Relinquishment Report for Licence P1818 Block 30/1aIN E O S (R W E D e a U K S N S Ltd ) 2 5 % N ip p o n O il E x p l. & P ro d . U .K . Lim ite d 1 5 % 1 Licence Information: Relinquishment

Central North Sea

Relinquishment report

Relinquishment Report for Licence P1818Block 30/1a

Date: June 2016

Document last updated 05-10-2016 16:28 BST

Relinquishment Report - Licence P1818 Block 30/1a

Relinquishment Report - Licence P1818 Block 30/1a

1 Licence Information: 12 Licence Synopsis: 23 Work programme summary 34 Database: 8

4.1 Seismic Database 84.2 Key Wells 10

5 Prospectivity Update: 115.1 Reservoir 135.2 Trap 165.3 Seal 195.4 Source 215.5 Further Technical work undertaken 22

6 Resource and Risk Summary 237 Conclusions: 298 Clearance 30

List of figures

2.1 P1818 Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3.1 Faraday Pre-Drill Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2 Faraday Seismic Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.3 30/1a-11 CPI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.4 Fulmar C & B Petrophysics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.5 Faraday Post Well Seismic Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1 Seimic Coverage of 30/1a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2 Veritas 2007 Reprocessing area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3 Comparison of CGG 2007 PrSDM vs Legacy data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.4 CGGVeritas 2012 PreSDM Reprocessing area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.1 Triassic Lead A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.2 Top Sele Lead B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.3 Upper Jurassic Well Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.4 Near Top Pentland Time Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.5 Inline 11500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.6 Crossline 33800 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.7 Near Top Triassic Time Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.8 Top Sele Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.9 Faraday HPHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

5.10 Farady MDT pressure Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.11 Lower Heather Well Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.1 Faraday Post Well Seismic Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6.2 Marlowe Depth Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.3 Triassic Lead A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.4 Top Sele Lead B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

List of tables

1.1 C o n s o r t i u m d e t a i l s : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3.1 P r e - D r i l l U n r i s k e d I n - p l a c e v o l u m e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2 3 0 / 1 a - 1 1 P e t r o p h y s i c a l A v e r a g e s - C u t o f f s a p p l i e d V s h a l e = 1 0 % ( * i n t e r v a l w i t h . . . . . . . 6 5.1 A v e r a g e R e s e r v o i r P r o p e r t i e s f o r F u l m a r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.1 F a r a d a y H e a t h e r T u r b i d i t e s I n p u t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6.2 F a r a d a y H e a t h e r T u r b i d i t e s v o l u m e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.3 F a r a d a y F u l m a r I n p u t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.4 F a r a d a y F u l m a r v o l u m e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.5 M a r l o w e H e a t h e r T u r b i d i t e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.6 M a r l o w e W e s t H e a t h e r T u r b i d i t e s v o l u m e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.7 M a r l o w e E a s t H e a t h e r T u r b i d i t e s v o l u m e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.8 M a r l o w e F u l m a r i n p u t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.9 M a r l o w e W e s t F u l m a r v o l u m e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

6.10 M a r l o w e E a s t F u l m a r v o l u m e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.11 T r i a s s i c L e a d A I n p u t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.12 T r i a s s i c L e a d A v o l u m e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.13 F o r t i e s L e a d B I n p u t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.14 F o r t i e s L e a d B v o l u m e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

1 Licence Information:

Licence Number: P1818

Licence Round: 26th Round

Licence Type: Traditional

Block(s): 30/1a

Table 1.1: Consortium details:

Companies Equities

ENGIE E&P UK Ltd (Operator) 30%

Maersk Oil North Sea UK Ltd 30%

INEOS (RWE Dea UK SNS Ltd) 25%

Nippon Oil Expl. & Prod. U.K. Limited 15%

1 Licence Information:

Relinquishment Report Licence P1818 Block 30/1a

ENGIE E&P UK Limited Page 1

2 Licence Synopsis:

This report is in support for an early relinquishment of Licence P1818, block 30/1a, which is currently in it's second term. The

License was originally awarded in the 26th Licensing round as a 'Traditional' License (4+4+18 years), with a start date of 10th

January 2011. The original award group comprised of GDF SUEZ E&P UK Ltd (now ENGIE E&P UK Limited) 30%, Maersk Oil

North Sea UK Ltd 30%, RWE Dea UK SNS Ltd (now INEOS) 25% & JX Nippon Exploration and Production (UK) Limited 15%.

The License covers an area of 50.78 sq km Fig. 2.1

23/26c No op

30/1b ENI

30/7c CnPh

23/27b BGI

29/5d Tot

30/2a BGI

30/7b CnPh

30/2b BGI29/5b Tot

30/1c BP

22/30b Sh

30/1a ENGIE

29/5e Itha30/1f

ENGIE

29/10b Itha

23/26a BP

29/5a Sh

23/26b ChTx

29/5c Tot

30/2c CnPh

29/4d Tot

29/10a Sh

29/4a Sh

22/30c Tot

29/10c Sh

30/6c CnPh

30/1g Maer

22/30e Sh

22/29b Tot

Jade

Judy

Machar

Erskine

Jasmine

Elgin

GlenelgWest

Franklin

Franklin

Puffin

Julia

Jill

Shearwater

Commander

Stella

Kessog

Hurricane

MarconiJackdaw

Courageous

Ockley

Faraday

Faraday(Heather)

Thunderer 1

Thunderer 2

JadeSouth

Capercalie

Endeavour

CordeliaLear

Crathes

8

9

2

5

2

1

W1

9

2

4

3

2

H1

12

B1Z

9

H3

2B2Z

4

3

13A

1R01

3

11

8

1

12

10Z

7

10

2A

4

12Z

8

A3Z

15

H2

3Z

5Z

19

W4

6Y

5A

12Z16

13

10

2

K1Z

1

W1Z

4Z

7

B1Y

5Z

2R01

5A

A3

H1Z

1

K1

J7

14

3Z

4

3R0113Z

3

5

19Z

8Z

14

3

7

11

4Z 17

1

F4

7

J12

A13Z

5

1

B1Z

5AR01

6 1

3R01

A713Z 1R01

4

8

4

11

9Z

10

6

4Y

21

18

6 A2Z

3

5Y

B1X

9

5

A1Z

15

8

5

10Z

2Z

F5Z

9

6

2F10Y

12

A8

2

1A

13Y

B1

5Y

F6Z

7

19Y

G8Y

6Z A6

3

4R01

B1

A12

11

A5

5

2°12'0"E

2°12'0"E

2°0'0"E

2°0'0"E

1°48'0"E

1°48'0"E

57°0'

0"N

57°0'

0"N

56°50

'0"N

56°50

'0"N

0 6 123Kilometers

Key:Faraday DiscoveryENGIE Licence P1818ENGIE Non-OpENGIE Operator

Document Path: X:\ArcGIS\Corporate\Regions\UKCS\MXD\LICENCE SUMMARY MAPs_Current.mxd Date: 01/06/2016Fig. 2.1 P1818 Location Map

The License is approaching the end of the 2nd term. ENGIE E&P UK Limited and it's partners are electing to fully relinquish the

licence, having fulfilled all work commitments which led to the discovery of the Faraday hydrocarbon accumulation (well

30/1a-11). Faraday is uneconomic; furthermore, the partnership do not see any remaining economically viable prospectivity

within the license.

2 Licence Synopsis:


Page 2 GDF SUEZ E&P UK Ltd

3 Work programme summary

The original work programme required the Licensees to drill one well on the Faraday Prospect to a depth of 5,569m or 100m

into the Jurassic Pentland Formation, whichever was the shallower.

The 30/1a-11 well spudded on the 31st July 2011 and reached a TD of 18,382ft MD, -18,203ft TVDSS (5,602m MD, -5,548m

TVDSS) on the 22nd December 2011. The primary target reservoir for this HPHT exploration well was the Upper Jurassic Late

Oxfordian Fulmar Sandstone Formation. The prospect was located on the western flank of a rotated fault block, where the

Fulmar appeared to onlap onto the Middle Jurassic Pentland Formation Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2.

30/1a

Fig. 3.1 Faraday Pre-Drill Location Map. Sub-Regional Depth map at Top Fulmar




Fig. 3.2 Faraday Seismic Section. Predrill Cross section. Data courtesy of CGG

The key pre-drill geological uncertainty was the base/lateral seal. There was a concern that the Fulmar sands may be deposited

directly onto the underlying Pentland, which the updip 30/1f-8 well had proven to be water wet with only minor shows.

However, analysis of offset wells had indicated that there should be a basal seal of Lower Heather Shale approximately 100-

150ft thick separating the Fulmar from the Pentland and pressure analysis indicated that there was a ~30Bar (435psi) pressure

difference between the Fulmar and Pentland gas gradients in the Franklin wells. The overall pre-drill geological risk was

estimated at 26%, while the in-place volume estimate ranged from 145 to 1,124bcf (see table below).

Table 3.1: Pre-Drill Unrisked In-place volumes

P90 P50 P10 Mean

GIIP Faraday (bcf) 145.0 467.5 1,124.8 574.3

Whilst drilling through the Heather section, the well encountered ~89 ft of hydrocarbon bearing Intra Heather Turbidite sands

between 16,756-16,845ft MD, with good gas shows and resistivities in the 30-60 ohm-m range. The well was deepened to

17,359ft MD, encountering loss, gain and differential sticking issues whilst drilling from 17,038 and 17,359ft MD. Hole

problems led to the running of a 7" liner at the top of the Fulmar (shoe at 17,356ft MD), which in turn meant that data

acquisition had to be limited to acquiring LWD GR & Resisitivity data over the Heather Sands and wireline Density and Porosity

data through casing.

At the top of the Fulmar Formation 17,357ft MD (-17,191ft TVDSS), some thin sands were encountered with total

hydrocarbon gas levels of 15%. The main body of sand within the Fulmar (17,357.5ft, (-17,191.5ft TVDSS) to 17,666ft MDRT

(-17,500ft TVDSS), 309ft TVT), comprised variable quality sandstone ranging from well sorted, moderately porous with good

hydrocarbon shows, to very fine and silty with shows; two cores were cut within the main sand body (47.6ft in total). Two

further sand bodies were developed in the Lower Heather unit and a series of thinner sand developments within the Pentland

Formation Fig. 3.3. Petrophysical analysis indicates that the Heather Turbidites have good Hydrocarbon Saturations of ~83%.

The Fulmar C interval was found to be poorly developed at Faraday, whereas in offset fields this is often extensive and




Fig. 3.3 30/1a-11 CPI. Petrophysical evaluation of Jurassic Section

amalgamated with the underlying B sands. The petrophysical estimation of the C sands is problomatic as they straddle the 7

5/8" casing shoe, but it was noted that whilst drilling these sands, losses were encountered followed by a gas kick of >14.5%

total gas. The Fulmar B sand petrophysics suggest very high porosities in the 20-30% range, unlike these sands in any of the

offset wells. Hydrocarbon saturations are estimated to be low at ~27%. For such good quality sands the transition zone

would be expected to be sharp; the core over this section had oil fluorescence suggesting either the very base of a

hydrocarbon column or possibly a palaeo-contact. For volumetric analysis, a contact of -5,317m TVDSS has ben assumedFig.

3.4.




Fulmar C

Fulmar B

Fig. 3.4 Fulmar C & B Petrophysics

Table 3.2: 30/1a-11 Petrophysical Averages- Cut offs applied Vshale =<50% and Porosity =>10% (*interval with poorly

defined properties due to poor logs)

Zone Name Top

ft MD

Base

ft MD

Gross ft

Net ft

N:G Av Por

%bv

Av Sw

%pv

Heather Turbidites

16756.0 16845.0 89.0 53.5 0.60 15.8 17

Fulmar csg shoe*

17357.5 17400.0 42.5 30.0 0.71 13.9

Fulmar 17400.0 17666.0 266.0 94.5 0.36 23.5

Lower Heather Unit

17666.0 17934.5 268.5 44.0 0.16 12.6

Lower Heather

Shale

17934.5 18045.5 111.0 0.0 0.0 na

Pentland 18045.5 18310.0 264.5 73.3 0.28 12.0

Eight runs of the RCX tool were attempted in the 6 3/4" hole section, which achieved moderate pressure data and recovered

four fluid samples from the Fulmar sands at 17,580 ft MD. All four were gas condensate samples but they were heavily

contaminated with mud filtrate.

The well was not tested due to higher than anticipated temperatures and pressures. The well was plugged and abandoned as a

Gas Condensate discovery in accordance with Oil & Gas UK guidelines.

Post well analysis indicates that the Heather sands are J56 in age, older than the J62 Turbidites seen in both Erskine and

Shearwater. The Fulmar sands are J54b and J52 in age, similar to those in Shearwater and Elgin Franklin (for full correlation

see GFB012391|Fig. 3.4]).




The post well seismic interpretation on reprocessed seismic data has mapped an Intra Heather Sandstone structure, with

stratigraphic pinch out to the east and either independent down dip closure to the west, or a larger downthrown fault closure

to the north and south. At Fulmar level, a similar stratigraphic pinch out structure is seen with independent closure to the

west using the 17,444ft TVDSS water up-to as seen in the 30/1a-11 Lower Fulmar Sst. Fig. 3.5

Top Heather Sandstone Depth (m) Top Fulmar Depth (m)

WUT 5317m

Max 5600m 600m column

Independent Spill 5475m

475m column

GDT 5085m 85m column

Faraday

Faraday East

Fig. 3.5 Faraday Post Well Seismic Interpretation.. On 2012 PrSDM Final TMA Stack volume




4 Database:

4 Database:



4.1 Seismic Database

The P.1818 License is covered by a patchwork of proprietary and non-proprietary seismic, including the PGS Megamerge and

the CGGVertias 2001 Q30 Phase 1 Long Offset data Fig. 4.1.

Fig. 4.1 Seimic Coverage of 30/1a

In 2006-7, GDF Suez and its partners contracted CGGVeritas to conduct a proprietary PSDM reprocessing project over 30/1a

and its neighbouring blocks Fig. 4.2. The reprocessing comprised of six input surveys with varying bin and cable length, giving

a total of 827 sqkm input area and a 432 sqkm output area. This resulted in significant improvement to the imaging of the

Pre-Cretaceous section (note the 30/1a-11 well was drilled on this seismic volume) Fig. 4.3.

Fig. 4.2 Veritas 2007 Reprocessing area.

Megamerge PSTM

GDF Suez 2007 PrSDM

Fig. 4.3 Comparison of CGG 2007 PrSDM vs Legacy data. Data courtesy of CGG

Following the drilling of the Faraday well and the acquisition by CGGVeritas of further Long offset data, CGGVeritas were

contracted in 2012 to conduct further PrSDM reprocessing over the area. The input surveys included four from CGGVeritas'

Central North sea multi-client database - Q30 Ph I, Q30 Ph IV, Q22 Ph III and Q22 Ph VI, the CNS Cornerstone 3D, and infill

data from three other surveys - Erskine 1986, Shearwater 1996 and Shearwater 2001. The migration input area was 893km²

and the output area was 475.7km² Fig. 4.4

Fig. 4.4 CGGVeritas 2012 PreSDM Reprocessing area

4 Database:



The block is also covered by the CGG Cornerstone Q30 Phase 8 BroadSeis 3D which ENGIE and its partners purchased in

2013.

4 Database:



4.2 Key Wells

The P1818 License lies within a prolific HPHT area with a number of wells drilled in and around the Elgin, Franklin,

Shearwater, Erskine and Kessog discoveries.

Within the license itself is the 30/1f-8 well, drilled by Enterprise in 1991, on the western margins of the J ridge, which

targeted Jurassic and Triassic prospectivity. The well TD'd at 5,010m MD (16,435ft MD) within the Middle Jurassic Pentland

Formation. Oil and Gas shows were seen throughout the Pentland Formation. On the operators comp log a 52ft sand is

present at the top of the Pentland section and has been labelled Puffin Formation (Equivalent to the U. Jurassic Fulmar).

Proprietary chemostartigarphic analysis conducted for ENGIE E&P UK Limited indicates this is most likely to be a thick Pentland

channel sst, suggesting that this well was drilled updip from the Fulmar pinch out edge. Three cores were cut in the Pentland

but the well was not tested. Minor oil shows were also seen in the Tertiary Forties Sandstone.

Other Key offset wells include all the exploration/appraisal and development wells from the Elgin Franklin Fields, which have

producing sections in the Jurassic Fulmar, Pentland and Triassic. Further wells include:

the Shearwater 22/30c-15 & 15z and 22/30b-11 wells drilled by Shell as appraisal wells, which encountered thick

hydrocarbon bearing Upper Jurassic Fulmar sections topped by Heather turbidite sequences;

the Erskine 23/26b-14 and 15 wells which encountered Fulmar sections; and

the Kessog 30/1c -4, 5 & 6 wells which have important Pentland and Triassic sections.

5 Prospectivity Update:

In the original 26th Round application document, in addition to the Faraday prospect, two other leads were identified on the

awarded license. Lead A was at Triassic level and comprised two fault blocks. The westerly block had dip closure to the west,

north and south and fault closure to the east. The eastern fault block was a down thrown graben feature with fault closure to

the north, east and west and dip closure to the south. The eastern fault block is down thrown relative to the high drilled and

tested by the dry 30/1c- 2A well. The crest of the structure occurred at approximately 4,800m (15,750ft) TVDSS with a

maximum closing contour at 5,120m (16,800ft) TVDSS. The estimated in place volumes were Mean 212bcf gas, with the key

risks identified as top and lateral seal. Fig. 5.1

Fig. 5.1 Triassic Lead A. As mapped in the 26th Round application.

Lead B was a small 4-way dip closed structure at top Sele level with its crest at approximately 3,068m (10,064ft) TVDSS and a

closing contour at 3,086m (10,125ft) TVDSS, giving total closure of 18m (65ft).The lead was located some 1.5km to the east

of the 30/1f-8 well, which encountered minor shows in the Forties sandstone. The most likely reservoir was expected to be

the Forties, which is present over the area. The estimated in place volumes were Mean 5bcf gas, with the key risk being

reservoir presence and quality. Fig. 5.2




Fig. 5.2 Top Sele Lead B. As mapped in the 26th Round Application.




5.1 Reservoir

The principle reservoir in the area is the Upper Jurassic Fulmar Fm. together with the Upper Heather Turbidite sands. The

Fulmar sands form the main reservoir at the on trend 22/30c Shearwater field, as well as the nearby 22/30b & 29/5b

Elgin/Franklin and 23/26b Erkine fields. In the Late Oxfordian, the Fulmar and Heather Formations were deposited as a

progradational / aggradational shoreline or barrier shoreline to shelf succession that was ultimately transgressed, being

overlain by retrogradational sandy shoreface successions (Early-Middle Kimmeridgian) and then by shelfal mudstones and

sandstones of the Heather Formation (Late Kimmeridgian) Fig. 5.3.

The reservoir quality of the Fulmar is primarily controlled by grain size and the degree of sorting. The best quality reservoir

occurs in the higher energy, coarser grained upper shoreface sands. This is largely to do with the higher energy environment

winnowing away the fines that reduce porosity and permeability. The more distal the facies the greater the clay content and

the greater the degree of bioturbation, both of which result in reduced reservoir quality. Even though primary reservoir facies

is one of the key determining factors for reservoir quality, there are a number of other factors within the HP/HT environment

that can help to preserve porosity. These include:

early hydrocarbon migration as an inhibitor to the cementation process, restricting diagenesis;

overpressure which helps to arrest the effects of compaction; and

the presence and dissolution of sponge spicules in certain facies, helping to create secondary porosity.

Average petrophysicaly derived reservoir properties from offset wells are tabulated below.

Well Field Net Reservoir Net Pay

Gross Net N/G Av Phi Av Sw Gross Net N/G Av Phi Av Sw

TVDSS m TVDSS m TVDSS m TVDSS m

22/30c-8 Elgin 346.1 274.8 0.794 0.158 0.453 346.1 159.3 0.460 0.186 0.237

22/30c-10 Elgin 304.0 235.5 0.774 0.146 0.618 304.0 125.1 0.411 0.160 0.392

22/30c-11 Shearwater 269.0 211.0 0.784 0.171 0.560 269.0 124.8 0.464 0.190 0.380

22/30c-13 Elgin 312.0 241.6 0.753 0.159 0.410 312.0 188.2 0.586 0.171 0.311

23/26b-8 Erskine 118.5 75.4 0.636 0.160 0.338 118.5 74.52 0.629 0.163 0.334

23/26b-14 Erskine 123.4 79.2 0.642 0.187 0.300 123.4 76.35 0.619 0.190 0.288

23/26b-15 Erskine 115.5 48.2 0.418 0.123 0.990 115.5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

23/26a-21 Endeavour 95.0 87.0 0.917 0.170 1.000 95.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

29/4b-4 Glenelg 411.5 325.0 0.790 0.134 0.597 411.5 158.7 0.386 0.145 0.350

29/5b-4 Franklin 279.7 155.0 0.554 0.152 0.380 279.7 142.9 0.511 0.155 0.359

29/5b-6 Franklin 282.3 188.7 0.668 0.171 0.233 282.3 188.1 0.666 0.171 0.222

29/5b6z Franklin 282.3 196.3 0.695 0.165 0.240 282.3 194.6 0.689 0.166 0.238

29/5b-8 Franklin 438.6 138.7 0.316 0.143 0.710 438.6 49.9 0.114 0.153 0.474

AVERAGE 259.8 173.6 0.672 0.157 0.525 259.8 114.1 0.426 0.142 0.276







29

/5b

-8

22

/30

c-1

3

22

/30

b-1

1

23

/26

b-1

5

30

/1a-

11

3

0/1

c-3

J7

J6

J5

J4

J3

J2

J1

CH

EMO

STR

AT

J62

J56

J54

b

J54

a

J52

J46

J44

BIO

STR

AT

He

ath

er

Sst

Fulm

ar S

st

LITH

OST

RA

T

LEG

END

Fig

. 5.3

Up

per

Ju

rass

ic W

ell C

orr

elat

ion

.

Table 5.1: Average Reservoir Properties for Fulmar

Other reservoirs that are important in surrounding blocks but as yet unproven in this license include the Tertiary Rogaland

Sands as proven by the 30/1f-13 Marconi well, the Forties Sst as proven in the 30/2-1 Courageous well and its subsequent

appraisals, the Cretaceous Hod Chalk Formation as proven in the Ockley 30/1d-10, 301d-12 and the original 30/1c-2A well,

the Middle Jurassic Pentland Fm. as proven in the 30/1c-4 Kessog wells and finally the Triassic as proven in the 30/2c Jade

Field and the 30/2a-10 Thunderer well.




5.2 Trap

Following the drilling of the 30/1a-11 Faraday well, a number of interpretations have been concluded, initially on the 2012

PSDM volume, Fig. 3.5, and more recently on the CGG Q30 Phase 8 BroadSeis PSTM, over the whole of 30/1a.

On the BroadSeis data Time structure maps have been generated for the following key horizons:

Top Sele Formation

Top Forties Sandstone

Top Ekofisk

Base Cretaceous Unconformity

Near Top Pentland Formation

Near Top Triassic

Near Top Julius Mudstone

Near Top Judy Sandstone

Near Top Smith Bank Formation

Top Rotliegendes

Faraday at both Heather Turbidite and Fulmar level, is a combined stratigraphic and dip closed structure. Fig. 5.4 Fig. 5.5

Fig. 5.6 The up dip closure is related to an intra-Heather unconformity which is linked to gravity slumping of the Fulmar and

Heather sequences. There is dip closure to the west and possible fault closure to the North and South.

Time CI = 0.050 secs

5 km

Cro

ssli

ne

33800

Inline

11550

Block 30/1a

Salt Diapir

Limit of BroadSeis

3D Seismic Data

Faraday

Marlowe

East & West

Fig. 5.4 Near Top Pentland Time Structure. On CGG BroadSeis PrSTM volume




Fig. 5.5 Inline 11500. Dip line through the Faraday prospect, from Q30PH PrSTM TMA BroadSeis (Time). Data courtesy of CGG

TWT msecs

BCU

NS

Near Top Pentland

Near Top Triassic

Near Top Smith Bank Fm

Top Rotliegendes

Near Top Julius Mudstone Near Top Judy

Sandstone

Top Forties

Top Ekofisk

2.5 km

Top Sele

Top Salt

Potential for Heather and

Fulmar in Lead Marlowe

Lead Marlowe

Fig. 5.6 Crossline 33800. Data courtesy of CGG

Marlowe East and West are two fault-bounded fault blocks to the east of Faraday between Faraday and the 30/1d-12

Oakwood Fulmar discovery in the adjacent block. There is the potential for a similar reservoir combination of Heather

turbidites and Fulmar sands in Marlowe, however, the presence of Fulmar is then very dependent on how the Top Pentland is

tied across the faults and if a higher pick is believed this then reduces the potential reservoir thickness.

As a comparison with the original 26th Round application, a copy of the Near Top Triassic and Top Sele time map is also

included to show the similarity between the two vintages of interpretation Fig. 5.7 Fig. 5.8




Cro

ssli

ne

33800

Inline

11550

Block 30/1a

Limit of BroadSeis

3D Seismic Data

Fig. 5.7 Near Top Triassic Time Map

Cro

ssli

ne

33800

Inline

11550

Block 30/1a

Limit of BroadSeis

3D Seismic Data

Lead B

Fig. 5.8 Top Sele Time. Q30 Ph8 PrSTM TMA BroadSeis (Time)




5.3 Seal

For the prime Upper Jurassic Reservoirs, the top seal is provided by the overlying Heather and Kimmeridge Clay Fms, which

are prevalent across the area and provide the regional seal to most of the offset fields. A key consideration in all HPHT

prospects/fields is the impact of overpressure on top seal failure. A cross plot of the CNS HPHT fields temperature vs pressures

demonstrates that Faraday is similar to Elgin and Franklin, with a top reservoir pressure of 15,750psig (1,086 bar) and

temperature of 375 Deg F (190.5 Deg C) Fig. 5.9.

Faraday

FARADAYEstimated Max. From RCX Pre Tests & Samples:BHP = 15750 psig BHT = 375 Deg F

Fig. 5.9 Faraday HPHT

A more detailed plot of the sub-regional RFT/MDT data reveals that the Faraday Fulmar B sands are in a similar but not exact

overpressure (6,000-8,000psi) regime to Shearwater Fig. 5.10. However the depth of the crest of the Faraday structure at

Fulmar level is below (-5,100m) the fracture gradient .

Another key factor for the Faraday discovery is the requirement for a base seal to separate the Fulmar sands from the

underlying Pentland Fm. and help explain why the updip 30/1f-8 well only had shows in the Pentland. Pre-drill it had been

recognised that there was a correlatable Lower Heather Shale in all offset wells that separated the Fulmar from the Pentland

Fig. 5.11. Pressure analysis indicated there was often a pressure difference between these two zones thus confirming a

potential barrier. The 30/1a-11 well actually encountered 105ft (32m) of Lower Heather Shale. A number of MDT pressure

points were attempted in the Pentland sands but unfortunately they were all tight.




Pressure regression between Faraday Fulmar and Pentland

Shearwater GWC -5151 m

30/1a-11 Logs HCWC -5317 m

Faraday Crest -5100 m

Fulmar Fm

Pentland Fm

Lower Heather Shale

Heather Turbidites

Fig. 5.10 Farady MDT pressure Plot

30/1a‐11Faraday

22/30b‐11Shearwater

23/26b‐15Erskine

Turbidites

22/30b‐15zShearwater

29/5b‐8Franklin

L. Heather Shale

Fig. 5.11 Lower Heather Well Correlation




5.4 Source

The primary source rock in the Central North Sea is the Kimmeridge Clay Fm with the Heather FM providing a secondary

source. Seismic mapping indicates that the primary hydrocarbon kitchen in the area lies to the west in a structural low

between 29/5b and 30/1a. This also acts as one of the local sources for both the Elgin - Franklin and Shearwater fields.

Furthermore, the presence of proven hydrocarbons in the 30/1a-11 Faraday well confirms the presence of a working

petroleum system. Regional Vitrinite reflectance mapping indicates that the Kimmeridge Clay is locally expected to be in the

Ro 0.7 to 1.0 range Late Oil to Gas phase. The 30/1a-11 well was not tested, however, four RCX samples were acquired at

17,580ft MD in the Fulmar Sandstone. All four were confirmed as Gas Condensate samples but with heavy mud

contamination. No samples were acquired in the upper Heather Turbidite sands but fluid inclusion analysis did identify light oil

to gas condensate inclusions at 16,780ft MD.




5.5 Further Technical work undertaken

Post the 30/01a-11 well a number of geological studies were undertaken, including:

Riley Geoscience Ltd - Biostratigraphy

Ichron - Biostratigraphy

Chemostrat - Chemostratigraphy Analysis

Ichron - Core Sedimentology and Petrography

Core Labs - Routine Core analysis

Core Lab - SCAL

Core Lab - Compositional and Water Analysis of RCX samples

FIT - Fluid Inclusion Analysis

Following the drilling of the Faraday well, the partnership initiated a 2012 PSDM Reprocessing of the CGGV Long cable data

over the Faraday Discovery (see Section 4 Database for more information).




6 Resource and Risk Summary

FARADAY

The Faraday field was discovered by the 30/1a-11 well and encountered hydrocarbons in the Heather turbidites and Fulmar

sands Fig. 6.1

Top Heather Sandstone Depth (m) Top Fulmar Depth (m)

WUT 5317m

Max 5600m 600m column

Independent Spill 5475m

475m column

GDT 5085m 85m column

Faraday

Faraday East

Fig. 6.1 Faraday Post Well Seismic Interpretation.. On 2012 PrSDM Final TMA Stack volume

Table 6.1: Faraday Heather Turbidites Inputs

Parameter P90 P50 P10

Net to Gross 0.36 0.6 0.84

Porosity 0.13 0.18 0.24

Sg 0.73 0.83 0.93

GWC (m) 5315 5475 5564

CEF (1 scf) 300 315 330

Recovery Factor Gas 0.5 0.6 0.7




Table 6.2: Faraday Heather Turbidites volumes

Volumes Units P90 P50 P10

GIIP bcf 51 141 305

HIIP mmboe 19 53 116

Recoverable mmboe 11 31 68.5

Table 6.3: Faraday Fulmar Inputs


Net to Gross 0.28 0.52 0.81

Porosity 0.16 0.21 0.25

Sg 0.58 0.70 0.80

GWC (m) 5315 5475 5564

CEF (1 scf) 300 315 330


Table 6.4: Faraday Fulmar volumes


GIIP bcf 27 59 104

HIIP mmboe 10 22 40

Recoverable mmboe 6 13 23

MARLOWE Prospect The Marlowe prospect is split into an Eastern and western fault block, with potential reservoirs at both Heather Turbidite and

Fulmar level. The key risks are reservoir presence and effectiveness, followed by seal risk, and side seal in particular Fig. 6.2

Fig. 6.2 Marlowe Depth Map. On 2012 PrSDM Final TMA Stack volume




Table 6.5: Marlowe Heather Turbidites


Net to Gross 0.36 0.60 0.84

Porosity 0.13 0.18 0.24

Sg 0.73 0.83 0.93

Marlowe West GWC (m) 4900 4900 4900

Marlowe East GWC (m) 5200 5200 5200

CEF (1 scf) 300 315 330


Table 6.6: Marlowe West Heather Turbidites volumes


GIIP bcf 38.1 68.8 119.7

HIIP mmboe 14.2 25.9 44.9

Recoverable mmboe 8.17 15.2 26.7

Table 6.7: Marlowe East Heather Turbidites volumes


GIIP bcf 30.6 55.4 96.3

HIIP mmboe 11.5 20.8 36.1

Recoverable mmboe 6.6 12.2 21.5

Table 6.8: Marlowe Fulmar inputs


Net to Gross 0.28 0.52 0.81

Porosity 0.16 0.21 0.25

Sg 0.58 0.70 0.80

Marlowe West GWC (m) 4285 5075 5175

Marlowe East GWC (m) 4285 5175 5425

CEF (1 scf) 300 315 330





Table 6.9: Marlowe West Fulmar volumes


GIIP bcf 34 142 376

HIIP mmboe 13 53 144

Recoverable mmboe 7 30.6 83

Table 6.10: Marlowe East Fulmar volumes


GIIP bcf 35 112 249

HIIP mmboe 13 42 95


Lead A & Lead B The Triassic Lead A and the Tertiary Sele/Forties Lead B volumes remain as calculated in the 26th Rnd application.

Lead A reservoir is anticipated to be either Triassic fluvial Josephine or Joanne Sandstones, similar to those encountered in

Kessog to the east. Top seal is likely to be provided by intra-formational shales within the Skagerrak Formation such as the

Jonathan or Joshua Mudstones Members. The key risks are charge and migration and more particularly how the overlying

Kimmeridge and Heather charge the Triassic. The lateral seal is a concern particularly to the east. A further concern is how

Lead A is isolated from the dry updip 30/2a-1C well which tested a Triassic section. Fig. 6.3

Fig. 6.3 Triassic Lead A. As mapped in the 26th Round application.




Table 6.11: Triassic Lead A Inputs


GRV 676 676 676

Net to Gross 0.3 0.4 0.5

Porosity 0.11 0.13 0.154

Sg 0.45 0.511 0.59

CEF (1 scf) 251 300 349

Condensate Yield stb/1e6scf 176 200 224


Table 6.12: Triassic Lead A volumes


GIIP bcf 120 200 317

HIIP mmboe

Recoverable mmboe 17.5 29 48

The most likely reservoir in Lead B is anticipated to be the Forties Sandstone. For volumetric purposes, reservoir properties

were derived from the offset Courageous field (30/2a) and a Gas Condensate similar to Courageous was also assumed Fig.

6.4.

Fig. 6.4 Top Sele Lead B. As mapped in the 26th Round Application.




Table 6.13: Forties Lead B Inputs


Net to Gross 0.4 0.56 0.74

Porosity 0.16 0.21 0.27

Sg 0.45 0.511 0.59

CEF (1 scf) 225 231 239

Condensate Yield stb/1e6scf 145 150 154


Table 6.14: Forties Lead B volumes


GIIP bcf 2.8 4.7 7.9

HIIP mmboe 40





7 Conclusions:

There are a significant number of hydrocarbon discoveries at many different stratigraphic levels in this area of the HPHT

Central North Sea. The 30/1a-11 Faraday discovery is, however, too small and currently uneconomic. Other undrilled

prospectivity on the P.1818 license in the Fulmar and Heather Turbidites are also uneconomic. These include the Marlowe

Prospect, Triassic Lead A and very small Lead B in the Tertiary.

7 Conclusions:



8 Clearance

The operator has obtained confirmation from all partners and CGG that this document and all information contained within

can be published.

8 Clearance



ENGIE E&P UK LTD40 Holborn ViaductLondon EC1N 2PBTel: 020 3122 1400

engie-ep.co.uk

Documents

Relinquishment Report for Licence P1818 Block 30/1aIN E O S (R W E D e a U K S N S Ltd ) 2 5 % N ip p o n O il E x p l. & P ro d . U .K . Lim ite d 1 5 % 1 Licence Information: Relinquishment