CCOP GROUP 10, EXERCISE 2: -Zulkifli Latif -Imron Asjhari -Wahyudin B. Nasifi BARRIERS FOR MARGINAL FIELDS 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 Location Offshore Sabah PSC SAMARANG- ASAM PAYA PSC (1995-2020) Sub-Block SAMARANG SUB-BLOCK (6S18/12) Equity 100% PCSB M L 114 00' 115 00' 116 00' 118 00' 119 00' P Balabac South China Sea PADAS K G J Kamunsu East Upthrown Kamunsu East Kebabangan Bongawan N Nosong Alab Padas Samarang Samarang Kecil SB1 Glayzer Kinabalu Haselfoot Trusmadi P. Labuan Kinarut Lokan Ketam SB301 H SE Collins Tembungo Erb West Erb South SW Emerald SB302 NS 96 PSC St Joseph Barton S Furious Titik Terang SB303 Tiga Papan KOTA KINABALU Kudat P Balambangan SB330 P Banggi S A B A H SB332 SB304 Sandakan SB331 PHILIPPINES Nymph North Benrinnes SB305 Sulu Sea N 8 00' 7 00' 6 00' 5 00' Nearest Field 12 km from SMP-B 24 km from Sumandak CPP SK307 BRUNEI SARAWAK INDONESIA P Sebatik P Timbun Mata SB308 LEGEND SB3XX OPEN BLOCKS 0 50 km Padas Field Overview PADAS-1 KOTAR-1 PADAS-2 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
Executive Summary Potential Recovery (PR) Resource assessment on PADAS Crest in sand IVC-13 Oil Reservoir Case STOIIP RF PR (MMSTBO) (%) (MMSTBO) IVC-13 Low (P85) 13 15 2 Most Likely (P50) 49 30 15 High (P15) 115 45 52 Gas Reservoir Case 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 IVC-1 to IVC-19 Expected Value (EV) Risked OIIP (MMSTB) 84 Gas Reservoirs IVC-1 to IVC-19 Expected Value (EV) Risked GIIP (BSCF) 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 % Difference -150-100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 GBV (1) N/G So PHIT GBV (2) 1/Boi Series1 MIN MAX Notes : 2 GBV cases : (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 (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 to 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 Line (6 ) Gas Lift (6 ) 13 Option 2 : LWS + FPSO PADAS-2 ~50 ft (15.2m) Water Depth 3 Producers 3 Gas Lift FPSO (Floating Production, Storage and Offloading) Lightweight Structure (LWS) Full Well Stream Line (6 ) Gas Lift (6 )
Option 3 : MOPU (Mobile Operating Production Unit) + FSO (Floating Storage and Offloading) MOORING LINES MOPU FORWARD FSO HEADING SHUTTLE TANKER FSO N.E MOORING LINES FIELD PLAN
FISCAL INCENTIVE 2005 CAPEX and OPEX Breakdown (Option 1 and Option 2 - Most Likely Case PR) All in USD, million Padas Seismic Appraisal Drilling [1] Facilities CAPEX Drilling CAPEX Dev. CAPEX W/O [1] Note: Excl. seismic Tot. Capital Investment With [1] Note: Excl. seismic Annual OPEX Option 1 (Tie-in) 7.89 (30) 5.26 (20) 30.60 (116) 11.40 (43) 42.00 (159) 47.26 (179) 0.92 (3.5) Option 2 (LWS + FPSO) 7.89 (30) 5.26 (20) 11.00 (42) 11.40 (43) 22.40 (85) 27.66 (105) 20.81 (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 1 st oil: 2010 Project Economics Analysis Oil Price : Brent USD 22/barrel, 15 MMstb Padas Field Option 1 (Tie-in) Option 2 (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 - Appraisal well (RM,mil.) Development CAPEX (RM, mil) Total Capital Investment (RM, mil.) Annual OPEX (RM, mil.) 20 159 179 3.5 mil. /year 20 85 105 79 mil. /year 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% 10% 15% 0% -20% 0% 20% Reserves Capex 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 No Drill Appraisal well Drill Discovery 25% Dry 75% 0 38.0 x (25%) = 9.5-18.2 x (75%) = -13.6 EMV calculation yields negative result, -4.1
Projects Economics Analysis / back-up slide Minimum Reserves Analysis, Brent USD 22/bbl Development Option : Tie-in facilities to Sumandak CPP 30% 25% IRR % 20% 15% 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 APPROACHES PROS CONS DO WE RECOMMEND BASED ON RA STUDY? 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 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. Slow due to stepwise approach Yes to address uncertainties identified by the RA study
Padas RA: Approaches APPROACHES PROS CONS DO WE RECOMMEND BASED ON RA STUDY? 2. Concurrent pre- FDP (acquiring seismic and appraisal) and FDP activities Q: Can we define what FDP activities we can do based on current data? i. Potential early 1 st oil i. Under exposure ii. Inefficient utilisation of limited resources in the event pre- FDP activities not in favour to proceed with FDP works. Not recommended. Anticipate a lot of reworks Padas RA: Approaches APPROACHES PROS CONS DO WE RECOMMEND BASED ON RA STUDY? 3. Utilise appraisal for development i. Potential early 1 st oil 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 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