The IJssel discovery was named after the river IJssel in the Netherlands, a tributary of the Rhine. Photo: Pietersma via Adobe Stock.
Europe
Oil & Gas

When perforating below the Free Water level makes sense

How the IJssel discovery in the Dutch offshore became a success

“It may be the last oil field development in the Dutch sector,” upstream analyst Bert Manders told me the other day. The IJssel field development in the north­ern part of the Dutch off­shore, operated by ONE Dyas and partnered with Dana Petroleum, could indeed be the last oil dis­covery that will make it to first oil in the Netherlands. Only for that reason, it is worth writing an article about it. But there is an­other aspect that makes IJssel quite particular too, and that is the type of res­ervoir and the surprises it had in store.

IJssel is mostly reser­voired in Upper Jurassic glauconitic sands of the Scruff Greensand Forma­tion, deposited in a shallow marine environment. The difficulty with glauconite is that it has the physical characteristics of a sand­stone but the chemical composition of a clay. Be­sides being a clay mineral, the glauconite grains them­selves have a porous inter­nal structure, adding up to a large portion of the total pore volume. Unfortu­nately, these grain-internal pores are micro-pores that hold capillary-bound water only, leaving no place for hydrocarbons. This is why water is more attracted to it than to “normal” sands, with the result that the de­rived water saturation log “reads” relatively high wa­ter saturations in glauconit­ic sands. In turn, that led to an initial placement of the projected Free Water level (FWL) at too high a level in the exploration well.

N-S cross-section through the F03-FB field and the IJssel discovery in the northern Dutch offshore. The cross-section has been entirely redrawn on the basis of a seismic section published by Bouroullec et al. (2018). The stratigraphic position of the F03-FB reservoir units is schematic and does not represent reservoir thickness. The well locations are projected, and the white lines are not indicative of terminal depth.

The tool that came to the rescue was the NMR tool, which is capable of differentiating between bound water and free wa­ter. The results from the NMR tool suggested that most of the water was bound, leaving room for another fluid to be in the macro-pores: Oil.

Then, it was also ob­served that oil shows had been made below the ini­tially defined FWL, adding to the idea that there must be oil deeper down as well. This formed the basis to also test the formation be­low the FWL, with a very nice surprise as a result. As Rob Lengkeek presented at the Energy Geoscience Conference in Aberdeen in 2023, dry oil flowed at a stable rate from this newly and deeper perforated level.

This must have added the reserves to IJssel that made it worth pursuing with the development; ONE Dyas expects to pro­duce almost 20 million barrels of oil from the field, as well as an additional 3.2 MMboe in gas over the course of 20 years, using four production wells and one water injector.

The last interesting thing about the IJssel dis­covery is that it is locat­ed very close to the F03B field, which has been pro­ducing oil and gas since 1994 from slightly older and deeper Upper Juras­sic sands. The cross-sec­tion nicely shows how the F03B wells almost clipped the northern edge of the IJssel closure. It is not un­likely that the slightly “un­conventional” behaviour of the glauconite-bearing reservoir forms one of the reasons why its potential was not realised until later on. But still in time for the field to be developed.

Previous article
A greenprint for deep sea copper exploration

Related Articles