Seismic 201914th May

Presenter: Ryan Singlehurst-WardCo-Author: Graham Hicks

GeophysicistGeophysicist

Gannet F4D Still Driving Decisions After 20 Years

1

DEFINITIONS & CAUTIONARY NOTE

2

The companies in which Royal Dutch Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate legal entities. In this “Shell”, “Shell group” and “Royal Dutch Shell” are sometimes used for convenience where references are made to Royal Dutch Shell plc and its

subsidiaries in general. Likewise, the words “we”, “us” and “our” are also used to refer to subsidiaries in general or to those who work for them. These expressions are also used where no useful purpose is served by identifying the particular company or

companies. ‘‘Subsidiaries’’, “Shell subsidiaries” and “Shell companies” as used in this presentation refers to companies over which Royal Dutch Shell plc either directly or indirectly has control. Entities and unincorporated arrangements over which Shell has joint

control are generally referred to “joint ventures” and “joint operations” respectively. Entities over which Shell has significant influence but neither control nor joint control are referred to as “associates”. The term “Shell interest” is used for convenience to indicate

the direct and/or indirect ownership interest held by Shell in a venture, partnership or company, after exclusion of all third-party interest.

This presentation contains forward-looking statements concerning the financial condition, results of operations and businesses of Royal Dutch Shell. All statements other than statements of historical fact are, or may be deemed to be, forward-looking statements.

Forward-looking statements are statements of future expectations that are based on management’s current expectations and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ

materially from those expressed or implied in these statements. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements concerning the potential exposure of Royal Dutch Shell to market risks and statements expressing management’s expectations,

beliefs, estimates, forecasts, projections and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are identified by their use of terms and phrases such as ‘‘anticipate’’, ‘‘believe’’, ‘‘could’’, ‘‘estimate’’, ‘‘expect’’, ‘‘goals’’, ‘‘intend’’, ‘‘may’’, ‘‘objectives’’, ‘‘outlook’’,

‘‘plan’’, ‘‘probably’’, ‘‘project’’, ‘‘risks’’, “schedule”, ‘‘seek’’, ‘‘should’’, ‘‘target’’, ‘‘will’’ and similar terms and phrases. There are a number of factors that could affect the future operations of Royal Dutch Shell and could cause those results to differ materially from

those expressed in the forward-looking statements included in this presentation including (without limitation): (a) price fluctuations in crude oil and natural gas; (b) changes in demand for Shell’s products; (c) currency fluctuations; (d) drilling and production results;

(e) reserves estimates; (f) loss of market share and industry competition; (g) environmental and physical risks; (h) risks associated with the identification of suitable potential acquisition properties and targets, and successful negotiation and completion of such

transactions; (i) the risk of doing business in developing countries and countries subject to international sanctions; (j) legislative, fiscal and regulatory developments including regulatory measures addressing climate change; (k) economic and financial market

conditions in various countries and regions; (l) political risks, including the risks of expropriation and renegotiation of the terms of contracts with governmental entities, delays or advancements in the approval of projects and delays in the reimbursement for shared

costs; and (m) changes in trading conditions. No assurance is provided that future dividend payments will match or exceed previous dividend payments. All forward-looking statements contained in this presentation are expressly qualified in their entirety by the

cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Additional risk factors that may affect future results are contained in Royal Dutch Shell’s 20-F for the year ended December 31,

2016 (available at www.shell.com/investor and www.sec.gov ). These risk factors also expressly qualify all forward looking statements contained in this presentation and should be considered by the reader. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the

date of this presentation 2nd of May 2018. Neither Royal Dutch Shell plc nor any of its subsidiaries undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or other information. In light of

these risks, results could differ materially from those stated, implied or inferred from the forward-looking statements contained in this presentation.

This presentation may contain references to Shell’s website. These references are for the readers’ convenience only. Shell is not incorporating by reference any information posted on www.shell.com.

We may have used certain terms, such as resources, in this presentation that United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) strictly prohibits us from including in our filings with the SEC. U.S. Investors are urged to consider closely the disclosure in our

Form 20-F, File No 1-32575, available on the SEC website www.sec.gov.

Agenda

3

◼ Field Introduction & History

◼ 4D Summary

◼ 3D: Extended Elastic Impedance

◼ Results & Integration

◼ Impact & Conclusions

Tay

Odin

Forties

-8000

-8000

-8000

-7900

-7900

-7900

-7800

-8100

-7900

-780

0

-7800

-7800

-7700

-7700

-7700

-7600

-7600

-76

00

-7500

-7500

-7500

-740

0

-7400

-7400

-730

0

-7300

-7300

-720

0

-7200

-7200

-710

0

-7100

-7100

-7000

-7000

-7000

-7000

-8100

-6900

-6800

-6700

-6700

-6700

-6700

-6600

-6900

-690

0

-6900

-6900

-6900

-6900

-6900

-8000

-7100

-7000

-7000

-7000

-7000

-66

00

-6500

-6500

-6400

-6400

-7100

-7100

-6400

-680

0

-6800

-6800

-6800

-6800

-6800

-670

0

-6700

-660

0

-650

0

-6600

-6600

-7000

-6500

-6500

-6500

-650

0

-7000

-6500

-7000

-7000

-7000

-7500

-7500

-8000

-8000

-7000

-7000

-7000

-7000

-7500

-8000

-8000

-800

0

-7000

-700

0

-7000

-6500

557600 558000 558400 558800 559200 559600 560000 560400 560800

557600 558000 558400 558800 559200 559600 560000 560400 560800

63

25

20

06

32

56

00

63

26

00

06

32

64

00

63

26

80

06

32

72

00

63

27

60

06

32

80

00

63

28

40

06

32

88

00

63

25

20

06

32

56

00

63

26

00

06

32

64

00

63

26

80

06

32

72

00

63

27

60

06

32

80

00

63

28

40

06

32

88

00

-8100.00-7800.00-7500.00-7200.00-6900.00-6600.00

Elevation depth [ft]

0 250 500 750 1000 1250m

Top Forties Structure Map

GF01

21/30-13GF02

21/30-1

GF03

21/30-15

21/30-14

Gannet F

◼ Shell (operator) 50%, ExxonMobil 50%

◼ 1960s-’80s E&A wells, 1st oil 1997

◼ Subsea tie back to Gannet A platform

◼ 3 primary Paleocene/Eocene reservoirs

◼ Tay, Odin, Forties (other minor sands)

◼ 3 production wells

◼ GFA01, GFA02 (Forties)

◼ GFA03 (Odin & Forties)

Forties

A

A’

Forties OOWC

Cross section through Gannet F Model A A’ B B’

B

B’

Odin

Tay

OOWC

4

Production, Seismic & Infill Wells

5

Jun 97 Jun 99 Jun 01 Jun 03 Jun 05 Jun 07 Jun 09 Jun 11 Jun 13 Jun 15 Jun 17

Rate

Gannet F: Oil and Water historical ratesOil Water

2017

4D ‘Monitor’

2010

4D ‘Monitor’2006

4D ‘Monitor’

1997

4D ‘Base’

2004

4D Test1993

Seismic

GFA01 GFA02 GFA03

◼ 2015 GFA03: Forties & Odin, Not Tay

~12Mmboe incremental

◼ 2006 ‘barrier’ between GFA01 & GFA02

removed

6

Top Forties Top OdinTop Tay2017: 3rd 4D Monitor Water Sweep

2017201020061997

A

A’

B

B’

A A’ B B’

Background: NtG

4D: 10-97

4D: 17-10

GFA01

GFA02

GFA03

Tay

Odin

Forties Tay Odin FortiesDepth

OOWC

Depth

OOWC

So where does that leave us? Where next?

7

[06-97]

GF01

GF01GF02

GF03

[06-97] + [10-06] + [17-10]

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑 𝑉𝑜𝑙 =∆𝑆𝑤 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 ∗ 252 ∗ 𝑁𝑇𝐺 ∗ ∅ ∗ (1 − 𝑆𝑤𝑖 − 𝑆𝑜𝑟)/𝐵𝑜

◼ Existing FFM did not history match &

difficult to update

◼ 4D Constrained MBAL gives

reasonable matchPrevious target

Acoustic Impedance vs Vp/Vs

8

Brine Sands

VSHALE

Acoustic Impedance

Vp/

Vs

1

0

Shales

◼Elastic properties of Tay,

Odin and Forties are

practically identical.

◼Wet (Brine) sands have

the same AI as much of

the (harder) shales and

are therefore not visible

in AI space

Acoustic Impedance vs Vp/Vs

9

Acoustic Impedance

Vp/

Vs

Oil Sands

(Softer) Shales

◼Oil Sands have a different

AI to the harder shales but

have the same AI as softer

shales, mostly in the Tay

interval.

◼Therefore, Pre-Stack

Attributes will help to

distinguish Oil Sands.

VSHALE

1

0

A concept for Extended Elastic Impedance (EEI) and Chi

10*Shuey 1985, Aki and Richards 1980

◼ The Shuey* approximation gives reflectivity, R, for a

given incidence angle θ; R(θ) = A + B sin2θ

◼ With intercept, A (AI, zero offset reflectivity) and gradient, B

(GI) respectively.

B

(Intercept, R0, AI)A

(Gradient, GI)

SS

WS

No/Poor

separation in AI

A concept for Extended Elastic Impedance (EEI) and Chi

11

B

(Intercept, R0, AI)

*Shuey 1985, Aki and Richards 1980

◼ The Shuey* approximation gives reflectivity, R, for a

given incidence angle θ; R(θ) = A + B sin2θ

◼ With intercept, A (AI, zero offset reflectivity) and gradient, B

(GI) respectively.

A

(Gradient, GI)

Background Shale

Trend

HS

SS

WS

OS

No/Poor

separation in AI

A concept for Extended Elastic Impedance (EEI) and Chi

12

B

(Intercept, R0, AI)

*Shuey 1985, Aki and Richards 1980

◼ The Shuey* approximation gives reflectivity, R, for a

given incidence angle θ; R(θ) = A + B sin2θ

◼ With intercept, A (AI, zero offset reflectivity) and gradient, B

(GI) respectively.

◼ Whitcombe et al. (2002) define EEI as:

◼ Conceptually, this rotates the axis in an intercept-gradient

plot by the angle and can improve separation of events

indistinguishable in Acoustic Impedance, AI.

A

(Gradient, GI)

HS

SS

OS

WS

Good separation

in EEI

EEI Analysis – Oil Sands vs Shales

13

Mea

n EE

I

Chi Angle

EEI

No.

of s

ampl

es

Chi=0

Oil Sands, Hard Shales, Soft Shales

EEI Analysis – Oil Sands vs Shales

14

EEI

No.

of s

ampl

es

Mea

n EE

I

Chi Angle

EEI

No.

of s

ampl

es

Chi=25

Chi=0

Oil Sands, Hard Shales, Soft Shales

◼ Chi 25 aligns hard shales and soft shales but also greatly

reduces overlap with oil sands in EEI space.

Updated 3D; Relative Extended Elastic ImpedanceProvides Evidence for crestal targets

15

Other

HC Sand

OOWC

4D Provides supporting evidence for crestal targets

16

Softening signals (17-10) at the crest give

confidence in sand presence and

communicationHarder

Softer

Other

HC Sand

OOWC

Integrating data; Can we believe the softening signals at the crest?

17

◼ Good connectivity and strong aquifer shown by a

wealth of different data.

◼ Based on RFT data, we’re ~200psi above bubble point

at the crest.

◼ Given GFA03, we wouldn’t expect Tay sands at the

crest but we see softening in Odin and Tay.

◼ Geochemistry, provides compelling supporting

evidence that fluids in the upper reservoirs are lighter

so could be below bubble point

Tay (21/30-14)Forties (GF02)

GF03 isotube isotope dataFluid Fingerprints

Meet Maureen; Is she a beauty or a witch?

18Credit: Anon, 19th Century Germany

4D Shows tantalising hints of potential deeper Maureen

19

Other

HC Sand

Harder

Softer

OOWC

Meet Maureen; Is she a beauty or a witch?

20

PGIt’s outside

regional GDE maps. What

concepts support it? Risks of higher

pressures.

REIt could be my

missing volumes but water could

back out primary target

production

PPOnly thin sands encountered by

nearby wells (fluorescing sidewall

core). Analogues (for properties) are

often far away.

WEGetting there

might be difficult.

Increased risk of sidetrack

PTIncreases the risk of water

breakthrough.No constraint on the grain size for the completion.

GP Looks great! It doesn’t match a

chalk response but we can’t rule out

siltstone.

◼And much more!

Considerations for the next 20 years…

21

◼ What are the volumes in the Tay, Odin and Forties to the South?

◼ What explains the tilted contact in the Forties at the North?

◼ Northern fault bounding Odin sweep or cusping?

◼ And more! Tay

Tay

Odin

Tay

Conclusions and Impact

22

◼ Previously, 4D was used to drill & monitor 2 infill wells (GFA02 and GFA03s1)

◼ Delivering over 20 MMboe and among the top performing Shell CNS wells

◼ The 4D and updated 3D is now being used to

◼ Prevent drilling swept reservoir (previously identified next target)

◼ Justify an additional infill well

◼ Highlight possible previously unknown/undocumented reservoir (can be targeted by the same infill

well)

◼ Bolster and add to opportunities in the South (some not previously documented)

◼ Support WRFM: highlighting the importance of ensuring GFA02 is kept on production

Acknowledgements

Shell Gannet F Subsurface Team

Andrew Vaughan (Dev/WRFM lead)

Ryan Singlehurst-Ward (Geophysicist)

Nicola Stewart (Geologist)

Kenneth Juquiana (Reservoir Engineer)

Diana Christancho (Petrophysicist)

Charles Ileagu (RE & Opportunity Manager)

Susannah Stott (Well Engineer)

Cliff Lovelock (Senior Geologist)

Stacey Emmerton (Geophysicist)

James Harrison (Geophysicist)

Shell Project & Technology

Jonathan Brain (4D SME)

Graham Tipney-Hicks (QI)

Jonathan Wall (Acquisition)

Thomas Piesold (Acquisition)

Richard Shipp (Processing)

Dan Bright (Processing)

Steve Gouldesbrough (Processing)

Pim van Bergen (Geochemistry)

Esso Exploration and Production UK Limited

Dag Isaksen (Operations Technical Manager,

Geoscience)

Jon Saundry (Joint Interest Reservoir Advisor)And Many, Many More!

23

Copyright of Shell International

Questions and Answers

24

EEI Analysis – Wet Sands vs Shales

25

Mea

n EE

I

Chi Angle

EEI

No.

of s

ampl

es

Chi=0

Wet Sands, Hard Shales, Soft Shales

EEI Analysis – Wet Sands vs Shales

26

EEI

No.

of s

ampl

es

Mea

n EE

I

Chi Angle

EEI

No.

of s

ampl

es

Chi=25

Chi=0

Wet Sands, Hard Shales, Soft Shales

◼ Chi 25 aligns hard shales and soft shales but also greatly

reduces overlap with wet sands in EEI space.