EUROPEAn
OFFSHORE
EUR 166
MONTROSE FIELD RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT
by Morad Bishlawi, Amoco Europe Inc.;
Robert L. Moore, Amoco (UK) Exploration
Company
Copyright 1980, European Offshore Petroleum Conference and Exhibition
This paper was presented at the European Offshore Petroleum Conference and Exhibition held in London, England, October 21-24,1980. The material is subject to correction by the author.
Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words.
ABSTRACT
The Montrose Field, one of the earliest oil dis-
coveries in the UK sector of the North Sea, was put on
production in 1976. The Field is operated by Amoco
for the Amoco/Gas Council Group, a group of companies
comprised of the British Gas Corporation, Texas Eastern
and' Amerada Hess in addition to Amoco. Extensive reser-
voir pressure data collection from the start of produc-
tion enabled the Amoco/Gas Council Group to develop a
reservoir depletion policy that was by no means obvious
from reservoir studies completed prior to the start of
production and is believed will result in the maximum
recovery of oil. The reservoir pressure data gathered
included conventional bottomhole shut-in pressure build-
up surveys plus, in all wells drilled since 1977,
Repeat Formation Tester (RFT)* pressure surveys; a tool
which has only recently been found to be a strong aid
in reservoir evaluation and in developing a sound reser-
voir management policy.
INTRODUCTION
The Montrose Field is located in 9l.4m (300 feet)
of water in the UK sector of the North Sea approximately
209 kilometres (130 miles) east of Aberdeen, Scotland
(see Figure 1). The Field was discovered in 1971 with
the drilling of Well 22/18-2 and overlaps two UK Blocks
(22/17 and 22/18) both of which are licensed to the
Amoco/Gas Council Group**. A centrally-located, 24 well-
slot steel platform was installed in 1975 and to date
20 wells, 16 producers and 4 water injection wells, have
been drilled. Production started mid-1976 and in 1979
averaged 4452 cubic metres of oil per day (28,000 bopd)
and 238 cubic metre of water per day (1,500 bwpd). A
water injection program was initiated in March, 1978
with an injection capacity of 7950 cubic metre per day
*Repeat Formation Tester and RFT are trademark names for GEOLOGY AND RESERVOIR PROPERTIES
tool developed and marketed by Schlumberger.
**The Amoco/Gas Council Group is comprised of Amoco (UK) to have been deposited in deep water by a prograding
Exploration Co., Gas Council (Exploration), North Sea,
Inc., (the UK affiliate of Texas Eastern) and Amerada
Hess .. Amoco is operator for the Group.
References and illustrations at end of paper.
"PETROLEum
conFEREnCE
I EXHIBITion
(50,000 bwpd).
Oil is transported from the Field by tankers load-
ed offshore via two loading buoys, each of which are
connected to the platform by a 1.6 kilometre (one-mile)
long subsea pipeline. Neither the loading buoys nor
the platform contain significant oil storage facilities
and thus whenever weather conditions become too severe
for the tanker to remain moored to the buoy, production
is shutdown. Production downtime averaged 20 percent
in 1979.
The Montrose Field reservoir is a sequence of
deep water turbidite sandstones and minor shales of
Paleocene age. The structure is a low-relief double
anticline with local structural highs and lows related
primarily to the areal distribution of sandstone and
shale in the top parts of the Paleocene Sand. The
reservoir oil column is underlain by water. RFT pres-
sure measurements in wells drilled after the start of
production indicate that vertical communication exists
between the aquifer and the oil column.
The water injection programme was designed for
injection into the aquifer beneath the oil column,
rather than along the edge, in the belief that better
pressure maintenance and a higher waterflood sweep
efficiency would result. Subsequent pressure surveys
and the results of a reservoir simulation study have
increased the Group's confidence in this decision, and
reservoir performance to date has substantiated the
correctness of the injection policy.
This paper reviews the reservoir management policy
formulated for the Montrose Field and, in particular,
the importance of RFT reservoir pressure data in the
making of the policy.
The Paleocene sandstone/shale sequence is believed
suc/marine fan sourced from a delta system situated in
the region of the present day Moray Firth. A structura
map of the top of the Paleocene Sand at Montrose Field
is given in Figure 2. The predominant structural fea-
tures are two elongated, northwest-to-southeast trendin~
205
lohes,commonly called the East Flank and West Flank of
the reservoir. These are separated by a depression
containing a shaly facies which isolates the oil col-
umns in the East and West Flanks from each other. This
is evidenced by the different oil properties and pro-
duced gas-oil ratio (GOR) found in each flank. The
shalyfacies does not penetrate the full thickness of
the aquifer and it ,is believed that the aquifer is
common to both flanks of the reservoir. This is illus-
trated ~nFigure 3; an east~west cross section of
the Field.
The cross section also shows the five layers de-
vised for the reservoir. The top section of the reser-
voir (Layer 1) is a massive sandstone with relatively
high permeability (11 md to 250 md), low clay content
and low water saturation. Its thickness ranges from
11.9 metres (39 feet) to 25.5 metres (84 feet) in the
East Flank and 2.1 metres (7 feet) to 8.8 metres
(29 feet) in the West Flank. This section is underlain
by a shaly interval, Layer 2, which ranges from 12.2
metres (40 feet) to 18.2 metres (60 feet) thick in the
East Flank and 3 metres (10 feet) to 10.6 metres (35
feet) thick in the West Flank. The Lay~r 2 section is
readily identifiable on well logs and can be correlated
within each Flank, but it is not possible ~o obtain a
confident correlation of the individual shales within
the Layer 2 section. For this reason, the shales are
not believed to be continuous.
Layer 3 is a thick sandstone section with inter-
bedded shales of varying thickness. The sandstones
in Layer 3 have a higher clay content than the Layer 1
sandstones and thus the permeability of the La-yer 3
sandstones is lower, ranging from 20 md to 100md.
The oil-water contact in both the East and West Flanks
is found ,in the Layer' 3 interval. The OWC is not
found consistently at the same elevation from well to
well, but var~es significantly between the East and
West Flanks and even within the Flanks themselves. The
cause of this variation in the oil-water contact has
not been conclusively demonstrated but is believed to
be related to local shalinessin the contact zone and
the thinly bedded nature of the sandstones.
Layers 4 and 5 are further identifiable sequences
of sandstone and shale deposits with an overall thick-
ness of 122 metres (400 feet) to 183 metres (600 feet).
The two layers are entirely water-bearing and have beer.
fully penetrated by only a small number of wells.
Porosity in the sandstones in Layer 1, 2 and 3
determined by log and core analyses ranges from 18%
to 28% and averages 23%. Permeability varies with
porosity, but as noted above, ,also varies with the
clay content of the sandstone. A small increase in
clay content can drastically reduce porosity and
permeability. An analysis of otherwise similar core
samples revealed that a difference in clay content of
2% (from 4% to 6%) reduced porosity from 27% to 22%
and permeability from 265 md to 43md.
The reservoir oil bubble point pressure is 18.8
MPa (2730 psi) in the East Flank andl6 . 2 MFa (2350
psi) in the West Flank and thus was undersaturated
at the initial reservoir pressure of 25.7 MPa (3730
psi). The solution gas-oil ratios are 128 m3 /m3 (720
SCF/bbl) and 107 m3 /m3 (600 SCF/bbl) in the East and
West Flanks respectively.
MONITORING OF RESERVOIR PERFORMANCE
From the start of production and during the courSE
206
of the development drilling programme, the Amoco/Gas
Council Group conducted an extensive reservoir data
gathering programme to monitor the performance of the
Montrose reservoir. The programme included periodic
shut-in bottomhole pressure build-up surveys; pro-
duction logging; falloff pressure tests in injection
wells; and, in all wells since A6, RFT pressure sur-
veys as part of the open hole logging programme prior
to a well's completion.
The RFT l ,2 is an advance wireline testing device
run in open hole to collect formation fluid samples
and measure formation pressure at different depths.
As used at Montrose, the RFT tool can be modified to
run a second pressure gauge in place of the fluid sam-
ples to cross check the pressure measurement. The
tool can be set any number of times during a run in the
hole, and thus a large number of pressure measurements
can be made at different depths resulting in a pres-
sure-depth profile. The tool also gives a reasonably
direct reading,i.e. not subject to pressure transient
analysis, of the pressure that exists at the sample
point at the time the well is drilled. Thus in a
developmetlt drilling programme that is done in con-
junction with production from the reservoir, RFT pres-
sure measurements give a geographic, depth and time
distribution of pressure that would not otherwise be
obtained.
The first RFT pressure profile was obtained from
Well A6 in April 1977. The seconf RFT survey obtained,
shown in Figure 4, was from well A8 which penetrated
through most of the aquifer. The well A8 RFT pressure
profile revealed that pressure depletion had occurred
in the main oil section (layers 1 and 2) in which
wells drilled earlier in the 'East Flank had been com-
pleted. The pressure profile also indicated that
pressure depletion had occurred in the layers below
those in which the offset wells were completed; the
first proof that the aquifer is in direct, vertical
communication ~ith the oil; column and thus that shale
barriers seen between the bil sands and the aquifer
are not continuous across ~he Field.
The successful operation of the RFTtool in wells
A6 and A8 and the significant results obtained from
the survey convinced the Amoco/Gas Council Group to
make it standard practice to obtain an RFT pressure
survey on all subsequent wells drilled in Montrose.
The resulting vertical pressure profiles, plotted for
the East Flank in Figure 5 and the West Flank in
Figure 6 reveal a great deal about the character and
performance of the Montrose reservoir.
The first thing apparent from inspection of
Figures 5 and 6 is that the vertical pres~ure profiles
can be used in the development of a geological model
of the Field, segregating the strata into the distinct
geologic layers most useful for reservoir simulation
purposes and for understanding the mechanics of pro-
duction. The sharp increase in pressure found in
most wells below the top, clean sand readily identi-
fies the Layer 2 shale sequence. The pressure drop
across the Layer 2 shales indicates that these shales
act as a partial (but not complete) barrier between
the Layer 1 oil sand and the oil and water sands be-
low in Layers 3, 4 and 5. Other conclusions made
from inspection of Figures 5 and 6 are:
The East Flank Layer 1 sands have good
vertical and lateral pressure communi-
cation.
 The West Flank Layer 1 sand, which is
thinner than in the East Flank, is being
rapidly depleted and is possibly of
limited areal extent.
Pressure depletion, resulting from pro-
duction from Layers 1, 2 and 3, extends
to the lower part of the aquifer, pene-
trated by wells A13, AlB, A19 and A20.
RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT POLICY
Reservoir studies performed prior to the develop-
ment of the Montrose Field and based on the results of
exploration drilling outlined the reservoir management
approach taken at Montrose. It was knowns that the
oil column was underlain by a large aquifer, but the
presence of numerous shales in the stratigraphic column
inferred taht the aquifer would probably give only
limited, if any, pressure support to the oil reservoir.
Water injection facilities were thus initially included
in the platform design. It was also known that there
is an extreme variation of permeability between the
layers of the reservoir rock and thus that the vertical
sweep efficiency of a waterflood would probably be
low. It was believed that depletion of the reservoir
pressure significantly below the bubble point pressure
would be detrimental to ultimate oil recovery and that
a pressure maintenance scheme of some nature would be
necessary.
It was obvious that water injection would be re-
quired to boost and maint~in reservoir pressure, but
it was not obvious wheth~r peripheral (edge) water
injection into the oil~bearing layers (1,2 and 3) or
bottom water injection into the aquifer in Layers 4
and 5 would result in max~mum oil recovery. Edge
water injection would give the most immediate boost
to reservoir pressure, but could result in early water
breakthrough in the high permeability sands. Bottom
water injection would not result in early water break-
through, but the vertical permeability between the
point where the water would be injected and the pro-
ducing zones could be solow that little pressure
support may be realised by the water injection.
The vertical pressute profiles obtained by the
RFT, proving communication between the aquifer and
the oil column, decided the Group on bottom water in-
jection. This was implemented with the drilling of
injection well All in December, 1977, followed by
injection wells A12 and A17 in 197B and well AlB in
1979. The bulk of the water injection is devoted to
the East Flank, which experienced the greatest degree
of pressure depletion prior to the start of injection.
The effectiveness of the water injection programmE
is being monitored through the use of RFT and pressure
build-up measurements of reservoir pressure and by
periodic production logging in selected wells to
watch for a rise in the oil-water contact. Reservoir
performance and the results of a reservoir simulation
study seem to vindicate the decision to use bottom
water injection.
RESERVOIR SIMULATION
The RFT pressure data provided unique information
for the reservoir simulation study of the Montrose
Field. Having available a series of pressure-depth
relationships at different locations in the reservoir
at different times greatly improved the quality of
the history match and hence the quality of the model
207
itself.
The RFT pressure data demonstrated that vertical
communication exists between the various geologic
layers at Montrose. For this reason, a three-dimen-
sional, three-phase model was used to simulate reser-
voir performance. The model was composed of an areal
grid of 330 (22 x 15) blocks and five vertical layers;
the layers corresponding to those identified by geo-
logic and RFT pressure data. A no flow boundary be-
tween the East and West Flank in the top three layers
was used in the model to represent the separation in
the oil reservoirs seen in the Field performance. The
no flow boundary was not extended into Layers 4 and 5
since the aquifer in these layers is believed common
to both flanks of the Field. The objective of the
history match was for the model to match all pressure
data - RFT vertical pressure profiles and build-up
pressures - taken in the Field, with historical oil
rates used as given input parameters to the model.
Major changes to the original assigned reservoir
rock properties were required to match the extensive
pressure data. The most effective changes made in
achieving the history match were in the areal and
vertical transmissibility between the grid blocks.
Transmissibility, as used in the model, is the product
of permeability, area open to flow, flow path length
and tortuosity between the grid blocks. Scarce data
is normally available on transmissibility within the
reservoir, particularly in areas between and outside
of well control. It was not surprising that the ini-
tial assumptions of transmissibility required drastic
modification to achieve the history match.
An interesting result of the history match was
the value for vertical permeability required to achievE
the history match. Reservoir vertical permeability in
a sandstone/shale sequence cannot be measured on core
samples as a core does not represent the areal distri-
bution and extent of the shales which act as barriers
to vertical flow. Vertical flow is along a tortuous
path, between gaps in the horizontal shale layers, and
thus vertical permeability can only be measured by
using in situ data. This data was available from the
RFT pressure-depth-time relationships. The adjustment
of vertical permeability in the three-dimensional
model to match the RFT pressures was a calculation of
vertical permeability in its most accurate form, and
the vertical permeabilities determined in this manner
ranged from 0.2 md to 0.002 md, much lower values than
were originally assumed.
SUMMARY
The construction of the Montrose reservoir model,
founded on the extensive pressure data gathered in
the Field, provides the Amoco/Gas Council Group with
a powerful tool for evaluating future decisions to
optimise oil production from the Field. The model
is being used to evaluate future development well
locations, in particular a subsea well location in
the area north west of A13; artificial lift alterna-
tives and the future distribution of water injection.
Model forecasts indicate that bottom water injection
was the correct alternative over peripheral injection
to maximise oil recovery. This conclusion is support-
ed by recent reservoir performance. As shown in Fig-
ure 7, the East Flank, where most of the water is in-
jected, is responding to water injection and reservoir
pressure is increasing. The West Flank pressure
(Figure B) is continuing to decline and future empha-
sis may be on redirecting the water to the West Flank
to arrest this decline.
The gathering of a large quantity of good pressure
data early in the 1ieof afield is important to the
development of a sound reservoir management policy.
Bottomholepressure build~up data are useful for moni-
toring the trends in reservoir pressure as a function
of time. Vertical pressure profiles obtained with the
RFT tool during development well drilling coincident
with production provide a very accurate measurement
of the pressure-depth-time relationships in the reser-
voir and form a strong foundation for constructing a
numerical reservoir model. With this information and
data in hand, reservoir engineers can perform the
planning required for effective reservoir management.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the member companies
of the Amoco/Gas Council Group for their permission
to publish this paper. We also wish to acknowledge
the contribution and participation of Mr. N. Haigh in
the preparation of this paper and the contributions
made by Mr. A.E. Robinson and Mr. R. G. Deane to our
understanding of the geology of the Montrose Field.
REFERENCES
1. Schultz A.L, Bell W.T., and Urbanosky H.J.,
Advancements in uncased-Hole Wireline - Formation -
Tester Techniques", SPE 5035, 1974.
2. Smolen J.J., and Litsey L.R., "Formation Evaiuatior
Using Wireline Formation Tester Pressure Data",
SPE 6822, 1977.
 o
, ,
50
,
100 Miles

MAGNU~ \
o
, ,
50
,
100
,
150 km
THISTLE '~/MURCHISON
DUNLlN~'tSTATFJORD
TER~~
CORMORANT ., BRENT
HEATHER~~.
Shetland HUTTON I-NI~IAN
Islands
'\
\
BRUC! JF~IGG
BERYL' ' HEIMDALL

Orkney p
ISlandS~~
~
/
I
\t(1
I
(
-
CLAYMORE
, PIPER

TARTAN

ANDREW
\ '\

FORTIES \.

IMONTROSEl [!] )
LOMOND
, COD

/
W. EKOFIS \ _, TOR ./'
JOSEPHINE--e .
FULMAR--' EDDX
".
la~EKOFISK
'-ELDFIS~
/'
.
A0K f \.t-;:;<ALHALL

'--.'"."'" D:N .r--.

ARGYLL'\ HOD

-:---)
.
I ',,-...1

FIG. 1 LOCATION OF MONTROSE AND PRINCIPAL

NORTHERN NORTH SEA FIELDS
 RESERVOI R PRESSURE psig
GR /0 fJ /0 sw /0
o 100 0 50 100 0 2500 3000 3500 4000

TOP PALEOCENE

8100
ORIGINAL
LAVER I PRESSURE
GRADIENT

LAYER II
2500

LAVER III
en
(1) +-J
:lo-
...... Q)
Q)
Q,)
'-l-
E

2550
J:
:I: I-'-
t- o..
Q. w
W 0
C LAVER I\'
c:e
w
w en
en CQ
r::o ::::>
:::J en
en
-J
....J
<C

U
U 2600
I-
i= 0::
ce:: W
W
> >
w
w ::::>
:::J 0::
IX l-
t-

LAVER \'
2650

8800

14 16 18 20 22 24 26
RESERVOI R PRESSURE MPa

FIG. 4 RFT RESULTS MONTROSE FIELD WELL 22/17 -A8

Tested January 1978
 RESERVOI R PRESSURE ps i 9
_ - - - _ - - - - 3 _ 0 - 0 0 - - - _ - - - - 3 2...0-0-----.-----3...,4,..00-----.----. 8000

2450

Original Pressure
Gradient 8100
A17

2500 8200

~
-
en
(1)

(1)
E
8300
.......
(J)
(J)
"l-

2550

8400 I
::I: I-
~ a...
Q. w
W 0
C
<{
cd: w
w
V) 8500 C/)
CCl
~
::J
::> 2600 C/)
V)

-l
...J <!
cd: U
U 8600
I-
~ CC
cc: w
W
> >
w
w 2650 ::J
::> 8700 cc
cc: I-
~
SYMBOL WELL NUMBER DATE

0 22/17 -A6 5 APR, 1977)

A8 (27 JAN, 1978)

8800
0 A11 (20 DEC. 1977)

2700
X
A15
A17
( 15 AUG, 1978)
( 2 NOV. 1978)
Cl A18 (28 MAR. 1979)
8900

....... --1 ...&.... ....... -"""'-- ..... 9000

18 20 22 24 26 28
RESERVOI R PRESSURE MPa

FIG. 5 RFT PRESSURE DATA MONTROSE FI ELD (EAST FLANK)

 RESERVOI R PRESSURE psi 9
3000 3200 3400
8000

2450

Original Pressure
Gradient 8100

A19 A9
4-
~
/
2500
8200

en
~
+-I
Q)
8300 Q)
Q,) ~

2550

8400 :r:
::I: I-
t- 0-
0.. UJ
UJ 0
C

c:::e

UJ
LLJ 8500 en
en CO
CO
2600 ::::>
=>
en
en
--l
...J

u
u 8600
l-
t- 0:
CC UJ
LLJ >
> SYMBOL WELL NUMBER DATE
LLJ
=>.
cc:
2650 ... 22/17 -A9 7 SEP, 1977 ) 8700
UJ
::::>
0:
.... 0 A10 2 NOV, 1977)
l-

A12 (11 APR: 1978 )

bJ. A13 ( 7 JUN, 1978)

0 A14 (15 JUL. 1978 ) 8800

X A16 (24 SEP. 1978 )

2700
0 A1A (19 DEC. 1978 )
X A19 (27 MAV 1979 )
-1- A20 ( 11 NOV. 1979) 8900

. . . . - - - - -.......----_---.ll.- .a-.. ....a.- ....... 9000

18 20 22 24 26 28

RESERVOI R PRESSURE MPa

FIG. 6 RFT PRESSURE DATA MONTROSE FIELD (WEST FLANK)

Cl
Vl
0-
A3
o A4
o
LU
0:: 09
I
A3

A6

0::
3000 o A3
0 o A5

I
A15 A5
0 0 0
A5 tI.6
A3 A8%A3
0 %
o 0 A8
0
A3

~
A4
A4

~ E

:s:
o2ll

ZUj
Of-
-
t;cr:
:::J
OZ
~~

~~
6~

FIG. 7 PRODUCTION AND PRESSURE HISTORY - MONTROSE FIELD EAST FLANK

C'l
<Jl
0-

A2
o
W A2 A7
IX
<:> <:> A2
A16

~
<:> <:>
A9 A10
<:>
<:> <:> A10 <:>A13 A14
IX
0
<:>
A9 ~ <:> 8
A14
~ A7

~ A1A
~ <:>
2500

40
6000

IXC 5000
We.
I-r:o 30
~~

oi!ll 4000
oi!ll

6:::
6~
::J
OZ
~ ~
2000
e.g
-I,

1000 6 z

FIG. 8 PRODUCTION AND PRESSURE HISTORY - MONTROSE FIELD (WEST FLANK)