FACULTY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

MASTER’S THESIS

Study programme/specialisation:
Marine and Offshore Technology Spring/ Autumn semester, 2020

Open / Confidential

Author: Vladislav Mikhalkin

Programme coordinator: Muk Chen Ong

Supervisor(s): Ove Tobias Gudmestad (UiS),

Anatoly Borisovich Zolotukhin (Gubkin University)

Title of master’s thesis:

DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF OIL FIELD-A IN THE PECHORA SEA UNDER CONDI-
TIONS OF INITIAL DATA UNCERTAINTY

Credits: 30 ECTS

Keywords: Pechora sea, Field layout, Develop-

ment concept, EOR screening, Gravity-based Number of pages: …99…………
structures
+ supplemental material/other: …………

Stavanger, ………………..
date/year

1
 ABSTRACT
The development strategy of equipping an oil field of the Pechora Sea is dis-
cussed in this thesis. Because of the confidential data on the field received from PJSC
Rosneft, the field is conventionally called Field-A in this work.
The philosophy of the thesis is the analysis of four groups of factors that deter-
mine the efficiency of using one or another development strategy. These groups are:

1. Group of the situational factors;

2. Geological group;
3. Technological group;
4. Economic group.

Each group is a core of the corresponding chapter. An analysis of each group of

factors allows in the first chapter to decide on suitable concepts and further determine
their technical and technological features and economic efficiency at the end.

2
 CONTENT
Introduction 6
1. Field-A engineering design conditions 7
1.1. Oil and gas fields development in the Arctic conditions 7
1.2. Field-A engineering design conditions 12

1.2.1. Meteorological and oceanographic conditions 13

1.2.2. Relief and soil 15
1.2.3. Water depth 16
1.2.4. Waves 16
1.2.5. Ice conditions 17
1.2.6. Transport infrastructure in the Pechora Sea 19

1.3. Analysis of the situational factors 22

1.3.1. Sea depth and ice conditions 22

1.3.2. Location of the end-consumers 24
1.3.3. Gravity-based platform 25
1.3.4. Soil 26
1.3.5. Principal layouts of the field 26
1.3.6. Distance to the shore and coastal infrastructure 27
1.3.7. Conclusions 27

2. Characteristics of the field-A 29

2.1. Characteristics of the field-A 29

2.1.1. Initial geological reserves 31

2.1.2. Oil-bearing contour 31
2.1.3. Initial conditions of the hydrodynamic model 33
2.1.4. The main reservoir properties of object A 35
2.1.5. Properties of the formation fluids 36
2.1.6. Relative phase permeability curves and capillary pressure 37

2.2. Screening for enhanced oil recovery methods 39

3
 2.2.1. Selection of the reservoir system parameters necessary for the
methodology and determination of the ranges of their values 40
2.2.2. Determination of the applicability criteria for EOR method 41
2.2.3. Determination of the degree of belonging of the selected parameters
to the relevant applicability criterion of the EOR method 42
2.2.4. Determination of the applicability function of each EOR 43
2.2.5. Features of polymer flooding 46
2.2.6. Complicating factors 46
2.2.7. EOR Screening Conclusions 47

2.3. Analysis of geological factors 47

2.3.1. Field area and oil-bearing contour 47

2.3.2. Initial geological reserves 49
2.3.3. Field A development layouts 49
2.3.4. Physical properties of rocks and liquids saturating them, features of
the bedding system 53
2.3.5. Conclusions 53

3. Analysis of technical and technological factors 55

3.1. Choosing the optimal development strategy 55

3.1.1. Well spacing 56

3.1.2. Well types and the stimulation method 57

3.2. Gravity-based platforms 51

3.2.1. Upper structures of gravity-based platforms 51

3.2.2. Gravity-base 52
3.2.3. Gravity base of the wellhead platform 53
3.2.4. General platform features 54

3.3. Устойчивость гравитационных платформ 58

3.3.1. Wave load calculation 59

3.3.2. Calculation of ice load 65
3.3.3. Stability 68

4
 3.4. Analysis of Ошибка! Закладка не определена.

4. The “A” field’s development concepts 73

4.1. Description 73
4.2. Economic parameters analysis 83

4.2.1. Capital investments 83

4.2.2. Operational costs (OPEX) 85
4.2.3. The producing hydrocarbon cost 86

Conclusions 92
References 93
Appendix 1 Table 1 1
Appendix 2 1
Appendix 3 8
Appendix 4 121
Appendix 5 122

5
Introduction
In recent years, the interest of major oil and gas producing companies in the
development of Arctic resources has increased significantly, primarily due to the high
hydrocarbon potential of the Arctic shelf. Despite the harsh climatic conditions of this
region, a number of projects have already been implemented at the moment, while oil
and gas companies are planning to commission new deposits of the Arctic shelf in the
near future. For some of these projects, accepted development concepts already exist;
for other projects, development concepts continue to be actively developed. The latter
include field A.
In the near future, Rosneft, the largest Russian oil and gas company that owns
the license area of the field, plans to put this field into operation. In the process of
developing offshore oil and gas fields, the issue of their equipment is important. The
purpose of this work is to develop a concept for the development of field a based on
data obtained on the basis of confidentiality rights [1] from Rosneft. The data provided
by the company includes a description of the field design conditions, as well as a hy-
drodynamic model of the reservoir.

6
1. Field-A engineering design conditions
1.1. Oil and gas fields development in the Arctic conditions
The Arctic is a unified physical-and-geographical area of the Earth. It includes
vast territories: the outskirts of the continents of Eurasia and North America, almost
the entire Arctic Ocean with islands, as well as parts of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans
[1,2]. There are several approaches to determining the southern border of the Arctic.
So, the border of the Arctic Circle can be the southern border; isotherm of average
monthly temperatures, corresponding to +10 C° throughout the year; forest line and
others [3]. Various ways of determining the southern border are shown in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 Ways of the Arctic borders determination [3]

Even if the Arctic Circle is adopted as the southern border (in this case, the Arctic
area is approximately 21 million km2 – 4.1% of the globe), the region is characterized
by high hydrocarbon reserves. Thus, according to [1], the Arctic region contains 18.56
BTO of oil and 39.70 TCM of gas or 61.14 BTOE of oil and gas, which is ~ 15% of all
7
world hydrocarbon reserves. The Arctic is one of the least studied regions of the world,
and, according to [4], has an even more significant hydrocarbon potential. Moreover,
most of the undiscovered resources are located on the Russian continental shelf [1].
The Arctic region, however, is characterized by harsh climatic conditions. Low
temperatures, the presence of first-year and multi-year ice, a short summer period, the
presence of icebergs, hummocks, stamukhas and other features of many Arctic waters
are significant obstacles to the development of offshore oil and gas fields on the Arctic
shelf. These features in the conditions of the region remoteness from the markets for
products and the lack of developed infrastructure in the region require not only a
specific approach to the development of projects in the Arctic (including using new
technologies) but also significant capital investments in their implementation [5].
Under such conditions, the environment is at higher risk than in other regions where
hydrocarbons are produced, and the consequences of any accidents are more harmful
to the environment.
Despite this, many projects have already been implemented in the conditions of
the Arctic shelf, while oil and gas companies are planning to place under production
new Arctic deposits soon [6]. For some of these projects, accepted development
concepts already exist; for other projects, development concepts continue to be actively
developed. The latter include field A.
As noted above, the Arctic region covers a significant territory of the globe.
Therefore, each water area of the region has some deviations from the general regional
characteristics, which were given above. Thus, each project is fraught with specific
difficulties for its implementation, which largely determine the concept of development
(therefore, the concept of arrangement). Therefore, the description and consideration
of design conditions in a single region or a separate area remain extremely important.
The design conditions for field A are given in Section 1.2 of this chapter.
Nevertheless, the analysis of the experience gained in the implementation of
other projects and the consideration of this experience also remains an essential
component in the field concept development for each project. In this regard, to
systematize the accumulated knowledge, an analysis was carried out of projects of the
Arctic and water areas with similar natural and climatic conditions that were
8
implemented and planned to be placed under production soon. The analysis was carried
out based on [6–12]. The list of projects with their brief characteristics is presented in
Table A1.1. It includes almost all existing projects in the Arctic, except for most
projects in the Norwegian Sea. The experience of projects and other water areas with
similar natural and climatic conditions (the Okhotsk Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Zhili Gulf,
the Caspian Sea, etc.) was also taken into account. Further, under the Arctic conditions
and Arctic projects will be understood, including environmental conditions of these
water areas and the projects implemented in them.
The diagram in Figure 1.2 shows the number of completed and planned projects
for the next decade. Among them are the projects of Russia, the USA, Norway, Canada,
as well as China and Kazakhstan.
10

0
1950-2000 2001-2010 2011-2020 2020-2030

Figure 1.2 The number of projects implemented in the Arctic and subarctic conditions
Offshore oil and gas fields development is associated with such processes as
exploration and production drilling, production (sometimes storage) of hydrocarbons,
primary processing and transportation of hydrocarbons.
Drilling of wells, including exploration ones, in the Arctic, is carried out using
such Offshore Oil and Gas Structures (OSGS) and Mobile Offshore Drilling Units
(MODU) as drilling barges, drilling vessels, SPAR platforms, semi-submersible
platforms, Jack-Up platforms, as well as stationary, gravity platforms and artificial
islands [6,7,13]. The latter (gravity platforms and artificial islands) are also used
mainly in hydrocarbon production. So, in Figure 1.3, a represented diagram is showing
how many Arctic projects a particular type of OSGS is involved in hydrocarbon
production (based on table A1.1). From now on, Norwegian projects are not included
in the analysis due to reasonably mild climatic conditions compared with the ones of
9
the Pechora Sea. Nevertheless, the projects implemented in the Norwegian Sea are one
of the most significant and diverse. Some of them are also given in A1.1.

TBD 3

Subsea System
3
GBS 10

Jacket
platforms 3

FPSO &
Subsea System Artificial
5 Islands 6

Figure 1.3 Types of OSGS that are utilized for the hydrocarbons production in the
Arctic and subarctic conditions
According to [7], it could be distinguished four main types of the offshore field
arrangement. Among them: above-ground, to which, according to Table A1.1, 6
projects relate to where artificial islands are used; surface, which includes 13 projects
that use steel and gravity platforms; subsea – 3 projects using Subsea Production
Systems (SPS); combined – 5 projects using SPS and FPSO.
Hydrocarbons are transported in the Arctic conditions by offloading of raw
materials to tankers (including ice-class tankers) or using a multiphase or single-phase
pipeline system (see Figure 1.4, Table A1.1) [7].

10
 TBD 3

Offloading 7

Pipeline 20

Figure 1.4 Ways of hydrocarbons transportation implemented in the Arctic and

subarctic conditions
Despite the small number of projects existing in the Arctic environment, six
basic layout schemes can be distinguished (see Table 1.1). It should be noted that the
experience of using dedicated schemes in Arctic conditions does not limit the use of
any of the schemes in the same way that the existence of dedicated schemes does not
limit the development and implementation of new or already used in non-Arctic
conditions. However, this experience should be taken into account along with the
features of the design conditions when developing concepts for the offshore oil and gas
fields.

Table 1.1

Arrangement field layouts typical for Arctic conditions and experience of their
application
Field layout Features Application experience
High reliability;
Technologies and
Artificial island + equipment can be In the coastal zone;
pipeline (above- used without At depths of up to 12
Long build
ground arrangement) restrictions associated meters;
period
with a limited area; In the presence of first-
– Six projects An artificial island year and multi-year ice.
does not require
liquidation upon

11
 completion of
operation;
Technology tested in
practice.
Gravity-based
At depths from 15 up to
platform + pipeline
48 m;
(surface
Low mobility In the presence of first-
arrangement)
Wellheads are on the year and multi-year ice,
surface; and icebergs.
- 6 projects
High reliability and
Gravity-based
resistance to severe
platform +
weather conditions; At depths from 20 up to
offloading to the
The ability to store oil. 95 m;
tanker (surface Low mobility
In the presence of first-
arrangement)
year ice and icebergs.
- 3 projects
Stationary platform
Reduced
+ pipeline (surface Wellheads are on the At depths of up to 85 m;
resistance to
arrangement) surface; In the presence of first-
severe weather
Low cost. year ice.
conditions.
- 3 projects
FPSO + SPS +
Reduced At depths from 120 up to
pipeline (combined
High mobility; resistance to 420 m;
arrangement)
The ability to store oil. severe weather In the presence of first-
conditions. year ice and icebergs.
- 4 projects
SPS + pipeline At depths from 55 up to
(subsea arrangement) 340 m;
Autonomy
In the presence of first-
- 3 projects year and multi-year ice.

1.2. Field-A engineering design conditions

Field A is located in the Pechora Sea waters at a distance of 6 km from the coast,
more than 1000 km from the Murmansk city. The Pechora Sea is part of the Barents
Sea. Its boundaries are shown in Figure 1.5.

12
 Figure 1.5 Borders and regions of the Barents Sea [10]
Field A has a significant oil-bearing area and extends ~ 30 km to its north-west
from the southern border along the license area, while the northern border is ~ 28 km
offshore. Most of the water zone of the license area is a vast underwater plain slightly
sloping in the northeast, north directions. The southern boundary of the site is located
close to the peninsula M and island P. The island T is located at the eastern border of
the site.

1.2.1. Meteorological and oceanographic conditions

The climate of the Pechora Sea is determined by its high latitude position,
features of atmospheric circulation and radiation balance, as well as the nature of the
underlying surface – warm waters of the Barents Sea in winter and relatively cold
waters of the Arctic basin in summer.
Unlike the southwestern part of the Barents Sea, the climate here is more severe,
which is associated with a decrease in the influence of warm Atlantic currents and the
presence of ice cover for 7-8 months a year. The impact of planetary processes of
interaction between the Icelandic minimum and the Siberian maximum, which has a
seasonal orientation, leads to the monsoon nature of the climate. The duration and
boundaries of the climatic seasons are shown in Table 1.2.

13
 Table 1.2

Duration and boundaries of climatic seasons [14,15]

Season Period Duration
Winter November – April 6
Spring May – June 2
Summer July – August 2
Autumn September – October 2

Among the geographical features, it is worth noting: the formation of arctic water
masses in the north of the sea and marine polar in the south. The alternation of cold
and warm currents, the presence of numerous islands, sea ice and frontal zones on the
surface of the water affect the intensity of synaptic processes. The presence of polar
day and night leads to an uneven supply of solar radiation to the sea during the year.
In the cold season, when the influx of solar radiation is absent or very small due
to the low height of the Sun above the horizon, the primary climate-forming role is
played by the circulation of the atmosphere and sea waters.
In winter, the heterogeneity of climatic conditions is more pronounced. In
summer, the central role in climate formation is played by radiation conditions and ice
melting; atmospheric circulation is weakened. The duration and boundaries of the
climatic seasons do not coincide with the calendar dates.
The average monthly air temperature within the licensed area ranges from –18C°
(February) to +8 C° (August). The absolute summer minimum (June) was –13 C°,
winter minimum (February) –48 C°. Absolute maximums were observed in June and
December and amounted to +29 C° and +2 C° respectively. Dates of the stable
transition of air temperature through 0 C° are June 3 and October 10, the average
number of days with negative air temperature is 236.
The frequency of strong winds at a speed of 15 m/s and higher in the winter
months is about 10%. In the summer months, winds at a rate of 5–6 m/s are most likely.
A continuous duration of winds of more than 20 m/s usually does not exceed 12–18
hours. The maximum possible wind speed once every 50 years (at an altitude of 10 m

14
above the surface, averaging is 10 minutes) is 30 m/s, a gust of wind is 42 m/s. The
highest speeds and maximum gusts of wind reach the highest values in the autumn-
winter period [14,16].
The main reasons affecting the range of visibility are fogs, precipitation and low
cloudiness turning into a fog. Often such phenomena are observed in areas of the ice.
With the increase in the fogs occurrence frequency in the summer months, a decrease
in the visibility range during this period is usually associated. In winter, a reduction in
visibility is often due to rainfall.
According to [14], the estimated lower limit of the velocity of the total currents
in the navigation period in the surface layer of the sea in the area of work once in 100
years can reach 0.6 m/s. The maximum of the instrumentally measured velocity of the
total currents was 0.4 m/s with their stability of 25%.
The prevailing directions of the total currents are oriented along the axis of
developed tidal flows of the SE (high tide) – NW (low tide). Tidal currents are stable
(90%). Their semidiurnal component, isolated from instrumental data, is estimated at
0.14 m/s. Quasi-constant currents are directed to the north with velocities of 0.03 m/s.
Stock flows of the Pechora River are weak (0.01 m/s in June).
A great danger for all floating objects is icing [17]. The icing of ships in the area
of work is possible in the autumn, winter and spring months, from October to March
in the absence of ice cover.

1.2.2. Relief and soil

The bottom surface in the deposit area has a weak overall slope (0.0002), but in
the centre, there is an oval uplift with an excess of 2 m. The relief consists of gentle
elongated elevations and degradations of 1-2 m, in which currents with velocities of
9.8–15.9 cm/s act to a maximum of 0.44 m/s [14]. The soil is represented by sand, loam
and clay of a dark grey colour. Table 1.3 presents the engineering-geological section
of the soil.

Table 1.3
Engineering-geological section of the soil [14]

15
 Depth (m) Soil description Properties
c=4 kPA
Fine-grained soil with
0.0-1.1 The angle of internal friction = 35
properties of sand
E=33 MPa
Intercalation of loam of c=25 kPA,
1.1-19.1 dark grey colour and fine The angle of internal friction = 21
grey sand. E= 16MPa
c= 50 kPA,
19.1-36.2 Dark gray clay Angle of internal friction = 18.5
E=19.5 MPa

As can be seen from Table 1.3, the soil conditions can be characterized as very
mild. This fact is also noted in [18]. However, the soil in [18] has a significantly higher
bearing capacity than in [14]. The permafrost layer begins at a depth of 10 m and
spreads down.

1.2.3. Water depth

The sea depth at the southern boundary of the field is 14 m and increases to 22
meters up to the latitude of the northern border of the field. Therefore, in this work it
is assumed that the depth increases by 0.36 m when moving from the southern border
to the north by 1 km.
According to [14], in the licensed area, the estimated maximum value (range) of
the total sea-level fluctuations can be 4.5 m once every 50 years and 4.7 m once every
100 years, which corresponds to the data presented in [19]. Such effect occurs due to
the combined action of the circulation tides and non-periodic storm surge.

1.2.4. Waves
The maximum height for 100 years in the vicinity of the licensed area in [14] is
set equal to 12.7 m, the period between wave peaks is given as 11.3 s, these values are
somewhat consistent with the data provided in [19]. Values are averaged and assumed
constant regardless of depth.

16
1.2.5. Ice conditions
According to long-term observations, ice formation in the licensed area begins
in November – December and less often in mid-October. Cleansing from ice occurs in
June – early July, sometimes in early August. The ice period averages 200 days, under
extreme conditions – 250 days [14], which is typical for the Pechora Sea [11,19].
The Pechora Sea as a whole is characterized by the presence of annual ice of
local origin, which form three main ice zones: the fast ice zone, the intermediate zone
(interaction zone) and the drift ice zone [19].
Figure 1.6 shows the long-term mean positions of the fast ice edge in the
southeastern part of the Pechora Sea from mid-November to March and from April to
June. The approximate location of the license area is indicated by the shaded area.

Figure 1.6 Average long-term positions of the fast ice edge in the southeastern part of
the Pechora Sea a) from mid-November to March b) from April to June [14]
Considering the features of the field location (see Section 1.2) and the fact that
the transition zone can extend from several hundred meters to several kilometres from
the fast ice edge [19], it can be concluded that field A can be in any of the three zones.
So, in the period from January to May (I - V) inclusive, the field is located in the fast
ice zone, in June, November and December (VI, XI-XII) in the transition zone, or the
drift ice zone.
In the fast ice zone, the thickness of the average maximum thickness of flat ice
is from 0.9 to 1.1 m [10,19] and can reach 1.6 m [14]. Fast ice, however, is unstable

17
and its breaking often occurs during winter as well. As a result, the formation of ice
ridges is possible, and up to 80% (3-4 points) of the entire sea surface in this zone can
be occupied by hummocks [14,19].
In the interaction zone, the most intense interaction of ice fields (fast ice and
drifting ice) occurs. Here a large number of hummocks, ice ridges and stamukhas are
formed. According to [11,19], stamukhas are located at depths of 7–15 m and do not
occur at depths higher than 20 m. When the stamukhas are formed, seabed gouging is
possible with the formation of gouges. The hummocking in this zone is the most
significant and can reach 5 points.
In the drifting zone, the maximum ice thickness averages 1.1 m and reaches a
value of 1.6 m [19]. Lamination of ice up to 2.5-3 m thick is possible [11]. According
to [14], in the southern part of the Pechora Sea, the speed of movement of ice floes
under the influence of wind and currents reached 60–80 cm/s. According to calculated
data, extreme drift here can occur at a speed of up to 140 cm/s. The general direction
of such a drift is northeast.
According to [10,14], in the Pechora Sea water area there is no multi-year ice;
in [11], however, the possibility of its migration from the Kara Sea is noted, and the
probability is considered extremely low. In the licensed area, according to[10,20] the
likelihood of an iceberg appearing is extremely low.
The hummocking in each of the zones, as already noted, is significant. Table 1.4
shows the hummock data in the area where the field is located.

Table 1.4
The hummocking data in the area of the deposit location (points) [14]

Month Nov Dec Jan Feb March Apr May June July
Average 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 2.5 2 1
Maximum 1.5 2 3 3.5 4 4.5 4 3 2
Hummocking
once in 50 2 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 4.5 4 2.5
years

18
 Hummocking
once in 100 2.5 3.5 4.5 4.5 5 5 5 4.5 3
years

The sizes and shapes of hummocks are diverse. However, for engineering
calculations, the assumption is made that hummocks are symmetrical. The ideal
hummock layout is shown in Figure 1.7.

Figure 1.7 The ideal hummock layout [10]

The thickness of the ridge consolidated layer (B) can exceed the thickness of the
surrounding ice by 1.2–2.1 times [21]. In the case of deterministic calculations, the
thickness of the consolidated layer should be taken equal to the double thickness of the
surrounding ice [10]. Thus, for the ice conditions of the license area, the maximum
possible value of the consolidated layer can be considered hc  1.6  2  3.6 m. Also,
following [14], the keel depth in the zone of the license area should be taken equal to
the water depth minus the thickness of the consolidated layer (for the depths of the
license area), angle internal friction equal to 30 degrees, keel cohesion – 10 kPa,
porosity – 0.3.

1.2.6. Transport infrastructure in the Pechora Sea

Currently, in the north-west of Russia, oil is transported by railways or by
pipeline to the ports of the White and Barents Seas (Arkhangelsk, Vitino, Murmansk).
19
Hydrocarbons are delivered to these ports by sea by tankers, including from the
Pechora Sea from the Varandey stationary marine ice-resistant unloading terminal
(MIUT) and Prirazlomnaya platform
MIUT «Varandey» is installed at a depth of 17 m more than 22 km from the
coast and approximately 40 km from field A. The MIUT has a height of more than 50
m and weighs more than 11,000 tons. The design consists of a support base with
accommodation for 12 people with technological systems and a rotary device for
mooring and loading with a crane and helipad. The octagonal support base can
withstand high ice loads. MIUT is installed at the bottom with 24 piles and connected
to the shore by two subsea pipelines. The terminal operates with zero discharge, all
industrial and human waste is collected in specific containers and transported ashore
for subsequent disposal, which ensures environmental safety [22].
The infrastructure of the terminal, in addition to the MIUT itself, includes [23]:

 Onshore oil depot with a capacity of 325 000 m3;

 Pump station;
 Power-generating facility;
 Tanker fleet (3 tankers);
 Auxiliary fleet (icebreaker and tugboat);
 Floating storage and offloading unit with a lifting capacity of 260 000 t;
 Shift camp for 180 people.

The characteristics of the tanker fleet are given in Table 1.5.

Table 1.5

Characteristics of the MIUT «Varandey» tanker fleet [23]

Name Deadweight Class Type
Vasily Dinkov 71250 t Arc6 PANAMAX
Kapitan Gotskiy 71230 t Arc6 PANAMAX
Timofey Guzhenko 71290 t Arc6 PANAMAX

20
 Oil is delivered to the Varandey terminal via oil pipelines from the fields of PJSC
Lukoil in the Nenets Autonomous Okrug. Since the beginning of 2018, PJSC Lukoil
has been offloading oil in the Kola Bay via the Kola storage tanker, which is capable
of processing 12 million tons per year. The tanker is able to unload 100–140 thousand
tons of oil from the terminal simultaneously. Another storage tanker located in the Kola
Bay is the Umba tanker owned by Gazprom Neft PJSC. Umba is equipped with
separate storage systems for raw materials from the Novoportovskoye and
Prirazlomnoye fields. The Umba tanker is equipped with oil intake, storage and
shipment systems and is capable of receiving vessels standing simultaneously on both
sides of it. Oil transhipment is carried out around the clock. The volume of cargo
transhipment from Umba in 2017 amounted to 8.24 million tons.
According to [24], the application of storage tankers in the transport scheme for
the handling of bulky cargo provides significantly higher efficiency of export deliveries
compared to direct deliveries, due to the reduced duration of round trips for ice-class
tankers. The use of such a logistic scheme is possible since the Kola Bay does not
freeze.
The Prirazlomnoye field, which is currently the only hydrocarbon field on the
Arctic continental shelf, can be considered a unique feature of the Pechora Sea. The
field is located on the shelf of the Pechora Sea, 55 km north of the village of Varandey.
Oil from the Prirazlomnaya OIFP is offloaded throughout the year to the Umba tanker
on Arc 6 ice-class oil tankers equipped with an ice-breaking bow and stern [7,23,25].
The characteristics of the oil tankers of the Prirazlomnaya OIFP are shown in Table
1.6. Tankers provide reliable shipment of up to 6 million tons of crude oil, supplied to
the world market with year-round navigation in harsh conditions. Tankers can move
without the help of icebreakers in ice up to 1.2 m thick in winter.

Table 1.6

Characteristics of the Prirazlomnaya OIFP oil tankers [25]

Name Deadweight Class Type
Kirill Lavrov 71053 t Arc6 PANAMAX
Mikhail Ulyanov 69830 t Arc6 PANAMAX

21
 From the ports of the White and Barents Seas, oil is then transferred to tankers
for subsequent transportation by sea to the west either directly or through oil
transhipment complexes in the Kola Bay. The main sea transport routes run along the
coast of Norway in the provinces of Vestlandet, Trøndelag, Nordland, Tromsø and
Finnmark [23]. Most of the oil is transported to Rotterdam. A part is transported to the
UK, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and the USA [26].

1.3. Analysis of the situational factors

As already noted, when choosing a system for arranging an offshore oil and gas
field, several factors (criteria) should be taken into account. They can be divided into
the following groups [1]:

1. Group of the situational factors;

2. Geological group;
3. Technological group;
4. Economic group.

The design conditions for field A, described in Section 1.2 of this chapter, belong
to the group of situational factors (criterion). Using the criteria of only this group is not
enough to fully justify the choice of the offshore oil and gas field arrangement system.
However, it is enough to narrow down the range of potential options significantly.
The most significant situational factors include the depth of the sea, the ice
conditions, the distance to the shore, the presence or absence of infrastructure on the
coast, the location of consumers, soil properties and environmental conditions [1].

1.3.1. Sea depth and ice conditions

Based on the first two criteria (sea depth and ice conditions), we can conclude
which OSGS, MODU and vessels can be operated in these conditions. To do this, based
on the data presented in [1,7,9,13,28,29], the analysis of the possibility of using various
OSGS, MODU and vessels at depths from 14 to 22 m (not only in the Arctic
conditions), as well as in the presence of first-year ice, was carried out. The results are
presented in Table 1.7.

22
 Table 1.7

OSGS, MODU and vessels that can be applied for hydrocarbons production (or
production and storage)
Ice environment
Production Water depth
Vessel/structure Production
Storage = 14..22 m First year
Ridges 4-5
ice b.

Rock/Gravel/Sand Island FP FP FP FP FP
GBS FP FP FP FP FP
Jack-Up Q NO FP FP TBD
Jacket FP NO FP FP TBD
FPSO FP FP Q FP TBD
Drilling Ship C C FP FP TBD
Round Shaped FPSO Q Q NO FP TBD
Semi-submersible FP C NO FP TBD
TLP C C NO FP TBD
SPAR C Q NO C TBD
Subsea Glory Hole FP NA Q FP TBD
Transportation of product
Tankers FP FP FP FP
Pipeline FP FP FP FP
FP - field proven; Q - qualidied; C - Concept; NO - does not meet requiments ; NA - not applicable

As can be seen from Table 1.7, according to the selected criteria for an operation
to equip field A, gravity platforms can be used as oil and gas production or oil
production and storage facilities. For transportation of products, both Arc 6 ice-class
tankers and pipelines with the need for burial can be used, which was already
mentioned in section 1.2.6.
The application of stationary platforms is also possible, according to the studied
criteria for hydrocarbon production. However, there is no data on the use of this type
of platform in the high hummock conditions specific to the licensed area of field A (see
Section 1.2.5).
As can be seen from Table 1.7, SPS Glory Hole designs are used in first-year ice
conditions, however, according to [6], at the moment there are no completed projects
where this design would be used at depths of up to 76 m. In existing projects (see Table
P. 1.1) the Glory Hole design is mainly used to protect against the effects of icebergs.
Even though in [6] noted the technical feasibility of applying this design at depths of
15 m and more, the article does not contain information on the permissible degree of

23
hummocking and the allowable characteristics of hummocks and stamukhas in the area
of SPS installation. In [7], in general, the inexpediency of using subsea and combined
methods of arrangement (see 1.1) at depths less than 50 m in conditions of freezing
seas is noted. Thus, the SPS of the Glory Hole design is not considered further in the
concept development for field A.
Artificial islands, according to [9], it is advisable to use at depths of 10-12 m
(see Table. 1.1). However, the possibility of application even at depths up to 20 m is
considered in some works [6,27]. Nevertheless, there is no reliable evidence that such
projects can be cost-effective. At the same time, the construction of an artificial island
at depths of up to 12 m is only profitable if there is a sufficient amount of building
material near the field [9,28]. There are no data on the availability of adequate volumes
of stone, gravel, etc. in the vicinity of deposit A. Thus, it cannot be concluded that it is
advisable to use artificial islands for concept development of the field A.

1.3.2. Location of the end-consumers

The location of the end-consumers largely determines the way oil transportation
from the field. In the conditions of the transport infrastructure of the Pechora Sea (see
1.2.6) and the lack of developed support on the shore, it is advisable to export the
produces hydrocarbons to Europe through the port in the Murmansk city. Murmansk is
located at a distance of more than 1000 km west of field A. The construction of a
pipeline at such a distance in the ice conditions of the Pechora Sea is unprofitable.
Pipeline transportation of oil to the Varandey terminal (see 1.2.6) (over a
distance of more than 40 km east of the field), followed by transportation of Arc 6 class
tankers (see 1.2.6) to the Murmansk city is also not economically viable. Such a method
could significantly reduce capital costs due to the absence of the need for the temporary
storage of hydrocarbons at the producing OSGS. However, the investments necessary
to build a pipeline, pump hydrocarbons over long distances, rent the terminal, increase
the number of elements of the logistics chain and the total length of the route in
comparison with the direct offloading to tankers from producing OSGS, will
significantly increase the capital costs of the project.

24
 Thus, the hydrocarbons offloading directly from OSGS with their further
transportation by Arc 6 class tankers to the port of Murmansk is the only rational
transportation option for oil export to Europe. Moreover, the OSGS used for production
should be able to store hydrocarbons for a particular time. In this case, the application
of stationary platforms for hydrocarbon production becomes impossible (see Table
1.7), and the only suitable OSGS for the development of field A is a gravity-type
platform.

1.3.3. Gravity-based platform

Gravity-based platforms can be used not only for oil production and storage but
also for drilling wells. They are used in a large number of Arctic projects (see Fig. 1.3;
A 1.1).
According to [18], if it is necessary to store hydrocarbons, at depths up to 30 m,
gravity-based platforms of the caisson type should be used.

Figure 1.8 Gravity-based platform of the caisson type

Gravity-based platforms have a significant mass, which ensures their overall

stability when exposed to external loads from ice, wind and waves. So, gravity
platforms of the caisson type can weigh more than 30 000 tons significantly.

25
1.3.4. Soil
Due to the massiveness of the platforms, their installation is possible only in
water areas, with the soil of sufficient bearing capacity [7,9,18].
As noted in Section 1.2.2, the soil conditions on the license area are characterized
as mild. Thus, if it is necessary to install a caisson-type gravity platform on the license
area, it is required to carry out work to replace part of the soil at the installation site to
a depth of 10 m (the beginning of the permafrost layer) (see 1.2.2) with more durable
material. It is worth noting that, in contrast to the construction of an artificial island, in
this case, significantly smaller amounts of soil material are required.

1.3.5. Principal layouts of the field

As noted in Section 1.1, the application of the gravity-based platform for oil
production and storage with its subsequent offloading to the tanker determines one of
the basic layouts for the development of offshore oil and gas fields in the Arctic (see
Table 1.1). This field layout refers to the surface type of offshore field development
and is represented by three Arctic projects: Hebron, Hibernia, Prirazlomnoye (see
A1.1). The platforms of the first two projects are located in the waters of the Big
Newfoundland Bank at depths of 95 and 80 m, respectively, and do not belong to the
caisson type.
The Prirazlomnaya platform, as noted in 1.2.6, is located in the Pechora Sea at a
depth of 20 m. The platform consists of three sections: the upper structure, the
intermediate deck and the gravity-type caisson. The dimensions of the caisson are
126x126 m at the base and 102x102 m in the upper part, the height is 24.3 m. The
internal volume of the caisson is used both for oil storage (124 000 m3) and for storage
of diesel fuel, water and drilling fluids. Oil is offloaded to tankers (see Table. 1.6) with
the help of automated remote devices. The logistic scheme of transportation is
considered in 1.2.6.
The platform weighs 247 000 tons with solid ballast and 117 000 tons without
it. Forty wells were drilled from the platform, the production volume is 21 000 m3 per
day. The staff is 200 people. The autonomy of the platform is 60 days [7].

26
 The Prirazlomnoye project is a confirmation of the possibility of successful
implementation of the considered arrangement layout in the conditions of the Pechora
Sea. Technical and technological solutions of this project can also be used in concept
development for field A.

1.3.6. Distance to the shore and coastal infrastructure

The implementation of the considered arrangement layout (see 1.3.4) requires
the presence of a specific infrastructure both for the platform’s construction and for its
maintenance.
In [18], the possibility of using such enterprises of the Sverdlovsk and
Arkhangelsk regions as the Northern Machine-Building Enterprise, Zvyozdochka, and
others for the construction of platforms is noted. A supply base is needed to service the
platforms. The supply base can be built by the company. However, this involves not
only substantial capital costs for the construction of the base itself, but also the
development of the necessary additional infrastructure. Therefore, a more rational
solution is to rent coastal supply bases in the area of the Varandey shift camp. Distances
from various points of the licensed area to the village can be considered moderate (see
1.2, 1.2.6).

1.3.7. Conclusions
Analysis of situational factors allows to draw the following conclusions.
The development of field A should be carried out using one of the basic layouts
for the development of offshore oil and gas fields used in Arctic conditions. This layout
involves the use of a gravity-based platform for drilling, production, primary
processing and storage of hydrocarbons, followed by their offloading to ice-class
tankers. This scheme (field layout) should be taken for the further development
considerations of field A, taking into account its following features.

1) The gravity-based platform should belong to the caisson type of gravitational

platforms;
2) It is presumably necessary to replace the soil at the platform installation site;
3) Supply bases should be rented;

27
 4) Oil offloading should be carried out to the Arc 6 ice-class tankers with
characteristics similar to those given in Table 1.5, 1.6;
5) Transportation should be carried out to the transhipment base in the
Murmansk and then transported to Europe.

The further process of concept development of field A involves an analysis of

the remaining groups of factors (see 1.3). So, the next chapter is devoted to the study
of a group of geological factors.

28
2. Characteristics of the field-A
This chapter analyses the geological factors that influence the selection of the
field-A development concept.
The features of the field reservoir system are examined, and conclusions are
drawn about possible development methods along with the feasibility of using
enhanced oil recovery methods.

2.1. Characteristics of the field-A

Field-A includes 9 productive formations of various ages (A1-A9). Table 2.1
presents the averaged characteristics of reservoir properties and the properties of their
saturating fluids. The table is based on the results of well logging, dynamic well testing,
seismic surveys conducted by Rosneft. Three objects of development can be
distinguished according to the proximity of reservoir properties of the formations, and
the similarity of physicochemical properties and compositions of the formation fluids
at the field [14].
The first object (from now on referred to as object A) includes layers A1, A2,
A3, A4. They are characterised by significantly lower initial pressures and
temperatures compared with the layers of the second (A5) and third objects (A6, A7,
A8, A9), and also higher density, viscosity and lower solution gas-oil ratio in these
reservoirs (see Table. 2.1). The layers of the second and third objects, however, occur
at much greater depths, which implies higher capital costs during well construction if
they are used. Besides, they have more significant rock fracturing and contain less than
10% of the initial geological reserves, that is why they are not considered as operational
objects in this work.
All reservoir beds belong to the carbonous Lower Permian oil-and-gas-bearing
complex, composed mainly of carbonate rocks. Within the framework of the first
development object, two deposits can be distinguished – northern and southern [14].
The conventional border of the deposits is shown in Figure 2.1 (see 2.1.2).

29
 Table 2.1

Reservoir properties and properties of saturating fluids of the field-A formation

system
Parameters A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9
The average depth of the
layer cap (absolute depth 1353 1398 1420 1440 2412 3214 3241 3272 3353
mark), m
Bedded, massive,
Bedded, massive,
tectonically and Layer-uplifted, tectonically screened
Type of deposit tectonically
lithologically screened deposit
screened deposit
deposit
Type of reservoir Cavernous-fractured, mixed, carbonated Cavernous-fractured
Oil productive area,
52 276 45 904 60 488 54 845 24 084 14 150 12 871 5 844 1 257
thousands m2
Averrage net pay zone,
29.6 20.9 15.5 42.8 25.1 14.4 18.9 10.7 6.7
m
Porosity 0.103 0.129 0.108 0.103 0.060 0.032 0.035 0.032 0.033
Oil saturation factor,
0.861 0.796 0.825 0.887 0.880 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900
fraction unit
Core permeability, 10-3
4.1 5.1 3.1 0.5 1.6 - - - -
µm2
Permeability (faults), 10-
- - - - 60.0 211.0 211.0 - 0.7
3
µm2
Permeabilitydynamic
65.6 168.7 125.8 4.5 60.0 - 394.5 - 0.7
testining, 10-3 µm2
Net-to-gross ratio,
0.40 0.67 0.33 0.36 0.24 0.72 0.59 0.36 0.90
fraction unit
Initial formation
30.3 31 33.5 35 56 71 72 79 86
temperature, оС
Initial formation
13.9 14.4 15 15.4 25.4 45.7 45.9 46.2 57.2
pressure, MPa
In-situ oil viscosity, mPa
45 45 45 45 5 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62
s
Oil density at surface,
932 932 932 932 851 805 805 805 805
kg/m3
Oil Water Contact True
-1564.4 -1564.4 -1564.4 -1564.4 -2499.3 -3582.6 -3582.6 -4193 -3757.4
Vertical Depth, m
Formation volume
1.032 1.032 1.032 1.032 1.136 1.468 1.468 1.468 1.468
factor, fraction unit
Bubble-point pressure,
5.65 5.65 5.65 5.65 7 21.05 21.05 21.05 21.05
MPa
Gas-oil ratio, m3/m3 18.8 18.8 18.8 18.8 80 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5
Reservoir water
0.738 0.738 0.738 0.738 0.738 0.738 0.738 0.738 0.738
viscosity, t/m3
Water density at surface,
1.041 1.041 1.041 1.041 1.041 1.041 1.041 1.041 1.041
t/m3
oil 6.58 6.58 6.58 6.58 - 26.68 26.68 26.68 26.68
water 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3
rock 6.6 6.4 8 6.8 11.8 5 5 5 5

Rosneft PJSC provided the hydrodynamic model (HDM) of the first

development object in three probabilistic implementations as initial data: P10, P50,
P90. A probabilistic assessment allows anticipating risks when making technological
and technical decisions on the method of development and operation of the field. So,

30
the implementation of P50-case can be used for a fundamental economic assessment
of various development methods, and P10-case and P90-case allow to assess the impact
of uncertainty in this evaluation [29].

2.1.1. Initial geological reserves

A probabilistic approach is also used to estimate resources of a field, where P90-
case correspond to proven, P50-case to probable, P10-case to possible [30]. Table 2.2
shows the initial geological reserves of field A for the first development object,
corresponding to each case of the HDM. The proximity of the geological reserves for
the P50 and P90 is primarily due to the same level of oil-water contact in both cases
(see 2.1.3), as well as a similar distribution of other reservoir properties (see 2.1.4).

Table 2.2
Initial geological reserves of the object A
Case of HDM P10 P50 P90
Initial geological reserves, million tons 760 495 478

2.1.2. Oil-bearing contour

In Section 1.2, it was already noted that field A has a significant oil productive
area, which is mainly determined by the layers of object A and varies in the range from
4590 to 6049 (ha) (see Table 2.1). The oil productive area has an elongated shape.

31
 Deposits' borderline

Figure 2.1 Map of the density distribution of the initial geological reserves of object
A, t/ha (P50)

Deposits' borderline

Figure 2.2 Map of the density distribution of the initial geological reserves of object
A, t/ha (P10, P90)
32
 Figure 2.1 shows a map of the density distribution of the initial geological
reserves of the object A development for the implementation of P50-case. This pattern
of the density distribution of geological reserves is also characteristic of the cases P10,
P90 (Fig. 2.2). As can be seen from Figure 2.1, the southern deposit has significantly
lower oil reserves (less than 20% of the initial geological reserves of the entire object).
The utilisation of the maps shown in Fig. 2.1, 2.2, the absolute distances from
one point inside the contour to another could be determined.

2.1.3. Initial conditions of the hydrodynamic model

hydrodynamic reservoir models, equilibrium initialization is implemented [31],
. at the initial moment of time, in each cell of the region, the value of reservoir pressure
is calculated according to the hydrostatic distribution of the pressure specified at a
certain depth. The reservoir temperature is set by the corresponding constant (see table.
2.1). At the water-oil contact (WOC), oil saturation corresponds to residual oil
saturation, which is achieved by setting the corresponding capillary pressure at the
contact (see 2.1.6).
The level of WOC for the P50-case and P90-case is selected following Table 2.1
as the most reliable (determined by the lower perforation hole). The value 1771.5 is
chosen as the WOC for the implementation of P10-case as the last closed hypsographic
curve. Figures 2.3 and 2.4 show a 3D model of Object A with the oil saturation
distribution for the realisation of HDM. Table 2.3 shows the WOC levels of the layers
of object A.

33
 Figure 2.3 Oil saturation distribution for object A (P10)

Figure 2.4 Oil saturation distribution for object A (P50, P90)

Table 2.3

WOC levels of layers of object A

Formation WOC level, m
Layer
pressure, MPa P10 P50 P90
A1 13.6 1771.5 1564.4 1564.4
A2 13.8 1771.5 1564.4 1564.4
A3 15.0 1771.5 1564.4 1564.4
A4 15.2 1771.5 1564.4 1564.4

34
2.1.4. The main reservoir properties of object A
The ranges of changes in the reservoir properties of object A are shown in Table
2.4. As can be seen from the table, the range variations are insignificant depending on
the implementation of the HDM. The exception is permeability ranges for cases P10
and P50. Horizontal histograms of permeability distribution for implementations for
these two cases are shown in Figure 2.5. The average values of permeability differ from
those presented in table 2.1 due to the presence of fractures.

Table 2.4

The main reservoir properties of the layers of object A

P10 P50 P90

Parameter
min aver max min aver max min aver max
Net pay zone, m 0.4 100 301 0.4 103 270 0.8 99 291

Oil net pay, m 0.3 89 252 0.1 75.6 244 0.2 73 229

Porosity, fraction unit 0.04 0.11 0.23 0.04 0.11 0.24 0.01 0.11 0.24
Permeability
4.8 98.7 1182 2.4 48.6 591 2.4 47 591
coefficient, mD
Oil saturation factor,
0.27 0.87 0.98 0.24 0.86 0.97 0.28 0.81 0.98
fraction unit

Fracturing in the hydrodynamic model was taken into account by the use of a
certain theoretical model of fractures in the form of a permeability factor adjusted
according to the testing results. Fracture sizes below the level of resolving power of
methods which could evaluate their properties. In this case, the application of dual-
porosity models is impractical.

35
 a) b)

Figure 2.5 Permeability distribution histograms a) P10 b) P50

2.1.5. Properties of the formation fluids

The oil properties of object A vary significantly depending on the chosen
implementation case of HDM. So, the oil corresponding to the P10-case (see Table
2.5), according to the classification given in [32] can be classified as low-viscosity.
P50-case oil refers to high viscosity oils, while oil of P90-case can be attributed to
highly viscous. Other oil characteristics of object A for each case are shown in Table
2.5. It is worth noting that for all the layers of object A, the oil properties are determined
to be the same in the framework of one case of HDM.

Table 2.5

Oil properties of object A

Parameters P10 P50 P90

In-situ oil viscosity, mPa*s 28.7 45 61.3

Oil density: - 0.92 -

36
 in-situ, t/m3
at surface, t/m3 0.923 0.932 0.962
Formation volume factor, fraction unit 1.051 1.032 1.03
Bubble-point pressure of the oil, MPa - 5.65 -
Gas-oil ratio, m3/m3 20.5 18.8 14.25
Compressibility factor, 10-5 1/MPa 76 65.8 32

The properties of brine water are assumed to be constant in all layers of object
A, regardless of the selected case of the HDM. The features are presented in Table 2.6.
In [14], compatibility of brine water with seawater was noted.

Table 2.6

Properties of brine water from object A

Brine water density at the surface, kg/m3 1041
Brine water density in-situ, kg/m3 1033
Brine water viscosity, mPs*s 0.738
Brine water compressibility, 1/bar*10-5 4.33

2.1.6. Relative phase permeability curves and capillary pressure

Relative phase permeability (RPP) in the water-oil system of formations rocks
of object A, which describes the ability of a porous medium to pass through a phase
that is not inert concerning the formation matrix, is shown in Figure 2.6. The shape of
these curves, to a large extent, determines the efficiency of reserves recovery.
It is impossible to draw a firm conclusion about the type of wettable rocks in the
form of the shown RPP curves. Nevertheless, rocks of layers A1 and A2 can be more
likely to be classified as hydrophilic, and layers A3 and A4 to hydrophobic. For
reservoirs A3 and A4, it is also worth noting a significant amount of residual oil
saturation. The type of RPP curve does not depend on the case of HDM.

37
 1 1

Relative phase permeability, , fr.unit

Relative phase permeability, , fr.unit

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water saturation, fr.unit Water saturation, fr.unit

Krw Kro Krw Kro

a) b)

Figure 2.6 RPP curves in the water-oil system for layers a) A1, A2 b) A3, A4

Figure 2.7 shows the capillary pressure curves, which also do not depend on the
cases of the HDM. Based on these curves, the equilibrium initialization is implemented
in the HDM (see 2.1.3).
3.5 4
3 3.5
Capillary pressure, atm.

Capillary pressure, atm.

2.5 3
2.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
1
1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water saturation, fr.unit Water saturation, fr.unit

a) b)

Figure 2.7 Capillary pressure for layers a) A1, A2 b) A3, A4

38
2.2. Screening for enhanced oil recovery methods
The selection of the concept development of offshore oil fields largely depends
on the choice of the influence method on the oil reservoir.
Although many fields are developed under natural recovery drive, for profitable
development, it is necessary to influence the reservoir in one way or another. Thus,
more than 80% of all oil deposits are developed using the method of maintaining
reservoir pressure by injecting water into reservoirs. However, in this case, the oil
recovery factor (ORF) remains quite low [33]. In addition to water flooding, there are
other methods of influencing the oil reservoir, which can increase the oil recovery
factor, for example, enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods.
According to [34], EOR includes “reservoir stimulation methods that provide an
increase in the final oil recovery coefficient compared to some basic method”. At the
same time, the primary method can be both a method of maintaining reservoir pressure
(water flooding) and a natural recovery drive.
According to the type of injected medium, EOR can be divided into [33]:

1. Hydrodynamic;
2. Chemical;
3. Thermal;
4. Gaseous;
5. Microbiological.

Today, there are a large number of methods for selection of EOR method.
Moreover, only three main approaches are used in their construction [34,35]:

 Boolean logic;
 Fuzzy-set theory;
 Systems of artificial intelligence.

Regardless of the construction approach, any of the methods is based on a

generalisation of the results of EOR industrial application. Generalisation revealed that
different EOR could give a positive technological effect only in specific ranges of the
geological and physical parameters of the formation and the physicochemical

39
properties of the formation fluids and gases. These ranges of values determine the
applicability criteria for the EOR method.
Thus, the effectiveness of each EOR methods can be evaluated by comparing the
values of the geological and physical parameters of the formation and the
physicochemical properties of the formation fluids and gases of the field with the
application criteria for EOR (EOR screening).
In this thesis, to construct a system for selection of EOR method for field A, we
use a technique based on the theory of fuzzy sets [33].
Initially, based on the available data on the field, a list of the main parameters
necessary for screening the EOR method is compiled (2.2.1). Then, the applicability
criteria for each EOR (2.2.2) are determined from the list of selected parameters. For
the subsequent determination of the compliance degree of the selected geological and
physical parameters of the formation with the applicability criteria, the concept of the
membership function is used [33] (2.2.3). After that, the value of the applicability
function of each EOR (2.2.4) is determined.
The next step evaluates the factors that complicate the application of suitable
EOR methods. Complicating factors include geological and physical parameters that
may affect the final assessment of the applicability of EOR methods or even make their
use impossible, however, not included in the initial list of basic parameters due to the
low reliability of numerical values [35] (2.2.6).
The step-by-step screening process of EOR method for field A is considered
below.

2.2.1. Selection of the reservoir system parameters necessary for the methodology and
determination of the ranges of their values
For field A, among the parameters describing the formation properties and the
properties of reservoir fluids, the parameters listed in Table 2.7 were selected. The
parameters were selected based on the experience of [35] as the main ones. For most
parameters, based on an analysis of Tables 2.1-2.6, ranges of their possible changes
were identified due to uncertainties (variation based on a variety of absolute values).
For some parameters that remain constant for each case of HDM, the range of the

40
parameter variation is defined as the difference between its maximum and minimum
values for the object (change based on the range of absolute values) ( Table 2.1).

Table 2.7
Parameters used for the EOR method screening
Range of
Parameter Variation basis
variation
The average depth of formation, m 1353 1500 range of absolute values
Average oil net pay, m 73 89 probabilistic assessment
Porosity 0.11 0.12 probabilistic assessment
Permeability, mD 47 98.7 probabilistic assessment
Average oil saturation 0.86 0.88 probabilistic assessment
Formation temperature, С° 30 35 range of absolute values
In-situ oil viscosity, cPs 28.7 61.3 probabilistic assessment
Initial formation pressure, MPa 13.9 15.4 range of absolute values

2.2.2. Determination of the applicability criteria for EOR method

Each EOR corresponds to a set of membership functions (MF) for each of the
parameters of Table 2.7. Membership functions   x  and determine the degree of
belonging to a variable x to the applicability criterion for EOR method. The MF of
each criterion is characterised by certain values x1min , x1 , x1max , x2 max , x2 , x2 max . In this
case, x1min , x2 max determine the zeros of the membership function; when x , equal to x1
or x2 , the function takes a value equal to 0.5 ; x1max , x2 max determine the interval at
which the degree of membership is 1. Thus, these values determine the shape of the
curve of the membership function - determine the applicability criterion. x1min , x1 , x1max
, x2 max , x2 , x2 max for each applicability criterion of each EOR method is selected based
on the generalised results of Russian and foreign EOR implementation projects [33–
35].

41
    x   0, x   0, x1min    x2 max ,  

   x   1, x   x1max , x2 min 




 
1
   x   1  Y  x  (2.1)
 2 1
i

   xi max  xi  x  xi min  
 Y  x     
  xi  xi min  xi max  x  
  i  1, x  x , x
  1min 1max 
  i  2, x   x2 max , x1min 


2.2.3. Determination of the degree of belonging of the selected parameters to the

relevant applicability criterion of the EOR method
To perform this task, along with a subsequent comparison of the screening
results of EOR methods, was written an algorithm in Python. Its code is presented in
Appendix 2.
As noted above, in Table 2.7, each parameter is specified by a range of values.
In this case, the algorithm calculates the values of the membership function according
to equations (2.1) for values belonging to ranges with a specific elementary interval
and then determines their average value.
This thesis examines the screening of the following EOR methods.:
Thermal: steam treatment (ST), well steam treatment (WST), hot water injection
(HW), steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD);
Gaseous: dry gas injection (DG), rich gas injection (RG), NGL injection (NGL),
CO2 injection (CO2), nitrogen injection (N2), water-alternated-gas injection (WAG),
water-alternated-gas injection with foam (WAG-f).
Chemical: polymer flooding (PF), surfactant flooding (SF).
For each parameter of Table 2.7, the degree of its belonging to each of the listed
EOR methods according to the relevant applicability criteria is determined. The results
are presented in Table 2.8.

42
2.2.4. Determination of the applicability function of each EOR
The applicability function can be determined by several types of estimates [34].
Among them are optimistic, weighted average and pessimistic. In this thesis, a
pessimistic assessment is used. In this case, the applicability function is determined by
equation (2.2).
сi  min  ji , (2.2)

where i - EOR method, j - applicability criteria.

Depending on the values of the applicability function, four groups of
applicability degree can be distinguished: сi  0.8  1 - ideal conditions, сi  0.5  0.8
- good conditions, сi  0.2  0.5 - adverse conditions, сi  0  0.2 - method is not
applicable.
From Table 2.8 it can be seen that the parameters of Table 2.7 give poor
conditions for surfactant flooding, as a result of which the possibility of using this
method is not considered further, and excellent conditions for polymer flooding. The
remaining methods for conditions for field A are not applicable.
Figure 2.8 shows the values of the membership functions of the selected ranges
of parameter values (see Table 2.7) to the applicability criteria of polymer flooding.
The figure is a screenshot of the code execution results piece presented in Appendix 2.
The figure also shows the applicability functions for parameters not considered. These
parameters are not taken into account due to lack of information.

43
Figure 2.8 The belonging of the selected ranges of parameter values (see table. 2.7) to
the applicability criteria for polymer flooding. The blue lines – the MF, the red lines –
the ranges of values, the red dots – the values of the MF

44
 Table 2.8
Values of membership functions of the ranges of selected parameters and applicability functions of the considered EOR meth-
ods for field A

Applicability criteria ST WST HW SAGD DG RG NGL CO2 N2 WAG WAG-f PF SF

Average depth of formation 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.34 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.04 1.00 1.00

Average oil net pay 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00

Porosity 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 0.99 0.69 0.69 0.66 0.69

Permeability 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.91 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.71 0.76 0.54 0.45

Average oil saturation 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99

Formation temperature, С° 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

In-situ oil viscosity 0.35 1.00 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.90

Initial formation pressure 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.28 0.28 1.00 1.00

Applicability function value (min) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.54 0.45

45
2.2.5. Features of polymer flooding
The primary mechanism for enhanced oil recovery during polymer flooding is
to increase the sweep efficiency [36] of the layer in height and area. This effect is
achieved by changing the properties of water when a polymer is added to it. Thus, an
increase in its viscosity contributes to the alignment of the displacement front due to a
change in the ratio of the non-wetting and wetting phases mobilities. Also, when
applying polymer flooding, an improvement in the displacement ratio is noted [34].
The effectiveness of polymer flooding is characterised by a flow resistance factor
determined by the ratio of water mobility to the mobility of the polymer solution.
Figure 2.9 shows the dependence of the resistance factor on the filtration rate. From
this dependence, it is seen that with the filtration rate increase, the mobility of the
polymer solution gradually decreases due to an increase in viscosity. Such effect
ensures alignment of the displacement front. This feature allows the use of polymer
flooding, including in fractured reservoirs [37,38].

Figure 2.9 The dependence of the resistance factor R on the filtration rate v [34]

2.2.6. Complicating factors

The main criteria for the applicability of polymer flooding are presented as
membership functions in Fig. 2.8. Further, complicating factors are considered, based
on the analysis of which we can conclude that it is possible to use EOR methods in
developing field A, in this case, polymer flooding.
One of the complicating factors in the application of polymer flooding is the
predominance of carbonate rocks in the reservoirs of field A. This is because most
46
polymers are adsorbed in carbonates with a high degree. Nevertheless, this fact is not
critical and, although, in smaller quantities, there are projects where polymer flooding
is effectively used in carbonate rocks (see. [37]). In this case, it is necessary to use
polymer solutions of a slightly higher concentration than in the case of terrigenous
rocks.
Another complicating factor is the lack of accurate data on the salinity of brine
water. So, in the case of differences in the salinity of the water used to create the
polymer solution, and brine water, their mixing can significantly affect the efficiency
of polymer flooding. In the case of polymer flooding at the last stages of field
development, the salinity of brine water approximately corresponds to the salinity of
the injected. In the case of polymer flooding, it is necessary to pre-pump the water rim
from the beginning of development. In this case, according to [37], the effect of the
difference in water salinity will have a smaller impact on the efficiency of polymer
flooding.

2.2.7. EOR Screening Conclusions

Thus, according to the results of EOR methods screening, it can be concluded
that of all the EOR considered (see 2.2.3), only polymer flooding can be used in the
development of field A (according to the selected methodology for calculating the
applicability function). In the case of applying the method from the beginning of
development, it is necessary to pump the rim of water before the start of the polymer
rim injection.

2.3. Analysis of geological factors

The most significant geological factors (criteria) include the area of the field, oil-
bearing contour, the physical properties of the rocks and their saturating fluids, and the
features reservoir system bedding

2.3.1. Field area and oil-bearing contour

The vast oil productive area (see 2.1.2) and significant geological reserves (see
2.1.1) of field A involve the drilling of a large number of wells. Nevertheless, the
number of wells when drilling offshore is limited due to both technical features and
their cost. Thus, the need for drilling a field with a rather rare grid of wells on large
47
areas is growing. In such cases, as well as in cases of an extended oil-bearing contour,
according to [36], development layouts with centre-to-edge waterflooding and high
intensity should be used, which include single-row well placement systems. Moreover,
in the case of using horizontal wells, a staggered pattern should be applied. A single-
row system involves drilling the same number of production and injection wells. Figure
2.10 shows an element of a single-row development system.

Figure 2.10 An element of a single-row development system [36]: 1 – “quarter” of an

injection well; 2 – “half” of an injection well with a linear arrangement of wells; 3, 4
– respectively, “quarter” and “half” of the injection well
In the case of the implementation of the basic arrangement, the drilling of wells
is carried out from one gravity platform. Therefore, a significant area of the field also
indicates that the lengths of the unproductive part of the wellbore will be quite
extensive.
So, in the case of the platform installation near the border of the Southern and
northern deposits (see Fig. 2.11) and drilling the entire oil productive area of object A,
the well deviation from the platform is on average 9 km. It means that the average
length of the unproductive part of the wellbore is at least 9 km. The maximum
magnitude of deviation is about 13 km.
Even in the case of significantly shorter well lengths (non-productive part of the
wellbore) the costs of their construction, especially when developing an offshore oil
and gas field, make up a significant, and in some cases, the most substantial part of the
project investment. Therefore, bringing into the development of object A using the
accepted (basic) arrangement scheme can be considered inappropriate.

48
 Figure 2.11 A possible installation site for the platform if it is necessary to drill the
entire oil productive area of object A (shown in a gray square)

2.3.2. Initial geological reserves

As noted in 2.1.2, most of the reserves of field A are concentrated within the
northern deposit (see 2.1). At the same time, the southern deposit simultaneously has
both a lower density of geological reserves and a smaller oil content area (see Fig. 2.9).
In this regard, we can conclude that for the development of the southern deposit will
require fewer wells. At the same time, the expected value of the density of the well grid
should be higher (less dense grid of the well placement system).
Thus, we can conclude that it is necessary to disaggregate the designated
development object (object A) into two independent objects: the Northern and
Southern deposits. The disaggregation of object A allows considering the possibility
of using the basic field layout for introducing only the Northern deposit into
development or finding an alternative field layout.

2.3.3. Field A development layouts

1. Basic field layout

49
 In the case of applying the basic field layout for developing only the Northern
deposit (see Fig. 2.10) and installing the platform in the area shown in Figure 2.12, the
average distance between wells and the platform is 2.8 km. This, obviously, will
significantly reduce the investment of the project. Nevertheless, in this case, the
Southern deposit remains not involved in the development.

Figure 2.12 Schematic representation of the basic field layout application for the
development of the Northern deposit on the map of the density of its reserves, tons/ha

2. Alternative field layout

An alternative field layout implies the application of an additional wellhead
platform. Wellhead platform, in this case, is used for drilling a small number of wells
(10-20) and hydrocarbon production. In this case, the primary processing of
hydrocarbons before offloading to the tanker is carried out on the central platform.
The central platform, in this case, is a technological unit, it is used for the
production, storage, processing and offloading of oil to a tanker. Hydrocarbons
produced from the wellhead platform are transported to the central platform via a
50
pipeline system. The pipeline system also includes a line for transferring water (or
polymer solution) from the technological platform, where it is prepared, to the wellhead
platform, as well as pump modules necessary for pumping liquids. At the same time,
trenching is necessary for pipelines (see 1.3.1).
This layout can be utilised both in the development of two deposits (first
implementation) (see Fig. 2.13) and only the Northern (second implementation) (see
Fig. 2.14). Moreover, in both cases, the use of this field layout can reduce capital costs
relative to the use of the basic field layout for the development of both deposits. It is
also achieved by significantly reducing the required well deviation from the platform.
So, in the case of developing two deposits, the average well deviation is 4 km for the
central platform and 2.7 km for wellhead platform. In the case of development of the
Northern deposit – 3.1 km and 2.7 km, respectively. At the same time, the cost of
construction and maintenance of the wellhead platform and the pipeline should be less
than the difference in investment received by reducing the total penetration when
drilling wells.
The costs required to implement the first option are more considerable since it
involves the construction of a longer pipeline (12–15 km) than the construction of the
second (5-8 km), as well as the drilling of wells of slightly higher length (in this case,
the difference is not so significant). Nevertheless, the first option allows setting into
operation two development objects, which can increase the final recovery factor.
In the case of using any of field layouts, the central platform is installed at a
depth of 18 m. The wellhead platform is installed at a depth of 15 m in the first
implementation and 20 m in the second.

51
Figure 2.13 Schematic representation of the application of an alternative field layout
for the development of the North and South deposits (first implementation) on the
map of the reserves density of object A, tons/ha

Figure 2.14 Schematic representation of the application of an alternative field layout

for the development of the North and South deposits (second implementation) on the
map of the reserves density of object A, tons/ha

52
2.3.4. Physical properties of rocks and liquids saturating them, features of the bedding
system
Given factors largely determine the degree of applicability of specific EOR
methods. So, according to the results of EOR screening, it was revealed that the water
flooding and polymer flooding could be used as methods of influencing the formation
system of object A.
Polymer flooding is by far the most common method among chemical EORs
[37] and can increase the recovery factor by 5-8% [34]. When, as shown in [39], the
cost of producing a unit of oil in polymer flooding may be lower than in traditional
flooding.
The low prices and small dimensions of the equipment necessary to create a
polymer solution make it possible to efficiently use this EOR method in the
development of an offshore oil and gas field [40,41].
Among the features of the bedding system of object A, it can be noted that all
four reservoirs lie one above other and have comparable oil productive area and net-
oil thicknesses that range from 15.5 to 42.8 m. With such thicknesses, it is possible to
consider the use of multilateral wells. The use of a multilateral well in the revelation
of producing horizon, in this case, will allow us to drill one productive wellbore in each
of the layers. Such approach should significantly increase the production capacity of
the well, as well as increase the sweep efficiency by waterflooding compared to the
case of horizontal wells when one well will have to open productive layers at some
angle.

2.3.5. Conclusions
An analysis of geological factors has led to some conclusions.
Firstly, the development of the field should be carried out using a single-row
well placement system with the staggered pattern.
Secondly, in the future, it is worth considering the use of two types of wells:
directional wells and multilateral directional wells.
Thirdly, the development of the object A should be carried out using one of the
following EOR methods: water flooding or polymer flooding.

53
 Fourth, to develop a field, it is necessary to disaggregate field A into two separate
objects: the Northern deposit and the Southern deposit.
Fifth, the development of the field can be carried out using one of two field
layouts, which are referred to as the basic field layout and alternative field layout in the
framework of this work. In this case, the basic layout is designed to use only the
Northern deposits, while the alternative can be used to develop only the Northern
deposits, and both deposits. Thus, further, we consider three types of implementation
of field layouts.
The basic field layout is the arrangement scheme adopted in Chapter 1 (1.3.1).
An alternative field layout is a variation of the arrangement scheme adopted in the first
chapter, which implies the use of two platforms: technological (central) and wellhead
connected by a pipeline system (see 2.3.3). Further, for convenience, the base version
platform will be called technological, central or primary.
The further process of the concept development of field A involves an analysis
of the remaining groups of factors (see 1.3). So, the next chapter is devoted to the study
of a group of technological factors.

54
3. Analysis of technical and technological factors
3.1. Choosing the optimal development strategy
In this section, the optimal well spacing, well types, and stimulation methods are
discussed.
The considered well spacing values are as follows:

 64 he/w;
 81 he/w;
 100 he/w;
 121 he/w;
 144 he/w.

The following types of well completing are considered:

 Directional well (DW);

 Multi-lateral directional well (MLDW).

Considered stimulation methods are as follows:

 Waterflooding;
 Polymer flooding

Preliminary calculations were carried out for the North Deposit P50-case using
the Petrel software package. Group constrains for injection wells included injection
ratio equal to one. For producers bottom hole pressure was set not less than 6 MPa,
because of the bubble point pressure limitation. The single-row with a staggered line
pattern was considered. A typical gravity-based structure comprises around 40-50
wells [7]. So 50 wells were considered in consultation.
The efficiency of applied technology or method evaluated by the analysis of
NPV j  ORFj , где NPV j - the difference between the net present value in the cal-

culation j  j  2 and the net present value in the calculation j  1 (base-calculation);

ORFj is the oil recovery factor in j calculation.

To calculate NPV j the following formula is applied:

55
 NPV j    R ji  w ji  p ji  tx ji  trji  / 1  dr 
n
i
(3.1)
i 1

где R ji  R ji  R j 1i , p ji  p ji  p j 1i , R ji  tx ji  tx j 1i , R ji  trji  tr j 1i

и R ji , w ji , p ji , tx ji , trji - respectively, revenue from sales of products, amortization of

wells, costs of polymer flooding, costs of transportation, taxes and other payments for
a year i of a j calculation; dr - discount rate, n - the life-time of the project.
This approach is used due to the lack of data on the part of the capital and oper-
ating costs. The same filed layout is considered for all calculations.

3.1.1. Well spacing

The well spacing is defined by the equation (3.2) [36].
S
Sc  , (3.2)
nскв

where S - oil productive area, nскв - the total number of wells.

To determine the optimal well density with the selected well grid arrangement,
several calculations were performed. The calculations were carried out for well grids
with the following well densities: 64, 81, 100, 121, 144 ha/well. For each value, the
calculation was carried out twice: with different rates of putting well in production: 10
wells/year and 5 wells/year, which may correspond to the use of two or one drilling
complex on the platform. First, the calculation was carried out for the HW. The results
of an economic performance evaluation conducted by formula (3.1) are presented in
Figure 3.1. The optimal well density is 121 ha / well. Therefore, in all subsequent cal-
culations well density is considered equal 121 ha/well. The well cost per meter is as-
sumed to be equal to 11000 dollars / m in accordance with [14].

56
 10 wells/year 5 wells/year
16
14
12

ΔNPV, k$/ha
10
8
6
4
2
0
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Well density, ha/well

FIgure 3.1 Efficiency of using a single-row well arrangement system with different
densities of well grids

3.1.2. Well types and the stimulation method

To determine the effectiveness of polymer flooding and determine the appropri-
ate type of well, a joint series of calculations was carried out:
The cases are:

1. Waterflooding with 50 DW (base-calculation);

2. Polymer flooding with 50 DW;
3. Waterflooding with 25 DW for injection and 25 MLDW for production;
4. Polymer waterflooding with 25 DW for injection и 25 MLDW for pro-
duction.

The sketches of wells are shown in Figures 3.2 and 3.3.

57
 FIgure 3.2 Sketch of DW FIgure 3.3 Sketch of MLDW

It is proposed to use PAA as the polymer for creating the polymer solution. Modeling
of polymer flooding consists of calculating in each cell of the model the concentration
of the polymer solution, the corresponding viscosity and recalculation of the viscosity
value. The viscosity was recalculated by the values given in table 3.1. A polymer was
injected with a concentration of 0.4 kg / m3 as the most rational in the case of field A
in accordance [14,37]. The cost of the polymer is taken equal to 4 dollars/kg in accord-
ance with [42].

Table 3.1

The dependence of the viscosity of the polymer solution on the concentration of the
polymer [14]
Концентрация ПАА, кг/м3 0 0.4 0.75 1.5 2 2.5
Множитель на вязкость 1 2.9 7.5 28.2 64.5 138

The effectiveness of each case is determined by expression (3.1). At the same

time, the NPV differences are calculated for three cases of oil prices: $ 30, 45 and 60
per barrel. The results are presented in figures 3.4-3.5. Table 3.1 presents the calcula-
tion results for the case of an oil cost of $ 45 per barrel. Figures 3.7 and 3.8 show the
profiles of accumulated oil production and annual oil production, respectively. A com-
parative analysis of diagrams 3.4–3.5 and graphs 3.7–3.8 shows that the effectiveness
of the use of MLDW is significantly dependent on changes in oil prices. Nonetheless,
the drilling of the oil refineries significantly increases oil production. It can be seen
from the diagram (Fig. 3.6) that the most effective is the combined use of polymer
waterflooding and oil-gas condensate treatment.
58
 Δw Δp Δtr Δtx ΔNPV

3.5

2.5

billion $
1.5

0.5

0
Polymer waterflooding Waterflooding Полимер
-0.5 DW MLDW MLDW,DW

FIgure 3.4 Change of NPV

PolymerWFl. / MLDW, DW PolymerWFl. / DW

WaterFl. / DW WaterFl. / MLDW, DW
2.0

1.5
ΔNPV, billion $.

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5
0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17
ORF

FIgure 3.5 Change of NPV depending on oil price

t is also worth noting that the maximum oil production in the case of polymer
flooding using MLDW is 2.7 million tons / year (see Fig. 3.7), 7592 tons / day, or 8145
m3. This value can be used for a preliminary assessment of the design capacity of the
technological platform, nevertheless, it is worth considering the condition of uncer-
tainty. Thus, additional calculations showed for P10-case model, the maximum pro-
duction is 5.6 million tons / year, 15449 tons / day or 16738 m3.

59
 Table 3.2
the effectiveness of the use of polymer flooding and oil refineries at an oil price of $ 45 per barrel

Well type Δp, Volume of wa- Cumulated oil

Δw, Δtr, Δtx, ΔNPV,
Calculation mln, ter injected, (50 years), mln, ORF ΔORF
Prod. Inj. mln. $. mln, $. mln, $ mln. $.
$ mln.m2 tonnes
1 WaterFl. / DW DW DW 0 0 0 0 124.7 39.7 0.08 0.0 0.00
2 Polymer / DW DW DW 0 202 46 339 126.0 44.5 0.09 -159.0 0.01
3 Water / MLDW, DW MLDW DW 308 0 238 2065 386.7 64.5 0.13 502.6 0.05
Полимер / MLDW,
4 DW
MLDW DW 308 509 362 3056
317.9 77.4
0.16 817.4 0.08

Полимер / MLDW, DW Water / MLDW, DW Polymer / DW Water / MLDW, DW

Cumulative oil production, mln. ton

Polymer / DW WaterFl. / DW Полимер / MLDW, DW WaterFl. / DW

Oil production rate, mln. ton / year

90 3
80
2.5
70
60 2
50
1.5
40
30 1
20 0.5
10
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50

years years

FIgure 3.6 Cumulative oil production FIgure 3.7 Oil production rate

50
3.2. Gravity-based platforms
The basic field layout involves the use of a single gravity-based platform of cais-
son type (see 1.3.3). An alternative layout involves the use of two platforms, with the
central platform-plate belonging to the caisson type platform as well, while the well-
head platform can belong to any of the types of gravity platforms (see 1.3.3) due to the
absence of the need to store hydrocarbons (see 1.3. 1).
In the case of basic field layout only one caisson type gravity base platform is
used.
Regardless of the field layout the dimensions of gravity-base structure and other
characteristics are determined based on the characteristics of the upper structures of the
platforms.

3.2.1. Upper structures of gravity-based platforms

The upper structures of the platforms consist of a complex of block modules.
The sizes and the number of modules are determined based on the requirements for the
functionality of the platform and the characteristics of the technological systems nec-
essary to implement the required functionality.
In the case of both basic and alternative field layout, the main functions of the
central platform are:
• Drilling of production and injection wells
• Preparation of formation and seawater for injection into the reservoir to main-
tain reservoir pressure.
• Preparation of polymer solution.
• Stabilization of downhole products
• Disposal of solution gas.
• Storage of crude oil.
• Shipment of products to shuttle tankers.
• Organization of residential modules, as well as the engineering equipment of
the platform for the safe operation of facilities in the Arctic with zero emissions of
hydrocarbons into the environment.

51
 The wellhead platform has less functionality, which is limited by the following
functions:
• Drilling of production and injection wells with one drilling rig.
• Disposal of solution gas.
• Storage of crude oil.
• Organization of residential modules, as well as the engineering equipment of
the platform for the safe operation of facilities in the Arctic with zero emissions of
hydrocarbons into the environment.
With such requirements for functionality, forecasted levels of fluid production,
the upper structures of the technological platform should have an area of at least 9,000
m2 and can have an aspect ratio of 100 mx 90 m, wellhead platform of at least 4,000
m2 with an aspect ratio of 70 m x 60 m [1,2]. platforms include many deck levels inside
the modules, which allows you to minimize the required area. With the agreed aspect
ratios, the height of the upper structures should be 36 m and 40 m for the technological
and wellhead platforms, respectively. The dry weight of the upper structures of the
central platform is estimated to be at least 35000 tons, wellhead - at least 16000 tons.
These dimensions and masses are accepted for platforms in this work.

3.2.2. Gravity-base
For the technological platform, the gravity base in two versions is considered:
steel and concrete. For any performance, the aspect ratio in accordance with the dimen-
sions of the upper buildings is taken to be 100 x 100 m. The necessary height of the
caisson is 30 m. It is calculated taking into account the depth of the installation site,
which is 18 m for any of applied field layout (see 2.3.3 ), as well as the height of the
maximum wave (see 1.2.4) and fluctuations in water level (see 1.2.3). Thus, the free-
board height is 12 m and allows avoiding wave getting on deck in the case of a maxi-
mum wave and rised water level due to the combined action of the circulation tides and
non-periodic storm surge. The height of the double bottom is assumed to be 5 m, the
wall thickness is 10 m. With such dimensions, the weight of the caisson is approxi-
mately 40000 tons in steel and 80000 tons in concrete, according to [14] The sketures
are shown on Figures 3.8-3.9.

52
 FIgure 3.8 Scheme of the the gravity base of the technological platform (top view)

FIgure 3.9 Scheme of the the gravity base of the technological platform (side view)

3.2.3. Gravity base of the wellhead platform

The gravity base of the wellhead platform is considered in one version - a steel
caisson. The use of a caisson will increase the general storage capabilities, which is
necessary for applying an alternative field layout due to the supposedly higher produc-
tion levels.
For the wellhead platform, the aspect ratio in accordance with the dimensions of
the upper structures is taken to be 70 x 70 m. The wellhead platform, depending on the
use of an alternative arrangement, is installed at depths of 15 m and 20 m and the nec-
essary caisson heights are respectively 27 m and 32 m. The height of the double bottom
is assumed to be 8 m, the wall thickness is 7 m. In the first case, the dry weight of the
caisson is 24838 and 31000 tons

53
 .

FIgure 3.10 Scheme of the the gravitational base of the wellhead platform (top view)

FIgure 3.11 Scheme of the gravity base of the wellhead platform (side view)

3.2.4. General platform features

For each platform, in accordance with the data [14], the main characteristics of
the platforms are calculated, presented in table 3.3.

54
 Table 3.3
General platform features

Central platform (Concrete cais- Wellhead platform installed at Wellhead platform installed at
Parameter Central platform (Steel cassion)
sion) a depth of 15 m a depth of 20 m

Number of well slots 52 52 24 24

Number of drilling rigs 2 2 1 1
Size of the upper buildings, m 100 90 100 90 70 60 70 60
The height of the upper buildings, m 36 36 40 40
Dry weight of the upper buildings, tons 35000 35000 16000 16000
The working weight of the upper build-
45000 45000 21000 21000
ings, tons
Type of gravity base (GB) steel caisson concrete caisson steel caisson steel caisson
The aspect ratio of GB, m 100 100 100 100 70 70 70 70
GB height, m 30 30 27 32
Installation depth of GB, m 18 18 15 20
The elevation of GB above sea level, m 12 12 12 12
The thickness of the ice barrier wall GB,
10 10 7 7
m
The height of the double bottom of GB,
5 5 8 8
m
Total volume (TV) of the GB, m3 300000 300000 132300 156800
The volume of GB minus the volume of
200000 200000 95060 109760
the walls and the double bottom
The volume of oil storage (OS), m3 120000 120000 57036 65856
OS usage coefficient 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Used OS, м3 110400 110400 52473 60588
Ration of OS to TV 0.40 0.40 0.43 0.42
The ratio of OS to TV minus the volume
0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
of the walls and the double bottom
Dry weight of GO without ballast, tons 40000 80000 24838 31000
Ballast mass in double bottom, tons 53000 53000 14000 14000
Ballast mass over a double bottom, tons 226000 226000 250000 250000
The mass of drill pipes, t 1500 1500 750 750

57
Total dry weight of the platform, t 355500 395500 305588 311750
Mass of OS filled with oil, t 102893 102893 48905 56468
Maximum platform weight, t 468393 508393 359493 373218

58
3.3. Stability of gravity platforms
Chosen dimensions and weight of gravity-based structyre, as well as interactions
with the ground, should provide the initial position or initial static certainty of the struc-
ture [43]. In the case of the platforms under consideration (see 3.2) under the conditions
of the licensed area of field A, a large number of horizontal forces are striving to change
their initial position:

 Wind load;
 Ice load;
 Current load.

Согласно [43], conditions of shear and tilt stability is represented by the equa-
tions (3.3) и (3.4).
 Q  FA  tg g
kF  (3.3)
FR

QB
kM  (3.4)
2M оп
where k F - shear and tilt stability factors, respectively; Rollover Stability Factor
Q - weight of the structure - the resultant of gravity passing through the center of the
structure; FA - the resultant force of Archimedes and the vertical component of wave
pressure;  g angle of internal friction of the soil. FxR - resultant of load forces acting

on the wall of the structure; M оп - overturning moment; B - ширина стенки кессона.

If the coefficient values are greater than one, the platforms can be considered
stable. In this paper, the forces from the influence of the current are assumed to be
negligible compared to the forces from the influence of ice or waves (see 1.2.1). There-
fore, the values of FR и M оп will be determined by the force of ice action in winter and
the force of waves action in summer. Therefore, to determine the stability of platforms,
it is necessary to calculate wave and ice loads.

58
3.3.1. Wave load calculation
When calculating wave loads, it is first necessary to determine the theory on the
basis of which the calculation will be built. This paper uses the Linear Wave Theory
and the Diffraction Theory.
The task of the wave theory is to determine the relationship between the height
H , period T and wave length L , as well as in the description of the characteristics of
the movement of particles in the stream [44]. In all existing wave theories, assumptions
are made that the bottom surface is flat, the waves exist on the plane XY, the wave is
spreading in a positive direction X, and the liquid is considered incompressible and
irrotational (sketch for a progressive wave train is shown in Fig. 3.7).

Рис. 3.12 Definition sketch for a progressive wave train [45]

The velocity potential is used to describe the characteristics of particle motion

in the flow.  . The definition of this function is the main task of the wave theory. The
solution of this problem is reduced to the solution of the Laplace equation with bound-
ary conditions at the bottom and on the free surface [45, p. 48]. This is a very complex
task since the boundary conditions on the free surface are not linear and must corre-
spond to the constantly changing boundary of the free surface. Various assumptions
are used in various wave theories, which make it possible to simplify the solution of
59
the differential equation, however, they impose a number of theoretical restrictions on
the use of a particular theory.
The simplest of theories is linear wave theory [19,44–47], in which the assump-
tion is made that the boundary condition of the free surface can be linearized in the
case of small values of wave heights relative to their length and water depth. Despite
the assumptions made, the theory remains applicable beyond the limits of analytical
validity over a fairly wide range, as shown in [45, p. 80]. In this work, when calculating
wave loads, a linear wave theory is used, which can be considered an assumption. The
basic equations of linear wave theory.
Wave profile:
  x, t   0 sin t  kx  (3.3)

where 0  H / 2 , t - time,  - angular frequency, k - wave number (Fig. 3.7).

Velocity potential:
0 g cosh k  z  d 
  x, z , t   cos t  kx  (3.4)
 cosh  kd 
Horizontal particle velocity:
 0 kg cosh k  z  d 
u  x, z , t    sin t  kx  (3.5)
x  cosh  kd 

Horizontal particle acceleration:

u cosh k  z  d 
u  x, z , t    0kg cos t  kx  (3.6)
t cosh  kd 

Dispersion relation:
  gk tanh  kd  (3.7)
The dispersion equation enavles to determine the wavelength L corresponding
to the period T and depth d . It is solved with iteration technique [28]. In this paper,
the Newton method was used [29].
When calculating the wave, it is necessary to take into account the force regime,
which can be determined with the help of dimensionless parameters H / D ,  D / L (
D - characteristic body size) and the diagram Figure 3.14.

60
 Рис. 3.13 Different force regime of the wave load [44,45]

In case of calculation of the loads on the caisson with sides B  100 m и B  70

m for the conditions described in 1.2.3 и 1.2.4, calculations should be carried out
within the diffraction regime, the use of which is typical in calculating wave loads on
large volume bodies, characteristic size of such body: D  L / 6 [44] (the diagonal sec-
tion of the caisson is taken as the characteristic size). The wave load per unit length of
the cylinder in accordance with the diffraction theory (in the case of using the linear
wave theory) is calculated by the equation (3.8) [45, p. 251–253].
 D2
f  x0 , z, t   Cm  u  x0 , z , t  , (3.8)
4
где u - particle acceleration defined by the equation (3.6); x0 - cylinder wall
coordinate;  - density of water; D - characteristic size of a cylinder equal to its di-
ameter; Сm - inertia coefficient determined by the equation (3.9).

61
 4
Cm  , (3.9)
  kD / 2   kD / 2   Y  kD / 2 
2 '2 '2
J 1 1

where J1 и Y1 - Bessel functions of the first kind of the first order and second
kind of the first order, respectively.
M. Rahman [48] showed that equation b can be used to calculate wave loads on
large volume caissons of square section if their characteristic size is determined in ac-
cordance with equation (3.10).
2B
D , (3.10)
 0.5
where B - width of the caisson.
Thus, the resulting force and moment acting on the caisson of square section
can be determined according to the equations (3.11) and (3.12) [46].
  x ,t 

F  x0 , t    f  z, t  dz (3.11)
d

  x ,t 
2
M  x0 , t    f  z, t  zdz   3 dF  x , t  0
(3.12)
d

Using equations (3.3) and (3.6) one can deduce:

  x0 ,t 
cos t  kx0 
 D2
F  x0 , t   Cm  0 kg  cosh k  z  d  dz 
4 cosh  kd  d

 D2 cos t  kx 
 Cm  0 g sinh k 0 sin t  kx   d 
4 cosh  kd 

To solve this equation, an algorithm was written in Python, the code of which is
presented in A3. Calculations were carried out for the entire depth range of the licensed
area of field A, taking into account possible fluctuations in water level (see 1.2.3). The
results are presented in figure 3.9 (installation depth is given without taking into ac-
count possible fluctuations in water level).

62
 FIgure 3.14 The results of the calculation of wave loads on the platform

Examples of code (A3) execution for three cases of platforms are shown in Fig-
ures 3.10 - 3.12.

63
FIgure 3.15 The results of the calculation of wave loads acting on central platform
installed at a depth of 18 m

FIgure 3.16 The results of the calculation of wave loads acting on the wellhead
platform installed at a depth of 15 m

FIgure 3.17 The results of the calculation of wave loads acting on the wellhead
platform installed at a depth of 20 m

The results are presented in Table 3.4.

64
3.3.2. Calculation of ice load
Global ice loads for the platform should be calculated, taking into account that
the platforms will be in three ice zones (see 1.2.5), which means that the thickness of
the fast ice, drifting ice, and ridges will affect the GBS. According to [10], global ice
loads in the first two cases can be determined according to the formula.
F  pA , (3.13)
где p - pressure generated by ice on the nominal contact area, A - the nominal
contact area.
Nominal contact area is defined as the product of ice thickness h (consolidated
layer thickness - in case of interaction with a ridge) and object width w , in this case,
the side of the caisson foundation.
The pressure produced by ice on the nominal contact area is determined accord-
ing to the formula (3.14).
 h n  w 0.16 w
h
p  C R      e 3h 1  5  , (3.14)
 h1   h  w

where w - design width expressed in meters; h - ice thickness expressed in me-
ters; h1 h1 - reference thickness of one meter; n - coefficient equal to 0.50  h / 5
when h  1.0 м and -0.30 when h  1.0 м; C R - ice strength coefficient expressed in
MPa.
Ice strength factor С R applicable depending on the region. For Arctic conditions,
it is taken equal to 2.8 [4].
In the first two cases (impacts of fast ice and drifting ice), it is sufficient to use
equations (2.1) и (2.2) to calculate ice loads. In the case of interaction with ridges
equation (2.3) should be used.
Ft  F  Fk , (3.15)
где F - load due to the impact on the structure of the consolidated layer of a
ridge, which is determined by 2.1, 2.2; Fk -load due to the impact on the structure of
the keel part of the ridge.

65
 To determine the load due to the impact of the keel part of the ridge, there are
several models. For vertical structures, passive fracture models can be used, according
to which Fk can be determined by the formulas (3.16) – (3.17).

h    h 
Fk   hk w  k  e  2c  1  k  , (3.16)
 2   6w 

 
  tan  45o  , (3.17)
 2
where  - passive pressure coefficient; ϕ - angle of internal friction; с – the

apparent keel cohesion (an average value over the keel volume should be used); w -
construction width;  e - the effective buoyancy, in units consistent with c .
The effective buoyancy can be determined in accordance with the equation ().
 e  1  e   w  i  g , (3.18)
where e - keel porosity,  w , i - water and ice densities, respectively.
Two algorithms were written for calculating ice loads in Python: for calculating
ice loads from drifting ice and fast ice (the code is presented in A4) and for calculating
loads from the influence of ridges (the code is presented in A4). The initial data for the
calculations are determined in accordance with 1.2.5. The calculation results are pre-
sented in Fig. 3.13 and fig. 3.14.

66
 FIgure 3.18 Maximum force from fast ice action on the caisson, depending on the
size

FIgure 3.19 Maximum force from drifted ice action on the caisson, depending on the
size

67
 FIgure 3.20 Максимальная сила
The loads from the influence of hummocks, as can be seen from the graphs of
Figures 3.13 -3.15, significantly exceed the loads from the effects of drifting ice or fast
ice, therefore, in the analysis of stability from ice loads, only loads from the effects of
ridges are considered, which are presented for each platform in Table 3.4.

3.3.3. Stability
Table 3.4 presents the maximum wave and ice load forces, as well as their mo-
ments relative to the base of the platform. Based on these values, as well as the char-
acteristics of the platforms presented in Table 3.3, the shear and tipping stability factors
were calculated using formulas (3.3) and (3.4). The calculations were carried out for
various soil friction angles, the tables show the calculation at a soil friction angle of
35, which corresponds to the angle of internal friction of gravel, as well as the upper
layers of the soil in the licensed area. The results are presented in tables 3.5 and 3.6.
The calculation was based on dry weight and total weight of platforms, including
storage tanks filled with oil in the last case. Stability in the first case will provide an
opportunity to fill the tank with an inert gas when oil is gone. If the platform is not
stable when calculating the dry weight, then the volume of oil must be compensated by
ballast water.

68
 Table 3.4
Maximum wave and ice load forces and their moments relative to the base of the platform

Wellhead platform in-

Central platform Central platform Wellhead platform in-
Parameter / Platform stalled at a depth of 15
(Steel cassion) (Concrete caission) stalled at a depth of 20 m
m

Maximum wave load force, MN 180 180 159 191

Maximum force of ice load, MN 520 520 364 395

Overturning moment of maxi-

3299 3299 2094 3153
mum wave load force, MNm

Overturning moment of maxi-

10481 10481 6550 8596
mum force of ice load, MNm

69
 Table 3.5
Rollover Stability Factor Results
Wellhead platform in-
Central platform Central platform Wellhead platform in-
Parameter / Platform stalled at a depth of 15
(Steel cassion) (Concrete caission) stalled at a depth of 20 m
m
Holding moment (on dry
174373 193993 104924 107039
weight), MNm

Overturning moment, MHm 10481 10481 6550 8596

Tilt stability factor 17 19 16 12

70
 Table 3.6

The results of calculating the shear stability coefficient

Wellhead platform in-

Central platform Central platform Wellhead platform in-
Parameter / Platform stalled at a depth of 15
(Steel cassion) (Concrete caission) stalled at a depth of 20 m
m

Max. load force, MN 520 520 364 395

Safety factor 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10

Weight (dry weight), MN 3487 3880 2998 3058

Weight (total weight), MN 4595 4987 3527 3661

Buoyancy force, MN 3017 3017 1330 1577

Tan of angle of internal friction
0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70
(35)
Shear stability coefficient (dry
0.58 1.06 2.92 2.39
weight)
Shear stability coefficient (total
1.93 2.41 3.84 3.36
weight)

71
73
 From table 3.5 it is seen that all platforms are resistant to capsizing on dry
weight. The shear stability coefficient is less than unity only in the case of a central
platform with a steel base. Which suggests that in case of its use it is necessary to use
ballast water, which is a less preferred and expensive option [14].

3.4. Conclusions
The analysis of technical and technological factors can be resumed in the fol-
lowing way:

 Offshore structures involved in basic and alternative field layouts can

withstand environmental loads in region of Field-A license area.
 The soil at the installation site must be replaced with soil with an internal
friction angle greater than or equal to 35. The option of using the top soil
layer of the license area may be considered
 Polymer waterflooding is the best option for Filed-A;
 Multi-hole completion should be used when completing production wells.

72
4. The field-A development concepts
Based on the conclusions from the chapters above, five development concepts
can be provided. These concepts are designed based on two fields layout. Different
capital and operational expenditures, as well as different development indicators, are
implied for each development.

4.1. Description
The first development concept involves alternative field layout as a base for
the Northern and Southern deposits development as well as drilling of 40 MLDW at
the technological platform and drilling of 10 MLDW at the wellhead platform (fig.
4.1). The average horizontal displacement of the wells from the platform is 4 km and
2.7 km for the technological and wellhead platforms, respectively. It is proposed to
install the wellhead platform at the water depth of 15 meters.

Deposits’ virtual border

Central platform

Pipeline

Wellhead platform

Figure 4.1 The first development concept field layout

The second development concept involves alternative field layout as a base for
the Northern and Southern deposits development as well as drilling of 30 MLDW at
the technological platform and drilling of 10 MLDW at the wellhead platform (fig.
4.2). The average horizontal displacement of the wells from the platform is 3.1 km and

73
2.7 km for the technological and wellhead platforms, respectively. It is proposed to
install the wellhead platform at the water depth of 20 meters.

Figure 4.2 The second development concept field layout

With the basic fields layout implementation, three development concepts are
proposed. For all the concepts, the water depth for the wellhead platform is 18 m.
The third development concept: drilling of 20 wells; the average horizontal
displacement of the wells from the platform is 2 km.
The fourth development concept: drilling of 30 wells; the average horizontal
displacement of the wells from the platform is 3.1 km.
The fifth development concept: drilling of 40 wells; the average horizontal dis-
placement of the wells from the platform is 4 km.
The platform’s installation parameters for each development concept are pre-
sented in Table 4.1.
Each concept involves using the platform in accordance with table 3.3, oil of-
floading from the technological platform via ice-class Arc6 tanker and the transporta-
tion of the production to the transhipment base in the Murmansk city.

74
 In order to define the efficiency of each concept, the calculations in the Petrel
soft has been done. The calculations provide P50 and P10 models. The values of the
platform’s working parameters are presented in table 4.2.
All development concepts involve polymer waterflooding with PAA with con-
centration of 0.4 kg/m3.
Calculations allow us to draw conclusions about the capacitance characteristics
of platforms. For example, table 4.2 shows the calculation of the number of days re-
quired to fully fill the tanks with oil. This number of days is compared with the number
of days required for the tanker to make a flight to Murmansk and back. As can be seen
from the table, practically all concepts in the case of P10 have insufficient capacity to
provide this time interval. Thus, the costs included in the calculation should be in-
creased by taking into account the additional costs for the tanker. The table also shows
that using the caisson storage of the wellhead platform significantly increases the time
required to fill the entire system, and therefore reduces the cost of additional tankers
As can be seen from figures 4.8 and 4.9, the optimal is the inverted concept of
arrangement, which gives the highest NPV in the conditions of geological and eco-
nomic uncertainty. Thus, it can be concluded that the optimal development strategy for
field A is the development of the Northern Deposit with 15 producing multi-hole wells
and 15 obliquely drilled injection wells using a single-row system built from one uti-
lizing platform.
Тем не менее при реализации P50 проект остаётся убыточгым. В случае
если стоимость нефти менее 65 долл. зп аррель Как видно из графика

75
Figure 4.3 The third development concept Figure 4.4 The fifth development concept Figure 4.5 The sixth development
field layout field layout concept field layout

Table 4.1

Platform’s installation parameters

The northern dis-
Well’s horizontal displacement
placement to the Installation water depth Number of wells MD, m
from the platform, m MD, km
southern boundary
TP WP TP WP TP WP TP WP TP WP
11 3 18 15 4000 2700 40 10 282991 58309 341
11 17 18 20 3100 2700 30 10 186269 58309 245
11 - 18 - 2000 - 20 0 103755 - 103
11 - 18 - 3100 - 30 0 186269 - 186

78
11 - 18 - 4000 - 40 0 282991 - 283

2
 Table 4.2

Max oil pro-

Minimal
Technologi- duction per
Wellhead storage fill-
Max oil pro- Max oil pro- cal plat- Minimal 7.4 days in Minimal
platform’s Total storage ing period
duction ths duction ths form’s stor- storages fill- the maxi- tanker
storage ca- capacity (only techno-
tons m3 age capac- ing period mum oil rate amount
pacity , m3 logical plat-
ity, m3 period, ths
form)
tons
1 7.7 8229.0 110400 52473 162873 13.4 19.8 56.8 1
2 8.5 9104.3 110400 60588 170988 12.1 18.8 56.8 1
3 5.3 5676.6 110400 0 110400 19.4 19.4 62.8 1
4 6.7 7158.9 110400 0 110400 15.4 15.4 39.2 2
5 7.6 8145.9 110400 0 110400 13.6 13.6 49.4 1
1 15.4 16554.1 110400 52473 162873 6.7 9.8 56.2 1
2 20.0 21442.6 110400 60588 170988 5.1 8.0 114.2 1
3 13.1 14079.3 110400 0 110400 7.8 7.8 120.7 1
4 16.0 17282.3 110400 0 110400 6.4 6.4 97.1 1
5 15.4 16738.2 110400 0 110400 6.6 6.6 118.0 1
The development concept field layout parameters

1
 Cummulitive Oil Oil rate
160 8

Oil production, ths tons

Oil production, ths tons/anuum

140 7
120 6
100 5
80 4
60 3
40 2
20 1
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Year Year

1 (P50) 2 (P50) 3 (P50) 5 (P50) 5 (P50) 1 (P50) 2 (P50) 3 (P50) 5 (P50) 5 (P50)
1 (P10) 2 (P10) 3 (P10) 4 (P10) 5 (P10) 1 (P10) 2 (P10) 3 (P10) 4 (P10) 5 (P10)

2
 Gas rate
14000

Gas production, ths m3/anuum

12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Year

1 (P50) 2 (P50) 3 (P50) 5 (P50) 5 (P50)

1 (P10) 2 (P10) 3 (P10) 4 (P10) 5 (P10)

84
4.2. Economic parameters analysis
4.2.1. Capital investments
All the investments were estimated following the materials from [14].

1. The cost of the one headway meter is $11000.

2. The cost of ESP is $600 ths.
3. The cost of the technological platform topside is 1800 million dollars. Such
estimation has been done based on the necessary functions of the platform. It
was taken the same for all concepts.
4. The cost of the concrete GBS Is 400 million dollars. Such estimation has been
done based on the weight and dimensions of the platform.
5. The cost of the wellhead platform is 870 million dollars. Such estimation has
been done based on the necessary functions of the platform. It was taken the
same for two concepts.
6. The cost of the steel GBS is 380 and 430 million dollars based on the plat-
forms’ mass.
7. The cost of pipeline

Table 4.3 Capital investments

Expenditure / Concept 1 2 3 4 5
Well drilling, bln $ 3.75 2.69 1.56 2.05 3.11
ESP, bln $ 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Technological plat-
0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
form (GBS), bln $
Technological plat-
1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80
form (topside), bln $
Wellhead platform
0.38 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00
(GBS), bln $
Wellhead platform
0.87 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00
(topside), bln $
Pipelines, bln $ 0.18 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00

83
 8

bln $ 4

0
1 2 3 4 5

Well drilling, bln $ ESP, bln $

Technological platform (GBS), bln $ Technological platform (topside), bln $
Wellhead platform (GBS), bln $ Wellhead platform (topside), bln $
Pipelines, bln $

Рисунок 4.6 CAPEX for different development concepts

The table above shows that the drilling wells and the topside cost of the techno-
logical platform are the main expenditures. However, the costs for the technological
platform topside do not depend on the concept of the arrangement. On the contrary, the
drilling costs determin differences.

Table 4.4 Relative capital investments

Expenditure / Concept 1 2 3 4 5
Well drilling, bln $ 50.8% 42.8% 41.4% 48.1% 58.5%
ESP, bln $ 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%
Technological platform
5.4% 6.4% 10.6% 9.4% 7.5%
(GBS), bln $
Technological platform
24.3% 28.6% 47.8% 42.3% 33.8%
(topside), bln $
Wellhead platform
5.1% 6.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
(GBS), bln $
Wellhead platform
11.7% 13.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
(topside), bln $
Pipelines, bln $ 2.5% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

84
4.2.2. Operational costs (OPEX)
Operational expenditures can be divided into two groups, those which is depend-
ent on oil production rate and those which do not change.
Independent from the oil production expenditures:

1. Platforms’ service
2. Employees’ salary
3. Power supply expenditures
4. Wells’ workover expenditures
5. Supply vessels and ice-breakers expenditures (rent)
6. Supply vessels and ice-breakers expenditures (fuel)
7. Technical support expenditures
8. Administrative expenditures
9. Onshore supply base rent expenditures

Dependent on the oil production OPEX:

1. Polimer expenditures
2. Transportation expenditures
The comparison of CAPEX and OPEX is presented

8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
bln $

4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1 2 3 4 5

OPEX CAPEX

Рисунок 4.7 CAPEX – OPEX comparison diagram

85
4.2.3. The producing hydrocarbon cost
As can be seen from graphs 4.8 and 4.9, the fourth development option is optimal
in conditions of economic and geological uncertainty.

1 2 3 4 5
1.0
0.0
-1.0 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18

NPV, bln $
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
-6.0
ORF

Figure 4.8 NPV – ORF depending on oil price (P50-case)

1 2 3 4 5
6.0

4.0
NPV, bln $

2.0

0.0
0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
-2.0

-4.0
ORF

FIgure 4.9 NPV – ORF depending on oil price (P10-case)

86
 Table 4.5 Economic parameters’ calculation results (P50)

Parameter / Concept 1 (P50) 2 (P50) 3 (P50) 4 (P50) 5 (P50)

Number of platforms 2 2 1 1 1
Number of wells 50 40 20 30 40
Total headway, km 341.3 244.6 103.7 186.3 283.0

Cumulative oil production, mln tons 82.4 79.6 60.0 72.4 77.4
Volume of the inkected fluid, m3 344.4 339.3 277.6 314.7 317.9
ORF 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.15 0.16
Oil price, $/bbl 30 50 70 30 50 70 30 50 70 30 50 70 30 50 70

Revenue, bln $ 16.7 27.8 38.9 16.1 26.9 37.6 12.1 20.2 28.3 14.7 24.4 34.2 15.7 26.1 36.6

OPEX, bln $ 3.3 3.2 2.4 2.6 2.7

CAPEX, bln $ 7.4 6.3 3.8 4.3 5.3

Revenue before the taxes, bln $ 6.0 17.2 28.3 6.6 17.4 28.1 6.0 14.1 22.2 7.8 17.6 27.4 7.7 18.1 28.6

Taxes, bln $ 1.9 5.2 8.5 2.0 5.2 8.5 1.8 4.2 6.7 2.4 5.3 8.2 2.3 5.4 8.6

Net profit, bln $ 4.2 12.0 19.8 4.6 12.1 19.7 4.2 9.9 15.5 5.4 12.3 19.1 5.3 12.7 20.0

NPV, bln $ -5.3 -3.9 -2.4 -4.0 -2.4 -0.8 -2.2 -1.0 0.1 -2.4 -1.1 0.3 -3.3 -1.9 -0.5

IRR 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.07 0.10 0.04 0.09 0.12 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.04 0.08 0.11

PI 0.28 0.48 0.67 0.36 0.62 0.87 0.42 0.73 1.03 0.44 0.75 1.07 0.38 0.64 0.90

87
 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 30 50 70

-1.0 -1.0

-2.0

NPV, bln $
-2.0
NPV, bln $

-3.0 -3.0

-4.0 -4.0

-5.0 -5.0

-6.0 -6.0
Oil price, $/bbl Oil price, $/bbl

Figure 4.10 Oil price sensitivity study (P50) Figure 4.11 Oil price sensitivity study diagram (P50)

88
 Table 4.6 Economic parameters’ calculation results (P10)
Parameter / Concept
1 (P10) 2 (P10) 3 (P10) 4 (P10) 5 (P10)
Number of platforms
2 2 1 1 1
Number of wells
50 40 20 30 40
Total headway, km 341.3 244.6 103.7 186.3 283.0
Cumulative oil production, mln tons
138.2 132.2 105.9 121.4 129.9
Volume of the inkected fluid, m3
378.2 365.8 339.4 350.0 349.7
ORF
0.18 0.17 0.14 0.16 0.17
Oil price, $/bbl 30 50 70 30 50 70 30 50 70 30 50 70 30 50 70
Revenue, bln $ 28.0 46.6 65.3 26.8 44.6 62.5 21.4 35.7 50.0 24.8 41.4 57.9 26.6 44.3 62.0
OPEX, bln $ 3.9 3.7 2.9 3.1 3.2
CAPEX, bln $ 7.4 6.3 3.8 4.3 5.3
Revenue before the taxes, bln $ 16.7 35.4 54.0 16.7 26.7 52.4 14.8 29.1 43.4 17.4 34.0 50.5 18.0 35.7 53.4
Taxes, bln $ 5.0 10.6 16.2 5.1 8.0 15.7 4.4 8.7 13.0 5.2 10.2 15.2 5.4 10.7 16.0
Net profit, bln $ 11.7 24.8 37.8 11.7 24.2 36.7 10.3 20.3 30.4 12.2 23.8 35.4 12.6 25.0 37.4
NPV, bln $ -3.5 -0.8 1.9 -2.0 1.0 2.1 -0.5 1.9 4.2 -0.4 2.3 4.9 -1.5 1.1 3.8
IRR 0.06 0.11 0.15 0.08 0.14 0.16 0.10 0.18 0.24 0.11 0.18 0.25 0.08 0.14 0.20
PI 0.52 0.89 1.25 0.68 1.916 1.34 0.88 1.50 2.12 0.90 1.53 2.16 0.71 1.21 1.71

89
90
 Sensitivity study

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

6.0 6.0

5.0 5.0

4.0 4.0

3.0 3.0

2.0 2.0

NPV, bln $
NPV, bln $

1.0 1.0

0.0 0.0
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 30 50 70
-1.0 -1.0

-2.0 -2.0

-3.0 -3.0

-4.0 -4.0
Oil price, $/bbl Oil price, $/bbl

Figure 4.12 Oil price sensitivity study (P50) Figure 4.13 Oil price sensitivity study diagram (P50)

91
 Conclusions
In this thesis, the development concept study were carried out. 5 options are con-
sidered, and the optimal one is identified. Nevertheless, the development of the field is
unprofitable in the case of P50, despite significant oil reserves. High oil viscosity pri-
marily determines the behaviour of the reservoir system, with characteristic low pro-
duction indicators. At the same time, the vast area of the field requires the need to drill
long wells, which significantly increases the capital costs of the project. The unstable
economic situation and high taxes also determine the profitability of the project. Thus,
it can be concluded that further research on issues related to the development of field
should lie primarily in the economic sphere.

92
 References
1. Zolotukhin P.A. Petroleum resources in a modern world // Offshore F. Dev. Lect.
1. 2019.
2. Прохоров А.М. Большой энциклопедический словарь. 2004. 1456 p.
3. Basic information about the Arctic [Electronic resource]. URL:
https://www.arcticcentre.org/EN/arcticregion.
4. Gautier D.L. et al. Assessment of undiscovered oil and gas in the arctic // Science
(80-. ). 2009. Vol. 324, № 5931. P. 1175–1179.
5. Zolotukhin P.A. Challenges associated with the Arctic resources development //
Offshore F. Dev. Lect. 6. 2019.
6. Degeer D. et al. SURVEY OF ARCTIC & COLD REGION TECHNOLOGY
FOR OFFSHORE FIELD // Offshore Mag. 2014. Vol. 250. P. 984.
7. Никитин Б.А. et al. Освоение нефтегазовых месторождений
континентального шельфа Часть 1 Прединвестиционная и инвестиционная
стадии. 2018. 335 p.
8. Zolotukhin P.A. Main offshore and arctic development projects // Offshore F.
Dev. Lect. 3. 2019.
9. Вяхирев Р.И., Никитин Б.А., Мирзоев Д.А. Обустройство и освоение
морских нефтегазовых месторождений. Издательст. 1999. 374 p.
10. ISO 19906. INTERNATIONAL STANDARD Petroleum and natural gas
industries. 2011. Vol. 2010.
11. Løset S. et al. Comparison of the physical environment of some Arctic seas //
Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 1999. Vol. 29, № 3. P. 201–214.
12. Li H. et al. Review and outlook on arctic offshore facilities & technologies //
OTC Arct. Technol. Conf. 2015. 2015. № July 2008. P. 777–800.
13. Speight J.G. Handbook of Offshore Oil and Gas Operations // Subsea and
Deepwater Oil and Gas Science and Technology. 2015. 1–43 p.
14. Условия проектирования месторождения А (Роснефть, 2019). 2019. 15 p.
15. Sukhotin A., Denisenko S., Galaktionov K. Pechora Sea ecosystems: current state
and future challenges // Polar Biol. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2019. Vol. 42, №
9. P. 1631–1645.
16. Дымов В.И., Зубакин Г.К. Ветер и волны в Печорском море // Проблемы
Арктики и Антарктики. 2012. Vol. 4, № 94. P. 23–40.
17. DNV GL. OFFSHORE STANDARD DNV GL AS Winterization for cold
climate operations. 2015. № July 2015.
18. Conference P.E., Engineers P. Analysis of Various Designs of the Stationary
Platform Substructures for the Pechora Sea Shelf. 2000. Vol. I. P. 737–742.
19. ZOLOTUKНIN А.В., GUDMESTAD О.Т. BASICS OF ТНЕ OFFSHORE OIL
AND GAS FIELD DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION. 2000.
20. Abramov V. Atlas of Arctic Icebergs. 1996. 68 p.
21. Løset S. et al. Actions from ice on Arctic offshore and coastal structures. 2006.
272 p.
22. «ЛУКОЙЛ-Транс» О. Варандейский терминал [Electronic resource]. URL:
https://trans.lukoil.ru/ru/About/Structure/VarandeyTerminal.
23. Agarcov S., Kozmenko S., Teslya A. Organizing an oil transportation system in

93
 the Arctic // IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020. Vol. 434, № 1.
24. Plotkin B.K., KHAIKIN M.M. Formation and Development of Theoretical
Principles for Mineral Resources Logistics. 2017. Vol. 223. P. 139–146.
25. Газпром. Приразломное месторождение [Electronic resource]. URL:
https://www.gazprom.ru/projects/prirazlomnoye/.
26. Bambulyak A., Frantzen B. Oil transport from the Russian part of the Barents
Region. Status per January 2011. 2011. № January. P. 101.
27. Posey C.J., Silvester R. Offshore structures // Nature. 1975. Vol. 258, № 5532.
192 p.
28. Мирзоев Д.А. Основы морского нефтегазопромыслового дела. Том 1.
Обустройство и эксплуатация морских нефтегазовых месторождений
Мирзоев Д.А.
29. Hoang V., Alamsyah O., Roberts J. Darajat Geothermal Field Expansion
Performance-A Probabilistic Forecast // Iga.Igg.Cnr.It. 2005. № April. P. 24–29.
30. SPE. Petroleum Reserves and Resources Definitions [Electronic resource]. URL:
https://www.spe.org/en/industry/reserves/.
31. Пятибратов П.В. Гидродинамическое моделирование нефтяных
месторождений. 2014.
32. Молчанова А.Г., Назарова Л.Н., Нечаева Е.В. Введение в разработку и
эксплуатацию месторождений углеводородов.
33. Еремин Н.А. et al. Выбор метода воздействия на нефтяную залежь. 2007.
34. Nazarova L.N. Oil and gas field development with hard-to-recover reserves.
2011.
35. Золотухин А.Б. et al. Оценка Применимости Методов Увеличения
Нефтеотдачи // Труды Ргу Нефти И Газа Имени И.М. Губкина. 2016. Vol. 2
(283).
36. Желтов Ю.П. Разработка нефтяных месторождении. 1986.
37. Sheng J.J., Leonhardt B., Gmbh W.H. Status of Polymer-Flooding Technology.
2015. № October 2014.
38. Абиров Р.Ж. et al. ОПЫТНО - ПРОМЫШЛЕННОЕ ВНЕДРЕНИЕ
ПОЛИМЕРНОГО ЗАВОДНЕНИЯ НА МЕСТОРОЖДЕНИИ ЮЖНО -
ТУРГАЙСКОГО БАССЕЙНА. 2014. P. 15–19.
39. Wang D. et al. Actual Field Data Show that Production Costs of Polymer
Flooding can be Lower than Water Flooding // Proc. - SPE Int. Improv. Oil
Recover. Conf. Asia Pacific. 2003. P. 15–17.
40. Kang X., Zhang J. Offshore heavy oil polymer flooding test in JZW area // Soc.
Pet. Eng. - SPE Heavy Oil Conf. Canada 2013. 2013. Vol. 2, № June. P. 1127–
1134.
41. Lu Q. et al. Full field offshore surfactant-polymer flooding in bohai bay China //
Soc. Pet. Eng. - SPE Asia Pacific Enhanc. Oil Recover. Conf. EORC 2015. 2015.
№ August. P. 312–323.
42. Полимерное заводнение в условиях Русского месторождения // ООО
“Тюменский нефтяной научный Центр.” 2017.
43. Бородавкин П.П. Морские нефтегазовые сооружения. Учебник для вузов.
Часть 1. Конструирование. 2006. 555 p.
44. Veritas D.N. DNV Environmental conditions and environmental loads // Dnv.
94
 2010. № October. P. 9–123.
45. Chakrabarti S.K. Hydrodynamics of offshore structures // CIRED - Open Access
Proceedings Journal. 1987. Vol. 2017, № July. 435 p.
46. Gudmestad O.T. Marine Technology and Operations 4. 2014. 71–104 p.
47. Sea Loads on Ships & Offshore Structures_Faltinsen.pdf.
48. Rahman M. Second order wave loads on large monolithic offshore structures //
Appl. Math. Model. 1986. Vol. 10, № 6. P. 401–408.

95
Appendix 1 Table 1

1
 Project discription

№ Water Production vessel/structure Export Technology

Country & Project Year Location
Depth, m

1 Arkutun-Dagi 2014 Sea of Okhotsk, Sakhalin Island 35 Concrete GBS Pipelines

2 Sakhalin I -Orlan 2008 Sea of Okhotsk, Sakhalin Island 15 Block-type GBS Pipelines
3 Sakhalin II - MolikPaq (PA-A) 1999 Sea of Okhotsk, Sakhalin Island 30 Steel GBS Currently pipelines
4 Sakhalin II - MolikPaq (PA-B) 2007 Sea of Okhotsk, Sakhalin Island 30 Multi-column GBS Pipelines
Russia

5 Sakhalin II - LUN-A 2008 Sea of Okhotsk, Sakhalin Island 48 Multi-column GBS Pipelines
6 Sakhalkin III - Kirinskoye 2014 Sea of Okhotsk, Sakhalin Island 90 Subsea system Pipelines
7 Prirazlomnoye 2014 Barents Sea (Pechora Sea) 20 Block-type GBS Offloading - GBS to ice-strengthened shuttle tankers
8 Shtokman TBD Barents Sea 340 FPSO & Subsea System Pipelines
9 Kravtovskoye D-6 2004 Baltic Sea 25-35 Jacket platforms (2) Pipelines
10 White Rose 2005 Grand Banks, Newfoundland 122 FPSO & Subsea System Tandem offloading - FPSO to ice-strengthened shuttle tankers
11 Terra Nova 2002 Grand Banks, Newfoundland 90-100 FPSO & Subsea System Tandem offloading - FPSO to ice-strengthened shuttle tankers
12 Hebron 2017 Grand Banks, Newfoundland 95 Block-type GBS Offloading - GBS to ice-strengthened shuttle tankers
Canada

13 Hibernia 1997 Grand Banks, Newfoundland 80 Block-type GBS Offloading - GBS to ice-strengthened shuttle tankers
14 Bjarni/North Bjarni TBD Labrador Shelf 140-150 TBD TBD
15 Drake Point TBD Melville Island 55 Subsea System Pipelines
16 Amauligak TBD Beaufort Sea 27-32 TBD TBD
17 Tarsiut TBD Beaufort Sea 21 GBS TBD
18 Sivulliq TBD Beaufort Sea, Alaska 34 Conical-type GBS Pipelines
19 Kuvlum TBD Beaufort Sea, Alaska 34 TBD Pipelines
20 Liberty TBD Beaufort Sea, Alaska 6 Artificial Island (Gravel) Pipelines
21 Endicott 1987 Beaufort Sea, Alaska 4 Artificial Island (Gravel) Pipelines
USA

22 Northstar 2001 Beaufort Sea, Alaska 12 Artificial Island (Gravel) Pipelines

23 Nikaitchuq 2011 Beaufort Sea, Alaska 2 Artificial Island (Gravel) Pipelines
24 Oooguruk 2008 Beaufort Sea, Alaska 2 Artificial Island (Gravel) Pipelines
25 Cook Inlet Area 1958-2000 Cook Inlet, Alaska 14-56 Jacket platforms Pipelines
26 Goliat 2014 Barents Sea (Norwegian) 360-420 FPSO & Subsea System Offloading - FPSO to shuttle tankers
Norway

27 Johan Castberg TBD Barents Sea (Norwegian) 370 FPSO & Subsea System Offloading - FPSO to shuttle tankers
28 Snøhvit 2007 Barents Sea (Norwegian) 310-340 Subsea System Pipelines to Melkøya terminal
29 China - Bohai Bay Area Developments 1999 Bohai Bay of South, China Sea 25 (max 85) Jacket platforms Pipelines
30 Kazakhstan - Kashagan 2013 North Caspian Sea 3- 6 Artificial Islands Pipelines

31 Asgard B gasfield 1999-2001 Norwegian Sea 240-300 Semi-submersible platform

32 Asgard A oilfield 1999-2001 Norwegian Sea 240-300 FPSO & Subsea System
33 Aasta Hansteen Field 2018 Norwegian Sea 1270 SPAR & Subsea System Pipelines
Norway

34 Norne FPSO TBD Norwegian Sea 1300 FPSO Pipelines

35 Balder oilfield 1999 Norwegian Sea 125 FPSO & Subsea System
36 Heidrun Field 1995 Norwegian Sea 350 Concrete TLP pipeline for gas/ offloading for oil
37 Ormen Lange 2007 Norwegian Sea 800-1100 Subsea system

2
2
 Appendix 2

1. %reset -f
2. #EOR SCREENING . V.MIKHALKIN, 2020
3. from numpy import arange, pi, prod, fabs, linspace
4. from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
5.
6. # INPUT DATA ==================================================
7. FIELD = {
8. 'Depth': [1353, 1500], # m
9. 'NetPay': [73, 89], # m
10. 'Porosity': [11, 12], # %
11. 'Permeability': [47/1e3, 98.7/1e3], # D
12. 'OilSaturation': [0.86, 0.88], #
13. 'Temperature': [30, 35], # gradC
14. 'OilViscosity': [28.7, 61.3] , # mPa*s
15. 'Pressure': [13.9, 15.4], # MPa
16. # 'Fractures': 0 # no - 0, yes - 1
17.
18. }
19.
20.
21.
22.
23. WEIGHTS = {
24. 'Depth': 0.1,
25. 'NetPay': 0.1,
26. 'Porosity': 0.1,
27. 'Permeability': 0.2,
28. 'OilSaturation': 0.1,
29. 'Temperature': 0.1,
30. 'OilViscosity': 0.2,
31. 'Pressure': 0.1,
32. }
33. # BASE ============================================================
34.
35. BASE = {
36. # Termo ---------------------------------------------------
37. 'Steam':{ # ПТВ
38. 'Depth': (0, 0, 0, 1400, 1450, 1500), # m
39. 'ClueContent': (0, 0, 0, 5, 7, 10), # %
40. 'NetPay': (0, 6, 0, 0, 0, 0), # m
41. 'Porosity': (0, 18, 0, 0, 30, 0), # %
42. 'Permeability': (0, 0.2, 0, 0, 0, 0), # D
43. 'OilSaturation': (0, 0.5, 0, 0, 0, 0), #
44. 'Temperature': (0, 0, 0, 0, 50, 0), # gradC
45. 'OilViscosity': (0, 50, 0, 0, 0, 0), # mPa*s
46. 'WaterSalinity': (0, 0, 0, 0, 20, 0) # g/l

1
47. },
48. 'HotWater': { # ГВ
49. 'Depth': (0, 0, 0, 1400, 1450, 1500), # m
50. 'ClueContent': (0, 0, 0, 5, 7, 10), # %
51. 'NetPay': (0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0), # m
52. 'Porosity': (0, 18, 0, 0, 30, 0), # %
53. 'Permeability': (0, 0.03, 0, 0, 0, 0), # D
54. 'OilSaturation': (0, 0.5, 0, 0, 0, 0), #
55. 'Temperature': (0, 0, 0, 0, 50, 0), # gradC
56. 'OilViscosity': (0, 5, 0, 0, 0, 0), # mPa*s
57. 'WaterSalinity': (0, 0, 0, 0, 20, 0) # g/l
58. },
59. 'SteamWellTreatment { # ПТОС
60. 'Depth': (0, 0, 0, 1400, 1450, 1500), # m
61. 'ClueContent': (0, 0, 0, 5, 7, 10), # %
62. 'NetPay': (0, 6, 0, 0, 0, 0), # m
63. 'Permeability': (0, 0.2, 0, 0, 0, 0), # D
64. 'OilSaturation': (0, 0.5, 0, 0, 0, 0), #
65. 'OilViscosity': (0, 30, 0, 0, 0, 0), # mPa*s
66. },
67. 'SAGD ': {
68. 'Depth': (0, 0, 0, 1100, 1150, 1200), # m
69. 'ClueContent': (0, 0, 0, 5, 7, 10), # %
70. 'NetPay': (12, 13, 15, 0, 0, 0), # m
71. 'Permeability': (0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0), # D
72. 'OilSaturation': (0, 0.5, 0, 0, 0, 0), #
73. 'OilViscosity': (0, 500, 0, 0, 0, 0), # mPa*s
74. },
75. # GAS ---------------------------------------------------------
76. 'Methane': {
77. 'Depth': (0, 1000, 0, 0, 0, 0), # m
78. 'NetPay': (0, 0, 0, 0, 15, 0), # m
79. 'Permeability': (0, 0.005, 0, 0, 0.1, 0), # D
80. 'OilSaturation': (0, 0.3, 0, 0, 0, 0), #
81. 'OilViscosity': (0, 0.4, 0, 0, 10, 0), # mPa*s
82. 'Pressure': (0, 20, 0, 0, 0, 0), # MPa
83. 'Temperature': (0, 0, 0, 0, 100, 0), # gradC
84. },
85. 'EnrichedGas': {
86. 'Depth': (0, 1000, 0, 0, 0, 0), # m
87. 'NetPay': (0, 0, 0, 0, 15, 0), # m
88. 'Permeability': (0, 0.001, 0, 0, 0.15, 0), # D
89. 'OilSaturation': (0, 0.6, 0, 0, 0, 0), #
90. 'OilViscosity': (0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 0), # mPa*s
91. 'Pressure': (0, 8, 0, 0, 0, 0), # MPa
92. 'Temperature': (0, 0, 0, 0, 100, 0), # gradC
93. },
94. 'NGL': {
95. 'Depth': (0, 1500, 0, 0, 0, 0), # m
96. 'NetPay': (0, 0, 0, 0, 15, 0), # m
97. 'Permeability': (0, 0.001, 0, 0, 0.5, 0), # D

2
98. 'OilSaturation': (0, 0.6, 0, 0, 0, 0), #
99. 'OilViscosity': (0, 0, 0, 0, 10, 0), # mPa*s
100. 'Pressure': (0, 8, 0, 0, 0, 0), # MPa
101. 'Temperature': (0, 0, 0, 0, 96, 0), # gradC
102. },
103. 'CO2': {
104. 'Depth': (0, 600, 0, 0, 0, 0), # m
105. 'NetPay': (0, 2, 0, 0, 15, 0), # m
106. 'Permeability': (0, 0.002, 0, 0, 0.2, 0), # D
107. 'OilSaturation': (0, 0.2, 0, 0, 0, 0), #
108. 'OilViscosity': (0, 0, 0, 0, 60, 0), # mPa*s
109. 'Temperature': (0, 10, 0, 0, 120, 0), # gradC
110. 'ClueContent': (0, 0, 0, 0, 10, 0), # %
111. 'Porosity': (0, 10, 0, 0, 35, 0), # %
112. 'WaterSalinity': (0, 0, 0, 0, 350, 0), # g/l
113. },
114. 'N2': {
115. 'Depth': (0, 1000, 0, 0, 0, 0), # m
116. 'NetPay': (0, 4.8, 0, 0, 240, 0), # m
117. 'Permeability': (0, 0.03, 0, 0, 0, 0), # D
118. 'OilSaturation': (0, 0.4, 0, 0, 0, 0), #
119. 'OilViscosity': (0, 1, 0, 0, 10, 0), # mPa*s
120. 'Pressure': (0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0), # MPa
121. 'Temperature': (0, 0, 0, 0, 120, 0), # gradC
122. 'ClueContent': (0, 0, 0, 0, 10, 0), # %
123. 'Porosity': (0, 4, 0, 0, 33, 0), # %
124. 'WaterSalinity': (0, 0, 0, 0, 350, 0) # g/l
125. },
126. 'WAG': {
127. 'Depth': (0, 1800, 0, 0, 0, 0), # m
128. 'NetPay': (0, 2, 0, 0, 19, 0), # m
129. 'Permeability': (0, 0.02, 0, 0, 0.8, 0), # D
130. 'OilSaturation': (0, 0.4, 0, 0, 0, 0), #
131. 'OilViscosity': (0, 1, 0, 0, 10, 0), # mPa*s
132. 'Pressure': (0, 15, 0, 0, 18, 0), # MPa
133. 'Temperature': (0, 0, 0, 0, 50, 0), # gradC
134. 'ClueContent': (0, 0, 0, 5, 7, 10), # %
135. 'Porosity': (0, 10, 0, 0, 35, 0), # %
136. },
137. 'WAG&FOAM': {
138. 'Depth': (0, 1800, 0, 0, 0, 0), # m
139. 'NetPay': (0, 2, 0, 0, 20, 0), # m
140. 'Permeability': (0, 0.004, 0, 0, 0.8, 0), # D
141. 'OilSaturation': (0, 0.4, 0, 0, 0, 0), #
142. 'OilViscosity': (0, 5, 0, 0, 100, 0), # mPa*s
143. 'Pressure': (0, 15, 0, 0, 18, 0), # MPa
144. 'Temperature': (0, 0, 0, 0, 50, 0), # gradC
145. 'ClueContent': (0, 0, 0, 5, 7, 10), # %
146. 'Porosity': (0, 10, 0, 0, 35, 0), # %
147. },
148. # Ph --------------------------------------------------------------------

3
149. 'Polymer': {
150. 'Depth': (0, 213, 0, 0, 2883, 0), # m
151. 'ClueContent': (0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 0), # %
152. 'Porosity': (0, 10.4, 0, 0, 33, 0), # %
153. 'Permeability': (0, 0.6/1e3, 0, 0, 5500/1e3, 0), # D
154. 'OilSaturation': (0, 0.6, 0, 0, 0, 0), #
155. 'Temperature': (0, 0, 0, 75, 80, 90), # gradC
156. 'OilViscosity': (0, 0.3, 0, 0, 130, 0), # mPa*s
157. 'WaterSalinity': (0, 0, 0, 0, 20, 0) # g/l
158. },
159. 'SAA': {
160. 'Depth': (0, 20, 0, 0, 4500, 0), # m
161. 'ClueContent': (0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 0), # %
162. 'Porosity': (0, 10, 0, 0, 35, 0), # %
163. 'Permeability': (0, 0.1, 0, 0, 2, 0), # D
164. 'OilSaturation': (0, 0.7, 0, 0, 0, 0), #
165. 'Temperature': (0, 0, 0, 0, 50, 0), # gradC
166. 'OilViscosity': (0, 1, 0, 0, 60, 0), # mPa*s
167. 'WaterSalinity': (0, 0, 0, 0, 10, 0) # g/l
168. },
169. }
170.
171.
172. # FUCTIONS DIDINITION
========================================================
173. def mu(x, SixValues): # Membership function defini-
tion
174. if SixValues == None: # if there are no criteria in BASE
175. return 1
176. # DEFUALT MODE: SixValues=[x,x,x,x,x,x]
177. xmin1, xm1, xmax1, xmin2, xm2, xmax2 = SixValues
178. # SPECIAL MODES: SixValues=[0,x,0,0,x,0], SixValues=[x,x,x,0,0,0], ...
179. #... SixValues=[0,0,0,x,x,x], SixValues=[0,x,0,x,x,x],
SixValues=[x,x,x,0,x,0]
180. block = 1
181. if sum([xmin1, xmax1, xmin2, xmax2]) == 0 or xmin1+xmax1 == 0 \
182. or xmin2+xmax2 == 0:
183. r = .3
184. xmin1 = xm1 - r*fabs(xm2 - xm1)
185. xmax1 = xm1 + r*fabs(xm2 - xm1)
186. xmin2 = xm2 - r*fabs(xm2 - xm1)
187. xmax2 = xm2 + r*fabs(xm2 - xm1)
188. if xm1 == 0: #for SixValues=[0,0,0,x,x,x]
189. xmin1 = 0
190. xmax1 = 0
191. if xm2 == 0: #for SixValues=[x,x,x,0,0,0]
192. xmin2 = 0
193. xmax2 = 0
194. if xmin2 == 0:
195. xmin2 = 2000
196. block = 0

4
197.
198. #FUNCTION
199. mu=[]
200. if not(isinstance(x, list)): x = [x,x]
201. if x[0] == x[1]: x = [x[0]]
202. else: x = arange(x[0], x[1], .01)
203. for i in range(len(x)):
204. if x[i] < 0:
205. mu.append(0)
206. elif x[i] <= xmin1:
207. mu.append(0)
208. elif x[i] > xmin1 and x[i] < xmax1:
209. y = ((xmax1-xm1)/(xm1-xmin1)*(x[i]-xmin1)/(xmax1-x[i]))**(-2)
210. mu.append((1+y)**(-1))
211. elif x[i] >= xmax1 and x[i] <= xmin2:
212. mu.append(1)
213. elif x[i] > xmin2 and x[i] < xmax2:
214. y = ((xmax2-xm2)/(xm2-xmin2)*(x[i]-xmin2)/(xmax2-x[i]))**(2)
215. mu.append((1+y)**(-1))
216. elif x[i] >= xmax2:
217. mu.append(0**block)
218. #print(mu[0], mu[1])
219. return sum(mu)/len(mu)
220.
221. def c(values, weights, method):
222. from numpy import prod
223. if round(sum(weights),4) != 1:
224. print('WARNING! WEIGHTS sum = ', sum(weights))
225. t = []
226. for i in range(len(weights)):
227. t.append(values[i]*weights[i])
228. if method == 1:
229. return sum(t)
230. if method == 2:
231. return prod(t)**(1/len(t))
232. if method == 3:
233. return min(values)
234.
235. # CALCULATIONS
================================================================
236. MATRIX = {}
237. RESULTS = {}
238. for BASEkey in BASE:
239. TempDict = {}
240. for FIELDkey in FIELD:
241. TempDict[FIELDkey] = mu(FIELD[FIELDkey], BASE[BA-
SEkey].get(FIELDkey))
242. RESULTS[BASEkey]=c(list(TempDict.values()), list(WEIGHTS.values()), 3)
243. MATRIX[BASEkey] = TempDict
244. del TempDict
245.

5
246. #TABLE DRAWING
=================================================================
247. line ='{:22}'.format('Parameter/Method') # Head
248. for MATRIXkey in MATRIX:
249. line = line + '{:11.7}'.format(MATRIXkey)
250. print(line, '\n')
251. del line
252. for j in FIELD: # Body
253. line = '{:22}'.format(j)
254. for i in MATRIX:
255. line = line + '{:^3.2f}{:7}'.format(MATRIX[i][j], ' ')
256. print(line)
257. line = ''
258. del line
259. line ='\n{:22}'.format('Evaluation:')
260. for RESULTSkey in RESULTS:
261. line = line + '{:^3.2f}{:7}'.format(RESULTS[RESULTSkey], ' ')
262. print(line, '\n')
263.
264. # PLOT DRAWING
==================================================================
265. method = 'Polymer'
266. f, axs = plt.subplots(2,4,figsize=(15,10))
267. # Membership function drawing
268. i=1
269. for parameter in BASE[method]:
270. x1 = BASE[method][parameter][1]
271. x2 = BASE[method][parameter][-2]
272. if x1 == 0:
273. x1 = x2 - 0.5*x2
274. if x2 == 0:
275. x2 = x1 + 0.5*x1
276. xx = fabs(x2-x1)
277. xx = linspace(x1-.7*xx, x2+.7*xx, 200)
278. yy = [mu(i, BASE[method].get(parameter)) for i in xx]
279. plt.subplot(2, 5, i)
280. plt.plot(xx, yy, '-')
281. plt.xlabel(parameter)
282. # Property range/point drawing
283. if FIELD.get(parameter) != None:
284. if isinstance(FIELD[parameter], list):
285. xx = arange(FIELD[parameter][0], FIELD[parameter][1], .01)
286. j=0
287. while (mu(xx[j], BASE[method][parameter]) \
288. <= 0.98*MATRIX[method][parameter] \
289. or mu(xx[j], BASE[method][parameter]) >= \
290. 1.02*MATRIX[method][parameter]) and xx[j]<xx[-1]:
291. j+=1
292. plt.plot([FIELD[parameter][0],FIELD[parameter][1]] ,[0,0],
color="r")

6
293. plt.scatter(xx[j],mu(xx[j], BASE[method][parameter]),
color="r")
294.
295. else:
296. plt.scatter(FIELD[parameter],mu(FIELD[parameter], \
297. BASE[method][parameter]),
color="r")
298. plt.grid()
299. i+=1
300.

7
 Appendix 3
sdfvsdvsvsdv

1. %reset -f
2. #WAVELOAD ON A LARGE STRUCTURE . V.MIKHALKIN, 2020
3. import sys
4. from numpy import arange, pi
5. from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
6. print('This script calculates wave loads on large bodies (cylinder or square).\n')
7.
8. # FUNCTIONS for CALCULATIONS
9. def DispersionRelationSolution(k, T, d, N, e): #Newton iterations for the Disper-
sionRelation
10. from math import tanh, cosh, fabs, pi
11. t = 9.81/(2*pi/T)**2 # g/w^2
12. for i in range(N):
13. f = t*k*tanh(d*k)-1
14. dfdk = t * (d*k/(cosh(d*k)**2) + tanh(d*k))
15. knew = k - f / dfdk # knew = k - f(x)/f'(x)
16. if fabs(knew - k) < e:
17. print('ok: k = ', k, ' from ', i+1, ' iterations')
18. break
19. k = knew
20. return k
21.
22. def CmFunction(L, D):
23. from scipy.special import jvp, yvp
24. pi=3.1415
25. k = 2*pi/L
26. A = jvp(1, k*D/2, n=1)**2+yvp(1, k*D/2, n=1)**2
27. return 4 /(pi*(k*D/2)**2*A**0.5)
28.
29. def Force(x, t, H, k, w, rho, d, Cm, A, S):
30. from math import sin, cos, sinh, cosh
31. g = 9.81
32. ksi0 = H/2
33. ksi = ksi0*sin(w*t-k*x)
34. #Mass
35. R = S*rho*Cm
36. N = ksi0*k*g*cos(w*t-k*x)/cosh(k*d)
37. FM = R*N/k*sinh(k*(ksi+d))
38. return FM
39.
40. def wave(t, x, H, w, k):
41. from math import sin
42. ksi0 = H/2
43. return ksi0*sin(w*t-k*x)
44.
45. def ac(x, t, k, w, d):

8
46. from math import sin, cos, sinh, cosh
47. g = 9.81
48. ksi0 = H/2
49. ksi = ksi0*sin(w*t-k*x)
50. return ksi0*k*g*cos(w*t-k*x)/cosh(k*d)*cosh(k*(ksi+d))
51.
52. def IsThisASquareBody(type, D):
53. if type == 'no':
54. return D
55. elif type == 'yes':
56. D = 2*D/pi**0.5
57. return D
58.
59. #INITIA DATA
60. # The calculations are made for 2 type of bodies
61. D = 70 # Characteristic dimension. Side length for squre
62. D = IsThisASquareBody('no', D)# yes / no
63. rho = 1025 # Water density
64. d = 20+4.7 # Water depth
65. H = 12.7 # Hmax
66. T = 11.3 # Peak wave period
67.
68. #CALCULATIONS
69. A = D # Reference area per unit length. Cylinder.
70. S = pi*D**2/4 # Square of a body's cross-section. Cylinder.
71. w = 2*pi/T # Angular frequency calculation
72. k = DispersionRelationSolution(1, T, d, 10, 0.00001) # k-number calculation
73. L = 2*pi/k # Wave length calculation
74.
75. # Determination of water depth category. Not used in calculation
76. if d/L < 1/20:
77. print('This is shallow water.')
78. elif d/L < 1/2:
79. print('This is intermidiate water.')
80. else:
81. print('This is deep water.')
82.
83. # Morison equation for large bodies
84. if D/L < 0.2:
85. print('D/L=', round(D/L, 2), ' < 0.2 -- OK - The body is considered as a small
body - no reflection.')
86. sys.exit("STOP - the body is considered as a small body - no reflection.")
87. elif H/L >= 0.14:
88. print('H/L =', round(H/L, 2), '> 0.14 -- STOP - breaking wave')
89. sys.exit("STOP - breaking wave")
90. else:
91. print('D/L=', round(D/L, 2), ' > 0.2 -- OK - The body is considered as a large
body - reflection presents.')
92. print('H/L =', round(H/L, 2), '< 0.14 -- OK - Non-breaking waves condition.')
93. print('A/D < 0.2 -- OK. The body is supposed to be fixed, A=0.\n')
94.

9
95. Cm = CmFunction(L, D) # Cm calculation
96. t = arange(0,2*T,0.01) # Time period observed, and the timestep
97.
98. F = [ Force(0, i, H, k, w, rho, d, Cm, A, S) for i in t] # Total force calcula-
tion for each time-step
99. M = [ i*2/3*d for i in F] # Moment calculation for each time-step
100. print('RESULTS:')
101. print('Maximum force: ', round(max(F), 2)/1e6, ' MH')
102. print('Maximum moment: ', round(max(M), 2)/1e6, ' MHm')
103.
104. #PLOTS
105. import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
106. fig=plt.figure(figsize=(18, 7))
107. ax1=fig.add_subplot(121, label="F")
108. ax2=fig.add_subplot(121, label="ksi", frame_on=False)
109. #ax3=fig.add_subplot(111, label="a", frame_on=False)
110. # The first axes -- FORCE
111. F = [i * 1e-6 for i in F]
112. ax1.plot(t, F, color="k")
113. ax1.set_xlabel("Время, s", color="k", fontsize=13)
114. ax1.set_ylabel("Cила волновой нагрузки, MH", color="k", fontsize=13)
115. ax1.tick_params(axis='x', colors="k")
116. ax1.tick_params(axis='y', colors="k")
117. to = 2*pi/w + .9
118. F0to = Force(0, to, H, k, w, rho, d, Cm, A, S)
119. #print('\nF(0, ',to ,') = ', round(F0to/1e6, 2), ' MN -- red point')
120. #ax1.scatter(to, F0to/1e6, color="r")
121. # The second axes -- WAVE PROFILE
122. ksi = [wave(i, 0, H, w, k) for i in t] # Wave profile calculation for each
time-step
123. ax2.plot(t, ksi, color="C0")
124. ax2.yaxis.tick_right()
125. ax2.set_xlabel('', color="k")
126. ax2.set_ylabel('ξ, m', color="C0")
127. ax2.yaxis.set_label_position('right')
128. ax2.tick_params(axis='x', colors="k")
129. ax2.tick_params(axis='y', colors="C0")
130. ax2.set_ylim([-2*H,2*H])
131. #ax2.scatter(to, wave(to, 0, H, w, k), color="r")
132. a = [ac(0, i, k, w, d) for i in t]
133. #ax3.plot(t, a, color="r")
134. #ax3.yaxis.tick_right()
135. #ax3.set_xlabel('', color="k")
136. #ax3.set_ylabel('a, m/s/s', color="r")
137. ##ax3.yaxis.set_label_position('right')
138. #ax3.tick_params(axis='x', colors="k")
139. #ax3.tick_params(axis='y', colors="r")
140. #ax3.set_ylim([2*min(a),2*max(a)])
141. plt.grid()
142.
143. # Cm(D/L)

10
144. x = arange(.01,1,0.01)
145. Lx = [D / i for i in x]
146. Cmy = [CmFunction(i, D) for i in Lx]
147. ax=fig.add_subplot(122, label="F")
148. ax.plot(x, Cmy, color="k")
149. ax.set_xlabel("D/L", color="k", fontsize=13)
150. ax.set_ylabel("Cm", color="k", fontsize=13)
151. ax.tick_params(axis='x', colors="k")
152. ax.tick_params(axis='y', colors="k")
153. ax.scatter(D/L, Cm, color="r")
154. plt.grid()
155. plt.show()
156.

11
 Appendix 4

1. %reset -f
2. #ICELOAD (LevelIce, DriftIce) ON A LARGE STRUCTURE . V.MIKHALKIN, 2020
3. from numpy import exp, tan, pi, arange
4. from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
5. width = arange(65,105,5)
6. F = []
7. for j in width:
8. h = 3 #3 the thickness of the ice sheet, expressed in metres;
9. w = j # the projected width of the structure, expressed in metres;
10. h1 = 1 # a reference thickness of 1 m;
11.
12. CR = 2.8*1e6 # the ice strength coefficient, expressed in pascals. For Arctic
FY and MY ice (e.g. Beaufort) equals to 2.8*1.6 Pa
13. m = -0.16 # an empirical coefficient equal to −0.16;
14. if h < 1: n = -.5+h/5 # an empirical coefficient, equal to −0.50 + h/5 for h <
1.0 m,
15. else: n = -.3 # and to −0.30 for h ≥ 1.0 m;
16. fAR = exp(-w/3/h)*(1+5*h/w)**.5 # empirical term
17. pG = CR*((h/h1)**n*(w/h)**m+fAR) # the global average ice pressure, expressed
in megapascals;
18. F.append(pG*h*w) #
19.
20. F = [i * 1e-6 for i in F]
21. fig =plt.figure(figsize=(7, 7))
22. ax1=fig.add_subplot(111, label="F")
23. ax1.set_xlabel("Ширина кессона, м", color="k", fontsize=13)
24. ax1.set_ylabel("Максимальная сила воздействия \n припая (толщина - 1.6 м), МН",
color="k", fontsize=13)
25. ax1.plot(width, F, color="k", label = 'sin(x)')
26. plt.grid()
27. plt.show()

121
 Appendix 5

1. %reset -f
2. from numpy import tan, pi, linspace, arange, exp
3. from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
4.
5. depth = arange(14,22,1)
6. fact_width = 100
7. fact_depth = 18
8. Width = [100, 70]
9. clr = ['k', 'r']
10. fig =plt.figure(figsize=(14, 7))
11. ax1=fig.add_subplot(121, label="F")
12. ax2=fig.add_subplot(122, label="M")
13. l=0
14. for j in Width:
15. FR = []
16. MR = []
17. for i in depth:
18. d = (4.7+i)
19. w = j # the width of the structure
20. hc = 3.6 # consolidated layer thickness
21. h = hc # the thickness of the ice sheet, expressed in metres;
22. h1 = 1
23. CR = 2.8*1e6 # the ice strength coefficient, expressed in pascals. For
Arctic FY and MY ice (e.g. Beaufort) equals to 2.8*1.6 Pa
24. m = -0.16 # an empirical coefficient equal to −0.16;
25. if h < 1: n = -.5+h/5 # an empirical coefficient, equal to −0.50 + h/5 for
h < 1.0 m,
26. else: n = -.3 # and to −0.30 for h ≥ 1.0 m;
27. fAR = exp(-w/3/h)*(1+5*h/w)**.5 # empirical term
28. pG = CR*((h/h1)**n*(w/h)**m+fAR) # the global average ice pressure, ex-
pressed in megapascals;
29. Fc = pG*h*w #
30.
31. hk = d - hc # vertical distance between the base of the consolidated layer
and the base of the keel
32. g = 9.81
33. e = 0.3 # the keel porosity;
34. rhow = 1025 # the water density;
35. rhoi = 900 # the ice density;
36. c = 10*1e3 # kPa the apparent keel cohesion (an average value over the
keel volume should be used);
37. PHI = 30 # the angle of internal friction
38. gammae = (1-e)*(rhow-rhoi)*g # the effective buoyancy, in units consistent
with c.
39. muPHI = tan((45+PHI/2)*pi/180) # the passive pressure coefficient;
40. Fk = muPHI*hk*w*(hk*muPHI*gammae/2+2*c)*(1+hk/6/w) # the keel action com-
ponent.
41. FR.append(Fc+Fk) # horizontal action caused by a FY ridge;
42. MR.append(Fc*d+Fk*d/2)

122
43. if i == fact_depth and j == fact_width:
44. factF = FR[-1]
45. factM = MR[-1]
46. # The first axes -- FORCE
47. FR = [i * 1e-6 for i in FR]
48. MR = [i * 1e-6 for i in MR]
49. ax1.plot(depth, FR, color=clr[l], label = str(Width[l])+' м')
50. ax2.plot(depth, MR, color=clr[l], label = str(Width[l])+ ' м')
51. l=+1
52.
53. ax1.grid()
54. ax1.legend()
55. ax1.set_xlabel("Глубина установки, м", color="k", fontsize=13)
56. ax1.set_ylabel("Сила, МН", color="k", fontsize=13)
57.
58. ax2.grid()
59. ax2.legend()
60. ax2.set_xlabel("Глубина установки, м", color="k", fontsize=13)
61. ax2.set_ylabel("Момент, МНм", color="k", fontsize=13)
62.
63. #ax1.scatter(fact_depth,factF/1e6, color="r")
64. #ax2.scatter(fact_depth,factM/1e6, color="r")
65. #print(factF/1e6)
66. #print(factM/1e6)
67. plt.show()

123
124