The Fulmer Oil Field

The Fulmar Oil-field (Central North Sea):
geological aspects of its discovery, appraisal

and development
Howard D. Johnson*, Thomas A. Mackayt, and David J. Stewart
Shell UK Exploration and Production, ShelI-Mex House, Strand, London WC2R ODX,
UK
Received 10 December 1985
The Fulmar Field is a large, late Jurassic dome-shaped structure with approximately 427 106
bbl (68 106 m 3) of recoverable oil (40 API) contained mainly within Upper Jurassic shallow
marine sandstones (Fulmar Formation). The field is situated within the UK sector of the Central
North Sea (170 miles/270 km south-east of Aberdeen) in water depths averaging 265 ft (81 m),
and is !ocated mainly within Shell/Esso Block 30/16 and, to a lesser extent, Block 30/11b
(Amoco/Mobil/Texas Eastern/Amerada/Enterprise). This paper describes the geology of the
Fulmar Field in terms of its discovery, appraisal and development, with emphasis on its reservoir
geology.
The field was discovered in 1975 when Shell/Esso well 30/16-6 established an important new oil
play within the Fulmar Formation in the South-West Central Graben. Field commerciality was
established by one appraisal well (30/16-7) but pre-development drilling of four oil producers
(through a six slot, subsea template) allowed further geological appraisal prior to platform
installation and oil production.
The four template wells indicated that the reservoir was more complex than originally
anticipated. Extensive coring of the discovery, appraisal and pre-development wells (2200 ft/670
m) provided an essential basis for a thorough reservoir description and the construction of a
reservoir geological model. The structural configuration of the field has been derived from a 3D
seismic survey (undertaken in 1977 prior to development drilling) but seismic resolution of the
prospective Jurassic interval, and the underlying Triassic, is poor. The main geological features
of the field are described in the paper and summarized below.
The Fulmar Sands are of Oxfordian-Volgian age. The reservoir mainly comprises shallow
marine sandstones of the Fulmar Formation (Oxfordian-Kimmeridgian; Members II and III), and
a subordinate deeper water sandstone body (Volgian; Member I) enclosed within the overlying
Kimmeridge Clay Formation (= Kimmeridge Sand Member).
The Fulmar Formation consists of 500 - 1100 ft (150-335 m) of variable shallow marine
sandstones. The Member III sandstones provide the main reservoir (approx. 90% reserves) and
consist of large-scale (ca. 200 - 600 ft, 60-180 m thick), coarsening upward sequences in which
very fine grained argillaceous sands (non-reservoir) are replaced upwards by fine to medium
grained, well sorted sands displaying excellent reservoir properties (e.g. porosities 20 - 30% and
permeabilities 500 - 4000 roD). The Member II sandstones are fine grained and argillaceous,
show coarsening upward sequences and are characterized by siliceous sponge remains, early
silica (chalcedony) cement, and calcite concretions. These sandstones are of generally poorer
reservoir quality (e.g. porosities 15- 25% and permeabilities 1 - 500 mD), they are resticted to the
upper part of the formation on the northern and eastern flanks of the field, and interfinger
westwards with some of the better quality Member III sandstones.
These Fulmar sandstones are all extensively bioturbated, and were deposited slowly in an
irregularly subsiding shallow marine basin (shelf or shoreface) which deepened eastwards into
the Central Graben. The pod-shaped geometry of sand thickness distribution, which appears to
be unrelated to those faults mapped within the field, is interpreted as a reflection of salt-related
subsidence (eg. salt withdrawal) during sedimentation.
The Member I sandstones form a wedge-shaped unit within the Kimmeridge Clay Formation,
which sharply overlies the Fulmar Formation on the western flank of the field. They are
interpreted as laterally restricted turbiditic sandstones which were emplaced across an active
Auk Horst boundary fault. These sandstones are of very high quality (eg. porosities 2 5 - 35% and
permeabilities 1000 - 10,000 mD) but they are volumetrically subordinate (approx. 10%
reserves).
The Fulmar Field reservoir sandstones display abundant evidence of syn- and early post-
depositional, dewatering-related, soft sediment deformation (eg. fractures, autobrecciation,
fluidisation pipes and some slumping) and have undergone environment-related diagenesis
(mainly quartz and feldspar overgrowths, silica and calcite cementation) and early burial
diagenesis (mainly dolomite cementation and minor clay mineral authigenesis).
*Present address: Sarawak Shell Berhad, Lutong, Miri, State of Sarawak, Federation of Malaysia
tPresent address: Shell UK Exploration & Production, P.O. Box 4, Lothing Depot, North Quay, Lowestoft,
Suffolk NR32 2TH, UK
Present address: Koninklijke/Shell Exploratie en Produktie Laboratorium, Volmerlaan 6, Rijswijk, The
Netherlands
0264-8172/86/02099-27 $03.00
1986 Butterworth & Co. (Publishers) Ltd Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1986, Vol 3, May 99
Fulmar Oil Field: H.D. Johnson et al
Reservoir quality distribution within the field mainly reflects depositional textural variations
which have been variably enhanced, and only rarely overprinted, by diagenesis.
T h e Fulmar structure is a relatively simple dome-shaped anticline with prominently dipping
flanks (ca. 8-25). There is one main OWC at 10840 ft subsea (3304 m) and a more localized,
higher OWC on the northern flank at 10560 ft subsea (3219 m). The western flank of the field is
conformably capped by the Kimmeridge Clay Formation, while the eastern flank is unconform-
ably overlain by the Chalk (overlying the regionally extensive late Cimmerian unconformity). The
field is cut by NW-SE trending normal faults which mainly hade eastwards, but subsidiary,
westward hading antithetic faults are also present. The structural configuration is interpreted as
reflecting late stage (late Jurassic) salt withdrawal from below an Upper Jurassic secondary rim
syncline, which results in the characteristic pod-shaped geometry. The faulting is related to the
Auk Horst/Central Graben boundary fault system and occurred prior to the formation of the late
Cimmerian (early Cretaceous) unconformity surface.
For reservoir management purposes the Fulmar reservoir has been subdivided into seven
units. The western flank of the field contains six units which are named after British rivers using
the word 'Fulmar' as a mnemonic: Forth, Usk, Lydell and Mersey units (= Member III), Avon and
Ribble Units (= Member I). The eastern flank of the field contains an incomplete sequence capped
by Member II sandstones, which is informally termed the Clyde Unit (named after the adjacent
Clyde Field).
The field is being developed from a 36-slot platform with adjoining 6 slot jacket and subsea
template system. To date, 23 development wells have been drilled, ten for water injection, one or
two (provisionally) for gas injection and the remainder for production. Approximately five
additional wells may be drilled in the future. Depletion is supported by both water injection,
around the periphery of the field, and gas injection (for temporary storage) in the crest.
After the first four years of production the reservoir performance remains consistent with the
geological model. The various units within the Fulmar Formation are in full pressure communica-
tion. The faults are non-sealing, despite the presence of the high OWC in a fault-bounded
segment on the northern flank. The uppermost Member I sandstones (= Ribble Unit) have
suffered some pressure depletion due to localized fault juxtaposition against the main Member III
reservoir sands (i.e. Lydell and Mersey Units).
The geology of this substantial oil-field is described in the context of the development of
depositional and structural models, which led to its discovery, appraisal and development. A
chronological framework has been adopted in order to outline the evolution and continuous
refinement of geological concepts, ranging from a general regional model used for the
generation of similar exploration prospects in the Central North Sea, to a more detailed reservoir
model that has guided field development and reservoir management.
Keywords: North Sea; Upper Jurassic; Fulmar Field; Shallow marine sandstones; Reservoir geology
Introduction which forms the western margin to the South-West

Central Graben, adjacent to the Auk Horst (Figure 1).
The Fulmar Field is situated within the UK sector of
The graben margin comprises a series of rotated, step
the Central North Sea (CNS), some 170 miles (270 km)
faults, hading east and combining to give an overall
south-east of Aberdeen and 7 miles (11 km) north-east
throw of approximately 3000 ft (914 m) at top Devo-
of the Auk Field (Figure 1), in water depths averaging
nian level (Figure 2). Only locally preserved Zechstein
265 ft (81m). The field was discovered in 1975 when
salt is present along the graben margin, in contrast to
Shell/Esso well 30/16-6 first established the presence of
the large salt sequences and diapirs found in the graben
a commercially important oil play within Upper Juras-
centre (Figure 2). However, the Fulmar structure
sic shallow marine sands in the South-West Central
appears to show the influence of both halokinesis and
Graben. Field commerciality was subsequently estab-
graben tectonics.
lished by one appraisal well. Four development wells
Hydrocarbons are principally trapped in fine to
were pre-driiled through a subsea template prior to
platform production which commenced in February medium grained, shallow marine sandstones of Upper
1982. To date, a total of 23 development wells have Jurassic age (Oxfordian-Kimmeridgian) with shales of
the Kimmeridge Clay Formation and Upper Cre-
been drilled and recoverable reserves are currently
estimated at 427 106 bbl (68 106 m 3) of oil with a taceous Chalk providing the cap-rock/seal on the west-
gravity of 40 API (STOIIP is estimated at 801 x 106 ern and eastern flanks respectively. These sandstones
bbl/127 x 106 m3). have been referred to as the Fulmar Formation (John-
The field straddles blocks 30/16 (Shell/Esso) and son and Stewart, 1985) and are one of several prospec-
30/llb (Amoco/Mobil/Texas Eastern/Amerada/Enter- tive Upper Jurassic intervals in the North Sea. The
prise) and has been unitized. As a consequence of the reservoir sandstones are comparable with those of the
1981 equity redetermination, Shell/Esso currently hold Piper, Ula and Clyde fields and interfinger basinwards
approx. 94% of the field. The Fulmar Field is operated with bioturbated shales of the Heather Formation
by Shell UK on behalf of the Shell/Esso North Sea
(Figure 3).
Venture and the Fulmar Unit. An additional reservoir interval in the Fulmar Field
is provided by mass emplaced sandstones (of Volgian
age) within the Kimmeridge Clay Formation and refer-
Geological setting red to as the Kimmeridge Sand Member (Figure 3).
The Fulmar Field is situated on a fault-bounded terrace This upper reservoir unit, together with the sands of the
100 Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1986, Vol 3, May

Fulmar Oil Field: i-I.D. Johnson et al
3
" ,~'~i !i/~/:!ii
; ~J:,~
/- /
\\
\
\ /"
FULMAR~
1
1
1
1
~ ,
F I S H E R BANK
se" ' I -~-
SOUTH HALIBUT -~ BASIN '
BASIN
~'" .@:.;.~:iLONG~::. "'o - - r~ ~ ::~ii!iii:i:ii:i:ii::#j::i#/i!:y/::i:i:i:/h
~' % ~i~: O 4' ~i"~:'i!iJ
,, ,, I . \/% '-,L>'iii4
ii::i::i::!liiiiiiiiii:":'ii~ii~i
i~i@~i!~ ~ ~ ...... iC!s:~s~s~:::".~:".i:~'s~:
:. :::.":i!.~::!::i
; ::F:!i!i::ii ~:;i~!iii::~:~*:!:i
i i!!iti~it! ii ;il~i;iiii~ii~ ;ii@iiil~i~ili~ii!:iiiiiiiiii;iiiii~4iiii:ii!iii:ii!iiiiiil

:iiiiiiii~ii!ii!iiiiii@iiiiiiiii~@!iiiiiiii@iiiiiiiiiiiii:: iiii@iiii~ii@iiii~;."
iiiiiii!~iil ~ !@iii@ii!ii!liiiiiiiii!iiii!iii!iiif~i;i;@li;iiiBi!!i!ii!iiii!iii@iiiii@ iiiiiiiiiii:~iiiii}iiii~ \
IBi J iiBii iJ!!iiiB ii!ili~iii!iiii!ii'!!!!i:~Io:
, '~:'!!i~o~:,~,,~:~'~!',s:E~:
~:,~:!,:~:,~iiiii!iJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiii'!iiii',','i~::~ii~Y'
~ ;41i:,~f/~ \'
iiiiii!iiiiiiii iiiiiii~iiiiiilii
i,iiii!~iiii~iiiiiFiiiiiiiilSiili!iliiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiii!iiiiiiiii@!iiiiiiiiiii!i!iiiiiii!iii!i
iiiiiiiiiiii@iiii@iii@@iiiill iiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiit-
\
=~ !:~ !~i.'..:~:~:~
:~.~::~ ~:~.~:~:~:~.~;;!8~.;~ s:s::.::.::~s~s~::':!s:;~:::~:':~.,:;.~..~:::~:~!'.'..s~::!#:~:~::s~::'s:::.~:~:~s:~.~:::::::
s~!:s~s~::'::..:~:!.
~~i~':'-~ie:~.s!:!:~:~::.s~:::: !8 ~:::~:!::'::::::::s:s~:::::.
@ ~~ ~i~i~i:iii i~iii:~l!i!iiliB
iiiii!ili'i@iiiii@iiiii!ii!liiiiiii@!
@iiiiiiiiii~W!i~@iiiiiiiiii i!@iiiiiiiiiii@i!iiiiiiilF
~ . . . . ~:;~!~iiiiiiiiiiiil@iii!i~i~i~!~ii;!itii.~!i/ili!!iiiiii@i@711!i
iii;i@i!i@i!ii~..!:.]i~i~i~@.'~iJii!i!iiJ;iriiiiiiilliiiiio
ii ~9 29 39kin
Figure 1 Megatectonic framework of the Central North Sea and location of the Fulmar Field
Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1986, Vol 3, M a y 101

SW NE
AUK FULMAR EKOFISK
------- ~ ~ -
:
+ + + .
. ::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:
, + + + + + + + + iiiiiiiiii!ii!i!ii
* . * * * * * * * * * . * , . * . % ' , * * * * * . 20000':
+
.:::::::
+ + + * + + + *
:s .........
* * * * +
:
4
EOCENE - PLEISTOCENE EARLY CRETACEOUS ZECHSTEIN SALT
PALAEOCENE JURASSIC ROTLIEGEND & DEVONIAN
LATE CRETACEOUS TRIASSIC BASEMENT
0 50km
I , I
Figure 2 Regional geological cross-section across the Central North Sea (from Ziegler, 1982)
:f
OUTER CENTRAL SOUTH NORTHERN EAST CENTRAL
STAGE MORAY GRABEN VIKING NORTH SEA GRABEN
FIRTH GRABEN (NORWAY) --
,,h;, RYAZANIAN/
o
8 BERRIASIAN KIMMERIDGE K|MMERIDGE KIMMERIDGE KIMMERIDGE KIMMERIDGE
CLAY FM
II- ~ ~ ~ ~ ;:::.:....
~ -~- ~ ~
VOLGIAN
.--,oo,..
i-- I~ ~
| -i:i:i:i:::::".'." " __
-m- -m- ~ M E M B E ~ "~- -m-
< i:!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
? ? HALDAGER
CALLOVIAN FM
Figure 3 Lithostratigraphic framework for the Upper Jurassic of the North Sea (from Johnson and Stewart, 1985)

Fulmar Formation, constitute the 'Fulmar Sands'. Contemporary (1970) seismic data indicated that,
The Fulmar and Clyde fields form a west-north-west/ within Shell/Esso block 30/16, the Auk Horst was a
east-south-east trending string of structures that ter- large prominent closure while the Fulmar structure,
minates updip with the Auk Field (Figure 4). The which was located within the graben, was difficult to
Fulmar and Clyde structures climb, and their reservoirs see and apparently much smaller (Figure 6). Hence the
thicken and steepen towards the graben margin. All Auk structure was drilled first and well 30/16-1 disco-
three structures are thought to be filled to spill-point. vered the Auk Field. The prominent dipclosure that
The Fulmar reservoir is overpressured by 1100 psi could be mapped, in the north-eastern corner of Block
with respect to the normal hydrostatic pressure gra- 30/16, was thought to be at base Cretaceous level and
dient. As a consequence, initial reservoir pressure at the location of the Fulmar discovery well (30/16-6) was
reservoir datum (10500 ft subsea/3200 m) is approx. selected to penetrate slightly off-crest of the structure
5700 psi. (Figure 7).
The domal nature of the Fulmar prospect and the
Exploration/discovery stage 'pod-like' shape of the underlying sequence suggested
Early exploration activity in the CNS concentrated on that the structure was salt-related. Thus, a crestal well
testing prominent closures associated with two main was expected to pass from the Upper Cretaceous
hydrocarbon plays: (1) Zechstein carbonates and Per- Chalk, through a thin Lower Cretaceous sequence, into
mian Rotliegendes sandstones situated in horst blocks some 550 ft (168 m) of Upper Jurassic, before reaching
along the margins of the Mid North Sea High; such as the Permian Zechstein salt. A maximum of 300 ft (91
the Auk (Brennand and van Veen, 1975) and Argyll m) of sandstone was expected, based on the initial sand
(Pennington, 1975) fields, and (2) Tertiary sandstones distribution model (Figure 6) and the main risk was
overlying late Palaeozoic/early Mesozoic horst blocks considered to be reduced sandstone thickness due to
within the Central Graben, such as the Montrose salt uplift (Figure 8a).
(Fowler, 1975) and Forties (Walmsley, 1975) fields, Well 30/16-6 was spudded on the 20th August, 1975.
which represent two of the earliest oil discoveries in the Upper Cretaceous Chalk was found to rest directly on
UK sector of the North Sea (discovered in 1969 and the Upper Jurassic Kimmeridge Clay Formation with
1970 respectively). the prognosed Lower Cretaceous being absent (Figure
During the early 1970's the pre-Tertiary sequence 8b). The well subsequently penetrated a 668 ft (204 m)
within the Central Graben was largely unknown and, thick oil column in the upper part of a 990 ft (302 m)
where it had been penetrated, consisted predominantly gross interval of Upper Jurassic sandstones. The sand-
of chalk and shale deposits. However, a limited number stones were fine grained, well sorted, relatively
of wells in the Auk area had suggested the possible homogeneous and of high reservoir quality (porosity
presence of an Upper Jurassic sandstone play; includ- 18-26%; average permeability ca. 1000 mD). A sharp
ing Hamilton Bros' well 30/24-6 (Argyll appraisal) oil-water-contact (OWC) was encountered at 10830 ft
which tested oil at the rate of 1200 bbl (191 m 3) per day subsea (3301 m), coinciding with a horizontal event on
from a 24 ft (7 m) sand of Upper Jurassic age (Penning- contemporary seismic (Figure 7). The oil-bearing sec-
ton, 1975). Consequently, a working hypothesis that tion had an average porosity of 24%, an oil saturation
marine sands were deposited on a coastal shelf in the of 88% and contained 607 ft (185 m) net oil-bearing
Auk area supplied from a fluviatile source to the west, sand. Some 1600 ft (488 m) of Triassic red-brown shales
was envisaged (Figure 5). and sandstones were subsequently penetrated and the
WEST EAST
i Oft subsea 0 ft subsea1
,72 PERMIAN
FULMAR CLYDE soo 1
.100o0
-~ . / ~ J . ~ . _FCI~ALI~ _ I _ J. J. I ~ . . ~ 10OOO-
15000
AUK HORST _I_ SOUTHWEST CENTRAL GRABEN _I_CENTRAL

20000 -I - -I GRABEN |.J
2OO00
oI I I I I
5km
J
Figure 4 Geological cross-section through the Auk-Fulmar-Clyde area
Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1986, Vol 3, May 183

j_ J _ .
FULMAR FIELD
e-e-o
. o e o o
oe
)eooeoeeo
U
SAND
SUPPLY _
> 30Oft
100-300ft AUK
O- 1 0 0 f t HORST
0 20km
I J I
Figure 5 Initial Upper Jurassic sand distribution model
SW NE
AUK HORST CENTRAL G R A B E N CENTRAL GRABEN
TWT BOUNDARY FAULT ZONE
(Secs)
2.n
TOP CHAL
TOP DEVONIAN LM!

3. TOP CHALK
BASE CHALK
4.
5.
UK-67 UNMIGRATED
Figure 6 An early seismic line (UK-67, 1970) across the western margin of the South-West Central Graben indicating the relative size of
the Auk and Fulmar structures

BLOCK 3 0 / 1 1 b AMOCO~ BLOCK 30/16 SHELL/ESSO
Jl ~ I= SEISMIC LINE U K 4 - 4 7 1 MIGRATED
30/16-6
Proposed Location TWT
'SECS)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Figure 7 Pre-discovery seismic line (UK4-471, 1974) across the Fulmar structure. A horizontal event at approximately 3.1 seconds
(arrowed) coincides with the OWC encountered by the discovery well 30/16-6
(a) PRE-DRILLING INTERPRETATION

well was terminated within a Zechstein anhydrite and
dolomite sequence.
N 30/16-6 S Initial interpretation of the structure was one of a
I relatively simple, homogeneous sandstone with a single
l
I OWC, which was sealed by a drape of Kimmeridge
Clay (Figure 9a).
Appraisal stage
/ "AsE .......
Initial appraisal
An outstep appraisal well (30/16-7) was drilled in 1977,
some 2300 ft (700 m) south-west of the discovery well
on the apparently steeply dipping western flank. Simul-
taneously, a 3-D production seismic grid, consisting of
(b) POST 3 0 / 1 6 - 6 INTERPRETATION 94 lines at 75 m spacing, was shot over the structure to
facilitate later field development should the prospect
30/16-6 prove to be commercially viable.
t S The well results confirmed the commerciality of the
I
I field and encountered an oil-bearing 'Upper Reservoir'
JUR some 139 ft (42 m) thick, separated from a water-
~ S I SHALE
SANDS bearing 'Main Reservoir' by 94 ft (29 m) of shale
belonging to the Kimmeridge Clay Formation. An
oil-down-to (ODT) 10766 ft subsea (3281 m) coinciding
with the base of the 'Upper Reservoir' and a water-up-
to (WUT) 10860 ft (3310 m) were recognized on
electric logs and were consistent with the OWC found
in 30/16-6 at 10830 ft subsea (3301 m). Dipmeter data
Figure 8 Two schematic geological cross-sections (based on confirmed the presence of steeply dipping beds on the
seismic line in Figure 7) through the Fulmar Field; (a) pre-30/16-6 western flank (ca. 25 to the south-west) and suggested
interpretation, (b) post-30/16-6 interpretation

DISCOVERY STAGE (1975) INITIAL APPRAISAL STAGE (1977)
SW NE sw NE
30 / 16-6 30/16-7 30/16-6
CHALK
LATE CLMMERt~N uNCONFORMITY
J--" KIMMERIDGE CLAY T ~ ~ ~ 4 1 " ~ C CORED
~INTERVAL
A HUMBER UNCONFORMITY
KtMMERtOGE N,NMER,DGE
CLAY ~4 .. %o
1ODOreD 4t~'OlO0~" C'~4,p lOOOmD ~."~,.
CLAY
~990' GROSS ~ ~ ? ~
SO?' NOS
TRiASSiC SSIC TRIASSIC

TRIASSIC
-- HOMOGENOUS "SAND DOME" -- TWO R E S E R V O I R S

-- ? INTERNALLY HETEROGENEOUS
(a) (b)
SECONDARY APPRAISAL STAGE / FT-4 (1978) SECONDARY APPRAISAL STAGE / FT-1 (1979)
SW NE SW NE
7 6 FT-4 7 6 FT-1 FT-4
*CHALK
~ O
O w c at
-------T ~JOSBO' lOAD' ~4"x,o
tRIASSIc TRIASSIC
FT-4 WELL R E S U L T S - LOW DUALITY UPPER SANDS

-- NON RESERVOIR BASAL SAND FT-1 WELL RESULTS " INTERCALATING SEQUENCE IN UPPER RESERVOIR
-- CHALK CAPROCK - 8ROAD RESERVOIR SUBDIVISION ~"%&~AL
-- HIGH OWC i COREDINTERVAL - CONFIRMED DEEP OWC
-- P O S S I B L E SEALING FAULTS
1) (d)
DEVELOPMENT STAGE (1982-84) LOCATION MAP
SW NE
FA-35 FT-3 6 FT-1 FT-4 FA-07
Llr~.
~ TRIASSIC
-----.-1 - - ' - "
-- RESERVOIR S U B D I V I S I O N
i
-- CORRELATION
-- CONTROL OF TRUNCATION OF TOP R E S E R V O I R i CORED INTERVAL
-- C H A R A C T E N I S A Y I O N OF RESERVOIR UNITS
(e)
Figure 9 Schematic evolution of idealized geological models from discovery to development stage (final reservoir nomenclature given
in Figure 26)
106 M a r i n e and P e t r o l e u m G e o l o g y , 1986, Vol 3, M a y

an additional unconformity may be present within the template well, FT-6, was drilled in the same general
Kimmeridge Clay Formation ('Intra-Humber'). 119 ft area as FT-4, and confirmed both the high OWC and
(36 m) of net oil-bearing sands were encountered in the the poorer sand quality on the northern flank. As a
'Upper Reservoir' with an average porosity of 27% and result of this secondary appraisal phase, the relatively
a'n oil saturation of 86%. The well tested 40 API simple 'sand dome' model, as originally envisaged,
gravity oil at 8556 bbl (1360 m 3) per day through a required substantial revision in view of the additional
50/64 in. choke. stratigraphic, structural and fluid distribution complex-
The results of 30/16-7 added little to the reservoir ities (Figures 9c and d). These would have an important
geological model for the Fulmar Field. There was no impact on both field development strategy and the first
evidence to suggest that the east and west flanks were equity redetermination.
different although the possibility of greater reservoir The fluid contact distribution was particularly diffi-
heterogeneity was evident with the discovery of the two cult to explain since faults were not easy to recognise on
reservoir sand bodies (Figure 9b). Nevertheless, the seismic. The formation pressure versus depth plot
size of the accumulation was sufficient to allow full field suggests that the oil column is in communication be-
development to proceed. tween the 'main field' area and the 'northen block'
An 'Annex B', outlining the Fulmar Field develop- (Figure 10). However, the water leg within the 'north-
ment plan, was submitted to the UK Department of ern block' appears to lie on a separate gradient which is
Energy for approval in November 1977. Although around 80 psi higher than that of the 'main field'
there was no firm proof at this stage that the field (Figure 10); see section 'Field development stage - -
extended across the boundary of Shell/Esso's block fluid contacts' for further discussion.
30/16, there was adequate evidence from seismic to
indicate an extension into block 30/11b to the north
held by the Amoco Group. In view of the need for Reservoir geological model
unitization in order to obtain the Secretary of State's
During the initial discovery and appraisal stage there
approval for development, an interim arrangement was
was uncertainty concerning the depositional origin of
agreed whereby the owners of block 30/11b contributed
the Fulmar Sands and its relationship with the tectonic
15% towards the cost of development. Government
approval to the plan was obtained in June 1978.
PRESSURE(PSIG)
Secondary appraisal 5500 6000
] I J i J I
The first stage of the Fulmar development plan was to
pre-drill four oil producers from a six slot, subsea
template installed on the sea-bed in July 1978. This was 10000-
to have two principal advantages: (1) early oil produc-
tion and rapid build-up to plateau production rate,
once the main platform was installed and operational, 30/16-6
and (2) additional field appraisal prior to platform OIL GRAD.~
installation, thereby optimising the location for later 0.278 psi/ft~ + 30/16-7
platform development wells. xFT-1
Three of the planned template wells, FT-4, FT-2 and FT-4
FT-1 were drilled and subsequently suspended in the
period July 1978 - June 1979 using a semi-submersible
rig.
The first well, FI'-4, located on the northern flank of
the field, encountered several unexpected features 10500
(Figure 9c): (1) the OWC was encountered 268 ft (72 owe 10562'
m) high to prognosis at 10562 ft subsea (3219 m), (2) ZI- X IN FT-4
the Kimmeridge Clay Formation was absent and the lL
W
a
reservoir sands were unconformably overlain by Cre-
taceous Chalk, and (3) two low quality reservoir inter-
vals were found in the lower and upper parts of the
sandstone sequence. ~ = RECOVEREDOIL
FT-2 was drilled to the north-west of the template o w c Joe:to'- 48'
and confirmed both the extension of the field into block
30/11b and the deeper OWC (10845 ft subsea, 3306 m).
A third well, FT-1, was drilled to appraise the WATERGRAD. k
south-east flank. This well penetrated a thin interval of 11000- 0.48 psi/ft. ~ -
Kimmeridge Clay between the Fulmar Formation and
(SALINITY-150,000ppm) ~ ~ TR
the Chalk, whilst the reservoir stratigraphy showed
features intermediate between the western flank (30/
16-6) and the northern flank (FT-4).
A wellhead jacket was installed over the subsea
template in Summer 1979 and, in the following year, a Figure 10 Pressurev e r s u s depth plot illustrating the shallow
'jack-up' rig was used to tie back and surface complete OWC encounteredby FT-4 and apparent communication within
the suspended template wells. In addition, a fourth the hydrocarbon column

Fulmar Oil Field: i-I.D. Johnson et al
75 25.
QUARTZ
QUARTZARENITE ~ ^
50 50
SUBARKOSE IBLITHARENITE
25 75 LITHIC SUBARKOSE
MEMBER I
25~. / M E M B E R II \ .~75
LITHIC FELDSPATHIC
ARKOSE LITHARENITE
FELDSPAR ROCK
50 "'~A// 50
FRAGMENTS
2 5 S "'}~ 75
M E M B E R III
Figure 11 Sandstoneclassification(basedon McBride,1963)of the FulmarSands
regime of the Central Graben region. Identifying the distinctive rock units, referred to (approx. from
correct model was important in assisting exploration of youngest to oldest) as Members I, II and III, which are
the Upper Jurassic sand play in other parts of the CNS summarized below.
basin and in establishing a reservoir model for optimum
field development. The exploration and appraisal wells Member III
were, therefore, extensively cored (ca. 2200 ft, 670 m This member forms the bulk of the Fulmar Formation
recovered) and subjected to detailed sedimentological, and comprises three main facies types which together
diagenetic and palynological analysis. form characteristic, large-scale, coarsening upward
sequences up to 600 ft (180 m) thick (Figure 12).
Reservoir description The basal part of the sequence (Member lllc) con-
The Fulmar Sands in the Fulmar Field consist of fine to sists of very fine grained, argillaceous and glauconitic
medium grained, arkosic sands (17--43% feldspar; Fi- sandstones which are strongly bioturbated (including
gure 11), which are of moderate to good quality with Zoophycus burrows) with a distinctive pelletoidal tex-
porosity and permeability increasing upwards. In cores ture (faecal pellets and Chondrites burrows). Rare
they are characterized by three distinctive properties cross-lamination occurs in 1-3 cm thick layers but is
which led to initial uncertainties in interpretation. usually in various stages of biogenic disruption. The
Firstly, the sands are predominantly massive and prim- very poor reservoir properties (porosity 12-15%; per-
ary sedimentary structures are relatively rare. Second- meability < 1 mD) and low structural position renders
ly, soft sediment deformation features (eg. water- this facies largely non-prospective. The sediment tex-
escape structures, fluidization pipes and autobrecciated tures and biogenic features are indicative of slow
beds) are of wide occurrence and locally abundant. deposition in a low-energy, distal offshore, shallow
Finally, palaeontological and palynological data are marine environment. The laminated sand layers are
sparse and, apart from demonstrating marine condi- interpreted as distal storm deposits (cf. Aigner and
tions, non-diagnostic. Reineck, 1982).
The appraisal stage subsurface facies analysis was, The middle part of the sequence (Member IIIb)
therefore, directed towards establishing: (1) deposi- consist of fine grained, moderately to well. sorted,
tional environment, (2) sand body types, (3) reservoir g e n e r a l l y massive or m o t t l e d sandstones. X-
geological model, and (4) origin and controls of poros- radiographic studies confirm that this lack of structure
ity-permeability distribution. On this basis the Fulmar largely reflects biogenic activity (Figure 13). Clay is
reservoir can be subdivided into three main genetically- mainly restricted to thin laminae and to the walls of

ISOPACH
THICKNESS
__ (ft) 0
GENERALISED FACIES INTERPRETATION
PROXIMAL SANDS (INNER SHELF/SHOREFACE)
::::-L-. ~ ~o ' ~ u ,
MODERATE WAVE ENERGY ENVIRONMENT
WITH STORM DEPOSITED GRANULE LAYERS.
1oo i!i!i!}!;!ii i '
SANDS MEGARIPPLED AND BIOGENICALLY
UJ
-- ~ . - z = . o o o = o e
O REWORKED.
:-~:?:'-:-:'- 'c, ,., o ~-rm-rr Z
uJ
. . . . . . . . . . . ,j ,j*,O O ( O
. . . . . mZ~ZZZ:Z " (') ILl
200 -] ;r;r;:;t;:~;'; - ~ ~ "u (n
I i::ii~i.."~i: U) INTERMEDIATE SANDS
m
......: :-:---: ~/ , ~ <[
,Q BIOGENIC REWORKING > SEDIMENTATION RATE.
O.
..... ::-=-=: =
300 q ,:;i;';i;'!';i;: ~'r,"~ ~ v ,, I LOCAL PARALLEL LAMINATED SANDS AND

I:::~:::: v'~ "~~ O
Z GRADED BEDS-PROXIMAL STORMS LAYERS,
D
Z
I
UJ
,<
i ...~,.:;:;.;.;.
~-~.:<.::. .-
O
0
DISTAL SANDS (OFFSHORE/SHELF)
400 -'1 ,...%,.,~-~ . . . _
,,.,,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . --I
I LU
BIOGENIC REWORKING> SEDIMENTATION RATE.
II:i@i:i:i:~i
.J
G.
:E OCCASIONAL CROSS-LAMINATED DISTAL
U <
STORM LAYERS.
I ;~.;1;:;:;: . . ~m
J
'.%t.%,.%'.?.
6OO
Figure 12 I d e a l i z e d l i t h o l o g i c a l p r o f i l e o f M e m b e r III ( a d a p t e d f r o m J o h n s o n a n d S t e w a r t , 1985)
vertical burrows, and include Ophiomorpha. Physical sequences (Figure 12). The large thicknesses (eg. 200--
sedimentary structures are relatively uncommon but 650 ft, 60-200 m) and amplified nature of these sequ-
include parailel to low-angle lamination, cross- ences reflects an important tectonic control on sedi-
lamination and rare graded bedding. The bases of some mentation, which in this case may have been partly
of these beds contain quartz granules and disseminated salt-related (discussed later).
shell debris, and are occasionally preferentially
cemented (by calcite or dolomite). Reservoir quality is Member II
moderate to good (porosity 18-24%; permeability 100- This member comprises poorly sorted, fine grained,
1000 mD). These sandstones are transitional between extensively bioturbated, argillaceous sandstones with
the surrounding deposits (IIIc and Ilia) and a moderate early diagenetic calcite and silica (chalcedony) ce-
energy, offshore shallow marine environment is infer- mentation derived from disseminated bivalve shells and
red in which biogenic reworking was a dominant fea- siliceous sponge remains (Solenasters and acicular spi-
ture. The nature of the preserved sandstone beds and cules) respectively (Figure14). Soft sediment deforma-
the shallow water character of the surrounding facies tion, mainly related to the dewatering of locally over-
suggest sand emplacement by storm processes. pressured sandstone layers, is also common. Internally
The upper part of the sequence (Member Ilia) is these sands display 50-200 ft (15-60 m) thick coarsen-
represented by well sorted, mainly fine to medium ing upward regressive sequences, followed by 10-50 ft
grained sandstones which are massive, horizontal to (3-15 m) thick fining upward transgressive sequences.
low-angle laminated and occasionally cross-bedded. Reservoir quality is generally poor (porosity 15-
Apart from localized zones of dolomite cementation, 25%; permeability 1-500 mD) and oil saturation low
this interval contains good reservoir properties (poros- (-50%). Environmentally, these deposits are some-
ity 20-30%; permeability 500--4000 mD). It represents what analagous to Member IIIb, with bioturbation the
the highest energy part of the sequence and the lack of dominant depositional process.
emergent features suggests depostion in a shallow Member II sandstones are restricted to the upper
water, shelf or offshore environment (eg. proximal part of the Fulmar Formation on the northern and
offshore to nearshore), which was subjected to periodic eastern flanks of the field, and are laterally equivalent
physical reworking probably by waves and storm- to the Member Ilia sandstones on the western flank of
generated currents (structures indicative of tidal cur- the field.
rents are noticeably absent).
Members Ilia, IIIb and IIIc together form major, Member I
genetically-related, shallow marine (or shelf) regressive This interval represents a wedge-shaped sandstone
M a r i n e and P e t r o l e u m G e o l o g y , 1986, Vol 3, M a y 109

2,025,7 ft
12~025,7 ft
12,033.8 ft
Figure 13 Two examples of normal (left plate) and X-ray (right plate) photographs of the 'massive' sandstones of the Fulmar Formation
body on the west flank of the field, and includes the influenced by both graben tectonics, notably the close
surrounding Kimmeridge Clay Formation. Hence, proximity of a major graben boundary fault (3-5 km to
sandstones of Member I do not constitute a part of the the west), and also by syn- and post-depositional late
Fulmar Formation (Figure 3). Jurassic salt withdrawal. In megatectonic terms, the
The sandstones are massive, non-bioturbated, South-West Central Graben represented a variably
graded and parallel laminated. They display excellent subsiding and relatively shallow water marine basin.
reservoir properties (porosity 25-35%; permeability This basin was flanked to the west by a stable and
1-10 D) but contain a volumetrically minor part of the
Fulmar reserves (ca. 10%). They are separated from
the Fulmar Formation by a 30-40 ft (9-12 m) thick
interval of finely laminated, non-bioturbated shales
which are typical of the Kimmeridge Clay Formation.
These shales are noticeably different from the bur-
rowed shales of the Fulmar Formation and their lateral
equivalent, the Heather Formation.
This interval is interpreted as representing a sequ-
ence of mass-emplaced turbidite sands which were
deposited in an anoxic, deeper marine and mainly
mud-accumulating environment below storm wave base
(part of the regional Kimmeridge Clay event). The
textural and mineralogical similarity with the Fulmar
Formation indicates continuity of sand supply, with the
Auk Platform forming a shelf edge environment.
Depositional model Figure 14 Photomicrograph displaying siliceous and calcite

The Fulmar Sands accumulated in a tectonically active biogenic debris typical of the Member II sandstones. Note the
basin (the South-West Central Graben) which was large echinoid plate and the circular Solenasters (siliceous
sponges)

AUK SOUTH WEST CENTRAL
PLATFORM CENTRAL GRABEN GRABEN TROUGH
STABLE SHALLOW VARIABLE SUBSIDING DEEPER MARINE BASIN
PLATFORM SHALLOW MARINE BASIN
PROGRADING SEQUENCES
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~.~
~ . ~ . ~ ! " ' : : : " ' i : : ' : . ' . : ~ : : : : ; ~ ? ~i:~:!':i:~!'~i;!;.!i'~ii i::iii~i~~ ..........
.-= _ _
""":':~:!::.... : !:~,.......~::'::i::':""."" "-:'.'~':':::...i:i::::.':'.~'~-'.,. ,:~.'.'.:..".:....!:i::::~:i:!:~:':""'" -~.~,,.~- "1- o~-'-
. . . . . . . ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
THIN (?) REWORKED[ AMPLIFIED, REGRESSIVE, SHALLOW [ ? DISTAL SHALLOW MARINE

SAND SEQUENCES ] MARINE SAND SEQUENCES ] AND DEEPER MARINE SEDIMENTS
HIGH ENERGY SANDS V COARSENING UPWARDS

SEQUENCE
LOW ENERGY BIOTURBATED SANDS BIOTURBATION
LOW ENERGY BIOTURBATED ARGILLACEOUS SANDS I CROSS BEDDING
SILTSTONE AND SHALE
Figure 15 Schematic depositional cross-section through the Fulmar Formation in the South-West Central Graben area (from Johnson
and Stewart, 1985)
largely non-subsiding area (the Auk Platform), and it on the Auk Platform) which contain sandstones with an
deepened eastwards into the Central Graben trough, in average 10% more feldspar than the Fulmar Sands and
which low-energy, deeper water argillaceous sands and exhibit a similar heavy mineral assemblage. Facies and
muds accumulated (Figure 15). sequence characteristics suggest that sand could have
More specific aspects of the Fulmar Sands deposi- been supplied to the basin in two depositional models:
tional model are discussed below in terms of (1) (1) shoreface model, and (2) shelf model (Figure 16).
depositonal processes, (2) sand supply and environ- The shoreface model (Figure 16a and b) implies
mental models, (3) tectonic influence, and (4) deposi- updip (westward) connection with a contemporaneous,
tional history. prograding shoreline system, which never fully regres-
sed across the South-West Central Graben (Figure
(1) Depositionalprocesses. A notable feature of 16b). However, no Fulmar-related shoreline has been
the Fulmar Formation (sensu stricto) is that biogenic positively identified, which may be partly due to poor
reworking exceeded sedimentation rates in all facies. preservation. The model provides a ready mechanism
The resulting poor preservation of primary sedimentary for supplying the large volumes of Fulmar sand (eg.
structures prevents precise reconstruction of physical lateral supply from river mouths/deltas).
sedimentation processes. However, available data The shelf model (Figure 16c) represents the lateral
argues against frequent physical reworking (eg. by tidal migration of a storm-dominated shelf sand sheet com-
currents). Instead sand emplacement was apparently plex (cf. Spearing, 1976). Sand supply in this case could
periodic and two processes may be envisaged: (1) reflect the transgressive reworking of nearby pre-
storm-induced currents, and (2) gravity-driven/turbid- Fulmar deposits (eg. by direct or in situ marine rework-
ity flows. The trace fossil assemblage most closely ing of Permo-Triassic deposits) and/or lateral transport
resembles Skolithus and Cruziana ichnofacies which across a non-depositional shelf (eg. 10's - 100's km
supports an essentially shallow marine interpretation from a contemporary shoreline). The latter model
(eg. Frey and Pemberton, 1984). In such a shallow, would be partly analogous, although on a larger scale
shelf-like setting it is considered that storm-induced (in terms of sand volumes), to the Cretaceous shelf
processes provide the most likely depositional mechan- sand bodies of the Western Interior Basin of North
ism (Allen, 1982; Johnson and Baldwin, 1985), America (eg. Cambell, 1973). The main attraction of
although turbidity currents may not be totally excluded the shelf model is that it provides the most satisfactory
from such an environment (eg. Walker, 1984, p. 150- explanation for the lack of emergent features both
153). within the Fulmar Field and in other occurrences of the
Fulmar Formation. Furthermore, the model could
account for the mineralogical immaturity of the sand-
(2) Sand supply and environmental models. stones since, in the case of a local sand source, trans-
The most likely source of the texturally mature arkosic portation distances and reworking would have been
sands are nearby Permo-Triassic continental strata (eg. restricted.

Fulmar Off Field: ll.D. Johnson et al
A. SHOREFACE MODEL (Complete Regression)
TIME LINES ~ . : ~ . . . : . . . . . Sedlmentat
30/11b -S6oSO'N
Coastal plain deposits
Shoraface / proximal offshore
.o,,.l
Distal offshore
B. SHOREFACE MODEL (Incomplete Regression) 0

i ,,,
Contm~ Inte~l
W d poet~
ToI~Fdmm'
2012'E
Coastal plain deposits
Figure 17 Fulmar Formation isochore map illustrating the sym-
Shoreface/proximal offshore
metrical 'pod-like' nature of the deposit
Distal offshore
abrupt in the Fulmar Field, notably on the western

flank, which indicates a sudden change from shallow to
deep water conditions at the end of Fulmar Formation
C. SHELF MODEL ( Erosional Transgression)
times.
_ F LMAR FIELD The relative interplay of graben and salt tectonics on
sedimentation is uncertain. Fulmar sand thickness and
I,...
reservoir quality are best developed close to the Auk
Horst boundary fault, while thinner and more distal
facies increase to the east. However, the thickness of
the Fulmar Sands within the Fulmar Field depicts a
'pod-shaped' geometry (Figure 17). Within the 'pod'
GRAABEN]SYNDEPOSITIONALLOW SYNDEPOSITIONAL] the thickest and most complete facies sequences are
RGIN[(eg.llalt-lnduc~edhollow)l HIGH
ACT~AULT ZONE] located in the centre of the structure while increasingly
thinner and more incomplete (amalgamated) facies
1 roximal offshore
sequences are found towards the western flank (eg.
Distal offshore Figure 18). This 'pod-shaped' geometry is similar,
although of a smaller size, to the widespread and larger
Figure 16 Palaeodepositional models for the Fulmar Formation; 'pods' of Triassic sediment, which are believed to
(a) shoreface model showing complete regression (sedimenta-
tion > subsidence), (b) shoreface model showing incomplete reflect the infill of salt-related primary rim synclines (or
regression (sedimentation - subsidence), and (c) shelf model 'turtle-back' structures). Thickness changes within the
showing erosional transgression (sedimentation = subsidence). Fulmar Field sand 'pod' are unrelated to any mapped
faults, which is considered to preclude any growth
fault-related mechanism (cf. Gibbs, 1984). An alterna-
(3) Tectonic influence. The most important tive to the latter model is that the Fulmar Field, and
effect of tectonics influencing sedimentation is seen in perhaps other occurences of Upper Jurassic 'pod-
the thick, amplified nature of the large-scale, coarsen- shaped' sand accumulations (eg. Clyde Field), reflect
ing upward sequences (ie. individual sequences approx. the syn-depositional infill of localised hollows resulting
200-600 ft, 60-180 m thick) and in the intense fractur- from late stage salt withdrawal (eg. a type of secondary
ing of the reservoir sandstones on the western flank of rim syncline). Although the generating salt has subse-
the field adjacent to the Auk Horst boundary fault. The quently migrated away from the Fulmar area (Taylor,
coarsening upward sequences reflect prolonged periods 1980), major salt diapirs are found within the axial part
in which subsidence and sedimentation rates were in of the Central Graben (Figure 2).
balance. The overall tendency, however, was for sedi- The abundance of soft sediment deformation struc-
mentation rates to gradually exceed subsidence rates tures supports the earlier conclusion of syn- and early
resulting in the development of the coarsening/shallow- post-depositional tectonic activity on the Fulmar sand
ing upward sequences. Fining upward, transgressive/ 'pod', whatever the precise mechanism.
deepening sequences occur where the Fulmar Forma-
tion passes transitionally into the Kimmeridge Clay. (4) Depositional history. Three main phases of
However, the Fulmar/Kimmeridge contact is often very deposition account for the vertical and lateral distribu-

PHASE 11]"
SW NE
30/16-7 30/16-6 FT-1 FT-4 FA-12

ERO=O. ,, I I I I I
TRIAS.
+
/~ ~ O o O o O o o ~ ~
~
_,,- ..... - . . . .
...........
. .
4- 4-
I-
/
+ " +/~ ~ ~ ' : ' : ' : ' ; '
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . . . . . . . . . . . . ..,iiiii
= . . . . ' . = = = = ' = = : ; . ' = = = ' : " = = = = -J~-~- `~d..~.~....~.~.~.~.....~`~..~...~..~.~.:~...::::~:~:~:~:~:~;:':~:~:~;~;~:~:~:~:;:::::::::~:~;~:;~ /
0 500 1000m
I I I
- RAPID BASIN DEEPENING/DEPOSITION KIMMERIDGE CLAY

- REACTIVATION OF AUK HORST BOUNDARY FAULT
- EMPLACEMENT OF MASS FLOW SANDS
PHASE 1]"
SW NE
30/16-7 30/16-6 FT-1 FT-4 FA-12
EROSION
! .... ",'," ,'.'.'.'-'-'.'*'. ." ". . . . . . . . . :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:~:~:~:~:~:!:!$i:i:i:i:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:!:i:i:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:i:i:i:i~:~:
TRIAS, , ,,,, ,, , , , .,., =.- ~...........................

~..--;-. ; , -,-,-,.,.,.,-,-,.,.,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, ,,,,.,,
+ .oo.o....o.o.o. ..., . . . . . . . . . . . . , , = , , , .o_.-..o.---: .............................
+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o,,oooooooo,,oo,,ooo, oo o,o ,o
~ ~ ~ : ~: : : : : :,11,:,
: , ' .: ., : .: : ,: ~: . :. ' ~. ' , ~ ~ : =~,-,,,-m-
============........
========~,','~"
====== =====================================
................. .========================================
........~
0 500 1000 m
I ~ I
- CONTINUED SHALLOW MARINE SAND DEPOSITION

- RAPID EASTWARD DETERIORATION IN SAND QUALITY
- INTERFINGERING OF HIGH AND LOW QUALITY SANDS
PHASE I
SW NE
30/16-7 30/16-6 FT-1 FT-4 FA-12
EROSION
+TRIAS.~.
+ /
0 500 1000 m
I I I
- SHALLOW MARINE DEPOSITION

- COARSENING /SHOALING UPWARD, AMPLIFIED SEQUENCES
- PROLONGED BALANCE BETWEEN SEDIMENTATION & SUBSIDENCE
Figure 18 Depositional evolution of the Fulmar Sands in the Fulmar Field
Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1986, V o l 3, M a y 113

tion of the rock units within the Fulmar Field (Figure and cemented sands (Member II). Cores demonstrate
18): that these low quality reservoir sands interfinger in the
Phase 1 (Members IIIc ~ IIIb --~ Ilia lower) reflects centre of the field with typical Member IIIa sands, and
the initial progradation of a slowly deposited, storm- are replaced entirely by Member III sands on the
dominated shallow marine sand complex. The thickest western flank. This sequence reflects a renewed period
and most complete sequence is developed in the axial of rapid basin deepening, which was again located in
part of the field (Figure 18). The argillaceous, non- the central part of the pod, and was probably tectoni-
reservoir sands of Member IIIc are also restricted to the cally-induced. It was also accompanied by the onset of
central part of the Fulmar Field, which supports the deposition of siliceous sponge remains, which is inter-
inference that this was also the deepest part of the preted as a semi-regional organic bloom. The onset of
depositional pod. This sequence looses its definition in Phase II (notably the onset of Member II deposition)
the marginal part of the pod where it amalgamates into provides an important intra-reservoir marker, which
a composite unit. can be correlated with well logs in the central and
Phase I1 (Members Ilia upper ~ II) marks a substan- eastern parts of the field.
tial vertical and lateral change in sand type and reser- Phase 111 (Member I) marks the widespread phase of
voir quality (Figure 18). The main change is in the basin deepening at the onset of Kimmeridge Clay
northern and eastern part of the field where the Phase I deposition. This was an abrupt event in the Fulmar
sequence is abruptly overlain by shale and argillaceous Field, probably enhanced by movement along the Auk
~j:::
t .....
!i::
~!iiZ;:
:!Z
z::'~
~7
E'2
N
N~
N
N
gz
N
Figure 19 Deformed calcite (a) and silica (b, c) concretions from Member II of the Fulmar Formation

Horst boundary fault. Continued transport of sands Field. As such it is more indicative of the tectonic
from the shallow Auk Platform is suggested by the setting of the basirl/'sand pod' rather than anything
periodic emplacement of small turbidite sand bodies inherent in the depositional environment.
within the Kimmeridge Clay Formation. The restric-
tion of these sands to the western flank of the field
suggests that the main sand 'pod' was already exerting a Diagenetic history
structural influence on deposition (Figure 18). The Fulmar Sands have mainly undergone environ-
ment-related and early burial diagenesis, and are cur-
Soft sediment deformation rently at their maximum depth of burial (10000-11000
Soft sediment deformation structures are widespread in ft, 3050-3350 m). The dominant authigenic minerals
the Fulmar Field, and are attributed to syn- and early (based on point counting of around 160 thin sections)
post-depositional dewatering and associated sediment are quartz overgrowths (mean = 0.75%, range 0.5-2%
re-consolidation. There are two main groups of struc- bulk volume), feldspar overgrowths (1.15%, 0.5-3%,
tures reflecting two contrasting types of host lithology. bv), silica/chalcedony (4.3%, 0-25% bv), calcite
The first group of soft sediment deformation struc- (6.2%, 0-62% bv), dolomite (3.5%, 3-49% by), pyrite
tures are associated with relatively homogeneous, mas- (1.3%, 0.7% bv), and authigenic illite and chlorite.
sive sands, and include (1) shear zones, (2) narrow Authigenic kaolinite is virtually absent from the Fulmar
(mm-cm scale), steeply inclined fractures (commonly Field suggesting that acid meteoric waters never pene-
dolomite cemented), (3) buckled foresets/lamination, trated the reservoir.
(4) vertical fluidization pipes, (5) massive, dewatered Environment-related diagenesis is represented by an
intervals, and (6) loading structures (eg. Member I important phase of authigenic mineral growth during
turbidites). These structures are largely restricted to the initial burial period, when pore waters of marine
the good quality reservoir sands of Members I and III. salinity and faunal remains exerted a strong environ-
The steeply dipping fractures are abundant on the mental influence. Macroscopic structures demonstrate
western flank of the field where the common occurr- that both silica and calcite cementation occurred at very
ence of alutriated clay and dolomite cementation shallow burial depths and prior to dewatering-induced
causes these fractures to form localized baffles to deformation. Textural relationships also indicate that
horizontal fluid flow (measured horizontal permeabili- the majority of the quartz and feldspar overgrowths
ties < 1 mD). However, their effect on long term occurred during the same period.
reservoir performance has not been established and The silica cement consists of fibrous chalcedony
none of the mappable faults are sealing. which is intimately associated with rich concentrations
The second group of soft sediment deformation of siliceous sponge remains (mainly spherical Solenas-
structures are associated with heterogeneous, argil- ters). The chalcedony cement is interpreted as repre-
laceous and early cemented sandstones and comprise senting the breakdown of the amorphous silica tests,
(1) compacted and partly sheared clay laminae and development of over saturated silica-rich solutions,
clay-lined burrows (eg. Ophiomorpha - type, (2) precipitation of a silica gel and subsequent transforma-
fluidization pipes, (3) rotated and displaced calcite tion into chalcedony (Siever, 1962). The result is a
concretions (Figure 19a), (4) narrow, clay-lined frac- cement with a high micro-porosity (micropores a few
tures, (5) in situ brecciation of early silica (chalcedony) iam in diameter), but one which is largely ineffective.
cemented beds (Figure 19b and c), and (6) cement- The localized nature of this process is confirmed by its
filled (eg. silica) veins. These features are restricted to patchy distibution and close association between ce-
the poor quality sands of Member II. The apparent lack ment and primary sponge remains.
of significant lateral movement (eg. silica brecciated The second main phase of authigenesis was probably
beds can be reconstituted into their original beds) and the precipitation of overgrowths, beginning with potas-
the disturbance of cemented intervals indicates (1) that sium feldspar and closely followed by quartz over-
deformation was effectively in situ, and (2) that the growths. This was followed by concretionary calcite in
silica and calcite cementation events were very early which iron-rich sparitic crystals replace framework
and prior to significant burial. grains as well as quartz and feldspar overgrowths. The
Both groups of structures are probably related to the carbonate was probably derived from concentrations of
same mechanisms, the different responses reflecting calcareous shell debris. This environment-related di-
the contrasting mechanical rock properties. The de- agenetic phase was accompanied by periods of rapid
formation is thought to have been due to dewatering as dewatering and reconsolidation of the sediment, in-
a result of the periodic application of external shocks, cluding some disruption of all these early cements (as
such as earthquakes, fault movement or salt withdraw- discussed earlier). Early burial diagenesis is mainly
al. The frequency of these deformation features is an characterized by widespread dolomite cementation,
indication of the tectonic instability of the Fulmar area which occurs as intergranular, isolated rhombs and in
during the late Jurassic. clusters of coalesced rhombs. The crystals are frequent-
Furthermore, the decrease in deformation features in ly zoned, with iron-free cores and iron-rich outer rims.
the Clyde area, and the increased frequency of frac- Dolomite cement is most abundant in intervals rich in
tures along the western flank of Fulmar, may indicate detrital clay and with strong bioturbation, and also
some tectonic influence of the nearby Auk Horst along some fracture zones. The necessary supply of
boundary fault, in additon to late stage salt withdrawal Mg 2 may have been derived from one or more of the
and partial collapse of the flanks of the sand dome. This following; (1) from the decomposition of illitic clays
deformation of the Fulmar Sands was probably occur- (Heald and Baker, 1979), (2) from the decomposition
ring throughout the early burial history of the Fulmar of organic matter (Gebelein and Hoffman, 1973), (3)

SW NE
3 0 / 1I 6 - 7 30/16-6
I
FT- 1
I
FT-4
I
FA- 12
I
2~ ,, .,.,.,.,.,
"17" ~ --::;" ..... ::!? ?::" .: iii::" .:ii!;r: ..::!~!~i::" . :~ ~::" :iii::" .::~ ::" .:!~: .;. .:::::r .;:::.. :~
::::. .. .. ::::::." .:::::." .: ~r: ..;:::;:.:.- ..:....." .:.:.. :.:.:.:.;." ..;:;:;:;:." ::::~::::." ..::::::::.- .::~:~:~::." .::::~:: ,,',,,~..::::.- .:::::." ::: ::
.................... ::~:~:i.... ,............ .:::::.

.. ::~:: S~i~::~::i~::~ ~~ , ::~i;::~i:.:.;~:::~i~::".:
:....:.... .........................
~i :.~;~~~::,:~i~i
.+...:::::::::...::+:.::
::i~:.~::: ~~::"..::~:~:~:~:~ ..................
.......
TRIASSIC
~ CLEAN SANDS(< 1.5% CLAY,'~O.5-2% QUARTZ

OVERGROWTH, 0.5-3% FELDSPAR OVERGROWTH)
~ SILICA (CHALCEDONY) CEMENT & ASSOCIATED
SPONGE REMAINS (Av.4.3%,RANGE 0-25%)
-~ABUNDANT DOLOMITE CEMENT MODERATE INTERSTITIAL CLAY (= MEDIUM

(Av.3.5-10%,RANGE-~3-49%) GRAINED,MODERATELY SORTEO SANDSTONES)
- ~ CALCITE CONCRETIONS ABUNDANT INTERSTITIAL CLAY

(Av.6.2%,RANGE 0-62%1 (=RNE GRAINED ARGILLACEOUS SANDSTONES)
Figure 20 Schematic distribution of the main diagenetic cements and clay minerals
from feldspar-forming brines, and (4) from saline solu- Textures suggestive of secondary porosity occur
tions derived from the underlying Permian and Triassic throughout the sandstones of the Fulmar Formation.
evaporites. Two phases of leaching are evident; (1) early leaching
Other aspects of burial diagenesis include compac- of shell and sponge debris, and (2) a late phase of
tion, pyrite cementation and clay mineral authigenesis dissolution of silicates and possibly early carbonates. A
(eg. illitized feldspars and chloritized detrital iron-rich mean of 4% intra-granular secondary porosity has been
clay particles and pellets, such as chamosite and/or measured. No estimate of inter-granular secondary
glauconite) (Figure 20). porosity has been made.
SW NE
30 / 1 6 - 7 30/16-6 FT- 1 FT-4 FA- 12

I -I. J. I J- I I I
T " _ _ - _ - _
::.:,.=~:,:-,..--~~!:.:.:.:.:........ .-............. ~
~ ~ i : , : ~ . .........:.:.:.:.:..... ..
. ' " - .... ....
VERY GOOD 1 ~ 2 5 - 3 5 % POOR ~*'15-25%

K,~ 1100-10000 mD K ~- 1 - 500 mD
GOOD jll'~ 20-30% K

~<NON-RESERVOI
mD R1 ~ " 12-18%
K'~, 500-4OOOmD
MODERATE 1~,18 - 24%

K ~,100- 1000mD
Figure 21 Reservoir quality distribution through the Fulmar Field

Reservoir quafity distribution suggesting that acid meteoric waters have never pene-
Reservoir quality distribution in the Fulmar Field is trated the reservoir (the abundant feldspars are gener-
mainly controlled by primary depositional textures, ally fresh and show little sign of alteration).
with grain size, clay content and sorting most responsi- The field is transected by a series of north-west/
ble for permeability distribution. Diagenetic minerals, south-east trending, eastward-dipping normal faults,
particularly dolomite cement, all reduce porosity (ex- which are probably .related to the Auk Horst/Central
cept microporous silica cement). However, the main Graben boundary fault system. However, a number of
effect of diagenesis has been to effectively enhance similar trending, antithetic faults to the former are
primary depositional variations in porosity and per- present and clearly define the western flank and the
meability (Figure21). Kimmeridge Clay 'basin' to the west (Figure 23). The
recognition of faults from seismic is difficult since
faulting pre-dates the formation of the Late Cimmerian
unconformity and, consequently, no fault throw can be
Structure observed at base Cretaceous level. Seismic resolution
Structural description of the Fulmar Field within the Jurassic - Triassic section is also poor and
The Fulmar structure is a domal anticline with pro- the fault pattern is essentially derived by extrapolating
nounced flanks dipping to the south-west at ca. 25 , to faults only recognisable at Zechstein level. More de-
the south at ca. 12 , and to the east at ca. 8 (Figures22 tailed fault control has now been obtained from well
and 23). It is conformably overlain on the western flank data but the recognition of faults from well-log correla-
by the Kimmeridge Clay Formation, although some tion is also extremely difficult.
truncation of the reservoir sandstones, associated with
possible 'Intra-Humber unconformaties', may locally Structural evolution of the Fulmar Field
be present. The structural configuration of the northern The most obvious structural element that is potentially
and north-eastern flanks has been substantially mod- responsible for producing the Fulmar structure is half-
ified by erosion and the dip of ca. 15 corresponds to graben tectonism associated with the subsidence of the
the Late Cimmerian unconformity surface. Since the Central Graben, which occurred throughout the Meso-
underlying Fulmar Formation has a dip of only ca. 7 to zoic. Such a mechanism has been invoked for. the
the north and north-east, progressive truncation of formation of the Brae Field structure on the western
successive reservoir units consequently occurs in this margin of the Viking Graben where sands of a similar
area of the field (Figure 23). The unconformity is Upper Jurassic age are believed to have accumulated in
thought to have been submarine because authigenic a deep water, marine environment (Stow et al, 1982).
kaolinite is virtually absent from the Fulmar Field However, the characteristic thickening towards the
N SANDS ABSENT
A07
30/1 lb -~ .... OWC.. 10560
30/12b
Amoco Amoco
56030'N
30/16 30/17b
Shell/Esso Britoil
A2i
LEGEND
Gas
011
[] Fulmar Alpha Platform

OII Producer
Gas Injector
"~Water Injector GOC ~ 1 / 1 / 6 5
ca.lO 100 ft.ss
- ~ Plugged & Abandoned
A : Wells from P l a t f o r m
T : Wells from Template
0 lkm
I I I
Contour Interval = 500 f t
2o12'E
Figure 22 T o p F u l m a r F o r m a t i o n s t r u c t u r e m a p

-t. FULMAR A L P H A P L A T F O R M
SW P r o j . 3 5 0 m SSE NE ~'
0o
30/16-7 30/ FA-10
proj. 140m HW 16-6 ~ FA-13 FA-26 proj. 14om HNE FA-O9
n~ 9000-
I FT-31 l \ ~ \ \ F0
0 R Y
-O
10000-
-
3
c~
D
O
O
t~ 11000-
-< TRIAS n~
CO
(33
<
O
LO 12OOO- 12000
.<
SW NE
FA-13u~3: , ~
FA-26 . . . . .
FA-IO FA-O9, , "1"
o ::::::. ::::: ~ ; ~ . * 1 ~ =
}0'
i .... i 500'
==
L 1OOO'
No Horizontal Scale Implied
Figure 23 Structural cross-section apd log correlation panel through the Fulmar Field
Fulmar Oil Fie~d: H.D. Johnson et al
STAGE 1 STAGE 2
SW 30/16-7 30/16-6 FT4 NE SW 30/16-7 30116-6 FT4 NE
I I I ~
SEA
LEVEL
I I I
JURASSIC
\
\
-- UPPER JURASSIC REACTIVATION OF PRIMARY TRIASSIC RIM SYNCUNE -- CONTINUING SALT WITHDRAWAL
-- DEPOSITION OF LENTICULAR, SHALLOW MARINE SANDSTONE COMPLEX -- INITIAL GROUNDING OF PRIMARY RIM SYNCLINE ON ZECHSTEIN CARBONATE
(SECONDARY RIM SYNCLINE) -- INITIAL INVERSION OF RIM SYNCLINES
STAGE 3 STAGE 4
SW 30/16-7 30/16 -6 FT4 NE

SW 30116-7 30/16-6 FT4 NE
I I I I I I
JURASSIC
\
-- CONTINUEDGROUNDINGAND INVERSIONOF RIM SYNCLINES -- EROSIONAND DEVELOPMENTOF LATE CIMkF-.JRIANUNCONFORMITY
-- REACTIVATION OF ONABEN MARGIN FAULT --ONLAP OF CRETACEOUS SEDIMENTS
-- INTERNAL SLIDING/CREEPING AND SOFT SEDIMENT DEFORMATION - - F U R T H E R SURIAL DURING TERTIARY
Figure 24 Schematic structural evolution of the Fulmar Field
Graben Boundary fault which would be expected if syncline. Reactivation of the Triassic primary rim syn-
half-graben tectonism exclusively controlled sedi- cline during the late Jurassic resulted in the formation
mentation is not seen within the main body of sediment of a secondary rim syncline with deposition of lenticu-
in the Fulmar Field. Moreover, inspection of seismic lar, shallow marine sandstones.
lines shot over the field, perpendicular to the graben
axis reveal a characteristic lensoid shape to the package Stage 2
of Triassic and Upper Jurassic Fulmar sediments, over- Continued salt withdrawal led to grounding of the
lain in the south-western area of the field by a wedge of primary rim syncline on immoveable Zechstein carbon-
Kimmeridge Clay. This lensoid shape has also been ates and inversion of the rim synclines commenced.
reported from the adjacent Clyde Field (Gibbs, 1984).
The lensoid shape has obviously been modified, to Stage 3
some extent, by erosion of the Fulmar Formation on Further salt withdrawal permitted continued grounding
the northern and north-eastern flanks. However, in- and rim syncline inversion, with the relatively uncon-
spection of the Fulmar Formation gross isochore map, solidated mass of Upper Jurassic sands subjected to
derived from 16 'non-eroded' wells (Figure 17), also internal soft sediment deformation. Sands subjected to
reveals a broadly symmetrical 'pod' with a maximum early diagenetic cementation (i.e. Member II) were
thickness of over 1000 ft (300 m) in the depocentre susceptible to more brittle fracturing.
thinning to less than 500 ft (150 m) at the margins. This
leads to our proposal that the Fulmar structure is Stage 4
largely the product of salt withdrawal with some mod- Reactivation of the Auk Horst Boundary Fault created
ification due to half-graben tectonism. The structural a deep water basinal environment, adjacent to the Auk
evolution consists of four main stages which are Platform, in which both shales and organic rich clay-
summarized below (Figure 24): stones of the Kimmeridge Clay Formation accumu-
lated.
Periodic tectonic activity caused mass influx of are-
Stage I naceous sediment into the basin producing the sands of
Triassic paralic sediments were initially deposited with- Member I (Kimmeridge Sand Member). Subsequent
in halokinetically-controlled basins and unconformably erosion, associated with the development of the Late
overlie salts of Zechstein age. Such 'pods' of sediment Cimmerian Unconformity, modified the structure
increased in size as further salt withdrawal and solution which remained a positive feature until late Cretaceous
continued, resulting in the production of a primary rim times. During the Maastrichtian, the Chalk Sea trans-

SW NE
---- CLYDE FIELD
LATE CRETACEOUS TRIASSIC
EARLY CRETACEOUS ZECHSTEIN SALT
KIMMERIDGE CLAY FM ROTLIEGEND & DEVONIAN
FULMAR FM BASEMENT
0 5km
I , I
Figure 25 'Shallow listric faulting/detachment sliding' model proposed for the Clyde Field (adapted from Gibbs, 1984)
gressed over the structure resulting in the onlapping of

the Chalk against Upper Jurassic sediments. Continued ~z i i|
burial, throughout the Tertiary, and differential com- [ .ESERVO,. I 0
paction around the sand dome, enhanced the appear-
ance of the structure. u. CLATURE 0
This interpretation contrasts with a structural model
proposed for the nearby Clyde Field (with inferred
application to the Fulmar Field), which invokes a RIBBLE
combination of half-graben tectonism and shallow lis- ]' CHALK I
tric faulting with detachment and sliding (Gibbs, 1984; -- AVON L~ ~ "~-~
Figure 25). The latter interpretation is difficult to .:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:.:,~
disprove since the recognition of any faults from seis-
mic, either of a deep-seated or a shallow, listric nature, u ..SE, :::::::::::::::::::::
is particularly tenuous beneath the base Cretaceous z~ :,:,:,:,:,:,:,,,:,:,, i!~.~i:~i~F~!l..".:~ti~i~iit~::.'~
seismic event in the Fulmar-Clyde area.
111a
i:!ii::::::i:i::: =
Field development stage
Reservoir subdivision and correlation
iii::iiiiiiiii!i!
ii
In order to aid field development and discussions with
unit participants and management, a standard reservoir
unit nomenclature has been introduced based upon the
lithofacies subdivision described earlier and using the
word 'Fulmar' as a 6 letter mnemonic (Figure 26). The
names of British rivers have been used. The west flank
can be divided from core and log data into six broad
< TRIASSIC <
reservoir units and the east flank into four units. The E
interfingering relationship between the upper Member I,- I,-
IIIa sands and the poorer quality Member II sands has
been honoured with the latter referred to as the Clyde
Unit, because of its similarity with the uppermost Figure 26 Reservoir unit nomenclature for the Fulmar Field (see
reservoir sand in the Clyde Field. The thin shale Figure 21 for reservoir quality)

1.9 I
FDC 2;7 PERMEABILITYPROFILE
GRAIN ,SIZE 46 CNL 0
,0 GR ~?o m., .nd o = ,NO "--~K~ ..... "
~ I,,,,,,,
O Feet > ,_ , oo
,vss o .
' 9800 o o A
.10000
10200
' 10400
' 10600
-" owc ,10800

//
i'
1
1 1 0 0 0
.11200
-t
g=
,11.400
TRIASSIC
TYPE LOG - WEST FLANK
1.9 FDC 2.7 PERMEABILITYPROFILE!

GRAIN SIZE 45 CNL 0 "~
0 GR 200 m u d ~sand 0.2
8= Oo=
t~
1 I I_ ,',,,
._ ,,',_ '
IND 2000
,
in,- 0
> o
.L 1
.I] I.__~ TVSS z o ,-
10600
.:.:.:.:.:.~:
,...............,
10700
0
i
i i !ilili i i!i!.
>, 0wc - ,, 10800 ~%iiii
10900
.1 i!i!i !~ilil
-11000
i i!!!ii i i i
,................,
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
I'-
! ~ i i i t 7 i ~ .111oo ~ii i i i i i i
0 .112oo ~::::::::::::::
~iiiiiiii
i~ -~--~ ~ .~.~~ " 11300 :::::::::::::::
ii~iiiiiii
2 .I,~ -- J- 11400 iiiiiiiiiiiiii
I1 -r" ~
_ ,~
"It" I
iiiiiiiii!iii
I- iii~i!!]i:
iii!i!ii!ii
TYPE LOG - EAST FLANK !:]:!S[:~:~:i
iiiiiiii~
Figure 27 Reservoir 'type' logs for the Fulmar Field illustrating the contrasting sequences between the west and east flanks
Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1986, Vol 3, M a y 121

Fulmar Oil Field: ll.D. Johnson et al
development separating the Member I (Ribble) sands secondary recovery mechanism and for pressure
from the 'main reservoir' is referred to as the Avon maintenance. Recovery factors in the range of 45-55%
Unit. The Ribble and Avon Units, however, belong to are reasonably expected. A total of 10 water injectors
the Kimmeridge Clay Formation and only the units of and 17-20 oil producers are expected to adequately
the 'main reservoir' constitute the Fulmar Formation. drain the field.
The above reservoir subdivision has provided a basis Reservoir performance indicated at an early stage
for intra-field correlation although this is often prob- that natural aquifer support was minimal and a reser-
lematical since reservoir unit boundaries are generally voir pressure versus voidage plot showed a classic,
gradational and can be indistinct (Figure 23). Reservoir linear decline (Figure 28). In order to maintain reser-
correlation, in the absence of core control, is based voir pressure, drilling of water injection wells was given
upon log response, and since the gamma ray log lacks priority and reservoir pressure has risen from 4600 psi
character due to the high concentration of potassium (July 1983) to 4900 psi (Sept. 1984).
feldspar within the sands, correlation is achieved by the Water injection wells have been located peripherally
use of the neutron porosity and density log responses. around the field in positions where the well is expected
There is a distinct contrast in log character between to penetrate the intended injection zone just below the
wells drilled on the eastern and western flanks (see type OWC.
logs, Figure 27). However, the broad coarsening- Oil wells have been positioned so that initial comple-
upward character of the sequence is very evident, in tion intervals are low enough to avoid gas breakthrough
both cases, from the density log response. The Forth from the expanding gas-cap and high enough to delay,
Unit is absent through non-deposition on the western for as long as possible, water influx. They are also
flank but is conspicuous by the 'negative' (i.e. neutron positioned so that they can be recompleted upwards to
to left of density) neutron porosity/density log separa- avoid the advancing OWC after the secondary gas-cap
tion, where it is developed on the eastern flank (Figure has been partially or totally removed.
27). 10 water injectors and 12 oil producers have now
been drilled and oil production is at plateau rate of
Development drilling 165,000 barrels per day (Figure 28). Moreover, no
The shape of the Fulmar Field lends itself to develop- alteration to the reservoir geological model has been
ment from one centrally-located, 36-slot platform required and the well results, so far, have only provided
which was installed in 1980. Flowlines were installed additional refinement of the model (Figure 9e).
from the wellhead jacket to the platform so that the Production, to date, has centred around the deple-
pre-drilled template wells could be brought into pro- tion of the Mersey, Lydell and Usk reservoir units
duction as soon as the processing facilities on the main (Figure 26). This has been achieved by 'up-structure'
platform were operational. depletion and 'down-structure' injection into the objec-
Oil production from the Fulmar Field commenced in tive zone. A crestal oil producer, FA-13 (Figure 22),
February 1982. Oil is evacuated from the platform to a drilled in mid 1984, encountered the secondary gas cap
nearby Floating Storage Unit (FSU), a converted tank- and will be used to monitor the downward encroach-
er permanently attached to a Single Anchor Leg Moor- ment of the gas-oil contact (GOC). In January 1985,
ing (SALM), from where the crude is transferred to the GOC was at ca. 10100 ft subsea (3078 m) (Figure
'shuttle' tankers. 22). The well will be used as a gas producer when the
The problems of handling produced solution gas Fulmar gas sales line becomes operational.
from the crude (GOR = 650 scf/stb) was recognised at The Ribble sands within the Kimmeridge Clay
an early stage. The UK Department of Energy imposes Formation, despite containing some 10% of the re-
stringent flaring restrictions, in order to promote ener- serves in place, have not been developed and it is
gy conservation, and since there was no gas exporting proposed to re-complete existing wells on this reservoir
pipeline available, at the time, in this area of the North unit later in the field's life. Formation pressure tests
Sea, all gas surplus to platform requirements had to be within the Ribble sands have indicated limited pressure
re-injected into the reservoir. A Fulmar gas pipeline is communication with the 'main reservoir' probably via
currently under construction and is scheduled to be- fault juxtaposition. Perhaps, more significantly, press-
come operational in 1986. ure measurements indicate the field is being drained as
To date, some 18 wells have been drilled and com- one unit and that no isolated, fault-bounded blocks,
pleted from the platform, in addition to the 4 oil appear to exist.
producers drilled through the subsea template (Figure
22). A further oil producer (FT-3) was drilled from the Fluid contacts
template using a 'jack-up' rig in 1983. The first develop- The apparent lack of separate drainage compartments
ment well to be drilled from the platform was allocated within the field poses intriguing questions regarding the
as a gas injection well (FA-16), in order to minimize gas origin and mechanism to account for the fluid contact
flaring and maximize oil production during the 'build- distribution and a number of solutions have been
up' phase. The second development well, a stand-by proposed to account for the phenomenon, including
gas injector (FA-25), was drilled as an insurance capillary effects, stratigraphic trapping elements, sea-
against gas flaring whenever the primary gas injector is ling/partially sealing faults and perched water tables.
unavailable due to operational reasons. FA-25 is used T h e latter mechanism is, however, preferred and out-
as an oil producer whenever possible. lined below.
Regional data suggested that natural aquifer influx During oil migration into the structure, 'pockets' of
would be inadequate to maintain prolonged production formation water are believed to have become entrap-
and, consequently, seawater injection is used as a ped within structural depressions (due to folding and/or

Fulmar Oil Fie/d: H.D. Johnson et al
RES.PRESS.
PSI
GROSS LIQUID
6000-
5500-
XX
X
XXX
~ GAS INJ.
WATER INJ.
X
5000- X
X X X X
X
X X
X X X
X X
4500
AV. MONTHLY OIL RATE

MRB/DAY BOPD
300-
250- ~ 180800
200- OIL PROD. .135600
150- _.. R~~ ' L -90400

100-
.45200
50-
0 I I I I I I I I I I l ] l l l l t i t l t t i t i l l i l i l i l l ~ I 0
1982 1983 1984
Figure 28 Reservoirperformance profile, Fulmar Field
faulting) at the base of the reservoir, partially assisted The results of a TDT (Thermal Neutron Decay
by stratigraphic configurations (Figure 29a and b). Oil Time) logging campaign may throw further light on this
continued to migrate into and accumulate within the topic.
reservoir until formation water could no longer be
laterally or vertically expelled. If the basal reservoir Future development
topography was such that depressions within imper- In August 1984, the drilling rig was down-manned since
vious strata existed, oil would continue to migrate and production rates had reached plateau and there was
accumulate within the crest of the structure until the little technical justification for the driling of any addi-
OWC had encroached to the level of 'spill-point' for the tional wells.
water pool (Figure 29c). When this occurred, migration The Fulmar gas pipeline is scheduled for completion
in that sector of the reservoir ceased but continued in in 1986 and, from this date, solution gas can be
other areas of the reservoir where formation water exported and preparations made for secondary gas-cap
could continue to be displaced until the whole structure blow-down.
had been filled to structural spill-point (Figure 29d). development plan. Oil wells will be produced to a
In the context of the Fulmar Field, the general water-cut of 90% and platform design allows for a
field-wide OWC, at 10840 ft subsea (3304 m), appears maximum water production of 80,000 barrels per day.
to coincide with the spill-point of the main structure. Workovers, recompletions and drilling from unused
However, the shallow OWC at 10560 ft subsea (3219 slots will be carried out as necessary to produce the
m), appears to be restricted to a fault-bounded 'block' field to its fullest potential.
in the northern area of the field. Here, water expulsion
appears to have been restricted by (1) pinch-out of the
reservoir through truncation by the base Cretaceous
unconformity and capping by impermeable Cretaceous Conclusions
Chalk, and (2) fault juxtaposition of reservoir quality This account of the Fulmar Field emphasizes the im-
sands in the 'northern block' against non-reservoir, portance of developing and refining new geological
basal Fulmar and Triassic sequences in the 'main field' models both to enhance exploration success and to
area. This scenario accounts for the two main observa- optimise field development. The discovery of the Ful-
tions from the pressure versus depth plot (Figure 10), mar Field occurred after the initial exploration phase in
namely that (1) oil leg pressures throughout the field all the Central North Sea and established a significant new
fall on a single gradient, and (2) the 'northern block' play. The pre-development drilling strategy of the
contains higher aquifer pressures (by around 80 psi) Fulmar Field allowed, amongst other things, for addi-
than the 'main field'. tional geological appraisal. This was particularly valu-

HYDROCARBON HYDROCARBON MIGRATION

WATER WATER EXPULSION
Figure 29 Proposed mechanism to account for the variation in OWC for the Fulmar Field: (a) prior to hydrocarbon entrapment,
(b) during 'early' hydrocarbon entrapment, (c) during 'late' hydrocarbon entrapment, and (d) post hydrocarbon entrapment (i.e. filled to
spill-point)
able in that it established a more complex reservoir This review of the Fulmar Field represents the
than originally anticipated, and it resulted in a revision crystallization of ideas and concepts derived, during the
and update of the geological model(s) which provided a past ten years, from numerous contributions from both
more accurate guide for development drilling strategy our colleagues and predecessors. In this respect, the
and reservoir management. following individuals deserve special note:- John Par-
ker, Gordon Knox, Tony Buller and John Foster for
Acknowledgements the exploration effort; Niko Praagman, Frans Wonink
and Marianne Goesten for reservoir studies; Dave
The authors wish to thank the managements of Shell Robertson for seismic studies; and Paul Lapeyre and
UK Exploration and Production, Esso Exploration and Dave Wilkin (both of Esso) for their contributions
Production UK, Amoco (UK) Exploration Co., Enter- during the more recent development phase.
prise Oil Ltd., Mobil North Sea Ltd., Amerada Hess Special thanks are also due to Bob Groves for the
(UK) Ltd. and Texas Eastern North Sea Inc. for preparation of both the figures (contained herein) and
permission to publish this paper. the slides used in the presentation of this paper to the
124 M a r i n e and P e t r o l e u m G e o l o g y , 1986, Vol 3, M a y ,

F u l m a r Oil F i e l d : H.D. J o h n s o n et al
Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain (May, Heald, M.T. and Baker, G.F. (1979) Diagenesis of Mt. Simon and
1984) and to the American Association of Petroleum Rose Run sandstone, in: Diagenesis of sandstone, cement-
porosity relationships, Compiled by E.F. McBride
Geologists' Annual Convention (March, 1985). Johnson, H.D. and Baldwin, C.T. (1985) Shallow Siliciclastic
Finally, the authors wish to stress that the views Seas in: Sedimentary environments and facies, 2nd edn. (Ed.
expressed within this publication are those of the H.G. Reading) Blackwells Scientific Publications, Oxford,
operator and do not necessarily represent the views of p.229--282. In press
the other Fulmar participants. Johnson, H.D. and Stewart, D.J. (1985) The role of clastic
sedimentology in the exploration and production of oil and
gas in the North Sea, in: Sedimentology: Recent develop-
ments and applied aspects (Eds. P.J. Brenchley and B.P.J.
References Williams) Blackwells Scientific Publications, Oxford, p.249-
310
Aigner, T. and Reineck, H.E. (1982) Proximality trends in mod- McBride, E.F. (1963) A classification of common sandstones,
ern storm sands from the Helgoland Bight (North Sea) and Sed. Pet. 33, 664-669
their implications for basin analysis, Senckenbergiana manit. Pennington, J.J. (1975) The geology of the Argyll field, in:
14 183-215 Petroleum and the continental shelf of north-west Europe, L
Allen, J.R.L. (1982) Sedimentary structures, their character and Geology (Ed. A.W. Woodland) London, Institute of Pet-
physical basis, vol. 1, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 593 pp roleum, p. 285-294
Brennand, T.P. and van Veen, F.R. (1975) The Auk Oil Field, in: Siever, R. (1962) Silica solubility 0-200C, and the diagenesis of
Petroleum and the continental shelf of north-west Europe, L siliceous sediments, GeoL 70, 127-149
Geology (Ed. A.W. Woodland) London, Institute of Pet- Spearing, D.R. (1976) Upper Cretaceous Shannon Sandstone:
roleum, 275-284 an offshore shallow marine sand body, Wyoming GeoL
Campbell, C.V. (1973) Offshore equivalents of Upper Cretaceous Assoc. Guidebook, 28th Field Conference, p.65-72
Gallup beach sandstone, North Western New Mexico, in Stow, D.A.V., Bishop, C.D. and Mills, S.I. (1982) Sedimentology
Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks of the southern Colorado of the Brae oilfield, North Sea: fan models and controls,
Plateau: Four Corners Geol. Soc. Mem., (Ed. J.E. Fassett) p. J. Pet. GeoL 5, 129-148
78-84 Taylor, J.C.M. (1980) Zechstein facies and petroleum prospects
Fowler, C. (1975) The geology of the Montrose Field, in: Pet- in the central and northern North Sea, in: Petroleum geology
roleum and the continental shelf of north-west Europe, L of the continental shelf of north-west Europe (Eds. L.V. Illing
Geology (Ed. A.W. Woodland) London, Institute of Pet- and G.D. Hobson) Institute of Petroleum, Proceedings of
roleum, p. 467-476 Second Conference, London, p.176-185
Frey, R.W. and Pemberton, S.G. 1984, Trace fossils facies Walker, R.G. (1984) Shelf and Shallow Marine Sands, in: Facies
models, in: Facies models, 2nd edn. (Ed. R.G. Walker) Geol. Models, 2nd edn., (Ed. R.G. Walker) Geol. Assoc. Canada
Assoc. Canada Reprint Ser. 1, p. 189-207 Reprint Ser. 1, p.141-170
Gebelein, C.D. and Hoffman, P. (1973) Algal origin of dolomite Walmsley, P.J. (1975) The Forties field, in: Petroleum and the
laminations in stromatolitic limestones, Sed. Pet. 43, 603- continental shelf of north-west Europe, L Geology (Ed. A.W.
613 Woodland) London, Institute of Petroleum, p.477-485
Gibbs, A.D. (1984) Clyde Field growth fault secondary detach- Ziegler, P. (1982) Geological Atlas of Western and Central
ment above basement faults in North Sea, AAPG Bull, 68, Europe Shell Internationale Petroleum Maatschappij. B.V.,
1029-1039 130 pp.
M a r i n e and P e t r o l e u m G e o l o g y , 1986, Vol 3, M a y 125

The Fulmer Oil Field

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Fulmer Oil Field

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Fulmar Oil-field (Central North Sea):

geological aspects of its discovery, appraisal

Introduction which forms the western margin to the South-West

100 Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1986, Vol 3, May

~'" .@:.;.~:iLONG~::. "'o - - r~ ~ ::~ii!iii:i:ii:i:ii::#j::i#/i!:y/::i:i:i:/h

~' % ~i~: O 4' ~i"~:'i!iJ

i i!!iti~it! ii ;il~i;iiii~ii~ ;ii@iiil~i~ili~ii!:iiiiiiiiii;iiiii~4iiii:ii!iii:ii!iiiiiil

Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1986, Vol 3, M a y 101

AUK FULMAR EKOFISK

EOCENE - PLEISTOCENE EARLY CRETACEOUS ZECHSTEIN SALT

PALAEOCENE JURASSIC ROTLIEGEND & DEVONIAN

LATE CRETACEOUS TRIASSIC BASEMENT

102 Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1986, Vol 3, May

i Oft subsea 0 ft subsea1

AUK HORST _I_ SOUTHWEST CENTRAL GRABEN _I_CENTRAL

Figure 4 Geological cross-section through the Auk-Fulmar-Clyde area

Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1986, Vol 3, May 183

Figure 5 Initial Upper Jurassic sand distribution model

TOP DEVONIAN LM!

104 Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1986, Vol 3, May

(a) PRE-DRILLING INTERPRETATION

Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1986, Vol 3, May 105

DISCOVERY STAGE (1975) INITIAL APPRAISAL STAGE (1977)

TRiASSiC SSIC TRIASSIC

-- HOMOGENOUS "SAND DOME" -- TWO R E S E R V O I R S

FT-4 WELL R E S U L T S - LOW DUALITY UPPER SANDS

DEVELOPMENT STAGE (1982-84) LOCATION MAP

106 M a r i n e and P e t r o l e u m G e o l o g y , 1986, Vol 3, M a y

Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1986, Vol 3, May 107

108 Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1986, Vol 3, May

300 q ,:;i;';i;'!';i;: ~'r,"~ ~ v ,, I LOCAL PARALLEL LAMINATED SANDS AND

Figure 12 I d e a l i z e d l i t h o l o g i c a l p r o f i l e o f M e m b e r III ( a d a p t e d f r o m J o h n s o n a n d S t e w a r t , 1985)

M a r i n e and P e t r o l e u m G e o l o g y , 1986, Vol 3, M a y 109

Depositional model Figure 14 Photomicrograph displaying siliceous and calcite

110 Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1986, Vol 3, May

""":':~:!::.... : !:~,.......~::'::i::':""."" "-:'.'~':':::...i:i::::.':'.~'~-'.,. ,:~.'.'.:..".:....!:i::::~:i:!:~:':""'" -~.~,,.~- "1- o~-'-

THIN (?) REWORKED[ AMPLIFIED, REGRESSIVE, SHALLOW [ ? DISTAL SHALLOW MARINE

HIGH ENERGY SANDS V COARSENING UPWARDS

LOW ENERGY BIOTURBATED ARGILLACEOUS SANDS I CROSS BEDDING

SILTSTONE AND SHALE

Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1986, Vol 3, May 111

B. SHOREFACE MODEL (Incomplete Regression) 0

abrupt in the Fulmar Field, notably on the western

112 Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1986, Vol 3, May

30/16-7 30/16-6 FT-1 FT-4 FA-12

- RAPID BASIN DEEPENING/DEPOSITION KIMMERIDGE CLAY

TRIAS, , ,,,, ,, , , , .,., =.- ~...........................

- CONTINUED SHALLOW MARINE SAND DEPOSITION

- SHALLOW MARINE DEPOSITION

- PROLONGED BALANCE BETWEEN SEDIMENTATION & SUBSIDENCE

Figure 18 Depositional evolution of the Fulmar Sands in the Fulmar Field

Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1986, V o l 3, M a y 113

114 Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1986, Vol 3, May

Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1986, Vol 3, May 115

.................... ::~:~:i.... ,............ .:::::.

~ CLEAN SANDS(< 1.5% CLAY,'~O.5-2% QUARTZ

-~ABUNDANT DOLOMITE CEMENT MODERATE INTERSTITIAL CLAY (= MEDIUM

- ~ CALCITE CONCRETIONS ABUNDANT INTERSTITIAL CLAY

30 / 1 6 - 7 30/16-6 FT- 1 FT-4 FA- 12

VERY GOOD 1 ~ 2 5 - 3 5 % POOR ~*'15-25%

GOOD jll'~ 20-30% K

MODERATE 1~,18 - 24%

Figure 21 Reservoir quality distribution through the Fulmar Field

116 Marine and Petroleum Geology, 1986, Vol 3, May