Magnus Field: Reservoir Management in a Mature Field Combining Waterflood, EOR 
and New Area Developments

Moulds, Timothy; Trussell, Philip; Haseldonckx, Sophie; Carruthers, Alan

doi:10.2523/96292-ms

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the residual oil saturation, trapped within the pores, was relatively low at 25% [ 86 ], it still presented a favourable target for EOR because of the large volume of OIIP. Surfactant and polymer flooding were ruled out because of the high reservoir temperature (115 ° C).…”

Section: Enhanced Oil Recovery Deploymentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The chemicals existing at that time would have degraded rapidly at these conditions. CO 2 injection was also deemed infeasible because of the lack of CO 2 supply and also the costly changes to wells, facilities and pipelines that would have been required to cope with the associated corrosion [ 55 , 86 ]. Nonetheless, the geology of Magnus was felt to create a favourable target for miscible gas injection.…”

Section: Enhanced Oil Recovery Deploymentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Recovery rates, enhanced oil recovery and technological limits

Muggeridge

Cockin

Webb

et al. 2014

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A.

432

302

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques can significantly extend global oil reserves once oil prices are high enough to make these techniques economic. Given a broad consensus that we have entered a period of supply constraints, operators can at last plan on the assumption that the oil price is likely to remain relatively high. This, coupled with the realization that new giant fields are becoming increasingly difficult to find, is creating the conditions for extensive deployment of EOR. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the nature, status and prospects for EOR technologies. It explains why the average oil recovery factor worldwide is only between 20% and 40%, describes the factors that contribute to these low recoveries and indicates which of those factors EOR techniques can affect. The paper then summarizes the breadth of EOR processes, the history of their application and their current status. It introduces two new EOR technologies that are beginning to be deployed and which look set to enter mainstream application. Examples of existing EOR projects in the mature oil province of the North Sea are discussed. It concludes by summarizing the future opportunities for the development and deployment of EOR.

show abstract

Section: Enhanced Oil Recovery Deploymentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Enhanced Oil Recovery Deploymentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recovery rates, enhanced oil recovery and technological limits

Muggeridge

Cockin

Webb

et al. 2014

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A.

432

302

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) programme was later adopted, utilizing water-alternatinggas (WAG) injection to maintain field output. Extensive subsurface work focused on EOR mechanisms across discrete reservoir panels and identified multiple new injection and off-take points that would be required to optimize field production from each respective area (Moulds et al, 2005). By the late 1990s it became apparent that sidetrack options from existing wells alone would not permit full optimization of the Magnus EOR programme.…”

Section: Fig1 Magnus Field Location Within the Northern North Seamentioning

confidence: 99%

Magnus: Utilisation of Conductor Sharing Wellhead Technology to Access Additional Hydrocarbons via a Slot-Constrained Platform

Hicks¹,

Honey²,

Farmer

et al. 2009

All Days

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Magnus platform, UK Northern North Sea, has been producing since 1983 with all 20 original slots now occupied. Additional infill and ERD production targets were identified and a means of access was required whilst maintaining base field production. Platform modification was selected due to significant commercial advantage over alternative developments.The Magnus jacket was modified to permit running of four additional large conductors into which two smaller casings could respectively be installed.Modification of existing wellhead technology for close proximity has proved successful. Access to additional Magnus resources via an otherwise full template has been delivered by this Conductor Sharing Wellhead (CSW) technology.

show abstract

“…Numerous recent papers have addressed issues critical to mature field characterization, static and dynamic modeling, and management. [1][2][3][4][5] A variety of papers have been published that address specific aspects of how best to capture critical geological heterogeneities in earth models prior to and during upscaling for dynamic simulation. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] The primary focus of this paper is to compare the fluid flow response of dynamic models derived from static models generated using stochastic workflows that utilize differing amounts of geological complexity (constraints) using data from a carbonate and two clastic reservoirs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reservoir Modeling for Mature Fields—Impact of Work Flow and Upscaling on Fluid-Flow Response

Meddaugh¹

2006

Proceedings of SPE Europec/Eage Annual Conference and Exhibition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. AbstractScoping studies using data from three mature fields suggest that simple workflows that use only essential stratigraphic and facies constraints are as good in capturing overall reservoir fluid flow response as complex, highly constrained workflows that use detailed stratigraphic and facies constraints. Thus, considerable time and cost saving may be realized during initial model building and updating if simple, but appropriate, workflows are used.The reservoirs studied include a Permian-age carbonate reservoir in New Mexico, an Upper Miocene deepwater clastic reservoir in California, and an Eocene-age shallow water clastic reservoir in Venezuela. Two dimensional cross section models of the deepwater clastic reservoir showed that cumulative production and water breakthrough times were essentially the same for models using the two major stratigraphic picks as for models constrained by 12 detailed stratigraphic picks. Three dimensional streamline simulation was used to demonstrate that adding facies and rock type constraints had little impact on recovery factors for a carbonate reservoir scoping project area consisting of 25, 5spot waterflood patterns. Likewise, a very complex workflow for the shallow water clastic data set from Venezuela constrained by eight facies and 16 detailed stratigraphic picks yielded the same reservoir response as a simple, two facies, and four major stratigraphic picks constrained workflow. These studies suggest that for reservoirs with moderate to high net to gross (>30-40%) or with small differences in the porosity vs. permeability trends of facies/rock types that simple geological modeling workflows are adequate for subsequent fluid flow simulation. Models generated using the shallow water clastic data sets and evaluated using three dimensional streamline simulation showed that varying the semivariogram range parameters by factors between 0.25 and 2 times the data driven range value also had little effect on reservoir response.An important issue surrounds the impact of up-scaling on fluid flow response. Vertical up-scaling by factors commonly used for full field simulation models has little impact on fluid flow response based on studies of the New Mexico carbonate reservoir and the shallow water clastic reservoir in Venezuela. However, areal up-scaling of models generated using a very fine 50 foot areal grid significantly alters the fluid flow characteristics and warrants additional study.

show abstract

Magnus Field: Reservoir Management in a Mature Field Combining Waterflood, EOR and New Area Developments

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Recovery rates, enhanced oil recovery and technological limits

Recovery rates, enhanced oil recovery and technological limits

Magnus: Utilisation of Conductor Sharing Wellhead Technology to Access Additional Hydrocarbons via a Slot-Constrained Platform

Reservoir Modeling for Mature Fields—Impact of Work Flow and Upscaling on Fluid-Flow Response

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About