CCOP – GROUP 10, EXERCISE 2: -Zulkifli Latif -Imron Asjhari -Wahyudin B. Nasifi
B A RRIERS RRIERS FOR MARGINAL FIEL FIEL DS
PRESENTATION PRESENTATION OUTLINES 1. INTRODUCTION 2. DEVELOPMENT BARRIERS TECHNOLOGY SHARING OF INFRASTRUCTURE FISCAL INCENTIVES COMPANIES, ORGANISATION AND CO-OPERATION 3. KEY STEPS TO STIMULATE AN OPTIMIZED DEVELOPMENT 4. CONCLUSIONS
Sabah Acreage Map 115°00'
114°00'
Location • Offshore Sabah
116°00'
118°00'
119°00'
P Balabac
8°00'
South China Sea
N
SB303
P Balambangan
TitikTerang
PSC • SAMARANG ASAM PAYA PSC (1995-2020)
P Banggi
H
TigaPapan
SWEmerald
K
SB304
Barton
Kudat
SB302
KamunsuEast Upthrown
Tembungo
KamunsuEast
7°00'
PHILIPPINES
SFurious
StJoseph
SB330
Kebabangan ErbWest
G
Sub-Block • SAMARANG SUB-BLOCK (6S18/12)
Kinarut ErbSouth
J
Lokan BongawanN
L
SECollins Nosong Alab
M
Ketam
SB1
Samarang Kecil
Padas
NS96PSC
KOTA KINABALU
Benrinnes
Sandakan
SB301
Kinabalu Haselfoot
Sulu Sea
6°00'
SB305
Samarang
Glayzer
NymphNorth
S A B A H
SB331
Trusmadi
Equity •100% PCSB
P.Labuan
PADAS
SB332 5°00'
P Timbun Mata
Nearest Field • 12 km from SMP-B • 24 km from Sumandak CPP
SK307
LEGEND
BRUNEI
SB3XX OPEN BLOCKS
SB308 P Sebatik
INDONESIA
0
50 km
SARAWAK
Padas Field Overview
Three Wells – Padas-1 (1972 – EPMI) – Padas-2 (1977 – EPMI) – Kotar-1 (1990 – SSPC) – Distance Kotar-1 & Padas-2 ~ 2km – Distance Padas-1 & Padas-2 ~ 6.5km
Padas-2 tested (408 stb/d 22 o API oil)
Challenges in this study – 3D Seismic affected by surface carbonate anomaly – Complex faulted structure – Limited logging suites
KOTAR-1 PADAS-1 PADAS-2
Executive Summary – Potential Recovery (PR)
Resource assessment on PADAS Crest in sand IVC-13 •
Oil
Reservoir
IVC-13
•
Gas
Reservoir
Case
(MMSTBO)
RF (%)
PR (MMSTBO)
Low (P85)
13
15
2
Most Likely (P50)
49
30
15
High (P15)
115
45
52
Case
STOIIP
GIIP (BSCF)
IVC-13
Low (P85)
0
Most Likely (P50)
20
High (P15)
51.4
Executive Summary – Speculative Recovery (SR)
There is SR from other sands in the structure. •
Oil
Reservoirs
Risked OIIP (MMSTB)
IVC-1 to IVC-19
•
Gas
Expected Value (EV)
Reservoirs
84
Risked GIIP (BSCF)
IVC-1 to IVC-19
Expected Value (EV)
45.9
Executive Summary – Padas Field Resources have been assessed in Padas Crestal region. Considerable uncertainties over the volume of hydrocarbon in place and distribution of hydrocarbon within the structure Significant uncertainty mainly due to: •
Structural interpretation (seismic quality) since relatively poor data at the crest area of interest where the shallow carbonate causes data deterioration.
Executive Summary – Padas Field
Secondary factors include •
Degree of reservoir compartmentalisation and lateral continuity
•
DST on Padas 2 appears to show minor faults on close to the well. The extent of these fault is uncertain and it would impact the recovery if the reservoir is more compartmentalized than assumed.
Fluid PVT from correlations
PVT properties and SCAL parameters have been estimated based on standard industry correlations. Actual fluid PVT and SCAL data would help resolve the range of key fluid parameters such as bubble point pressure, initial oil formation volume factor, and saturation function curves.
Executive Summary – Padas Field Secondary factors include •
Sand production
There is a strong chance that the well will produce sand when the wells start to produce water, as observed during the DST from the lower IVC-13 intervals which flowed upto 58% water. Significant sand production will require downhole sand control equipment and this will have a direct impact on well productivity.
Executive Summary – Padas Field Secondary factors include •
Gas cap presence
•
The GOC is not seen in any of the exploration wells so it has been estimated based on a range of estimated bubble point pressures. The presence of a gas cap will have an impact on both the production strategy and the well completion strategy.
Oil water contact
OWC is not seen in Padas 2 well, but the FWL has been estimated using the Samarang J-curves. This puts the FWL about 5 feet below the ODT level but there is a possibility that the actual FWL is much deeper.
Reservoir IVC-13 -Parameter Range Difference
Tornado Diagram of Petra input parameter range in Reservoir IVC-13
Notes : 2 GBV cases :
% Difference
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
GBV (1)
N/G
So
Series1
(1) Differences in GBV due to CATEGORY (P15 to P85 cases) where P15 vol. is taken from max oil column (all segments) and P85 vol. from DST coverage area around the Padas-2 well. The P50 vol. from segment 3 only
MIN MAX
PHIT
GBV (2)
1/Boi
(2) GBV differences due to STRUCTURE seismic horizon picking ( Min ,ML and Max maps). The P15 area case of different map cases were used by applying the same fluid contact
TECHNOLOGY & INFRASTRUCTURE
2005
Option 1 : Tie-in t o Sumandak CPP
PADAS-2 ~50 ft (15.2m) Water Depth 3 Producers 3 Gas Lift
Lightweight Structure (LWS)
24 KM Sumandak CPP
Full Well Stream Lin e (6” ) Gas Lift (6” )
13
Opti on 2 : L WS + FPSO
PADAS-2 ~50 ft (15.2m) Water Depth 3 Producers 3 Gas Lift
FPSO (Floating Production, Storage and Offloading)
Full Well Stream Line (6” ) Gas Lift (6” )
Lightweight Structure (LWS)
Option 3 : MOPU (Mobile Operating Production Unit) + FSO (Floating Storage and Offloading)
MOORING LINES
MOPU
FORWARD
FSO HEADING
SHUTTLE TANKER
FSO
MOORING LINES
FIELD PLAN
N.E
FISCAL INCENTIVE
2005
CAPEX and OPEX Breakdown (Option 1 and Option 2 - Most Likely Case PR) • All in USD, million
Padas
Seismic
Appraisal Drilling
Facilities CAPEX
Drilling CAPEX
[1]
Dev. CAPEX
Tot. Capital Investment
W/O [1]
With [1]
Note: Excl. seismic
Note: Excl. seismic
Annual OPEX
Option 1
7.89
5.26
30.60
11.40
42.00
47.26
0.92
(Tie-in)
(30)
(20)
(116)
(43)
(159)
(179)
(3.5)
Option 2
7.89
5.26
11.00
11.40
22.40
27.66
20.81
(LWS + FPSO)
(30)
(20)
(42)
(43)
(85)
(105)
(79)
( ) Cost in RM
Project Economics Analysis
Basis Assumptions
Development scheme based on 15 MMstb of oil (most likely case with gas lift) with 3 development wells
Incremental economics
Oil price : Brent USD22 per barrel, (equivalent to Samarang–USD1.50)
Annual OPEX : 3% of Facilities Cost
Escalation 3% on CAPEX and OPEX
1st oil: 2010
Project Economics Analysis
Oil Price : Brent USD 22/barrel, 15 MMstb Padas Field
Option 1
Option 2
(Tie-in)
(LWS + FPSO)
NPV @ 0% (RM, mil.)
136
- ve
NPV @ 10% (RM, mil.)
38
- ve
NPV @ 15% (RM, mil.)
17
- ve
IRR %
23% Economic limit : 2020
-
UDC RM/BOE
10.80
-
UPC RM/BOE
3.60
-
UTC RM/BOE
14.40
-
20
20
Development CAPEX ( RM, mil)
159
85
Total Capital Investment (RM, mil.)
179
105
3.5 mil. /year
79 mil. /year
Appraisal well (RM,mil.)
Annual OPEX (RM, mil.)
Note: Option 1 : Tie-in to Sumandak Option 2 : LWS + FPSO
Projects Economics Analysis
Sensitivity Analysis at Brent USD 22/bbl Development Option : Tie-in facilities to Sumandak CPP Oil Reserves : 15 MMstb
30%
20%
15% 10%
0% -20%
0% Reserves
Capex
20% Opex
Projects Economics Analysis / back-up slide
EMV Calculation NPV @10% Development Option : Tie-in facilities to Sumandak CPP Oil Reserves : 15 MMstb Crude Oil Price : Brent USD 22 per barrel
Drill Appraisal well Drill
No Discovery 25% 0
38.0 x (25%) = 9.5
EMV calculation yields negative result, -4.1
Dry 75% -18.2 x (75%) = -13.6
Projects Economics Analysis / back-up slide
Minimum Reserves Analysis, Brent USD 22/bbl Development Option : Tie-in facilities to Sumandak CPP
30% 25% % 20% R R I15%
10% 5% 0% 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
MMSTB
Minimum oil reserves required is 10 MMstb
Padas RA: Approaches APPROAC HES
1.
Conventional
i.
Acquire 3D
ii.
Re-validate the volumetric based on new interpretation
iii.
If ii. is OK, go for Appraisal
iv.
FDP
v.
Development
PROS
i.
Better define development
ii.
Reduce uncertainties
iii.
At each milestone, we have a “gate” either to proceed to the next step or otherwise. Minimise exposure and “wastage” of limited resources.
i.
CONS
DO WE RECOMMEND BASED ON RA STUDY?
Slow due to stepwise approach
Yes – to address uncertainties identified by the RA study
Padas RA: Approaches APPROAC HES
2.
PROS
Concurrent preFDP (acquiring seismic and appraisal) and FDP activi ties
i.
Potential early 1st oil
CONS
i.
Under exposure
ii.
Inefficient utilisation of limited resources in the event preFDP activities not in favour to proceed with FDP works.
Q: •
Can we define what FDP activities we can do based on current data?
DO WE RECOMMEND BASED ON RA STUDY? Not recommended. Anticipate a lot of reworks
Padas RA: Approaches APPROACHES
3.
Utilise appraisal for development
PROS
i.
Potential early 1st oil
CONS
i.
Under exposure
ii.
Well placement is not optimum
iii.
Inefficient utilisation of limited resources in the event appraisal findings not in favour for development
DO WE RECOMMEND BASED ON RA STUDY? Can be considered after seismic acquisition and interpretation.
CONCLUSIONS Based on the Most Likely Case PR of 15 MMstb and USD 22 per barrel oil price, it yields +ve NPV. However, Resource Assessment study identified the following challenges and uncertainties: Main risks are the uncertainty over the distribution of hydrocarbons and compartmentalisation.
Uncertainties
in fluid and rock properties.
To minimise risks associated with volumetric uncertainties, it is recommended to adhere to the RA technical recommendations as previously presented. The strategy to further appraise and develop the field is heavily dependent on the outcome of the interpretation of the new 3D.
COMPANIES, ORGANIZATION & COOPERATION
WILLINGNESS
TO TAKE RISK RESOURCES CONSTRAINT
Step the government should Take to Stimulate and Optimized Development
Reduction
on Tax Flexibility in utilizing foreign contractor
THANK YOU
