Field development and project preparation
Work on the development plan for Gullfaks Phase 1 began early in 1980, led by license manager Tor Ivar Pedersen. He assembled a team of reservoir engineers, drilling specialists, and operations personnel. The Technology and Development (T&U) division was tasked with the technical solution, with Bjørn Glesaaen as project manager. T&U was divided into three technical sectors: Construction and Marine (BKM), Process, Mechanical and Electrical (PME), and Project Services, Planning, Cost Estimation, Project Control and Administration (PRT). Each sector appointed a full-time project coordinator: Atle Thunes for BKM, Petter Øyen for PME, and Helge Hatlestad for PRT.
The project had three main objectives: to provide the basis for a declaration of commercial viability, to develop a field plan that ensured optimal technical and economic recovery of the reserves, and to define the framework and main guidelines for the detailed development plan. Early reservoir assessments indicated the need for four platforms, based on well paths with maximum inclinations of 56–58 degrees, possibly up to 60. Subsea wells were not considered in the initial phases.
A major fault runs across the field from south to north, and it was decided to develop the field in two phases. Phase 1 covered the reservoir west of the fault. Drawing on experience from Statfjord, Statoil’s leadership wanted to build integrated platforms with drilling, production, and accommodation facilities – known as PDQ (Production, Drilling and Quarters).
After evaluations, it was decided that Gullfaks A would be a Condeep platform with three-stage processing and a production capacity of 245,000 barrels per day. Gullfaks B would be a steel jacket platform with single-stage separation and high water injection capacity. Well streams from B would be routed to A, and oil export would take place from A via one (later two) loading buoys, similar to those used on Statfjord.
Well number ten, drilled in the southeastern corner of the reservoir in the summer of 1980, turned out to be dry, reducing the estimated extent of the field. This eliminated the need for a fourth platform, and subsea wells were considered to reach the outer areas. After discussions with the drilling department, the maximum well inclination was increased to 62 degrees, which expanded the coverage radius and reduced the need for subsea wells.
Once the main design was decided, work shifted to detailed concept development for Gullfaks A. Several alternatives were considered, all based on the Condeep design. Kværner explored solutions with four shafts and a square topside, similar to Statfjord B and C, while Aker proposed a T-shaped design. The T-shape with four shafts was chosen, as it offered better functional separation and improved safety.
The commercial viability report was submitted on 20 November 1980. With parliamentary approval not expected until June, it was important to use the time for preparations. Statoil lacked procedures for project execution, and through contacts at Bechtel, a collaboration was established to develop the necessary guidelines. Olav Lappegård was hired as project manager for this work and later became deputy project director under Ole Børre Lilleengen.
Bechtel played a key role in the planning and development of the Gullfaks field, particularly in the early phase when Statoil lacked experience with large offshore projects. As a technical advisor, Bechtel provided expertise in project management, topside design, platform installation, and quality control. The agreement was strategically important for building Statoil’s competence, with a strong emphasis on transferring knowledge to the company’s own employees.
Bechtel worked closely with Statoil’s project team in both Houston and Norway, helping ensure that the development was carried out according to international quality and safety standards. As Statoil gradually developed its own capacity, Bechtel’s role was reduced, and by the completion of Gullfaks A, Statoil had taken over project management.