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

11500'

11400'

Location
Offshore Sabah

11600'

SB303

800'

P Balambangan
P Banggi

Tiga Papan

SW Emerald

SB304

Barton

11900'

N
Titik Terang

PSC
SAMARANGASAM PAYA PSC
(1995-2020)

11800'

P Balabac

South China Sea

SB302

Kamunsu East
Upthrown

Tembungo

Kamunsu East

Kudat

700'

PHILIPPINES

S Furious

St Joseph

SB330

Kebabangan
Erb West

Sub-Block
SAMARANG
SUB-BLOCK
(6S18/12)

Kinarut
Erb South

Lokan

SE Collins
Nosong
Alab

Ketam

Bongawan N

L
SB1

Samarang
Kecil

Padas

KOTA
KINABALU

Benrinnes
Nymph North

Sandakan

Glayzer
Haselfoot
Trusmadi

PADAS

Sulu Sea

600'

SB305

Samarang

Kinabalu

Equity
100% PCSB

NS 96 PSC

SB301

S A B A H

SB331

P. Labuan

SB332
500'
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

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 22o 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
(%)

Low (P85)

13

15

Most Likely (P50)

49

30

15

High (P15)

115

45

52

Case

STOIIP

PR
(MMSTBO)

GIIP
(BSCF)

IVC-13

Low (P85)
Most Likely (P50)
High (P15)

0
20
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

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

GBV (1)

N/G

So

500

550

600

650

(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
Series1
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 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)

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
y Development scheme based on 15 MMstb of oil (most likely case with gas
lift) with 3 development wells
y

Incremental economics

Oil price : Brent USD22 per barrel, (equivalent to SamarangUSD1.50)

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

Appraisal well (RM,mil.)

20

20

Development CAPEX (RM, mil)

159

85

Total Capital Investment (RM, mil.)

Annual OPEX (RM, mil.)

179

105

3.5 mil. /year

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%

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%

IRR %

25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

MMSTB
Minimum oil reserves required is 10 MMstb

Padas RA: Approaches

APPROACHES

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

APPROACHES

2.

PROS

i.

Concurrent preFDP (acquiring

seismic and
appraisal) and
FDP activities

CONS

Potential i.
early 1st
oil
ii.

Q:

Can we define
what FDP
activities we can
do based on
current data?

Under
exposure
Inefficient
utilisation of
limited
resources in
the event preFDP activities
not in favour to
proceed with
FDP works.

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.
ii.
iii.

DO WE
RECOMMEND
BASED ON RA
STUDY?

Can be
Well placement is considered after
seismic
not optimum
acquisition and
Inefficient
interpretation.
utilisation of

Under exposure

limited resources
in the event
appraisal findings
not in favour for
development

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