Enhancing the Oil Potential of Secondary Triassic Reservoirs in the Beryl A Field, UK North Sea

  • D. O’Donnell
Part of the Special Publication of the European Association of Petroleum Geoscientists book series (3148, volume 3)

Abstract

The Beryl A field is a north-south trending tilted fault block structure in Block 9/13 of the UK Sector of the northern North Sea. As production from the main reservoir, the Jurassic Beryl Formation, declines the need to offset this decline with production from the Triassic and other secondary reservoirs becomes more important. Extensive remapping and recorrelation of the Triassic reservoirs has led to a better understanding of reservoir distribution and performance. Hydraulic fracturing has been used to improve the economic viability of the Triassic reservoirs. So far, two wells have had their initial flow rates doubled and total recovery is estimated to have increased by 1 million barrels (MMbbl) per well.

The Triassic Lewis Formation reservoirs are mainly confined to the crestal region of the Beryl A structure. Estimated STOIIP is 324 MMbbl, 20% of the total STOIIP for the field. Significant additional potential resources exist in downthrown terraces to the east. Formation lithologies are interbedded lacustrine shales and finegrained sheet sands with extensive calcrete horizons. Porosity and permeability values range from 10–16% and 10–200 mD, becoming poorer in the eastern terraces. Historically, due to the reservoir quality, well performance has been poor and recovery factors may have been underestimated. The technical and economic success of the fracture stimulations highlights the potential for improving recovery from existing Triassic reservoirs.

Keywords

Sandstone Shale Dolomite Jurassic Tria 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Badley M E, Egeberg T, Nipen O (1984) Development of rift basins illustrated by the structural evolution of the Oseberg feature, Block 30/6, offshore Norway. J Geol Soc Lond 141: 639–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Badley M E, Price J D, Rambech Dahl C, Agdestein T (1988) The structural evolution of the Viking Graben and its bearing upon extensional modes of basin formation. J Geol Soc Lond 145: 455–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clancey B M (1990) Hydraulic fracture stimulation of permeable North Sea oil wells. SPE 20969, Europec 90, The Hague, Netherlands, 22–24 Oct 1990Google Scholar
  4. Dean, K P (1993) Sedimentology of the Upper Triassic reservoirs in the Beryl Embayment: lacustrine sequences in a semi-arid environment. In: Parker JR et al. (eds) Petroleum geology of NW Europe: Proc 4th Conf. London (Geological Society) (in press)Google Scholar
  5. Deegan C E, Scull B J (1977) A standard lithostratigraphic nomen¬clature for the central and northern North Sea. Rep Institute of Geological Sciences 77/25; Norwegian Petroleum Directorate Bull 1Google Scholar
  6. Giltner J P (1987) Application of extensional models to the northern Viking Graben. Nor Geol Tidsskr 67: 339–352Google Scholar
  7. Knutson C A, Munro I C (1990) The Beryl Field, Block 9/13, UK North Sea. In: Abbots I L (ed) United Kingdom, oil and gas fields, 25 years commemorative volume. Geological Society Memoir 14, pp 33–42Google Scholar
  8. Steel R, Ryseth A (1990) The Triassic — Early Jurassic succession in the northern North Sea: megasequence stratigraphy and intra-Triassic tectonics. In: Hardman, R.F.P. Brooks J (eds) Tectonic events responsible for Britain’s oil and gas reserves. Geological Society Spec Publ 55, pp 139–168Google Scholar
  9. Vollset J, Dore A G (1984) A revised Triassic and Jurassic lithostratigraphic nomenclature for the Norwegian North Sea. Norwegian Petroleum Directorate Bull 3Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. O’Donnell
    • 1
  1. 1.Mobil CourtMobil North Sea LtdLondonUK

Personalised recommendations