Sabah Offshore Fields

7/21/2019 Sabah Offshore Fields

1/16

BARRIERS FOR MARGINAL FIELDSBARRIERS FOR MARGINAL FIELDS

CCOPCCOP GROUP 10, EXERCISE 2:GROUP 10, EXERCISE 2:

--Zulkifli LatifZulkifli Latif

--Imron AsjhariImron Asjhari--WahyudinWahyudin B.B. NasifiNasifi

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


2/16

SB308

SB331

LEGEND

SB330

SB304K

H

G

J

SK307

SB303TitikTerang

TigaPapan

Barton

SFurious

StJoseph

ErbWest

Tembungo

SWEmerald

ErbSouth

Ketam

Benrinnes

SECollins

Kebabangan

Kinarut

BongawanN

Nosong

Samarang

Glayzer

HaselfootTrusmadi

Kinabalu

Samarang

Kecil

S A B A H

SARAWAK

PHILIPPINES

0 50 km

South China Sea

OPEN BLOCKS

Sandakan

KOTA

KINABALU

P Sebatik

P Timbun Mata

P Balabac

P Banggi

P Balambangan

SB302

NS96PSC

Padas

P.Labuan

KamunsuEast

KamunsuEast

Upthrown

Alab

SB1

N

Kudat

Lokan

NymphNorth Sulu Sea

SB301

BRUNEI

SB332

SB305SB305SB305

11600'

500'

11400' 11800' 11900'

800'

700'

600'

11500'

INDONESIA

SB3XX

L

M

Location

Offshore Sabah

PSC SAMARANG-

ASAM PAYA PSC

(1995-2020)

Sub-Block

SAMARANG

SUB-BLOCK

(6S18/12)

Equity

100% PCSB

Nearest Field

12 km from SMP-B

24 km from Sumandak CPP

PADAS

Sabah Acreage Map

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 22oAPI

oil)

Challenges in this study

3D Seismic affected bysurface carbonate anomaly

Complex faulted structure

Limited logging suites

PADAS-1

KOTAR-1

PADAS-2

Padas Field Overview


3/16

Executive Summary Potential Recovery (PR)

Resource assessment on PADAS Crest in sand IVC-13

OilReservoir Case STOIIP

(MMSTBO)

RF

(%)

PR

(MMSTBO)

IVC-13 Low (P85) 13 15 2

Most Likely (P50) 49 30 15

High (P15) 115 45 52

Reservoir Case GIIP

(BSCF)

IVC-13 Low (P85) 0

Most Likely (P50) 20

High (P15) 51.4

Gas

Executive Summary Speculative Recovery (SR)

There is SR from other sands in the structure.

Oil

Gas

Reservoirs Risked OIIP

(MMSTB)

IVC-1 to

IVC-19

Expected

Value (EV)84

Reservoirs Risked GIIP

(BSCF)

IVC-1 to

IVC-19

Expected

Value (EV)45.9


4/16

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.


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 morecompartmentalized 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.


5/16



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.



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.


6/16

Reservoir IVC-13 -Parameter Range Difference

Notes :2 GBV cases :

(1) Differences in GBV dueto CATEGORY (P15to P85 cases) whereP15 vol. is takenfrom max oil column(all segments) andP85 vol. from DSTcoverage areaaround the Padas-2well. The P50 vol.from segment 3 only

(2) GBV differences due toSTRUCTUREseismic horizonpicking ( Min ,MLand Max maps). TheP15 area case of

different map caseswere used byapplying the samefluid contact

Tornado Diagram of Petra input parameter range in Reservoir IVC-13

-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

% Difference

Series1

MIN

MAX

TECHNOLOGY &

INFRASTRUCTURE

2005


7/16

13

24 KM

Full Well Stream Line (6 )

Gas Lift (6 )

PADAS-2

~50 ft (15.2m) Water Depth

3 Producers

3 Gas Lift

Sumandak CPP

Option 1 : Tie-in to Sumandak CPP

Lightweight

Structure (LWS)

Option 2 : LWS + FPSO

Full Well Stream Line (6 )

Gas Lift (6 )

PADAS-2

~50 ft (15.2m) Water Depth

3 Producers

3 Gas Lift

Lightweight

Structure (LWS)FPSO (Floating Production,

Storage and Offloading)


8/16

Option 3 : MOPU (Mobile Operating Production

Unit) + FSO (Floating Storage and Offloading)

MOPU

FORWARD

SHUTTLE

TANKER N.E

FSO HEADING

FIELD PLAN

MOORING LINES

MOORING LINES

FSO


9/16

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


10/16

Basis Assumptions

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

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

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


11/16

Projects Economics Analysis

Sensitivity Analysis at Brent USD 22/bbl

Development Option : Tie-in facilities to Sumandak CPP

Oil Reserves : 15 MMstb

0%

10%

20%

30%

-20% 0% 20%

Reserves Capex Opex

15%

Projects Economics Analysis / back-up slide

EMV Calculation NPV @10%


Oil Reserves : 15 MMstb

Crude Oil Price : Brent USD 22 per barrel

DrillAppraisal well

No

Discovery25%

Dry75%

-18.2 x (75%)= -13.6

38.0 x (25%)= 9.5

0

EMV calculation yields negative result, -4.1

Drill


12/16

Minimum Reserves Analysis, Brent USD 22/bbl

Projects Economics Analysis / back-up slide

Minimum oil reserves required is 10 MMstb


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

MMSTB

IRR%

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 i i. 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 theRA study


13/16


APPROACHES PROS CONS DO WE RECOMMEND

BASED ON RA

STUDY?

2. Concurrent pre-

FDP (acquiring

seismic and

appraisal) and

FDP activi ties

Q:

Can we define

what FDP

activities we can

do based on

current data?

i. Potential

early 1st

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


APPROACHES PROS CONS DO WE

RECOMMEND

BASED ON RA

STUDY?

3. Utilise

appraisal for

development

i. Potential

early 1st oil

i. Under exposure

ii. Well placement is

not optimum

iii. Inefficientutilisation of

limited resources

in the event

appraisal findings

not in favour for

development

Can be

considered after

seismic

acquisition andinterpretation.


14/16

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


15/16

WILLINGNESS TO TAKE RISKRESOURCES CONSTRAINT

Step the government

should Take to

Stimulate and

Optimized Development


16/16

Reduction on TaxFlexibility in utilizing foreign contractor

THANK YOU

Sabah Offshore Fields

Documents

Transcript of Sabah Offshore Fields