Table of Contents

1.

Geologic Overview.........................................................................................2
Northern Alaska.................................................................................................2
North Slope Phase Windows.................................................................................6
Colville River Unit Overview................................................................................6
Colville River Depositional Environment.................................................................9
Colville River Stratigraphy...................................................................................9
Fiord Oil Pool Structure.....................................................................................11

2.

Reservoir Analysis/Description.........................................................................11
OOIP Calculation.............................................................................................11
Relative Permeability Data.................................................................................15
PVT Data.......................................................................................................17
Differential Vaporization (Liberation) Test...........................................................18
Multi-Stage Separation Test.............................................................................23
Core Data......................................................................................................24

3.

Drilling/Completions.....................................................................................31

4.

Production Facilities/Artificial Lift....................................................................36

5.

Evaluation of Field Development......................................................................37

Production History...........................................................................................37
Production Forecasting......................................................................................40

6.

Economics..................................................................................................41
Base Case Economic Evaluation..........................................................................41

7.

Moving Forward...........................................................................................44
Model...........................................................................................................44
New Wells......................................................................................................44

Appendices........................................................................................................45
Appendix A: Alaska North Slope: Generalized Stratigraphy........................................45
Appendix B: Capillary Pressure Graphs.................................................................46
Appendix C: Summary of PVT Study Results for Sample 1.03.....................................47
Appendix D: Differential Liberation Test Summary Vapor Compositions......................48
Appendix E: Differential Liberation Test Summary Residual Oil Compositions..............49
Appendix F: Multi-Stage Separation Test Vapor/Liquid Properties..............................50
Appendix G: Multi-Stage Separator Test Summary Vapor Composition.......................51
Appendix H: Multi-Stage Separator Test Summary Residual Liquid Composition...........52
Appendix I: Reservoir Fluid Property Plots.............................................................53

Appendix J: Well Forecasts (Individual).................................................................54

References........................................................................................................60

1. Geologic Overview
Northern Alaska
Northern Alaska is divided into three major, parallel provinces: from south to north, these
are the Arctic Mountains (Brooks Range), the Arctic Foothills, and the Arctic Coastal Plain. The
latter two regions, which together compose the North Slope, narrow toward the east and are
truncated on the west by the
Chukchi seacoast. These two
regions, located in northwestern
Alaska, are situated on what is
known as the Arctic Alaska
microplate. The complexity of
the geology decreases to the
north as the terrain changes from
mountains to foothills and the
Figure 1.1: Geologic Provinces of Northern Alaska. [11]

coastal plain. The north-trending

Lisburne Hills are situated along this coast.
The Brooks Range, which transitions into the Lisburne Hills, was formed with sediments from
the north filling the accommodation space in the foreland to form the Kingak shale during the
Jurassic period. The Arctic microplate then rotated counter-clockwise into its present day
position and the Colville Basin was formed as a result of loading from the Brooks Range and
rifting in the Beaufort [1]. Early studies of the geology of northern Alaska showed that the North
Slope is underlain by the large, west-trending Colville basin, mainly composed of Cretaceous
and Tertiary age rock as shown in Figure 1.1. This region of Northern Alaska, which
2

encompasses most of the North Slope and continental shelf, is dominated by structures that are
resulting from the Jurassic and Early Cretaceous rifting that formed the northern continental
margin of Alaska. This rifting separated northern Alaska from a continent to the north, producing
a structural high, the Barrow arch, which has played a role in the structural and depositional
history of the region. The northern area
of the Colville basin is outlined by the
Barrow arch, which is composed of
pre-Mississippian to Lower Cretaceous
aged rocks. This arch was created by
multiple events of upwarping and
folding throughout the Jurassic and
Cretaceous time periods. Uplifting and
erosion during these rifting cycles
occurred in bursts at varying locations
over time. Sediments eroded from
these uplifted locations collected in
low-lying basin.
The general stratigraphy of the
Alaska North Slope is broken down
Figure 1.2. North Slope basin evolution: cross section. [2]

into three sequences: Ellesmerian,

Beaufortian, and Brookian. The Ellesmerian sequence is defined by the base of the Endicott
Group (informally called the Basement) and the disconformity at the top of the Sag River
Formation. The Ellesmerian thins to the south due to increasing distance from its source area and

thins to the north due to effects of onlap,

uplift, and erosion prior to deposition of
the Beaufortian sequence [2]. The
Beaufortian sequence represents a
transition from a northern to southern
sediment source occurring in the Early
Jurassic to Middle Cretaceous time
period. Within the Beaufortian sequence
lies the Kingak Shale, which consists of
silt and shale formations that were
deposited across the marine shelf [3]. The
upper Beaufortian sequence was mainly
formed by rifting. Coarse-grained
sediments that occur in the Kuparuk
Sandstone and the Point Thomson
Sandstones accumulated in areas where
topography was low. Delta facies along

Figure 1.3: General Stratigraphic Sequence in Northern AK

the coast and offshore make up a large part of the Brookian age strata in the subsurface. The
Beaufortian sequence appears on logs ranging of thickness from 15 to 2,050 feet and are rather
featureless on both gamma-ray and resistivity logs [4].
The Kingak Shale is a rock unit consisting largely of marine shale with some interbedded
siltstone and sandstone that overlies the Shublik Formation [1]. The Kingak Shale ranges in
thickness from 0 feet in the northeast where it has been eroded away to up to 3,450 feet in the

south. The Kingak Shale is Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous in age, and is bounded by strong
seismic reflectors that represent the Triassic Shublik and the Cretaceous Pebble Sand [5].
The Brookian sequence consists of condensed shales of a Highly Radioactive Zone
(HRZ); thick delta shales of the Torok Formation; shales of the Colville Group; and the Canning
Formation [4]. This sequence has much less quartz and more ductile rock fragments than it has
sandstones of the Ellesmerian sequence. Most of the sediments within the sequence span the time
from the Lower Cretaceous to the Pliocene [2].
The southern part of the Colville basin is gently folded at the surface and is bordered by a
west-trending belt composed of mostly incompetent and structurally imbricated rocks [6]. This
belt signifies the location of important north to south changes in the Paleozoic and lower
Mesozoic stratigraphy and is composed of folded and thrusted Devonian to Lower Cretaceous
sedimentary rocks.
Petroleum source rock facies of the Shublik Formation, Kingak Shale, pebble shale unit,
and younger basinal shales of the Brookian sequence are all likely to have generated gas and/or
oil. This being based on organic richness, kerogen composition, and thermal maturity determined
from well and outcrop samples [7] [8] [9].
Previous structural analysis of the Brooks Range foothills show the region is dominated
by a thin-skinned deformation with displacement resolved along a master detachment in the
lower Kingak sequences and Shublik [10]. Faulting in the Torok and Nanushuk deposits is
dominated by thrust and detachment faulting. Within the Kingak and Torok zones, faulting steps
up from the lower detachment near the Brooks Range foothills towards the north. Contractions
are oriented in a north-south direction and stratigraphic thickening occurring in an east-west

direction [8]. Appendix A shows the varying lithologies and formations that exist within the
Alaska North Slope region.

North Slope Phase Windows

On eastern edge of the Point Thomson Unit lies a large gas/condensate region of the
reservoir. Moving westward toward the Badami and into the Prudhoe Bay Unit, the reservoir
changes into the light oil region. A small gas/condensate region is again seen beginning
approximately 4 miles from the eastern most edge of the unit, approximately 4 miles from the
southernmost edge of the unit [11].This gas condensate region moves north toward the coast
approximately 7.5 miles and extends westward approximately 13.5 miles before re-entering the
light oil region of the reservoir. Light oil extends westward until the heavy oil region of the
reservoir is met in the northeastern section of the Prudhoe Bay Unit [11].This heavy oil region is
observed throughout the majority of the Kuparuk River Unit however areas of light oil can be
seen at the outermost edge of the heavy oil window. The oil seen in the Kuparuk Unit was
observed to have an API gravity between 23 and 26 degrees. Continuing eastward toward the
Colville River Unit, the reservoir begins to move back into the light oil region containing oil that
has an API gravity in the low 30s [11].Within the CRU is the Fiord Pool that is producing oil
with a 32 degree API gravity. To the south of the Fiord is the Alpine Oil Pool. The Alpine
contains a light gravity oil around 40 degrees [12].

Colville River Unit Overview

The Colville River Unit can be broken into three different depositional environments
each from a given time period. In the Ellesmerian sequence, a shelf carbonate and clastic system
6

was deposited to the south. This was caused by uplifting in the north before the Arctic Ocean was
exposed. The second environment, or Beaufortian sequence, is observed in the Colville River
unit is a shelf clastic system that incorporates transgressive lag sandstones [12]. In the Brookian
sequence, a clastic northward and eastward prograding system is observed. The productive oil
bearing sandstones are seen in both the Brookian and Beaufortian sequences. The reservoir sands
seen in these sequences can be small isolated sands but are also observed to be complex
petroleum systems embedded in large complex sandstones [12]. Because the reservoirs are so
sporadic, the oil pools are usually constrained by stratigraphic traps such as the gradation of
sandstone to silt and mudstones [12].
The Fiord Oil Pool is the interest of this project. It consists three main intervals: the
Nechelik, Kuparuk, and a shaly sandstone separating the two. The Kingak Shale is the known
source rock for the Fiord accumulation. Gas generation likely began in the Cretaceous period and
all generation and migration was completed during the Paleogene Period [12]. At the northern
edge of the pool, the Fiord No. 5 revealed that the Fiord encompasses the interval between 6,876
and 7,172 giving an overall thickness of roughly 296 [13]. The Nechelik is a Jurassic Age
sandstone that strikes NE and dips to the SE. The Nechelik is the deepest of the three intervals in
the Fiord Pool. The shaly sandstone observed between the Nechelik and the Kuparuk appears to
thin to the north while dipping to the northwest. The top part of this zone is recognized as the
Lower Cretaceous Unconformity (LCU). The LCU was formed through uplifting and erosion.
Because the LCU thins to the south and dips to the north, eventually the LCU cuts into the
Nechelik. At this point the Kuparuk and Nechelik sands directly contact one another. To the
southeast, in the area around the Fiord 2, a small sliver of the Alpine Sandstone can be seen
separating the Nechelik and Kuparuk sands. The Kuparuk sand is stratigraphically the highest of

the three target intervals, lying directly on top of the LCU. The Kuparuk has a thickness of
approximately 5 and tends dip
to the northwest in the area of
interest.

Colville River Depositional

Environment
The upper Kuparuk is a
transgressive, lag sandstone
[12]. This sandstone was
deposited when the LCU was
formed. The LCU eroded sands
from deeper formations
eventually depositing them into
regions of lower elevation. It is
observed that the upper
Kuparuk sandstone has areas of
bioturbation and contains
numerous unconformities
throughout the formation.

Figure 1.4: Colville River Stratigraphic Column

Varying degrees of cementation are also seen throughout the Kuparuk formation. These
variations were caused by differences in depositional energy, which is characteristic of a deltaic
environment. In the neighboring Kuparuk Field, the lower Kuparuk is seen to have
approximately six sand-bearing intervals that elongate to the northeast [12].
8

The Lower Kuparuk formation is believed to have been deposited in a wave dominated
lower shoreface environment [12]. The lower targeted Nechelik zone is composed of very fine to
fine grained sandstones that prograde to the south/southeast and are separated by layers of
laminated mudstone. The Nechelik sand is generally poor in reservoir quality due to a significant
amount of bioturbation seen through the formation. The porosity is generally around 12% with a
permeability around 1.5 md. This is characteristic of a regressive depositional cycle in a shelf or
middle/upper shoreface setting [12].

Colville River Stratigraphy

The Brookian turbidite sequence, the Beaufortian sandstone (Kuparuk) seen on the Lower
Cretaceous Unconformity, and Beaufortian shelf sandstones are the stratigraphic plays that were
recognized as a result of early exploration [12]. The main area of interest is a Mesozoic Age
formation containing sandstones deposited in the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous Periods. The
Nechelik sand, deposited in the late Jurassic Period, lies in the upper portion of the Kingak Shale
[11]. The Nuikqust sandstone and the Alpine sandstone were also deposited during the late
Jurassic period and stratigraphically lie above the Nechelik sand but below the LCU. The
sandstones are separated by the Kingak Shale and are capped by the Upper Jurassic

Figure 1.5: North Slope Cross Section

Unconformity before moving into the early cretaceous time period. Stratigraphically, the
Miluveach formation lies directly above the Upper Jurassic Unconformity and encompasses the
Lower Kuparuk sandstone. The stratigraphic column then shows the upper Kuparuk sandstone
depositing on top of the LCU which is observed to cut through the Miluveach Formation. A
stratigraphic column containing the areas of described above can be seen in Figure 1.5.

Fiord Oil Pool Structure

The oil accumulation that is the interest of this project is known as the Fiord Oil Pool. It
contains the upper Kuparuk sandstone deposits that lie directly above the LCU and can have a
wide range of thicknesses. Normal faulting is seen to have had an impact on the thickness of the
10

upper Kuparuk sand. Because of the vast amount of normal faulting that is seen in the Colville
River Unit, both structural and stratigraphic traps are developed [12]. As the upper Kuparuk
formation pinches out and cements laterally, it aids in the trapping of hydrocarbons.

2. Reservoir Analysis/Description
OOIP Calculation
Oil in place calculations were made using the understanding various properties
throughout the Nechelik sandstone. The top of the Nechelik formation was picked in the given
resistivity logs and were then reviewed to gain an understanding of the total resistivity seen upon
entering the Nechelik formation. The Nechelik sand signature can be seen below in the log
shown below in Figure 2.1.

11

Nechelik
Formation Top

Figure 2.1: Nechelik Sandstone Signature

The

increase in resistivity and

decrease in

gamma response at the

Nechelik top

indicates movement out

of a shale

formation into an oil

saturated

sandstone.

After

examining the logs, it was

determined

that the average resistivity

was

approximately 10.7
12

Figure 2.2: Nechelik Sand Accumulation

ohmm in the upper 40 of the Nechelik sandstone. From this point, the picket plots given in the
original data set contained resistivity values for the formation brine. The average formation water
resistivity was near 0.018 ohmm. The resistivity values obtained along with the given Archie
coefficients obtained from the Picket Plots were used in the Archie equation to determine an
initial water saturation for the field. Because there is no free gas in the formation, the original oil
saturation was determined by taking one minus the initial water saturation. The Nechelik was
determined to have an initial water saturation of approximately 35% and an initial oil saturation
of 65%. These values coincided with values found throughout our research.
After determining the initial saturations, the various reservoir properties were analyzed in
order to determine an initial oil in place. The reservoir area was found by determining the area of
the ellipsoidal shaped Nechelik sand. The major axis radius was determined to be approximately
3.25 miles where the minor radius was found to be approximately 1.75 miles. Given these
dimensions the total area of the sand was found to be approximately 12,250 acres. The porosity
for the reservoir was determined by analyzing the porosity in the core data. The porosity data
was lumped together and then analyzed to see how the porosity changed with depth below the
top of the Nechelik Sand shown in Figure 2.3 below.

13

Porosity vs. Depth

13.00
12.80
12.60
12.40

Porosity

12.20
12.00

Porosity

11.80
11.60
11.40
11.20
11.00
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Feet from top of Nechelik

Figure 2.3: Porosity vs. Depth

Feet From Top of N.S.S. vs. RQI

0.0
0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

20
40
60
Feet

80
100
120
140
160
180
Reservoir Quality Index

Figure 2.4: NSS Depth vs. RQI

Reservoir quality index was used to evaluate the quality of the reservoir below the top of
the Nechelik sandstone. Figure 2.4 above shows how the reservoir quality changes with depth.
14

The initial 40 feet of reservoir was determined to be the highest quality zone with a porosity of
approximately 12.5% and a permeability range from 0.01 md to 100 md with a typical value of
around 0.2 md. Given these properties, the upper 40 feet of the Nechelik formation was used as
the formation thickness in the OOIP calculation. After sorting through the PVT data, it was found
the differential liberation formation volume factor of the oil was 1.327 bbl/STB. After compiling
all the data, it was determined that the original oil in place for the field was approximately
231,000,000 bbls.

Relative Permeability Data

The relative permeability data given suggests that the residual oil saturation to water is
0.308 and residual oil saturation to gas is 0.236. The irreducible water saturation is 0.298 and the
critical gas saturation is 0.005. The relative permeability of oil to water at irreducible water
saturation is 0.67 and the relative permeability of water at residual oil saturation to water is
0.235. The relative permeability of gas at irreducible water saturation is 0.445.

15

Oil and Water Relative Permeability

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

Krow 0.5

Krow

0.5

Krw

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0
1.0

Water Saturation

Figure 2.5: Oil and water relative permeability curve

Gas and Oil Relative Permeability

1.0

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

Krog 0.5

Krog

0.5

Krg

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.0
1.0

Gas Saturation

Figure 2.6: Gas and oil relative permeability curve

16

PVT Data
On September 2, 2005 Schlumberger completed a reservoir fluid analysis in the Wildcat
field on the Iapetus #2 well. Iapetus #2, an exploratory well, is located in Township 12 North,
Range 4 East, Section 8 and was completed on March 28, 2005 at a TVD of 7,986 feet.
A summary of the testing began by conducting a preliminary evaluation on bottomhole
hydrocarbon samples which included a single-stage gas-oil ratio (GOR), reservoir fluid
composition, and stock tank oil (STO) and monophasic fluid properties evaluations. From these
preliminary tests, three bottomhole samples were collected during the modular formation
dynamics testing (MDT) period and homogenized at reservoir conditions for five days. Based off
of initial validity testing on the three samples collected, the sample Prelim 1.03 was used for the
full PVT study. Appendix C provides a complete summary of testing results this sample. Using
this sample, a variety of tests were conducted as follows: a Constant Composition Expansion
(CCE) test at reservoir temperature, differential vaporization at reservoir temperature, a multistage separation test at specified conditions, and viscosity measurements of the oil at reservoir
temperature.
At a depth of approximately 8,722.2 feet MD, the bubble point pressure and initial
pressure at an average reservoir temperature of 165 F were determined to be 1,952 psia and
3,301 psia, respectively. The reservoir fluid viscosity of Sample 1.03 was measured to be 0.67 cP
at the bubblepoint pressure and 0.76 at the initial pressure, and the stock tank oil viscosity, at a
temperature of 165 F, was measured to be 2.47 cP. Table 2.1 provides the results of the different
flashing operations performed on Sample 1.03. Note that stock tank conditions are 14.696 psia
and 60 F.
Table 2.1. Summary of Flashing Operations Data for Sample 1.03.
17

Flash
Operation
Zero Flash
DL Flash,
Reservoir
Temp.
MS Separator
Test

Cumulative
GOR
(scf/stb)

API Gravity
(API)

Gas
Relative
Density

FVF at Res.
P&T
(bbl/stb)

FVF at Sat.
P&T
(bbl/stb)

613

34.9

1.019

1.353

1.371

591

36.4

0.963

1.327

1.344

521

36.7

0.911

1.296

1.314

Differential Vaporization (Liberation) Test

Oil Properties
Results from the differential liberation test for oil properties are available in Appendices
D and E. Graphs of the formation volume factor (FVF) and viscosity for oil from those results
are shown below in Figures 2.7 and 2.8. The oil FVF is shown as a function of differential
pressures with an increase in this value until the bubble point where it begins decrease as
pressure decreases. The maximum FVF for oil is 1.34 bbl/stb. As pressure decreases the solution
GOR trend also decreases. The liquid density had a measured volume of 0.719 g/cc at the
bubblepoint pressure and a plot of the density trend can be seen in Appendix I. As shown in
Figure 2.9, the oil viscosity which was measured at a reservoir temperature of 165 F ranges
from 0.5 cP and 1.5 cP in between the pressures of approximately 900 psia to 10,700 psia. The
viscosity values decrease with decreasing pressure until the bubblepoint. At the bubblepoint, the
viscosity increases with a further reduction in pressure below the saturation pressure.

18

Oil Formation Volume Factor

1.4
1.3

FVF, bbl/stb

1.2
1.1

Saturation Pressure, 1952

psia
1.0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Pressure, psia
Oil FVF

STO

Figure 2.7: Oil Formation Volume Factor Differential Liberation Test

Solution GOR
700.0
600.0
500.0
400.0
Solution GOR, scf/bbl

Saturation Pressure,
1952 psia

300.0
200.0
100.0

0.0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Pressure, psia
Rs

STO

Figure 2.8: Solution Gas Oil Ratio Differential Liberation Test

19

Oil Viscosity at Reservoir Temperature

3.0

Saturation
Pressure,
2.5
1952 psia
2.0
Viscosity, cP

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Pressure, psia
Viscosity

STO

Figure 2.9: Oil Viscosity Differential Liberation Test

Gas Properties
Results from the differential liberation test for gas properties are available in Appendices
D and E; plots of the gas deviation factor, gas gravity, and gas GOR can be seen below in Figures
2.10, 2.11 and 2.12. The deviation factor and gas gravity values tend to decrease a little before
starting to increase as pressure decreases. The total FVF values at saturation pressure and stock
conditions are 1.344 bbl/stb and 127.437 bbl/stb, respectively.

20

Z-Factor
1.04
0.99

Gas Deviation Factor

0.94
0.89
0.84
0

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Pressure, psia
Gas Deviation Factor

STO

Figure 2.10: Gas Deviation Factor Differential Liberation Test

Gas Gravity
1.5
1.3
1.1
Gas Gravity

0.9
0.7
0.5
0

200

400

600

800

1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Pressure, psia
Gas Gravity

STO

Figure 2.11: Gas Gravity Differential Liberation Test

21

Gas Formation Volume Factor

1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
FVF, scf/MMscf

600,000
400,000
200,000
0
0

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Pressure, psia
Gas FVF

STO

Figure 2.12: Gas Formation Volume Factor Differential Liberation Test

Compositional Data:
Compositions of the gas liberated at each differential pressure along with their molecular
weights are represented in Appendix E. The molecular weight of the residual liquid was
calculated to be 201.93 lbs/lbmol. From the differential vaporization test, the measured API
gravity of the residual oil was 36.3 API.

Multi-Stage Separation Test

The analysis from the multi-stage separation test, which includes the compositional data
of the separator gas and tank gas are, are summarized in Appendix F. The underlying assumption
in PVT testing is that at pressures below the bubble point, the process within a reservoir can be
simulated by differential vaporization (liberation) and the process from the bottom of the well to
the stock tank can be simulated by the separator test [14].

22

Oil FVF: Multi-Stage Separation Test

1.40
1.35
1.30
1.25
FVF, bbl/stb

1.20
1.15
1.10

Saturation Pressure, 1952 psia

1.05
1.00
0

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Pressure, psia

Measured FVF

Corrected FVF

Measured STO

Corrected STO

Figure 2.13: Oil Formation Volume Factor MultiStage Separation Test

Solution GOR: Multi-Stage Separation Test

700.0
600.0
500.0
400.0
Solution GOR, scf/bbl

300.0

Saturation Pressure, 1952 psia

200.0
100.0
0.0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Pressure, psia
Measured GOR

Corrected GOR

Figure 2.14: Solution GOR MultiStage Separation Test

23

A multi-stage separation test is used to establish optimal pressure settings for the surface
separator and the appropriate number of separation stages. Both of these factors are designed to
keep the light ends in the liquid phase to maximize liquid recovery. Multi-stage separation tests
are conducted to provide data that would reflect actual production when combined with the
differential liberation data.

Core Data
The following data/statistics were taken through analyzation of the all of the core data
taken throughout the Nechelik sand. The results of the field analyzation can also be seen below
in tables 2.2 and 2.3:
Table 2.2: Permeability Statistics
Permeability (mD)
Rang Averag
Mod
Well
Alpine 3
Bergschund 1
Fiord 1
Iapetus 2
Fiord 5 PB1
Nigliq 1
Temptation 1
FIELD

e
0.16
0.43
13.9
5.43
110
86.47
10.8

e
0.11
0.23
0.92
0.682
9.05
3.65
1.73

Median
0.1
0.19
0.5
0.31
2.08
0.21
0.85

e
N/A
N/A
0.2
0.4
2.56
0.05
0

Standard Deviation
0.07
0.12
1.6
1.39
20.17
11.35
2.59

110

3.53

0.42

0.2

11.65

Table 2.3: Porosity Statistics

Rang
Well
Alpine 3
Bergschund 1

e
2.7
4.7

Porosity (%)
Averag
Mod
e
10.18
11.81

Median
10.5
11.6

e
10.5
10

Standard Deviation
1.16
1.57
24

Fiord 1
Iapetus 2
Fiord 5 PB1
Nigliq 1
Temptation 1
FIELD

10
8
12.8
13.3
8.2
18.8

9.62
11.3
13.71
12.51
12.69
11.76

9.2
11.85
13.8
12.1
13
11.6

8.4
N/A
12.5
10.3
N/A
10.1

1.93
2.19
2.03
2.64
2.24
2.74

The porosity averages from the individual wells do not vary significantly from that of the
field average. The median and mode from the data all tend to lie within the 9 12% range. The
standard deviation from each well is significantly close to that observed throughout the entire
field. Because of these statistics you would expect the porosity throughout the field to exhibit a
normal distribution. When the porosity data was plotted on a histogram throughout the field, the
porosity data does in fact portray a normal distribution as shown below in Figure 2.15.

Field Porosity Distribution

120
100
80
Poro Frequency

60
40
20
0
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

22 More

Bin
Frequency

Moving average (Frequency)

Figure 2.15: Field Porosity Distribution

The permeability data in comparison to the porosity distribution shows a significant

amount of variation. The range is seen to vary from 110 md in the Fiord 5 PB1 to approximately
25

0.16 md in the Alpine 3. The average permeability throughout the field remains fairly low
however there are areas that portray a higher permeability than other areas of the reservoir. The
standard deviation is also rather sporadic when comparing wells and likewise when the well
values are compared to the field value. The basic histogram below shows the wide distribution of
values

Permeability Distribution
160
140
120
100
Perm Frequency

80
60
40
20
8

7
7.
5

6
6.
5

5
5.
5

4
4.
5

3
3.
5

2
2.
5

1
1.
5

0
0.
5

Bin
Moving average ()
Figure 2.16: Permeability Distribution

When the permeability data is placed under a logarithmic scale however, a normal
distribution is be observed.

26

Log Permeability Distribution

250
200
150
Perm Fequency

Moving average ()

100
50
0
0.01 0.1

10

100 1000 More

Log Bin

Figure 2.17: Lognormal Permeability Distribution

When looking at how these properties vary throughout the field it can be seen that as
porosity increases in the field, generally the permeability is seen to increase as well. This is
shown in Figure 2.18 below.

27

Permeability vs. Porosity

10

Permeability

1
0

10

15

20

25

Porosity

Figure 2.18: Permeability vs. Porosity

The reservoir quality moving down through the Nechelik formation was also analyzed.
Figure 2.19 below shows the permeability is greatest in the upper 40 feet of reservoir and tends
to decrease as you move deeper in the formation.

28

Feet From Top of N.S.S. vs. Permeability

180
160
140
120
100
Feet

80
60
40
20
0
0

0.01

0.1

10

100

1000

log perm

Figure 2.19: Depth of Nechelik Sand vs. Permeability

In order to get a better understanding of the flow behavior in the Nechelik formation,
reservoir quality index (RQI) and flow zone indication (FZI) were analyzed. This helped us
determine the effective formation thickness to be used in various calculations. When the FZI was
taken into account and compared against the RQI, it was seen that there is likely one or two
layers directly contributing to the production from the Nechelik formation. This can be seen in
Figure 2.20 below.

29

RQI vs. (z)

1

RQI

0.1

0.01
0.0

0.1

1.0

10.0

(Z)
RQI vs. Phi(z)
Figure 2.20: RQI vs. z

If more contributing zones were present, it would be represented with clusters of grouped
data points in the graph of RQI versus FZI shown below. Seeing one cluster of data points
indicates that the majority of the flow is coming from one contributing layer.

3. Drilling/Completions
Due to environmental restrictions, all drilling has to take place in the winter months. Ice
roads must be used to transport large equipment to location; presenting one of many challenges
operators face on the North Slope. Air travel must be used in the warmer months. Therefore,
wells are drilled and completed from the same rig to save time and space. The wells in interest
are all relatively new wells. The oldest well is the CD3-108 which was completed in April of
2005. Since then the wells have steadily been drilled each year. There were five wells drilled and
30

completed in 2006, two in 2007, three in 2008, two in 2009, six in 2010, four in 2011, one in
each 2012 & 2013 and one in 2015.

Well Design
The CD3 wells were all drilled in a similar fashion. They are drilled down to around
6700-6800 feet before they kick-off and continue horizontally into the formation. The wells are
oriented in a heel to heel pattern that can be seen in Figure 3.1. The largest lateral section is
between 9,000 and 10,000 feet and the shortest is closer to 5,000. All have a 16 conductor
casing that was set 114-116 feet deep. All wells then had a 9 5/8 surface casing set between
2400 -2500 feet. They then went to a 7 intermediate casing until around 7000 feet and installed
either a 4.5 inch or 3.5 inch production tubing. Typically there are 70-90 straight blade or
bowstring centralizers located throughout the casing string. Since the primary production of this
field is gas lift, there are gas lift mandrels located at varying depths in the producing wells. A
drilling/completion schematic can be seen below in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.1: Orientation of Wellbores

31

Figure 3.2: Casing/completion Diagram of CD3-107

Completions
Both open hole and fractured completions are seen in the field. The open hole
completions are done using slotted liners and in some cases they are left empty without any kind
of liner. They have had multiple wellbore collapses with these completions. The wells that were
fractured used a sliding sleeve tapered drop ball design and were designed with five to seven
stages. The design used both 16/20 and 16/30 sand with linear and x-link gels. An example of
32

this fracture design can be seen below in Figure 3.3. The producing wells that were drilled into
the southeastern portion of the reservoir were fractured and the injectors were left as open hole.
However the producing wells that were drilled in the northwestern portion are not all fractured.
Only four out of the eight producers are fractured, the other four are open hole completions that
have slotted liners.
There were also three side tracks drilled. The CD3-111L1 lateral was drilled because a
downhole tool failed while drilling the CD-111. This tool failure caused the well to be drilled too
deep, missing the targeted top layer of the Nechelik. They therefore sidetracked from the original
wellbore and open hole completed the well in the desired interval. This well produced for seven
years until they decide to return to the well and fracture the lower lateral. The CD3-107 is
another sidetracked well. The well was originally completed in the Kaparuk C formation but was
then drilled and completed open hole in the Nechelik in 2007. During the wells flow back period
the open hole collapsed and production from the Nechelik decreased greatly. The well was
sidetracked lower into the Nechelik in 2008 and the well was again completed open hole. The
third sidetrack well is the CD3-106. The lateral section of this well is located just west of the
lateral of the CD3-109. During the drilling/completion of the CD3-106 they noticed that the
CD3-109 lateral had collapsed past the first 3,000 feet. Therefore they decided to sidetrack the
CD3-106L1 next to the collapsed section of the CD3-109 and continue to produce the 3,000 feet
of undamaged lateral in the CD3-109.
The laterals were likely drilled in the direction of maximum stress. With the ocean to the
North and mountains to the South, the maximum stress would be expected in this direction. This
would be beneficial in the fracturing operations. Longitudinal fractures work best for flooding
reservoirs, drilling was likely done with this in mind. If the direction of maximum stress

33

assumption is correct, the direction of minimum horizontal stress would be perpendicular to the
orientation of the wells. These stresses create a situation with pore wellbore stability. This likely
led to the collapsed wellbores. In order to prevent the collapsing problem seen in several wells,
the lateral sections could have been cased and cemented.

Figure 3.4: CD3-199 Nechelik Fracture

34

4. Production Facilities/Artificial Lift

The facilities analysis was conducted using a facility diagram and Google Earth. The
actual pad was found on Google Earth so that a general footprint size could be calculated. The
wells being evaluated are located on the CD3 pad which is approximately 10.6 acres. The pad
has 33 wells on the location but only 23 wells that are completed in the Nechilik formation. A top
view of the pad from Google Earth can be seen in Figure 4.1. The facilities diagram was drawn
in April of 2011 so it does not include wells CD3-119 and CD3-130. However it is new enough
to have the majority of the actual equipment. The access road and airstrip enter the south eastern
side of the pad. The first equipment encountered is an emergency living quarters and storage
warehouse. Farther onto location there is a pigging module, fuel skid, production heater, test
separator, remote electrical and instrumentation module, chemical injection module, chemical
storage and well house. The wells are produced using gas lift; therefore there are several
compressors on location. The orientation of this equipment is shown below in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.1: CD3 Well Pad

35

Figure 4.2: CD3 Facility Diagram

5. Evaluation of Field Development

Production History
Using all information available, total field production and injection rates and cumulative
volumes were estimated on a per month basis. Gas production has little effect on the economic
analysis, as it is not sold but is used as a power source, is reinjected, or is flared. Gas is also
likely the least accurate data attained, for the same reason. Water will similarly have little
36

economic impact, as water is treated and injected, and the system is self-sufficiently powered.
Liquid volumes are likely very accurate, because oil is sold by pipeline and water is treated and
reinjected. Table 5.1 summarizes fluid totals as of November 2015. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show
historic field production rates and cumulative volumes. Figures 5.3 and 5.4 show historic field
injection rates and cumulative volumes.
Table 5.1. Fluid Totals
Oil
Water
Gas

Production
41.2 Million Bbls
30.7 Million Bbls
7.68 Billion SCF

Injection
76.6 Million Bbls
45.5 Billion SCF

Figure 5.1. Field Production Rates

37

Figure 5.2. Fields Cumulative Volumes Produced

Figure 5.3. Field Injection Rates

38

Figure 5.4. Fields Cumulative Injected Volumes

Production Forecasting
The current economic evaluation of the 26 Fiord Development wells drilled in the
Nechelik Sandstone, of the Colville River Unit. There are currently 13 producers and 10
injection wells. Production data available begins at April 1, 2006, and runs through November of
2015. Most of the early data was provided by the operator, and the most recent data was
extracted from the public data from the state of Alaska. The starting date for the evaluation was
chosen based on most recent production data, November 1, 2015.
Due to high porosity and permeability, combined with pressure maintenance from WAG
injection, the wells production forecasted using Arps law, and an exponential decline. Percent
decline values ranged from 4.3%/month to 0.5%/month. An example from well CD3-199 is
shown in Figure 5.5. The remaining forecasts are shown in Appendix J. The project remaining
recovery of the field is 16.4 MMbbls, with an estimated recovery factor of 24.9%

39

Figure 5.5. Sample Exponential Curve fitting CD3-199

6. Economics
Base Case Economic Evaluation
Economic evaluations were run on variety of economic scenarios, to establish sensitivity
to variables. Variables changed were: price of oil, variable cost ($/bbl), and fixed cost ($/month).
With a variety of scenarios ran, economic decisions can be made as more reliable information is
established, and as the producing environment changes. Oil price scenarios included a current
40

NYMEX oil price prediction (as of 2/1/2016), a price of $50/bbl with a 1%/year escalation, and
an optimistic $70/bbl with a 1%/year escalation. Operating variable costs were varied at $2/bbl,
$5/bbl, and $10/bbl. Fixed costs were varied at $1000/mo, $5000/mo, and $10000/mo. Much of
this information is proprietary, but the operator currently owns much of the infrastructure in
place benefitting economies of scale. The wells are also at one centralized surface location,
operating on a largely self-sufficient gas-lift and injection system. With this information, a less
conservative cost estimate can be taken. All scenarios were evaluated at a 15% discount rate. A
summary of these scenarios is shown in Figure 6.1.

41

Figure 6.1. NPV15 and Undiscounted Evaluations for the field by pricing Scenario. (Series by variable
cost)

The economic analysis shows that the fixed monthly cost has little impact on the value of
the field. This is due to the large volumes produced by the 13 wells. The fixed costs were used to
establish an economic limit for the field. The economic limit is only reached near 100 years of
evaluation. This shows that the driving factor effecting the profitability of the field comes down
to variable costs. This would likely come from chemicals and pipeline costs.

7. Moving Forward
Model
We need to discretize the model and establish porosity and permeability distribution. A
saturation profile needs to be created, along with the fluid models and PVT data. History
matching the model will be a large portion of the project after the model is established. This will
be particularly difficult with the WAG flood. The simulation will need to capture the producers
converting to injectors, and the drilling of the sidetracked laterals.

New Wells
The feasibility of new wells will need to be conducted moving forward. New wells will
likely be drilled to further develop the western edge of the pool. Infill drilling can be evaluated
using the model. This seems like a reasonable option due to the extremely long forecasted field
42

life. Accelerated production would likely benefit the field. This will be evaluated with different
pricing scenarios in the PEEP software.

43

Appendices
Appendix A: Alaska North Slope: Generalized Stratigraphy

44

Appendix B: Capillary Pressure Graphs

Oil-Water Capillary Pressure

200
150
100
50
Pcwo

Pcwo, psi
0
0.0

0.1

Pcwoi
0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.8

0.9

1.0

-50
-100
-150
Water Saturation

Gas-Oil Capillary Pressure

100
90
80
70
60
Pcgo, psi

50

Pcgo

40
30
20
10
0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Gas Saturation

45

Appendix C: Summary of PVT Study Results for Sample 1.03

46

Appendix D: Differential Liberation Test Summary Vapor Compositions

47

48

Appendix E: Differential Liberation Test

Summary Residual Oil Compositions

49

Appendix F: Multi-Stage Separation Test Vapor/Liquid Properties

50

Appendix G: Multi-Stage Separator Test

Summary Vapor Composition

51

Appendix H: Multi-Stage Separator Test Summary Residual Liquid Composition

52

Appendix I: Reservoir Fluid Property Plots

Liquid Density
0.82
0.80
0.78
Liquid Density, g/cc

0.76
0.74
0.72
0.70
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Pressure, psia
Liquid Density

STO

Gas Viscosity
0.018
0.016
0.014
Gas Viscosity, cP

0.012
0.010
0.008
0.006
0

200

400

600

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Pressure, psia

Gas Viscosity

STO

53

Appendix J: Well Forecasts (Individual)

54

55

56

57

58

59

References
[1] D. W. Houseknecht and K. J. Bird, "Sequence stratigraphy of the Kingak
Shale (Jurassic- Lower Cretaceous)," National Petroleum Reserve in
Alaska: AAPG Bulletin, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 279-302, 2004.
[2] Alaska Department of Natural Resources, "Alaska Department of Natural
Resources: Division of Oil & Gas," Department of Natural Resources,
2014. [Online]. Available:
http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/leasing/Documents/BIF/Alaska_Peninsula/AP_BI
F_FINAL_2014/Chp6_(Corrected)_TOC_12_01_14_FINAL.pdf. [Accessed 25
January 2016].
[3] R. J. Hubbard, S. P. Edrich and R. P. Rattey, "Geologic evolution and
hydrocarbon habitat of the 'Arctic Alaska Microplate'," Marine and
Petroleum Geology, vol. 4, pp. 2-34, 1987.
[4] J. Scherr, S. M. Banet and B. J. Bascle, "Correlation Study of Selected
Exploration Wells from the North Slope and Beaufort Sea, Alaska," U.S.
Department of the Interior, [Online]. Available:
http://www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/BOEM/Oil_and_Gas_Energy_Program
/Resource_Evaluation/Geological_and_Geophysical_Data_Acquisition/MM
S91_0076CorrelationStudy.pdf. [Accessed 1 February 2016].
[5] K. J. Bird, "The framework geology of the North Slope of Alaska as
related to oil-source rock correlations: Alaskan North Slope Geology," in
SG 20: Alaska North Slope Oil-Rock Correlation Study: Analysis of North
Slope Crude, vol. I & II, L. B. Magoon and G. E. Claypool, Eds., American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, 1985, pp. 121-144.
[6] R. L. Detterman, H. N. Reiser, W. P. Brosge and J. T. Dutro, Jr., "PostCarboniferous Stratigraphy, Northern Alaska," Geological Survey
Professional Paper, vol. 19.16:886, no. 886, 1975.
[7] K. J. Bird, "Alaska: a twenty-first century petroleum province, Memoir
74," AAPA Memoir, vol. 74, pp. 137-165, 2001.
[8] K. J. Bird, "Ellesmerian petroleum system, North Slope of Alaska, U.S.A.,
Memoir 60," AAPG Memoir, vol. 60, pp. 339-358, 1994.
[9] K. E. Peters, L. B. Magoon, K. J. Bird, Z. C. Valin and M. A. Keller, "North
Slope, Alaska: Source rock distribution, richness, thermal maturity, and
petroleum charge," AAPG Bulletin, pp. 261-292, 2006.
[10] T. E. Moore, C. J. Potter, P. B. O'Sullivan, K. L. Shelton and M. B.
Underwood, "Two stages of deformation and fluid migration in the westcentral Brooks Range fold and thrust belt, northern Alaska: Deformation,
fluid flow, and reservoir appraisal in foreland fold and thrust belts,"
AAPG Hedberg Series, vol. 1, pp. 157-186, 2004.
[11] T. E. Moore, W. K. Wallace, K. J. Bird, S. M. Karl, C. G. Mull and J. T. Dillon,
"Geology of northern Alaska, Figure 2: Geologic Provinces of Alaska,"
The Geological Society of America, Anchorage, 1994.
60

[12] A. O. a. G. C. Commission, "Colville River Unit - Fiord Oil Pool," State of

Alaska, Anchorage, 2011.
[13] Weeks, Micaela - Production Geologist - BP , "Petroleum Geology of the
North Slope".
[14] W. J. D. McCain, The Properties of Petroleum Fluids, 2 ed., Tulsa,
Oklahoma: PennWell Books: PennWell Publishing Company, 1990, pp.
280-281.
[15] P. H. N. K. J. B. a. A. H. Travis L. Hudson, "EXPLORATION HISTORY (1964
2000) OF THE COLVILLE HIGH, NORTH SLOPE, ALASKA," State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources - Division of Geological and
Geophysical Surveys, Fairbanks, AK, 2006.

61