Anda di halaman 1dari 10

SPE 77920

The Griffin Development – Flying High on Infill Success


L.J. Workman, T.V. Slate and B.F. Oke, BHP Billiton Petroleum Pty Ltd

Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Melbourne, Australia, 8–10 October 2002.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
In recent years the successful drilling, completion and tie-back
of three Griffin area infill wells and a re-entry campaign has
resulted in improved production rates and increased reserves.
The Griffin Area Development in the southern Carnarvon
Basin, offshore Western Australia, consists of three oil fields; Fig. 1 – Griffin Development Location Map
Griffin, Chinook and Scindian, tied to the “Griffin Venture”
Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) facility. Introduction
First production commenced in January 1994, with a The Griffin oil and gas development is located in production
maximum rate of 85,000 stb/d reached shortly after start-up. license WA-10-L, in the southern Carnarvon Basin,
The Zeepaard Formation is the primary reservoir in the approximately 68km offshore from Onslow, Western Australia
development. It has excellent productivity and strong aquifer (Figure 1). The facility was commissioned in 1994 to produce
support. In eight years of production, over 100 MMstb of oil oil and gas from the Griffin, Scindian and Chinook fields.
has been recovered through nine vertical wells. Production Each field consists of two distinct reservoirs - the main
began to decline from 1996, with escalating water cuts from Zeepaard reservoir, which is of excellent quality, and the
the majority of the wells. overlying Birdrong reservoir, which is of considerably poorer
quality.
Reprocessing of the 1991 3D seismic data, combined with
reservoir modelling studies, led to the approval and The Griffin field was discovered in 1990 by the
subsequent drilling of two Zeepaard infill wells in mid 2000, exploration well, Griffin-1, which intersected 34 m of oil-
one in the Scindian Field and the other in Griffin. The results bearing Birdrong reservoir and 65 m of oil-bearing Zeepaard
of the Griffin infill well changed the understanding of reservoir. Three further wells, Griffin-2, Griffin-3 and
reservoir sweep in that field and led to a re-entry campaign in Ramillies-1, were drilled to delineate the Griffin structure.
late 2000. This was followed by a second infill well in early The Chinook and Scindian fields were both discovered in
2002. 1989. The Chinook-1 exploration well encountered a 19 m oil
Each infill well has flowed in excess of 20,000 stb/d, column in the Zeepaard overlain by 39 m of gas-bearing
lifting the production potential of the Griffin Venture, Birdrong. Scindian-1A was drilled in 1990 and discovered a
improving the reservoir sweep and accelerating reserves into similar accumulation. The Chinook and Scindian reservoirs
field life. In February 2002, the facility was producing at are connected through the Birdrong oil column but are
60,000 stb/d, with 40,000 stb/d of this attributable to the three separate accumulations in the Zeepaard.
infill wells drilled in the area since July 2000.
2 L.J. WORKMAN, T.V. SLATE AND B.F. OKE SPE 77920

Fig. 2 – Zeepaard Reservoir Top Structure Map. Wells currently Fig. 3 – Birdrong Reservoir Top Structure Map. Wells completed
producing from this reservoir are shown in blue. in and currently producing from this reservoir are shown in blue.

Following the exploration success, development drilling account for flowline capacity and “Griffin Venture” gas
was completed and at first production in 1994 there were four handling constraints. These factors, in combination with
vertical Griffin Zeepaard wells (Griffin-1, -2, -3, and -4), one conducting rig and vessel operations in a field with extensive
vertical Chinook Zeepaard well (Chinook-1), one vertical subsea hardware, have increased the complexity of infill
Scindian Zeepaard well (Scindian-1A) and three sinuous development.
horizontal Birdrong wells (Griffin-5(H), Griffin-6/ST1(H) and
Scindian-2/ST1(H)). The location of the wells and the
distribution of oil in each of the reservoirs is shown in Figures Subsurface Description
2 and 3.
The WA-10-L license area straddles the Alpha Arch, a north-
All nine development wells are subsea, tied back via a northeast to south-southwest-trending series of horst blocks
combination of flexible and rigid flowlines to a disconnectable that developed in the Early Jurassic. At reservoir level the
floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) facility, Griffin horst dips from east to west and the main bounding
the “Griffin Venture”. faults merge to the southwest. These faults underwent several
periods of significant reactivation until the Late Cretaceous
The produced oil, water and gas are processed via a three
and throw by up to 100 m at top reservoir.
stage separation process. The oil is stored and sold via
tankers, the produced gas is dehydrated and compressed for The Chinook and Scindian features were developed by
export into the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline and drape over a horst block to the northeast of Griffin. Closure
water is disposed of overboard. for both features is independent of large-scale faulting.
The initial nine well development of the Griffin Area fields The deltaic and marginal marine sandstones of Early
utilised all available flowlines and riser slots. In addition, the Cretaceous-aged Zeepaard and Birdrong Formations provide
“Griffin Venture” gas handling capacity has been fully utilised the reservoir section. These reservoirs are sealed vertically
since first production. and laterally by shales of the Muderong Formation (Figure 4).
Infill development therefore requires manifolding new wells Zeepaard Formation reservoir quality is excellent, with a
with existing producers and production prioritisation to net-to-gross of approximately 90 percent and permeability in
SPE 77920 THE GRIFFIN DEVELOPMENT – FLYING HIGH ON INFILL SUCCESS 3

Fig. 4 – Griffin Field Cross-Section.

the range of 800 to 2000 mD. The Zeepaard sequence was


deposited in a fluvial and coastal plain environment and has an
average thickness of 130 m in the Griffin area.
The sequence is subdivided into four sub-units (Figure 5).
The lowermost unit, Unit 4, is a thick sequence of stacked
braided channels. The overlying Unit 3 is a low net-to-gross
interval characterized by bay / lake fill dominated by
bioturbated claystones. It represents the Transgressive
Systems Tract.
Unit 1 and Unit 2 represent the Highstand Systems Tract.
Unit 2 consists of a sequence of stacked meander channels,
characterised by fining upward sand bodies overlain by thin
claystones and coal. The uppermost unit, Unit 1, represents
lower delta plain sediments, consisting predominantly of thick
distributary channel sands. The Zeepaard Formation oil
column in the Griffin Field occurs in Units 1 and 2.
The claystones and coals occurring within Unit 1 and Unit
Fig. 5 – Log Section through Griffin-1 showing depositional
2 are up to one metre thick and represent interchannel description and typical rock qualities of the Birdrong and
floodplain and channel abandonment facies. In general, they Zeepaard Formations.
are poorly correlated between the wells, which are spaced
from 500 m to 2,500 m in the Griffin Field. Accordingly,
these claystones and coals are interpreted to have a mean The Zeepaard Formation is the primary reservoir of the
extent of several hundred metres. The exception is the fields and it receives strong bottom and edge drive aquifer
claystone at the top of Unit 2, which can be correlated field- support.
wide. The Birdrong Formation, however, is primarily edge water
The thick claystone within Unit 3 represents the maximum drive because of the poor vertical permeability of the
flooding surface of the Zeepaard Sequence and has a distinct sequence, preventing communication with the Zeepaard
high gamma and high density response on logs. It can be Formation. Aquifer support is fair in the Chinook-Scindian
correlated to wells outside the field area. fields, but is highly restricted in the Griffin Birdrong reservoir
because of fault isolation.
The reservoir quality of the Birdrong Formation is highly
variable. It was deposited in a shallow marine environment by
storm and turbidity processes. The sequence is lithologically Production Performance and Modelling
complex, composed of interbedded fine-grained sands and
silty claystones with varying proportions of glauconite and First production commenced from the “Griffin Venture” in
siderite. The net-to-gross is approximately 40 percent and the January 1994, at a maximum rate of 85,000 stb/d. Production
permeability of the sandstones range from 0.1 to 1000 mD, began to decline in 1996, with escalating water cut from the
averaging 30 mD. majority of the wells.
4 L.J. WORKMAN, T.V. SLATE AND B.F. OKE SPE 77920

In early 1999, a subsurface team made up of geoscientists Formation. The model assumed a common field-wide oil-
and engineers from the WA-10-L Joint Venture, was formed water contact through time, with local coning effects at the
to fully evaluate the Griffin Area fields and to identify any wells, as shown in Figure 6.
development opportunities that may exist. The scope of work
To match the historical performance in Griffin-1, the thin
consisted of:
claystones needed to be breached to enable oil in Unit 2 access
Re-mapping of key reservoir horizons and revision of the to the perforations at the top of the Zeepaard and delay water
depth conversion. breakthrough in Griffin-1. The claystone breaching
mechanism was interpreted to be channel erosion / scouring,
Constructing geocellular models of all the reservoirs.
or small-scale faulting that was below seismic resolution.
Up-scaling the geocellular models to reservoir simulation
Updated seismic interpretation indicated that there was a
models, which were subsequently history-matched and
high probability of an up-dip accumulation to the east of
used for infill development planning.
Griffin-1 (Figure 6), and reservoir modelling indicated that
this accumulation would not be swept effectively during field
Griffin Zeepaard Reservoir. The Griffin Zeepaard reservoir
life.
has been by far the most productive, producing to date in
excess of 100 MMstb. Griffin-8 was proposed to access this accumulation and more
effectively sweep the stranded oil between Griffin-1 and
By early 1999, five years after start-up, over 70 MMstb of
Griffin-2 and the eastern bounding fault.
oil had been produced from the Griffin Zeepaard. Griffin-4,
the most down-dip producer, had watered out because of water
Chinook and Scindian Zeepaard Reservoirs. Reservoir
influx from the north, and Griffin-2 and Griffin-3 had
modelling indicated that Chinook-1 had been positioned
developed significant water cuts. Griffin-1, the structurally
optimally at the top of the structure, and would drain
highest well, was still producing 25,000 stb/d of dry oil.
approximately 60 percent of the oil reserves initially in place
The excellent performance from Griffin-1 was, however, in the Chinook Zeepaard reservoir. The Scindian-1A well,
difficult to match with the existing reservoir model which however, would only recover approximately 40 percent of the
predicted water breakthrough as early as 1996. Water Scindian Zeepaard reserves, as it is located within a graben of
breakthrough eventually occurred in July 1999, towards the the Scindian structure.
end of the remodelling work.
The Scindian-3 infill opportunity was identified to access
The final matched Griffin Zeepaard model assumed reserves in the Scindian West block, up-dip of Scindian-1A
excellent vertical and lateral sweep throughout the Zeepaard (Figure 7).

Fig. 6 – Griffin Zeepaard reservoir sweep model, 1999, showing the expectation of the Griffin-8 infill well.
SPE 77920 THE GRIFFIN DEVELOPMENT – FLYING HIGH ON INFILL SUCCESS 5

Infill 2000
The two proposed infill wells, Griffin-8 and Scindian-3, were
drilled and completed in April to June 2000. First oil from
both wells was achieved in July. The infill wells came on at
high rates, producing clean oil, and increased total Griffin area
production from 30,000 stb/d to over 55,000 stb/d.
Griffin-8. Griffin-8 intersected the Top Zeepaard
approximately 19 m low to prognosis, reducing the up-dip
attic to only 1.4 m. The well however, did intersect a 63 m
gross oil column, 43 m greater than expected. It extended the
oil-down-to close to the original oil-water contact.
Griffin-8 MDT pressure data showed differential depletion
had occurred in the Griffin Zeepaard (Figure 8), with
increasing depletion towards the top of the reservoir. There
Fig.7 – Scindian Field Cross Section.
are three significant pressure barriers throughout the sequence.
The lowermost barrier is a thick claystone within Unit 3,
Birdrong Reservoir. Griffin-5(H) and Griffin-6/ST1(H) are occurring within the aquifer. The second barrier is a soil
both sinusoidal horizontal wells draining the Griffin Birdrong horizon identified by core within Unit 2, and is not distinctive
reservoir. Griffin-5(H) started cutting water in May 1996, but from wireline logs. Another significant barrier occurs at the
Griffin-6/ST1(H) has remained relatively dry. The aquifer top of Unit 2, indicating that Units 1 and 2 are not in direct
encroaches upon the reservoir from the north, supplying communication. The MDT indicated that the Unit 1A and 1B
Griffin-5(H) with aquifer support, but not adequately reaching sands appear to be in pressure communication.
Griffin-6/ST1(H). Griffin-6/ST1(H) production has decreased
because of poor aquifer support and declining reservoir
pressure. The two wells are forecast to recover approximately
30 percent of the oil-in-place in the Griffin Birdrong reservoir,
reflecting the poorer reservoir quality and limited aquifer
support.
Scindian-2/ST1(H) is a sinusoidal horizontal well in the
Chinook / Scindian Birdrong reservoir. The well is subject to
both gas and water coning as the high mobility Scindian
Birdrong gas cap is drawn into the well. Scindian-2/ST1(H) is
forecast to recover 15 percent of the oil-in-place.
The WA-10-L Joint Venture is reviewing development
options aimed at increasing recovery in the Birdrong reservoir.
To date these have not proven to be feasible due to a
combination of limited reserves, development cost and
production infrastructure constraints.

Seismic 2D Reprocessing. The HH91A (Griffin) 3D survey


covers approximately 380km2 of production licences WA-10-
L and WA-12-L and was acquired and processed in 1991. No
further processing had been performed on this data until mid
1999 when selected 2D lines were reprocessed (time and pre-
stack depth migration) for optimising the Griffin-8 and
Scindian-3 infill well locations.
The 2D reprocessing demonstrated that significant Fig. 8 – Griffin-8 MDT pressure results showing differential
improvement in the quality of the seismic data was possible. depletion throughout the reservoir.
A most important result of this work was that the Griffin-8
well was relocated from a likely downside fault location, thus
saving a multi-million dollar sidetrack.
6 L.J. WORKMAN, T.V. SLATE AND B.F. OKE SPE 77920

Fig. 9 – A revision of the Griffin Zeepaard reservoir sweep model, 2000, showing the results of Griffin-8 and expected oil-water contacts for
the re-entry campaign.

This result indicated that rather than a single, flat oil-water Re-Entry Program, 2000 / 2001
contact with local coning effects, there is a complex
The unexpected results of Griffin-8 had changed the
movement of the water flood fronts through the Zeepaard
understanding of the reservoir dynamics in the Griffin
reservoir. Thin claystones throughout the Unit 1 sand were
Zeepaard reservoir. The concept of a single oil-water contact
now believed to be more extensive, which has resulted in
moving uniformly through time, with local coning effects at
holding up the vertical movement of oil (Figure 9).
the wells, had to be discarded given the extent of the oil
Griffin-8 was initially perforated in the Unit 2 sands, column found in Griffin-8.
which had not been completed in any of the other Griffin
The structural information from Griffin-8 was incorporated
Zeepaard wells. The aim was to recover Unit 2 reserves and
into a new top structure map. The reservoir model was then
test the interference with Unit 1 Zeepaard production from
matched to the Griffin-8 results by modelling water movement
Griffin-1, 460 m to the southwest, which would confirm the
through Unit 1. The thin claystones within the unit were
extent of the claystone barrier at the top of Unit 2. The plan
sealed and then breached at specific locations to match water-
was to conduct a re-entry program at a later date to shut-off
cut development of all producers and the Griffin-8 MDT
the Unit 2 water in Griffin-8 and recomplete in the uppermost
pressure results.
sands.
This resulted in a bottom water and an enhanced edge
Griffin-8 came on production at 26,000 stb/d, cutting water
water drive mechanism with water moving through the
very quickly and declining rapidly. The production from
reservoir along the top of claystones, leaving behind trapped
Griffin-8 did not impact Griffin-1 production, confirming that
accumulations of oil below the claystones in crestal locations.
Unit 1 and Unit 2 were not in direct communication.
All production wells were studied as possible re-entry
candidates, looking for unswept volumes in Unit 1B and Unit
Scindian-3. As predicted, Scindian-3 intersected a 31 m gross
2, which initially were not perforated in all wells.
hydrocarbon column, with a 3 m gas cap. Scindian-3 was
perforated in the gas, and the small gas cap was blown down The original perforating strategy called for a re-entry into
during the first few months of production. The well started up Griffin-8 as a full oil column was intersected in Units 1A and
at a rate of 10,000 stb/d, which quickly increased to 17,000 1B. Griffin-1 was identified as a second re-entry candidate.
stb/d as the gas-oil ratio of the well decreased. The well Reservoir modelling indicated a high probability of claystones
produced clean oil for six months. To date, Scindian-3 has isolating oil columns below existing perforations. With an
produced 6.5 MMstb of oil. original oil column of 65 m, the sands in the Units 1B and
SPE 77920 THE GRIFFIN DEVELOPMENT – FLYING HIGH ON INFILL SUCCESS 7

Fig. 10 – A revision of the Griffin Zeepaard reservoir sweep model, 2001, showing the actual oil-water contact depths following the re-entry
campaign.

Unit 2 were targeted for additional perforations. TDT logging Perforations were added in Griffin-1 to both the Unit 1B and
in Griffin-1 would determine oil-water contact depths in year Unit 2 sands.
2000 at a second location in the reservoir and confirm if the
The re-entry program increased “Griffin Venture”
claystone between Unit 1A and 1B was holding up water as
production by 30,000 stb/d to over 65,000 stb/d.
presumed.
Griffin-8 was re-entered in November 2000. Logging
indicated Unit 1 was still full of oil, and Unit 2 had only a few Seismic 3D Reprocessing
metres of oil remaining. The existing Unit 2 perforations were
partially shut-off, and perforations were added in Units 1A and In the Griffin area, depth conversion of seismic two-way time
1B. data is complicated by shallow high velocity carbonates that
are variable in thickness and lateral extent. Where present, the
Griffin-1 was re-entered in the same campaign. The higher velocities cause pull-up and diminished data quality of
results confirmed that the thin claystones within Unit 1 were the underlying section. The depth error in Griffin-8 (19 m low
having a major effect on the production dynamics of the to prognosis despite being only 460 m from Griffin-1)
reservoir. Oil columns were found beneath watered out zones; demonstrated that the current TWT data and depth conversion
a 5.5 m unswept oil column was seen in Unit 1B directly had clearly reached their limit of resolution.
beneath a 5 centimetre thick claystone, identifiable only by
core. The MDT data in Griffin-8 showed however that sands Following the drilling of Griffin-8 and Scindian-3 it was
in Unit 1 lay on the same pressure gradient. The claystone recognised that remaining potential infill opportunities
was thus interpreted as extending for several hundreds of required significant improvements in seismic data quality and
metres, trapping oil in the crestal location, but breached by greater certainty in depth structure mapping to achieve the
channel scour within the oil column (Figure 10). robustness required for project sanction and optimum well
placement. There was also potential for the identification of
The reservoir sweep was even more complex than new opportunities with better quality data.
modelled. The oil-water contact in the Unit 1B was 10.7m
shallower than logged in Griffin-8, some 460m to the Value of Information analysis indicated that reprocessing
northeast. In Unit 2, an 8.5 m unswept oil column was logged; the Griffin 3D would greatly improve the chances of adding
its oil-water contact 7 m lower than that logged in Griffin-8. significant value to the Griffin project. 3D seismic
8 L.J. WORKMAN, T.V. SLATE AND B.F. OKE SPE 77920

Fig.11 – Griffin seismic line before and after reprocessing. The most recent interpretation is displayed on both sections.

reprocessing was significantly more attractive than re- Infill 2002


interpreting the existing data or acquiring a new 3D volume.
The results of the re-entry campaign had provided a better
Because of the 500 m exclusion zone around the FPSO, understanding of reservoir dynamics in the Griffin Zeepaard.
any new 3D seismic acquisition in this area would have to be The water is moving through the reservoir along thin shale
acquired via ocean bottom cable, adding significant cost and layers, with multiple steep oil-water contacts existing between
delays to acquisition. the wells and throughout the section.
The Griffin 3D was reprocessed with 3D pre-stack time A remodelling program of the Griffin Zeepaard was
migration in early 2001, and results were impressive. Figure undertaken to incorporate the new top structure map
11 shows a seismic line over Griffin Field before and after (constructed from the reprocessed 3D seismic data) in an
reprocessing. Although this is an extreme example, as not all attempt to match the oil-water contact results seen in the re-
the original data was this poor, it does show the degree of entry program. This work indicated further potential for infill
improvement in many of the worst areas. drilling of unswept oil volumes to the north of Griffin-8, up-
dip of Griffin-2. A further Griffin Zeepaard well, Griffin-9,
The reprocessed seismic data has greatly improved seismic
was proposed to access these reserves and accelerate Griffin
resolution (resulting in a more reliable TWT pick at Top
Zeepaard production.
Zeepaard), reduced the lateral zone of uncertainty for major
faults and allowed the utilisation of advanced workstation The subsurface location proved to be a challenge for the
techniques. Its success in providing a superior depth model, drilling of the well. There were difficulties in drilling a
and thus reducing depth error away from well control, could vertical well, as the rig could not anchor safely over the
only be demonstrated by further drilling. existing flowlines. Additionally, a vertical well would result
in an expensive 2-3 km tie-in cost to the un-utilised Griffin-4
flowline. In the end, the well was spudded from a surface
SPE 77920 THE GRIFFIN DEVELOPMENT – FLYING HIGH ON INFILL SUCCESS 9

location close to the Griffin-4 wellhead. This resulted in a 2.3 Conclusions


km step-out well, drilled at an angle of 55 degrees.
Production on the “Griffin Venture” has been boosted
The subsurface location was also very close to the end of substantially on a number of occasions through the drilling of
the Griffin-6/ST1(H) horizontal well, which was completed in infill wells and re-entry operations (Figure 12). The
the Birdrong reservoir and depleted at this location by opportunities for these wells have been identified through:
approximately 2000 psi. Drilling through this reservoir at
Production history, which indicated upside potential in the
such a high angle was considered a significant drilling risk.
Griffin Zeepaard reservoir.
One upside to drilling a long step-out was that the
Improved mapping of the top structure via the
intersection of key seismic markers along the well bore
reprocessing of old seismic data.
presented an opportunity to evaluate top reservoir structure in
an area of sparse well control. (In fact, Griffin-9 demonstrated The acquisition of reservoir pressure and fluid saturation
that the area between Griffin-2 and Griffin-4 was up to 20 m data through MDT and TDT logging following 5 to 6
shallower than mapped). years of production, and the subsequent improved
understanding of reservoir flow dynamics.
Griffin-9/ST1 was drilled and completed in December
2001, with first oil achieved in February 2002. Top Zeepaard Improved modelling of the reservoir geology and effect of
was intersected 10 m high to prognosis. The well intersected a thin shales, identified from core, on reservoir dynamics.
38 m oil column (24 m vertical) in Unit 1, with smaller
accumulations in Unit 2. The well came on production at Reacting quickly and efficiently to changing ideas and
27,000 stb/d of clean oil and once again increased production unexpected results, thereby taking advantage of further
on the “Griffin Venture” to over 60,000 stb/d. opportunities, and illustrating the value of
multidisciplinary teams.
This result confirmed the assumptions used in constructing
the reservoir model. The oil-water contact depth was close to The ability to handle the challenges and risks associated
prognosis, although intersecting the reservoir high had resulted with the drilling and tie-in of subsea wells.
in a greater oil column than expected and the well had Understanding of the reservoir dynamics has changed
therefore exceeded expectations. The result has given the significantly through the drilling of infill wells. With
subsurface team confidence they understand the reservoir improved understanding has come the ability to model the
dynamics and are modelling the reservoir performance with reservoir performance, optimise reserves and forecast
reasonable accuracy. production more accurately.

Fig. 12 – Incremental production rate from the Griffin area fields through Infill and Re-Entry operations.
10 L.J. WORKMAN, T.V. SLATE AND B.F. OKE SPE 77920

Acknowledgements
The management of BHP Billiton Petroleum Pty Ltd and the
WA-10-L Joint Venture partners, Mobil Exploration and
Producing Australia Pty Ltd and Inpex Alpha Ltd, are thanked
for permission to publish this paper. The interpretations
expressed are those of BHP Billiton Petroleum Pty Ltd and do
not necessarily reflect those held by our partners.
Many other individuals in the joint venture have played an
important role in the studies outlined in this paper. Although
impossible to list them all, their contributions, and especially
those of Takeshi Kawai, are thankfully acknowledged. The
authors would also like to acknowledge the significant input of
Martin Edwards, Stuart Nichol, Stephen Hay and Yit-Seng
Chow.

References
1. Curtis, A.A., Mills, P.A., Nichol, S.T.: “Griffin Area
Subsurface Planning, Implementation, and Production
Performance”, paper SPE 28786 presented at the SPE Asia
Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Melbourne Australia, 7-10
Nov 1994.
2. BHP Petroleum Australia Operated Asset Team, “Griffin
Area Infill Development Plan”, August 2000.
3. BHP Petroleum Australia Operated Asset Team, “Griffin
Field Well Re-Entry Plan”, October 2000.
4. BHP Petroleum Australia Operated Asset Team, “Reservoir
Engineering Studies”, January 2000.
5. Slate, T.V.: “Performance and Dynamics of the Zeepaard
Reservoir, Griffin Field”, presented at the FESWA
Conference, Perth Australia, October 2001.