideas, to determine if it is possible to increase the recovery factor of real oil and gas projects and developments. Constraints here focus around the learning curves associated with the software.

4.0 Minimum Miscibility Pressure and Fluid Separation

In the first stage of this project the main aspect of the PVT (Pressure, Volume , Temperature) analysis was reservoir fluid characterization followed by a MMP test on these fluids. A more detailed analysis was undertaken in the second stage of this project. PVTSim software was again used for this analysis, which includes further reservoir fluid tests such as the MMP test, a fluid recombination and a separator test. These will be covered in detail in this section.

4.1 MMP Test

It should be reiterated that the main goal of this project is to determine the ideal gas compositions for gas injection and gas lift. It was expected that the produced gas

would have to be separated into rich and lean components for injection and lift respectively. Before running the necessary simulations to determine the compositions of each, it was first necessary to test the potential of injecting the produced gas as-is by conducting a MMP test. The MMP test in PVTSim uses two fluids and finds a minimum pressure between the two, which will allow them to be miscible. This simply means they will mix to form one homogenous solution, allowing for much easier oil production. To conduct an MMP test, the two fluids in question must be modeled in PVTSim by specifying the chemical compositions of each along with the physical properties of each chemical component. For an MMP test to work, these physical properties must be the same for both fluids. For example, the molecular weight of methane must be the same in the oil and the gas (as it is in real practice). This requirement is what raised the first issue with conduction an MMP test between the produced gas and oil. The compositions of our reservoir fluids are defined in detail up to a certain point. For carbon chains with 10 or more carbon atoms, a generalized grouping is used called the C10+ molecule. This component is used to represent all the large carbon chains by using one set of averaged physical properties (i.e. mol. weight) rather than individually listing each components properties. It is clear that this C10+ component will be different for each fluid. This poses a problem since it is required for each listed component to have the same physical properties in order to run a MMP test. Our reservoir gas and oil differ in the properties of their respective C10+ molecules. To make these two fluids compatible, a recombination test is required. This is also done using PVTSim.

4.2 Recombination Test

The theory behind a recombination test is based on the fact that our produced gas was once a part of the trapped reservoir oil until it was extracted. When these fluids separated upon extraction, their physical composition changed which in turn changes the properties encompassed within their C10+ molecules. Once a recombination of these fluids has been modeled, they will effectively be in solution and this fluid will be useable in an MMP test. A recombination test in PVTSim uses two input fluids along with parameters such as the gas-oil ratio (GOR) and reservoir oil density to combine these fluids into their original solution. Using an estimated GOR of 2.25 from a provided academic thesis modeling the Norne field (SWAG, 2012) and a reservoir oil density of 0.8595 g/m 3 (SWAG, 2012), a new recombined fluid was successfully obtained. This fluid became the base fluid to conduct all future miscibility tests with. This is because this modeled fluid represents the fluid that is in the reservoir, which will be mixing with any injection gases. Once the reservoir fluids were recombined, a flash function was used in PVTSim to generate the produced gas and oil. Using this flashed gas, a MMP test was done with our recombined fluid to find out whether our produced gas was an effective option for gas injection. First contact miscibility was found to be 980.35 bar and multicontact was 563.06 bar. These values are much higher than the reservoir pressure of 298 bar, indicating that the produced gas is not an effective composition to use for injection (this was an expected result). To determine which components of this

gas would be more effective for injection, a separator test is required on the recombined fluid.

4.3 Separator Test

A separator test can simulate the separation of a fluid at different pressures and temperatures to find the potential gas and oil compositions that can be obtained from the given fluid. This is especially valuable for this project since it allows the group to test all possible gas compositions for injection effectiveness. Essentially this test models a two stage separator that first removes lean components under selected temperature and pressure conditions and then removes rich components at atmospheric conditions. These rich components that are obtained at a chosen temperature and pressure are what the group will use to conduct MMP tests with the recombined reservoir fluid to determine injection effectiveness. The only problem with these separator tests is the huge amount of different results that can be obtained. It is necessary to determine the possible real world pressure and temperature values that can be used, as well as determine the best gas composition to use without having to conduct an endless amount of random tests. To narrow the possible separator test parameters, MUNRS used standard pressure and temperature ranges for oil and gas separators. Standard pressures range from 0 to 100 bar and temperatures usually range from 0 to 200oC (Schlumberger, 2014). Once these ranges were identified, the group decided to use a program called Design Expert to determine a mathematical relationship between pressure, temperature and minimum miscibility pressure. The details of this process are covered in the following section of this report, but the main concern here is that nine points are

needed to create an accurate model. In terms of separator tests, it was necessary to conduct nine tests which used a high pressure low temperature, low pressure high temperature, mid-range pressure mid-range temperature and so on. By doing this, the group was able to determine the first and multi-contact miscibility pressures between the rich gas and reservoir fluid at the chosen temperature and pressure combinations. The separator and miscibility tests are shown on the following page in table 1. These results can show us right away that first contact miscibility is not a likely outcome using these fluids. The closest first contact miscibility pressure shown is 626.03 bar which is still more than 300 bar above our reservoir pressure of 298 bar. However, the same entry shows a value of 300 bar for multi-contact miscibility which is very close to reservoir pressure. This is a very good sign at this stage but the Design Expert analysis will show more exact miscibility values.
High/Low Test LL LH HL HH MM ML MH LM HM A B C D E F G H I Pressure (Bar) 5 5 100 100 52.5 52.5 52.5 5 100 Temperature (Deg C) 0 200 0 200 100 0 200 100 100 P sat P Crit (bar) (bar) MMP fc 539.63 539.63 539.63 539.63 539.63 539.63 539.63 539.63 539.63 577.33 727.83 631.78 670.55 634.37 590.41 674.97 699.88 642.92 626.03 762 882.71 769.96 655.9 899.2 992.4 794.73 MMP mc Drive Type

300.17 57.17% 392.14 70.50% 476.16 82.28% 396.8 71.34% 319.99 60.22% 487.36 83.26% 561.89 92.39% 413.89 74.00%

1110.71 611.75 99.82%

Table 1 - MMP Values for Initial Separator Test

5.0 Separator Optimization

For the optimization of the pressure and temperature of the first stage of the separator, we will model the relationship between separator pressure, temperature and output fluid MMP. For the purposes of this project, factorial analysis will be used to optimize the temperature and pressure of the first stage of the separator, so that the optimal composition of rich gas can be removed from the second separator stage. This will be done by modeling the relationship between the temperature and pressure of the first stage of the separator and the MMP of the rich fluid exiting the second stage with the reservoir fluid. If this optimization is done properly, the developed MMP of the rich gas exiting the separators second stage should be the same as the reservoir pressure itself. This is necessary to achieve miscible injection. MUNRS will be using software called Design Expert to find the relationship between temperature, pressure, and MMP.

5.1 Modeling the Relationship P,T and MMP

The first step in modeling the relationship between the pressure and temperature of the first stage of the separator and the output MMP of our rich fluid, is to run several trial tests in PVTsim. The results from these trials were shown in table 1. The second step for MUNRS is then to use the table of values, and with a convenient surface-modeling component of the Design Expert , to generate a response surface to determine how the variables are related. The response surface to the initial table of values is shown in figure 1 below.

Figure 1 - Response Surface for Initial MMP Optimization

The above response surface was modeled using the minimization function in Design Expert. This function uses inputs, creates a model equation for a surface, and generates a peak where the minimum values occur on the response surface. This shows us that low pressure and low temperature are where the minimum values lie, and in this particular case, where the most important values lie the pressures which are the closest to the reservoir pressure. MUNRS then decided to refine the scope of the response modeling, by using smaller temperature and pressure ranges for the first stage of the separator. The group chose to vary the temperature from 0 to 15 degrees Celsius, and to vary the pressure from 1 to 15bar. Running separator and MMP tests again in PVTsim (with the smaller ranges of T, P) completed the refined table of values. The refined table is shown below in table 2

High/Low LL LH HL HH MM ML MH LM HM

Test A B C D E F G H I

Pressure (Bar) 1 1 10 10 5.5 5.5 5.5 1 10

Temperature (Deg C) 0 15 0 15 7.5 0 15 7.5 7.5

P sat (bar) P Crit (bar) MMP fc MMP mc Drive Type 539.63 678.52 909.45 501.26 86.05% 539.63 698.27 980.35 563.06 93.86% 539.63 551.04 571.5 262.78 51.77% 539.63 575.88 622.8 297.8 56.94% 539.63 588.04 650.59 316.75 59.55% 539.63 572.1 615.15 292.8 56.08% 539.63 602.36 686.39 340.95 63.00% 539.63 689.67 948.69 534.13 90.27% 539.63 563.29 596.22 279.77 54.30%

Table 2 - Refined Table of MMP's From Refined Separator Test

The above values were then used as inputs into the regression modeling software, and a new model was developed for the relationship between first-stage separator temperature, pressure, and second-stage output MMP. It was found that the output MMPs were in a much more favourable range when MUNRS ran the refined model. In the earlier model, the smallest values were the only ones that were close to the target values. In this case, there were values on either side of the target reservoir pressure, so MUNRS made use of the target function in the surface-modeling component of Design Expert. By doing so, the target pressure of 298bar was selected, and the surface displaying which temperatures and pressures gave the group that target MMP is shown in figure 2.

Figure 2 - Response Surface for Refined MMP Optimization

The clear peak at several values for pressure and temperature give us a clear indication that there are possible values of temperature and pressure that correspond to useful MMPs. From the refined table, there is one value in particular that provides us with the ideal MMP: 10bar, and 15 degrees Celsius. This value gave us an MMP of 289.7bar. Since this is ideal, MUNRS will be using these separator inputs, along with the above justification of doing so (provided by Design Expert) moving forward. By selecting that temperature and pressure as the input parameters for our separator, MUNRS obtained a unique fluid composition for the rich gas exiting the second stage. That composition is shown in appendix B.

6.0 Vertical Lift Performance

Using lift performance curves from Prosper, our goal is to determine not only to find the possible gas lift and oil recovery rates, but to also determine how much gas will be used for artificial lift. This is achieved by using the new chemical composition of the injected gas found using PVTsim along with details of the reservoir and production equipment. MUNRS are currently working on the ECLIPSE model of the oil field and until all details of the well are determined, some industry standard and default values are used in Prosper to determine the vertical lift performance; these values can be found in Appendix C. Once the new chemical compositions were finalized, this information was paired with data taken from the block ECLIPSE model. A production well with gas injection was then modeled in Prosper. First, an inflow performance relation is

computed from this data, which relates the reservoir pressure (psig) to the oil recovery rate (MMscf/day).

Figure 3 - PROSPER IPR Curve

In order to take this information further, an estimation of the well injection flow rate has to be completed. Using a given set of boundary conditions (reservoir pressure and well head flowing pressure) the well flow rate is determined as being the intersection between the inflow performance relation and the tubing response curves. The vertical lift performance (VLP) or lift curves can now be plotted. Using the Petroleum experts 2 VLP correlation along with our PVTsim and IPR data, a lift curve is plotted. For our purpose a 3 variable system was modeled based on Gas Oil Ratio (GOR), Top Nope Pressure and Water Cut.

Figure 4 - Prosper VLP Curve

The lift curves generated under these conditions gives promising results as the shape of the graph represents the desired J shape. Analyzing this VLP graph we can see that our pervious predictions based on top node pressure and GOR were correct. We noticed that as the top node or first separator pressure dropped, there was in increase in oil production. Similar to our predictions, as the oil to gas rate increased a greater injected pressure was needed to maintain the same oil recovery rate when all other variables are kept constant. It should also be noted that as the water cut was increased on the model the production decreased when all other variables are kept constant, this was also expected. From the above plot, it is determined that the use of injected gas for artificial lift does enhance oil recovery. The next step would be to determine a range of gas

injection rates and pressures based on the ECLIPSETM model to optimize the performance of the producing well.

7.0 Reservoir Simulation

As outlined in the initial project scope, the reservoir simulation portion of this study is broken into two components. The first is using a simple block reservoir model, created in house to calibrate and optimize the parameters of the study to give the best results. The second is to repeat the same simulation, this time using a full field dynamic simulation model of the Norne field, donated by Statoil. A simple reservoir model, even without heterogeneous structural and geological properties, is still as an efficient method of evaluating reservoir sensitivities as using a full field geological model. So because of its simplicity to build and run, the project will focus on completing this portion of the work first, before moving into full field simulation. Creating the simple block reservoir model is done within the

ECLIPSETM Reservoir simulation software. The block is completely homogenous, containing uniform properties throughout. These are rock properties, like porosity and permeability. Porosity is the percentage of free space in the porous reservoir rock. Permeability is measures the ease of fluid flow through a porous media. Permeability is defined in the X, Y, and Z directions. The constant properties of the simulation are displayed in the chart below.

Property Porosity X Permeability Y Permeability Z Permeability Reservoir Temperature Reservoir Pressure

Value 18% 1000 mD 1000 mD 20 mD 208.94 F 298 bar

Table 3: Constant Properties

The fluid properties of the reservoir are taken from the donated data of the Norne field. The detailed fluid characterization contains a breakdown of the molar percentage of each molecule in the reservoir fluid. The higher carbon chains with smaller molar percentage are combined into a range because they do not represent a large percentage of the total compositions. The characterized reservoir fluid that is used in the block model is shown below.

Component N2 CO2 C1 C2 C3 iC4 nC4 iC5 nC5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10-C12 C13-C15 C16-C18 C19-C21 C22-C24

Reservoir Fluid Molar Percentage Molecular Weight 0.135 28.014 1.116 44.01 72.088 16.043 3.892 30.07 1.685 44.097 0.318 58.124 0.593 58.124 0.262 72.151 0.277 72.151 0.473 86.178 1.259 96 1.968 107 1.419 121 3.489 146.512 2.652 189.39 2.015 235.783 1.532 275.483 1.164 317.208

C25-C29 C30-C35 C36-C44 C45-C80

1.353 0.985 0.756 0.569

370.992 447.283 547.557 752.699

Table 4: Reservoir Fluid Components

The simulation is now completely defined and can soon produce results. Before initial results can be generated there is a debugging process that takes place. Based on the information being used in the simulation, the ECLIPSETM software may require addition information. A second piece of software called PVTiTM uses the fluid composition that was previously defined to identify and generate anything else ECLIPSETM may need. This completed simulation, which will now be referred to as the Basecase will serve as the reference case that all improvements will be benchmarked against. Moving forward the Basecase will evolve to incorporate some more details, like lift curves generated in Prosper; but the structural and fluid properties are now set. The Basecase simulation has been run and the results are as expected. The addition of a fully defined fluid composition increased the run time of the simulation by almost 100 times its previous duration. The completed block model, operating midway through the simulation process is shown in Figure 3. The photo shows the gas injector in the right is seen pushing oil towards to the producer in the top left.

Figure 5: Block Model

Moving forward, the fluid compositions of the separated gas from PVTsim will be used to define a new fluid for injection and lift in the simulation. Currently the simulation uses a fluid in which no separation of light and rich components has taken place, as is industry standard today.

During the model creation process it has been observed that the addition of defined fluid composition adds a considerable amount of time to the simulation troubleshooting process. The full field Norne simulation model requires a substantial amount of work before it is ready to accept these changes. The simple block simulation will remain the top priority until usable results can be generated in all test cases, only then will focus shift to using the full field model. The omission of a full field model from this project does not reduce the validity or accuracy of the

results, but because of the time constraints it is possible that part of the scope will not be examined in this study.

8.0 Project Progress and Management

8.1 Project Management
MUNRs is committed to its project management plan, and aims to ensure that the project is conducted in a manner that is both timely and professionally. MUNRS continues to abide by the project management plan it had originally set out, in that time goals and constraints are of the utmost importance. Project meeting minutes, as well as meeting agendas have been recorded, and will be made available on www.MUNRS.com. A minimum of one weekly meeting is a mandatory requirement that the team has put into place and has held this throughout the duration of the project. As with any project, there will be changes in scope as the project unfolds. MUNRS is dealing with this by managing a gantt chart to track project progress throughout the remainder of the term.

8.2 Changes in Scope

One noteworthy change in scope that occurred during this phase of the project focuses on the implementation of our ECLIPSETM simulations. Originally, the plan was to convert the full-field model from ECLIPSETM 100 code to ECLIPSETM 300 code. This was because ECLIPSETM 100 code is non-compositional, in that the composition of the working fluid is not taken into account. ECLIPSETM 300 is

necessary for our project, and that conversion was included in the original scope. It was determined that converting the code would require more time and resources that the team had at their disposal, so our ECLIPSETM modeling will be done using a block base case ECLIPSETM 300 simulation instead. This is very useful, because it can provide us with how effective our technology is in a general reservoir, which is in essence the goal of the project. Our revised Gantt chart is shown in Appendix A.

8.3 Moving Forward

Moving forward with the project will require making use of appropriate reservoir simulation with the use of our fluid characterization and gas lift models. For the final stages of the project, we will be using what we have categorized as the best fluid for injection purposes, along with the appropriate gas lift and reservoir modeling to determine if this technology as a whole is possible and worthwhile. It will also be interesting to look into the economic benefit of using these technologies, as they will need to be applied in real industry, as well as the associated equipment costs to implement and fully integrate this technology in a modern oil and gas environment.

References:

"Oil and Gas Separator." Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary. N.p., 2014. Web. 05 Mar. 2014. Nangacovie, Helena L M. Application of WAG and SWAG Injection Techniques in Norne E-Segment. Thesis. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2012. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

Appendix A

ID 1

Task Mode

Task Name

Duration

Start

Finish

Predecessors

12 Jan '14 19 Jan '14 26 Jan '14 02 Feb '14 09 Feb '14 16 Feb '14 23 Feb '14 02 Mar '14 09 Mar '14 16 Mar '14 23 Mar '14 30 Mar '14 06 Apr '14 MTWT F S SMTWT F S SMTWT F S SMTWT F S SMTWT F S SMTWT F S SMTWT F S SMTWT F S SMTWT F S SMTWT F S SMTWT F S SMTWT F S S

PVT Simulation and 41 days Gas Characterization Preliminary Research Fluid Characterization MMP Simulation 6 days

Tue 14/01/14 Tue 14/01/14 Wed 22/01/14

Tue 11/03/14 Tue 21/01/14 Tue 11/03/14 2

35 days

35 days

Wed 22/01/14 Tue 11/03/142

Separator Tests

35 days

Wed 22/01/14 Tue 11/03/14

Design Expert Optimization Prosper Prosper Gas Lift Simulation Eclipse Create Block Model In Eclipse 300 Reservoir Model (Near Field) Run Base Case Simulation Base Case Optimization

7 days

Mon 03/03/14

Tue 11/03/14

7 8

22 days 22 days

Mon 10/02/14 Tue 11/03/14 Mon 10/02/14 Tue 11/03/14

9 10

40 days 12 days

Mon 10/02/14 Fri 04/04/14 Mon 10/02/14 Wed 26/02/14 Wed 26/02/14 Mon 03/03/14 Wed 26/02/14 Mon 17/03/14 Tue 25/02/14 Fri 14/03/14

11

13 days

12

5 days

Tue 04/03/14 Tue 11/03/14 Fri 14/03/14

13

7 days

14

Run Modified 13 days Model Simulation Reservoir Model (Norne Field) Simulation Run Base Case Simulation 15 days

15

Fri 04/04/14 11

16

8 days

Mon 17/03/14 Mon 17/03/14 Wed 26/02/14

Wed 26/03/14 Fri 04/04/14

17

Run Modified 15 days Model Simulation Equipment and Economic Analysis

Task Split

18

28 days

Fri 04/04/14

Inactive Task Inactive Milestone Inactive Summary Manual Task Duration-only

Manual Summary Rollup Manual Summary Start-only Finish-only External Tasks

External Milestone Deadline Baseline Baseline Milestone Baseline Summary

Progress Manual Progress

Project: Term 8 Project Date: Wed 05/03/14

Milestone Summary Project Summary

Page 1

Appendix B

Appendix C

Data used in ProsperTM : Total GOR Reservoir Temperture Reservoir Pressure Water Formation Volume Facter Oil Formation Volume Factor Oil Viscosity Gas Formation Volume Factor Oil Density Gas Density Tubing Depth Casing Depth Bubble Point Dietz Factor Drainage Area Wellbore Radius Mechanical skin Overall Heat Transfer Coefficent Cp Oil CP Gas Cp Water Top Node Pressure 225 208.94 F 4307.6 Psi 1.0328 1.32 0.318 0.0047 859.5 0.8545 2582 2692 251 31.6 340 0.354 +2 8 0.53 0.51 1 250 Rm3/Sm3 Rm3/Sm3 Cp Rm3/Sm3 kg/m3 kg/m3 m m Bara

ft BTU/h/ft2/F

psi