School of Engineering

COURSEWORK
SUBMISSION SHEET

All sections except the LATE DATE section must be completed and the declaration signed, for the
submission to be accepted.
Any request for a coursework extension must be submitted on the appropriate form (please refer to
http://www.rgu.ac.uk/academicaffairs/quality_assurance/page.cfm?pge=44250), prior to the due
date.
Due Date Date Submitted For official use only
23
rd
December 2013

23
rd
December 2013

LATE DATE

MATRIC No 1310182
SURNAME Parikh
FIRST NAME(S) Nilay
COURSE & STAGE

MSc Oil & Gas Engineering

MODULE NUMBER & TITLE ENM202 Facilities

ASSIGNMENT TITLE Field Development Report
LECTURER ISSUING COURSEWORK Mike Robinson

I confirm: (a) That the work undertaken for this assignment is entirely my own and that I have
not made use of any unauthorised assistance.
(b) That the sources of all reference material have been properly acknowledged.
[NB: For information on Academic Misconduct, refer to
http://www.rgu.ac.uk/academicaffairs/assessment/page.cfm?pge=7088]


Signed Nilay Parikh............................... Date ...23-12-2013...............................


Markers Comments














Marker

Grade

2












Gazelle Offshore Field Development Plan for Water
Injection
3

Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................. 4
2. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 5
2.1. Present Configuration .................................................................................. 5
2.2. Gazelle Reservoir Formation ..................................................................... 6
2.3. Production Forecast ...................................................................................... 6
2.4. Environment and Legal Policies ............................................................... 6
2.5. Other Development Activity ...................................................................... 6
3. Assumptions ............................................................................................................ 7
4. Development Options .......................................................................................... 8
4.1. Option 1 ............................................................................................................ 8
4.2. Option 2 ............................................................................................................ 8
4.3. Option 3 ............................................................................................................ 8
5. Flow Schemes ......................................................................................................... 9
6. Economic Evaluation .......................................................................................... 12
7. Flow assurance issues ....................................................................................... 17
8. Critical Analysis .................................................................................................... 18
8.1. Economic Analysis ....................................................................................... 18
8.2. Platform Stability ......................................................................................... 18
8.3. Transportation and Flow Assurance ..................................................... 18
8.4. Decommissioning ........................................................................................ 19
8.5. Selecting recommended option ............................................................. 19
9. Decommissioning ................................................................................................ 20
10. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 22
11. References ............................................................................................................. 23


4

1. Executive Summary

This report evaluates the offshore field development options for the
Gazelle field to drill water injection and disposal wells. Three options were
identified and categorised based on development cost. Development plan
was selected after considering technical and economic analysis. Report
also includes decommissioning of the recommended option.
The option selected for water injection consists of using Floating
Production Storage and Offloading for oil and water handling with the
Capital investment of $ 902 mm with a return of $ 16937 mm at the end
of 12 years.

5

2. Introduction

Gazelle Offshore oil field is producing oil for six years and the production
has shift off-plateau with increasing water-cut. Plan is to drill water
injection wells to shift the oil production to present plateau rate.
Development plan includes drilling of six injection and four disposal wells.
Produced Oil from Gazelle field is transported to refinery Fort Thompson
located approximated 200 km south west of the field. Plan is to re-inject
some produced water into an upper horizon within the field.
According to the present configuration all the gross production is routed
through floating storage unit (FSU) from where oil is transported to
refinery via shuttle tankers. Present field configuration was designed for
no water production and current FSU is nearing its life after three years,
thus requires re-development of the field.
From the following information, options for Gazelle offshore oil field
development plan for developing water injection and handling system is
laid out. Selection of the recommended plan is based on Capital
Expenditure (CAPEX), Operating Expenditure (OPEX) and the flow
assurance issues.
2.1. Present Configuration
Currently there are two 50% trains each with 2 stages of 2-phase
separation on steel jacket in 100 m water depth and oil de-hydration
process depends on surge vessel to meet and tanker specifications. Oil is
metered prior to offloading.
Gas from the High Pressure separator and Low Pressure separators is
compressed and conditioned for use as fuel gas, gas from the surge
vessel plus any excess is flared. Produced water is allowed to settle in the
FSU tanks prior to overboard discharge.

6

2.2. Gazelle Reservoir Formation
Gazelle field is located 45km from the nearest landfall to the North West.
Field characteristics Gazelle Upper Gazelle Deep
Reservoir depth 10,000 ft 12,000 ft
Oil water contact: 10,200ft 12,400 ft
Bubble-point: 3,800 psia 3,800 psia
Initial Gas oil ratio: 450 scf/bbl 500 scf/bbl
Initial pressure: 5000 psia 6100 psia
Light, sweet crude 36
0
API. 36
0
API
Expectation STOOIP 300 mmbbl 450 bbl
2.3. Production Forecast
Gas lift and two production-wells may be required in the future to
enhance the productivity. Two injection wells may also be required.
Decline Water Injection
Year Net Oil kbpd Water Cut % Net Oil kbpd Water Cut %
1 75 15 75 15
2 56 71.7 76 14
3 42 20.9 74 16
4 32 24.6 70 18
5 24 29.1 69 21.8
6 18 34.3 70 26.4
7 13 40.5 63 31.9
8 10 47.8 57 38.6
9 8 56.4 51 46.7
10 6 66.5 46 56.5
11 4 78.5 41 68.4
12 3 92.6 37 82.7
2.4. Environment and Legal Policies
Gazelle field is now considered for standalone in economic and fiscal
terms and no flaring of excess production gas is allowed. All the
discharges must meet minimum accepted international standards of
environmental discharge.
2.5. Other Development Activity
Other operators have exploration license and are 50-75 km in the east of
Gazelle field. Depending upon the success of exploration wells, operators
are currently evaluating development plans.

7

3. Assumptions

Weather at the Gazelle field is favourable.

Subsea temperatures are moderately low.

Production wells and to be drilled injection wells are in the vicinity.

For cost estimation, inflation and royalties and are neglected.

Produced gas will be used up as fuel gas for turbines and utilities and
there is enough power generation for run the facility.

All facilities are readily available in the market and when required are
installed on the platforms.

All the legal permits are obtained for decommissioning.

Oil price will remain constant at $ 75/bbl for 12 years.

Fort Thompson has enough capacity for process increased production

All the required wells are drilled within one year and shuttle tanker is
still in use till the pipeline is laid out.


8

4. Development Options
4.1. Option 1
Development plan includes refurbishment of existing FSU after 3 years.
Subsea wells will be drilled and will tie-back to FSU by subsea manifolds.
Oil and water treatment modules will be installed on FSU. Oil is exported
to Fort Thompson by shuttle Tanker. Water injection module will also be
placed on FSU and water will be injected through booster pumps.
4.2. Option 2
Development plan includes decommissioning of existing FSU and
replacing it with Jack-up platform. Platform will be constructed with 12
slots, 6 for water injection wells, 4 for disposal wells and 2 for future
production wells and the new jack-up platform will be bridged to the
existing steel jacket. Dry wells will be drilled by renting a Jack-up rig. Oil
treatment, water treatment and water injection modules will be installed
on jack-up platform. 2-Phase separator is also replaced with 3-phase
separator on steel jacket. Oil is exported to Fort Thompson by pipeline
and water will be injected through booster pumps.
4.3. Option 3
Development plan includes decommissioning of existing FSU and
replacing it with Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO). FPSO
will be constructed with 12 slots, 6 for water injection wells, 4 for
disposal wells and 2 for future production wells. Subsea wells will be
drilled and will tie-back to FPSO by subsea manifolds. 2-Phase separator
will also be replaced with 3-phase separator on steel jacket. Oil
treatment, water treatment and water injection modules will be installed
on FPSO. Oil will be exported to Fort Thompson by shuttle Tanker via
Single Buoyed Mooring (SBM) and water will be injected through booster
pumps.
9

5. Flow Schemes



S
t
o
r
a
g
e

H
P

-
2

S
t
a
g
e

S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r

L
P

-
2

S
t
a
g
e

S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r

D
e
s
a
l
t
e
r





G
r
a
v
i
t
y

s
e
g
r
e
g
a
t
i
o
n

S
e
g
e
S
e
g
r
a

F
i
g
u
r
e

1

:

F
l
o
w

D
i
a
g
r
a
m

f
o
r

O
p
t
i
o
n

1

F
l
u
i
d
s

O
i
l

E
f
f
l
u
e
n
t

L
i
q
u
i
d

O
i
l
+
W
a
t
e
r

O
i
l

F
o
r
t

T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n

S
a
n
d

c
y
c
l
o
n
e

a
n
d

c
a
r
t
r
i
d
g
e

f
i
l
t
e
r


H
y
d
r
o
c
y
c
l
o
n
e
s

W
a
t
e
r

I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n

G
a
s

G
a
s

F
u
e
l

a
n
d

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

F
S
U

S
T
E
E
L

J
A
C
K
E
T

S
h
u
t
t
l
e

H
P

&

L
P

c
o
m
p

M
O
L


P
u
m
p

D
i
s
p
o
s
a
l

W
e
l
l
s

B
o
o
s
t
e
r

p
u
m
p
s

O
i
l

10



S
t
o
r
a
g
e

H
P

-
3

S
t
a
g
e

S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r

L
P

-
3

S
t
a
g
e

S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r

C
o
a
l
e
s
c
e
r

D
e
s
a
l
t
e
r





F
i
g
u
r
e

2

:

F
l
o
w

D
i
a
g
r
a
m

f
o
r

O
p
t
i
o
n

2

F
l
u
i
d
s

O
i
l

E
f
f
l
u
e
n
t

E
f
f
l
u
e
n
t

E
f
f
l
u
e
n
t

O
i
l

O
i
l

F
o
r
t

T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n

S
a
n
d

c
y
c
l
o
n
e

a
n
d

c
a
r
t
r
i
d
g
e

f
i
l
t
e
r


H
y
d
r
o
c
y
c
l
o
n
e
s

G
a
s

G
a
s

F
u
e
l

a
n
d

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

J
A
C
K
-
U
P

P
L
A
T
F
O
R
M

S
T
E
E
L

J
A
C
K
E
T

M
O
L


P
u
m
p

P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e

H
P

&

L
P

c
o
m
p

W
a
t
e
r

I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n

D
i
s
p
o
s
a
l

W
e
l
l
s

B
o
o
s
t
e
r

p
u
m
p
s

O
i
l

11



S
t
o
r
a
g
e

H
P

-
3

S
t
a
g
e

S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r

L
P

-
3

S
t
a
g
e

S
e
p
a
r
a
t
o
r

C
o
a
l
e
s
c
e
r

D
e
s
a
l
t
e
r

S
h
u
t
t
l
e

v
i
a

S
B
M




F
i
g
u
r
e

3
:

F
l
o
w

D
i
a
g
r
a
m

f
o
r

O
p
t
i
o
n

3

F
l
u
i
d
s

O
i
l

E
f
f
l
u
e
n
t

E
f
f
l
u
e
n
t

E
f
f
l
u
e
n
t

O
i
l

O
i
l

M
O
L


P
u
m
p

F
o
r
t

T
h
o
m
p
s
o
n

S
a
n
d

c
y
c
l
o
n
e

a
n
d

c
a
r
t
r
i
d
g
e

f
i
l
t
e
r


H
y
d
r
o
c
y
c
l
o
n
e
s

G
a
s

G
a
s

F
u
e
l

a
n
d

U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

F
P
S
O

S
T
E
E
L

J
A
C
K
E
T

H
P

&

L
P

c
o
m
p

W
a
t
e
r

I
n
j
e
c
t
i
o
n

D
i
s
p
o
s
a
l

W
e
l
l
s

B
o
o
s
t
e
r

p
u
m
p
s

O
i
l

12

6. Economic Evaluation
Table shows the cash flows for all the options and option 2 and 3
provides the most the return on investment. Cost to drill a barrel of oil
for all the option is as follows:

cum
oil
$mm
cum
CAPEX
$mm
cum
OPEX
$mm
$/bbl
Decline Base Case 106 100 1036 10.71
Option 1 : Refurbish GAZELLE & FSO 266 1013 1962 11.18
Option2 : Replace GAZELLE complete
and Pipeline
266 1283 1748 11.39
Option 3 : Replace GAZELLE & FPSO 266 902 2122 11.36
Table 1 : Economic Evaluation
From the following cash flow it clearly states that, there would be more
return from the field if the water injection is carried out.

13



T
a
b
l
e

2

:

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

D
e
c
l
i
n
e

c
u
r
v
e

14

T
a
b
l
e

3

:

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

O
p
t
i
o
n

1

15


T
a
b
l
e

3

:

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

O
p
t
i
o
n

2

16



T
a
b
l
e

5

:

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

O
p
t
i
o
n

3

17

7. Flow assurance issues
Flow assurance issues should be properly planned and addressed because
it may stop the production of oil and rectification and cleaning of pipeline
and flow-lines may be require high cost. Pigging is carried out if the
pipeline gets choked. Following table shows the possibility of flow
assurances in the Gazelle field and their likely solutions. (Brown, L. 2002)
(Pipelineandgasjournal.com. 2013)
Flow
Assurance
Problems
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Mitigations
Hydrates
There are chances of
hydrate formation in
the production flow-
line near subsea
valves when
production is
stopped.
There are
chances of
hydrate
formation
in export
pipeline
Methanol injection from
production wellhead and
heat retention in export
pipeline
Scales
Deposition of scales in the tubing,
flow-lines, water treatment and
vessel
Injecting scale inhibiting
chemicals during water
handling and
maintaining low PH.
Inhibitors are injected
from iindividual
wellheads and Water
outlet from each LP
separator
Slugging
It can be found in the production
tubing
Emulsions can be
broken by heating or
demulsifying chemical
injection. Drag reducing
agent (DRA) will be
used in the oil export
lines
Sand
Sand deposition can
be found in water
injection flow line.
Apart from
the flow-
line, sand
can also
deposit in
export
pipeline
Sand Hydro cyclones
will be used to remove
sand content and sand
settling is avoided by
maintaining velocities
above a minimum
velocity in pipelines.
Corrosion
Corrosion of
production and water
injection flow-lines
It is also
found in
export
pipeline
Inhibitors and Corrosion
Resistance Alloys and
they are injected at
suction of each MOL
booster pump. Cathodic
protection is also used
to protect export
pipelines
Table 6 : Flow Assurance Problems and Mitigation
18

8. Critical Analysis
8.1. Economic Analysis
Economic analysis for each option is performed and analysis narrows
down to Option 2 and 3.
cum
CAPEX
($mm)
cum
OPEX
($mm)
Cum Cash flow
(Revenue
CAPEX - OPEX)
Decline Base Case 100 1036 6816
Option 1 : Refurbish
GAZELLE & FSO
1013 1962 16725
Option 2 : Replace
FSU with Jack-up
1283 1748 16930
Option 3 : Replace
FSU with FPSO
902 2122 16937
Table 7 : Economic analysis for all options
Option 2 has high CAPEX - low OPEX and vice versa for option 3 but both
the options will gives same return over the period of 12 years and so the
selection of the development choice will be based on the other factors.
8.2. Platform Stability
In Option 2, Jack-up platform is to be installed will have legs lowered to
the sea beds and if the currents are faster than sand at the bottom could
wash away and would cause collapse of the platform. Moreover collapse
can also occur in the event of blowout and fire. So Jack-up platform can
possess stability issue.
On the other hand in Option 1 and Option 3, Platforms are floating
system and are less prone to subsea activities and will not possess
collapse issue as in option 1. Moreover in Floating structure, Turret and
swivel allows vessel to orient according to weathervane. This analysis
tends to be more towards floating Production System and based on
economic evaluation, Option 3 is suited.
8.3. Transportation and Flow Assurance
In option 1, treated oil is exported by pipeline to Fort Thompson and it
may impose flow assurance problems like scale and sand deposition,
corrosion and hydrates formation.
19

In option 1 and 3, treated oil is suggested to ship via shuttle tanker
which reduces flow assurance problems found in pipeline. However any
disruption in shuttle tanker services may affect the oil production due to
oil storage problem.
8.4. Decommissioning
Decommissioning of floating platforms in option 1 and 3 are easier due to
inherent buoyancy and mobility than compared to fixed platform which is
suggested in option 2. Moreover the decommissioning cost of floating
platform is less than fixed jacket and also the installation time of the
floating platforms would also be less than fixed platforms.
8.5. Selecting recommended option
Evaluation the above the criteria will narrow down the selection of the
recommended option and it is shown in the below table:
Criteria Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Economic Analysis
Recommended Recommended
Platform Stability Recommended Recommended
Transportation and
Flow Assurance
Recommended Recommended
Decommissioning
Recommended Recommended
From the above evaluation Option 1 and 3 are recommended but Option
1 is ruled out from the economic point of view and moreover there would
be a lapse in production for one year, so Option 3 is recommended which
is replacing FSU with FPSO.

20

9. Decommissioning
Decommissioning of the installation would be carried out at the end of 12
years. Decommissioning of steel jacket and FPSO will be carried out
according to the following process with environmental regulations.
FPSO
SBM and FPSO would be towed to the shore and would be placed
elsewhere, since it would remain in working condition.
Well Plugging
Before the well plugging, well tubings and any down-hole
instruments are retrieved prior to plugging the well and residual oil
is removed by brine. [Iyalla. I, 2013]
Well plugging would be carried out by 3 cement plug.
o Plug 1- squeezed into the producing zones
o Plug 2- in the middle of the well, near a protective Casing shoe
o Plug 3- the surface plug typically 250 ft. below the mud-line
Well heads and Dry Christmas tree would be removed and flow-lines will
be flushed and abandoned in-situ.
Conductor removal
After the plugging of the wells, Conductors below the mudline are
removed with the help jacks.
Topside Removal
Removal of the topside modules will be carried out in the reverse process
of the installation and it would be transported to the shore.
Steel Jacket
The steel jacket will be cut at the legs and transported to shore where it
will be refurbished or recycled. Diamond wire cutting system will be used
to cut the jacket.
Umbilical
Umbilical and control equipment would be retrieved.



21


Subsea installations
Installation Plan
Subsea Christmas trees

The subsea trees will be removed
to reuse
Subsea wellheads Wellheads will be left in place
Subsea manifolds. Manifolds will be flushed with water
and abandoned in situ.


Figure 4 : Well plugging Scheme
Source:
(http://www.kosmosenergy.com/eias/Jubilee_Field_EIA_Chapter_8_23Nov09.pdf)
22

10. Conclusion
From the analysis performed, for Gazelle offshore field development
Option 3 is the best suited which gives a profit of $ 16937 mm with the
investment of $ 902 mm. So FPSO will be used to inject water for
obtaining required pressure to produce oil. Oil will be exported to Fort
Thompson by shuttle Tanker via SBM and water will be injected through
booster pumps.
23

11. References

Iyalla. I, 2013. Class lectures, ENM 202.[Lecture notes].
Decommissioning Legislation. Facilities module, Robert Gordon
University, Energy Centre, School of Engineering, .[Accessed 18
December 2013].
Brown, L. 2002. Flow Assurance: A
3
Discipline.
http://subsites.bp.com. 2013. Azeri, Chirag & Gunashli Full Field
Development Phase 3, Offshore Platform Production. [online]
Available at:
http://subsites.bp.com/caspian/ACG/Eng/Phase3_v2_nov_04/05%
20Ch05_09-
04/05%20Chapt%205%20PD%20Section%205.5%20Process_ENG
_FINAL_Oct%2004.pdf [Accessed: 19 Dec 2013].
http://www.kosmosenergy.com. 2009. DECOMMISSIONING AND
ABANDONMENT. [online] Available at:
http://www.kosmosenergy.com/eias/Jubilee_Field_EIA_Chapter_8
_23Nov09.pdf [Accessed: 20 Dec 2013].
Pipelineandgasjournal.com. 2013. Integrated Flow Assurance
Solutions | Pipeline & Gas Journal. [online] Available at:
http://www.pipelineandgasjournal.com/integrated-flow-assurance-
solutions?page=show [Accessed: 19 Dec 2013].
Bibliography
Arnold, K. and Stewart, M. 2008. Surface production operations.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.



24