Fulmar Field

- UP862960
- UP809297
- UP864820
- UP819524
Lecturer: Dr Kanad Kulkarni - UP859927
- UP874944
- UP841691
- UP834912
 General Outline

● Fulmar is an offshore oil and gas field located in the UK

sector of the Northern Sea.
● 312 km east of Scotland, Dundee.
● Block 30/16 and Block 30/11b
● It was discovered in 1975 and appraised in 1977.
● Fulmar was established a commercialised well in 1982
Opinions on Fulmar Oil Field. (2019).
Retrieved from
http://www.writeopinions.com/fulmar-
oil-field
 ● Fulmar is operated by Repsol Sinopec but was
previously operated by Shell until 2006.
● Large Triangular dome shape.
● Partially eroded as time has passed.
● Upper Jurassic formations, shallow marines and
bioturbated sandstone.
● Located on a fault line known as The Western
Margin of the South West Central Graben.

Fig 1.2 ("Repsol Sinopec Resources UK Limited", 2019)

Fig 1.3 ("Platform overhaul, well interventions extend service life of North Sea
Fulmar complex", 2019)
 ● Average water depth of 265ft (81m)

● Total oil recovery of 427 x 106

● Hydrocarbons found at Fulmar are 40° API

69% Total oil recovery due to:

Fig 1.4 ("Opinions on Fulmar Oil Field", 2019)
● Well density.

● Excellent reservoir quality.

● oil stripping from secondary gas cap rock formed in early field life.
Field basin

• Lies at South-West Central Graben

•The first place where oil was discovered in
Jurassic reservoirs of North Sea Central
Graben.
• The oil discovered 1979 at Permian
Zechstein carbonates and Rotliegend
sandstones were the first place was the first
from the Fulmar field to be used
Geology Basin

● The geological basin: is the depression or the large low lying area.
● The structural framework: includes the Cenozoic, Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic and
Carboniferous – Permian
Stratigraphy
•Lithological study (lithosphere): physical
structure: fine-grained and pebbles (Moros, 2017)
“arkosic glauconitic” (carbonate cemented &
argillaceous).
“Raxella” spicules and bioclastic debris are found
bioturbated
•Upper boundary: consists of mudstone in the
starting and sandstone when downward transition
(Raghavan, 2018)
•Lower boundary: Different deposits are present
from Triassic to Devonian. The main composition of
lower boundary consists of grey sandstone and
Triassic red beds. The Triassic red bed has mudstone
and silty sandstone (Harris, 2014)
Deposition History
● Three tectonics processes: (O. Kuhn et al, 2003):
1.Halokinesis,
2.Syndepositional reactivation of Caledonian basement faults
3.Syndepositional through post-depositional displacements along the nearby
Auk Horst Boundary Fault

● The field reservoir has 6 units (O. Kuhn et al, 2003):

Member I: Ribbles and Avon Units
Member II: Clyde Unit is capped by inadequate sequence sandstone in the eastern flank
Member III: Usk, Forth, Mersey, Lydell Units Clyde Unit
Shales of the Kimmeridge Clay Formation

- TOC: 5%
- Oil migration: Early to Middle Tertiary
- Olive-green, pale-gray, black in colour

Fig. 2.5 Shale of the Kimmeridge Clay Formation

 Fulmar Field Reservoir Constituents
Formation Member Reservoir Unit

Kimmeridge Clay Formation Ribble Sands 1.1

Avon Shale 1.2

Fulmar Formation Mersey Sands 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5

(Fulmar Main Sands)

Lydell Sands 4.1a, 4.1b, 4.2

Usk Sands 5.1, 5.2a, 5.2b, 5.2c, 5.3

Forth Sands 6.1, 6.2

Fig. 2.6 Fulmar Field SW-NE cross section
 Porosity, N/G and Kh field averages for the stratigraphic units in the Fulmar Field

Reservoir Unit Field average Field average Field average

porosity 𝞼 N/g 𝞼 Kh 𝞼

1.1 0.26 0.027 0.822 0.093 1012 318

3.1 0.25 0.033 0.990 0.021 784 631

3.2 0.24 0.028 0.998 0.011 608 367

3.3 0.22 0.036 0.961 0.140 588* 510*

3.4 0.23 0.032 0.988 0.142 595* 533*

3.5 0.22 0.032 0.563 0.360 51 113

4 0.22 0.022 0.999 0.001 624 347

5.1 0.20 0.021 0.980 0.032 203 239

5.2a 0.17 0.006 0.920 0.160 2.8 1.86

5.2b,5.2c 0.19 0.011 0.988 0.040 6.2 2.08

5.3 0.22 0.023 0.999 0.061 156 8.15

6 0.17 0.006 0.161 0.180 <0.5 329

Trap

- Small, triangularly shaped anticline

- Area of 11.3 sq kilometres

- South-western seal provided by

Kimmeridge Clay Formation shales

- North-eastern side is trapped with

Upper Cretaceous Chalk formation
Fig. 2.7 Top Fulmar Formation structural depth map
Exploration History

● The field was discovered in 1975. However production didn’t begin until February 1982.
● Fulmar oil field is an high relief reservoir which has a water depth of 270ft.
● The producing formation of the Fulmar field is an upper Jurassic sandstone.
● A pre-production seismic survey was tested on the field in 1977.
Exploration History

● A 2-D seismic shot was ran on the field during its earlier
stages of being explored. The 2-D seismic shot was done over
the whole Auk-Fulmar field operation.

● There was two seismic shots that was ran on the field, with the
first seismic shot taking place in 1970 and the second one in
1974.

● A small closure was discovered after the two seismic shots

was ran on the field, which gave an interpretation that there
was a possible oil reserve beneath the formation.

● In 1975 the structure of the Fulmar oil field was tested by

Shell and Esso. With the results coming back with a positive
Fig. 3.1 Auk North & Fulmar Overall Field Layout
feedback that the Fulmar formation had a good reservoir
quality.
Exploration History
● The first appraisal well was drilled in 1977
which was located in block 30/16-7. It was
600m southwest of the discovery well.
● A seismic data was ran on the field which
created an awareness that there was a vastly
plunging flank.
● Which was one of the reasons why the
appraisal well was drilled as it would test the
flank.
● After the appraisal well was drilled a second
reservoir was discovered which was within the
Kimmeridge Clay sector.
● The second reservoir had a thickness of 139ft,
it was 94ft away from the main fulmar field
area.
● After the discovery of two oil bearing wells it
was decided that the addition of more appraisal
wells wasn’t necessary and was considered
redundant.
Discovery
● There was a few discoveries that was unveiled during the exploration of the Fulmar field.
● On the northern region of the field it was discovered that there was a hollow oil water contact
(OWC), which signalled the fact that the sand on the field had a difficult fault and stratigraphy.
● In addition it was discovered that there was a truncation within the formation of the reservoir,
this commended the idea that there was a possibility of an unconformity that contained oil and
gas.
● Lastly it was discovered that the field had a poor reservoir quality within the eastern region of
the field, which meant that there was a poor sorting of hydrocarbon in that region of the field.
Initial Exploration Data and Exploration Stages
● In 1970 and 1974, 2D seismic data was used to find a closure beneath an unconformity.
● In 1975, the first well drilled in the Fulmar field was a discovery well, which hit a column of oil 668ft deep.
● This oil was above a oil water contact at 10840 ft TVD.
● The second well was an appraisal well, it hit a column of oil that 139ft deep.
● This reservoir was separated from the original reservoir by 94ft of shale.
● This reservoir was called the Ribble sands.
● The field had a STOIIP of 934 million barrels (MMBBL).
● Ultimate recovery of the field was expected to be around 468 MMBBL.
Current State
● The Fulmar field is currently a operating field.
● On the 15th of Sept 2018, the field was producing around 1000 barrels of Hydrocarbons a day.
● 900 of those barrels Oil and 100 Gas.
● On the same day the field produced 1600 barrels of water.
● There are 23 production wells and 14 injection wells.
● Only 6 production wells and 5 injection wells are currently in use.
● The field is currently owned by Repsol Sinopec.
● They acquired the field in 2006 from Shell.
● The field is planned for decommissioning in 2020.
● This is because of the low production numbers.
Current State

Figure 1: Chart of Barrels per Day of the Fulmar field from 1982 to the 15th of
September of 2018.
Recovery
Summarized history of the volume of hydrocarbon recovery.

Mar 1982 Fulmar began recovering 27,770 barrels of oil equivalent in the first month, with as little as zero
water being recovered. (Approximately 0% watercut)

Apr 1985 Recovery rates were on a rise until 1985 where production was temporarily ceased for the month of
June, July and parts of August.

Dec 1987 Production later proceeded to rise, reaching a peak of 334,216 barrels of oil equivalent in the month
of December.

Jan 1988 January 1988, secondary recovery production begun by water injection.
Other than an incident on January 1989 caused by the failure of the anchoring system, which caused
a temporary cessation to production; recovery began to decrease.
Recovery
Recovery
The initial oil in place was 822 MMBBL and gas initially in place 498 BSCF.

Overall Fulmar was a huge success, achieving a 76% oil and gas recovery factor. (Lammey.
Energyvoice, 2018)

Fulmar produced the most amount of hydrocarbons within the neighbouring oil fields by far.
However, by 1991 oil production subsequently declined, and at the end of 1999 the field was
producing around 7800 BOPD and 100,500 BBL/day of water. (Kuhn, Smith, Van Noort, Loiseau.
Geoscience world, 2013)

= 92.798% Water Cut

Current Status
As of 2019, Fulmar has ceased production. However, it’s not the end of the fields life.

Fulmar will now be part of a network of multiple neighbouring oil & gas fields to provide
a reliable source of gas to a main hub; Shearwater.

Shearwater Elgin has recently modified it’s platform and installed a 23 mile pipeline from
fulmar, to allow wet gas to flow from it.

Shearwater isn’t only producing from Fulmar, however it is expected to produce as much
as 400 million cu ft. of gas a day.
The new Fulmar Gas Line

● The Fulmar platform is now no

longer needed.

● Fulmar is part of the SEGAL (Shell

Esso Gas Associated Liquids)
pipeline

● Recovered Gas is being processed at

St. Fergus plant, North east of
Scotland

Royal Dutch Shell group.

5. Conclusions
Fulmar Oilfield has an excellent total oil recovery of 427 million barrels

Overall oil recovery factor of 69% and overall recovery factor of 76%

High recovery of oil based on groundbreaking methods by Shell and Respol Sinopec
Solutions and Further Works
Careful maintenance of the plant ensured that the Fulmar oilfield maximised the
recovery of oil in the way of:
1) Platform upgrades
•Internal cleaning of deluge piping to restore functionality
•Upgrading heating ventilation and air conditioning in the temporary refuge and
process modules, with all dampers replaced
•Upgrading passive fire protection, lifeboats, and small bore tubing
•Repair of the jacket, including fitting clamps to the platform legs
•Increased painting for fabric maintenance
•Application of biocide to suppress corrosion in pipework and vessels
•Upgrade of controls and repairs to process control valves
•Water injection system changes
Fulmar Improvements
Talisman Sinopec has upgraded the 30-year-old Fulmar platform to ensure continued service. To
improve well availability Talisman Sinopec devised a coiled tubing intervention campaign.

Following a subsurface review, the company drew up a list of well opportunities, which were
prioritized based on incremental reserves, initial rates, and risks. Three crest-ally located production
wells were chosen for the campaign, which was performed during 2011-12.

Talisman Sinopec also reinstated a shut-in producer well and a wireline intervention campaign for
re-perforations and water shut-offs. As well as this a major refurbishment of the Fulmar platform's
rig, which was last used to drill in 2002, was undertaken in 2014. This provided more opportunities
for infill drilling, workovers, well abandonment, and near-field exploration.
Fulmar Oilfield Today
● The Fulmar Oilfield has now ceased production of oil. However instead of
decommissioning the plant immediately, it began its next phase of its life, becoming
a dedicated oil export station for the rest of the Fulmar area.
● The Fulmar oilfield is now part of a network of many reservoirs exporting wet gas to
a main hub called Shearwater, owned by Shell.
● This ultimately would reduce costs because as operators keep on investing in the
pipeline network, smaller deposits don’t get stranded or rendered uneconomic. In
general, the North Sea still needs a mammoth £1 trillion investment to tap into all the
remaining oil and gas reserves.
References

1. Aigner, T. and Reineck, H.E. (1982). Proximity trends in modern storm sands from the Helgoland Bight (North Sea) and their implications for basin analysis, Senckenbergiana man. 14 183-215
2. Harris, E. C. (Ed.). (2014). Practices of archaeological stratigraphy. Elsevier.
3. Johnson, H. D., MacKay, T. A., & Stewart, D. J. (1986). The Fulmar Oil-field (Central North Sea): geological aspects of its discovery, appraisal, and development. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 3(2), 99-125.
4. Moros, M., Andersen, T. J., Schulz‐Bull, D., Häusler, K., Bunke, D., Snowball, I., ... & Hand, I. (2017). Towards an event stratigraphy for Baltic Sea sediments deposited since AD 1900: approaches and
challenges. Boreas, 46(1), 129-142.
5. O. Kuhn, S. W. Smith, K. Van Noort, B. Loiseau, 2003. The Fulmar Field, Blocks 30/16, 30/11b, UK North Sea, United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields Commemorative Millennium Volume, J. G. Gluyas, H. M. Hichens
6. Okwara, I. C., & Hampson, G. J. (2016, April). Sedimentological reappraisal of mass-flow sandstones, Fulmar formation play, UK central North Sea. In International Conference and Exhibition, Barcelona, Spain, 3-6
April 2016(pp. 75-75). Society of Exploration Geophysicists and American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
7. Raghavan, K. (2018, June). Clays in the Fulmar Sandstones of Central Graben North Sea-A Boon or Bane. In SPWLA 59th Annual Logging Symposium. Society of Petrophysicists and Well-Log Analysts, 14p
8. Vazquez, O., Young, C., Demyanov, V., Arnold, D., Fisher, A., MacMillan, A., & Christie, M. (2015). Produced-water-chemistry history matching in the Janice field. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 18(04),
564-576.
9. Stockbridge C.P., Gray D.I. (1991). The Fulmar Field, Blocks 30/16, 30/11b, UK North Sea. In Stockbridge C.P. et al.; Memoirs, Volume 14, p. 309-316, Geological Society, London
10. Gautier D. L. (2005). Kimmeridgian Shales Total Petroleum System of the North Sea Graben Province: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2204-C, 24p
11. Gadeken, L.L., Gartner M.L., Sharbak D.E., Wyatt D.F. (1991). The Interpretation of Radioactive Tracer Logs Using Gamma Ray Spectroscopy Measurements; The Log Analyst 32 (1): 24
12. Cornford C. (1998) Source rocks and hydrocarbons of the North Sea, in Glennie, K.W., ed., Petroleum geology of the North Sea (4th ed.): London, Blackwell Science Ltd., p. 376–462
13. Raghavan, K. (2018, June). Clays in the Fulmar Sandstones of Central Graben North Sea-A Boon or Bane; SPWLA 59th Annual Logging Symposium, 14p
14. Petersen H. I., Hertle M., Sulsbrück H., (2017). Upper Jurassic–lowermost Cretaceous marine shale source rocks (Farsund Formation), North Sea: Kerogen composition and quality and the adverse effect of oil-based mud
contamination on organic geochemical analyses; International Journal of Coal Geology 173 26–39
15. Neil S. Fishman, Paul C. Hackley, Heather A. Lowers, Ronald J. Hill, Sven O. Egenhoff, Dennis D. Eberl, Alex E. Blum, The nature of porosity in organic-rich mudstones of the Upper Jurassic Kimmeridge Clay
Formation, North Sea, offshore United Kingdom, International Journal of Coal Geology, Volume 103, 2012, Pages 32-50, (2019). Retrieved from https://www.repsolsinopecuk.com/decommissioning/fulmar/faq
16. Oil And Gas Authority. (2018). Retrieved from https://data-ogauthority.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/production
17. Repsol Sinopec. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.repsolsinopecuk.com/files/ICOP_Fulmar_2017.pdf
18. Lammey, Mark. Energyvoice (2018). New chapter stats on Fulmar installation as production stops. https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/183535/new-chapter-starts-on-fulmar-installation-as-production-
stops/ /
19. Unknown Author. OffshoreEnergyToday (2018). Shell sanctions its 7th North Sea project of 2018 – Shearwater gas hub. https://www.offshoreenergytoday.com/shell-sanctions-its-7th-north-sea-project-of-2018-
shearwater-gas-hub/
20. Royal Dutch Shell group. Picture retrieved on 19th March 2018 from https://royaldutchshellgroup.com/tag/shell-north-sea-platforms/
21. Sandrea, I. Sandrea, R. (2007) Global oil reserves-1: Recovery factors leave fast target for EOR technologies https://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-105/issue-41/exploration-development/global-oil-reserves-1-
recovery-factors-leave-vast-target-for-eor-technologies.html
22. Watts, R. (2017, September 12). Upstream Online | Latest oil and gas news. Retrieved 19 March, 2019, from https://www.upstreamonline.com/live/1345192/fulmar-crane-incident-injures-two
23. •Watts, R. (2019, January 08). UK set for rise in exploration wells. Retrieved March 19, 2019, from https://www.upstreamonline.com/hardcopy/1663426/uk-set-for-rise-in-exploration-wells
24. Lammey, M. (2018, October 11). New chapter starts on Fulmar installation as production stops. Retrieved 19 March, 2019, from https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/183535/new-chapter-starts-on-fulmar-
installation-as-production-stops/
25. Fraser, D. (2018, December 10). BBC News. Retrieved 19 March, 2019, from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-46506705
Thank you for listening!

Any questions?