NORTH SEA GAS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84T00109R000100080035-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 13, 2007
• Sequence Number: 35
• Publication Date: December 1, 1981
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release 2007/07/13: CIA-RDP84TO0109R000100080035-5
Approved For Release 2007/07/13: CIA-RDP84TO0109R000100080035-5
 .1 Approved For Release 2007/07/13: CIA-RDP84TO0109R000100080035-5
North Sea Gas
As Norway sees its gas reserves boost, challenges emerge from
development problems and shrinking markets.
NORWAY is about to become a gas nation rather than
an oil nation if judged from the country's developing
resource base. This development could well prove un-
fortunate, particularly because the market may not be
readily available for large new quantities of expensive
natural gas from Norway. (See story on page 26.)
As exploration and appraisal drilling proceeds north
of 60?N in the North Sea it becomes increasingly well
documented that extremely effective sealings on top of
Jurassic main structural elements have helped to pre-
serve large quantities of gas. It is widely believed now
that close, to 2,000 billion m' of gas is recoverable from
licenced blocks north and south of 62?N and from
S173,31/5 and
A common feature about these gas accumulations
however, is the obvious obstacles to developing them.
Some of the reservoirs are extremely complicated to
produce, which is the case for Sleipner, while other are
in deep water (the 31st quadrant) and still others con-
tain gas in association with oil, which makes them vul-
nerable to strict depletion measures. For those gas fi-
elds recently located off the coast of north Norway the
distance to available markets presents additional pro-
blems.
The ratio between oil and gas in Norway's proven
reserves base vs now a ou wi gas uilding up
its are. I could- ten a esirable for orway to pro-
u e a t o same ratio some mg t at would mean
stepping up gas production to approxima e y i ion
m yr rom e presen e o 5-30 bt lion-standard
m yr. e crucia i en a whet er e
innrfcet can take it.
The next large scale natural gas development project
to be put before the Norwegian government for appro-
val is the Sleipner complex. Extensive appraisal drilling
has been going on in the Sleipner area during the last
year and a half and estimates of recoverable reserves
now stand at 200 billion m' plus; ie the order of mag-
nitude of the Frigg field. A declaration of commercia-
lity and a project development plan are expected for
next year.
But operators in the area are faced with at least two
major constraints when trying to wrap a Sleipner deve-
lopments package together. Firstly, there is the com-
plexity of the reservoirs; the complex consists of six dif-
ferent structures spread over a relatively wide area. All
structures produce CO2 with the gas, a fact that could
make development a painful exercise. Secondly, mar-
keting of Sleipner gas will have to be executed in the
very near future, in the wake of the Russian/German
20 noroil
NEWS
gas deal (details on pag )6) and in a market that is not
exactly wide open -for additional expensive gas in the
part of the 80s and the 90s.
Recent appraisal of the Sleipner Gamma structure
confirmed that this structure differs from the other
structures in the complex in as much as the main pro-
ducing zones have sweet gas, while CO2 contents were
encountered further down. The most westerly struc-
ture in the complex straddles the border line to the UK
sector of the North Sea.
The structural configuration of the Sleipner complex
opens the possibility of step-by-step development. How
much of the Sleipner gas will end up in a UK trans-
portation system, in the Statfjord/Ekofisk system or in
its own separate pipeline is impossible to predict. A se-
parate wipe ine from Sleinner would have to carr
- 15 billion m' of gas annually.
Even more serious problems are encountered in th,
possible development of the 700 sq km ? Flathead
structure in Norway's quadrant 31. Waterdepths a?
around 1 l 00ft and t e gas is over aying a thin layer
of that could be tricky to produce if required. With
covera e of reserves in the reservoir estimated
more an two illion barrels there is no way it can
le m e groun see Noroi! Se tember 1981
3 . as production from this giant fi coulcl. th_._
for-e-,-Fe postponed until the 1990s or later.
oc s and 30/4 have a recoverable,rese?
potential of at least 70 billion m' while 30/6 cc
prove a giant both in oil and gas. It is of the most
mising gas prospects in Norwegian waters, and r
ved to the best such prospect in Norway's fourth r,
of allocations. The structure has, however, not
drilled yet, a fact that has been rather annoyir .
8Q 95 90 95 2000
Production from fields developed and committed for deve-
lopment off Norway.
the
Nc
api
coA
vei
res
wh
ugl
lity
uld
ted
be
rev
I
tua
duc
nor
tw(
we
fro:
per
has
ted
are.
ti
isal
ear
dec
I
HA
der
pip(
floe,
whi
Bro
- whi
sed
wt
T
Mai
the
usin
had
by t
is t(
Cor:
A
as if
tion
Han
its 1
Approved For Release 2007/07/13: CIA-RDP84TO0109R000100080035-5
 .0 Approved For Release 2007/07/13: CIA-RDP84TO0109R000100080035-5
those responsible for resource management planning in
Norway.
Finally in the North Sea, block 15/3, now under
appraisal, could contain more than 50 billion m3 of re-
coverable gas.
Perhaps the biggest dilemma for the Norwegian go-
vernment will be how to dispose of the omi-n nt gas
reserves in a limited gas market. Marketing gas from
-hat are basically gas fields could prove difficult eno-
;;gh, and could have a damaging effect on the possibi-
;ty of finding a market later on for associated gas sho-
,ld further oil field development projects be implemen-
1-d in the late '80 or early '90s. Something will have to
:e put on stream by that time to keep production and
evenue at the required levels.
Moreover developments in the North Sea will even-
ually have to be balanced against the prospects of pro-
lucing gas from fields recently discovered further
lorth on Norway's continental shelf.
Off Troms Statoil, earlier this year, tested more than
wo billion m'/day from three producing zones in
well 7120/8-1. Initial estimates of recoverable reserves
from the structure vary from 100 to 200 billion m' de-
pendent on the homogeneity of the structure which
has a fault in its approximate centre. Norsk Hydro tes-
ted 723,000 m'/day in well 7120/ 12-1 in the same
area.
Voices are already heard in support of a rapid appra-
isal of the gas potential off Troms and of planning for
early production. Appraisal drilling may well be spee-
ded up from next year.
Plans are emerging for a possible large dia pipeline
Argyll Field
gets flexible flowlines
HAMILTON Brothers has placed an or-
der with Coflexip of France for flexible
pipeline to replace the two Argyll field
flowlines which sank in September
while on tow to the field. Hamilton
Brothers confirm that the flowlines,
which are still on the seabed will be rai-
sed or buried in spring of next year
when it becomes practicable to do so".
The lines were fabricated by Kestrel
Marine and were being transported to
the Argyll field by Smit International
using the mid-depth tow method. This
had previously been used successfully
by Occidental on North Claymore and
is to be used by Shell for the central
Cormorant UMC.
After the failure of the tows it seemed
as if litigation might result and the ques-
tion of liability remains to be settled.
Hamilton appears now to have washed
its hand completely of the matter, say-
DECEMBER 1981
71191E
71191
1
712015 712019
71191
119/12
t /1
7120111 7120112
Upper Jurassic hydrocarbons accumulation in the eastern portion
of the Troms I area.
overland from Trorn via Sweden to the European
continent. If this is one option for the 1990s one will
have to consider very thoroughly the potential markets
for large quantities of gas in such a pipeline. In any
case such gas will have to complete with available gas
from other sources; even with gas from Norway's
own North Sea sector.
Such consideration might well be the nucleus of
Norway's emerging natural gas dilemma. ^
ing it never took delivery of the lines,
and Kestrel Marine is reported in dis-
pute with the supplier of the steel sec-
tions over the specification of the lugs
attached to the flowlines. ^
Danish Offshore
mopping up marginals
TEXACO's interest in the untouched
tiny marginal gas fields offshore Den-
mark is obvious. The company is a
member of the Danish Underground
Consortium (DUC) which is tapping
Tyra/Roar/Corm/Dan gas for trunkli-
ning to Jutland through 30-inch diame-
ter pipe, 225 kilometre long. (Lines laid
1982, on stream 1983).
Trunkline capacity quadruples gas
currently earmarked for tapping, so
Texaco eyes engineering chances for
temporary, cheap and mobile produc-
tion platforms on fields which consul-
tants De Golyer and MacNaughton
have identified in the Danish sector.
US designers will float plans before
Christmas in Copenhagen for restructu-
red jackups to be installed offshore for
five years of field life, a short time com-
pared to the 13/20 year cycle expected
for North Sea giants. ^
German Offshore
H-15 is questioned
FOR West Germany's H-15 block, engi-
neering designer Deutsche Babcock is
locked into project discussions with en-
trepeneur Norwest-Deutsche Kraft-
werke over the true commercial pro-
spects for reserves which have lead to
plans for offshore power generation
cabled to shore.
Seismic this year has prompted addi-
tional drilling in 1982 to supplement in-
formation from testflows of one million
cubic metres per day drilled in Novem-
ber 1980.
Much forward planning has been put
into installation of gas/steam turbines
atop a squat jackup structure . ^
noroil 21
Approved For Release 2007/07/13: CIA-RDP84TO0109R000100080035-5
 Approved For Release 2007/07/13: CIA-RDP84TO0109R000100080035-5
?
W510 -I
Slap -
lant gas gets going
Me price agreed for Russian gas to West Germany in the big Yamburg pipeline project is
ertain to have quite decisive impact on price levels for additional gas supplies to Western
urope and could abruptly bring down the hopes of suppliers like the Algerians and the
Norwegians of obtaining the crude oil price parity levels they have been claiming.
AT a price of around $4.70 million btu
at t e German border - 1981 base
price - and escalation linked mainly to
uel oil prices, the Russian gas is app-
roximately 1.1 below that obtained
by t e Norwegians for Statfjord gas one
year ago. July 19 8 0 base price or Stat-
fjord gas was $5.50 and present level
aroun million btu
The price for the Russian gas is clai-
med by the German utilities to be