Sie sind auf Seite 1von 287

PAB4034 FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (FDP)

GELAMA MERAH, OFFSHORE SABAH


PREPARED BY: GROUP 4

Muhammad Aiman Bin Jamaluddin


Muhamad Ridzuan Bin Shaedin
Izzuddin Bin Jamaludin
Muhammad Hafizzudin Bin Abdul Wahid
Wan Mohd Shafie Bin Wan Ibrahim
Nurul Fathiah Binti Mohammad
Hudzaifah Bin Zol Hamidy
Nurul Syafiqa Binti Abdul Wahab
Zairul Zahha Bin Zabidi
Faridzul Rusyidee Bin Ibrahim

10022
10210
9686
11725
11736
11729
10076
10062
10272
10283

Final Report submitted in partial fulfillment of


the requirements for the
Bachelor of Engineering (Hons)
Petroleum Engineering
JANUARY 2011

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS


Bandar Seri Iskandar
31750 Tronoh
Perak Darul Ridzuan

CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
GELAMA MERAH, OFFSHORE SABAH
PREPARED BY: GROUP 4
Muhammad Aiman Bin Jamaluddin
Muhamad Ridzuan Bin Shaedin
Izzuddin Bin Jamaludin
Muhammad Hafizzudin Bin Abdul Wahid
Wan Mohd Shafie Bin Wan Ibrahim
Nurul Fathiah Binti Mohammad
Hudzaifah Bin Zol Hamidy
Nurul Syafiqa Binti Abdul Wahab
Zairul Zahha Bin Zabidi
Faridzul Rusyidee Bin Ibrahim

10022
10210
9686
11725
11736
11729
10076
10062
10272
10283

A project dissertation submitted to the


Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the
Bachelor of Engineering (Hons)
Petroleum Engineering
Approved by,

_____________________
(AP DR ISMAIL M
SAAID)
FDP Supervisor

_____________________
(ALI FIKRET MANGI
ALTAEE)
FDP Supervisor

_____________________
(AP DR EASWARAN
PADMANABHAN)
FDP Supervisor

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS


TRONOH, PERAK
JANUARY 2011

CERTIFICATION OF ORIGINALITY

This is to certify that we are responsible for the work submitted in this project, that the
original work is our own except as specified in the references and acknowledgements, and
that the original work contained herein have not been undertaken or done by unspecified
sources or persons.

_______________________________
MUHAMMAD AIMAN BIN JAMALUDDIN

_________________________________
NURUL FATHIAH BINTI MOHAMMAD

_______________________________
MUHAMAD RIDZUAN BIN SHAEDIN

_________________________________
HUDZAIFAH BIN ZOL HAMIDY

_______________________________
IZZUDDIN BIN JAMALUDIN

_________________________________
NURUL SYAFIQA BINTI ABDUL WAHAB

_______________________________
MUHAMMAD HAFIZZUDIN BIN ABDUL
WAHID

_________________________________
ZAIRUL ZAHHA BIN ZABIDI

_______________________________
WAN MOHD SHAFIE BIN WAN IBRAHIM

_________________________________
FARIDZUL RUSYIDEE BIN IBRAHIM

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to express our sincere gratitude and deep appreciation to the following people
for their support, patience and guidance. Without them, this project wouldnt have been made
possible. It is to them that we owe our gratitude.

AP Dr Ismail M Saaid, Mr. Ali Fikret Mangi Altaee and AP Dr Eswaran


Padmanabhan for the continuous advice, guidance, constructive criticism and
support to the team. Despite their heavy workload, they spared their precious time to
discuss the project.

Pn Mazlin Idress, FDP Coordinator for her constant assistance, encouragement,


guidance and excellent advice throughout this research project. We also acknowledge
her dedication for inviting lecturers and industry speakers to conduct presentation
which are very helpful in the completion of the project.

Finally, above all, we would also like to thank our family, friends, and Geoscience and
Petroleum Engineering Department lecturers for their unwavering love, support and
assistance throughout the project.

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The objective of this project is to develop the optimum plan for the management of the
natural resources in the Gelama Merah field. Significant reserves of hydrocarbons have been
confirmed in it, by GM-1 and GM-1 ST1 appraisal wells. The estimated Stock Tank Oil
Initially in Place (STOIIP) of Gelama Merah Field is 85.74 MMstb while the estimated Gas
Initially in Place (GIIP) is 111.91 Bscf.

Simulation modeling was carried out using RMS software with different scenarios considered
such as natural depletion, gas and water injection. Reservoir and economic simulations
conclude the best strategy to develop the field is via natural depletion. Six horizontal wells
and one WAG injector well are proposed with maximum recovery factor of 27.8%.

Drilling engineering and well construction of Gelama Merah were performed utilizing data
from GM-1 and GM-1 ST1 appraisal wells and results from reservoir engineering simulation
for drainage plan and reservoir management. A jack-up drilling rig is proposed for the
drilling campaign. All six wells are proposed to be completed as single oil producer with
stand alone wire wrapped screen as a sand control.

Surface development plan is to install jacket platform at Gelama Merah field. It is decided to
tie in the platform into nearby existing infrastructure at Semarang Central Processing Plant
(CPP) which is both technically and economically viable.

The development strategies have been evaluated in terms of Internal Rate Return (IRR) and
Net Present Value (NPV). The CAPEX is about 165.69 Mil USD and the OPEX is estimated
about 3.909 Mil USD/year. The calculated NPV at 10% is 55.78 MM USD with IRR at 37%;
the breakeven is estimated in 3.7 years from the first year of production.

iv

Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ..................................................................................................... iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... iv
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................ xv
NOMENCLATURES ..........................................................................................................xvii
Chapter 1

: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1

1.1

Background of Project ................................................................................................. 1

1.2

Problem Statement ...................................................................................................... 2

1.3

Objectives .................................................................................................................... 3

1.4

Scope of Work ............................................................................................................. 3

1.5

Gantt Chart .................................................................................................................. 4

1.6

Project Team ............................................................................................................... 5

Chapter 2

: DATA INVENTORY AND QUALITY CONTROL .................................... 7

2.1

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 7

2.2

Workflow .................................................................................................................... 7

2.2.1

Data Acquisition and Sorting ............................................................................... 7

2.2.2

Data Checklist and Inventory Setup .................................................................... 8

2.2.3

Data Digitizing ..................................................................................................... 9

2.2.4

Data Quality Check ............................................................................................ 10

Chapter 3

: GEOLOGY & GEOPHYSICS ..................................................................... 12

3.1

2-Dimensional Cross Imaging ................................................................................... 12

3.2

Stratigraphic Correlation ........................................................................................... 18

3.3

Regional Setting ........................................................................................................ 21

3.4

Hydrocarbon Petroleum System ............................................................................... 23

3.5

Depositional Environment and Facies Analysis........................................................ 25

3.6

3-Dimensional (3D) Static Model (Roxars IRAP RMS) ......................................... 29

3.6.1

General Description ........................................................................................... 29

3.6.2

Surface Contour Map Digitizing ........................................................................ 30

3.6.3

Import Well Data ............................................................................................... 31

3.6.4

Horizon Modeling .............................................................................................. 31

3.6.5

Petrophysical Modelling .................................................................................... 31

3.7

Volumetric Calculation ............................................................................................. 32


i

3.7.1

Reservoir Evaluation .......................................................................................... 32

3.7.2

Gross Rock Volume ........................................................................................... 32

3.7.3

Volumetric Estimation Approach ...................................................................... 36

3.7.4

Hydrocarbon in Place (HIP) Calculation ........................................................... 36

3.7.5

Hydrocarbon Contribution ................................................................................. 39

3.7.6

Static Model Volumetric Estimation ................................................................. 40

3.7.7

Hydrocarbon in Place by Static Model .............................................................. 41

3.8

Risk Analysis and Uncertainties ............................................................................... 42

3.8.1

2-Dimensional Cross Imaging ........................................................................... 42

3.8.2

Stratigraphic Correlation .................................................................................... 44

3.8.3

Volumetric Estimation Approach ...................................................................... 46

3.9

Summary ................................................................................................................... 46

Chapter 4

: PETROPHYSICS .......................................................................................... 47

4.1

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 47

4.2

Data Availability ....................................................................................................... 47

4.3

Quality Check (QC) For Log Data ............................................................................ 47

4.4

Petrophysical Evaluation ........................................................................................... 49

4.4.1

Lithology Study ................................................................................................. 49

4.4.2

Interpretation of Log Data ................................................................................. 51

4.4.3

Identification of Permeable and Non-Permeable Zones .................................... 53

4.4.4

Determination of the water and hydrocarbon bearing zones ............................. 54

4.5

Fluid Types ................................................................................................................ 56

4.6

Shale Volume () ................................................................................................. 57

4.7

Porosity () ............................................................................................................... 58

4.7.1

Effect of Shale on Porosity Determination from Density Log .......................... 58

4.7.2

Effect of Shale on Porosity Determination from Neutron Log .......................... 59

4.7.3

Effective Porosity Calculation ........................................................................... 60

4.8

Water Saturation ()............................................................................................... 60

4.9

The Cut-off Values .................................................................................................... 62

4.10

Net to Gross Ration (NTG) ................................................................................... 63

Chapter 5

: RESERVOIR ENGINEERING ................................................................... 64

5.1

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 64

5.2

Reservoir Data and Analyses .................................................................................... 65

5.2.1

Reservoir Pressure and Fluid Contacts .............................................................. 65

5.2.2

Reservoir Temperature....................................................................................... 66
ii

5.2.3

Reservoir Fluid Studies ...................................................................................... 67

5.2.4

Reservoir Fluid Study (PVT) Using PVTi Software ......................................... 74

5.2.5

Rock Compressibility......................................................................................... 77

5.2.6

Routine Core and Special Core Analysis (SCAL) ............................................. 79

5.3

Reservoir Simulation Study ...................................................................................... 93

5.3.1

Preliminary Studies of Reservoir Drive Mechanisms ........................................ 94

5.3.2

3D Geological Static Model Export................................................................... 98

5.3.3

Simulator Data Input .......................................................................................... 99

5.3.4

Dynamic Initialization ..................................................................................... 100

5.3.5

Sensitivity Analysis ......................................................................................... 102

5.4

Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) ............................................................................... 115

5.5

Reservoir Surveillance ............................................................................................ 120

5.6

Uncertainty Analysis ............................................................................................... 121

Chapter 6

: PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY .............................................................. 123

6.1

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 123

6.2

Nodal Analysis ........................................................................................................ 123

6.3

Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) and PVT Correlation ............................... 124

6.3.1

Inflow Performance Prediction ........................................................................ 124

6.3.2

Outflow Performance Prediction ..................................................................... 125

6.4

Tubing Size ............................................................................................................. 127

6.5

Artificial Lift ........................................................................................................... 127

6.5.1

Gas Lift Method Justifications ......................................................................... 127

6.5.2

Gas Lift Design ................................................................................................ 129

6.6

Sand Control............................................................................................................ 132

6.6.1
6.7

Sand Control Design ........................................................................................ 133

Well Completion Design ......................................................................................... 136

6.7.1

Summary .......................................................................................................... 136

6.7.2

Well Completion Matrix .................................................................................. 136

6.7.3

Completion string Design and Accessories ..................................................... 137

6.7.4

Wellhead and Christmas tree ........................................................................... 139

6.7.5

Material Selection ............................................................................................ 140

6.7.6

Packer and Completion Fluid........................................................................... 140

6.8

Potential Production Problem.................................................................................. 141

6.8.1

Wax Deposition ............................................................................................... 141

6.8.2

Corrosion.......................................................................................................... 141

6.8.3

Scale Formation ............................................................................................... 141


iii

6.8.4

Emulsion formation ......................................................................................... 142

Chapter 7

: DRILLING ENGINEERING ..................................................................... 143

7.1

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 143

7.2

Drilling History ....................................................................................................... 143

7.3

Platform Location .................................................................................................... 143

7.4

Design Framework .................................................................................................. 143

7.5

Rig Selection ........................................................................................................... 144

7.6

Subsurface Environment ......................................................................................... 145

7.7

Potential Drilling Problem ...................................................................................... 145

7.8

Planning Well Profile (Well Trajectory) ................................................................. 146

7.8.1

Parameters of Well Path................................................................................... 147

7.8.2

Well Type......................................................................................................... 147

7.9

Casing Design ......................................................................................................... 148

7.9.1

Casing Configuration ....................................................................................... 148

7.9.2

Casing Setting Depth ....................................................................................... 150

7.10

Drilling Fluids and Cementing Design ................................................................ 151

7.10.1 Drilling Fluids Design...................................................................................... 151


7.10.2

Cementing Design ............................................................................................ 152

7.11

Bit Selection ........................................................................................................ 154

7.12

Well Control ........................................................................................................ 154

7.12.1 Blow Out Preventer (BOP) .............................................................................. 154


7.12.2 Actuator / SSV ................................................................................................. 154
7.12.3 Wellhead .......................................................................................................... 155
7.13

Drilling Time and Cost Estimation ...................................................................... 155

7.14

Drilling Optimization .......................................................................................... 158

7.14.1

Monobore Completion ..................................................................................... 158

7.14.2 Casing While Drilling (CWD) ......................................................................... 158


7.14.3 Multilateral Completion ................................................................................... 158
7.14.4 Rotary Steerable System (RSS) ....................................................................... 159
7.14.5 Pile Driven Conductor ..................................................................................... 159
7.14.6 Cement Assessment Tool (CAT) ..................................................................... 159
Chapter 8
8.1

: FACILITIES ENGINEERING .................................................................. 160

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 160

8.1.1

Overview of Facilities ...................................................................................... 160

8.1.2

Design Philosophy ........................................................................................... 160


iv

8.1.3
8.2

Types of Development Platform Option .......................................................... 161

Design Features and Basis....................................................................................... 162

8.2.1

Facilities Design Concept ................................................................................ 162

8.2.2

Top Structure ................................................................................................... 163

8.2.3

Substructure ..................................................................................................... 163

8.3

Operation Facilities and Equipments ...................................................................... 164

8.3.1

Production Flowlines, Flow Control and Manifold ......................................... 164

8.3.2

Wellhead .......................................................................................................... 164

8.3.3

Gas Metering and Measurement ...................................................................... 164

8.3.4

3-Phase Separator............................................................................................. 165

8.3.5

Gas Injection .................................................................................................... 165

8.3.6

Gas Lift Surfaces Facilities .............................................................................. 165

8.3.7

Electrical Power and Lighting ......................................................................... 165

8.3.8

Drain System .................................................................................................... 165

8.3.9

Flare Boom / Vent System ............................................................................... 166

8.3.10 Instrument Air System ..................................................................................... 166


8.4

Safety Facilities System .......................................................................................... 166

8.4.1

Safety Shutdown System ................................................................................. 166

8.4.2

Automatic Fire Detection and Alarm System .................................................. 167

8.4.3

Life Saving Appliances .................................................................................... 168

8.4.4

Platform Data and Communication System ..................................................... 168

8.5

Pipelines and Host Tie-Ins to Existing Platform ..................................................... 168

8.5.1

Pipeline Tie-Ins ................................................................................................ 168

8.5.2

Pipeline Optimum Sizing using PIPESim ....................................................... 169

8.5.3

Wax Mitigation ................................................................................................ 175

8.5.4

Slug Suppression System (Sss) ........................................................................ 176

8.6

Pipeline Corrosion Management ............................................................................. 176

8.6.1

Corrosion Inhibitor Injection ........................................................................... 176

8.6.2

Corrosion Allowance ....................................................................................... 176

8.6.3

Pipeline Pigging ............................................................................................... 177

8.6.4

Corrosion Monitoring ...................................................................................... 177

8.7

Operation and Maintenance .................................................................................... 178

8.7.1

Operations ........................................................................................................ 178

8.7.2

Operating Philosophy....................................................................................... 178

8.7.3

Pipeline Operation Philosophy ........................................................................ 179

8.7.4

Process Control ................................................................................................ 179

8.7.5

Pigging ............................................................................................................. 179


v

8.7.6

Maintenance Philosophy .................................................................................. 179

8.8

Abandonment .......................................................................................................... 180

8.9

Facilities CAPEX, Decommission and OPEX ........................................................ 180

8.9.1

Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) ......................................................................... 180

8.9.2

Decommissioning Cost .................................................................................... 181

8.9.3

Operating Expenditure (OPEX) ....................................................................... 182

Chapter 9

: ECONOMIC ANALYSES .......................................................................... 184

9.1

Introduction and Objective ...................................................................................... 184

9.2

Development Options and Total Expenditures ....................................................... 185

9.3

Fiscal Terms ............................................................................................................ 187

9.4

Economic Assumptions ........................................................................................... 188

9.5

Economic Analysis and Results .............................................................................. 189

9.5.1

Net Cash Flow Profile ...................................................................................... 190

9.5.2

Sensitivity Analysis ......................................................................................... 191

9.6

Discussion and Recommendation ........................................................................... 193

Chapter 10 : HEALTH, SAFETY & ENVIRONMENT ................................................ 195


10.1

HSE Management Policy..................................................................................... 195

10.2

Risk Acceptance Criteria ..................................................................................... 195

10.3

Project HSE Objectives and Program .................................................................. 195

10.4

HSE Hold Points.................................................................................................. 196

10.5

Safety Awareness ................................................................................................ 197

10.6

Emergency Response Plan (ERP)........................................................................ 197

10.7

Environment Concerns ........................................................................................ 197

10.7.1 Drilling Waste .................................................................................................. 197


10.7.2 Produced Water ................................................................................................ 198
10.7.3 Associated Waste ............................................................................................. 198
10.7.4 Gas Venting and Flaring .................................................................................. 198
10.8

Safety System ...................................................................................................... 199

10.8.1 Safety Shutdown System ................................................................................. 199


10.8.2 Flare and Emergency Relief System ................................................................ 199
10.8.3 Ventilation........................................................................................................ 200
10.9

Transportation ...................................................................................................... 200

10.10

HSE for Abandonment ........................................................................................ 201

Chapter 11 : FUTURE PLANS ......................................................................................... 203


11.1

Introduction ......................................................................................................... 203


vi

11.2

Geology ............................................................................................................... 203

11.3

Reserves ............................................................................................................... 204

11.4

Reservoir Engineering ......................................................................................... 204

11.5

Drilling Engineering ............................................................................................ 204

11.6

Production Engineering ....................................................................................... 205

11.7

Facilities Engineering .......................................................................................... 205

11.8

Economic and HSE .............................................................................................. 205

11.9

CO Sequestration................................................................................................ 205

11.9.1 Character of Underground Structure and Rock Layers Desired ...................... 206
11.9.2 Geologic Site Characterization ........................................................................ 207
11.9.3 Costing Methodology....................................................................................... 207
11.9.4 Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 208
11.9.5 Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 209
11.9.6 Raw Cost Estimation........................................................................................ 209
11.10

Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 210

Chapter 12 : REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 211


Appendix A

Geology and Geophysics ........................................................................ 212

Appendix B

Petrophysics ............................................................................................ 213

Appendix C

Reservoir Engineering............................................................................ 216

Appendix D

Production Technology .......................................................................... 225

Appendix E

Drilling Engineering ............................................................................... 234

E.1

Well Profiles and Trajectories for Six Horizontal Wells ........................................ 234

E.2

Pressure Plot and Casing Setting Depth for the Proposed Wells ............................ 238

E.3

Casing Design Configuration for the Proposed Wells ............................................ 240

E.4

Cementing Calculations .......................................................................................... 251

E.5

Drilling Time and Cost Estimation ......................................................................... 258

Appendix F

Facilities Engineering ............................................................................. 260

vii

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 - Location of the Block 6S-18 .................................................................................. 1
Figure 1.2 - The work schedule of Gelama Merah Field Development Project ........................ 4
Figure 1.3 Organization chart of Group 4 ............................................................................... 6
Figure 2.1 - Workflow ............................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3.1 - Surface map for Unit U3.2 ................................................................................... 12
Figure 3.2 - Possible geological features ................................................................................. 13
Figure 3.3 - Spreadsheet of horizontal cross section for Gelama Merah 1 and ST-1 .............. 15
Figure 3.4 - OWC and GOC determination using pressure gradient plot ................................ 16
Figure 3.5 - 3-Dimensional (3-D) Static Model....................................................................... 17
Figure 3.6 - The anticline structure with eroded surfaces (unconformity) structure ............... 18
Figure 3.7 - Well top correlations using Gamma ray log for GM-1 and GM-1 ST1 ............... 19
Figure 3.8 - Stratigraphic correlation for GM-1 and GM-1 ST1 ............................................. 20
Figure 3.9 - Regional aerial view of Gelama Merah field ....................................................... 21
Figure 3.10 - Regional location of Northern and Southern Inboard Belt with major anticline
and syncline structure .............................................................................................................. 22
Figure 3.11 - Regional cross-section of Southern Inboard Belt............................................... 23
Figure 3.12 - Gelama Merah depositional environment model ............................................... 25
Figure 3.13 - Sand deposition is from high energy storm generated breaker bar at upper shore
face on top, moderate energy lower shoreface at middle and low energy environment at base
sand shows trending coarsening upward sequence .................................................................. 26
Figure 3.14 - Depositional environment is shallow marine with wave influence of lower
coastal plain high stand, prograding delta to coastal sediment. ............................................ 28
Figure 3.15 - Procedures in developing Gelama Merah static model ...................................... 30
Figure 3.16 - Digitized contour points and 3D contour map ................................................... 30
Figure 3.17 - Well picks and 3D contour map ......................................................................... 31
Figure 3.18 - Area calculated by planimeter and grid square counting ................................... 33
Figure 3.19 - Summary Results of Simulation......................................................................... 38
Figure 3.20 - OIIP contribution for each sand unit .................................................................. 39
Figure 3.21 - GIIP contribution for each sand unit .................................................................. 39
Figure 3.22 - Anticline structure with eroded surfaces (unconformity) structure and fault .... 42
Figure 3.23 - Anticline structure .............................................................................................. 43
Figure 3.24 - Stratigraphic correlation for heavily faulted formation ..................................... 44
viii

Figure 3.25 - Stratigraphic correlation for sand pocket existence ........................................... 45


Figure 4.1 - Caliper log ............................................................................................................ 48
Figure 4.2 - Highest average value of gamma ray log ............................................................. 53
Figure 4.3 - Lowest average value of gamma ray log.............................................................. 53
Figure 4.4 - The identified permeable and non-permeable zones ............................................ 54
Figure 4.5 - Water and hydrocarbon bearing zone identification using resistivity log and
porosity log for GM-1 .............................................................................................................. 55
Figure 4.6 - Water and hydrocarbon bearing zone identification using resistivity log and
porosity log for GM-1 ST1 ...................................................................................................... 55
Figure 4.7 - Pressure plot for Gelama Merah-1 ....................................................................... 56
Figure 4.8 - Sand and shale distribution from the log.............................................................. 58
Figure 4.9 - The porosity cut off for Gelama Merah field ....................................................... 62
Figure 5.1 - Gelama Merah field pressure data from Gelama Merah-1 well ........................... 65
Figure 5.2 - Gelama Merah field temperature data from Gelama Merah-1 well ..................... 66
Figure 5.3 - Phase plot for Gelama Merah ST-1 DST#1 generated by EOS ........................... 74
Figure 5.4 - PVT matching ...................................................................................................... 76
Figure 5.5 - Rock compressibility measurements from eight core samples ............................ 78
Figure 5.6 - Porosity-Permeability Model ............................................................................... 81
Figure 5.7 - Capillary pressure curve classification based on J-function vs Swnormalized.... 86
Figure 5.8 - Normalized relative permeability curve for gas-oil and oil-water ....................... 90
Figure 5.9 - Corey fitted curve with de-normalized curve for Oil-Water System ................... 91
Figure 5.10 - End-points correlation with porosity and permeability ...................................... 92
Figure 5.11 - Drive mechanism of Gelama Merah .................................................................. 96
Figure 5.12 - Cumulative production without aquifer support. ............................................... 97
Figure 5.13 - Cumulative oil Production (MM stb) and Oil Recovery Factor ........................ 98
Figure 5.14 - Porosity Distribution of Gelama Merah reservoir model ................................... 99
Figure 5.15 - Simulation results showing different well types (Horizontal and Vertical)
against well counts ................................................................................................................. 104
Figure 5.16 - Simulation results showing optimized performance between vertical and
horizontal wells ...................................................................................................................... 106
Figure 5.17 - Simulation results showing optimized performance for limiting liquid and gas
rate production ....................................................................................................................... 107
Figure 5.18 - Simulation results of production profile, pressure decline and water cut for
water injector to the aquifer, oil zone, and gas cap ................................................................ 109
ix

Figure 5.19 - Simulation results of production profile for gas injector to the aquifer, oil zone,
and gas cap ............................................................................................................................. 110
Figure 5.20 - Simulation results of pressure decline and water cut for gas injector to the
aquifer, oil zone, and gas cap ................................................................................................. 111
Figure 5.21 - Simulation results of WAG production profile, pressure decline and water cut
................................................................................................................................................ 113
Figure 6.1 - Horizontal data for GM-A .................................................................................. 125
Figure 6.2 - Gas lift valves design by simulation .................................................................. 129
Figure 6.3 - Depth vs. sonic transit time for Gelama Merah-1 .............................................. 133
Figure 7.1 - Casing configuration for GM-A ......................................................................... 149
Figure 7.2 - Gelama Merah drilling and completion cost vs. time ........................................ 157
Figure 8.1 - Types of platform used in field development .................................................... 161
Figure 8.2 - Tie-in from GMJT-A to SMP-B diagram .......................................................... 169
Figure 9.1 - Production profile for Gelama Merah ................................................................ 185
Figure 9.2 Fiscal structure of Gelama Merah field ................................................................ 188
Figure 9.3 Net cash flow for Gelama Merah with decommissioning in year 2031 (graph
changed) ................................................................................................................................. 190
Figure 9.4 Spider plot for NPV @ 10% ................................................................................. 191
Figure 9.5 Spider plot for IRR ............................................................................................... 192
Figure 11.1 - The geological structure of Gelama Merah ...................................................... 203
Figure 11.2 - GIIP contribution for each sand unit ................................................................ 204
Figure A.1 - Cumulative probability of the total STOIIP for sand unit 5.0 to 9.2................. 212
Figure A.2 - Cumulative probability of the total GIIP for sand unit 5.0 to 9.2 ..................... 212
Figure B.1 - Non-corrected Neutron-Density crossplot ......................................................... 213
Figure B.2 - Corrected Neutron-Density crossplot ................................................................ 214
Figure B.3 - M-N crossplot .................................................................................................... 215
Figure C.1 - Sand pocket structure ........................................................................................ 216
Figure C.2 - Fault structure .................................................................................................... 217
Figure C.3 - PVTi output for dynamic model; PVTO live oil with dissolved gas ............. 217
Figure C.4 - PVTi output for dynamic model; PVDG dry gas ........................................... 218
Figure C.5 - Un-normalized gas-oil relative Permeability Curve .......................................... 219
Figure C.6 - Normalized gas oil Relative permeability curve .............................................. 220
Figure C.7 - Sand Facies type 1 Gas Oil Relative Permeability Curve .............................. 221
Figure C.8 - Sand Facies Type 2: Gas Oil Relative Permeability curve................................ 222
x

Figure D.1 - IPR matching for vertical well, Gelama Merah Well Test ................................ 225
Figure D.2 - IPR for horizontal GM-A .................................................................................. 225
Figure D.3 - Tubing performance at different wellhead pressure .......................................... 226
Figure D.4 - Tubing performance with increasing water cut @ WHP of 390 psi ................. 226
Figure D.5 - Tubing performance with varying GOR ........................................................... 227
Figure D.6 - Tubing performance with pressure depletion .................................................... 227
Figure D.7 - Gas lift design for GM-A .................................................................................. 228
Figure D.8 - Tubing performance at different wellhead pressure with GLI .......................... 228
Figure D.9 - Tubing performance with increasing water cut @ WHP of 390 psi with GLI . 229
Figure D.10 - Tubing performance with varying GOR with GLI.......................................... 229
Figure D.11 - Tubing performance with pressure depletion with GLI .................................. 230
Figure D.12 - Kawasaki and Sumitomo materials selection process ..................................... 231
Figure D.13 - Typical horizontal completion configuration for oil producers ...................... 232
Figure D.14 - Typical vertical completion configuration for WAG injector ......................... 233
Figure E.1 - Plan view for six horizontal wells ..................................................................... 234
Figure E.2 - Well trajectory for GM-A .................................................................................. 235
Figure E.3 - Well trajectory for GM-B .................................................................................. 235
Figure E.4 - Well trajectory for GM-C .................................................................................. 236
Figure E.5 - Well trajectory for GM-D .................................................................................. 236
Figure E.6 - Well trajectory for GM-E .................................................................................. 237
Figure E.7 - Well trajectory for GM-F................................................................................... 237
Figure E.8 - Casing setting depth ........................................................................................... 239
Figure E.9 - Time-depth curve ............................................................................................... 258
Figure F.1 - Pipeline Sizing using PIPESim .......................................................................... 260
Figure F.2 - Option 1: A production platform tie-in to the nearby Samarang Mother PlatformB (SMP-B) Central Processing Platform (CPP) .................................................................... 260
Figure F.3 - A production platform tie-in directly to Labuan Crude Oil Terminal (LCOT) . 261
Figure F.4 - Production using floating, production, storage and offloading (FPSO) ............ 261

xi

List of Tables

Table 2.1 - Data Checklist ......................................................................................................... 8


Table 3.1 - Measured area using planimeter and grid square counting for gas zone ............... 34
Table 3.2 - Measured area using planimeter and grid square counting for oil zone ................ 35
Table 3.3 - Minimum, median and maximum values of N/G, porosity, So and Bo ................ 37
Table 3.4 - Minimum, median and maximum values of N/G, porosity, Sg and Bg ................ 37
Table 3.5 - Total OIIP and GIIP .............................................................................................. 37
Table 3.6 - Sum of OIIP and GIIP ........................................................................................... 41
Table 4.1 - Recorded depth from log and well report .............................................................. 48
Table 4.2 - Recorded hole and casing size ............................................................................... 48
Table 4.3 - Summary of fluid contact ...................................................................................... 56
Table 4.4 - Average volume of shale in each sand unit ........................................................... 57
Table 4.5 - Average porosity for each sand unit ...................................................................... 60
Table 5.1 - Quality check of separator samples ....................................................................... 68
Table 5.2 - Compositional analysis of stock tank oil, stock tank gas and calculated wellstream
composition (adjusted bubble point pressure to 2014 Psig) .................................................... 69
Table 5.3 - Constant composition expansion test results at 155F .......................................... 70
Table 5.4 - Differential vaporization test at 155F* ................................................................ 72
Table 5.5 - Oil and gas viscosity @ 155F .............................................................................. 73
Table 5.6 - Components grouping for regression .................................................................... 75
Table 5.7 - Rock compressibility correlations ......................................................................... 78
Table 5.8 - Porosity and permeability according to core sample ............................................. 81
Table 5.9 - Rock Facies Classification .................................................................................... 81
Table 5.10 - Laboratory-reservoir fluid properties for capillary conversion ........................... 82
Table 5.11 - Core sample 1-01 properties ................................................................................ 84
Table 5.12 - Injected mercury pressure with respect to saturation .......................................... 84
Table 5.13 - Capillary Pressure classification according to sand facies .................................. 86
Table 5.14 - Core samples for relative permeability curve measurements .............................. 87
Table 5.15 - Relative Permeability Measurement.................................................................... 89
Table 5.16 - R-Squared error for end-points correlations ........................................................ 93
Table 5.17 - Base case results simulation .............................................................................. 103
Table 5.18 - Simulation results for Water Injection scheme ................................................. 109
xii

Table 5.19 - Simulation results for VRR = 1 sensitivity analyses ......................................... 112
Table 5.20 - Recovery factor comparison for different geological model ............................. 115
Table 5.21 - Screening criteria for EOR ................................................................................ 118
Table 5.22 - CO2 technical screening guides ........................................................................ 119
Table 5.23 - CO2-miscible/immiscible flooding ................................................................... 119
Table 6.1 - Tubing performance at different wellhead pressure (0% water cut) ................... 125
Table 6.2 - Tubing performance with increasing water cut @ WHP of 390 psi ................... 126
Table 6.3 - Tubing performance with varying GOR.............................................................. 126
Table 6.4 - Tubing performance with pressure depletion ...................................................... 126
Table 6.5 - ESP and gas lift comparisons .............................................................................. 127
Table 6.6 - Production profile natural flow vs. gas lift injection (WHP) .............................. 130
Table 6.7 - Production profile natural flow vs. gas lift injection (water cut) ........................ 130
Table 6.8 - Production profile natural flow vs. gas lift injection (GOR) ............................... 131
Table 6.9 - Production profile natural flow vs. gas lift injection (reservoir pressure depletion)
................................................................................................................................................ 131
Table 6.10 - Comparison of different options available for sand exclusion .......................... 135
Table 6.11 - Well completion matrix ..................................................................................... 137
Table 6.12 - Basic data for material selection........................................................................ 140
Table 7.1 - Water depth and average daily rate for several types of MODUs (Source:
www.rigzone.com) ................................................................................................................. 144
Table 7.2 - Well profiles ........................................................................................................ 147
Table 7.3 - Well survey and logging ...................................................................................... 148
Table 7.4 - PCSB casing design safety factors ...................................................................... 148
Table 7.5 - Casing design configuration for the seven proposed wells ................................. 149
Table 7.6 - PCSB standard drilling fluid system ................................................................... 152
Table 7.7 - Drilling fluid properties ....................................................................................... 152
Table 7.8 - Required cement volume ..................................................................................... 153
Table 7.9 - BOP standard (surface stack) .............................................................................. 154
Table 7.10 - Drilling time and cost summary ........................................................................ 156
Table 8.1 - Production forecast for Gelama Merah ............................................................... 162
Table 8.2 - Reservoir fluid properties for Gelama Merah ..................................................... 163
Table 8.3 - CAPEX for jacket facilities for Gelama Merah .................................................. 181
Table 8.4 - Comparison of CAPEX for different options ...................................................... 182
Table 8.5 - Operating cost for Gelama Merah platform ........................................................ 182
xiii

Table 9.1 - Proposed Gelama Merah production scenario ..................................................... 184


Table 9.2 - Summary of development costs........................................................................... 186
Table 9.3 - Fiscal terms for PSC 1985 ................................................................................... 187
Table 9.4 Sensitivity manipulation (+/- 40%) results for four main parameters (USD million)
................................................................................................................................................ 192
Table 9.5 summary of economic analysis of Gelama Merah field ........................................ 193
Table 10.1 - Risk comparison between installation and decommissioning process .............. 201
Table C.1 - Summary of case studies..................................................................................... 223
Table C.2 - Case study for WAG ........................................................................................... 224
Table D.1 - Advantages and disadvantages of cased hole and open hole completion........... 230
Table E.1 - Prognosed formation pressure and plan mud weight .......................................... 238
Table E.2 - Drilling Days ....................................................................................................... 258
Table E.3 - Drilling cost......................................................................................................... 259

xiv

ABBREVIATIONS

API
ASP
BHP
BOP
BUR
CAPEX
CCE
CPP
CWD
DLL
DST
DV
EMW
EOR
EUR
FBU
FPSO
FSO
GIIP
GOC
GOR
GR
GRV
HSE
HTGC
ID
IFT
IPR
KCl
KOP
LCOT
LWD
MD
MDT
MLL
MOPU
MWD
NGA
OBM

American Petroleum Institute


alkaline surfactant polymer
bottom hole pressure
blowout preventer
build up rate
capital expenditure
constant composition expension
central processing platform
casing while drilling
Deep lateral log
Drill stem test
differential vaporization test
equivalent mud weight
enhanced oil recovery
expected ultimate recovery
flowing and build up
floating, production, storage and offloading vessel
floating, storage and offloading vessel
gas initial in place
gas oil contact
gas oil ratio
gamma ray
gross rock volume
health, safety and environment
high temperature gas chromatography
inner diameter
interfacial tension
inflow performance relationship
potassium chloride
kick off point
Labuan Crude Oil Terminal
logging while drilling
measured depth
modular formation dynamic tester
Micro lateral log
mobile offshore production unit
measurement while drilling
natural gas analyzer
oil based mud
xv

OD
OIIP
OPEX
PDC
PDO
PHPA
PRSS
PTS
PV
PVT
QC
RF
RFT
SBM
SCAL
STOIIP
TAPR
THP
TOL
TOT
TVD
TVDRKB
UBD
VRR
WAG
WOC
WWR

outer diameter
oil initial in place
operating expenditure
polycrystalline diamond compact
PETRONAS Procedures for Drilling Operation
partially hydrolysed polyacrylamide
PETRONAS Research & Scientific Services Sdn. Bhd.
PETRONAS Technical Standard
pore volume
pressure, volume and temperature
quality check
recovery factor
repeat formation tester
synthetic based mud
special core analysis
stock tank oil in place
tender assisted platform
tubing head pressure
top of lead
top of tail
true vertical depth
true vertical depth rotary kelly busher
underbalance drilling
voidage replacement rate
water alternating gas
water oil contact
wire wrapped screens

xvi

NOMENCLATURES
b
d
eff
n
VSH
Swirr
Rw
m
n
Rt
Vclay
Pcr
Pcl
r
l
Swn
Swc

bulk density (g/cc)


density porosity
effective porosity
neutron porosity (v/v)
shale volume
irreducible water saturation
water saturation
cementation factor
saturation factor
true resistivity
clay volume
capillary pressure in reservoir condition
capillary pressure in laboratory condition
interfacial tension in reservoir system (dyne/cm)2
interfacial tension in laboratory system (dyne/cm)2
normalized drainage water saturation
connate water saturation

xvii

Chapter 1 :

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Project


Gelama Merah is located in Sub-Block 6S-18 of Sabah Basin at the North-West region. This
field is located at Latitude: 050 33 49.98N and Longitude: 1140 59 06.34E which is
approximately 10.5 km East to Semarang field. Gelama Merah is operated by PETRONAS
Carigali Sdn Bhd. Two exploration wells had been drilled in Gelama Merah structure which
is GM-1 and GM 1ST-1 to collect geological, petrophysical and reservoir data for the field
development. The water depth is 42.8 meter (from the mean sea level to the sea bed).

The depositional environment was interpreted as Shallow Marine Lower Coastal Plain to
Coastal Plain with average porosity of 20-30%. The target reservoir is below Stage IVC
Middle Miocene Unconformity to the top of 9.3 unit sand. The depositional is from SouthEast to North-West and the age is Middle Miocene. The source rock in this region is vicinity
with large N-trending Labuan Paisley Syncline.

Figure 1.1 - Location of the Block 6S-18

1.2 Problem Statement


The Gelama Merah field was discovered in 2002. There are two exploration wells that
provide the information about the field. With the time constraint, limited data and large
number of uncertainties, the determination of the best field development plan has been
considered a challenging task. Further information is required in order to reduce risk.

The FDP report should cover all aspects of field development which are as following:
Phase I

: Geology & Geophysics and Petrophysics

Phase II

: Reservoir Engineering

Phase III

: Drilling Engineering, Production Technology, Facilities Engineering


and Project Economics

Phase IV

: Sustainable Development and Health, Safety, & Environment

A dataset for Gelama Merah field are given which includes:

Well log data for GM-1 and GM-1 ST-1

Well deviation survey for GM-1 and GM-1 ST-1

Surface contour map for GM-1 and GM-1 ST-1

Well marker depth for GM-1 and GM-1 ST-1

Core data GP-1 and GM-2 ST-1

PVT fluid data for GM-1

MDT/RFT data for GM-1

Well test data for GM-1

Well drilling data for GM-1 and GM-1 ST-1

Seismic data were not provided as part of the data acquisition. This will be one the cause of
uncertainties especially in geology development phase as seismic control is important in
interpreting important structural features. In addition, the core analysis data is not from GM-1
or GM 1ST-1 well which increase the uncertainties of the project.

1.3 Objectives
The objective of the Gelama Merah Field Development Project (FDP) is to carry out a
technical and economics study of the proposed development utilizing the latest technology,
economics and environmental element. Objectives in formulating the best, possible FDP will
include the following:

Maximizing economic return

Maximizing recoverable hydrocarbons

Maximizing hydrocarbon production

Compliance with health, safety and environment requirements

Providing recommendations in reducing risks and uncertainties

Providing sustainable development options

The ultimate objective to come up with technically and economically viable development
plan to maximize return to operator within the stipulated schedule. The development strategy
must satisfy the needs of high-level management in making decision of the proposed
development for Gelama Merah field.

1.4 Scope of Work


The general scope of works for the Gelama Merah Field Development Project is:

To determine the Gross Rock volume, Net to Gross (NTG), porosity and saturation
distribution profile, types of fluids and their contacts, Stock Tank Oil Initially in Place
(STOIIP) and Gas Initially in Place (GIIP).

To develop the static model of Gelama Merah Field.

To prepare a dynamic model and perform simulation to achieve highest recovery


factor (RF) and economic return of the field.

To prepare well completion design and propose a drilling program.

To propose the most feasible and economical facilities.

To perform economic evaluation and sensitivity analysis for all development stages
and options.

To ensure the FDP is in compliance with national regulation and HSE requirements.
3

1.5 Gantt Chart

No
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14

Task Name
FDP Kick-off and Data Handover
GnG & Petrophysics
Interim Oral Presentation
Reservoir Engineering
Production Technology
Drilling & Completion
Facilities Engineering
Economics
Sustainable Development
HSE
Final Report Submission
Final Oral Presentation

Start

Finish

9/2/2011
9/2/2011
4/3/2011
4/3/2011
16/3/2011
16/3/2011
16/3/2011
1/4/2011
12/4/2011
12/4/2011
22/4/2011
3/5/2011

9/2/2011
3/3/2011
4/3/2011
11/4/2011
11/4/2011
11/4/2011
11/4/2011
11/4/2011
19/4/2011
19/4/2011
22/4/2011
3/5/2011

Feb 2011
13
20
27

March 2011
13
20
27

Figure 1.2 - The work schedule of Gelama Merah Field Development Project

April 2011
10
17
24

May 11
1
8

1.6 Project Team


The Group 4 team has 10 members who are assigned to come out with a final report on the
Field Development Plan for Gelama Merah. The followings are the full name of the team
members and the organizational structure is presented in Error! Reference source not
found..

Muhammad Aiman Bin Jamaluddin (Team leader)

Muhamad Ridzuan Bin Shaedin

Izzuddin Bin Jamaludin

Muhammad Hafizzudin Bin Abdul Wahid

Wan Mohd Shafie Bin Wan Ibrahim

Nurul Fathiah Binti Mohammad

Hudzaifah Bin Zol Hamidy

Nurul Syafiqa Binti Abdul Wahab

Zairul Zahha Bin Zabidi

Faridzul Rusyidee Bin Ibrahim

A total of 11 weeks were allocated for the project. The project was initiated in 9 February
2011 and the team managed to complete the FDP by 21 April, 2011 as shown in the work
schedule in Figure 1.2.

TEAM LEADER
Aiman

PHASE I

Geology
Leader:
Shafie
Members:
Hafizzudin
Fathiah
Syafiqa

Petrophysics
Leader:
Ridzuan
Members:
Izzuddin
Zahha
Aiman

PHASE II

Reservoir
Eng
Leader:
Aiman
Members:
Rusyidee
Hudzaifah
Ridzuan

PHASE III

PHASE IV

Leader:
Zahha
Members:
Shafie
Hafizzudin

Production
Tech
Leader:
Syafiqa
Members:
Ridzuan
Fathiah

Facilities Eng

Economics

Drilling & Completion

Leader:
Hudzaifah
Members:
Rusyidee
Aiman
Figure 1.3 Organization chart of Group 4

Leader:
Izzuddin
Members:
Hafizzudin
Ridzuan

Sustainable Development
Leader:
Rusyidee
Member:
Hafizzudin

HSE
Leader:
Fathiah
Member:
Hafizzudin

Chapter 2 :

DATA INVENTORY AND QUALITY CONTROL

2.1 Introduction
Before coming up with a strategic planning to develop Gelama Merah field, a systematic data
inventory was created to ensure all the resources and information are fully utilized and
maximized in each of the development phases in consideration of the uncertainties and risk
that will be undertaken based on the data that is available.

2.2 Workflow
Below described the workflow in setting up the data inventory undertaken by the
development team:

Figure 2.1 - Workflow

2.2.1 Data Acquisition and Sorting


All the data that were given are coming from the exploration and appraisal wells of Gelama
Merah Field; Gelama Merah-1, Gelama Merah-1 ST-1, Gelama Putih-1, and Gelama Merah-2
8

ST-1. Data were sorted according to the wells and sand units for checklist and inventory
setup. Raw and processed data are separated for quality checking and development teams
interpretation and processing.

2.2.2 Data Checklist and Inventory Setup


Table 2.1 - Data Checklist

Seismic Data
Well Log Data
Well Deviation Survey
Surface Contour Map
Well Marker Depth
Core Data
PVT Fluid Data
MDT/RFT Data
Well Test Data
Well Drilling Data

Gelama
Merah-1

Gelama
Merah 1ST-1

Gelama
Putih-1

Gelama Merah
2ST-1

Seismic data were not provided as part of the data acquisition. This will be one the cause of
uncertainties especially in Geology development phase as seismic control is important in
interpreting important structural features for instance fault, unconformity, and anticline
features. Nevertheless, these uncertainties will be further discussed later.

Since the team was provided with very limited data, risk and uncertainties are heavily
focused throughout the development phase, by considering the worst case scenario, and at the
same coming up with the proposed geological structure and anticipated production profile
which are solely based on the information that were given at present time.

In detail, data that were obtained from the acquisition phase are as followed:

Well Log Data


Gamma Ray, SP Log, Neutron Log, Neutron Density Log, Resistivity Log,
Caliper Log

Deviation Survey
Well Trajectories, Well Coordinates

Surface Contour Map


Well Marker, Well Position, Sand Area and Thickness, Contour Lines

Core Data (Special Core Analysis SCAL)


Horizontal Porosity and Permeability, Capillary Pressure (Mercury Capillary
Injection Pressure), Formation Resistivity Measurement, Relative Permeability,
Rock Compressibility

PVT Fluid Studies


Constant Compaction Experiment, Differential Liberation Experiment, Multistage Separator Test, Gas Chromatography

Modular Dynamic Tester/Repeat Formation Test Data


Fluid Pressure Gradient, Fluid Contacts

Well Test Data


Zonal Permeability, Boundary/ Drive Mechanism Identification, Hydrocarbon
Fluid Contacts, Skin Factor

Well Drilling Data


Rock Cuttings, Mud Program, Casing Setup, Drill Stem Test, Well Completion
Diagram

The list above only described in general the data that were available for interpretation and
integration for Gelama Merah field development. Each development phases will be
describing further how the data is processed and utilized.

2.2.3 Data Digitizing


Data which is useful in the development phases which are either in written report and
important images are digitized and extracted as part of the data inventory. From the data
acquisition, the written reports contain valuable information regarding Gelama Merah field
thus it is digitized to help the development team in further reducing the uncertainties as well
as constructing the model that best describe Gelama Merah reservoir by taking into
consideration all the data that were available.

10

2.2.4 Data Quality Check


Data accuracy and reliability are important to ensure all the interpretation are done correctly,
truthfully, because in field development , data transfer between development phases happens
frequently, thus if the data is initially wrong or inaccurate, thus it will jeopardize the whole
development planning. The goal of quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) is to
identify and implement sampling and analytical methodologies which limit the introduction
of error into analytical data for instance logging data where later in petro physical modeling;
an intensive interpretation will be carried out. This is one of the important stages in reducing
the uncertainties which will be carried forward in the development phases. These two
methods below are used for Gelama Merah field data quality control.

Data Verification
Data verification ensures that the requirements stated in the planned data
acquisition are implemented as prescribed.

This means that deficiencies or

problems that occur during implementation should be documented and reported to


show the degree of errors or uncertainties and doubt related to the data being
obtained. Corrective actions undertaken should be reviewed for adequacy and
appropriateness and documented in response to the data acquisition. These
assessments may include but are not limited to inspections, QC checks,
surveillance, technical reviews, performance evaluations, and audits. To ensure
that conditions requiring corrective actions are identified and addressed promptly,
data verification activities should be initiated as part of data collection.

Data Validation
Validation activities ensure that the results of data collection fulfils the
requirement as per needed. The data once validated, the data usability is checked
where it is process of ensuring or determining whether the quality of the data
produced meets the intended use of the data. Corrective actions may improve data
quality and reduce uncertainty, and may eliminate the need to qualify or reject
data.

All in all, the key criteria that our development team focused on the data being obtained:

Accuracy

Precision

Completeness
11

Portability

Credibility

Specific data quality control will be explained in details according to each development
phases that will be discussed in this report. This to ensure that the risk and uncertainties
involved in the data are inter-related and well described and illustrated in any of the
interpretation and findings that has been made.

12

Chapter 3 :

GEOLOGY & GEOPHYSICS

3.1 2-Dimensional Cross Imaging


Surface map consist of contour line which indicate the depth of the area from top view.
Contour lines connect a series of points of equal elevation and are used to illustrate relief on a
map. For instance, numerous contour lines which are close to one another show hilly or
mountainous terrain while in apart, they indicate a gentler slope. The depth range that plotted
on the top map is within 1300-1800 m. There are a total of 10 layers of surface map which
are U3.2, U4.0, U5.0, U6.0, U7.0, U8.0, U9.0, U9.1, U9.2 and U10.0. The maps were scaled
as 1:233 m which is in A4 sizes. For conventional cross section imaging, an identical scale of
horizontal and vertical are recommended (where the vertical exaggeration is 1) as shown
below.

Vertical Exaggeration (VE) =

the value of one unit of measurement on the Horizontal (Map) Scale


the value of the same unit of measurement on the Vertical z

= 1:233 m =

1:233 m

Figure 3.1 - Surface map for Unit U3.2

13

From the surface map, the depth cross section was drawn to visualize the contour line in two
dimensional views. The horizontal and vertical cross sections were both plotted using
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. On the x-axis is given for the width (horizontal and vertical)
while the y-axis indicates the thickness of each zone.

There are 3 possible geological features that had been done during structural correlation
workflow before drawing the depth of the cross section. This method was done by drawing
the initial predictions. Theses geological features are based on the contour map and
geological information that had been interpreted in two dimensions (2-D). Figure 3.2 below
shows the possible geological features.

Anticline structure
Anticline with fault
structure

Anticline with eroded surfaces (Unconformity) structure


Figure 3.2 - Possible geological features

In Figure 3.3, the well trajectory was developed using the Measurement While Drilling
(MWD) data, where the angle, direction, true vertical depth (TVD), N/S departure and E/W
departure were already given. The Water Oil Contact (WOC) is found to be at 1502 m TVDss
while the Gas Oil Contact (GOC) is at 1468 m TVDss. The two points of well given in the
surface maps are constant in scale for every maps, indicating that the points given are in TVD
for both the wells.

The distance between both of the wells are calculated to be approximately 600 m, calculated
using simple Pythagoras rule where the hypotenuse of the curve should be lesser than 1774.6
14

m (as this is a curved, not a straight line) and having the TVD value of 1580 m. Therefore,
the x and y axis scale both indicate the coordinate of the location in term of meters. From the
3 plots, we can see that there is no minor or major fault detected. The zones from U3.2 to
U.9.2 can be seen truncated as the top layers were slightly eroded. Zone U10.0 from the
figures is set to be the base reservoir which confines the boundary of the reservoir.

The horizontal cross section for Gelama Merah-1 and ST-1 in Figure 3.3 had been confirmed
and approved by static model of this field. The static model had been done based on the
contour map from each sand unit (U3.2 to U.9.2). Figure 3.5 shows the static model which is
the same as the horizontal cross section that had been done.

15

Horizontal C ros s S ec tion G M-1 S T -1 & G M-1


L eng th
274500

275000

275500

276000

276500

277000

277500

278000

278500

279000

279500

1250
1300
Unit 4.0

1350

Unit 4.3
1400

Unit 5.0

1450

Unit 6.0
Unit 7.0

Dep th

1500

Unit 8.0
Unit 9.0

1550

Unit 9.2
1600

Unit 9.1
Unit 3.2

1650
1700
1750
1800
1850
Figure 3.3 - Spreadsheet of horizontal cross section for Gelama Merah 1 and ST-1

16

P res s ure G radient

All units
274500

275000

275500

276000

276500

277000

277500

278000

278500

279000

279500

1250
1300
1350

Unit 4.0
Unit 4.3
Unit 5.0
Unit 6.0
Unit 7.0
Unit 8.0
Unit 9.0
Unit 9.2
Unit 9.1
Unit 3.2

1400
1450
1500
1550

GOC
OWC

1600
1650
1700
1750

F orma tion P re ssure (psia )

1800
1850

P res s ure G radient


All units

2080.0 2100.0 2120.0 2140.0 2160.0 2180.0 2200.0 2220.0 2240.0 2260.0
274500

m T V DR K B (R K B = 27.3m )

m T V DR K B (R K B = 27.3m )

2080.0 2100.0 2120.0 2140.0 2160.0 2180.0 2200.0 2220.0 2240.0 2260.0
1250.0
1300.0
1350.0
1400.0
1450.0
1500.0
1550.0
1600.0
1650.0
1700.0
1750.0
1800.0
1850.0

1250.0
1300.0
1350.0
1400.0
1450.0
1500.0
1550.0
1600.0
1650.0
1700.0
1750.0
1800.0
1850.0

275000

275500

276000

276500

277000

277500

278000

278500

279000

279500

1250
1300
1350
1400
1450
1500 GOC

OWC

1550
1600
1650
1700
1750
1800
1850

Unit 4.0
Unit 4.3
Unit 5.0
Unit 6.0
Unit 7.0
Unit 8.0
Unit 9.0
Unit 9.2
Unit 9.1
Unit 3.2

F orma tion P ressure (psia )

Figure 3.4 - OWC and GOC determination using pressure gradient plot

17

Figure 3.5 - 3-Dimensional (3-D) Static Model

18

From the structural correlation, the structure was affected by syncline anticline regimes that
act as hydrocarbon trap. Therefore, the geological structure was anticline structure in which
the other limb has been eroded. There are two types of the horizon surfaces through unit sand
U3.2 to U9.2 that had been analyzed. From the unit sand U3.2Top until unit sand U8.0Top,
the horizon surface type is erosion. Other unit sand (U9.0Top to U10Top), the horizon
surface type is conformable. Figure 3.6 shows the anticline structure with eroded surfaces
(unconformity) structure.

Eroded surface

Uplifting due
to tectonic
movement

Figure 3.6 - The anticline structure with eroded surfaces (unconformity) structure

3.2 Stratigraphic Correlation


The correlation is done across well Gelama Merah-1 (GM-1) to well Gelama Merah-1 ST1
(GM-1 ST1). Top and base sand unit correlation data are given for GM-1 and GM-1 ST1.
Quality check of gamma ray log response is being used in order to identify the lithology of
the formation. Sand and shale unit identification is done using quick look method. Figure 3.7
shows the summary of lithology interpretation for GM-1 and GM-1 ST1.

Top and base sand unit correlation is based on the sand and shale identification from gamma
ray log. The unit U3.2 to unit U8.0 are identified from well GM-1 but not in GM-ST1. From
the cross section, it showed that these zones are truncated. Therefore, the marker for this
correlation is the top unit U9.0 marker. The unconformity is observed at 1406 m TVDSS in
the GM-1 ST1 and at the depth of 1301 m TVDss in GM-1. Unit U3.2 to unit U8.0 are absent
19

in the GM-1 ST1 due to the erosion which result in the unconformity. The pinch outs of unit
U3.2 to unit U8.0 are due to the deposition seasons. Units U9.2 to unit U9.0 are dipping to
the east, while the younger units above unit U9.0 appear to be horizontal in the log but in
reality they are tilted at lower angle than the older units. Figure 3.8 illustrates the
stratigraphic correlation from sand and shale distribution from the log response.
GM-1ST1
GM-1
GR: High (radioactive
formation)-indicate shale.

Top 3.2

Base 3.2
Top 4.0

GR: High (radioactive


formation) - indicate
shale.

Base 4.0
Top 5.0
Base 5.0
Top 6.0
Base 6.0
Top 7.0

GR: Irregular readings


(low & high)-indicate
sand formation
interbedding with shale
layers.

Base 7.0
Top 8.0

GR: Irregular readings


(low & high) - indicate
sand formation
interbedding with shale
layers.

Top 9.0
Base 9.0
Top 9.1

Base 8.0
Top 9.0

GR: Low (clean


formation) - indicate
sand formation.

Base 9.1
Top 9.2

GR: Low (clean


formation) indicate sand
formation.

Base 9.0
Top 9.1
Base 9.1
Top 9.2

Top 9.2

Base 9.2

Figure 3.7 - Well top correlations using Gamma ray log for GM-1 and GM-1 ST1

20

GR: Irregular readings


(low & high) - indicate
sand formation
interbedding with shale
layers.

Unconformity

From stratigraphic correlation, the


hydrocarbon trap can be anticline
structure which the other limb has
been eroded.

Anticline

Figure 3.8 - Stratigraphic correlation for GM-1 and GM-1 ST1

21

3.3 Regional Setting


Gelama Merah field is located at the Sabah Basin at the North-West region. Based on
research on offshore Sabah Basin, it was believed that the field lies in the West LabuanPaisley Syncline and characterized by a major North-South growth Morris Fault which is the
major of tectonic importance. This field is located approximately 10.5 km East to Semarang
field as reported from the well exploration report. Initially there are three (3) offset wells;
Gelama Merah-1, Gelama Merah-2 and Gelama Kuning-1. Then Gelama Merah-1 was
changed to an exploration well including a new exploration well; Gelama Merah-1 ST1.

Gelama Merah-1 is located at the coordinates of:


i.

Latitude - 053349.98 N

ii.

Longitude - 1145906.34 E

The water depth is 42.8 meter (from the mean sea level to the sea bed).

Figure 3.9 - Regional aerial view of Gelama Merah field

The regional wrench fault was interpreted by Rice-Oxely (1991) and Tan and Lamy (1990)
which has marks the transition from the Inboard and Outboard Belts of the shelf region. It

22

had also indicated a high structural complexity, possibly confirming the interpreted wrench
mechanisms along this fault.

From regional geology studies, Gelama Merah field is located in the Southern Inboard Belt
(Ridge and Syncline Province) north of Glayzer Gas Field in Sabah State. This is the
innermost structural belt basin ward of the Crocker Fold-Thrust Belt. Gelama Merah is
believed to be deposited in the later part of Middle Miocene sands and has the depositional
environment of pro-grading delta and coastal complex. From overall view, the Inboard Belt
does not seem to continue onshore in northern Sabah although there are isolated outcrops of
Middle Miocene sediments which are probably equivalent to the sequences in the belt.

Figure 3.10 - Regional location of Northern and Southern Inboard Belt with major anticline and syncline structure

The northern and the southern segments of the Inboard Belt (Figure 3.10), both have
characteristic structural style of anticlines and wide deep synclines, are separated by the
northward-dipping Kinarut-Mangalum Fault and the Kinabalu Cumulation, which is a
basement high area underlain by a relatively shallow sub crop of the Crocker Fold-Thrust
Belt.

From the preliminary studies on the regional geology of the basin, it is to believed that
Gelama Merah field geological features will be mainly consist of anticline and syncline
structure, with possibility of fault and truncation between reservoir units as what been
displayed previously. The mentioned unconformity represents a major movement of the
23

Morris Fault and it is also found that the unconformity pointed out a drastic change in the
depositional environment, from deeper in the underlying interval (coastal) to shallower
coastal plain.

Figure 3.11 - Regional cross-section of Southern Inboard Belt

However geological interpretations of Gelama Merah will be based strictly on the data
available of which will limit our actual understanding of the reservoir. As what been
discussed in the first part of this report on Data Inventory Management chapter, identifying
faults and truncated structure will be difficult as we do not have any interpreted seismic data.
Thus, extrapolation of the sand unit areal extension and possibility of not been able to
incorporate faults in the static model will be look into detail in the risk and uncertainties
analyses.

3.4 Hydrocarbon Petroleum System


It is important to understand the petroleum system of Gelama Merah reservoir as it will be the
foundation of how actually the hydrocarbon fluid migrates and accumulates at the area we
plan to develop. However due to the unavailability of seismic lines and geo-chemistry
analysis of the rock, the explanation on the petroleum system will be based on the existing
interpretation of the data available at the present time.

Maturation
The Gelama Merah field is to be assumed as of the Miocene-Pliocene deltaic
accumulation at a convergent margin. Migration along the faults is probably a major
24

method of migration in unconformity layers due to erosion. Some migration through


sedimentary facies has presumably occurred, especially in an up dip direction. The
timing for the maturation is assumed to vary from Middle Miocene to present.

Source Rocks
The hydrocarbons estimated in Sabah Basin are essentially very similar in
composition and is predicted to have originated from source rock which are rich in
terrigenious organic matter as what been described in nearby reservoirs along the
Sabahan Basin. No discrete rich source of rock layers are identified or known,
however the organics are probably concentrated in the marine compact intervals due
to the understanding of the depositional environment of Gelama Merah field.

Reservoir Rocks
Reservoir rocks for the Gelama Merah field consist of inter-bedded sandstone and
mudstone with non-reservoir formation of thin shales. Clean sand formations are only
identified to be in sand unit 9.0 and 9.1, whereas it is shales sand on the interpreted
sand unit 3.2 8.0.

Reservoir Fluid Distribution and Fluid Contacts


Sand unit 3.2 until 8.0 are mainly gas zone reservoirs, with sand units 9.0 until 9.2 are
oil zone reservoirs. Fluid contacts are determined from the log response and MDT test
with Gas-Oil Contact to be 1467 m-TVDss and Water-Oil Contact to be 1507 mTVDss. However from the log responses and J-function generated to populate the
saturation profile, we concluded Gelama Merah reservoir to have around 15 to 20
metres of oil-gas transition zone, as we can see oil traces from the log responses in the
gas zone reservoir.

Traps and Seals


For Gelama Merah, the formation is of anticline features, either from growth faulting
or anticline features associated with tectonics. Presumably there are also stratigraphic
traps unrelated to anticline features as the unconformity trapping mechanism that
traps the hydrocarbons in our units of interest. The proposed static model will be
without any fault features, however we do consider other geological scenarios by

25

integrating a synthetic (dummy) fault and major sand discontinuity as part of the traps
and seals for our hydrocarbon. This will be reflected in the volumetric and forecasted
production profile.

3.5 Depositional Environment and Facies Analysis


Before the static model is generated, it is crucial to identify the depositional environment of
the zone of interest. For Gelama Merah, the depositional is dominated by the deltaic
environment (see Figure 3.12). Based on core data, a less considerable variation in grain size
and sorting was observed within the sand body contained in the units of interest.

Figure 3.12 - Gelama Merah depositional environment model

Geophysical logs show porosity distribution in the reservoir because it is commonly of


secondary origin, little correlation exist between log response and original facies. In
sandstone, porosity is mainly of primary origin. Studies of the modern depositional
environments show that sediment are deposited with characteristic of vertical profiles of grain
size. For example, channels often fining upward, from a basal; conglomerate, via sand, to silt,
to clay. Moreover, prograding deltas deposition show a coarsening upward-grain size profiles
(see Figure 3.13). Grain size profiles may thus be used in facies analysis.

26

Figure 3.13 - Sand deposition is from high energy storm generated breaker bar at upper shore face on top, moderate
energy lower shoreface at middle and low energy environment at base sand shows trending coarsening upward
sequence

Both SP and Gamma logs indicate grain size profiles in sandshale sequences. The deflection
on the SP is locally controlled by permeability, with the maximum leftward deflection
occurring in the most permeable interval. Permeability increases with grain size. Hence, the
SP log generally a vertical grain size log in mostly cemented sand-shale section.

The Gamma log can be used in the similar way. Clay content will have high radioactive
mineral, such as glauconite, mica, and zircon (Rider, 1990). Grain size will affects the clay
contents in opposite relation which is clay content of sands increases with the declining grain
size. This analysis is used in Gelama Merah.

Gamma Log and SP log often shows three basic motifs:


i. Sands that gradually fining upward from sharp base (bell motifs)
ii. Sands that gradually coarsening upwards towards a sharp top (funnel motifs)
iii. Clean sand with sharp upper and lower boundaries (boxcar, or blocky motifs)

From the log, the interested zones reveal boxcar and funnel motif/pattern. This indicates the
delta distributaries channel. Further analyses require the combination of other log profile with

27

compositional well profiles and samples. More accurate interpretation of environment can be
attempted.

From the GR log, the depositional environment can be divided into three regions:
Region

Description

Depositional Environment

Upper Region

The repeating bell shape indicating the Fluvial /deltaic channel

(U3.2 U6.0)

existence of shaly sand. No clear


boundaries can be identified at the
sand zone. Sand are fining upward

Middle Region

The steep increment of GR creating Delta distributary channel

(U 7.0 U 9.1)

the boxcar shape, indicating the


appearance of clean sand where the
boundaries are totally clear.

Lower Region
(U9.1)

Funnel motive indicates the sand is Prograding delta / crevasse


coarsening upward.

splay

Coarsening upward pattern from Gamma rays reading shows that the Stage IVC clastics
were possibly deposited by shallow marine at the lower coastal plain setting, precisely at
fluvial-dominated delta depositional environment (Johnson et al.,1989).The reservoir is
deposited at river mouth with little redistribution by shallow marine processes. Single river
build digitate or lobate deltas, while prograding braid plains build a broad coast-parallel front
(see Figure 3.14).

The channel sands have different thickness, (around 5 m to 15 m). The typical channel sands
have the coarsest grain size and poorer sorting occurs in the lower part of the channel which
is observed in Gelama Merah-1 well. The sand is interbedded with shale indicates different
seasons of deposition. Before the abandonment of the channel, facies were covered by shale
stone as can be seen in the log.

28

Figure 3.14 - Depositional environment is shallow marine with wave influence of lower coastal plain high stand,
prograding delta to coastal sediment.

In the region termed the middle shoreface, the wave action is more distinct. This is the region
in which longshore bars developed. These are structures which are formed when the
shoreward drag off the wave base and the backwashes of the breakers are balanced. These are
characterized by well-sorted, medium to fine grained sands and shell hash. The upper
shoreface, also called the surf zone, is dramatically affected by wave-driven longshore
currents but more so by the plunging effect of breaking waves.

From the Gelama-2 ST1 core data, it can be seen that the zone beyond the unconformity is
shale interlaminated with sand. Shale in the Gelama Merah field reservoir is hard to fairly
hard, well compacted, finely fissile, micromicaceious, smoothly sloppy. Besides, in the cores
examined, they also exhibit cross bedded layers of sand and conglomerate with shaly sand.
The regional tilting of the basin north westwards and the basin ward migration of the hinge
lines that separate unconformities from the correlative conformities can also be evident for
the fluvial dominated deltaic environment.

Sands and silts come from a variety of sources. Inflow from inland erosional events provide
the bulk of the sediments, with some help from erosion just offshore on now submerged
terrain features which in the geologically recent past were exposed to aerial erosion. The real

29

operative agent of sand and silt development is the constant reworking of these sediments
through continual movement by wave action.

There are also basic characteristics which can be used to cross-reference with the Gelama
Merah core analysis report. Some of the characteristics of shallow marine with storm
influence setting are; sand may be silicieous or silicate or may be calereous if there is enough
carbonate production. Coarse-grained storm layers are commonly thin layers consisting of
concentrations of coarse grains interlayer or embedded in finer-grained muds. The occurrence
of silt grains- signifies that oxic/dysoxic water from the shallow-marine realm was
transported into the deepest parts of the basin.

From the lithology point of view, there is mainly composed of mainly sand and mud, with
some gravel. Mineralogy of the sand consists of mature quartz and shaly sands. Grains are
generally moderately to well sorted with the colour of the grains are often pale yellow to
brown sands or grey sands and mud.

Based on these general characteristics, it is suggested the reservoir depositional environments


as shallow marine with storm influence, which is consistent with the sedimentary features
described based on lithological summary of Gelama Merah-1 in Gelama Merah core analysis
report. It is interpreted as a prograding event, shallow marine sand with continuous shale
package.

3.6 3-Dimensional (3D) Static Model (Roxars IRAP RMS)

3.6.1 General Description


To predict and forecast the production profile and the reservoir performance, it is important
to create a static model with all the necessary geological features which integrates all the
interpretation and information available to the reservoir, in such away the reservoir behavior
can be predicted accurately. The static model implies the three-dimensional structure of the
reservoir zones based on the surface contoured from surface maps, lithologies correlated from
log readings and also facies based on depositional environment.

30

Surface Contour Map Digitizing

Import Well Data

Horizon Modeling and Well Picks

Gridding Design and Framework

Petrophysical Modeling

Volumetric Calculations
Figure 3.15 - Procedures in developing Gelama Merah static model

3.6.2 Surface Contour Map Digitizing


The Gelama Merah areas are modeled using surface maps imported into Roxars Irap-RMS.
They are defined for the same value of X-axis value from 274000 to 280000 meter east, and
for Y-axis value from 614000 to 617000 meter north. This approximates to a perimeter of
investigation at 6000 meter from west to east and 3000 meter from north to south. The
contour maps are firstly digitized using Surfer application to 3D points of each contour line.
The digitized contour points are imported into RMS to create 3D maps of each sand unit.

Figure 3.16 - Digitized contour points and 3D contour map

31

3.6.3 Import Well Data


Well trajectories and deviation surveys are imported to RMS to ensure the location of the
wells are consistent with the contour map surfaces. Along with the trajectories, log data are
also included for petrophysical analysis later in populating the reservoir properties. Gelama
Merah-1 and Gelama Merah-1 ST1 are the only two wells available.

3.6.4 Horizon Modeling


Once all the contour maps are digitized, it is necessary to set up our stratigraphic framework.
This can only be done once horizon surfaces are extracted from the surface maps. Well picks
or well markers indicating the top and base sand units are defined for both Gelama Merah-1
and Gelama-1 ST1. This marker depth will be the reference point for us to extract the horizon
surfaces from the surface contour maps. Vertical structure of Gelama Merah reservoir can be
seen at this stage from top base sand unit 3.2.

Figure 3.17 - Well picks and 3D contour map

3.6.5 Petrophysical Modelling


Petrophysical modelling is done to populate the reservoir properties based on the log
responses and core data. From the two wells, properties like porosity, water saturation, and
permeability can be populated according to the grid cells and sand units. A more detailed
analysis on petrophysical will be discussed in the following sections.
32

3.7 Volumetric Calculation

3.7.1 Reservoir Evaluation


The volume of hydrocarbons in a reservoir can be calculated:
1.

Directly by volumetric methods

2.

Indirectly by material balance methods

Volumetric provide a static measure of oil or gas in place. Accuracy of volumetrics depends
on data for porosity, net thickness, areal extent and hydrocarbon saturations.

Material balance methods provide a dynamic measure of hydrocarbon volumes. Accuracy


depends on quality of data for pressure surveys, temperature surveys and analysis of
recovered fluids. Normally mass balance methods increase in accuracy as the reservoir is
produced.

3.7.2 Gross Rock Volume


The area of each layer can be calculated from 2 methods, which are by using a planimeter to
estimate the area of the top and the base layer from contour map and manually counting the
area of grid squares. Then, the GRV is calculated from 2 rules which are Trapezoidal Rule
and Simpsons Rule. Based on the area calculated from each method and then the GRV
calculated from each rule, the average of GRV for each layer has calculated to estimate the
Stock Tank Oil Initially in Place (STOIIP) and Gas Initially in Place (GIIP).

33

Figure 3.18 - Area calculated by planimeter and grid square counting

For the trapezoidal rule with a contour interval, h, and where hn is z-distance from the top
contour to the crest of the reservoir:
h

V = 2 [Ao + 2A1 + 2A2 + ...+ 2An-1 + An] + 2 n.An


Using Simpson's rule with a contour interval, h, and an even number of intervals (odd number
of lines):
h

V = 2 [Ao + 4A1 + 2A2+ ... + 2An-2 + 4An-1 + An] + 2 n.An

34

Table 3.1 - Measured area using planimeter and grid square counting for gas zone

GAS ZONE
Planimeter
Layer

Thickness,h
(m)

h/2
(m)

WOC Area
(m2)

Base Area
(m2)

Top Area,
A2 (m2)

Ao

A1

2A1 (m2)

4A1 (m2)

2A2 (m2)

Vol
(trapezoidal)

Vol
(Simpson's
rule)

Average GRV

U3.2

22.31

11.16

8159685.00

192434.91

87900.09

7967250.09

104534.82

209069.64

418139.28

175800.18

93167897.60

95500069.43

94333983.51

U4.0

12.10

6.05

8221642.00

2340853.17

87877.14

5880788.83

2252976.03

4505952.06

9011904.12

175754.28

63903095.78

91164105.74

77533600.76

U5.0

7.32

3.66

8143598.40

5654383.56

111003.28

2489214.84

5543380.28

11086760.56

22173521.12

222006.56

50500613.97

91078157.62

70789385.80

U6.0

8.48

4.24

8300000.00

6207503.71

237725.06

2092496.29

5969778.65

11939557.30

23879114.60

475450.12

61511815.73

112135538.68

86823677.21

U7.0

27.44

13.72

8300000.00

6366310.66

294011.21

1933689.34

6072299.45

12144598.90

24289197.80

588022.42

201221782.26

367845679.16

284533730.71

U8.0

27.76

13.88

8300000.00

7174463.44

384161.94

1125536.56

6790301.50

13580603.00

27161206.00

768323.88

214785552.55

403284322.19

309034937.37

GAS ZONE
Grid square counting
Layer

Thickness,h
(m)

h/2
(m)

WOC Area
(m2)

Base Area
(m2)

Top Area,
A2 (m2)

Ao

A1

2A1 (m2)

4A1 (m2)

2A2 (m2)

Vol
(trapezoidal)

Vol
(Simpson's
rule)

Average GRV

U3.2

22.31

11.16

8135000.00

312400.00

94930.00

7822600.00

217470.00

434940.00

869880.00

189860.00

94230747.00

99082502.70

96656624.85

U4.0

12.10

6.05

8221000.00

960500.00

97860.00

7260500.00

862640.00

1725280.00

3450560.00

195720.00

55548075.00

65986019.00

60767047.00

U5.0

7.32

3.66

9319000.00

5530500.00

103720.00

3788500.00

5426780.00

10853560.00

21707120.00

207440.00

54349170.00

94073199.60

74211184.80

U6.0

8.48

4.24

9543000.00

5987300.00

153020.00

3555700.00

5834280.00

11668560.00

23337120.00

306040.00

65848472.00

115323166.40

90585819.20

U7.0

27.44

13.72

9566000.00

6392000.00

186960.00

3174000.00

6205040.00

12410080.00

24820160.00

373920.00

218943760.00

389210057.60

304076908.80

U8.0

27.76

13.88

9579000.00

7334000.00

202500.00

2245000.00

7131500.00

14263000.00

28526000.00

405000.00

234752440.00

432722880.00

333737660.00

35

Table 3.2 - Measured area using planimeter and grid square counting for oil zone

OIL ZONE
Planimeter
Layer

Thickness
(m)

h/2 (m)

WOC Area
(m2)

Base Area
(m2)

Top Area,
A2 (m2)

Ao

A1

2A1 (m2)

4A1 (m2)

2A2 (m2)

Vol
(trapezoidal)

Vol
(Simpson's
rule)

Average GRV

U9.0

21.23

10.62

6405409.10

4431236.98

1638917.30

1974172.12

2792319.68

5584639.36

11169278.72

3277834.60

115030998.14

174311944.95

144671471.54

U9.1

12.46

6.23

6360560.05

5882826.05

4674608.41

477734.00

1208217.64

2416435.28

4832870.56

9349216.82

76276295.40

91330687.20

83803491.30

OIL ZONE
Grid square counting
Layer

Thickness
(m)

h/2 (m)

WOC Area
(m2)

Base Area
(m2)

Top Area,
A2 (m2)

Ao

A1

2A1 (m2)

4A1 (m2)

2A2 (m2)

Vol
(trapezoidal)

Vol
(Simpson's
rule)

Average GRV

U9.0

21.23

10.62

5671000.00

3672000.00

2560000.00

1999000.00

1112000.00

2224000.00

4448000.00

5120000.00

149958105.00

122783705.00

136370905.00

U9.1

12.46

6.23

5672000.00

4358000.00

3965000.00

1314000.00

393000.00

786000.00

1572000.00

7930000.00

92085630.00

67383680.00

79734655.00

36

3.7.3 Volumetric Estimation Approach


The deterministic method was applied for the calculation of Gross Rock Volume (GRV) to
estimate Stock Tank Oil Initially in Place (STOIIP) and Gas Initially in Place (GIIP). The
calculation of the Stock Tank Oil Initially in Place (STOIIP) and Gas Initially in Place (GIIP)
is done using the following equations:

() 1
=

() 1
=

Where
STOIIP

= Stock Tank Oil Initially in Place (STB).

GIIP

= Gas Initially in Place (SCF)

GRV

= Gross Rock Volume (Acre-ft)

N
G

= net to gross fraction.

= porosity fraction.

Sw

= water saturation fraction.

Bo

= Oil Formation volume factor (RB/STB).

Bg

= Gas Formation volume factor (RCF/SCF).

3.7.4 Hydrocarbon in Place (HIP) Calculation


3.7.4.1 Deterministic Calculation
Based on the structural correlation, deterministic HIP calculation considered some possibility
of some case scenario that will happen. If the structure is anticline (best case), it will give
maximum values of Net to Gross (N/G), Porosity () and hydrocarbon saturation. For
discontinuous isolated sand structure (worse case) it will give minimum value of Net to Gross
37

(N/G) and hydrocarbon saturation. Meanwhile, if the structure is anticline with unconformity,
it will give median values of Net to Gross (N/G), Porosity (), and hydrocarbon saturation.

Table 3.3 - Minimum, median and maximum values of N/G, porosity, So and Bo

OIIP (MM STB)


Minimum

Median

Maximum

N/G

0.3

0.6

0.9

Porosity,

0.2

0.25

0.3

So

0.35

0.425

0.5

Bo

1.169

1.169

1.169

Table 3.4 - Minimum, median and maximum values of N/G, porosity, Sg and Bg

GIIP (Bscf)
Minimum

Median

Maximum

N/G

0.3

0.6

0.9

Porosity,

0.2

0.25

0.3

Sg

0.35

0.425

0.5

Bg

0.006

0.007

0.01

Table below shows the total estimation of OIIP and GIIP in this field based on the cases and
conditions stated above.

Table 3.5 - Total OIIP and GIIP

OIIP (MM STB)

TOTAL

GIIP (Bscf)

Minimum

Median

Maximum

Minimum

Median

Maximum

28.24

85.74

181.57

43.00

111.91

165.89

38

3.7.4.2 Probabilistic Calculation


To calculate the HIP using probabilistic approach, The Monte-carlo technique is used to
evaluate the hydrocarbons in place. Each of the parameters involved in the calculation of
reserves; the PVT properties and pore volume are represented by statistical distributions.

Depending on the number of cases (NC) chosen by the user, the program generates a series of
NC values of equal probability for each of the parameters used in the hydrocarbons in place
calculation. The NC values of each parameter are then cross-multiplied creating a
distribution of values for the hydrocarbons in place. The results are presented in the form of
a histogram. The following figure are the summary of the output of the simulation
software.

Figure 3.19 - Summary Results of Simulation

As can be seen from Figure 3.19 above, the probability of the STOIIP (U 5.0 U 9.2) to be
less than 84.164 MMSTB and GIIP less than 111.119 BSCF is 50%; Similarly, the
probability of the STOIIP to be less than 66.599 MMSTB and GIIP 60.763 BSCF is
90%, STOIIP to be less than 107.504 MM STB and GIIP 187.732 B SCF is 10%.

39

3.7.5 Hydrocarbon Contribution


The following chart show that the OIIP is contained in unit sand U9.0 and U9.1with the
percentage of oil. Furthermore, figure show the percentage of gas contained in unit sand from
U3.2 to U8.0.

Percentage of OIIP by layer

41%

U 9.0
U 9.1

59%

Figure 3.20 - OIIP contribution for each sand unit

Percentage of GIIP by layer


5%

8%

U3.2

24%

U 4.0
21%

U 5.0
U 6.0
U 7.0

21%
21%

Figure 3.21 - GIIP contribution for each sand unit

40

U 8.0

3.7.6 Static Model Volumetric Estimation

OOIP (MM STB)

GIIP (Bscf)

Min = 1475

88.11

100.45

Most Likely = 1495

86.56

109.65

Max = 1515

79.21

119.74

Structure

Anticline Continuous

98.22

123.81

Model

Anticline with Unconformity Trap

86.56

109.65

Compactional

75.43

82.52

Properties

Depositional

86.56

109.65

Trend

Simulated Log Water Saturation

65.32

76.31

J-Function Saturation

86.56

109.65

Fluid
Contacts
(GOC)

41

3.7.7 Hydrocarbon in Place by Static Model

Structural Model: Anticline with Unconformity Trap

Properties Distribution: Depositional Trend

Fluid Contacts: OWC = 1522m, GOC = 1495m

Water Saturation: J-Function Method

Table 3.6 - Sum of OIIP and GIIP

Zone
Below_U3.2

Sum of OIIP
289863.5

Sum of GIIP
331868320

Below_U3.2B

1029760

423782208

Below_U4.0

131397

125601832

Below_U4.0B

254735.5

132723344

Below_U5.0

22469.03

45091596

Below_U5.0B

254844.7

108168624

Below_U6.0

42578.7

31196946

Below_U6.0B

319459.9

83273944

Below_U7.0

175759

235317264

Below_U7.0B

888639.4

90477520

Below_U8.0

345256

159077968

Below_U8.0B

789566.8

285119904

Below_U9.0

2014962

224170624

Below_U9.0B

1228597

308539776

Below_U9.1

710251.2

132784592

Below_U9.1B

1669732

212087168

Below_U9.2

3609764

175665120

Selection (m3)

13777635

3104946688

86.56 MM STB

109.65 Bscf

42

3.8 Risk Analysis and Uncertainties

3.8.1 2-Dimensional Cross Imaging

3.8.1.1 Anticline structure with eroded surfaces (unconformity) structure and fault
Based from the preliminary studies, the geological region around Gelama Merah field is
heavily faulted. Thus, there is a high possibility for Gelama Merah to have faults and heavy
truncation in the structure. However, since we do not have seismic data, we cannot identify
and integrate any fault that can be capture in seismic interpretation. But, as part of risks and
uncertainties analysis, we created the uncertainty fault between the wells such as in Figure
3.22.

274500

275000

275500

276000

276500

277000

277500

278000

278500

279000

279500

1250
1300

F ault

1350
1400

Horst

Unit 4.0

1450

Graben

1500

Unit 5.0
Unit 6.0
Unit 7.0
Unit 8.0

1550

Unit 9.0
1600
1650

Unit 9.2

G M-S T-1

Unit 9.1

G M-1

Unit 3.2

1700
1750
1800
1850

Figure 3.22 - Anticline structure with eroded surfaces (unconformity) structure and fault

The fault occurred because of the upward stress tectonic movement and it cracked the
formation into two blocks which are the horst and graben blocks. This fault is a normal fault
because the graben block moved upward while the horst block moved downward.

43

3.8.1.2 Anticline structure


Other part of the risks and uncertainties analysis is the anticline structure. This is the initial
prediction in the geological structure. It was based on the first interpretation of the contour
map that had been given to us. The smooth contour line on the map had shown us to predict
the structure as continuous for all sand units (U3.2 to U9.2) such as in Figure 3.23. But the
actual geological structure is anticline structure with eroded surfaces (unconformity)
structure.

274500

275000

275500

276000

276500

277000

277500

278000

278500

279000

279500

1250
1300
1350
1400
Unit 4.0
1450

Unit 5.0
Unit 6.0

1500

Unit 7.0
Unit 8.0

1550

Unit 9.0
1600
1650

Unit 9.2

G M-S T-1

Unit 9.1

G M-1

Unit 3.2

1700
1750
1800
1850

Figure 3.23 - Anticline structure

Therefore, all the sand units are homogeneous throughout the structure. All part of the sand in
one unit sand has same pressure compare with the structure with eroded sand and fault.
Moreover, it is simple to calculate the volumetric of the hydrocarbon and to produce the
hydrocarbon without any geological structure restriction such as unconformity or fault.

44

3.8.2 Stratigraphic Correlation


The propose model is base on the extrapolation of sand unit which extent around 18km2. By
taken into account the two (2) exploration wells (GM-1 and GM-1 ST1) is around 500 m
only, the geological feature between GM-1 and GM-1 ST1 is not representative of the whole
structure. However due to the limited data, the propose model is best description of the data
interpreted. As part of risk and uncertainty analysis, stratigraphic correlation was also made
for other geological scenario. These were then digitized by creating a static model to
represent the different geological scenarios
3.8.2.1 Stratigraphic correlation for heavily faulted formation
Since Sabahan Basin is experiencing heavily faulted formation, we are considering that there
might be a probability of having this type of fault between both wells and the existence of
sand pockets at the upper of Gelama Merah-1 well such as in Figure 3.24.

Figure 3.24 - Stratigraphic correlation for heavily faulted formation

45

3.8.2.2 Stratigraphic correlation for sand pocket existence


Without seismic data also, we can assume that sand pockets are exist in the upper part, while
the lower consists of continuous sand layers that will appear in both well logs.

Figure 3.25 - Stratigraphic correlation for sand pocket existence

46

3.8.3 Volumetric Estimation Approach

3.8.3.1 Manual volumetric estimation


An increase or decrease in porosity as much as 0.05 porosity unit will definitely affect the
fluid in place up to 35 to 47% difference. Furthermore, an increase or decrease of oil/gas
saturation, / , as much as 0.075 will affect the fluid in place up to 5 to 7% difference. To
overcome this problem, we will consider the porosity and saturation as heterogeneous inside
the static model.
3.8.3.2 Volumetric estimation from static model
There are many uncertainties in volumetric calculation from the static model. One of them is
the fluid contacts which can affect as much as 3 to 5% difference in GIIP and OIIP. Besides
that, structural model such as anticline or anticline with unconformity stratigraphic showed a
significant change in fluid in place which is as much as 12% difference in GIIP and OIIP.

3.9 Summary
The geological data is integrated and the calculated STOIIP is 86.56 MMSTB and GIIP is
109.65 BSCF. The information is passed to petrophysical phase for further development of
the field.

47

Chapter 4 :

PETROPHYSICS

4.1 Introduction
This particular chapter is about the discussion for evaluating the formation parameters needed
for the calculation of the Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place (STOIIP) and reservoir modelling
for Gelama Merah field in which there are two appraisal wells (Gelama Merah-1 and Gelama
Merah-1 ST1).

Gelama Merah field is positioned in offshore Sabah, Malaysia. This region is full of
geological structures mainly faults and folds especially synclines. The logs interpreted that
both appraisal wells contains hydrocarbon and the structural maps showed that a fold
suspected to be anticline in which the hydrocarbon might be trapped in.

4.2 Data Availability


Formation properties such as porosity (), water saturation (Sw) and Net to Gross ration
(N/G) were found manually through the logs, interpretation charts, some mathematical
models, core data and reservoir fluid reports. We are provided with composite logs which
consist of Gamma Ray (GR), Spontaneous Potential (SP), Resistivity (Deep Lateral Log
(DLL) and Micro Lateral Log (MLL)), Density, Neutron and Sonic Logs.

4.3 Quality Check (QC) For Log Data


In order to make sure that the log data is accurate and valid for evaluation, several simple
observations were conducted which are:

1. Log data is checked for consistency by comparing the total depth (TD) from log with
drilling report. From Table 4.1, we can see that the depth recorded from log for both
wells and from the well report are slightly the same. Slight difference might due to
error in running logging tools.
48

Table 4.1 - Recorded depth from log and well report

2. The caliper log reading is compared with the hole and casing size. The hole size
drilled was recorded as 12 (12.25) inches, while the caliper traced 12.2 inches.

Table 4.2 - Recorded hole and casing size

3. The borehole is also checked for irregularities based on caliper reading. From Figure
4.1, caliper reading indicates stable borehole wall (red circle) which not affecting log

readings.

Figure 4.1 - Caliper log

All in all, the data that we got from the log are proven to be the data for Gelama Merah-1 and
Gelama Merah-1 ST1.

49

4.4 Petrophysical Evaluation


Interpretation process for Gelama Merah field can be summarized as follows:

Lithology study

Interpretation of log data

Identification of the permeable and non-permeable zones

Determination of the water and hydrocarbon bearing zones

Determination of the porosity in the zone of interest

Determination of the water and hydrocarbon saturation in the zone of interest

4.4.1 Lithology Study


The Lithology of Gelama Merah has been summarized in the Final Well Report which is
given beforehand. Therefore, below is the summarized lithology for Gelama Merah-1 and
Gelama Merah-1 ST1.

Gelama Merah - 1
Depth

Lithology
Interbedding of sandstone, claystone and dolomite

Sandstone: poor visible porosity, traces of carbonaceous


matter and pyrite were observed in this interval.

553 m to 1120 m

Claystone: none to slightly calcareous, traces of


carbonaceous matter, pyrite and dolomite were observed
in this interval.

Dolomite: no visible porosity.

Interbedding of claystone and this sandstone

Claystone: very fine quartz grain, slightly calcareous,


traces to 5% of pyrite were observed in this interval.

1120 m to 1320 m

Sandstone: poor visible porosity, traces of carbonaceous


matter and pyrite were observed in this interval.

1320 m to 1636 m

Interbedding sandstone and claystone


50

Sandstone: poor visible porosity, traces of carbonaceous


matter, pyrite and lignite were observed in this interval.

Claystone: moderately sticky, none to slightly calcareous


and traces of carbonaceous matter.

At this interval 5-10% was spotted, slow to moderate blooming


bluish white cut, bluish white residual thin film

Gelama Merah - 1 ST1


Depth

Lithology
Major sandstone interbedded with claystone and dolomite

Sandstone: Silty, none to slightly calcareous, trace to


poor visible porosity, traces of carbonaceous, pyrite and
dolomite in this interval.

560 m to 1200 m

Claystone: none to slightly calcareous, traces of


carbonaceous, pyrite and dolomite in this interval.

Dolomite: no visible porosity

Dominant claystone interbedded with minor sandstone

1200 m to 1600 m

Claystone: slightly calcareous, traces of carbonaceous


matter and pyrite were observed in this interval.

Sandstone: trace to poor visible porosity, traces of


carbonaceous matter and pyrite were observed in this
interval.

Interbedding sandstone and claystone with minor dolomite

Sandstone: poor to fair visual of porosity, traces of


calcite cementation, traces of carbonaceous matter and
pyrite were observed in this interval.

1600 m to 1797 m

Claystone: very fine quartz grains, none to slightly


calcareous and traces of carbonaceous matter.

Dolomite: no visible porosity.

At this interval 15-20% was spotted, very slow streaming bluish


white crush cut, white residual thin film, light odour and spot
stain.

51

4.4.2 Interpretation of Log Data

Summary of interpretation for Gelama Merah-1

52

Summary of interpretation for Gelama Merah-1 ST1

53

4.4.3 Identification of Permeable and Non-Permeable Zones


The identification of the permeable and non-permeable zones is done using the quick look
method. The quick look method is done by referring to the gamma ray log. Using the logdepth given, we identify the highest average value of gamma ray as the non-permeable zone
while the lowest average value as the zone contains the permeable zone, in this case sand.

Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3 show the highest average value and lowest average value of gamma
ray respectively. As in Figure 4.4, the black zones represent the non-permeable zone while
the yellow zones represent the permeable zones.

GRmax Shale

Figure 4.2 - Highest average value of gamma ray log

GRmin Clean Sand

Figure 4.3 - Lowest average value of gamma ray log

54

Figure 4.4 - The identified permeable and non-permeable zones

4.4.4 Determination of the water and hydrocarbon bearing zones


The water and hydrocarbon bearing zone is determined by the analysis of the porosity and
resistivity logs. The porosity log is used to differentiate between gas and liquid whereas the
resistivity log is used to differentiate between hydrocarbon and water. When the neutron
porosity gives high value and density porosity gives low value, there is a strong identification
that gas is present. In this zone, the neutron and density logs crossover each other, indicate
butterfly effect/gas effect. When resistivity log deviates from high value to low value, it
indicates formation contains non-hydrocarbon fluid (high conductivity). Figure 4.5 and
Figure 4.6 show the identification of fluids by using resistivity and porosity logs.

Gelama Merah 1

There are three (3) main fluids identified from Gelama Merah-1 which are gas, oil and water
as shown in Figure 4.5. The possible GOC and WOC are at 1468mTVDSS and
1502mTVDSS respectively.

Gelama Merah 1 ST1

There is three (3) main fluids are identified from Gelama Merah-1ST1 which are gas, oil and
water as shown in Figure 4.6. The possible GOC and WOC are at 1468mTVDSS and
1508mTVDSS respectively.

55

GAS

OIL

WATER

Figure 4.5 - Water and hydrocarbon bearing zone identification using resistivity log and porosity log for GM-1

GAS

OIL

WATER

Figure 4.6 - Water and hydrocarbon bearing zone identification using resistivity log and porosity log for GM-1 ST1

56

4.5 Fluid Types


Pressure plot in Figure 4.7 shows three (3) main fluids encountered in Gelama Merah field
which are gas, oil and water. The possible GOC and WOC are at 1467.7 mTVDSS and
1505.7 mTVDSS respectively. Table 4.3 shows the comparison of contacts from quick-look
method (log response) and the pressure plot method.

Pressure Gradient
Formation Pressure (psia)
2080.0

2100.0

2120.0

2140.0

2160.0

2180.0

2200.0

2220.0

2240.0

2260.0

1300.0

mTVDRKB (RKB=27.3m)

1350.0

1400.0

1450.0

GOC at 1495mTVDRKB

1500.0

OWC
1550.0

OWC at 1533mTVDRKB
1600.0

Figure 4.7 - Pressure plot for Gelama Merah-1

Table 4.3 - Summary of fluid contact

Contact

Quick look (Log response)


(mTVDSS)
GM-1
GM1-ST1

Pressure vs. Depth Plot


(mTVDSS)
GM-1

GOC

1468

1468

1495mTVDRKB-27.3m =1467.7mTVDSS

WOC

1502

1508

1533mTVDRKB-27.3m =1505.7mTVDSS
57

4.6 Shale Volume ( )


Volume of shale is vital in determining the effective porosity and the reservoir quality.
Generally, the volume of shale is determined from the shale parameters from the gamma ray
(GR), formation density neutron porosity, shallow and deep resistivity log data and other
reservoir parameters. In order to measure the , the following formula is used:

Where

the gamma ray value from the composite log

gamma ray value from the composite log, the lowest average in which

represents the sand


gamma ray value from the composite log, the highest average value in
which represents the shaly region

A GR log functions as it measures the natural radiation of the formation. Radioactive tends to
gather in clays or shales. Thus, the shale and shaly sand will show a high value in gamma ray
log while the clean sands and carbonated will show low level of radiation. The GR curve
differentiates between potential reservoir rocks and shales. Therefore, the GR log can be used
to determine lithology. The GR log can also be used to determine the volume of shale in the
formation, as what is being done above.

Table 4.4 - Average volume of shale in each sand unit

Sand Unit

Depth (m)

Average Shale Volume

5&6

1346.3 1370.69

0.38

1375.26 1402.84

0.43

1405.74 1433.47

0.30

9.0

1436.22 1484.68

0.26

9.1

1493.06 1505.12

0.26

9.2

1519.28 1571.70

0.35

58

4.7 Porosity ()
Porosity is defined as the pore volume per unit volume of formation; it is a fraction of the
total volume of a sample that is occupied by pores or voids. Dense carbonates (limestone and
dolomites) and evaporates (salt, anhydrite, gypsum, etc.) may show practically zero porosity;
well-consolidated sandstone may have 10 to 15% porosity; unconsolidated sand may have
30% porosity or more. Shales or clay may contain over 40% water filled porosity, but the
pores are so small that the rock is impervious to the flow of fluids.

Usually the rock porosity is determined using combination of the neutron log and density log.
Before we can calculate the porosity, we need to check our log if there is any shale. Shale has
a large effect on the value of porosity where the presence of shale will increase the electron
density which will affect the porosity reading. From Figure 4.8, we can see the sand and shale
distribution from log. From sand unit 3.2 until sand unit 9.2, there are thin layers of shale
between the unit sand. In this case, we need to do some correction on the neutron porosity
and density porosity.

Figure 4.8 - Sand and shale distribution from the log

4.7.1 Effect of Shale on Porosity Determination from Density Log


The density of shales varies greatly, and if present as a proportion of a lithology (such as
shaly sandstone or shaly limestone) can make the derivation of a reliable porosity inaccurate.
If we have zones of clean lithology and zones of shale with shaly sandstone in between (or a
59

full fining-up or coarsening-up sequence), we can use the bulk densities in the shale and clean
sandstone together with to obtain a corrected density for the shaly sandstone at any given
depth. The corrected density porosity of the shaly lithology is given by:

=
=

( )

( )

( )
( )

Where
= corrected density porosity

= shale porosity density

= matrix density

= density from log

= fluid density

= shale density

= volume of shale

4.7.2 Effect of Shale on Porosity Determination from Neutron Log


Shale contains clays that have a significant amount of surface absorbed (bound) water. Hence
shales can contain a significant proportion of hydrogen despite being low porosity. The
apparent porosity read from the neutron tool in shale formations is therefore always
significantly higher than it really is. This is called the shale effect or the bound-water effect.
The corrected neutron porosity of the shaly lithology is given by:
= (1 )
Where
= corrected neutron porosity
= neutron porosity from log

= volume of shale

60

4.7.3 Effective Porosity Calculation


The corrected neutron log and corrected density log are used to calculate the effective
porosity as these two logs do not directly give the porosity readings. The equation of the
effective porosity is as follow:

2
2

+
2

=
Where
= corrected neutron porosity
= corrected density porosity

Table 4.5 - Average porosity for each sand unit

Sand Unit

Depth (m)

Average Porosity

5&6

1346.3 1370.69

0.24

1375.26 1402.84

0.23

1405.74 1433.47

0.27

9.0

1436.22 1484.68

0.27

9.1

1493.06 1505.12

0.27

9.2

1519.28 1571.70

0.25

4.8 Water Saturation ( )


Saturation of any given fluid in pore space is the ration of the volume of the fluid to the total
pore space volume. In other words, saturation is a percentage or fraction of this total capacity
that hold any particular fluid. Saturation is denoted by , so water saturation is , oil
saturation is and gas saturation is . If only water exists in the pores, a formation has
100% water saturation. The of a formation can vary from 100% to a very small value but
it is quite seldom, if ever, zero. No matter how rich the oil or gas the reservoir rock would
be, there is always a small amount of capillary water that cannot be displaced by the oil, this
is referred to as irreducible or connate .

61

The electrical resistivity of a formation is a very good indicator of the fluid in the pore space
of that formation. Neither oil nor gas conducts electric current but water does. If is the
fraction of the pore volume occupied by formation water, then (1 ) is the fraction of the
pore volume occupied by hydrocarbons. There are many techniques available to determine
the water saturation of a formation but the most suitable technique for our case is the apparent
water resistivity, .
The method relies on the comparison of calculated value of water resistivity between
intervals in a well. This comparison can be made between different zones or within the same
zone if a water hydrocarbon contact is suspected in that zone. Beside used for water
saturation calculation, it is also help to identified zones. The zone with the lowest value of
is the most likely to be water bearing and the value of is closest to the actual value
of in the formation. But zone with values of greater than the minimum observed are
likely to have some hydrocarbon saturation. Apparent water resistivity, , is define by
using formula:

Where
m

= cementation exponent; 1.69 (from core)

= tortuosity exponent; 0.62 (sandstone)

After that, Archie water saturation can be calculated from the ration of the values

@
=

Where
@

= formation water resistivity @ reservoir temperature; 0.265 ohmm

= saturation exponent; 2.00 (from core)

62

4.9 The Cut-off Values


Sensitivity analysis was carried out to determine cut-off values. There are three cut-off
criteria that must be met, which are , and . The main objective of the cut-off is to
obtain the optimum porous rock volume and at the same time to exclude the non-reservoir
rock. For porosity () analysis, one has to plot the core porosity versus log core permeability.
At certain values of permeability, one will get the porosity cut-off. For Sabah Basin, the
common permeability value is 5 mD. As in Figure 4.9, the porosity cut-off value for Gelama
Merah field is 0.24.

Figure 4.9 - The porosity cut off for Gelama Merah field

The cut-off value for shale volume is 50% as this is the industrial standard value. As for the
water saturation cut-off, we used 0.8.

63

4.10 Net to Gross Ration (NTG)


Net to Gross (NTG) is defined as net sand thickness over gross interval thickness. Gross
interval is the thickness between top and base marker of each reservoir unit in every well.
The top and base formation unit markers were dictated by geologist. Therefore, no cut-off
criteria are applied and the thickness is just the whole interval of the reservoir.
Net Sand is the thickness of a formation that satisfies the , and cut-offs within the
reservoir region. After obtaining both of the Net Sand and the Gross Sand, one can get the
N/G value for each reservoir.
Net Pay is defined as the thickness of formation that satisfies , , and cut-offs within
the reservoir interval. The optimum cut off values of and are chosen in order to
minimize the loss of porous rock volume. Since Gross Sand, Net Sand, and Net Pay values
depend on the cut-off criteria of , , and , therefore the cut-offs must be determined
first before all these parameters can be calculated.

64

Chapter 5 :

RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

5.1 Introduction
Development of Gelama Merah field will be based on the dynamic modelling results of
which various sensitivities will be analyzed thoroughly to come up with the most feasible,
profitable, and sustainable reservoir production planning. Well locations, well numbers, peak
rates, completion type, and depletion strategy either natural depletion or with pressure
maintenance are the factors which are carefully sensitized throughout the reservoir simulation
study. In predicting the reservoir performance, the 3D static modelling from RMS is exported
for dynamic modelling using Tempest Black Oil Reservoir Simulator.

Reservoir simulation studies were carried out intensively to achieve the objectives below:

To consider all probable development options: Well counts, well locations for oil
drainage, possible field and well peak rates, and Completion Strategy.

To propose any potential pressure maintenance scheme to mitigate pressure decline


and poor reservoir production profile.

To consider the affect of all the possible geological scenarios by comparing with the
proposed model and the alternative geological model towards the production profile

To fully optimize the resources, facilities, and equipments available throughout the
production period based on forecasted studies.

To propose the most profitable, economical and feasible development strategy based
on the recovery factor, cost and profit, and long term sustainability of the reservoir.

In summary, after considering the production profiles and the economic attractiveness of all
the possible development strategy, the proposed plan is to develop Gelama Merah field with
6 horizontal wells as the oil producers with 1 gas/water injector. The horizontal wells are
new-infill wells, whereas Gelama Merah-1 exploration well will be utilized as the gas/water
injector to improve recovery as well as mitigating the pressure decline. The predicted
Recovery Factor is 27.17%, an estimated 22.17 MM STB of oil cumulatively been produced
from the Oil Initially in Place (OOIP) of 83.56 MM STB. Peak oil rate will be achieved in

65

Year 2 of production, reaching around 10 000 STB/D of field oil production rate with a
stabilized oil plateau will be after Year 6 with the field oil rate hovering around 3000 4000
STB/D. The depletion strategy will be natural depletion until Year 1 through gas cap drive
and fluid expansion, assisted with single water alternating gas well injector starting from
Year 2 until the end of prediction studies at Year 20.

5.2 Reservoir Data and Analyses


Before actually conducting the reservoir simulation studies, all data that is available for
dynamic modelling purposes are quality checked (QC), analyzed, and processed as part of the
simulator input. In the following sections, this report will discuss briefly on all the data being
interpreted and utilized.

5.2.1 Reservoir Pressure and Fluid Contacts


Modular Dynamic Test (MDT) data for plotting the fluid pressure gradient is available from
Gelama Merah-1 well.

OWC = 1533 mTVDRKB

Figure
5.1:5.1Gelama
Merah
datafrom
fromGelama
Gelama
Merah-1
Figure
- Gelama
Merahfield
fieldpressure
pressure data
Merah-1
wellwell

66

Figure 5.1 showing the interpreted fluid contacts and fluid pressure gradient. From Gelama
Merah-1 pressure plot, Gelama Merah field is within the normal hydrostatic pressure profile,
with no zones of over or under pressurized reservoir regime. However uncertainties will be
included in cases where especially in drilling where there is always possibility to encounter
over-pressurized zones since this interpretation is only coming from a single well and will be
applied to the whole reservoir.

Average estimation of the reservoir initial pressure in the oil zone is around 2120 Psia from
the MDT plot, which consistently correspond to the estimated initial reservoir pressure from
well test which is around 2116 Psia (0.19% difference) and PVT report of 2114 Psia (0.283%
difference).

5.2.2 Reservoir Temperature


Temperature profile of Gelama Merah field is also obtained from MDT test of Gelama
Merah-1.

Figure
- Gelama
Merahfield
fieldtemperature
temperature data
Merah-1
wellwell
Figure
5.2:5.2
Gelama
Merah
datafrom
fromGelama
Gelama
Merah-1

67

Figure 5.2 showing the temperature profile with depth for Gelama Merah field. There is a
strong correlation between the temperature and depth as what displayed by the linear trend
line, with the temperature gradient of 0.00769 Celsius/ft. This mean an increase of 1 foot in
depth will increase the temperature by 0.00769 Celsius. Gelama reservoir temperature will be
in the range of 63.5 65 Celsius.

From both pressure and temperature plot, there is no zone with sudden high temperature and
high pressure. However uncertainties are very high due to limited data, since this
interpretation will be applied throughout the reservoir. Nevertheless, this will be included in
the risk uncertainty analysis especially in worst case scenarios.

5.2.3 Reservoir Fluid Studies


PVT analysis of reservoir fluid samples provides an important input for reservoir numerical
modelling. Three sets of Gelama Merah field oil and gas separator samples were collected
during the stabilized Main Flow period of GM-1 DST #1 on 11th January 2003. They were
made available for calibrating equations-of-state (EOS) parameters. PVT-i software was
used for this purpose.

5.2.3.1 Quality Check (QC)


The opening pressures of the separator samples were determined at the separator temperature
to check for leakage. The bubble point pressure of the separator oil samples was also
determined at the separator temperature. Based on the opening pressure, the most
representative set of samples was selected for further analysis. Table 5.1 summarizes the
results of the Preliminary QC Test.

There are several laboratory tests that are routinely conducted to characterize the reservoir
fluids. For this report, three tests were conducted and analyzed which are:

Compositional Analysis (Gas Chromatography)

Constant Composition Expansion Test (CCE)

Differential Liberation Test (DLE)

Viscosity Test
68

Separator Test

The first three tests will be the input for PVT-i software analysis.

Table 5.1 - Quality check of separator samples

Type of sample
Cylinder no.

Separator Oil

Separator Gas

7990-QA

7991-QA

7989-QA

4339A

4553A

4588A

Opening
pressure at
separator
temperature, F,
Psig

105 @
97.0

90 @
97.2

100 @
95.2

146 @
97.0

150 @ 97.2

149 @
95.2

Approximate
sample volume
@1000 Psig, cc

553

593

536

20000 @
146Psig

20000 @
150psig

20000 @
149psig

Bubble point
pressure at
separator
temperature, F,
Psig

120 @
97.0

125 @
97.2

140 @
95.2

NA

NA

NA

Pair with
4339A

Pair with
4553A

Pair with
4588A

Pair with
7990-QA

Pair with
7991-QA

Pair with
7989-QA

Remarks

5.2.3.2 Compositional Analysis


It is beneficial to attain a fluid sample in the early time of the reservoir so that the fluid
sample properties will be as close as possible to the original reservoir fluid. Collection of a
fluid sample in early time reduces the chances of free gas existing in the oil zone of the
reservoir. The sampling can be obtained either from subsurface or surface sampling.
Subsurface sampling can only be a representative of reservoir fluids when the pressure at
sampling point is above or equal to the saturation pressure. Surface sampling is the samples
of oil and gas taken from test separator or from stock tank. The fluids then recombined in the
laboratory on the basis of the produced GOR. All samples were sent for fluid PVT analysis to
laboratory. A portion of the reservoir fluid from the cylinder was charged into high-pressure
visual PVT cell and subjected to bubble point pressure determination at sampling separator
conditions. Sample that yields the bubble point closest to the separator conditions was
selected for further analysis.
69

The composition of the reservoir fluid was analyzed by a spike flash technique. The sample
was flashed from reservoir to atmospheric condition to obtain oil and gas at equilibrium
condition. The composition of the equilibrium gas was analyzed using the Natural Gas
Analyzer (NGA) while the equilibrium oil was analyzed using the High Temperature Gas
Chromatography (HTGC). Detail hydrocarbon compositions from C1 to Cn were obtained.
The compositions of stock-tank-oil, stock-tank-gas, and reservoir fluid are tabulated in Table
5.2 below.

Table 5.2 - Compositional analysis of stock tank oil, stock tank gas and calculated wellstream composition (adjusted
bubble point pressure to 2014 Psig)

MOLE
COMPONENT

STOCK
STOCK
TANK GAS TANK OIL

MOLECULAR DENSITY
WEIGHT
@ 60 F
WELLSTREAM*

N2

7.39

2.43

CO2

2.85

0.94

C1

80.52

26.5

C2

2.63

C3

0.78

0.28

0.45

i-C4

0.16

0.14

0.15

n-C4

0.18

0.24

0.22

i-C5

0.05

0.17

0.13

n-C5

0.04

0.17

0.13

C6

0.02

0.63

0.43

C7

0.01

4.38

2.95

C8

6.23

4.18

C9

4.33

2.9

C10

6.68

4.48

C11+

76.75

51.49

TOTAL

100

100

100

70

202.3

0.826

5.2.3.3 Constant Composition Expansion (CCE) Test


A known volume of the reservoir fluid was charged isobarically into the high pressure visual PVT
cell. The sample was then heated to the reservoir temperature and the pressure was monitored to
ensure the fluid is in single phase. After thermal equilibrium was established, the sample was
subjected to a series of pressure drops. At each pressure reading, the volume of the sample was
measured using the Camcorder Detection Measurement System. The purposes of these tests are

to determine:

Saturation pressure, Pb

Isothermal compressibility coefficient of single phase fluid in excess of saturation


pressure

Compressibility factor of the gas phase

Total hydrocarbon volume as a function of pressure

Table 5.3 - Constant composition expansion test results at 155F

RELATIVE
VOLUME
V/Vsat
5000
0.976
4000
0.983
3500
0.987
3000
0.99
2700
0.993
2500
0.994
2300
0.995
2100
0.997
2014*
1
2000
1.002
1800
1.034
1600
1.074
1400
1.127
1200
1.197
1000
1.297
800
1.446
* Bubble point pressure
PRESSURE
PSIG

SINGLE-PHASE
COMPRESSIBILITY
V/V/PSI
7.096E-06
7.101E-06
7.127E-06
7.171E-06
7.192E-06
7.214E-06
7.226E-06
-

71

YFUNCTION
3.511
3.482
3.453
3.425
3.396
3.367
3.339

LIQUID
VOLUME
PERCENT
100
99.81
97.43
90.81
83.05
74.15
64.12
52.31

5.2.3.4 Differential Liberation (DL) Test

The differential liberation or DL experiment is also known as a differential vaporization


experiment in PVT reports. In the differential liberation process, the solution gas that is
liberated from an oil sample during a decline in pressure is continuously removed from
contact with the oil, and before establishing equilibrium with the liquid phase.

The differential liberation test is considered to better describe the separation process taking
place in the reservoir and is also considered to simulate the flowing behaviour of hydrocarbon
systems at conditions above the critical gas saturation. As the saturation of the liberated gas
reaches the critical gas saturation, the liberated gas begins to flow, leaving behind the oil that
originally contained it. This is attributed to the fact that gases have, in general, higher
mobility than oils. Consequently, this behaviour follows the differential liberation sequence.
The test is carried out on reservoir oil samples and involves charging a visual PVT cell with a
liquid sample at the bubble-point pressure and at reservoir temperature.

The experimental data obtained from the test include:

Amount of gas in solution as a function of pressure

The shrinkage in the oil volume as a function of pressure

Properties of the evolved gas including the composition of the liberated gas, the
gas compressibility factor, and the gas specific gravity

Density of the remaining oil as a function of pressure

72

Table 5.4 - Differential vaporization test at 155F*

PRES

OIL

GAS

CUMULATIV

SURE

DENSITY

FVF

E GAS

PSIG

g/cc

cf/scf

GRAVITY

5000

336

1.152

336

0.839

1.156

336

3000

0.836

1.16

336

2700

0.834

1.163

336

2500

0.833

1.164

336

2300

0.832

1.166

336

2100

0.829

1.168

336

2014

0.828

1.169

336

1600

0.836

1.141

272

0.01

0.61

0.895

1200

0.845

1.117

210

0.013

0.601

0.913

800

0.855

1.093

146

0.02

0.623

0.936

400

0.866

1.067

80

0.041

0.624

0.968

200

0.873

1.053

45

0.08

0.629

0.983

100

0.876

1.045

27

0.15

0.682

0.991

0.881

1.032

0.78

OIL FVF

SOLUTION

bbl/stb

GOR scf/stb

0.848

1.144

4000

0.842

3500

*density of residual oil @ 60F = 0.909 g/cc


*API Gravity of residual oil @ 60F = 24.16

73

ZFACTOR

5.2.3.5 Viscosity Test


A viscosity measurement was performed on the oil at the reservoir temperature using the
Capillary Viscometer. At each pressure drop below the bubble point pressure, the liberated
gas was removed from the viscometer and its composition was analyzed using the Gas
Analyzer. The gas composition was then used to calculate the gas viscosity. The Viscosity
Test results are tabulated in Table 5.5 below.

Table 5.5 - Oil and gas viscosity @ 155F

VISCOSITY

PRESSURE
PSIG

OIL

GAS

OIL/GAS VISCOSITY
RATIO

5000

1.7581

4000

1.6066

3000

1.4759

2500

1.402

2014

1.3374

1600

1.5105 0.0152

99

1200

1.6567 0.0143

116

800

1.8453 0.0136

136

400

2.074

0.0131

158

200

2.2157 0.0128

173

100

2.3541 0.0125

188

5.2.3.6 Separator Test


In summary, this test was conducted as three separate single stage separator test at specified
separator conditions:

Case 1 at 890 psig and 87F

Case 2 at 265 psig and 84F

Case 3 at 60 psig and 91F

74

5.2.4 Reservoir Fluid Study (PVT) Using PVTi Software


In the PVT modelling a number of parameters can be designated for calibration against
experimental observations. These include critical properties (pressure, temperature, volume
and Z-factor), eccentric factor, and molecular weight and mole fraction of any (usually
heavy) components as well as binary interaction coefficients. Only the parameters of the
heavy pseudo-components were adjusted in order to match the experimental data. Two EOS
(3-Parameter Peng-Robinson and 3-Parameter Soave-Redlich-Kwong) were tested for each of
the fluid models, and 3-Parameter Peng-Robinson gave the best match of the experimental
data following the calibration process.

Based on the Table 5.2 well-stream fluid composition and selected EOS model, the following
phase envelope and fluid properties has been generated using ECLIPSE PVT-i simulation
software.

Figure 5.3 - Phase plot for Gelama Merah ST-1 DST#1 generated by EOS

75

Based on the phase plot diagram, it is clear that the oil is black oil type since the reservoir
temperature is far to the left from the critical point (critical temperature). This analysis is also
supported by the laboratory experiment that mole fraction of heptanes plus is far more than
30% (more heavy hydrocarbon presence), oil formation factor is also less than 2 res bbl/stb
(i.e. 1.169 res bbl/stb), initial produced gas oil ratio is less than 2000 scf/STB (i.e.
336scf/STB).

After defining the experiments, several settings have been done in order to get the most
accurate regression analysis;
Weighting factor:
Saturation pressure = 200

GOR = 1

Relative volume = 10

Bo = 1

Liquid density = 1

Vapor Z-factor = 1

Liquid saturation = 1

Gas FVF = 1

Gas gravity = 1
Regression variable grouping:
Table 5.6 - Components grouping for regression

Group

Component

N2

CO2

C1

C2, C3, i-C4, n-C4

i-C5, n-C5, C6

C7, C8, C9, C10

C11+

After setting those parameters, the fluid property has reasonably matched as near as Gelama
Merah ST-1 DST#1 reservoir fluid. The following diagrams show the experimental
data/observed (red dots) and calculated values after regression using PR3 EOS (blue line):

76

Figure 5.4(a) Z-factor

Figure 5.4(b) Gas FVF

Figure 5.4(c) GOR

Figure 5.4(d) Oil FVF

Figure 5.4(e) Oil density

Figure 5.4(f) Relative volume


Figure 5.4 - PVT matching

77

Based on the simulation run after the regression, the calculated saturation pressure, P b is 2030
psig (2016 psia); slightly higher than observed Pb which are 2028.7 psig (2014 psia). Among
the uncertainties involving GM-1 Reservoir Fluid Study are:

This laboratory experiments do not duplicate actual reservoir process.

Liberation process in reservoir is considered approaching differential process.


Liberation process around GM-1 well is considered flash. Actual reservoir process
is neither flash nor differential

Once the fluid of Gelama Merah reservoir has been modelled correctly using the Equation-ofState, the properties will be exported to the reservoir simulator to describe the dynamic
behaviour of the fluid as pressure and temperature varies throughout the life of the field.
Properties of produced oil and injected fluid into the reservoir will be characterized based on
the PVT data exported from PVT-i.

5.2.5 Rock Compressibility


Rock compressibility is important as it describe the reduction of pore volume due to applied
pressure from reservoir due to increase in depth and pressure load from rock layers above the
reservoir.

5.2.5.1 Core Compressibility Test


Ten core samples were used to conduct the rock compressibility test. However two core
samples were deemed unrepresentative due to early fracture of the core sample. The other
eight samples were subjected to an overburden pressure starting from 500 Psia to 4300 Psia
with at each pressure stages the compressibility is calculated based on the reduction of pore
volume. Since Gelama Merah will be initialized at initial pressure at 2114 Psia, rock
compressibility values are analyzed at this pressure point.

78

Figure 5.5 - Rock compressibility measurements from eight core samples

From Figure 5.5, rock compressibility ranges from 1.7E-05 to 8.7E-06 1/Psia within the
porosity range from 0.29 to 0.325. However, as what been stated in the quality control
section, the core samples are not coming from the two exploration wells where the static
model are heavily based on. The range of porosity interpreted from the log after corrected
shale volume, is between the ranges 0.05 to 0.28. Thus the results obtained above are not
representative based on the rock properties of Gelama Merah Field.

5.2.5.2 Compressibility Correlation


Since the core samples compressibility cannot be used, three (3) correlations were utilized to
determine the rock compressibility taken into account the initial pressure, minimum and
maximum porosity of the reservoir from the logs and core samples.

Table 5.7 - Rock compressibility correlations

Minimum Poro
Maximum Poro
Pressure (Psia)

Cf

Hall Correlation
Minimum Poro
4.97389E-05
Maximum Poro
2.45781E-05

79

0.05
0.25
2114

Average
Cf

3.7159E-05

Cf

Cf

Van Der Knaap Correlation


Minimum Poro
3.641E-03
Maximum Poro
5.278E-04

Average
Cf

2.084E-03

Newman Correlation
Minimum Poro
2.9768E-04
Maximum Poro
1.0126E-04

Average
Cf

1.9947E-04

Table 5.7: Rock Compressibility Correlations

Knowing the porosity values, by directly putting the values to the correlations, the rock
compressibility can be estimated.

Hall Correlation

13.392

106

0.438

(1)

Van Der Knaap Correlation

100
1.2

106

(2)

Newmann Correlation

40
0.67

106

(3)

The range of rock compressibility is between 3.7159E-05 to 2.084E-03 1/Psia. During the
initialization of the dynamic model, different compressibility values will be used to determine
which will be most suitable based on hydrocarbon in place through direct comparison with
the static model.

5.2.6 Routine Core and Special Core Analysis (SCAL)


A total of forty-two (42) samples taken from Gelama Merah-2ST1 and twenty-three (23)
samples from Gelama Putih-1 were reported in the Core Report Analysis. However not all
core samples were used, as some were deemed damaged thus were not representative of the
reservoir. Core samples which were used for lab measurements to obtain different the rock
properties are discussed in the following sections.

80

5.2.6.1 Porosity-Permeability Model


Establishing relationship between porosity and permeability are important to describe the
heterogeneity and the rock quality of Gelama Merah reservoir. From the routine core analyses
of both Gelama Merah-2ST1 and Gelama Putih-1, Poro-Perm model is generated based on
the facie classed been identified. In summary, three (3) different sand facies were classified
based on the Poro-Perm model, which will act as the basis for rock classification for other
rock properties measurement. The relationship will also be utilized to populate the
permeability distribution based on the rock classification.

Three (3) distinctive rock qualities can be identified; Good, Moderate, and Poor Rock. The
classifications are made based on the permeability porosity ranges covered by each individual
trend line.

The maximum permeability measured from core plugs was at 4242 mD in 0.346 Porosity,
whereas the maximum porosity was at 0.346 Porosity in 2452 mD reported from Gelama 2ST1 sample. As for the relationship between horizontal and vertical permeability (kh and kv),
the generally acceptable relationship, kv (mD) = 0.1 kh is used. In summary, the
heterogeneity of Gelama Merah field can be classified to three (3) different sand facies
according to the porosity and permeability classes.

81

Table 5.8 - Porosity and permeability according to core sample

Gelama2ST1

Gelama
Putih-1

Core
Name
1-004
2-012
2-010
3-019
3-005
1-018
3-022
5-006
3-016
3-015
3-002
2-015
1-017
3-001
2-017
5-002
1-021
3-025
4-026A
8-006
8-005
5-007

Depth
1315.20
1323.95
1323.35
1332.70
1328.50
1319.35
1333.60
1385.55
1331.80
1331.50
1327.60
1324.85
1319.07
1327.30
1325.45
1384.35
1320.23
1334.50
1343.25
1402.80
1402.55
1385.88

Porosity
0.334
0.336
0.346
0.319
0.328
0.300
0.309
0.293
0.304
0.307
0.290
0.276
0.248
0.264
0.266
0.136
0.187
0.238
0.174
0.189
0.169
0.153

Permeability
4242.00
2760.00
2452.00
1357.00
1280.00
661.00
526.00
407.00
392.00
380.00
215.00
190.00
113.00
106.00
95.30
78.00
51.70
11.10
6.53
1.78
0.83
0.36

Core
Name
2-017A
3-026A
2-035A
2-021A
2-031A
3-027A
1-016A
1-015A

Depth
1364.85
1378.58
1370.10
1366.05
1368.85
1379.05
1335.25
1335.25

Porosity
0.343
0.311
0.286
0.282
0.259
0.223
0.200
0.189

Permeability
1520.00
322.00
76.80
63.40
33.50
1.75
0.70
0.23

Facies
Classes

Good Rock

Moderate
Rock

Poor Rock

Figure 5.6 - Porosity-Permeability Model


Table 5.9 - Rock Facies Classification

Sand
Facies
Facies 1
Facies 2
Facies 3

Facies
Classes
Good Rock
Moderate
Rock
Poor Rock

82

Porosity
Range
> 0.28
0.18 - 0.25
< 0.18

Permeability
Range
> 200 Md
30 - 200 Md
< 30 Md

5.2.6.2 Capillary Pressure and J-Function Curve


A total of ten (10) core samples from Gelama Merah-2ST1 were used in Mercury Capillary
Injection Pressure Test (MCIP). The measured capillary pressures are classified according to
the sand facies. J-function is used to transform the capillary pressure curve to a universal
curve before classifying according to the sand facies. In summary, the capillary pressure
group consistently correspond to the sand facies classification from the Poro-Perm
relationship. The capillary pressures were used to derive J-function to develop initial water
saturation distribution in the reservoir. Rock samples with different pore-size distribution,
permeability, and porosity will yield different capillary pressure curves. Poor reservoir rock
will show higher connate water saturation and higher transition zone due to smaller capillary
tube.

Table 5.10 - Laboratory-reservoir fluid properties for capillary conversion

Condition
Lab
Reservoir

Fluid Types
Air-Mercury
Methane/Brine
(Gas)
Crude Oil/Brine
(30 - 40 API)

IFT
(dynes/cm)
485

Contact
Angle ()
140

Cos
0.765

IFT *
Cos
371.03

50

50.00

25

30

0.866

21.65

The capillary pressures reported from core sample are in terms of mercury injection pressure.
Thus, these pressures must first be converted from laboratory measurement to reservoir
condition.

Equation used to convert to reservoir fluid system:

(4)

Where:
Pc reservoir / Pclab
reservoir/ lab
reservoir / lab

: Reservoir/ lab capillary pressure


: Reservoir/lab contact angle
: Reservoir/lab interfacial tension

By applying the Equation 4, mercury capillary injection pressures were converted to gaswater and oil-water system based on the reservoir conditions described in Table 5.9. Since
83

capillary pressure from the laboratory measurements can only be converted to oil-water and
gas-water system, thus to obtain gas-oil capillary pressure curve,
Knowing that:

Pcoil-water = Pcoil Pcwater

(5)

Pcgas-water = Pcgas Pcwater

(6)

Thus since gas-water and oil-water capillary values are available:

Pcgas-oil = Pcgas Pcoil = Pcgas-water Pcoil-water

(7)

Where:
Pcgas-oil
Pcoil-water
Pcgas-water

: Capillary pressure for gas-oil system


: Capillary pressure for oil-water system
: Capillary pressure for gas-water system

The capillary pressures calculated previously will then be converted to dimensionless


function of water saturation for rock type classification using J-Function method.

(8)

Where:
Pc (Sw)
cos
k

: Capillary pressure at different wetting saturation


: Interfacial Tension and Cosine of oil/gas-water
: Rock Permeability (Darcy)
: Rock Porosity (Fraction)

Usually a constant of 0.26145 is multiplied with the J-function values for field data units
conversion.

The water saturation is normalized to eliminate the different critical end-points saturations
thus aiding the grouping of capillary pressure according to sand facies been set in the
Porosity-Permeability model.

84

To normalize the water saturation:

(9)

Where
Sw
Swc

: Water saturation corresponding to the capillary pressure value


: Connate water saturation of core sample

As an example of calculation, core sample 1-01 was subjected to the Mercury Capillary
Injection Pressure (MCIP) test to obtain the capillary pressure curve. Below are the basic
properties of the core sample.

Table 5.11 - Core sample 1-01 properties

Sample
Depth, m
Klinkenberg Permeability,
md
Permeabilty to Air, md
Swanson Permeability
Porosity, fraction

1-010
1316.95
1940
1970
1100
0.338

From the laboratory test, injection pressures with the estimated mercury saturation were
obtained, and below are some of the data recorded for calculation demonstration purposes.

Table 5.12 - Injected mercury pressure with respect to saturation

Injection Mercury
pressure Saturation
(psia)
fraction
5.1
0
6.09
0.017
7.57
0.184
9.05
0.454
11.1
0.595
14.1
0.667
17
0.701
20
0.724
23
0.74
26
0.753

85

Pseudo-Wetting
Saturation,
fraction
1
0.983
0.816
0.546
0.405
0.333
0.299
0.276
0.26
0.247

Using Equation 4 To convert to reservoir fluid system for instance oil-water at injection
pressure of 17 Psia,
= 17

25 cos(30)
= 0.992
485 cos(140)

If we applied the same equation above to find gas-water system,


= 17

50 cos(0)
= 2.291
485 cos(140)

Using Equation 7 to obtain gas-oil system capillary pressure,


= = 2.292 0.992 = 1.299

By applying the above calculations for all core samples at each injection pressure, each core
samples will have its capillary pressure curve profile. Thus to aid in classifying the curve
according to rock, J-function is used like what been discussed previously.

In gas-water or oil-water, water is assumed to be the wetting phase. To obtain this saturation
from mercury injection, mercury is assumed to be the non-wetting phase, as air will be
wetting phase of the system.
Sw = 1 Smercury = 1 0.701 = 0.299
Applying J-function (Equation 8) for an oil-water system,
1940
17 0.338
= 0.21645
= 0.75
25 cos 30
If the calculation is repeated again in water-oil or gas-oil system, the value of the J-function
will be the same. This is because the J-function formula will average the curve by eliminating
the fluid system affect so that the capillary curve can be group according to the rock qualities.

To normalize the water saturation points,


=

0.75 0
= 0.75
10

This is due to the fact the mercury injection test was carried out until 100% saturation of
mercury in the sample, thus critical values of the wetting phase of air or water in reservoir
system is assumed to be zero.
86

J-function values versus normalized water saturation were plotted to classify the capillary
curve according to sand facies. The average J-function curve is then de-normalized to obtain
the Gas-Oil/ Water-Oil capillary pressure curve according to the rock classifications.
Capillary pressure curve will describe the saturation profile in the dynamic modelling.

Figure 5.7 - Capillary pressure curve classification based on J-function vs Swnormalized

From the plot above, the capillary pressure curve from the ten (10) samples can actually be
grouped according to the rock quality. Each average curve will then be de-normalized by
selecting the nearest matched curve and de-normalization will be based on the values of the
core sample selected. Each sand facies will be assigned with its own capillary pressure to
further include the heterogeneity of the reservoir.

Table 5.13 - Capillary Pressure classification according to sand facies

Core
Sample
1-010
2-011
5-005
5-015
5-001
8-003
8-002
4-028
4-002
5-019

Depth Permeability
1316.95
1940
1323.65
1420
1385.25
1090
1388.25
467
1384.05
172
1401.95
169
1401.7
20.4
1343.85
19.3
1336.05
17.9
1389.36
6.22

87

Porosity
0.338
0.335
0.324
0.305
0.28
0.279
0.267
0.206
0.216
0.173

Capillary Pressure
Group

Good Rock

Moderate Rock
Poor Rock

5.2.6.3 Relative Permeability Curve


Relative permeability curve are generated based on the eight (8) core samples from Gelama-2ST1. Unsteady-state (USS) for gas-oil/ water-oil
and steady-state test (SS) for water-oil systems are carried out to obtain the relative permeability curve. All eight samples were subjected to
unsteady-state test for gas-oil; four samples were re-used for unsteady-state oil-water, and another three samples for steady-state oil-water
relative permeability measurements.
Table 5.14 - Core samples for relative permeability curve measurements

Initial Conditions
Swc
k oil
(Fraction)
(mD)
0.573
41
0.346
150
0.425
81.7
0.206
1170
0.243
352
0.238
356
0.223
506
0.348
8.1

Terminal Conditions
Sro
k gas/water
Krg/Kro
(Fraction)
(mD)
0.152
29.7
0.72439
0.246
115
0.766667
0.177
46.1
0.564259
0.241
622
0.531624
0.27
279
0.792614
0.358
138
0.38764
0.275
281
0.555336
0.312
5.85
0.722222

Oil Recovery
Fraction
Fraction
Pore
OIP
0.275
0.644
0.408
0.624
0.398
0.692
0.553
0.696
0.487
0.643
0.404
0.53
0.502
0.646
0.34
0.521

Sample
Number

Depth

K
Absolute
(mD)

Porosity
(Fraction)

Gas-Oil Rel.
Perm Test
(USS)

1-021
2-015
2-017
3-005
3-015
3-016
3-022
3-025

1320.23
1324.85
1325.45
1328.5
1331.6
1331.8
1333.6
1334.5

55.2
204
103
1280
398
411
545
13.7

0.187
0.276
0.266
0.328
0.307
0.304
0.309
0.238

Water - Oil
Rel. Perm
Test (USS)

2-015
2-017
3-005
3-015

1324.85
1325.45
1328.5
1331.6

204
103
1280
398

0.276
0.266
0.328
0.307

0.346
0.425
0.206
0.243

150
81.7
1170
352

0.235
0.219
0.206
0.259

55.4
22
363
67.9

0.369333
0.269278
0.310256
0.192898

0.419
0.356
0.588
0.498

0.641
0.619
0.741
0.658

Water-Oil
Rel. Perm
Test (SS)

1-021
3-016
3-022

1320.23
1331.8
1333.6

55.2
411
545

0.187
0.304
0.309

0.573
0.238
0.223

41
356
506

0.066
0.253
0.265

2.58
73.7
127

0.063
0.207
0.251

0.361
0.509
0.512

0.845
0.668
0.659

*Highlighted rows in yellow are the values that will be used in the example calculation performed in the following section
88

In order to classify the relative permeability curves according to the sand facies type, each
curve generated in both USS and SS test are normalized according to the end-points
measured in the laboratory.

= 1

= 1

(10)
(11)
(12)

(13)

(14)

Where,
Sg
Sgc
Sorg
Sw
Swc
Sorw
Krg
Krg
Kro
Kro
Krw
Krw

: Gas saturation
: Critical gas saturation
: Residual oil saturation in gas-oil system
: Water Saturation
: Critical water saturation
: Residual oil saturation in oil-water system
: Relative permeability to gas
: End-points relative permeability to gas
: Relative permeability to oil
: End-points relative permeability to oil
: Relative permeability to water
: End-points relative permeability to water

Corey exponents were used to average and best fit the relative permeability curves for all
both gas-oil and water-oil curve.
=
=

(15)

(16)

= (1 )

(17)

= (1 )

(18)

Where,
Nw
Ng
Now
Nog

: Corey Exponents for water curve


: Corey Exponents for gas curve
: Corey Exponents for oil in oil-water system curve
: Corey Exponents for oil in gas-oil system curve

89

To demonstrate the calculations performed, core sample 2-017 will be shown as it undergoes two
tests, Unsteady-state Gas-Oil and Oil-Water Relative Permeability test.

Table 5.15 - Relative Permeability Measurement

Gas-Oil USS
Test

Oil-Water USS Test

Gas Saturation (Vp)

krg

kro

Water Saturation (Vp)

krw

kro

0.425

0.078

0.01

0.628

0.489

0.058

0.774

0.099

0.026

0.541

0.546

0.115

0.42

0.116

0.047

0.457

0.599

0.158

0.18

0.16

0.098

0.303

0.632

0.181

0.1

0.189

0.133

0.234

0.653

0.197

0.065

0.204

0.152

0.191

0.686

0.213

0.031

0.232

0.202

0.122

0.713

0.23

0.014

0.244

0.217

0.101

0.733

0.238

0.006

0.259

0.243

0.079

0.781

0.269

0.279

0.277

0.054

0.303

0.327

0.029

0.317

0.359

0.02

0.331

0.394

0.013

0.363

0.475

0.005

0.398

0.564

Gas-Oil USS Test


As an example, to normalize the values at gas saturation of 0.303,


0.303 0
=
= 0.7613
1 1 0.177 0.425 0

The relative permeability values,

0.327
=
= 0.5798
0.564

0.029
=
= 0.029

1

The calculation procedures are repeated for the rest of the saturation values, by then a normalized
gas-oil curve can be constructed.

90

Oil-Water USS Test


As an example, to normalize the values at water saturation of 0.599,


0.599 0.425
=
= 0.4888
1 1 0.219 0.425

The relative permeability values,

0.158
=
= 0.587
0.269

0.18
=
= 0.18

1

The calculation procedures are repeated for the rest of the saturation values, by then a normalized
oil-water curve can be constructed.

Figure 5.8 - Normalized relative permeability curve for gas-oil and oil-water

91

From Figure 5.8, the data will then be grouped according to the shape of the curve plotted in
such rocks can be assigned with its own relative permeability curve. After careful inspection
of each individual curve, the relative permeability data can be grouped according to the rock
quality (porosity and permeability classifications). The normalized relative permeability
curves for both oil-water (and gas-oil) system of each facies were determined and matched by
the best-fit Corey exponents.

Facies 1
Poro > 0.28 Perm > 200 mD
Now = 2 ; Nw = 1.8

Facies 2
Poro < 0.28 Perm < 200 mD
Now = 2 ; Nw = 0.7

Figure 5.9 - Corey fitted curve with de-normalized curve for Oil-Water System

From Figure 5.9, the relative permeability curves are classified according to only two sand
facies. No core data available which have the properties similar to what been set in the
Porosity-Permeability model for Facies Sand 3, of which the porosity is less than 0.18 and
also the permeability below 30 mD.

Assumption was made is that Facies Sand 3 curve can be represented by Sand Facies 2 to
represent this missing information. It is strongly recommended that Facies Sand 3 relative
permeability should be analyzed prior to the development drilling due to its relatively
significant contribution to the pore volume and its presence in all reservoirs, therefore its
92

impact on well performance. Complete gas-oil relative permeability curve are included in the
Error! Reference source not found..

5.2.6.4 End-Points Correlations


The degree of heterogeneity of Gelama Merah reservoir rock can further be investigated
through end-points correlation. From the relative permeability measurements conducted in
the lab for core samples from Gelama-2ST1, the saturation and relative permeability endpoints are correlated with the rock qualities (porosity and permeability) to identify any
possible trend of which rock with similar porosity and permeability will be having the same
saturation and relative permeability end-points values.

Figure 5.10 - End-points correlation with porosity and permeability

93

Below summarized the accuracy of the trend been identified for each end-points properties
with the R-squared deviation error values.

Table 5.16 - R-Squared error for end-points correlations

Critical Water, Swc


Residual Oil in Gas, Sorg
Residual Oil in Water, Sorw
End-points Rel. Perm. To Gas, Krg
End-points Rel. Perm. To Oil, Kro
End-points Rel. Perm. To Water,
Krw

Porosity
0.8868
0.2599
0.7482
0.2004
0.5573

Permeability
0.4825
0.0259
0.4095
0.1991
0.8727

0.3897

0.2357

From Figure 5.10 and Table 5.16, it can be seen that the degree of heterogeneity of the
critical saturations and also end-points relative permeability varies according to the rock
qualities. There is a strong trend between critical water with porosity and also end-points
relative permeability of oil towards permeability, indicating the reservoir rock is having
almost similar dynamic characteristic in terms of both end-points properties. However we
cannot say the same for other end-points properties, as other are having high values of RSquared error. Thus it is recommended more core samples should be acquired and new
exploration wells should be drilled much further away from the existing Gelama Merah-1 and
Gelama Merah-1ST1 to capture the extension of this heterogeneity throughout the reservoir.

5.3 Reservoir Simulation Study


Reservoir simulation are widely used to study reservoir performance include the analysis of
different scenarios for estimating the applicability and recovery potential of the most feasible
recovery processes available for use within the property. Depending on the level of detail
required for a particular property evaluation, simulation studies can be coupled with decisionrisk and/or economic evaluation models. Reservoir simulators play a very important role in
modern reservoir management process and are used to develop a reservoir management plan.
This plan includes the ability to monitor and evaluate reservoir performance during the life of
the reservoir.

94

The simulation phase in this project is carried out by using Tempest Black Oil Simulator
from ROXAR. Reservoir simulators are classified in different approaches. But it is
commonly classified by the type of reservoir fluids being studied and the recovery processes
being modelled. The classification of the reservoir fluids includes gas, black oil and
compositional simulators. Tempest can be used for both black oil and compositional
reservoir. However for Gelama Merah, black oil simulator will be used since compositional
information on the reservoir fluid is very limited and we cannot do any history matching on
the compositional changes. In general, reservoir simulation process can be divided as follows;
The studies were conducted with the objectives set for the Gelama Merah field development:

To utilize a numerical and proven reservoir simulator to predict reservoir performance


and production profile

To evaluate the impact of key uncertainties from the geological interpretation and
reservoir properties on the development plan

To propose the most profitable, economical and feasible development strategy based
on the recovery factor, cost and profit, and long term sustainability of the reservoir.

5.3.1 Preliminary Studies of Reservoir Drive Mechanisms


From the petrophysical log of Gelama Merah-1 and Gelama Merah-ST1, the shale presence is
clearly observed in all reservoir units. However, the continuity of the shale layers is uncertain
due to limited well data for the detailed correlation to be carried out. The aquifer may be
active but the support may come from the edge direction of the reservoir structure. Based on
the log interpretation, this Gelama Merah reservoir is unlikely to be supported by bottom-up
water drive due to the presence of shale-barrier. Due to this factor, weak aquifer support is
expected to be acting in this reservoir. Significant gas cap is observed from the log and MDT
data and hence the gas cap expansion drive mechanism will also expect to occur. The better
prediction of drive mechanism in Gelama Merah reservoir can be achieved if regional field
data is provided.

The drive mechanisms of the Gelama Merah field are determined through material balance
calculation. The material balance equation is used to find the stock tank oil initially in place
and the index of the drive mechanisms. The material balance equation is derived from
conservation of mass, which is;
95

Black oil material balance equation:

F N ( Eo mEg Ef , w) (Wi We) Bw2 GiBg 2

The production terms:

F Np[ Bo2 ( Rp Rso2 ) Bg 2 ] WpBw2

Oil and solution gas expansion terms:

Eo ( Bo2 Bo1 ) ( Rso1 Rso2 ) Bg 2


Gas cap expansion terms:
Eg Bo1 (

Bg 2
1)
Bg1

Rock and water compression/expansion terms:


Ef , w (1 m) Bo1

Cr CwSw1
P
1 Sw1

Where,
N = initial oil in place , STB
Bg = gas formation volume factor at Pi, bbl/scf
Bo = oil formation volume factor, bbl/stb
Bw = water formation volume factor, bbl/stb
Rsi = gas solubility at initial pressure, scf/stb
m = Initial gas cap size (res.vol. of gas cap)/(res.vol. of oil zone)
M = ratio of gas cap volume to oil volume, bbl/bbl
Sw = water saturation
We = cumulative water influx, bbl
Wp = cumulative water produce
Cf = formation compressibility factor, psi-1.

5.3.1.1 Energy Plot


It should be noted that the results obtained by using MBAL is merely a prediction. No history
matching was performed due to unavailability of any production data and the reservoir
simulation study was considering a green field development approach. Figure 1 shows the
96

drive mechanism of the reservoir from 2011 until 2013. The energy plot shows the relative
contributions of the main source of energy in the reservoir and aquifer systems along the
history data time. The y-axis represents the percentage of the related drive mechanism while
the x-axis represents time.
Drive Mechanism - Gelama Merah 1
1

Fluid Expansion
Gas Cap Expansion
PV Compressibility
Water Influx

0.75

0.5

0.25

0
31/07/2011

03/03/2012

Tank Temperature
Tank Pressure
Tank Porosity
Connate Water Saturation
Water Compressibility
Formation Compressibility
Initial Gas Cap
Oil in Place
Production Start

05/10/2012

09/05/2013

11/12/2013

Time (date d/m/y)


155 (deg F)
Aquifer Model Fetkovich Semi Steady State
2014 (psig)
Aquifer System Radial Aquifer
0.18 (fraction)
Outer/Inner Radius
8
0.346 (fraction)
Encroachment Angle
180 (degrees)
2.92e-6 (1/psi)
Calc. Aquifer Volume
34287 (MMft3)
3.66593e-6 (1/psi)
Aquifer Permeability
20 (md)
1.41
Tank Thickness
20 (feet)
55 (MMSTB)
Tank Radius
10 (feet)
01/05/2011 (date d/m/y)

Figure 5.11 - Drive mechanism of Gelama Merah

The red color region represents the gas cap, while the blue color represents fluid expansion
and the green color represents PV Compressibility. From the energy plot that obtained from
Figure 5.11, we can identify that the drive mechanism is dominated by fluid expansion by the
percentage of 80%. Gas cap contributes about 18% of the total drive mechanism. Aquifer
support plays a minor role in drive mechanism as it only support less than 1% from total
drive mechanism out of the total drive mechanism.

This mean that initial drive mechanism comes from the depletion drive where as the oil is
produced, the pressure of the reservoir drop below the bubble point and gas bubbles start to
form. These gas bubbles are not produced but in fact they provide the force to push the oil
towards the production well. As the saturation gas reached the critical point, the gas bubbles
will be produced along. .The high volume of gas cap should be considered as it will expand

97

as the pressure of the reservoir drop and provide the gas cap expansion drive mechanism to
the reservoir.

Thus, we can conclude that the main drive mechanism of this reservoir is fluid expansion and
gas cap expansion. But it still requires water influx in order to maintain the reservoir pressure
at the target pressure.

The cumulative oil production based on the material balance can be seen in the Figure 5.12.
The graph shows the difference of cumulative production with aquifer support and without
aquifer support. However, since Gelama Merah field has very low water aquifer, the graph
can only captured cumulative production without aquifer support. The oil recovery factor of
the oil calculated can be seen in the Figure 5.13. The result of the recovery factor may differ
from the dynamic model since this method used simplicity of the equation of material
balance.

Analytical Method - Gelama Merah 1


3000

with Aquifer Influx


without Aquifer Influx
Match Points Status :
Off
High
Medium
Low

Tank Pressure (psig)

2250

1500

750

0
0

0.0015

Tank Temperature
Tank Pressure
Figure
Tank Porosity
Connate Water Saturation
Water Compressibility
Formation Compressibility
Initial Gas Cap
Oil in Place
Production Start

0.003

0.0045

0.006

Calculated Oil Production (MMSTB)


155 (deg F)
Aquifer Model Small Pot
(psig)
Aquifer Volume
630 (MMft3)
5.12 2014
-0.18
Cumulative
production
without aquifer
support.
(fraction)
0.346 (fraction)
2.92e-6 (1/psi)
3.66593e-6 (1/psi)
1.41
55 (MMSTB)
01/05/2011 (date d/m/y)

Study need to be further investigated during simulation to identify the possible reservoir drive
mechanism. However, interpretation of MDT or MDT plot shows normal pressure system
therefore, it is assumed that there is no strong water drive and presence of weak water drive
may available. Thus it is expected that depletion drive will be the predominated driving

98

mechanism in the early life of the reservoir. Reservoir consists of significant gas cap and
hence at later stage gas cap expansion drive mechanism will also occurs.

As discussed above that predominant mechanism is depletion drive initially. However, log
analysis shows that a large gas cap is present therefore, gas cap expansion expected later in
field life also shows increasing Gas Oil Ratio at later life.

0.004

0.008

0.003

0.006

0.002

0.004

0.001

0.002

0
0

Cumulative Oil Production


Oil Recovery Factor

OilRecoveryFactor(percent)

CumulativeOilProduction(MMSTB)

Production Prediction - Gelama Merah 1

750

1500

2250

0
3000

Tank Pressure (psig)

Figure 5.13 - Cumulative oil Production (MM stb) and Oil Recovery Factor

5.3.2 3D Geological Static Model Export


The 3D static model was developed based on geological studies captured in ROXARs RMS
software. The reservoir parameters for the 3D static model were based on geological,
geophysical and petrophysical interpretations described in previous chapters. The overview
of the overall geological model as shown below in Figure 5.14 illustrated the porosity
distribution of Gelama Merah.

99

Figure 5.14 - Porosity Distribution of Gelama Merah reservoir model

A model dimension of 79*40*108 was generated for Gelama Merah field with a regular
orthogonal corner point grid system with block size of 50m by 50m grid model was
generated. Given the x- and y- directions were relatively coarse; no geological-to-simulation
model up-scaling was required thus preserving the detailed heterogeneity of the reservoir.
However in the z-direction, it was up-scaled with the ratio of 2 due to fact number cells is too
many and will consume a lot of time to compute the simulation. Thus the actual grid cell
dimensions being simulated is 79*40*54 with total number of 170640 cells.

5.3.3 Simulator Data Input

5.3.3.1 Equilibrium Data


Under this section, fluid contacts are defined based on the logs and MDT data. Most of fluid
contacts (gas-oil and oil-water) are known, either being observed in the well logs or derived
from pressure plots. For Gelama Merah reservoir, a common Gas-Oil-Contact (GOC) and
Oil-Water-Contact (OWC) are assumed for all developable reservoirs, i.e. from Unit 3.2 until
Unit 9.1, at 1467.7 m TVDSS and 1505.7 m TVDSS, respectively.

100

5.3.3.2 Fluid Data


Fluid PVT Data is obtained from the Equation-of-State (EOS) modelling of the PVT report
from Gelama Merah-1. Once the observed data from the lab are matched with the simulated
experiments using EOS, the data is exported to the simulator as an input to describe the fluid
behaviour in the reservoir.

5.3.3.3 Core Data


Relative permeability data and capillary pressure are obtained from the analyses of Routine
Core and Special Core Analysis of Gelama Merah-2ST1 and Gelama Putih-1. In summary,
three rock facies were classified according to the rock quality; Facies-1 (Porosity above 0.28
and Permeability above 200 mD), Facies-2 (Porosity between 0.18 to 0.28 and Permeability
between 30 200 mD), and Facies-3 (Porosity below 0.18 and Permeability below 30 mD).
In the simulator, grid cells will be assigned with the rock facies grouping so that each cell
will have its own capillary pressure and relative permeability curve based on classification.
This will represent the heterogeneity thus making the simulation more representative of the
actual condition of the reservoir.

5.3.3.4 Aquifer Data


Since the observation of the logs and material balance calculations indicating a weak aquifer
support for Gelama Merah reservoir, a thin layer aquifer is attached to the bottom most of
model (layer 9.2). The porosity and permeability of the aquifer are derived from the log
response and from the porosity-permeability model.

5.3.4 Dynamic Initialization


A pre-run was conducted to check there is no error in the data file which will be read by the
reservoir simulator. Once it is done, key parameters that have been initialized before
simulation will be checked to ensure it is consistent from the interpretation in the geology and
geophysics phase. This is to ensure all the sensitivity analyses and case studies in predicting
the performance of the reservoir will be valid.
101

5.3.4.1 Original Hydrocarbon in Place


The Gelama Merah field simulation models were initialized to the STOIIP derived from the
3D static model. Simulation models initialization is considered acceptable so long as the
STOIIP error is within 5% or less (Dynamic Model: 83.58 MM STB, Static Model: 86.56
MM STB). The minor difference is unavoidable given that the 3D static models STOIIP was
based on cell capillary pressure calculation while that of the simulation models initialization
(STOIIP) used the capillary pressure grouping calculation and the equilibrium conditions are
obtained from the support of the aquifer and gas cap. Also, due to the rock compressibility,
pore volumes calculated in dynamic modelling will be slightly different compared to static
model due to reduction of the pore volume as overburden pressure gives stress to the rock
pore spaces.

5.3.4.2 Initial Reservoir Pressure and Fluid Equilibrium


The simulator initialized Gelama Merah field with an initial pressure of 2117 Psia which is
very close to what have been reported in PVT data and also well test of 2114 Psia. Besides
initialization of the pressure, the fluid is ensured to be in equilibrium so that material balance
that will be calculated by the simulator is valid. The model was run for 5 years without any
fluids being produced or injected into the reservoir, and rightly there are no changes in the
fluid-in-place or pressure changes. Thus these ensure that the reservoir was initialized
correctly and simulation studies can proceed.

5.3.4.3 Operating Constraints


Constraints are set to ensure the production profile and the development strategies that will be
proposed in well within the feasibility of facilities and equipments that will be utilized in the
development phase. Cases were run with the base conditions except for their specific
sensitivities. The base conditions are:
STOIIP (MMstb): 83.58
GIIP (Bscf): 115.32
Oil production rate (stb/d): Well potential
102

Liquid production rate (stb/d): 10 000


Injection water volume (Mstb/d): 10
Injection gas volume (MMscf/d): Gas produced from producers recycled to injector

Cases were run until the end of field production and the wells were shut-in or stimulated
subject to the following constraints:

Minimum well oil rate (stb/d): 50

Minimum BHP (Psia): 700

Maximum watercut (%): 95

Maximum well GOR (scf/stb) : 20 000

Well FTHP (psia) : 250

The minimum well FTHP was set relatively high in the model to ensure the ability to export
the liquids to the receiving platform.

5.3.5 Sensitivity Analysis


All simulation runs were started with natural depletion strategy, with no operating
constraints, and with reasonable maximum number of wells that yield the highest achievable
recovery. Conceptually, simulation runs results were targeting to achieve, if possible, at least
50% recovery factor. Once the highest reserve recovery is achieved, development plans were
devised to yield optimal economics results.

In general, sensitivity cases were investigated to quantify the development uncertainties;


depletion strategies e.g. natural versus water/gas injection, injection volume and timing
deferrals requirements, well number requirement, peak rates, completion strategies, and
uncertainties in the geological modelling. The cases of individual sensitivities will be
discussed in the following section.

5.3.5.1 Base Case Analysis


The starting case evaluated was based on natural depletion (ND) via gas cap expansion
through conventional wells. Given the relatively huge gas cap size (m ratio of 1.47) and the
103

assessed weak aquifer strength, well locations were strategically placed within 100 to 150
acres per well spacing and drainage points were completed within the developable reservoirs.

For the base case, the two existing wells in the exploration phases; Gelama Merah-1 and
Gelama Merah-2ST1 is used as the producer. The perforation intervals are optimized in such
that it will perforate only at the oil interval of the reservoir which is in layer 9.0 to 9.1.
Basically three runs were conducted and are summarized below:

Table 5.17 - Base case results simulation

Well Producer
Perforation Interval
(mTVDss)
Production Period
before Shut-in
(Years)
Total Cumulative
Oil Produced (MM
stb)
Water Cut before
End of Prediction
(%)
Recovery Factor
(%)

Case 1

Case 2

Case 3

Gelama
Merah-1

Gelama
Merah-2ST1

Gelama Merah 1 and


Gelama Merah-2ST1

1500 - 1515

1500 - 1515

1500 - 1515

14

12

1.053

0.886

1.998

93.21

94.24

94.85

1.26

1.06

2.39

From the base case runs, the two existing wells are deemed not economical and feasible to be
assigned as producers. The recover factor from the three base runs were relatively low (below
2%), water cut was relatively high (above 90%) even from these two wells, and also the
production period is not fully optimizing the facilities and not economical. Thus considering
the operating costs and forecasted economic evaluations, new wells must be drilled as
producers and new sensitivities runs will be done including the existing wells.

104

5.3.5.2 Well Count Sensitivity


From the base case analyses, new in-fill wells will be introduced in the simulation studies.
First step was to identify and optimize the positions of the new wells in the reservoir, by
taking into consideration the rock quality index (RQI) and the oil saturation of the grid cells
where we proposed the wells to produce.

Initially many wells (more than 30 wells) were defined in the simulator; however the wells
are removed one by one by which is not producing economically and not performing until left
with the best producing wells. Vertical wells and horizontal wells are introduced in the

14

5000

12
10

7 Verti Qo
12 Verti Qo
15 Verti Qo
7 Verti Np
12 Verti Np
15 Verti Np

4000
3000
2000

8
6
4

1000

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021
Years

2023

2025

2027

2029

Field Production Rate (STB/D)

12000

2031
25

10000

20

4 Hori Qo
6 Hori Qo
12 Hori Qo
15 Hori Qo
4 Hori Np
6 Hori Np
12 Hori Np
15 Hori Np

8000
6000
4000
2000

15
10
5

0
2011

Field Cumulative Oil Production (MM


STB)

6000

Field Cumulative Oil Production


(MM STB)

Field Production Rate (STB/D)

simulation studies for comparison.

0
2013

2015

2017

2019

2021
Years

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

Figure 5.15 - Simulation results showing different well types (Horizontal and Vertical) against well counts

The sensitivity on well count was investigated in order to come out with the optimum number
of wells. It is necessary to optimize the capital expenditure. Wells with poor recovery will be
eliminated and remaining wells with good recovery will be optimized depending on the
105

simulation results analysis. The optimization process including the reposition, oil rate
production target and bottom-hole pressure adjustment. The results come out to be 6
number of horizontal wells required to get the optimum recovery. Additional wells did not
improve the recovery significantly and reduction of wells will affect the recovery.

The best well count achieved from the simulation results was to have a total of 6 horizontal
wells with recovery factor of 22.28%. Adding more horizontal wells to fifteen (15) did not
result in increase in recovery though initial production had slightly increased. The value from
these additional horizontal wells is envisioned to be not economically attractive.

While reducing the number of horizontal wells decreased the optimal recovery. The main
reason was the same as for conventional wells where these horizontal wells were having the
most optimum recovery per well.

5.3.5.3 Well Completion Sensitivity


In deriving the optimum depletion strategy, well completion strategy was evaluated as well.
Gelama Merah has around 40 meters of oil column. Given the relatively huge gas cap size
and weak assessed weak aquifer support, conventional well production (Vertical wells) was
susceptible to gas coning due to high pressure drop. In addition, more wells were required to
achieve good recovery from multiple reservoirs. The best recovery obtained from the
simulation run was achieved with twelve (12) conventional wells. Adding more conventional
wells did not increase the recovery significantly, while reducing the number of wells
decreased the optimal recovery. In these runs, a field gas production limit of 30 MMscf/D
was applied, and GOR limit of 20 000 scf/stb was imposed. Further investigations using
horizontal wells were evaluated, and were found to be the better option compared to
conventional wells.

106

20

9000

18

8000

16

7000

12 Verti Qo

14

6000

6 Hori Qo

12

5000

12 Verti Np

10

4000

6 Hori Np

3000

2000

1000

2011

2016

2021
Years

2026

Field Cumulative Oil Production (MM


STB)

Field Production Rate (STB/D)

10000

2031

Figure 5.16 - Simulation results showing optimized performance between vertical and horizontal wells

Only six (6) horizontal wells are required to achieve higher recovery compared to the 12
conventional wells. This is expected from the simulation runs analysis as horizontal wells are
anticipated to replace between one to two conventional wells, i.e. wider drainage made
possible without adding more wells. The wells were placed about one third from the oil water
contact and two third from the gas oil contact to avoid early gas breakthrough or localized gas
casping.

5.3.5.4 Peak Rate Sensitivity


Given the relatively huge gas cap size, two peak rates were investigated; oil rates and gas
rates. Limiting the peak to 10,000 b/d of oil seems to be practical in maximizing the use of
facility design to at least within two to three years. In addition, significant reservoir pressure
decline will be mitigated thus preventing from premature high gas production. Limiting the
total gas produced will decide on the size of compressor to be designed and mitigated
significant reservoir pressure decline as well. Based on simulation runs done on oil and gas
rates limitations, the optimum peak rates were found to be 10,000 b/d of oil and 30 MM scf/d
of gas productions (Maximum GOR 20 000 scf/stb). Subsequent works should involve
running sensitivities on constraining individual well gas production, which can later be
utilized during production period to control the gas production on well-by-well basis, based
on GOR ranking.

107

Field Oil Production (STB/D)

16000
14000

Liquid Rate (10000


STB/D)
Liquid Rate (15000
STB/D)
Liquid Rate (No Limit)

12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000

2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031

10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0

Gas Rate (Limited 15 MM scf/d)


Gas Rate (Limited 60 MM scf/d)
Gas Rate (Limited 90 MM scf/d)
Gas Rate (GOR limit)

2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031

Field Oil Production (STB/D)

Years

Years
Figure 5.17 - Simulation results showing optimized performance for limiting liquid and gas rate production

Results above show that setting the liquid limit rate values to a very high value will promote
a higher oil production initially in the first 2 3 years of production. However, the production
is not sustainable for the next 20 years, and the pressure decline too rapidly and water cut at
the end of each simulation runs where the liquid limit rate is high is almost reaching 90%.
Thus it is recommended to produce at an optimized 10 000 STB/D liquid rate with GOR
limited to maximum 20 000 scf/stb.

5.3.5.5 Depletion Strategy Sensitivity


The base case study for depletion strategy of Gelama Merah field was on natural depletion
(ND) via gas cap expansion through optimized 6 horizontal wells based on the previous
sensitivities analyses. Comparison were made between vertical and horizontal wells, and the
108

results from the analyses strongly indicates that horizontal well completions is the preferred
options as it yield better recovery with the least amount number of producers with other
factors like pressure decline and water cut is within the acceptable range.

In an effort to improve oil recovery and to control the steep decline of pressure drop due to
gas cap expansion, gas injection and water injection was investigated. For all the cases, the
existing exploration well; Gelama Merah-1 will be utilized as the injector to obtain a 7-spots
inverted displacement pattern as the position of the well is in middle of the reservoir.

5.3.5.5.1 Water Injector


Three schemes were proposed, (1) inject the water at the oil zone, (2) inject the water into the
aquifer, and (3) inject the water into the gas-cap. For all the cases, water injection rate was set
to be 10 000 stb/day where maximum injection pressure at the point of injection is based on
the fracture gradient of the reservoir of 2000 Psia.

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

10000

20

8000
15

Water Injection (Gas Cap) - Qoil

6000

Water Injection (Oil Zone) - Qoil


Water Injection (Aquifer) - Qoil

4000

10

Water Injection (Gas Cap) - Np Oil


Water Injection (Oil Zone) - Np Oil

2000

Water Injection (Aquifer) - Np Oil

Year

109

2031

2030

2029

2028

2027

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

0
2012

Cumulative Oil Produced (MM STB)

25

2011

Field Oil Production (STB/D)

12000

2200

1
0.9

2000

Pressure (Psia)

1800

0.7
0.6

1600

0.5
1400

Water Injection (Aquifer) - Pressure

0.4

Water Injection (Oil Zone) - Pressure

1200

0.3

Water Injection (Gas Cap) - Pressure


Water Injection (Aquifer) - Water Cut

1000

Water Cut (Fraction)

0.8

0.2

Water Injection (Oil Zone) - Water Cut

0.1

Water Injection (Gas Cap) - Water Cut

800

2011

2016

2021
Year

2026

2031

Figure 5.18 - Simulation results of production profile, pressure decline and water cut for water injector to the
aquifer, oil zone, and gas cap

Results above indicate that between the three possible scenarios of injecting water, the best
option is to inject water into the gas cap. This is because of the improve recovery obtained
(3% incremental recovery), pressure decline is mitigated (end of prediction pressure at 1199
Psia), and water cut at the end of prediction was the lowest (0.76) among three cases.

Table 5.18 - Simulation results for Water Injection scheme

Cumulative Oil Produced (MM


STB)
Recovery Factor (%)
Pressure after 20 years (Psia)
Water Cut after 20 years
(Fraction)

Water Injection
Gas Cap Oil Zone
Aquifer

Natural
Depletion

19.95055 19.98649 19.031166


23.87
23.913
22.77
1119
943
1068

18.62
22.28
824

0.77

0.92

0.86

0.71

Injecting water to the gas cap helps to improve recovery and slowing down the pressure
decline due to the fact water is injected above the oil zone in the gas cap, thus due to the
density difference and gravity affect, the water will slowly go down to the oil zone. The
presence of water will help to push the oil vertically to the producers as well as slowing down
the pressure decline due to the withdrawal of reservoir oil and gas. Water cut is also
maintained at an acceptable operating and economical conditions. This is also helped due to
110

the fact that the horizontal wells completions are at one third from bottom of the oil column
(further from the Gas-Oil Contact) and the oil column is very thin of around 40 meters only.
The sweeping efficiency of water is optimized thus leads to a good oil recovery.

5.3.5.5.2 Gas Injector


For gas injectors, similar to the scenarios from water injector scheme, there possible scheme
were simulated; (1) inject gas to the gas-cap, (2) inject gas to the oil zone, and (3) inject gas
to the aquifer. For all scenarios, the volume of gas injected depends on the produced gas from
the six oil producers. The gas produced will be recycled and channelled back to Gelama
Merah-1 for injection purposes. The maximum injection pressure is obtained from the rock
fracture gradient, in order not to damage the formation, of which the value is 2000 Psia.

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031
25

Field Oil Production (STB/D)

10000

20

8000
Gas Injection (Gas Cap) - Qoil

15

Gas Injection (Oil Zone) - Qoil

6000

Gas Injection (Aquifer) - Qoil

10

Gas Injection (Gas Cap) - Np Oil

4000

Gas Injection (Oil Zone) - Np Oil


Gas Injection (Aquifer) - Np Oil

2000

0
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031

Cumulative Oil Produced (MM STB)

12000

Year

Figure 5.19 - Simulation results of production profile for gas injector to the aquifer, oil zone, and gas cap

Results above indicate that between the three possible scenarios of injecting gas, the best
option is to inject gas into the aquifer. This is because of the improve recovery obtained
(2.5% incremental recovery), pressure decline is mitigated (end of prediction pressure at 1145
Psia), water cut at the end of prediction was the lowest (0.73), and GOR was around 15 000
to 20 000 scf/stb among three cases at the end of prediction.

111

2200

1
0.9
0.8

1800

0.7

1600

0.6

1400
1200
1000

0.5

Gas Injection (Aquifer) - Pressure


Gas Injection (Oil Zone) - Pressure

0.4

Gas Injection (Gas Cap) - Pressure

0.3

Gas Injection (Aquifer) - Water Cut

0.2

Gas Injection (Oil Zone) - Water Cut

0.1

Gas Injection (Gas Cap) - Water Cut

800
2011

Water Cut (Fraction)

Pressure (Psia)

2000

0
2016

2021
Year

2026

2031

Figure 5.20 - Simulation results of pressure decline and water cut for gas injector to the aquifer, oil zone, and gas cap

Injecting gas to the aquifer helps to improve recovery and slowing down the pressure decline
due to the fact gas is injected below the oil zone in the aquifer, thus due to the density
difference and gravity effect, the gas will slowly go up to the oil zone due its low density.
The presence of gas will help to push the oil to the producers as well as slowing down the
pressure decline due to the withdrawal of reservoir oil and gas. However precautions must be
taken due to the fact gas is a light component, low in viscosity and density which could lead
to a very early gas-breakthrough from the injectors. And also the possibility of the gas being
dissolved in the water in the aquifer will reduce the effectiveness of the gas to push the oil to
the producer as the amount of gas which makes contact with the oil is reduced.

For further investigation, another sensitivity analyses were conducted on the voidage
replacement ratio (VRR). Previous analyses, the volume of gas depend on the amount of
produced gas from the producers (VRR < 1). Simulation run for VRR equals to one was
conducted for all the three possible scenarios. VRR equals to one simply means the volume
of injected gas will be equal to the volume of the reservoir fluid (oil and gas) been
withdrawn. No GOR limit was imposed on the producers.

112

Table 5.19 - Simulation results for VRR = 1 sensitivity analyses

Gas Injection
Natural
Gas Cap Oil Zone Aquifer Depletion
Cumulative Oil Produced (MM
STB)
Recovery Factor (%)
Pressure after 20 years (Psia)
Water Cut after 20 years (Fraction)

26.12
31.25
1458
0.76

22.83
27.32
1374
0.72

24.43
29.23
1364
0.83

18.62
22.28
824
0.71

Gas injection at VRR equals to one yielded a very good recovery of 29.23%, almost 7%
incremental compared to natural depletion strategy for injection in aquifer, 31.25% recovery
factor for gas injection to the gas cap, and 27.32% for gas injection to the oil zone. Also,
pressure maintenance is excellent with pressure of the reservoir hovering around 1400 to
1500 Psia throughout the forecasted prediction period for all three cases. However, the
amount gas is phenomenal to achieve VRR equals to one, with the amount of gas required for
injection is around 600 MM scf/d. And the GOR of the field production was too high, of
around 30 000 to 50 000 scf/stb, which may lead to potential operating problems in the future
in producing the gas, treating and storing the gas. This make the option of injecting gas at
VRR equals to one uneconomical and unattractive. However for future consideration, if there
is any external high pressure cheap gas made available for injection, thus it is advisable for
the depletion strategy of gas injection to be revised to better improve the recovery and
maintaining the pressure since the results obtained from simulation is very promising.

5.3.5.5.3 Water-Alternating-Gas (WAG) Injector


From the previous sensitivity analyses, we conclude that it is recommended for water to be
injected to the gas cap and gas to be injected to the aquifer. Thus this leads to another
possible injection scheme, where Water-Alternating-Gas is considered in the depletion
strategy. Utilizing Gelama Merah-1 as the injector, both water and gas will be injected
alternatively to help improve the recovery as well as sustaining the pressure decline.

A simple injection scheme was proposed, where water will be injected for the first 4 months,
followed by gas injection for the next 8 months starting in the 2nd year of production. The
process will lead to alternating injection of gas and water to the reservoir. Injection rate for

113

water is 15 000 STB/D, and for gas depends of the produced gas from producers which will
be recycled.
Field Oil Production Rate (STB/D)

12000
WAG Depletion

10000

Natural Depletion

8000
6000
4000
2000

2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031

Pressure (Psia)

Years
2300
2100
1900
1700
1500
1300
1100
900
700
500

Pressure - WAG
Pressure - Natural Depletion

2011

2016

2021
Year

2026

2031

0.8

Water Cut (Fraction)

0.7
0.6
0.5
WAG - Watercut

0.4

Natural Depletion Water Cut

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

Year
Figure 5.21 - Simulation results of WAG production profile, pressure decline and water cut

114

The results show that through implementation of WAG, recovery factor is increased to
27.82%, an incremental of 5.53% from natural depletion. Pressure decline is better mitigated
in WAG strategy where pressure at the end of prediction studies is around 1300 Psia with the
sharp decline of pressure drop is minimized. However water cut is slightly higher for WAG
due to the water breakthrough from the injector, where the water cut at year 2031 is at 75%,
of which it is still well under the maximum economic limit of 95% for water cut.

It can clearly be seen that WAG is the most optimized option for Gelama Merah depletion
strategy. With the source of gas and water are readily available, the additional cost of
estimated USD 5 millions will only be coming from purchasing the compressors and pumps
for injection purposes, as well as treatment facilities for the injection fluids.

The completion interval was change to the middle to the oil column, to prevent any early gas
or water breakthrough from the injection scheme. Gas is injected for a longer period due to
the fact gas produced from the producers must be immediately channel back to the injector. It
is not advisable to store the gas on the platform as facilities available might not be able to
compensate the amount of gas produced for storage purposes.

Nevertheless considering the improvement in recovery as well as pressure management, thus


we proposed the development strategy for Gelama Merah field to use WAG starting in the 2nd
year of production.

5.3.5.6 Geological Model Uncertainties Analyses


Lastly, after determining the most optimum development strategy based on the parameters
identified (Recovery factor, water cut, pressure decline, etc.), additional runs were made to
inspect any differences in the forecasted production profile should the geological model
turned out to be different. This is one of the key step in acknowledging the uncertainties and
risk in our static model, as there were a lot of assumptions made in constructing the model
due to fact data were made available only from two wells which are located only 500 metre
apart to each other, whereas the geological model extend to 3 to 6 km away from the wells.

115

Table 5.20 - Recovery factor comparison for different geological model

Geological Scenarios
STOIIP (MM STB)
Cumulative Oil Produced (MM
STB)
Recovery Factor (%)
Pressure after 20 years (Psia)

Anticline
Unconformity
83.58

Anticline
Sand Pocket
52.21

Anticline
Fault
73.24

18.621624

11.23

13.14

22.28
824

13.43622876 15.72146447
317
592

Results above show that for different geological model, the oil initially in place will be
different, which in turns affect the recovery factor and pressure decline at the end of
prediction. Sand pocket scenario indicates a significant reduction of hydrocarbon in place,
this is due to the fact the sand units became discontinuous, thus reducing the pore volume of
the reservoir. In fault model, there is not much difference in the oil initially in place with the
proposed model; anticline unconformity. These two additional models also indicate the worst
possible cases for pressure decline and reduction in recovery factor. Even with WAG is
implemented, firstly due to the low connectivity of the sand units and also the fault which
separates the reservoir into two zones, pressure declined very sharply to almost 300 to 600
Psia at the end of prediction. The effectiveness of the injection scheme may be jeopardized if
the geological scenarios turn out different to what we interpreted. However considering the
availability and accuracy of the geological data that we have, we believe the proposed model
fits the best of what we have so far. It is highly recommended though that more additional
data is acquired which preferably beyond these two exploration wells; Gelama Merah-1 and
Gelama Merah-2ST1 so that the extensiveness of the sand units can be confirmed, and more
geological features can be identified.

5.4 Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)


Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) can be defined as any method that increases oil production by
using techniques or materials that are not part of normal pressure maintenance or water
flooding operations. EOR can begin after a secondary recovery process or at any time during
the productive life of an oil reservoir. EOR method is considered as tertiary recovery in
Gelama Merah reservoir management plan. In order to ensure the success of EOR method,
the available methods were screened according to the fluid and reservoir properties. Below
are the reservoir and fluid properties of Gelama Merah field.
116

Reservoir Pressure

: 2116 psia

Reservoir Temperature: 155F


Gravity API

: 24.16

Oil Viscosity

: 1.337cp

Formation Type

: Shaly sandstone

Permeability

: 140mD

Depth

: 4200-4800mTVDSS

Table 5.21 shows the screening criteria for EOR. The EOR methods that match with Gelama
Merah field is selected for further screening process. Thermal method is suitable for heavy
oil as the API gravity of the crude oil is very low. Crude oil in Gelama Merah field is
considered as light oil (API gravity 24.16), hence thermal method is not suitable for Gelama
Merah Field. Gas and chemical method meet the reservoir and fluid properties of Gelama
Merah field. At the present, Hydrocarbon flooding is not a good option as the gas produced
will be used as gas injection for pressure maintanace. Hydrocarbon miscible flooding consists
of injecting light hydrocarbons through the reservoir to form a miscible flood. Due to
unavailability regional field data, hydrocarbon flooding is not an option for EOR as the data
of hydrocarbon gas source from adjacent field is required in order to implement hydrocarbon
flooding in Gelama Merah field.

Nitrogen and flue gas flooding is recommended for the oil with gravity API > 35 and
viscosity <0.4. However these properties are not match with reservoir and fluid properties of
Gelama Merah field, hence, it not a good option for EOR. In addition, this method is suitable
for crude oil having composition of high percentage of light hydrocarbons.

CO2 flooding can be consider as EOR method for Gelama Merah filed. CO2 flooding is
carried out by injecting large quantities of CO2 into the reservoir. Although CO2 is not first
contact miscible with the crude oil, the CO2 extracts the light-to-intermediate components
from the oil and, if the pressure is high enough, develops miscibility to displace the crude oil
from the reservoir. CO2 recover crude oil by swelling the crude oil, lowering the viscosity of
the oil and lowing interfacial tension between the oil and CO2 oil phase. In addition CO2 is
much more effectively lowering the oil viscosity than N2 and CH4. This method can be
consider as EOR for Gelama Merah field in the future if a good source of low-cost CO2 is
available. CO2 flooding can cause problems, especially if there is early breakthrough of CO2
117

in producing wells. Therefore, a proper completion and facilities design are required in order
to mitigate the CO2 corrosion. Table 5.22 and Table 5.23 show details technical screening
guides for CO2 flooding.
Chemical flooding can be considered as EOR method for Gelama Merah field, however,
details economic analysis required as chemical flooding is not economical if the oil price at
low level. For Gelama Merah field, the best option is by polymer flooding. One of polymers
functions is to enhanced or increased the sweep efficiency of the water flooding. This is
because the polymer will increase the water viscosity. Consequently the water mobility will
be decreased. Besides, polymer also assists or helps to reduce the effective water permeability.
The polymer will adsorb onto the rock surface and reduce the water permeability.

For future EOR consideration, there are two (2) factors that is suggested to be consider which
as following:

Current Oil-in-Place

A reliable estimate of the current Sor is should be the most important criterion in deciding
whether to go for an EOR process. Obviously, a high Sor is often desirable, although such is
usually not the case. As a rule-of-thumb, Sor > 0.35 is desirable for most EOR processes.

Economic, geo-political and management policy criteria

Current oil prices and future geo-political scenarios should be considered in making the
decision to go ahead with EOR investments. For example, if the oil price remains at its
current low level, there is less chance of any chemical flooding getting widespread field
applications. However, government incentives such as tax and royalty holidays may change
the decision.

118

Table 5.21 - Screening criteria for EOR

Oil Properties
Viscosity
Composition
(cp)

EOR Method

Gravity
(API)

Nitrogen &
Flue gas

>35

<0.4

High percent
of C1 to C7

Hydrocarbon

>23

<3

High percent
of C2 to C7

CO2

>22

<10

High percent
of C5 to C12

Immisible
gases

>12

<600

NC

Micellar/
Polymer,
ASP, and
Alkaline
Flooding

>20

<35

Polymer
Flooding

>15

<150,>10

Light,
intermediate,
some organic
acids for
alkaline
floods
NC

Combustion

>10

<5000

Some
asphaltic
components

Steam

>8

<200000

NC

Surface
mining

7 -11

Zero
cold flow

NC

Reservoir Characteristics
Oil
Formation
Net
Average
Saturation
Type
Thickness
Permeability
(% PV)
(ft)
(md)
Gas Injection Methods (Miscible)
>40
Sandstone
Thin unless
NC
or
dipping
carbonate
>30
Sandstone
Thin unless
NC
or
dipping
carbonate
>20
Sandstone
Wide range
NC
or
carbonate
>35
NC
NC if dipping
NC
and/or
good vertical
permeability
(Enhanced) Waterflooding
>35
Sandstone
NC
>10
preferred

>50

Sandstone
preferred
Thermal/Mechanical
>50
Highporosity
sand/
sandstone
>40
Highporosity
sand/
sandstone
>8 wt%
Mineable
sand
tar sand

*NC = Not critical


119

Depth
(ft)

Temperature
(F)

>6000

NC

>4000

NC

>2500

NC

>1800

NC

>9000

>200

NC

>10

<9000

>200

>10

>50

<11500

>100

>20

>200

<4500

NC

>10

NC

>3:1
overburden to
sand ratio

NC

Table 5.22 - CO2 technical screening guides

Gravity (API)

>20

Range of Current
Projects
27 to 44

Viscosity, cp

<10

0.3 to 6

Composition

High percentage of intermediate

15 to 70

Properties

Recommended

hydrocarbons (especially C5 to C12)


Oil Saturation (% PV)
Type Formation

>20

15 to 70

Sandstone or carbonate and relatively


thin unless dipping.

Average Permeability

Not critical if sufficient injection


rates can be maintained.

Depth & Temperature

For miscible displacement, depth must be great enough to allow


injection pressures greater than the Minimum Miscibility Pressure
(MMP), which increases with temperature and for heavier oils.
Recommended depths for CO2 floods of typical Permian Basin
oils follow.

Table 5.23 - CO2-miscible/immiscible flooding

CO2-miscible flooding
Depth must be greater than (ft)
Oil Gravity, API
2500

>40
32 to 39.9
28 to 31.9
22 to 27.9
<22

2800
3300
4000
Fails miscible, screen for
immiscible*
Immiscible CO2 flooding
13 to 21.9
1800
All oil reservoirs fail at any
depth

<13

At < 1,800 ft, all reservoirs fail screening criteria for either miscible or immiscible flooding
with supercritical CO2.

120

5.5 Reservoir Surveillance


Constant surveillance is necessary to obtain optimal reservoir management. Bottom hole
pressure measurements and monthly well tests are especially important to determination of
the reservoir parameters and aquifer strength. The aquifer extent is uncertain, thus, at this
point of time the aquifer is assumed to be weak and edge type. The aquifer strength could be
confirmed only after several years of production. Revisions to the STOIIP and GIIP should
be done after drilling the development wells in the drilling campaign.

Every effort will be made to ensure GM field reservoirs will be managed prudently and in
accordance to PETRONAS guidelines. Reservoir management for GM can be divided into
two phases, i.e. initial production and routine production phases. In each phase, appropriate
data acquisition is planned to achieve specific objectives in order to optimise the field
development planning as well as to effectively monitor reservoir performance to maximize
recovery.

Production rate test will be conducted within 90 days after well completion or at the first
opportunity available. Similarly, initial flowing and build-up (FBU) will also be carried out at
the first opportunity available.

From initial FBU, the initial reservoir pressure, the permeability, the skin factors, the
reservoir boundary and other useful reservoir parameters would be obtained. The initial FBU
data will be analysed to ensure the reservoir characteristics are considered in revising the
reservoir management and production allocation.

Routine production rate test will be performed once a month to determine its oil, gas, and
water rates. The measurement of surface condition such as wellhead pressure (THP), choke
size and casing head pressure and the API gravity of the produced liquid hydrocarbon will
also be recorded during the monthly production test.

Static bottom hole pressure (BHP) surveys will be performed annually. This would be useful,
as it would permit material balance study. Key wells will need to be identified so as the six
month BHP surveys are done on these wells. While the remaining active wells will be the
rotational wells and BHP surveys will be done on annually basis.
121

The BHP survey data would be used to continually monitor the reservoir pressure and areal
pressure distribution, particularly in the late field life. It will allow re-evaluation of reservoir
production strategy and reserves, thereby allowing further optimization of withdrawal rates in
order to maximize the recovery. The production optimization will be done once sufficient
data is obtained.

Due to unconsolidated nature of the reservoir rocks, sand production will be monitored from
the monthly production tests and inspections on the choke and fluid sample shake out. Close
monitoring, especially on water breakthrough, would provide indication of any problematic
wells or reservoirs for early diagnosis. Early corrective measures could be undertaken to
prevent well/reservoir problems and prevent excessive water production in early field life.
The production test rate and BHP survey must comply with the procedures approved by
PETRONAS. The results of the reservoir simulation models will be used as a guide for the
reservoir surveillance engineers to determine the optimal production strategy.

Sensitivity analyses of different depletion plans have been carried out to increase the
recovery factor such as number of wells, types of wells, water injection with voidage
replacement rate (VRR) equals to 1.

5.6 Uncertainty Analysis


Limited well data causing the model to be more homogeneous between wells than they would
be if more well control or a more robust stochastic approach were applied. The information
that obtained from GELAMA MERAH-1 and GELAMA MERAH-ST1 were insufficient to
capture the heterogeneity that actually present in the reservoir. The well correlation study is
not properly done due to limited well data. Placing the well at the key location during
development stage perhaps will minimize the uncertainties that we have.

Understanding the reservoir properties is important to better estimate the initial oil in-place
and gas in-place. Averaging rock properties without proper well control might either lead to
the underestimation or over estimation of the expected oil and gas reserves.

122

Key concerns are:

Lack of well data (uncertainties in rock properties)


The resulted volumetric calculation is based on 2 well data alone as there was no
other information available.

Unavailability of representative fluid properties data (PVT)


The PVT data used is based on the newer fluid composition that was generated using
PVTi. The calibration of newer fluid composition is based on the measured bubble
point pressure.

Uncertainties in core depth.


The problem arises when core samples were used for the log calibration.
Unavailability of gamma ray core for the correlation control may be introduced
mismatch depth when log calibration exercise was conducted (porosity calibration and
core-log facies correlation).

Unavailability of representative core data for the petrophysical input.


Series of rock properties correlation are required in order to generate the
representative relative permeability curve. However, poor correlation might be
obtained due to insufficient core data.

123

Chapter 6 :

PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY

6.1 Introduction
This chapter covers the production technology aspect of Gelama Merah field. Studies and
reviews comprising the aspect from bottomhole up to the wellhead are included in this
section. The well completion design focus on tubing selection, material selection and down
hole equipment.
The main objectives of the production technology design are to:

Provide a safe and effective design of a well completion for all producers.

Maintain well integrity during the production life while maximizing the recovery.

Allow future intervention and recompletion for any production enhancement


activities.

6.2 Nodal Analysis


Nodal Analysis also called Total System Analysis has been applied for Gelama Merah field
to analyze the performance of systems composed of interacting components. The Gelama
Merah well deliverability is determined by the combination of well inflow performance and
wellbore flow performance. Fluid properties change with the location-dependent pressure and
temperature in the oil and gas production system.

To simulate the fluid flow in the system, it is necessary to break the system into discrete
nodes that separate system elements (equipment sections). Fluid properties at the elements
are evaluated locally. Nodal analysis is performed on the principle of pressure continuity, that
is, there is only one unique pressure value at a given node regardless of whether the pressure
is evaluated from the performance of upstream equipment or downstream equipment.

The performance curve (pressurerate relation) of upstream equipment is called inflow


performance curve and the performance curve of downstream equipment is called outflow
performance curve. The intersection of the two performance curves defines the operating
124

point, which is operating flow rate and pressure, at the specified node. All of the components
upstream of the node comprise the inflow section, while the outflow section consists of all of
the components downstream of the node.

6.3 Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) and PVT Correlation

6.3.1 Inflow Performance Prediction

The models for well development were generated in Petroleum Expert PROSPER software
utilizing data from Gelama Merah-1 and Gelama Merah-1 ST-1. For the test point data from
vertical well Gelama Merah-1 well test report, the main flow data were used which are 1753
psia and 1378 stb/day at Wellhead Pressure (WHP) of 390 psi. The layer pressure for the
zone of interested is at 2151 psia and bottomhole temperature of 155F. The mid-perforation
depth is set to be 4970 ft TVDRKB where the RKB is 89.57ft (27.3m) above the mean sea
level (MSL). The effective permeability used is 140mD with total Darcy skin of 0 even
thought the skin is -2.1 from well test. The negative skin may be contributed from successful
underbalanced perforation jobs (debris was flowed out instead of plugging the perforated
holes due to lower hydrostatic pressure).

The IPR model used is Vogel for two phase flow correlation. This generates the productivity
index (PI) of 3.46 stb/day/psi and absolute open flow (AOF) of 4338.9 stb/day for matching
with the development plans. The Standing correlation is used for the gas solution, bubble
point pressure and formation volume factor, while Beggs et al has been chosen to represent
the vertical flow correlation for Gelama Merah field. All the correlation mentioned above
yield a high accuracy during the matching process compared to the other correlations.

The data from production test, PVT and well test from Gelama Merah-1 and Gelama Merah-1
ST1 used as an input data in the PROSPER to construct a horizontal well model. New
trajectory from drilling is used as new deviation for GM-A. The data input used for horizontal
well are:

125

Figure 6.1 - Horizontal data for GM-A

The new PI for horizontal well, GM-A constructed is 6.52 stb/day/psi with the AOF of
7891.2 stb/day, which is almost double than vertical well Gelama Merahs PI and AOF. The
producing performance of a horizontal well is frequently anticipated to be greater than a
comparable vertical well. GM-A well model will be used as the reference for all well
performance in Gelama Merah field.

6.3.2 Outflow Performance Prediction


This section discusses the nodal analysis modeling process prior simulating the new
development wells tubing performance and well deliverability. Sensitivity runs on the models
are tubing sizes and water cut increase, Gas Oil Ratio, Flowing Tubing Head Pressure and
others have been studied and will be discussed later. The outflow performance prediction
sensitivities are tubing sizes of 2.375 in, 2.875 in and 3.5 in with water cut of 0%, 20%, 30%,
40% and 50%. The plots of sensitivities can be found in Appendix D from Figure D.3 until
Figure D.5. The results are summarized in Table 6.1 until Table 6.4.

Table 6.1 - Tubing performance at different wellhead pressure (0% water cut)

THP (PSIG)
Tubing
Diameter (in)
2.375
2.875
3.5

100
200
300
400
500
Qo
Qo
Qo
Qo
Qo
(bopd) (bopd) (bopd) (bopd) (bopd)
3230
2915
2559
2151
1675
4129
3733
3279
2758
2137
5285
4797
4217
3508
2633
126

Table 6.2 - Tubing performance with increasing water cut @ WHP of 390 psi

WC (%)
Tubing
Diameter (in)
2.375
2.875
3.5

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Qo
Qo
Qo
Qo
Qo
Qo
Qo
(bopd) (bopd) (bopd) (bopd) (bopd) (bopd) (bopd)
2193
1872
1495
1123
755
351
N/A
2814
2376
1860
1344
843
N/A
N/A
3583
2973
2221
1510
876
N/A
N/A
Table 6.3 - Tubing performance with varying GOR

GOR (scf/stb)
5000 10000 15000
Tubing Diameter
Qo
Qo
Qo
(bopd) (bopd) (bopd)
(in)
1920
1275
933
2.375
2512
1732
1277
2.875
3322
2435
1870
3.5
Table 6.4 - Tubing performance with pressure depletion

Pr (PSIG)
Tubing
Diameter (in)
2.375
2.875
3.5

2151
2000
1800
1500
Qo
Qo
Qo
Qo
(bopd) (bopd) (bopd) (bopd)
2193
1775
1169
N/A
2814
2294
1550
N/A
3583
2927
1986
N/A

The well production is sensitive to the increasing of water cut percentage. According to
PROSPER simulation in Table 6.2, the production will quit at more than 40% of water cut.
The wellhead pressure and high GOR is not affected with the production of GM-A as the
result shows that all tubing sizes can produce around 2000 bopd until 15000 scf/stb and 500
psig of wellhead pressure.
Based on Table 6.4, the production of GM-A is varying with the depletion of reservoir
pressure. All tubing size sensitivities to the reservoir pressure shows that the well can
produce naturally according to the desired production rate which is 2000 bopd until the
pressure is dropped less than 1800 psig. Therefore, an artificial lift is needed to optimizing
and support the production of the well in the future.

127

6.4 Tubing Size


For the tubing sizing evaluation, three different tubing sizes 2.375, 2.875 and 3.5 were
investigated for their vertical flow performance in delivering the required production rates.
The oil producers in Gelama Merah are recommended to be completed with 3.5 tubing. 3.5
tubing size is evaluated to be competent in delivering the target production rate of 1000-2000
stb/day per well. In addition, 3.5 tubing can reduce the frictional pressure drop during gas
lift injection and also provide more flexibility in future workover operations as compared
with 2.875 tubing.

6.5 Artificial Lift


Once a well that is producing liquids along with the gas reaches the stage in which it will no
longer flow naturally, it will usually be placed on artificial lift. One of the available artificial
lift is gas lift. In gas lift, gas is injected into the producing tubing. The purpose of injecting
gas into the tubing is to decrease the density of the flowing gas liquid mixture and therefore
decreasing the required flowing bottomhole pressure.

6.5.1 Gas Lift Method Justifications

Gas lift method is generally used in Malaysia offshore as it is cost effective, easy to apply,
very effective in wide range of operating conditions and requires small footprint in the
offshore settings with only space for the compressor unit. Early completion plan with tubing
having side pocket mandrels at desired depth are required to save workover cost in the future.
The justifications for gas lift method are as below.

Table 6.5 - ESP and gas lift comparisons

Operating cost

ESP
Moderate to high. Costly
interventions are required to change
out conventional ESP completion.
Varies if high horsepower, high
energy costs. High pulling costs
results from short run life. Repair
128

Gas Lift
Low, Gas lift systems have a very
low OPEX due to the downhole
reliability. Well cost low.
Compression cost varies depending
on fuel cost and compressor
maintenance.

cost often high, but productivity and


improved run life can offset these
costs.
Poor, for fixed speed. Requires
careful design VSD provides better
Flexibility
flexibility.
Varies, excellent for ideal lift cases,
poor for problem areas (very
Reliability
sensitive to operating temperatures
and electrical malfunctions).
An excellent high rate artificial lift
system. Best suited for <200 degree
Usage/outlook
F and >1000 BFPD rates. Most
often used on high watercut wells
Not recommended when there is
significant pressure drop, the range
of production rates that a particular
Reservoir
ESP design can handle is limited.
pressure
Hence the reservoir condition rate of
decline
change would define the ESP
change out frequency rather than
ESP mechanical run life.
Not recommended in coned gas
well. ESP can be effective in a well
Gas and water
that cones water, but may allow
coning
more water to produce rather than
oil.
Casing size will limit use of large
Casing size
limits (7) and motors and pumps. ESP restricted to
restricts tubing a maximum diameter of 5.4" with a
maximum flow rate of 12,000 BPD.
size.
Poor, requires <100 ppm solids.
Sands at this cocentration are
Sand and solid
normal wear and tear for an ESP.
handling
Not recommended for greater than
capability
100 ppm, due to friction and wear
on ESP equipment.

Excellent, gas injection rate varied


to change rates. Tubing needs to be
sized correctly.
Excellent, gas injection rate varied
to change rates. Tubing needs to be
sized correctly.
Good, flexible, high rate artificial
lift system for wells with high
bottom hole pressures. Most like a
flowing well.
Recommended as the flexibility of
gas lift allows one installation to
deal with falling pressure and
production rates.

Gas lift can be effective in


producing a well that cones gas and
cones water.

Production tubing restricted to 4"


tubing when installing side pocket
mandrels.
Excellent, recommended for all
wells producing sand. Sand has
little effect on ability to a gas lift
well.

Gas lift valve can be used to a useful life of 10-20 years compared to the ESP which can last
for only 3-6 years before they are required to be changed and maintained in times gone by for
Malaysia offshore operations, The proposed tubing for Gelama Merah completion is 3.5 ID
while the minimum tubing diameter required for ESP installation would be approximately
129

4.5 OD which is equivalent to 4.0 ID. ESP is most often used for high production wells
ranging from 1000-64000 stb/day. However, the targeted production for Gelama Merah is at
the range of 1000-2000 stb/day. Thus, it would not be economical for ESP operation in the
field since there is a higher capital and maintenance cost involved, where having a gas lift on
site would be sufficient to produce. Therefore, GLV is the best method to be installed as
artificial lift in Gelama Merah field.

6.5.2 Gas Lift Design

For the gas lift design, a maximum casing head pressure of 1500 psig is selected with the
operating casing head pressure of 1500 psig. For Gelama Merah wells, 5 gas lift valves with
one orifice are required during the design. For the 6 valves to be set at their optimum depth,
the liquid production rate is found to be at 2000 stb/day with choke size of 20/64. If the liquid
production is set higher the unloading sequence for the pressure will be below the pressure of
the operating pressure of the objective production.

Figure 6.2 - Gas lift valves design by simulation

The targeted depth for gas lift valves in GM-A is determined by PROSPER simulation by
setting the oil rate production is 2000 bopd. Therefore, at the rate of 2000 stb/day, the 6 gas
lift valvess unloading sequence matches the production profile and also the maximum casing
head pressure and operating casing head pressure plot against depth as shown in Appendix
130

D, Figure D.6. The optimum injected gas rate for GM-A is 999 Mscf/day. The attempt to
model the production rate by introducing lift gas to boost-up production during the initial
stage has resulted in an adequate improvement on oil production rate. Sensitivities were run
for different parameters such as declining wellhead pressure, increasing water cut, increasing
GOR and declining layer pressure as shown in Table 6.6 until Table 6.9.

Table 6.6 - Production profile natural flow vs. gas lift injection (WHP)
Without GLI

With GLI

Tubing
Diameter (in)

100
Qo
(bopd)

200
Qo
(bopd)

300
Qo
(bopd)

400
Qo
(bopd)

500
Qo
(bopd)

100
Qo
(bopd)

200
Qo
(bopd)

300
Qo
(bopd)

400
Qo
(bopd)

500
Qo
(bopd)

2.375
2.875
3.5

3230
4129
5285

2915
3733
4797

2559
3279
4217

2151
2758
3508

1675
2137
2633

3326
4266
5468

3110
3972
5096

2850
3638
4683

2573
3283
4236

2289
2913
3752

THP (PSIG)

By referring to Table 6.6, the production rate of the well will be decreasing as the wellhead
pressure is decrease. However, the wellhead pressure from 100 psig to 500 psig is sufficient
to produce 2000 bopd without the usage of gas lift injection.

Table 6.7 - Production profile natural flow vs. gas lift injection (water cut)
Without GLI
WC (%)
Tubing
Diameter (in)

2.375
2.875
3.5

With GLI

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

Qo
(bopd)

Qo
(bopd)

Qo
(bopd)

Qo
(bopd)

Qo
(bopd)

Qo
(bopd)

Qo
(bopd)

Qo
(bopd)

Qo
(bopd)

Qo
(bopd)

2193
2814
3583

1495
1860
2221

755
843
876

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
N/A

2601
3319
4281

1987
2510
3174

1387
1717
2092

867
1055
1238

410
490
558

Based on Table 6.7, the production rate for each tubing size is varying with the water cut.
The increasing of water cut will reduce the production rate of the well. The 3.5 tubing can
produce naturally until the water cut has reached to 40%. On the stage, the well is producing
lower than 1000 bopd as required; therefore the application of gas lift is needed to increase
the flow rate to the desired rate. Based on PROSPER simulation shown in Appendix D,
Figure D.7, gas lift injection will increase the production rate until the water cut reached to
80% compared to natural flowing reservoir which can only produce until 40% of water cut.

131

Table 6.8 - Production profile natural flow vs. gas lift injection (GOR)

Without GLI
GOR
(Mscf/stb)
Tubing
diameter
(in)
2.375
2.875
3.5

With GLI

5000

10000

15000

Qo
(bopd)

Qo
(bopd)

Qo
Qo
Qo
Qo
(bopd) (bopd) (bopd) (bopd)

1920
2512
3322

1275
1732
2435

933
1277
1870

5000

1870
2473
3301

10000

15000

1237
1676
2395

890
1239
1847

Table 6.9 - Production profile natural flow vs. gas lift injection (reservoir pressure depletion)

Without GLI
Tubing
diameter (in)
Pr (PSIG)
2151
2000
1800
1500

2.375

2.875

Qo
Qo
(bopd) (bopd)
2193
2814
1775
2294
1169
1550
N/A
N/A

With GLI
3.5

2.375

2.875

3.5

Qo
Qo
Qo
Qo
(bopd) (bopd) (bopd) (bopd)
3583
2601
3319
4281
2927
2272
2906
3759
1986
1852
2384
3084
N/A
1223
1553
1986

The GOR effect is slightly similar between the production rate with gas lift injection or
without gas lift based on Table 6.8. The well can still produce the desired production rate
even with GOR up to 15000 scf/stb. Therefore, high GOR production does not give a huge
impact on the production. The wells can produce naturally until the reservoir pressure is
declining until 1800 psig from 2151 psig. The application of gas lift is needed when the
reservoir pressure is dropped less than 1800 psig. Based on simulation by PROSPER by
referring to Appendix D, Figure D.10 and Table 6.9, gas lift injection will help the well
produce until 2000 bopd in reservoir pressure of 1500 psig with 3.5 tubing.

Sensitivity analysis was conducted based on the production to compare the well performance
with and without gas lift. As per tubing performance analysis performed in Gelama Merah,
the oil producers are able to naturally lift the oil at 0% to 40% water cut. The result shows
that the well may quit to flow at initial GOR, more than 40% water cut and a reservoir
pressure decline below the reservoir pressure 1800 psig. However, by using WAG injector,
the reservoir pressure can be maintained throughout the years. The only problem for well

132

production is the increasing water cut. Therefore, the application of gas lift in Gelama Merah
field is a must to ensure the production is achieving the target at water cut of 40%.

6.6 Sand Control


Sand production has numerous technical, environmental, operational and economic
consequences. Based on the finding, Wire Wrapped Screen (WWS) is the best method for
sand screen. Brief explanation about the Wire Wrapped Screen will be explained later. The
operationally acceptable level of sand production will vary with the location, the well and the
production facility design and local conditions. A number of techniques have been employed
when deciding whether to install sand exclusion techniques, which are:

Observation of sand production during the well test.

Core analysis.

There are no traces of sand production during the test in the maximum flow period at rate of
2745 stb/day. However, production test period was not long enough to simulate future
production conditions. Well site interpretation from core analysis recovered from exploration
well shows unconsolidated sand formation. Therefore, this can be a candidate for future sand
production.
Predicting that a reservoir will produce at some point in a wells life is possible by analyzing
core samples in laboratory to obtain the detail on the composition of the rock. The core
analysis for the core samples from Gelama Merah-1 indicates that the Gelama Merah area
formations are un-uniformed and has high percentage of fine particles. Besides it can also be
concluded that the formation grains in the area are poorly sorted.

Referring to the well test result from Gelama Merah-1 as well, no sand production was
observed from the reading and sample taken. The water rate from the main flow and max
flow are both showing 0 stb/d with BS&W of 0%. Although the well test result does not
agreeable with the sand production, there might be some explanation to it. The fine particles
of sand might not be produced because the water was not produced, thus no drag force to
cause near wellbore sand grain migration. Therefore, sand production will occur at higher
drawdown pressure. Having a production rate of approximately 800-1000 bbl/d for each well,

133

lowering the drawdown or production rate to reduce the sand production would not be a
preferable option to be taken.
Based on analogy to PCSBs field development strategy, sand exclusion is required where
sonic transit time is above 100 s/ft. The sonic transit time vs. Depth for Gelama Merah is
shown in Figure 6.3 and is between 110-125 s/ft, which is higher than threshold value of
100 s/ft. Hence, sand exclusion is proposed for all completions.

Figure 6.3 - Depth vs. sonic transit time for Gelama Merah-1

6.6.1 Sand Control Design


Considering the formation is unconsolidated sands, based on the sonic log reading and core
analysis, some way of sand control measure is required for Gelama Merah development
wells. Passive control that limits drawdown below critical flow rate when sand production
134

occur at an acceptable level may not be possible since the wells need to flow at drawdown
higher than the estimated critical drawdown in order to get the estimated recoverable reserve.
Furthermore, insufficient data and uncertainty at what drawdown sand production will start to
occur will complicates the passive sand control.
Therefore, active sand control shall be developed since passive sand control option may not
be viable for Gelama Merah development wells. Following are the available options however
they will be evaluated by observing their characteristics and Table 6.10 shows comparison of
different options available for sand exclusion:

Slotted Pipe Liners

Wire Wrapped Screens

Pre-Packed Screen (Resin coated sand)

Based on Table 6.10, the stand alone Wire Wrapped Screen (WWS) is the best option to be
installed. The installation of the selected screen is expected to be more cost effective
(compared to cemented and perforated cased horizontal well), more productive and
operationally more efficient.

The Wire Wrapped Screen (WWS) is surface filter screen. But in this case, the type of WWS
being chosen is the one which is robust (rotatable and high tensile compressive strength),
having high accuracy of slot opening and proven track record. The screen must be able to
produce an allowable amount of fines for better well productivity and to avoid plugging due
to fines migration.

Furthermore, a geo-mechanical and sand production analysis is proposed to further define the
completion strategy during the drilling campaign. Information gained from the pre-drilled and
suspended wells can be incorporated into the analysis to provide the most robust, cost
effective completion.

135

Table 6.10 - Comparison of different options available for sand exclusion

SLOTTED LINER
(Mild Steel)

Item
Description

Rectilinear slots/ machined in pipe

Concept

Wellbore reinforcement, sand


bridges around slots

Material

Mild steel

Sand
Exclusion
Works with gravel pack
Flow
restriction

Poor: 0.012 slot width minimum


Yes
High

WIRE WRAPPED SCREEN


(Stainless Steel)
Wire welded to longitudinal
rods
Formation sand exclusion or gravel
retention
Stainless steel on mild steel
base pipe
Better than slotted liner since
slot width 0.006 0.040
Yes
Low, = 10 times flow area of
slotted liner
Poor to collapse/tension if base
pipe omitted. Also susceptible
to erosion

Mechanical
resistance

Good

Plugging
tendency

Low (Too wide to retain to formation


sand)

Moderate

Cost

Cheapest

2 -3 x slotted liner

Application

Borehole reinforcement
coarse grained formation

High productivity wells medium


grained formation.
Allows fines production

136

PRE-PACKED SCREEN
(Resin Coated Sand)
Gravel sandwiched between two wire
wrapped screens
Gravel provide sand
exclusion
Stainless steel on mild steel base pipe
Excellent: as with gravel
pack
Yes, but should not be necessary
High, as for wire
wrapped screen
Fair: base pipe reinforces
structure
High: Fine + mud cake. Also
impairment while run in hole (RIH)
2 3 x wire wrapped screen, but often
less than gravel pack
Retains sand grains of all
sizes

6.7 Well Completion Design

6.7.1 Summary

Based on reservoir simulation results, a total of seven development wells are proposed for
Gelama Merah which consists of six oil producers and one water-alternating-gas (WAG)
injector. WAG injector will be completed in the exploration well Gelama Merah-1 whereas
the oil producers will be completed in the new drilled wells. The design for all six single
string oil producer are based on horizontal well completion whereas the WAG injector will be
completed in dual string vertical completions. The reason of having horizontal well
completion for oil producer is mainly to overcome the rapid gas conning effect from the big
gas cap in Gelama Merah.
The production strategy will be to produce the oil through horizontal open hole completion.
Open hole completion is proposed based on three factors which are:

Gelama Merah is expected to have low sand production; hence Wire Wrapped Screen
(WWS) application is possible to control sand production.

Open hole completion will have less damage as no cement and perforation is required.

Perforation of targeted zone in cased hole completion might require CTU which is has
high cost.

The comparison study on the advantages and disadvantages of open hole and cased hole
completion is described in Appendix D, Table D.1.

MDT data indicates that all of reservoir units in Gelama Merah behaving as one pressure
system. Therefore, the production strategy will be to produce the oil commingle from unit
sand 9.0, 9.1 and 9.2 as it is very unlikely to occur cross flow during shut-in conditions.

6.7.2 Well Completion Matrix

A total of seven development wells are proposed for Gelama Merah which consists of six oil
producers and one water-alternating-gas (WAG) injector. The conceptual well completion
matrix is summarized in Table 6.11.
137

Table 6.11 - Well completion matrix

Well Name

Type

Sand Group/Depth

Description

Remark

GM-A

SS

Unit 9.0, 9.1 & 9.2

Commingled flow from different

OP

horizontal
GM-B

SS

units, open hole with WWS


Unit 9.0, 9.1 & 9.2

horizontal
GM-C

SS

SS

Unit 9.0, 9.1 & 9.2

SS

Unit 9.0, 9.1 & 9.2

SS

Unit 9.0, 9.1 & 9.2

Commingled flow from different

OP

Commingled flow from different

OP

units, open hole with WWS


Unit 9.0, 9.1 & 9.2

horizontal
GM-1

OP

units, open hole with WWS

horizontal
GM-F

Commingled flow from different


units, open hole with WWS

horizontal
GM-E

OP

units, open hole with WWS

horizontal
GM-D

Commingled flow from different

Commingled flow from different

OP

units, open hole with WWS

DS

Gas injection:
Perforated cased hole completion
WAG
1650 mTVDSS
vertical
Injector
Water Injection:
1350 mTVDSS
*SS = Single String, DS = Dual String, WWS = Wire wrapped screen, OP = Oil producer

6.7.3 Completion string Design and Accessories


6.7.3.1 Oil Producer

The production strategy will be to produce the oil commingle from different units through
horizontal open hole completion with open hole zonal isolation system and internal zonal
isolation system. Appendix

D, Figure D.13 shows typical configuration of proposed

completion. Following are the design summary:

i.

Single tubing string of 3.5 ID is proposed as it meets the targeted well performance.

ii.

For well control, tubing retrievable SCSSV is proposed for completion. Retrievable
valves are preferred as o-rings of the valves may be permanently damaged during
production/well intervention campaign.
138

iii.

Flow coupling, Blast Joint, X-Nipple and XN-Nipple will be installed as per standard
practice for oil producer. Nipple is to ease the future well intervention campaign. In
addition, No-go nipple (XN Nipple) is to avoid any wireline tools from dropping off
the string. Flow coupling and blast joint are to protect from internal and external
erosion caused by high velocity & turbulence flow.

iv.

The production strategy will be to produce the oil commingle from unit sand 9.0, 9.1
and 9.2 in open hole section. Swellable elastomer packer is proposed as open hole
zonal isolation system. This technique is selected as it eliminates the dependence on
the condition of borehole wall. The mechanical packer is only reliable in cased hole as
it depends on mechanical properties of equipment. The Swell Technology System is
based on the swelling properties of elastomer to create effective seal. When exposed to
hydrocarbon, the diffusion process occurs and the molecules are absorbed by rubber
molecules causing them to stretch. However, there is concern on the integrity of swell
packers. From the literature review on the installation of swell packer in PETRONAS
Carigali Sdn. Bhd. (PCSB), better isolation in open hole section can be achieve with good
wellbore cleanup and procedure.

v.

Six (6) Gas lift mandrels (GLM) with dummy valves will be installed to enable future
installation of gas lift valves.

vi.

For safe measures and double barrier precaution, single hydraulic retrievable packer
will be installed to isolate between the openhole section and the upper cased hole
section. In addition, hydraulic packer is proposed for internal zonal isolation for oil
producers that are completed in more than one production zones. The hydraulic
packer will be set across the base pipe (liner) in between the sand screen. The packer
act as barrier between different sands.

vii.

In the future, gas conning is highly expected to breakthrough in the horizontal section
due to the thick gross volume of gas cap (150m) above the producing oil zone. Future
zone change activities are expected, so that gas conning problem can be control.
Because of that, XD-SDD (wireline control SSD) cannot be used due to high
inclination angle (>80 degree) of horizontal section. It is impossible for any wireline
intervention jobs in the well with high inclination angle. Besides, future well
intervention activities such as well stimulation campaign and zone change out are
expected in Gelama Merah field. Due to high inclination angle, the available option is
via CTU and tractor application. CTU and tractor application will contribute to high
139

OPEX and possibility of failure during the operation which can cause damage to the
assigned well. Therefore, hydraulic surface control SDD is suggested to achieve an
effective reservoir management campaign and to ease the future well intervention
activities.
viii.

Permanent Downhole Gauges (PDG) will be installed to monitor downhole pressure


and temperature. This will improve the well monitoring system in the future.

6.7.3.2 WAG Injector


WAG injector will be completed in dual string vertical completions. The injection strategy
will be to inject water to gas zone and gas to water zone through perforated cased hole with
internal isolation system. The gas injection depth is 1650 mTVDss and the water injection
depth is 1350 mTVDss. The short string will be the water injector whereas the long string
will be the gas injector. Appendix D, Figure D.14 shows typical configuration of proposed
completion. Following are the design summary:

i.

WAG injection well is completed with dual tubing string of 3.5 ID.

ii.

For well control, tubing retrievable SCSSV is proposed for completion.

iii.

Dual hydraulic retrievable packer will be installed to isolate between two different
injection zones.

iv.

Flow coupling, X-Nipple and XN-Nipple will be installed as per standard practice for
injection well.

v.

Communication from the tubing string to the injection zone will be through SSD. XDSDD (wireline control SSD) is suggested as it has lower cost compare to hydraulic
surface control SDD.

vi.

It is recommended for WAG injector to have downhole pressure gauges that will
transmit real time data and for well surveillance, reservoir monitoring and
management.

6.7.4 Wellhead and Christmas tree

All Gelama Merah wells are proposed to use the standard cross piece Christmas tree which
conform to the standard specifications of API 6A. Bottom flange of Christmas tree and
140

Tubing Hanger will be modified to accommodate Permanent Downhole Gauges (PDG) cable.
The conventional spooled wellhead is proposed where head housing is either screwed or
welded to the top joint of the casing and tubing.

6.7.5 Material Selection

Based on DST report, no CO2 and H2S were detected from the Gelama Merah field. From
PVT analysis, no H2S exist and the CO2 content is very low. Table 6.12 shows the basic data
required for material selection.
Table 6.12 - Basic data for material selection

Sand Unit
Unit 9.0,
9.1, 9.2

BHP
(psia)

BHT
(C)

CO2 content
(%)

CO2 partial
pressure (psia)

H2S content
(%)

H2S partial
pressure (psia)

2151

68

1.15

25

Based on data in Table 6.12, Kawasaki and Sumitomo materials selection chart was used to
determine the required material. The chart in Appendix D, Figure D.12 shows that required
material for Gelama Merah is normal carbon steel with 13% Cr content. The other completion

accessories are suggested to use the same material as production tubing to avoid galvanic
corrosion due to dissimilar metals. Due to uncertainty in H2S content, all well tubular and
completion accessories is suggested to be made from L80 grade material or equivalent for
sour services as a precaution. The WAG injector is suggested to be made from 13-Cr alloy
for corrosion prevention purpose. Please refer to Appendix D, Figure D.12 for Kawasaki and
Sumitomo materials selection process flow.

6.7.6 Packer and Completion Fluid


For well cleanup, it is suggested to use brine compared to other fluid as it reduce the potential
of formation damage due to clay swelling and plugging. The proposed completion brine are
NH4Cl, NaCl, KCl and ZnBr with density range around 10-11.5ppg. The packer fluid it is
suggested to use treated completion brines as mention above with a combination product
containing an oxygen scavenger, a bactericide and a film forming amine with surfactant and

141

cationic properties. The special Drill-In Fluids (DIF) is suggested for horizontal open hole
section as it dissolves the mud cake which reduces the skin at wire wrapped screen.

6.8 Potential Production Problem


6.8.1 Wax Deposition

Cooling of the crude oil can result in its paraffin content precipitating as a solid wax. Wax
varies in the form of soft to a brittle solid. The solid wax is dissolved in the crude oil at
reservoir temperature and forms a crystalline precipitate when the temperature reduces below
the cloud point (The temperature at which the first seed crystal appear). This can be avoided
by preventing the crude cooling below the wax cloud point temperature at which deposition
occurs and can be controlled to some extent by the use of wax inhibitor. Since pour point data
is not available for Gelama Merah field it is therefore suggested that analysis of the fluid
sample be carried out to observe the tendency for wax deposition. However, Provision of
injection points for pour point depressant (PPD) and wax dispersant shall be provided at the
production header and at the pipeline launcher to allow contingency action in case wax
deposition is observed to have occurred.

6.8.2 Corrosion

Based on PVT report, CO2 content is 1-1.13%. CO2 partial pressure is expected between 3050psi at the wellhead. Downhole CO2 corrosion in the presence of liquid water is expected
for the Gelama Merah field. Hence, chrome materials, e.g 13-Chrome material will offer
sufficient corrosive resistance for all downhole equipment. To protect the surface pipelines
and fittings, provision has to be made for corrosion inhibitor injection.

6.8.3 Scale Formation

Scale can be deposited in the formation, tubing, and surface flow line and also production
facilities. Scale deposition usually forms with the presence of incompatible minerals from
water. However, no formation water sample analysis was available from the producing zones.
142

It is therefore suggested to take water samples and analyzed for scale tendency which will
help in the determination of the suitable preventive actions that can be put in place to avoid
scale depositions.

6.8.4 Emulsion formation

Emulsion formation from Gelama Merah crude oil is uncertain. To manage this uncertainty
provision of emulsifier injection points at the production header shall be included in the
facilities detail engineering.

143

Chapter 7 :

DRILLING ENGINEERING

7.1 Introduction
Drilling engineering and development well construction of Gelama Merah field utilizing the
data from one vertical Gelama Merah-1 (GM-1) exploration well, Gelama Merah-1 ST1
(GM-1 ST1) sidetrack well and drainage points identified by the reservoir simulation.

Seven horizontal oil producers well and one vertical water-alternating-gas (WAG) injector
well will be drilled using Jack-up Rig. The drilling philosophy is safety, cost effectiveness
and design simplicity. Based on this philosophy, single jacket platform is chosen and all
targets will be drilled from the same location thus requiring only one drilling rig.

7.2 Drilling History


The drilling history will be based on the Gelama Merah-1 exploration well drilled on
December 2002 and Gelama Merah-1ST1 well sidetracked on January 2003.

7.3 Platform Location


The platform coordinate is selected to be at N 615,250 m, E 276,750 m for optimization
purpose since the drilling history is based on Gelama Merah-1 and ST-1 exploration wells.
The platform position will provide for build and hold type and vertical drilling. The single
drilling platform will provide the drilling trajectory to all the drainage points.

7.4 Design Framework


Framework for the drilling engineering and completion design is based on modelled reservoir
performance.

All development wells will target primarily the thin oil layer present in unit 9.1 and
9.2 sandstone reservoirs at depth of 1515 m-TVDRKB.

The production life of each well is anticipated to be 20 years.


144

Design of the well should allow flexibility in future enhanced recovery options to
facilities primarily water injection and secondarily to allow gas lift options.

Design philosophy is cost effectiveness and design simplicity.

7.5 Rig Selection


Drilling rig are selected based on criteria which are water depth, seabed soil condition,
costing rig capacity and stability. Below are some specifications of available marine offshore
drilling units (MODUs).

Table 7.1 - Water depth and average daily rate for several types of MODUs (Source: www.rigzone.com)

Types of MODUs

Water Depth

Average Daily Rate, USD

Jacket rig

40 400 ft

43,935.25

Shallow draft jack-up rig

30 60 ft

22,333.33

Jack-up rig

60 330 ft

49,944.44 134,740.11

Tender assisted rig

Anchor length

126,536.84

Semi-submersible rig

150 6000 ft

297,288.30 403,368.42

Drill ship/Large submersible

1000 8000 ft

241,200.00 450,745.43

The sea depth for Gelama Merah area is approximately 140 ft (42.8 m) from the mean sea
level to the sea level to the sea bed. From the water depth, three types of rig are feasible
which are the jacket rig, jack-up rig and platform rig. The semi-submersible and drill ship are
not necessary due to high excess cost. The jack-up rig is the most common offshore drilling
rig and is a preferable option for Gelama Merah drilling.

The jack-up rig is towed to location with its legs elevated. Once on location, the legs are
lowered to the bottom and the platform is jacked up above the wave actions by means of
hydraulic jacks. The jack-up rig has many advantages, including a stable work platform, good
availability, relatively lower mobilization costs, versatility to work over a platform or drill in
open water and generally competitive day rate for 5 8 slots drilling in monsoon weathered
environment usually in September December period. The jack-up rig should provide space
for pipe storing, helipad, mud pumps, tanks, power generators, cranes and chemical stores
complete with folk lift.
145

The seabed pipelines, marine cables and seabed features (e.g. slumping, steep incline,
unusual debris) information were not provided. Selections are made without taking
these aspects into consideration.

7.6 Subsurface Environment


The subsurface environment to be encountered on Gelama Merah development wells is
illustrated by the two wells GM-1 and GM-1 ST1 drilled in the area.

The environment is characterized by a lithological sequence of sandstones, siltstones and


claystones. Formation pressure regimes present are normal with expected pore pressure from
8.3 ppg at shallow and 9.2 ppg in deeper zones. Leak off test showed that the formation
breakdown pressure down to 556 m is around 13.78 ppg EMW.

The reservoirs are anticipated without HS and negligible amount of CO, as measured from
bottom hole samples. Reservoir temperature is expected to be 155F as measured during well
test.

7.7 Potential Drilling Problem


i.

Shallow Gas
There are indications of shallow gas based on the results from GM-1. Possible gas is
expected at 646 m TVDDF. Pilot hole will be drilled in this section as a precaution
since pilot hole will limit the gas volume.

ii.

Lost Circulation Zone


No loss circulation was reported in the final well report of GM-1 and GM-1ST1 wells.

iii.

CO and HS Content
HS from PVT report of fluid samples collected is 0 ppm, and is expected to be 0
ppm. However, CO is around 0.94 and 2.85 mole % from stock tank gas and well
stream respectively.

146

iv.

Stuck pipe/differential sticking


Differential pipe sticking arises when the differential pressure (the difference between
the hydrostatic pressure of mud and formation pore pressure) becomes excessively
large across a porous and permeable formation. Moreover for wells that have long
open hole section usually 2,500 m, there is a potential for mechanical or differential
sticking problems due to swelled or collapse clay formation. Although the problem
has not been experience in the GM-1 and GM-1ST1, however, contingency plan in
order to eliminate this problem must be considered. Oil based mud (OBM) may
probably be used to drill this hole section.

v.

Cementing/Gas Migration
Presence of a large gas cap may cause problems wherein in the potential problem in
obtaining good cement bond due to gas migration. High well angle will aggraviate the
problems.

Good cementation technique and cement recipe will be developed to overcome this
problem and achieve good cement strength. The composition of cement slurries will
be studied carefully to combat this problem.

In addition, following steps will also be considered to minimize the problem and
carryout a successful cement job:

Usage of special cement with gas migration blocking capability.

Good casing centralization.

Use of external casing packer.

Good cementing practices.

7.8 Planning Well Profile (Well Trajectory)


It should be noted that the well path, final well azimuth and inclination are still subjected to
change when actual development drilling takes place. These targets may be revised according
to actual well results and revised geological and reservoir modeling.

147

7.8.1 Parameters of Well Path


While planning the well trajectories, three parameters were considered:

a) Kick-Off Point (KOP)


Kick-off point is the location at which a given depth below the surface, where the well
bore is deviated in a given direction. It should be initiated in formations which are
stable. KOP for these wells will be initiated at the shallowest depth in order to reduce
the inclination of tangent section. Other consideration to select the KOP will be at
consolidated formation to avoid drilling problems. In this field the wells are to be
kick-off at (690 950 m TVDDF) just below the 9-5/8 intermediate casing.

b) Build-up Rate (BUR)


Build-up rate is the change in degrees of inclination of a wellbore where the angle is
increased. The degrees of inclination are rates between 2 degree and 3 degree per 100
ft or 30 m of hole drilled. BUR should not be more than 3 deg/100 ft or 3 deg/30 m to
reduce dog leg severity. In this Gelama Merah field, build-up rate of 3 deg/30 m is
used for all six horizontal wells.

7.8.2 Well Type

Appendix A

Six horizontal wells and one water-alternating-gas

Merah field. The wells will be kick-off immediately below 9-5/8


depth ranging from 690 950 m TVDDF. The well profiles, well survey
program for all the three horizontal wells are tabulated below. The
in

148

Table 7.2 - Well profiles

Well

Well TVD

Well MD

Name

(m-TVDDF)

(m-MDDF)

GM-A

1515.00

1994.27

GM-B

1515.00

GM-C

Azimuth

Maximum

Well

Inclination

Profile

179.98

90

Horizontal

2034.72

112.14

90

Horizontal

1515.00

2252.73

351.39

90

Horizontal

GM-D

1515.00

2986.06

311.91

90

Horizontal

GM-E

1515.00

2468.95

298.75

90

Horizontal

GM-F

1515.00

2152.02

229.71

90

Horizontal

WAG

1641.96

1641.96

Vertical

Table 7.3 - Well survey and logging

Hole Section

Survey Tool

Logging Tool

26 Drive Pipe

Gyro

8-1/2 Pilot Hole

MWD

LWD/GR/Resistivity

17-1/2 Surface Hole

MWD

MWD/GR/Resistivity

12-1/4 Intermediate Hole

MWD

MWD/GR/Resistivity

8-1/2 Production Hole

MWD

LWD/GR/Resistivity, MDT as required

7.9 Casing Design

7.9.1 Casing Configuration


The casing configuration i.e. casing size, type, grade and pressure rating is designed based on
pressure containment, cost effectiveness and completion requirements. The design is based
on SPE casing design criteria and it must conform to PETRONAS Procedures for Drilling
Operation (PDO), PETRONAS Technical Standards (PTS), PCSB Drilling Manual and Well
Design Manual (WDM). The pressure profile is based on the TVD data obtained from the
exploration well. The data indicates that the formation is normally pressured. The formation
strength was tested through Leak off Test, carried out at the end of surface casing. The casing
design safety factors set by PCSB is tabulated in Table 7.4.
149

Table 7.4 - PCSB casing design safety factors

Design factor

Safety factor requirement

Collapse (psi)

1.00

Burst (psi)

1.10

Tension (psi)

1.30

Table 7.5 - Casing design configuration for the seven proposed wells

Bit
Size

Casing Size (inch)

Casing

Casing Weight

Connection

Setting Depth

OD

ID

Grade

(ppf)

Type

(m-TVDRKB)

Driven

20

19.124

K-55

94

RL4

150

17

13-3/8

12.615

K-55

54.5

BTC

700 760

12

9-5/8

8.921

J-55

36

Vamp Top

1040 1100

6.538

H-40

20

Vamp Top

1515 - 1642

(inch)

150

Figure 7.1 - Casing configuration for GM-A

7.9.2 Casing Setting Depth

Appendix B

Casing setting depths are calculated and designed by

criteria, and must conform to PETORONAS Procedures for Drilling


PETRONAS Technical Standards (PTS), PCSB Drilling Manual and Well
(WDM). The plotted pore pressure, formation strength and proposed
(burst, collapse and tension calculations) for the development well are
shown

in

151

Following is the configuration of the casing which will be used for development wells.

i.

Conductor Casing (20)

The purpose of running conductor casing is to prevent shallow unconsolidated formations


from washing out or craving-in, which may be caused by circulation of mud. All conductors
for the three development wells will be 20 OD.

Keeping in view formation breakdown, the minimum penetration of conductor casing shall be
approximately 150 m below seabed. Setting depth for conductor casing is based on Gelama
Merah-1 (exploration well). The conductor casing must have the right wall thickness,
drivable shoe and tight specification of hammer.

ii.

Surface Casing (13 3/8)

Surface casing 13-3/8 is the second casing string that will be run in borehole after conductor
casing. The main purpose of running this casing string is to seal off fresh water zones and to
provide structural support to wellhead and BOP equipment. The setting depth planned is
around 700 m-TVDRKB.

After drilling out surface casing shoe, leak-off test will be performed to determine the
formation fracture pressure. The casing will be cemented as per PPGUA requirement.

iii.

Intermediate Casing (9 5/8)

Intermediate or protection casing is designed to isolate troublesome formations between the


surface and production casing setting depth. The intermediate hole will be drilled below the
surface casing shoe to the Total Depth of 1040 m-TVDRKB.

152

iv.

Production Liner (7)

Production casing will be designed to cover the production hole as deep as possible based on
well control and casing rating criteria. The production hole will be drilled below the
intermediate casing shoe to the Total Depth of 1515 m-TVDRKB. The 7 liner has the
primary function for protection and provides facility for completion of the 3-1/2 production
tubing to be set. The casing shoe is recommended to be away for about 100 ft from the
Possible-Oil-Water-Contact (POWC). The distance has been verified to be safe distance for
keeping the well from possible water coning issue by the Reservoir Engineer via conducting a
sensitivity studies on different critical production rate. Thus, we choose to set the casing shoe
at 1515 m-TVDRKB for the hydrocarbon zone isolation purposes.

7.10 Drilling Fluids and Cementing Design


7.10.1 Drilling Fluids Design
The drilling fluids selection is based on the drilling experience in previous exploration well
Gelama Merah-1 as no hole problem (mechanical wellbore stability) was encountered. As for
the reference purposes, drilling fluids are selected as per PCSB Well Design Manual as
shown in Table 7.6.

The mud gradient used must ensure sufficient overbalance at least 200 psi. Glycol is
possibly added for hole stability and torque reduction. Since the bottom hole temperature is
only 155 F, no thermally stabilized additives are required. There is a possibility to use Oil
Based Mud (OBM) or Synthetic Based Mud (SBM) for hole with a long open hole section in
order to avoid differential sticking.

Table 7.6 - PCSB standard drilling fluid system

Well Type

36/26/20 hole

17-1/2hole

12-1/4hole

8-1/2hole

Exploration

Seawater with

Seawater Polymer

KCL/PHPA

KCL/PHPA

Well

Hi-Vis sweeps

Mud

(Glycol mud)

(Glycol mud)

Development

Seawater with

Seawater Polymer

KCL/PHPA

KCL/PHPA

Well

Hi-Vis sweeps

Mud
153

Note: KCL Potassium Chloride


PHPA Partially Hydrolysed Polyacrylamide

Table 7.7 summarizes all the drilling fluid type and properties for each hole section for the
three horizontal development wells, based on the results obtained from Gelama Merah-1
(exploration) and Gelama Merah-1ST1 side track well.

Table 7.7 - Drilling fluid properties

Hole Size

Casing Size

(in)

(in)

Estimated
Casing Type

Mud Type

Formation
Gradient (ppg)

Mud Weight
(ppg)

Seawater +
26

20

Conductor

Hi Vis

8.33

9.1 9.2

8.23

9.2 9.4

Sweeps
Seawater

17

13-3/8

Surface

12

9-5/8

Intermediate

KCL/PHPA

9.20

10.0 10.2

Production

KCL/PHPA

8.27

10.0 - 11

Polymer

7.10.2 Cementing Design


Cement is used for sealing between the casing and borehole, bonding the casing to
the formation and providing barrier to the flow of fluids from/into the formations
behind the casing and from/into subsequent hole section.

The following calculations must be taken prior to cementing operation:

Slurry requirements

No of sacks of cement

Volume of mix water

Volume of additives

Displacement volume and duration of operation

154

Appendix C

The cementing program will follow the requirement set

out in PETRONAS PDO and Well Design Manual. Class G cement


powder is selected with slurry composition for the cementing
operation. Class G cement powders are compatible with most
additives; it can be used over a wide range of temperature and
pressure. The additives are used to modify the properties of the slurry
and optimize the cement job in terms of varying the slurry density,
change compressive strength, accelerate or retard the setting time,
reduce slurry viscosity. The cement slurry calculation for the
proposed

well

is

155

attached

in

. Table 7.8 below shows the volume of cement required.

Table 7.8 - Required cement volume

Annulus

Top of Cement

Cement Type

Volume (bbls)

26 x 20

Class G

1924.2

Class G

568.0

Class G

1020.0

TOT: 150m above


17 x 13 3/8

13 3/8 casing shoe


TOL: seabed
TOT: 150m above 9
5/8 casing shoe

12 x 9 5/8

TOL: 711.17m or
100m inside 13 3/8
casing shoe
Top of cement

8 x 7

(TOC) is top of
liner/WWS

The Total Volume of Cement Slurry Required is 3512.2 bbls

7.11 Bit Selection


Based on the analysis obtained from offset wells GM-1 and GM1ST1, the anticipated
unconfined compressive strength for the formation is very low, and due to the shallow TVDs
to be reached and the soft formations, Roller Cone Bit should be considered to drill all hole
sections for the three wells. For the horizontal section Polycrystalline Diamond Compact
(PDC) bit can be used in case to drill through the hard formation.

The bit size will be prepared according to the planned drilling hole sizes.

7.12 Well Control

156

7.12.1 Blow Out Preventer (BOP)


For control purposes, blowout preventer with annular preventer stacked on top of dual ram
preventer stack will be used. The BOP standard will refer to PCSB Well Design Standard
(WDM). Table 7.9 shows the pressure rating for surface BOP stack based on WDM.

Table 7.9 - BOP standard (surface stack)

CSG Size
20

Hole Size
9 7/8 Pilot
26 Final

BOP Riser

BOP Pressure

Size

Rating

Riserless

No

No

Diverter

13-3/8

17-1/2

18-3/4

2000 psi

9-5/8

12-1/4

18-3/4

10,000 psi

Since the surface casing is 13 3/8, an 18 BOP riser size will be selected with a pressure
rating of 2000 psi.

7.12.2 Actuator / SSV


Compare to the other models the 120 model is more related to our well conditions such as
pressure, temperature and direction. The model 120 is the low-pressure, critical service
option. Tested above and beyond API 6A PR2 requirements, the model 120 is available from
-75 to 250F, in AA-HH materials, for up to 5,000 psi. Bi-directional sealing allows
installation from any orientation, and the non-rising stem does not allow debris to enter the
packing. The model 120 series gate valves are equipped with blowout features like threaded
and anti-blowout packing nuts, bonnet caps, packing retainers, and stem backseats that hold
the stem in place. With a break off point outside the valve cavity, the no pressure will ever
escape in a contingency situation. In addition, the slab gate does not mechanically lock so it
will never have a problem opening, closing, or servicing the valve.

7.12.3 Wellhead

157

The Unihead (HU-1) type will be use as a wellhead for our well as it is available in multiple
or single head configurations. The main advantage of the Unihead technology is that it fits
virtually any surface wellhead application and has an indication of a though bore wellhead
system. This split Unihead system provides time savings that drastically reduce rig costs,
allowing you to maximize the productivity of your drilling operation. It maintains well
control from the reduction of BOP nipple up and down times, and is commonly utilized for
13-5/8" surface, 9-5/8" intermediate, and 4-1/2" production casing, with a compact design
that addresses your sub-structure space constraints. Designed for quick and simple
installation, the UH-WB wellhead allows you to make up 2-4 strings of casing without
removing the BOP, optimizing mandrel hangers. Though this wellhead is comprised of 2 or
more drilling spools, they are made up as a single unit, permitting the drilling of two or more
phases at the same time - while using only 10 hours of time per stage.

7.13 Drilling Time and Cost Estimation

Appendix D

The time and cost estimation for drilling and completion

campaign were determined based on the drilling history of GM-1 and


drilling time and cost estimation for the six horizontal development
wells are shown in Table 7.10. The total cost estimates for the drilling
campaign will be discussed in Economics section of this FDP. For more
cost

details

refer

158

to

159

Table 7.10 - Drilling time and cost summary

Days
Well Name
Start
Rig
Mobilization
Rig Up
GM-A
GM-B
GM-C
GM-D
GM-E
GM-F
WAG
Rig down
Demob
TOTAL

Others

Drilling

Cumulative
days

Completion

MYR mil

Total Cost
Cumulative
MYR
0

USD mil

0
5

5.00

3.52

3.52

1.14

6
4
3
18

22.4
22.5
22.9
24.3
23.3
22.7
0.0
138.1

8.0
8.1
9.0
11.9
9.9
8.6
6.6
62.1

11.00
41.40
72.04
103.95
140.16
173.35
204.67
211.24
215.24
218.24
218.24

3.71
9.39
9.45
9.73
10.71
10.03
9.60
3.52
2.50
2.32
74.48

7.23
16.62
26.07
35.80
46.52
56.55
66.15
69.66
72.17
74.48

1.20
3.04
3.06
3.15
3.47
3.25
3.11
1.14
0.81
0.75
24.18

160

Gelama Merah Drilling and Completion Cost vs. Time


80

70

WAG
60

Cumulative Cost, MYR

GM-F

Rig Down

Demob

50

GM-E
40

GM-D

30

GM-C

20

Rig Mob

GM-B

Rig Up

10

GM-A
0
0

5.00

11.00

41.40

72.04

103.95

140.16

173.35

Cumulative Time, Days


Figure 7.2 - Gelama Merah drilling and completion cost vs. time

161

204.67

211.24

215.24

218.24

7.14 Drilling Optimization


A number of other potential drilling optimization can further be applied in this development
on top of some optimization that has already been applied in order to reduce the time and cost
of the development drilling. For example, this development will be applying slim-hole well
with only single-casing string due to the suitability of the target depth and single completion
selection.

7.14.1 Monobore Completion


In comparison to slim well, monobore completion will only use single tubular from the
wellhead until the production zone. This method will significantly reduce the drilling time,
rig time and total drilling cost. Due to considerable low risk formation in Gelama Merah,
further study may be made to investigate feasible applicable of monobore completion in this
development.

7.14.2 Casing While Drilling (CWD)


Casing While Drilling (CWD) technology has been proven and applied at many regions
around the world. This method will also reduce drilling time, rig time and total drilling cost
significantly. If combined with underbalance technique, the CWD will significantly reduce
the wellbore damage and skin, thus enhancing well productivity. CWD also has shown to
create more stable wellbore and less open hole problems. Due to considerable low risk
formation in Gelama Merah, it is suggested that further study be made to for application of
casing while drilling in this development.

7.14.3 Multilateral Completion


Further study can also be made to consider multilateral completion design as this
development only involves a total of 9 development wells. Application of multilateral wells
may be able to reduce the number of wellhead and size of topside facilities under some
options.

162

7.14.4 Rotary Steerable System (RSS)


For the horizontal drilling section, the Rotary Steerable System is preferable compared to
conventional mud motors. The RSS improves the removal of the drill cuttings from the
wellbore and also eliminating the time for wellbore cleanout. A smoother well trajectory
will induce less drag on the drill string as well as the torque required from the surface.

7.14.5 Pile Driven Conductor


In order to minimize the installation time, drive pipe conductors will be used. The conductor
threads will be rugged and easy to handle. The threads will also be able to stand high torque.
This would allow for deep stabbing and quick connection make-up. The body will be flushed
internally and externally from any restriction to avoid excess drag.

Hydraulic hammer will be used for piling the conductors. The hammer used should have a
good power control and can records the blows and force required for driving conductors. As
there will be many conductors to be piled, the hammer should have no loss of performance
after prolonged operation.

7.14.6 Cement Assessment Tool (CAT)


The combination of cement and Swell Technology provides a long term isolation for
the micro annulus. The Cement Assurance Tool (CAT) is to be deployed together with the
primary cementing job at the casing pipe. The benefit of the CAT is that it can effectively
seal irregular borehole geometry with complement to all cement slurry design. For highly
deviated and horizontal wells, they often have greater exposure to the reservoir than
vertical well,

thus achieving zonal isolation is critical. An incomplete cement sheath

surrounding the cement might occur if casing centralization is less than optimum, drilling
cutting removal not complete, pockets of viscous mud remaining in well.

163

Chapter 8 :

FACILITIES ENGINEERING

8.1 Introduction

8.1.1 Overview of Facilities


The design philosophy of the development is six oil well producers and one vertical well for
water-alternating-gas (WAG) injection. These wells to be complete using slotted liner and
expandable packer in cased-hole section with high deviated angle. In addition, the philosophy
design for facilities engineering at Gelama Merah would be based on safety consideration and
cost effectiveness. Overview from reservoir engineering and production technologist part,
artificial lift which is gas lift would not be needed to use or applied during the early life cycle
of the well. Most probably, gas injection method would be carried out when the formation
pressure depletion occurs to maintain the reservoir pressure. The gas injection method will be
performed later due to high gas oil ratio (GOR) with suitable facilities. In the study of
Gelama Merah development, the total estimated reserve for oil at this field would be around
23 MMstb.

8.1.2 Design Philosophy


The development drivers of this field are described as follows:

Geological characteristic of target basin

Reservoir engineering and recoverable hydrocarbon prognosis

Relevant field data for the area and general vicinity

Development engineering of wells, structures and production facilities

Oil and gas evacuation and export options

Cost data

Hydrocarbon production philosophy

164

8.1.3 Types of Development Platform Option


The development of platform is a large structure used to produce hydrocarbon, therefore the
selection of the platform for the field development takes place in the facilities requirement at
the surface and environment of the platform for the safety of worker and machinery needed to
drill and produce the hydrocarbon from the producing zones at the subsurface. The platform
is fixed, and built on concrete onto the seabed supporting a deck with space for drilling rigs.
The technical and commercial factors played a big role on selection of platform, there are
several types of platform used in field development as showed in the figure below.

Figure 8.1 - Types of platform used in field development

165

8.2 Design Features and Basis

8.2.1 Facilities Design Concept


The platform is planned for an unmanned facility to eliminate the need for personnel to be on
rig. The platform shall be designed that it can accommodate servicing barges or vessels in the
future. Besides, the design is also aimed to withstand 25 years operating life with 30 years
structural design life with the monsoon storm condition. A remote well testing is to be run on
a monthly basis. The data gathering and monitoring of information shall be managed by the
PCSB-SBO office at Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. The geological data of Gelama Merah is as
follows:
Location

: 75 km from LCOT/ 15-20 km from Samarang Field

Number of wells

: 9 wells consist of 2 existing wells, 6 oil producers and 1 wateralternating-gas (WAG) injection well.
Table 8.1 - Production forecast for Gelama Merah

YEAR
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031

Qo
9103
9842
8324
6243
5241
4131
3852
3153
2942
1692
1253
1123
1006
921
843
768
734
695
685
621
525
Total Prod

Np
3322595
3592330
3038260
2278695
1912965
1507815
1405980
1150845
1073830
617580
457345
409895
367190
336165
307695
280320
267910
253675
250025
226665
191625

166

CNp
3322595
6914925
9953185
12231880
14144845
15652660
17058640
18209485
19283315
19900895
20358240
20768135
21135325
21471490
21779185
22059505
22327415
22581090
22831115
23057780
23249405
23.24941

Table 8.2 - Reservoir fluid properties for Gelama Merah

Property

Value

API Gravity

23.7 API

Wax Content

0 % w/w

Sulphur Content

0% w/w

CO2 Content

0% v/v

Seabed Temperature

36.2 C

Bubble Point Temperature

155 F

Bubble Point Pressure

2014 psi

Water Specific Gravity

1.019841

8.2.2 Top Structure


The GMJT-A topside structure will be a modularized integrated deck supporting the main
production, a mezzanine deck (gantry and jib crane on the deck) and a helideck. The deck on
top of the wellheads shall have the space sufficient to accommodate the well servicing
equipments such as the wireline and coiled tubing services. The topside shall have a helideck
that is permanently welded in place with hatches, but needs to be ensured it does not hinder
any wireline job as height of lubricators may hinder wireline jobs if the helideck is directly
above the wellhead hatch.

8.2.3 Substructure
The GMJT-A jacket shall be a six-pile steel-insert structure utilizing 8 conductor slots and is
to be designed to withstand loading resulting from operations and a 100 years storm and to
support facilities on the main production module on the top structure. The jacket shall also
accommodate the risers for production communication from seabed to platform, caisson and
boat landing considering the sea level depth. The piling of the sea floor base is supported by a
timber plate to equally distribute the weight of the structure. The whole pile leg should be
approximately 30-100m (100-328 ft) considering minimum air gap of 5 ft between the
platform substructure and the sea level.

167

8.3 Operation Facilities and Equipments


Gelama Merah, from the well test shows a high potential of producing large volume of gas
and expected solids when water is produced. Therefore, for the surface facilities, separation
of fluids, the handling for gas and solids has to be put into consideration, may it be for the
present or future production. The selection of production facilities for Gelama Merah field is
based on four main decisional criteria. The criteria are the transport and hydrocarbon
evacuation, substructure options, processing facilities and wellhead location.

8.3.1 Production Flowlines, Flow Control and Manifold


The production and test manifolds will allow each production completion to flow to either the
production header or the test header. A multiphase flow meter (MPFM) will be provided for
well testing purpose.

8.3.2 Wellhead
The wellhead panel will be driven by instrument air. Fluids from individual wells will flow
through the Xmas tree, after which it is routed to the production manifold via a rotary selector
valve (RSV) by individual flowlines equipped with manual chokes. The manifold will direct
flow to the main flowline to Samarang platform.

8.3.3 Gas Metering and Measurement


The gas metering hardware shall include a standard the orifice box, orifice plate, recorder,
differential pressure (Dp) Cell, pressure element and seal pot for the measurement of gas
volume. A circular chart shall be used for data recording. Frequent maintenance should be
carried out for the zero check, calibration, draining of seal pot/ Dp cell logs, clock wound and
time set, the pen functions properly and the accuracy of the orifice factor accuracy compared
to the volume of gas measured. The orifice size should be chosen correctly, where the d/D
shall be between 0.2 to 0.7 and the Dp reading on chart between 20% and 70%.

168

8.3.4 3-Phase Separator


A three phase horizontal separator will be use at CPP. Separator receives production from
individual well via manifold. The function of separator is to separate produced gas and sand
from the incoming well fluids in order to achieve crude oil specification which is 1% or less.

8.3.5 Gas Injection


The produced solution gas is not used for commercial purposes but only for the future gas lift
supply, flaring and on-site use for operated vessels, control systems, pumps or even
compressor itself. The produced solution gas after going through the separator might still
have little content of water and needs to be dehydrated before compressed (for gas lifting
purpose). The continuous absorption in a liquid glycol desiccant is a preferable option
compared to solid desiccant of silica gel.

8.3.6 Gas Lift Surfaces Facilities


No long term gas lifting is envisaged for Gelama Merah wells since the wells are expected to
be producing at high GOR. However, provision of space is made for future implementation.

8.3.7 Electrical Power and Lighting


The electric power generation and distribution system will be provided for the facilities on
the platform with provision for future installed equipment. A closed cycle vaporized thermo
generator (CCVT) or a micro-turbine is envisaged to be used with a configuration of 2 units,
1 unit on standby basis.

8.3.8 Drain System


Drain systems are important to allow equipment to be drained, opened, inspected and
repaired. Drain piping run throughout the platform and routed to vessels on the lowest level
of the platform gravity drainage. Open drain systems deals with drain fluids at atmospheric
pressure. Open drain lines converge into headers and then flow to Open Drain Caisson. Water
169

is then disposed into sea and oil is skimmed off and pumped into Closed Drain Vessel. Open
Drain Caisson has atmospheric vent to release gas.

8.3.9 Flare Boom / Vent System


The flare system in Gelama Merah platform should be used as both a means to depressure gas
from various pieces of equipment within the platform and as a safety mechanism for
abnormal process operations that may create unwanted pressure surges. The pressure surges
are relieved to the flare system via pressure relief valves to protect equipment and personnel.
The flare stack package also will burn gas vapor emitted from the hydrocarbon liquids that
accumulate in the flare knock out drum.

8.3.10 Instrument Air System


Instrument air system will be used to operate instrument valves wellhead control panel and
fusible plug loop.

8.4 Safety Facilities System


8.4.1 Safety Shutdown System
The main objective of the safeguarding is to protect both the overall facilities and equipment.
Current existing safeguarding system need to link up with all new components installed,
allowing them to be shut down as part of an emergency shutdown (ESD) of the facility. The
shutdown and fire detection function and fail safe operation of all shutdown equipment are
provided by a safety shutdown system. When unacceptable or dangerous process conditions
are detected, this system is triggered to achieve or maintain a safe state of the process. These
systems are independent and being separate from regular control but they still composed of
similar elements including sensors, actuators, logic solvers and support systems.

170

8.4.2 Automatic Fire Detection and Alarm System


There is no need for manual activation by the crew for the alarm system because it is capable
of immediate automatic activation. The system includes:

Whenever any detector comes into operation, the system give a visual and audible
alarm signal automatically at one or more indicating units

When the system activated, the indicating units show the location of the fire that is
detected in any space served by the system.

Indicating units shall be centralized on the navigating bridge or in the Main Fire
Control station, which shall be so manned or equipped as to ensure that any alarm
from the system is immediately received by a responsible member of the crew

Constructed so as to indicate if any fault occurs in the system

The detection system shall be operated by many factors:

abnormal concentration of smoke

abnormal air temperature

other factors indication of incipient fire in any of one of the spaces to be protected

The detectors may be arranged to operate the alarm by the opening or closing of contacts or
by other appropriate methods. Closing of contact operates detectors and shall be of the sealed
contact type. Besides, the circuit shall be continuously monitored to indicate fault conditions.
Detectors shall be:

placed in an opposite position and suitably protected against impact and physical
damage

Placed in an open position where it is clear from beams and other objects which can
obstruct the flow of hot gases or smoke to the sensitive element.

Suitable for use in a marine environment

The minimum of one detector shall be installed in each space where detection facilities are
required and cannot be less than one detector for every 37 square meters of deck area as
171

approved in platforms safety plan. To make sure that no detector is more than 9 meters from
another detector or more than 4.5 meters from a bulkhead in large spaces, the detector shall
be arranged in a regular pattern.

For the electrical equipment in the operation of the fire alarm and fire detection system, there
shall be not less than two independent sources of power supply and one of that shall be an
emergency source. The supply shall be provided by separate feeders reserved solely for that
purpose.

8.4.3 Life Saving Appliances


Life jackets must be sufficient means they must be twice the total number of persons onboard
and each person shall be provided with a lifejacket stowed in his accommodation. Each
lifejacket need to equip with a whistle and a light powered by water activated battery. All
survival craft, life rafts, lifejackets and life buoys are to be fitted with retro-reflective
material. The platform needs to have sufficient communication and emergency evacuation
equipment in order to prepare from any case of emergency.

8.4.4 Platform Data and Communication System


Gelama Merah will be installed with digital microwave radio system and a marine VHF radio
system with direct routing and interfacing to and from Semarang field. A satellite connection
is required between Gelama Merah and Semarang as the distance is 17 kilometers.

8.5 Pipelines and Host Tie-Ins to Existing Platform

8.5.1 Pipeline Tie-Ins


The nearest CPP in the Sabah offshore is located in Samarang-B Platform or (SMP-B),
approximately 15-20km from the current Gelama Merah platform location. Tie-in to currently
existing platform is preferable as it reduces the cost for processing on GMJT-A itself and
reduces the cost for leasing a FPSO vessel for the whole 20 years cycle. It would not be

172

necessary to have the similar processing facilities in GMJT-A as well as it will increase
CAPEX, OPEX and deck load on the platform except equipment for gas lifting and water
injection in the future.

The scope of work required for the tie-in to Samarang Processing Platform B (SMP-B)
includes the following:
i.

Fabrication and installation of new riser and receiver/launcher

ii.

Structural strengthening required for platform upgrading

iii.

Associated piping, new vessel installation and other modifications to tie-in to the
existing facilities

iv.

Deck extension at cellar deck to accommodate riser

Figure 8.2 - Tie-in from GMJT-A to SMP-B diagram

8.5.2 Pipeline Optimum Sizing using PIPESim


The detailed study on the pipeline design should includes the following elements which are:

i. Pipeline flow assurance and line sizing


ii. Pipeline route selection
iii. Geohazard Analysis
iv. Stability analysis and determination of weight coating/trenching requirements
v. Determination of wall thickness and steel grade
vi. Pipe spanning analysis
173

vii. Pipeline installation studies to verify alternative installation options

However, no data were available on the seabed/soil condition, or even the terrain of the sea.
Thus the values for all these are based on an assumption figures. These data should be
recalculated once the actual information is available.

8.5.2.1 Fluid Flow Pattern from PIPESim


The maximum flowrate from the Gelama Merah field is 9000 bpd. The LP and HP separator
pressures are assumed to be in range of 50 psi to 150 psi and 160 psi to 250 psi respectively.
In determining the pipeline size that can cater pressure drop along the 17 km to the
Samarang-B host platform, a simulator of PIPESim is used. The landing pressure at
Samarang-B is 200 psi, from the HP separator pressure. The pressure drop simulation for the
17 kilometer pipeline from GMJT-A to Samarang-B was simulated for different pipeline
sizes of 8, 10, 12 and 14 inches.

The result shows that 8 and 10 inches pipe were having early pressure drop while for 12
inches just barely drop below the landing pressure. The most suitable pipe size is 14 inch
which can cater the distance and maintains above the HP separator pressure. It can be
deducted here that pressure drop can be reduced if pipe size is increased. Result from the
simulation indicate bubble flow pattern along the pipeline. However there will be severe slug
flow at riser base of the pipeline. Pigging operation also will cause transition of flow to slug
flow. Therefore, to control slug flow, automated control valve at the upstream separator can
regulate the flow and pressure into the separator. It is also proposed to utilize the pigging
operation with gas bypassing capability to minimize slog flow.

8.5.2.2 Flow Assurance


Flow assurance makes sure the gas/oil/water from the wells convey to the delivery location.
In designing the pipeline from Gelama Merah to Samarang-B several concerns need to be
considering such as:

Large pressure losses in pipelines cause flow rates to be lower

Separator flooded by liquids


174

Well cant lift its liquids and dies

Severe slugging in riser destroys separator

Pipeline blockage by hydrates or wax

Pipeline or wellbore rupture from corrosion

8.5.2.3 Pipeline Route Selection


For the selection of the appropriate development for Gelama Merah,various surface facilities
option need to be focused on which are:

The oil produced with natural depletion plus water injection scheme, as a satellite
platform with multiphase pipeline tie back to Samarang-B CPP. Water injection that
came from Samarang facilities is actually a water pipeline coming from Samarang.
This is found to be the most economical option amongst the others.

As a satellite platform, crude oil to be evacuated through multiphase pipeline to


Labuan Crude Oil Terminal where separation facility is assumed to be there.

Crude processing will be done on FPSO and as a satellite platform, crude to be


evacuated through multiphase pipeline to a rental FPSO. Oil tanker used to export oil.

Crude oil will be stored on rented FSO and exported via oil tanker. MOPU (Mobile
Offshore Production Unit) is actually a removable jack up platform with capabilities
of processing

Gas lift is expected in future and this can be done by utilizing gas compression facility on the
host platform of Samarang for satellite platforms. All the satellite platform option is
categorized under unmanned platform with maintenance philosophy. Minimum expenditure
required to develop the facility is used as the base for chosen development.

8.5.2.4 Geohazard Analysis


The prediction of the level of ground motion that could occur at a Gelama Merah involved in
a seismic hazard assessment. Practically, determination of a level of vibratory ground motion
is a seismic hazard assessment, based on probabilistic considerations, to which a structure
needs to be designed to comply with regulatory design criteria. This system usually includes:

175

field assessment protocols and database applications to analyze and manage


inspection information from year to year

prioritize high risk sites for further assessment

This system is important for pipeline constructors as it give access to the most current
information about Gelama Merah hazards including the hazard's history, pictures, when it
was last inspected, and when it is due for inspection. This analysis shall be done for the
purpose of reducing the risk during the routing, construction and operation stages of pipeline
life at Gelama Merah.

8.5.2.5 Trenching Requirements


Many pipelines are trenched to protect them from:

trawling damage

To enhance stability.

Trenching (lowering) or burial (covering) over part or all of their length in all lines need to
have some degree of protection. Where these measures are required along the segments of the
pipeline route need to be considered.

Not all application required the whole pipeline length; it may be limited to areas where the
pipeline traverses shipping channels or harbour areas. This is why consideration needs to be
given to where these measures are required. In Gelama Merah, pipeline measures can be used
in combination, for example:

thicker wall pipe

concrete protective coating

trenching and engineered rock / gravel protection may be required for offshore

The ongoing integrity of protection measures will require periodic assessment through
inspection or survey.

176

8.5.2.6 Pipe Span Analysis


Supports for piping must be spaced with respect to three considerations:

a) Ability to place a support at some desired location


b) Keeping sag in the line within limits that will permit drainage.
c) Avoiding excessive bending stresses from the uniform and concentrated loads
between supports.

Procedure for Calculation of Maximum Span of Gelama Merah

Design formulas for calculating bending stress and deflection between supports are derived
from the usual beam formulas, which depend upon the method of support and the type of
loading.

Maximum Bending stress,

[1]
Maximum Deflection,

[2]

Where,
w = uniformly distributed weight of pipeline in N/m
wc = concentrated weight on pipeline in N
L = Span length in m
D = Outside diameter of pipe in m
177

d = Inside diameter of pipe in m


E = Modulus of elasticity of pipe in N/m2
I = Moment of Inertia of pipe in m

A. Calculation of total weight


Total weight = weight of pipe (wp) + weight of fluid (wf)

B. Weight of pipe
Thickness of pipe can be calculated as

[3]
Where,
P = Pressure of the fluid in pipe in N/m2
S a = Allowable stress in pipe in N/m2
E = Quality Factor from ASME B 31.3
Y = Coefficient of material from ASME B 31.3

Annular cross section of pipe =

[4]

C. Calculation of weight of fluid

Weight of fluid =

[5]

178

Calculating the maximum support span for transporting water through a seamless stainless
steel pipe (ASTM A 312 TP 316 L) of 300 NPS through a distance of 17 km from Gelama
Merah to Semarang-B. Pressure in pipe is 20 bar at atmospheric temperature.

D = 0.3239 m [2]
P = 20 bar
S b = 34.53 MPa (30% of S a = 115.1 MPa) [4]

Therefore, using equation [3], thickness of pipe comes out to be 6 mm.


Hence, d = 0.3071 m [2].
Weight of stainless steel pipe is calculated 641.16 N/m [5].
Weight of water = 726.64 N/m
Total weight = 1367.8 N/m
Moment of inertia = 1.0369 x 10-4 m 4
Modulus of Elasticity = 195122 MPa

Maximum Span between supports is calculated as 11.38 meters, which is rounded back to
11.0 meters. Hence number of supports required for 17 km pipeline is approx. 1364. With the
above values, deflection comes out to be 12.89 mm, which is less than L/600. Hence the
calculated span is also safe in deflection.

8.5.3 Wax Mitigation


The average pour point of crude is 27 to 29 C and cloud point is around 32 to 36 C. The sea
bed temperature is around 22 C at 43 metres water depth. From DST and PVT data, there is
no indication of wax content. But after a period of time, there can be possibilities of wax
presence. Therefore measures shall be taken to avoid wax accumulation. The following
option to mitigate possible wax at this time is insulation of the pipeline. The insulation comes
as standard of pipeline package is specified to 0.2 btu per hour per feet area of heat transfer.
Therefore it shall be enough for several hours pipeline shutdown. Consequently, if there is
wax presence in future, the wax mitigation plan will be as follows:

Injecting pour point depressant.

Regular pigging to remove wax builds up.


179

Wax inhibitor injected before planned shutdown.

8.5.4 Slug Suppression System (Sss)


In a flowline/riser system large liquid slugs and surges can be formed by operational changes
or due to the flow conditions and physical characteristics of the flowline. These liquid slugs
and gas surges may result in large oil and gas production losses when they arrive at a
production platform. Fluids from Gelama Merahs GMJT-A will be transferred via the 14
inch pipeline, in which severe riser slugging is expected to occur. This type of slugging takes
place from the start of production and a slug suppression system is required to break the
slugs, smoothing flow streams and avoiding plant upsets.

8.6 Pipeline Corrosion Management


8.6.1 Corrosion Inhibitor Injection
Gelama Merah fluids are not corrosive in nature according to PVT data DST sample. The
water cut is predicted to increase 30% upon production and peaking at 90% by the end of its
producing life. Constant monitoring and sampling are required for Gelama Merah to detect
corrosion from early production life and to protect the carbon steel pipeline. Sprayed or
painted on corrosion inhibitors will create a thin layer which will provide protection from
corrosion. It can be applied when they oil locks and hinges to prevent them from rusting and
to keep them moving smoothly. Corrosion inhibitor is assume to be a mixture of diesel
onshore and supplied by boat in bulk to the platform. To minimize corrosion allowance in the
subsea pipeline, system reliability target should be within 95%. Utility gas operates the
injection system.

8.6.2 Corrosion Allowance


Corrosion allowance refers to the difference between the diameter required for initial pressure
containment and the diameter required for laying down the pipe.

180

8.6.3 Pipeline Pigging


The practice of using pipeline inspection gauges to perform various operations on a pipeline
without stopping the flow of the product in the pipeline is called pigging. It is required for the
purposed of:

Removal solids (e.g. wax) from settling in the pipeline

Removal of stagnant water pools from low spots in the line where corrosion inhibitor
is diluted.

Pigs are used in:

to empty the pipes into the product tanks

lube oil or painting blending to clean the pipes to avoid cross-contamination

Frequency for initial pigging after start up is once a week. After operational experience is
gained, this schedule will reduce to once every three months because it is considered
adequate and to take advantage of the buildup of waxy layer on the pipe wall to control
corrosion. Pigging debris will be analyzed for corrosion products to optimize pigging
frequency.

8.6.4 Corrosion Monitoring


Unmanned platform and the inhibited system proposed are under the corrosion monitoring
system. This will reflect the type of corrosion mechanism involved which are mechanical,
electrical, or electrochemical devices. Corrosion monitoring is necessary to:

i.

Monitor the availability of the inhibition system to optimize inspection frequency.

ii.

Monitor pigging debris for corrosion products.

iii.

Cathodic protection and external anti corrosion coating shall be applied to maintain
the pipeline integrity.

181

8.7 Operation and Maintenance


8.7.1 Operations
Gelama Merah field will be operated in accordance with relevant PETRONAS procedures
guidelines, Malaysia Operation Philosophy (MPOP), Department of Safety and Health
(DOSH) and other applicable statutory requirements. The underlying principles of operation
and maintenance activity will be:

1) Health, Safety and Environment (HSE): Which involves health and Safety of
personnel, preservation of the environment and companys reputation, safeguards of
structure and facilities production of hydrocarbon
2) Effective Manpower Utilization: through the adaptation of dualskilled work force,
appropriately completing technology, fit for purpose of design and choice of
equipment.
3) Periodic Inspection, Evaluation and Correction: the system and equipment availability
values (in terms of economic operation) will be monitored against designed/set target
to gauge effectiveness and correct strategies for subsequent maintenance and
operation activities.

8.7.2 Operating Philosophy


The primary objective is to produce and evacuate crude oil from Gelama Merah to Semarang
complex safely and cost effective manner as well as meeting the production target. The
development of Gelama Merah is mainly designed for unmanned operation and less operator
intervention, the schedule visit by operator will be during day time required.

The remote monitoring and control will provided at Semarang Complex, the design of the
platform shall be based on minimal facilities to reduce operation and maintenance
requirement, the operations crew should travel to and from Gelama Merah on scheduled basis
via a fast crew boat, and for the bad weather a helicopter can be used.

182

8.7.3 Pipeline Operation Philosophy


The primary process intent is to transport the crude within the pipe line handling capacity of
Semarang and its associated network platforms.

8.7.4 Process Control


To achieve the process intent the following shall be monitored and controlled:

Export pressure, temperature and flow rates.

Flow rate fluctuations.

Operations modes: normal/transient-pigging/startup/shut down and blow down.

Moisture/dew point level finally GOR (monitor only).

8.7.5 Pigging
Pipe line requires regular cleaning by pig which removes settled sand, stagnant water
collected at low points (corrosion prevention) ,wax deposit etc. The pig may be in the form of
a sphere to displace fluids or cylinder with brushes to scrape the inside surface of the line.
Intelligence pigs can be used to inspect the pipe line condition and record the results. The
pigging interval between Gelama Merah and Semarang platform will adhere to Carigali
Inspection and Maintenance Guide lines (CIMG) requirement.

8.7.6 Maintenance Philosophy


The principal of maintenance intent is to minimize (OPEX) and safeguard technical integrity
of facilities, pipe lines and system, thereby ensuring maximum possible plant availability and
equipment reliability.

The following strategies will be incorporated during design for ease of maintenance:
1) The designs shall adopt (fit purpose) concept where possible using minimal operator
intervention, reliable components with the highest availability and reliable records.
2) Choice of equipment and systems will be based on proven technology and system with
regional spares and technical support.
183

3) Utilization of advanced control system with self-diagnostic and predictive maintenance


capability.
4) Standardization between systems skids and platform.
5) Standardization of all systems and equipment (instrument) types will be incorporated to
minimize spare holding.

8.8 Abandonment
Decommissioning of Gelama Merah platform will take place when it is no longer economical
to continue production. According to the PETRONAS specification and International
Maritime guidelines for offshore development structures, the platform has to be fully
removed during the abandonment stages. The design of the initial platform should have the
design such that it can be removed readily during the abandonment stages. The well shall be
cemented and plugged above at least 100ft from the current depleted zones and killed. The
jacket piles are to be cut below the mudline level, while the pipelines has to be pigged and
capped. The cost for decommissioning are shown in the next section, which includes the cost
for cutting spread, crane spread, multi-service, transportation spread and dumping. A total of
30-35 days is expected for complete decommissioning of the whole jacket structure.

8.9 Facilities CAPEX, Decommission and OPEX


8.9.1 Capital Expenditure (CAPEX)
The production pipeline is planned for a tied in to the SMP-B CPP which is located
approximately 17 km from the Gelama Merah platform. The CAPEX for the facilities
(without the cost for CPP) is computed using Que$tor 9.4. The 6-legged jacket to be used is
planned for 20 years of production life with 5 years assisted by water injection facilities of
plateau production at 5MSTB/day for the field. The estimated CAPEX are listed below in
Table 8.3.

184

Table 8.3 - CAPEX for jacket facilities for Gelama Merah

Cost Breakdown

Mil USD ($)


Topside

Equipment
Materials
Fabrication
Hook-up and commissioning
Design & Project Management
Installation
Insurance & Certification
Contingency

14.139
5.643
7.713
2.869
8.867
5.630
1.773
4.609
Jacket

Materials
Fabrication
Installation
Design & Project Management
Insurance & Certification
Contingency

3.569
2.651
8.056
1.347
0.625
1.625
Offshore Pipeline

Materials
Installation
Design & Project Management
Insurance & Certification
Contingency
SUB TOTAL (w/o contingency)
TOTAL COST

1.120
10.292
0.817
0.489
1.908
75.6
83.742

8.9.2 Decommissioning Cost


Apart from the CAPEX, the decommissioning cost for abandonment phase would need to be
taken into consideration as well in the end of the production life. Four options are reviewed
for the CAPEX and Decommissioning cost which are:

Option 1: Pipeline tie-in to Samarang-B CPP (17 km)


Option 2: Pipeline to LCOT (75 km), requires GMJT-A to be a CPP
Option 3: Production via FPSO and subsea tie-back

185

Table 8.4 - Comparison of CAPEX for different options

Components
Topside/FPSO
Jacket/Tanker
Offshore Pipeline
Topside
Decommissioning
Jacket
Decommissioning
Pipeline
Decommissioning
TOTAL

Opt 1: Tie-in to
Samarang CPP
Mil USD
50.703
17.873
14.626

Method of Production
Option 2: Pipeline to
LCOT
Mil USD
133.789
27.378
44.176

Opt 3: FPSO +
Subsea TB
Mil USD
44.333
110.725
52.052

8.2805

11.497

8.351

9.8425

9.8785

6.1

10.062

9.659

107.425

236.7805

225.12

From Table 8.3 and Table 8.4 comparison, the preferable option is to tie in to as there is
already an available CPP in Samarang and it involves smaller CAPEX. In order to equip the
Gelama Merah platform with CPP facilities (quarters, separation, and process) would require
an additional of USD 91.04 million. Option 2 and 3 would approximately double the CAPEX
compared to Option 1.

8.9.3 Operating Expenditure (OPEX)


The estimated OPEX for the Gelama Merah platform is as follows:
Table 8.5 - Operating cost for Gelama Merah platform

Options
Operating Cost (OPEX)

Option 1

Option 2
Million USD/year
Platform Inspection and Maintenance
Topside
0.369
1.184
Jacket
0.949
2.135
Tanker/Float
0
0
Pipeline Inspection and Maintenance
Total
0.399
1.449
Logistic and Consumables
Chemical Supplies
0.066
0.066
Fuel/Gas/Diesel
0.009
0.003
Supply boat/rescue boat
2.117
2.117
TOTAL ESTIMATED OPEX
3.909
6.954
186

Option 3

0.391
0
2.636
1.722
0.66
0.47
1.510
7.389

From the cost estimation for the CAPEX, OPEX and Decommissioning, it can be seen that
Option 1 provides a more feasible option to produce the hydrocarbons from Gelama Merah.
Option 2 and 3 maybe be able to store and evacuate higher volume of hydrocarbon in terms
of efficiency, however, considerations will have to be made for Gelama Merah, since it only
produces an average of 3000-4000stb on a daily basis for the field. The economic evaluation
over 20 years of life cycle will be discussed in the next phase.

187

Chapter 9 :

ECONOMIC ANALYSES

9.1 Introduction and Objective


Generally, economic evaluations involve the identification, measurement, and valuation, and
then comparison of the costs (inputs) and benefits (outcomes) of two or more alternative. In
economic evaluations, the costs and consequences of alternative scenarios are compared to
examine the best use of the scarce resources.

The objectives of economic analysis on Gelama Merah field development strategy are:

To analyze the economic feasibilities of three proposed production options by


facilities engineering team

To carry out economic evaluation for proposed production scenario by reservoir


engineering team, drilling engineering team and production technologist based on
NPV, Payback, and IRR.

Based on reservoir engineering data, a production scenario is obtained as tabulated in the


following table:

Table 9.1 - Proposed Gelama Merah production scenario

Type of production

Crude oil

Years of production

20 years

Recovery factor

27.8%

Recoverable reserves

23.25 MMSTB

Average production rate

3082 bbl/day

No of production wells

6 (Horizontal)

No of injection wells

1 (Vertical)

Type of injection

Water alternating gas (WAG)

Before proceed to field economic evaluation, it is necessary to analyze first the available
options for production facilities prepared by the facilities engineers. This analysis is

188

important as it shows the capital expenditures (CAPEX) and operating expenditures (OPEX)
associate with this project development.

9.2 Development Options and Total Expenditures


The Facilities Engineering Team has suggested three development strategies as summarized
below:

i.

Option 1: A production platform tie-in to the nearby Samarang Mother Platform-B


(SMP-B) Central Processing Platform (CPP).

ii.

Option 2: A production platform tie-in directly to Labuan Crude Oil Terminal (LCOT).

iii.

Option 3: Production using floating, production, storage and offloading (FPSO).

The differences between these options are the total expenditure. Option with lower cost is
more preferable than the expensive one. To compare between these options, Que$tor software
is used to estimate the facilities expenditure required for all these three options. Prior to that,
the production profile prepared by the reservoir engineers will be needed as it is required as
input data for the software.

25000

Production Profile for Gelama Merah

20000

15000

Daily production according to


year, STB/day

10000

Cummulative Production
MStb

5000

Figure 9.1 - Production profile for Gelama Merah

189

Based on the economic models generated by Que$tor software, the results of expenditures are
obtained as shown below:
Table 9.2 - Summary of development costs

Item

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Platform

50.703

133.789

Jacket leg

17.873

27.378

Offshore pipeline 1

14.626

44.176

52.052

Wells

82.492

82.468

90.21

FPSO

44.333

Tanker

110.725

Catenary Anchor Leg Mooring (CALM)

100.553

Subsea

55.057

Fixed OPEX

3.909

5.885

8.605

Decommissioning

20.111

25.977

7.451

TOTALS (USD million)

189.714

319.673

468.986

Looking at Table 9.2, great differences of costs can be seen where Option 1 provides the
most economical model as the CPP units are already available in Samarang-Mother Platform
B (SMP-B) and a shorter pipeline is required compared to Option 2 and Option 3. Option 3
on the other hand, does not seem economically feasible as compared to Option 1 because of
the higher CAPEX and OPEX.

190

9.3 Fiscal Terms


The fiscal terms stated here are only for oil production and in accordance with the 1985
Production Sharing Contract (PSC). Listed below are elements on taxation system for
Malaysia system used in economic evaluation:

Table 9.3 - Fiscal terms for PSC 1985

Terms

Details
1st January 2010

Effective Date
Contract Duration

24 years

Production Period

20 years

Royalty Rate

10%

Cost Oil Ceiling Rate

50%

Profit Oil Sharing (Np < 50MMbbl)

PETRONAS : Contractor

First 10 kbopd

50:50

Second 10 kbopd

60:40

Above 20 kbopd

70:30

Profit Oil Share (Np > 50MMbbl)

70:30

PSC Base Price

$25.00/bbl escalated 5% p.a from 2005


($35.18/bbl in 2011)

Export Duty (ED) Rate

10% of profit oil exported

Research Cess

0.5% x Contractor Entitlement

Petroleum Tax Rate


Oil Supplemental Payment

38%
70% x [(Oil Price-Base Price)/Base Price] x (Cont PO
Export Duty)

Fixed Structure

10% per year (10 years)

Facility/Pipeline

20% Initial + 8% annual (10 years)

Tangible Drilling

20% Initial + 8% annual (10 years)

Intangible Drilling

100% write off

191

Overall project cast flow

Figure 9.2 Fiscal structure of Gelama Merah field

9.4 Economic Assumptions

Base Case
The proposed base case from the reservoir development are six horizontal-production
wells through zone 9.0, 9.1 and 9.2 and one vertical (existing) well for WAG
injection. All 5 non-vertical wells are for oil production.

Reference Year
The reference year for Gelama Merah is the year of the evaluation, which in this case
is 2005 for the escalation based on PSC 1985.

First Oil
The first oil to be produced from Gelama Merah is expected to be in 2011.

Production Period
192

A production period of 20 years is expected with a plateau of approximately 9000


stb/day for the first 2 years and declining.

Decommissioning Year
Decommissioning period will be exactly after 20 years of production period (2031).

Cash Flow Model


The cash flow model is assumed to be in the Money of the Day (MOD) term.

Base Oil Price


The oil price is assumed to be USD 25/bbl for Brent crude, and escalation of 5.0% per
annum is assumed based on the fiscal terms in PSC 1985 from year 2005. The price of
oil fluctuates slightly above USD 120/bbl this year, April 2011 and the team consider
that the escalation of 5.0% per annum should be reconsider as the oil price is believed
would be able to sustain at price higher around USD 100/bbl.

Operating Cost (OPEX)


The fixed OPEX is obtained to be approximately USD 5.135 million per year which
consists of the wells, jacket and topside, with a pipeline connected to Samarang-B
platform facilities as central processing platform. Variable OPEX vary from USD 2-5
million per year based on requirement for gas lift assisted supply.

Hurdle Rate for IRR


A hurdle rate for PETRONAS at 10% is chosen, which consisted of weighted average
cost of capital 8.5% and associated risk of 1.5%.

Discount Rate
The discount rate assumed to be 10% during the evaluation according to the
opportunity cost of capital, acquisition cost of capital and risk management.

9.5 Economic Analysis and Results


The economic analysis is used to evaluate three parameters which are the Net Present Value
(NPV), Payback Period and Internal Rate of Return (IRR). Sensitivity using the spider plot is
also conducted for the selected case to determine and analyze the effect of increasing and
decreasing the capital expenditure (CAPEX), operating expenditure (OPEX), oil price and
production rates with reflect to the NPV. The economic analysis will be used as a final
selection method to maximize recovery for the development strategies.

193

A spreadsheet economic model based on the fiscal regime and economic assumptions was
built to calculate the key economic parameters, namely NPV and IRR (nominal and real
term). The inputs to the model are the production profiles (Figure 1), CAPEX and OPEX.
The economics are calculated on nominal or money of the day (MOD) basis with escalation
included.

9.5.1 Net Cash Flow Profile


The contractors net cash flow profile is shown in Figure 3 based on the result from Option 1
(tie-in to Semarang CPP). Development CAPEX is incurred in 2010 and stopped at the end of
development period at 2013. The first oil is expected to be in year 2011. Plateau rate of about
9000 stb/day for 2 years is expected. The economic limit is 2030 after 20 years of production.
The reserves recovered are 23.25 MMSTB. The maximum cash sink is USD 54.77 millions at
2012 and the ultimate cash surplus is USD 143.59 millions with IRR of 37%, and the
payback period is about 3.7 years from first oil.

USD million

Net cash flow diagram for Gelama Merah

200.00
160.00
120.00
80.00

Net Cash Flow After Tax


Cumulative net cash flow

40.00

2031

2030

2029

2028

2027

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

-40.00

2010

0.00

Year
-80.00
Figure 9.3 Net cash flow for Gelama Merah with decommissioning in year 2031 (graph changed)

194

below shows the relationship between NPV and different discount rates resulting in IRR of
37% for the project. The project is feasible since its IRR was higher than the companys
hurdle rate (10%) with payback period of 3.7 years after first oil.

9.5.2 Sensitivity Analysis


Economic models and evaluation were developed to test as well for the sensitivity with the
main objective to assess the robustness of the selected project. The sensitivities that were
tested are on the CAPEX, OPEX, oil price and production for the selected base case project
with SMP-B CPP. 3 methods were used which are the Spider Plot, Tornado Chart, and Delay
or Acceleration of project year.

Spider Plot
The parameters are tested for a difference of +/-40% individually using sensitivity control in
spreadsheet. The results are shown in Table 9.4 and Figure 9.4
140

Spider Plot for NPV


@ 10%

y = 1.8004x - 126.11

120

Production
100

CAPEX
y = 1.25x - 69.21

80

OPEX
Oil Price

60

y = -0.384x + 93.99

y = -0.3347x + 88.852

Linear (Production)
Linear (CAPEX)

40

Linear (OPEX)
20

Linear (Oil Price)

0
40

60

80

100

120

140

-20
-40
Figure 9.4 Spider plot for NPV @ 10%

195

160

Table 9.4 Sensitivity manipulation (+/- 40%) results for four main parameters (USD million)

Sensitivity (%)

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

Production

5.79

18.29

30.79

43.29

55.79

68.29

80.79

93.29

105.79

CAPEX

71.39

67.49

61.79

59.69

55.79

51.89

47.99

44.09

40.19

OPEX

68.32

65.23

62.13

58.96

55.79

52.42

49.01

45.32

41.24

Oil Price

-23.35

0.8

20.38

38.3

55.79

72.93

89.89

106.83

123.77

Spider plot analysis shows that if the OPEX is increased by 40%, the project will still have a
NPV of USD 41.24 millions, and if the OPEX are reduced by 40%, the NPV is up to USD
68.32 million. From the plot also, we can observe that the CAPEX has greater influence
towards the project since the slope of its graph is steeper than OPEX. The CAPEX at +/- 40%
shows a value of NPV between USD 40.19 million and USD 71.39 million respectively.

120

Spider Plot for IRR


y = 0.0061x2 - 0.0589x - 17.561

100

Production

80

CAPEX
y = 1.0679x - 69.5

60

OPEX
Oil Price
Hurdle Rate (10%)

40

y = -0.15x + 52.222

Linear (Production)
Linear (CAPEX)

20

y = -0.4367x + 80.778

Linear (OPEX)

0
40

60

80

100

120

140

160

-20
Figure 9.5 Spider plot for IRR

Since the oil price and annual production have more significant effect towards the project
IRR, the reduction of the variables at approximately 30% will turn the project below the

196

hurdle rate of 10%. Meanwhile, for CAPEX and OPEX, increase of up to 40% will still
create IRR above the hurdle rate.
Generally, for development small field development, most commonly the oil price, annual
production and CAPEX are very much sensitive to variation as shown in Figure 5. Spider
plot shows that the steeper the slope, the more sensitive the project changes in that variable.
For this case, oil price is the greatest influence towards this project. Stand alone offshore
projects are typically most sensitive to variation in CAPEX and oil price. The CAPEX is
steeper than OPEX as they are the front end costs, while oil price, it determines the revenue
of the project. However, sensitivity analysis does not take into account the probability of
different assumptions applying and only tells the implication if one parameter is altered one
at a time.

9.6 Discussion and Recommendation

The economic evaluation based on Option 1 from Facilities Engineering Team and production
profiles from Reservoir Engineering Team can be summarized as follows:

Table 9.5 summary of economic analysis of Gelama Merah field

Production Facilities
Production Case

Option 1: Tie in to SMP-B CPP

6 horizontal production wells

1 WAG vertical injection well

RF of 27.8% = 23.25 MMSTB

NPV @ 10%

USD 55.78 million

IRR

37.0%

CAPEX

USD 165.69 million (undiscounted)

OPEX

USD 3.909 million/year (undiscounted)

Decommissioning

USD 24.22 million


3.7 years after 1st oil

Payback Period
Economic Life

20 years

197

Based on the economic findings, the potential oil development of Gelama Merah Field is
quite attractive with NPV@10% of USD 55.78 million at Brent Oil Price of USD 35.18/bbl
in 2011, which is a low case price. However, with the current oil price trend (USD 124/bbl as
at 22nd April 2011), development of Gelama Merah Field will become extremely more
economical and profitable.

The profitability and investment efficiency of this option can further be enhanced by reducing
capital expenses and recover more reserves through EOR. From the sensitivity analyses, the
most crucial parameters are oil price, annual production as well as CAPEX. Since crude oil
price is beyond our control, maximizing recoverable reserves and minimizing costs are
valuable to the company.

198

Chapter 10

HEALTH, SAFETY & ENVIRONMENT

10.1 HSE Management Policy


The Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) requirement for the development of Gelama
Merah field shall be in accordance with PCSB / PETRONAS Health, Safety & Environment
Management System (HSEMS) and other approved PETRONAS / Regulatory / International
Standard. The HSEMS shall be the basis of HSE Plan which shall be developed and
implemented to cover all phases of activities throughout the whole life cycle of the field.

Any non-compliance or deviation from the requirements of PCSB / PETRONAS HSEMS


shall be fully justified and formally approved by relevant parties. The elements and principles
set forth in the PCSB / PETRONAS HSEMS are mandatory to all parties which undertake
any scope of work in the development of Gelama Merah field.

10.2 Risk Acceptance Criteria


All the facilities shall be designed, constructed and operated so as to minimize the individual
risks, offshore societal risks, facilities risks and other risks using the as low as reasonably
practicable (ALARP) process. The risks must not be greater than 1x10-3 per year, at which
level the risks are considered to be intolerable whatever the benefit may be. Risk reduction
measures or design changes are considered essential.

10.3 Project HSE Objectives and Program


The following objectives shall be pursued for the development of Gelama Merah field:

The design of Gelama Merah facilities is in accordance with relevant PETRONAS


Technical Standards (PTS).

The design of Gelama Merah facilities shall incorporate the control of substances
hazardous to health, effluent discharges and solid wastes, gaseous emissions and noise
and vibration.
199

The design of Gelama Merah facilities is inherently safe and can be verified by means
of systematic reviews such as Hazards and Operability Studies (HAZOP) and Risk
Assessment reviews. Probabilities of hydrocarbon releases and ignition sources are
reduced and consequences of major accidents are mitigated. All practicable steps are
taken to protect the environment against any harmful effects that might arise from the
design and operation of the facilities.

No compromise in safety of the approved design will be allowed during subsequent


activities of procurement, fabrication, installation, hook-up and commissioning and
production operations. Means of proper control of any design changes such as
modifications, additions, deletions or substitutions of any equipment, material and
process philosophies shall be enforced.

Selection and engagement of contractors whose management systems for HSE are
comparable or at par with PCSB / PETRONAS HSEMS and commitment towards
health, safety and environmental protection can be clearly demonstrated.

Execution of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study in accordance with


Malaysia Environmental Quality (Amendment) Act 1985.

Development of safety case for offshore facilities and Control of Industrial Major
Accident Hazards (CIMAH) written report for onshore facility.

All hazards with the potential to cause a major accident have been identified, their
risks evaluated and that measures have been, or will be, taken to control those risks to
ensure that the relevant statutory provisions will be complied with.

Environmental consideration requirements shall be addressed in all phases of the


Gelama Merah Development Project. The requirements of the EIA, Malaysian Laws
and Regulations and PSCB guidelines and policies on the environment during design,
construction, commissioning and operations shall be complied to at all times

10.4 HSE Hold Points


A HSE Hold Point is defined as a team activity that serves as a check and/or internal audit
that all relevant HSE issues have been addressed and approved prior to the commencement of
the next stage of the project. The HSE Hold points therefore shall ensure all the HSE
activities and requirements stipulated in the PCSB HSEMS are carried out.

200

10.5 Safety Awareness


Requirement for periodic health check and safety training shall be made compulsory to all
crew and personnel working on Gelama Merah. Operating crew of Gelama Merah shall
execute and implement all designated activities in the annual HSE Plan. Safety officer shall
be responsible to ensure all technical and non-technical work onboard Gelama Merah is in
compliance with PETRONAS HSE regulations and requirements.

10.6 Emergency Response Plan (ERP)


In the event of an emergency which necessitates the evacuation of personnel onboard Gelama
Merah, the mobilization operation shall be conducted in orderly manner. Operation
Installation Manager (OIM) shall be responsible for coordinating the evacuation procedure
and communicating with PCSB Emergency Response Team (ERT) apart from other
procedural requirement as stated in the ERP.

10.7 Environment Concerns


Environmental concerns arising in various stages of Gelama Merah Development Project
shall be addressed according but not limited to the regulations and requirement of the
Department of Environment (DOE) and PETRONAS.

10.7.1 Drilling Waste


Drilling wastes which consists of drill mud and drilled cuttings have potentially damaging
impact to the marine life such as toxic contamination, bioaccumulation (process whereby a
material is absorbed into the body of an organism) and fish tainting. The Gelama Merah
project team shall therefore abide to the regulations on discharge of drilling wastes:

No water-based mud that contain free oil or inverse emulsion mud or cuttings
generated using these muds to be discharged overboard.

No oil-contaminated mud to be discharged.

201

The drilling mud and cuttings which cannot be discharged overboard shall be hauled to
onshore for proper disposal. Alternatively, the drilled cuttings may be re-injected into the
annulus of wells, or ground up and re-injected into underground reservoirs. Water-based mud
that meet regulatory limits and have no free oil can be discharged along with its associated
cuttings.

10.7.2 Produced Water


Produced water is water generated from the oil and gas extraction process, which includes
formation water, injector water, well treatment solutions and production chemicals. The
produced water shall be treated to remove oil and contaminants prior to overboard discharge.
Since production from Gelama Merah shall be evacuated to Semarang for processing, the
operator of Semarang shall therefore abide to the regulations which require the Effluent
Discharge Quality (EDQ) to be below the PETRONAS maximum requirement of 40 ppm.

10.7.3 Associated Waste


Other types of wastes such as oily sludge, contaminated soil, produced sand, corrosion debris
and spent chemicals shall be collected in proper labeled drums and transported to onshore for
proper disposal.

10.7.4 Gas Venting and Flaring


Gas venting and flaring of gas have direct impact on the quality of air as well as contributing
to the greenhouse effect. The operator of Gelama Merah shall ensure the flaring of gas not to
exceed the gas flaring limit as restricted in the Work, Programme & Budget (WPB) at all
times.

202

10.8 Safety System

10.8.1 Safety Shutdown System


Sense an abnormal operational or equipment condition
Shutting in or isolating necessary system components, or even the entire system.
Sounding alarms, starting fire extinguishing systems, and depressuring all piping and
pressure vessels
Primary purposes :

protect human life

prevent ecological damage

protect the investment

10.8.2 Flare and Emergency Relief System


A. Relief System
discharging gas by manual or by an automatic pressure relief valve to atmosphere
Equipments involve: pressured vessel or piping system.
The relief system parts:

relief valve or rupture disc,

the collection piping,

a gas scrubber for liquid separation and a

gas vent

B. Flare System
Discharging gas through a control valve from a pressured system to the atmosphere
during normal operations.

203

Should be designed to ensure that vessels and tanks will not be overpressured and to
accommodate the maximum volume that could be vented.

10.8.3 Ventilation
Areas enclosed on all sides that contain equipment considered a source of ignition should
be pressurized to prevent hydrocarbons entry.
exhaust systems:

Vent enclosed areas containing hydrocarbon fuel sources should be to ensure removal
of any escaping hydrocarbons.

Ensure removal of gas evolved during welding operations

Equipment areas located on open-type structures should be arranged to allow the natural
ventilation caused by winds and convection currents:

Take advantage of the prevailing winds to keep escaping hydrocarbons from being
carried toward equipment considered to be a source of ignition.

Special care should be taken in the use of protective walls to ensure proper ventilation

Well head area should be as open as possible, with a minimum of two sides of the
structure open.

The interior of the quarters building should have an adequate exhaust system to
preclude accumulation of smoke and odors.

10.9 Transportation
The transportation should consider all of these criteria. The criteria are as listed below:

Consider the prevailing meteorological and oceanographic conditions. The location of


transportation facilities relative to prevailing wind, waves and currents

Boat landings and docks should be located on the lee side of the structure.

Cranes in turn must be located over the boat landing for convenience in loading and
offloading equipment.

Storage areas for pipe and bulk materials should be located within or adjacent to the
area covered by the crane boom.

On manned structures the primary means of escape will be the stairway from the cellar
and main decks to the personnel landing.
204

Location of the personnel landing and primary escape route should be taken into
consideration when arranging the production facilities and quarters.

Helicopter pads should be located so as to give clear landing approaches for the
helicopters.

Stacks, guy wires, crane booms, antennas, etc., should be arranged so as not to intrude
into the approach or departure paths of the helicopters.

10.10 HSE for Abandonment


Safety issue is one of major concerns in the decommissioning activities because of the
potential higher risks than normal operation. Although various laws and regulations regarding
safety and occupational health are existed, however there is no reference or guideline which
is specifically developed for the offshore E&P facilities decommissioning. The HSE issues in
decommissioning are as listed:
Risk assessment and mitigation plan
Crane operation and diver operation
Fire protection
Safety in workplace, Personal Protection Equipment

Table below shows the comparison between installation and decommissioning process.

Table 10.1 - Risk comparison between installation and decommissioning process

Installation

Decommissioning

Require lifting crane barge, labor skills

Require lifting crane barge, labor skills

Clean and New Facility

Likely Contaminated Facility

Well Engineered, well planned procedure

Potential to unexpected events at all time

Pile Hammering through seabed

Pile cut with Explosive, water-jet, diamond


wire

Weight Controlled, fixed center of Gravity

Weight, CG change due to modification,

(CG)

marine growth

New Structure High Integrity

Aged structure unexpected weak point due


to fatigue or corrosion

205

Hazardous Operation

More hazardous operation

Jacket installation aided by gravity

Jacket removal against gravity

Accurate known weight

Uncertainty in weight due to friction,


marine growth, over-burden on mudmats

Piles are always separate driven

Require lifting crane barge, labor skills

206

Chapter 11

FUTURE PLANS

11.1 Introduction
Gelama Merah field has a huge gas cap, which is around 45 to 100 Billion scf. The free gas is
produced during the oil production stage but re injected into the water zone to help stabilize
pressure profile by using water alternating gas (WAG) injection. Gas Field Development Plan
needed in the future if there are buyers for the gas. The targeted strategy is to sell the gas to
nearby field for their Enhanced Oil Recovery strategy. Second alternative is to sell the gas to
the Sabah industry section to utilize the gas in steel or clay pot manufacturing. Later after the
field is abundant, it can be used for the Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage project (CO2
Sequestration).

11.2 Geology
Gelama Merah has a huge gas cap, which contain approximately 168m height of shaly
sandstone.

GOC = 1468mTVDss

Figure 11.1 - The geological structure of Gelama Merah

Structurally, the field is a large anticline of Middle Miocene deltaic depositional


environment. The unconformity kept the gas trapped in the reservoir. The reservoir rock is
shaly sandstone, interbedded with anticline 30 degree.

207

11.3 Reserves
As indicated earlier, the limits of the field are defined on all sides of the reservoir. It contains
approximately 164 MM m3 of area, with the gas column up to 163 m height. Field gas
production presently is around 30 MM scf/day, together with oil production. Cumulative gas
production can go up to 1.3 Billion scf. The Gelama Merah gas field reserve can be used for
the development of PETRONAS MLNG firm. Gas production has been indicated by drill
stem test and gas flows while drilling in the 1300m in the Mioscene rock. The sand unit 3.2,
4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 contain the most gas.

Percentage of GIIP by layer


5%
U3.2
24%

8%

U 4.0
21%

U 5.0
U 6.0

21%
21%

U 7.0
U 8.0

Figure 11.2 - GIIP contribution for each sand unit

11.4 Reservoir Engineering


Lab test need to be carried out to re-identify the content of the free gas. There are no H2S and
low amount of CO2 seen from the previous test in Oil field development. However, it would
be better to re-test the free gas fluid to further confirm it. Capillary pressure and relative
permeability curve for the gas column will need to be tested in the lab and regenerate for the
gas field simulation. Then the production stage can be carried out.

11.5 Drilling Engineering


With horizontal well, infill drilling can be carried out to drill through the gas column. Side
track from the original well can also be used. The original oil production well and water
alternating gas (WAG) injection well can be changed into water injection well to sustain the
208

pressure maintenance of the gas field production. The mud program consists of a normal spud
mud, brine water, and will be design according to the depth.

11.6 Production Engineering


Total System analysis needs to be carried out using Pipesim to analyse the pressure drop
throughout the system. The nodal analysis for the gas production is also different from the oil
production. The gas well deliverability curve will be established and frequent gas well testing
such as Back pressure test or Modified isochronal test is proposed to be carried out to analyse
the formation.

11.7 Facilities Engineering


The gas will be sent to CPP for processing and will be sent to the buyers afterwards. If nearby
field needs the gas for injection, the gas will be sold to them. Other excess gas production can
be send to the onshore Industrial area. As steel industry and clay pot manufacturing industry
will need high flammable gas to be used for burning or strengthening the product, hence,
Gelama Merah gas can also be sold to them. Pipeline will need to be designed for that
purpose.

11.8 Economic and HSE


The new economic model will be established for the Gas field development and CO2
Sequestration. Buyers need to be confirmed and contracted for minimum 10 years for gas
deliverability. The production of gas will be compliance with the PETRONAS Gas
Production HSE criteria.

11.9 CO Sequestration
In future planning of the Gelama Merah Field, the CO can also be injected back into fields
that are no longer producing in the future. This method is solely for storage purposes. The
geological formation is found to be a good store for the CO as it will trap the CO in it and
209

CO will take a long time to resurface. This is because once the CO is trapped either by
solubilization, mineral trapping or phase trapping; it will no longer migrate as a separate
phase. It will travel at the rate same as the native fluid formation fluids. The duration might
take million of years.

CO2 storage in deep saline or depleted oil and gas reservoirs, are layers of porous rock
underground that are capped by a layer or multiple layers of non-porous rock above them.
Sequestration practitioners drill a well down into the porous rock and inject pressurized CO2.
Under high pressure, CO2 turns to liquid and can move through a formation as a fluid. Once
injected, the liquid CO2 tends to be buoyant and will flow upward until it encounters a barrier
of non-porous rock, which can trap the CO2 and prevent further upward migration. Coal
seams are another formation considered a viable option for geologic storage, and their storage
process is a slightly different. When CO2 is injected into the formation, it is adsorbed onto the
coal surfaces, and methane gas is released and produced in adjacent wells.
There are other mechanisms for CO2 trapping as well: CO2 molecules can dissolve in brine;
react with minerals to form solid carbonates; or adsorb in the pores of the porous rock. The
degree to which a specific underground formation is amenable to CO2 storage can be difficult
to discern. Research is aimed at developing the ability to characterize a formation before
CO2-injection to be able to predict its CO2 storage resource. Another area of research is the
development of CO2 injection techniques that achieve broad dispersion of CO2 throughout the
formation, overcome low diffusion rates, and avoid fracturing the cap rock. These areas of
site characterization and injection techniques are interrelated because improved formation
characterization will help determine the best injection procedure.

11.9.1 Character of Underground Structure and Rock Layers Desired


The character of underground structure and rock layers desired for and underground aquifer
site are:

There is a structure under which gas may accumulate.

There is a container, a porous bed of rock into and out of which fluids may flow
through wells.
210

There is a water-filled cap rock, which prevents the stored fluid from rising vertically
due to buoyant forces and also be shaped to prevent lateral movement.

The anticline or inverted saucer type of structure is common.

There is enough overburden to allow storage at pressures much above atmospheric


pressure.

There is water to confine the stored fluid from all directions

11.9.2 Geologic Site Characterization


The purpose of site characterization is to determine whether a site is suitable and safe for
sequestration, and to compile the necessary data for the permit application. The process
includes geologic, geophysical, and engineering evaluation. Characterization is designed to
provide the geologic and hydrologic data needed to design the infrastructure, develop
reservoir models, and design the monitoring program. In this phase of site development, a
determination is made of whether the reservoir has adequate porosity, permeability, and
continuity for long term injection. A determination is also made about the ability of overlying
units to confine the injected CO and prevent vertical movement. This includes evaluation
for the presence of non-sealing faults or other potential pathways for migration. Other types
of evaluation include geomechanical data on the mechanical properties of the reservoir,
information on the occurrence and characteristics of Underground Sources of Drinking Water
(USDW), and information on past drilling into the proposed reservoir and overlying strata.

11.9.3 Costing Methodology


This report evaluates the costs for geologic sequestration.

All of the individual cost

components are evaluated. These are termed unit costs and include the following categories:

Geologic Site Characterization

Monitoring

Injection Well Construction

Area of Review and Corrective Action

Well Operation

Mechanical Integrity Tests


211

Post Injection Well Plugging and Site Care

Financial Responsibility

General and Administrative

Unit costs are specified in terms of cost per site, per well, per square mile, or other
appropriate parameter depending on the characteristics of the cost item. Unit costs are applied
to type cases in a separate study to estimate total project costs. The type cases include
specifications for total area, depth, thickness, well injectivity, number of wells through time,
and other parameters. Because of the availability of Water Alternating Gas (WAG) injection
facilities, additional cost of adding facilities for CO injection is not needed. The only cost
needed to be considered is transporting cost and storing cost.

11.9.4 Monitoring
Once injection begins, a program for monitoring of CO2 distribution is required. This is
needed in order to:

Manage the injection process

Delineate and identify leakage risk or actual leakage that may endanger
USDWs

Verify and provide input into reservoir models

Provide early warnings of failure

Monitoring components may include the following:

Measurements to determine the mass of CO2 injected, principally derived from the
fluid pressure, temperature, flow rate and gas composition at the wellhead.

Monitoring of pressure during the injection process

Monitoring of the migration and distribution of the CO2 in the deep subsurface,
focusing on the intended storage reservoir, but including any unintended migration
out of the storage reservoir

Monitoring of the shallow subsurface to detect and quantify any CO2 migrating out
of the storage reservoir towards the ground surface

Monitoring of the ground surface and atmosphere to detect and quantify CO2 leaking
into the biosphere

212

Monitoring of the wells, deep subsurface, shallow subsurface and ground surface is expected
to continue for long periods after the injection is terminated for safety and to confirm
predictions of storage behavior.

11.9.5 Monitoring
After the injection phase has ended, it is necessary to prepare the site for long-term
monitoring and eventual closure in a safe and secure manner that protects USDWs. This
involves the plugging of injection wells, removal of surface equipment, and land restoration.
It also includes long term requirements for monitoring the site to ensure safety and to confirm
an understanding of the CO2 distribution in the subsurface.

11.9.6 Raw Cost Estimation

Oil bearing area: 80 MMstb (est.)

Water to Oil Ratio: 2:1

Aquifer Area: 160 MMstb (est.)

CO2 Dissolvable in Aquifer: 30% (48MMstb)

Profit of 1 tonne CO2: $30-$50

Injection cost US$0.508.00 per tonne

Monitoring cost US$0.100.30

Raw profit: 0.2 Billion

Total cost: 0.18 Billion

Revenue: 20 Million

213

11.10 Conclusion
While forgoing discussion of the gas field development plan, deep well drilling and
completion trends are constantly changing and considerable progress has been made as
experience increases in deep well work. Future plan for the gas development and CO2 storage
will need the collective efforts of the operators, drilling contractors, service companies and
special services to make the future planning to be possible.

214

Chapter 12

REFERENCES

1. Ahmad, T. (2000). Reservoir Engineering Handbook. Houston, Texas: Gulf


Publishing Company.
2. Brock, J. Applied Open Hole Log Analysis - A step by step course in well log
interpretation - from fundamentals to advanced concepts (Vol. 2). Contribution in
Petroleum Geology and Engineering.
3. Cacoana, A. (1992). Hydrocarbon Classification and Oil Reserves - Applied
Enhanced Oil Recovery. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
4. HSE Information Sheet. (2006). Guidance on Risk Assessment for Offshore
Installations. Offshore Information Sheet No. 3.
5. Jr, S. B. (2006). Principles of Sedimentalogy and Stratigraphy. Pearson and Prentice
Hall.
6. Norton, J. (2002). Formulas and Calculations for Drilling, Production and Workover
(Second ed.). Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing Company.
7. PETRONAS CARIGALI SDN BHD. Gelama Merah-1 and Gelama Merah ST1 Final
Well Report.
8. PETRONAS CARIGALI SDN BHD. Gelama Merah-1 Reservoir Fluid Study Report.
9. PETRONAS CARIGALI SDN BHD. Gelama Merah-1 Well Test Report.
10. PETRONAS CARIGALI SDN BHD. (2000). PCSB Field Development Plan
Guidelines.
11. Salley, R. C. (1986). Element of Petroleum Geology. Academic Press.
12. SCHLUMBERGER. (2008). PIPESIM Fundamentals. SCHLUMBERGER.
13. Tiab, D., & Donaldson, E. C. (2004). Petrophysics: Theory and Practice of
Measuring Reservoir Rock and Fluid Transport Properties. Gulf Professional
Publishing.
14. William, C. (1996). Standard Handbook of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering

(Second ed.). Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing Company.

215

Appendix A

Geology and Geophysics

0.04

0.75

0.03

0.5

0.02

0.25

0.01

0
0

100000

200000

300000

Expectation Gas
Rel. Freq. Gas

Rel. Freq. Gas (fraction)

Expectation Gas (fraction)

MonteCarlo - Gelama Merah 1

0
400000

Gas in Place (MMscf)

Figure A.1 - Cumulative probability of the total STOIIP for sand unit 5.0 to 9.2

MonteCarlo - Gelama Merah 1


1

0.06

0.045

0.5

0.03

0.25

0
0

Rel. Freq. Oil (fraction)

Expectation Oil (fraction)

0.75

Expectation Oil
Rel. Freq. Oil

0.015

40

80

120

0
160

Oil in Place (MMSTB)

Figure A.2 - Cumulative probability of the total GIIP for sand unit 5.0 to 9.2

216

Appendix B

Petrophysics

Figure B.1 - Non-corrected Neutron-Density crossplot

217

Figure B.2 - Corrected Neutron-Density crossplot

218

Figure B.3 - M-N crossplot

219

Appendix C

Reservoir Engineering

Figure C.1 - Sand pocket structure

220

Figure C.2 - Fault structure

Figure C.3 - PVTi output for dynamic model; PVTO live oil with dissolved gas

221

Figure C.4 - PVTi output for dynamic model; PVDG dry gas

222

1
Sample 1-021 (Krg)

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

Sample 1-021 (Kro)


Sample 2-015 (Krg)
Sample 2-015 (Kro)

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

Sample 3-015 (Krg)

0.3

0.3

Sample 3-015 (Kro)

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

Sample 2-017 (Kro)


Kro

Krg

Sample 2-017 (Krg)

Sample 3-005 (Krg)


Sample 3-005 (Kro)

Sample 3-016 (Krg)

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Sample 3-016 (Kro)


Sample 3-022 (Krg)
Sample 3-022 (Kro)

Sample 3-025 (Krg)


Sample 3-025 (Kro)

Sg

Figure C.5 - Un-normalized gas-oil relative Permeability Curve

223

1
Sample 1-021 (Krgn)

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

Sample 2-015 (Kron)

0.6

0.6

Sample 2-017 (Krgn)

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

Sample 3-015 (Krgn)

0.2

0.2

Sample 3-015 (Kron)

0.1

0.1

Sample 1-021 (Kron)


Sample 2-015 (Krgn)

Kronorm

Krgnorm

Sample 2-017 (Kron)

Sample 3-005 (Krgn)


Sample 3-005 (Kron)

Sample 3-016 (Krgn)

Sample 3-016 (Kron)


0

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Sgnorm

Figure C.6 - Normalized gas oil Relative permeability curve

224

Sample 3-022 (Krgn)


Sample 3-022 (Kron)

0.5

Kro
Corey Curve
(Krg)

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Krg
Kro

Sg*

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Sg

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

Krg

0.3

0.3

Kro

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

Kro

Krg

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Kro

Krg

Krg

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Kronorm

Krgnorm

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

0
0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

Sliquid
Figure C.7 - Sand Facies type 1 Gas Oil Relative Permeability Curve

225

0.5

Kro
Corey Curve (Krg)
Corey Curve (Kro)

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

0.2

0.3

0.4

Kro

0.5

Sg

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.6

0.1

Krg

0.7

0.8

0.9

Kro

Krg

Sgnorm

0.5

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Kro

Krg

Krg

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Kronorm

Krgnorm

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Krg
Kro

Sliquid
Figure C.8 - Sand Facies Type 2: Gas Oil Relative Permeability curve

226

Table C.1 - Summary of case studies

227

Table C.2 - Case study for WAG

228

Appendix D

Production Technology

IPR plot Vogel ( 04/18/11 00:35:34)


2151
AOF :
Formation PI :

Inf low Type Single Branch


Complet ion Cased Hole
Sand Control None
Gas Coning No

4338.9 (STB/day)
3.46 (STB/ day/psi)

Reservoir Model Vogel


Compaction Permeability Reduction Model No
Relative Permeabilit y Yes
Correction For Vogel Yes
Formation PI
3.46 (STB/ day/psi)
Absolute Open Flow (AOF) 4338.9 (STB/ day)
Reservoir Pressure2151.00 (psig)
Reservoir Temperat ure 155. 00 (deg F)
Wat er Cut
0 (percent )
Total G OR 119. 00 (scf/ STB)
Test Rate 1378.0 (STB/ day)
Test Bott om Hole Pressure1735.00 (psig)

Pressure (psig)

1613.53

1076.06

538. 584

1.11155
0

1084.72

2169.44

3254.16

4338.89

Rate (STB/day)

Figure D.1 - IPR matching for vertical well, Gelama Merah Well Test

IPR plot H orizontal Well - C onstant Pressure Upper Boundary (horizontal-1 04/21/11 21:16:22)
2151
AOF :
Formation PI :
SKIN :

6.52 (STB/day/psi)
0

Reservoir Model Horizontal W ell - Constant Pressure Upper Bound


M&G Skin Model Enter Skin By Hand
Compaction Permeability Reduction Model No
Relative Permeability Yes
Correction For Vogel Yes
Formation PI
6.52 (STB/day/psi)
Absolute Open Flow (AOF) 7891.2 (STB/day)
Reservoir Pressure2151.00 (psig)
Reservoir Temperature 155.00 (deg F)
Water Cut
0 (percent)
Total G OR 336.00 (scf/STB)
Reservoir Permeability 140.00 (md)
Reservoir Thickness 30.0 (m)
Wellbore Radius 0.534 (feet)
Reservoir Porosity
(fraction)
Horizontal Anisotropy
10 (fraction)
Vertical Anisotropy
0.1 (fraction)
Length O f Well 200.0 (m)
Reservoir Length 3000.0 (m)
Reservoir Width 4000.0 (m)
Distance From Length Edge To Centre Of Well 1125.0 (m)
Distance From W idth Edge To Centre Of W ell 1500.0 (m)
Distance From Bottom To Centre Of Well 100.0 (m)
Skin
0

1613.5

Pressure (psig)

Inflow Type Single Branch


Completion Open Hole
Sand Control None
Gas Coning No

7891.2 (STB/day)

1076.01

538.509

1.01148
0

1972.8

3945.6

5918.4

7891.2

Rate (STB/day)

Figure D.2 - IPR for horizontal GM-A

229

Inf low (IPR) v Outf low (VLP) Plot (horizontal-1 04/23/11 21:16:39)
3481.81
IPR Curve

04
03
02
01
00

VLP Curve

Variables
1:Tubing/Pipe Diameter (inches)
2:First Node Pressure (psig)
1
2
0=2.38
0=100.00
1=2.79
1=200.00
2=3.50
2=300.00
3=400.00
4=500.00

2613.75

Pressure (psig)

14
13
12
11
10
24
23

1745.68

22
21
20

877.612

04
1
2
0
1
2
3

9.5456
7.89121

1977.14

3946.39

5915.64

7884.9

Liquid Rate (STB/day)


PVT Method Black Oil
Water Cut
0 (percent)
Fluid Oil
Bottom Measured Depth6121.0 (feet)
Flow Type Tubing
Bottom True Vertical Depth4970.5 (feet)
Well Type Producer
Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill
Artificial Lift None
Vertical Lift Correlation Petroleum Experts 2
Lift Type
Predicting Pressure and Temperature (offshore)
Solution Node Bottom Node
Temperature Model Rough Approximation
Left-Hand Intersection DisAllow
Company FDP 4
Field GELAMA MERAH
Location SABAH
Well horizontal-1
Analyst PIQA
Date 04/16/11 22:51:17

Inflow Type Single Branch


Completion Open Hole
Sand Control None
Gas Coning No

Reservoir Model Horizontal Well - Constant Pressure U


M&G Skin Model
Compaction Permeability Reduction Model
Relative Permeability
Correction For Vogel
Formation PI
Absolute Open Flow (AOF)

Enter Skin By Hand


No
Yes
Yes
6.52 (STB/day/psi)
7891.2 (STB/day)

Figure D.3 - Tubing performance at different wellhead pressure

Inf low (IPR) v Outf low (VLP) Plot (horizontal-1 04/23/11 21:21:01)
3426.13
0
6
5
0
4
0
2
03
1
0

IPR Curve
VLP Curve

16
1
5
1
14
3
1
12
1
1
0

Pressure (psig)

2569.6

Variables
1:Tubing/Pipe Diameter (inches)
2:Water Cut (percent)
1
2
0=2.38
0=0
1=2.79
1=10.000
2=3.50
2=20.000
3=30.000
4=40.000
5=50.000
6=60.000

26
25
24
23
22
21
20

1713.07

856.533

25
0
1
06
1
2

03
1
2

02
1
2

21
0
1
0

04
1
2

0
7.89121

1977.14

3946.39

5915.64

7884.9

Liquid Rate (STB/day)


PVT Method Black Oil
Top Node Pressure390.00 (psig)
Fluid Oil
Bottom Measured Depth6121.0 (feet)
Flow Type Tubing
Bottom True Vertical Depth4970.5 (feet)
Well Type Producer
Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill
Artificial Lift None
Vertical Lift Correlation Petroleum Experts 2
Lift Type
Predicting Pressure and Temperature (offshore)
Solution Node Bottom Node
Temperature Model Rough Approximation
Left-Hand Intersection DisAllow
Company FDP 4
Field GELAMA MERAH
Location SABAH
Well horizontal-1
Analyst PIQA
Date 04/16/11 22:51:17

Inflow Type Single Branch


Completion Open Hole
Sand Control None
Gas Coning No

Reservoir Model Horizontal Well - Constant Pressure U


M&G Skin Model
Compaction Permeability Reduction Model
Relative Permeability
Correction For Vogel
Formation PI
Absolute Open Flow (AOF)

Figure D.4 - Tubing performance with increasing water cut @ WHP of 390 psi

230

Enter Skin By Hand


No
Yes
Yes
4.74 (STB/day/psi)
7891.2 (STB/day)

E
E

E
E

E
E

E
E
E

E
E
E

E
E

Inf low (IPR) v Outf low (VLP) Plot (horizontal-1 04/23/11 21:25:27)
E
E
E

E
E

2682.7
IPR Curve

VLP Curve
E
E
2049.71

10

21

Variables
1:Tubing/Pipe Diameter (inches)
2:Gas Oil Ratio (scf/STB)
1
2
0=2.38
0=5000.00
1=2.79
1=10000.00
2=3.50
2=15000.00

3
E
E

22

00
11

Pressure (psig)

01
12
20
1416.71

02

783.711
02
1
2

01
1
2

20
1
00

150.714
204.816

1511.91

2819

4126.09

5433.18

Liquid Rate (STB/day)


PVT Method Black Oil
Top Node Pressure390.00 (psig)
Fluid Oil
Water Cut
0 (percent)
Flow Type Tubing
Bottom Measured Depth6121.0 (feet)
Well Type Producer
Bottom True Vertical Depth4970.5 (feet)
Artificial Lift None
Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill
Lift Type
Vertical Lift Correlation Petroleum Experts 2
Predicting Pressure and Temperature (offshore)
Temperature Model Rough Approximation
Solution Node Bottom Node
Company FDP 4
Left-Hand Intersection DisAllow
Field GELAMA MERAH
Location SABAH
Well horizontal-1
Analyst PIQA
Date 04/16/11 22:51:17

Inflow Type Single Branch


Completion Open Hole
Sand Control None
Gas Coning No

Reservoir Model Horizontal Well - Constant Pressure U


M&G Skin Model
Compaction Permeability Reduction Model
Relative Permeability
Correction For Vogel
Formation PI
Absolute Open Flow (AOF)

Enter Skin By Hand


No
Yes
Yes
3.24 (STB/day/psi)
7891.2 (STB/day)

Figure D.5 - Tubing performance with varying GOR

Inf low (IPR) v Outf low (VLP) Plot (horizontal-1 04/23/11 21:32:18)
3368.23
IPR Curve

03
0
1
2

VLP Curve

Variables
1:Tubing/Pipe Diameter (inches)
2:Reservoir Pressure (psig)
1
2
0=2.38
0=1500.00
1=2.79
1=1800.00
2=3.50
2=2000.00
3=2151.00

2526.17

Pressure (psig )

13
0
1
2

23
0
1
2

1684.12

842.058

03
1
2
01
1
2

00
1
2

02
1
2

0
7.89121

1977.14

3946.39

5915.64

7884.9

Liquid Rate (STB/day)


PVT Method Black Oil
Top Node Pressure390.00 (psig)
Fluid Oil
Water Cut
0 (percent)
Flow Type Tubing
Bottom Measured Depth6121.0 (feet)
Well Type Producer
Bottom True Vertical Depth4970.5 (feet)
Artificial Lift None
Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill
Lift Type
Vertical Lift Correlation Petroleum Experts 2
Predicting Pressure and Temperature (offshore)
Temperature Model Rough Approximation
Solution Node Bottom Node
Company FDP 4
Left-Hand Intersection DisAllow
Field GELAMA MERAH
Location SABAH
Well horizontal-1
Analyst PIQA
Date 04/16/11 22:51:17

Inflow Type Single Branch


Completion Open Hole
Sand Control None
Gas Coning No

Reservoir Model Horizontal Well - Constant Pressure U


M&G Skin Model
Compaction Permeability Reduction Model
Relative Permeability
Correction For Vogel
Formation PI
Absolute Open Flow (AOF)

Figure D.6 - Tubing performance with pressure depletion

231

Enter Skin By Hand


No
Yes
Yes
6.52 (STB/day/psi)
7891.2 (STB/day)

Temperature (deg F) (horizontal-1 04/23/11 21:14:22)

38.75

77.5

116.25

155

-293.963

GASLIFT DESIGN (NEW WELL) REPORT


Valv e Type Proportional
Des ign Rate Method Entered By Us er
Des ign Oil Rate
602.9 (STB/day )
Check Rate Conformance With IPR Yes
Dome Press ure Correction Abov e 1200psig Yes
Injection Point Injection Point is ORIFICE
Tubing Correlation Petroleum Experts 2
Pipe Correlation Beggs and Brill
Use IPR For Unloading Yes
Orific e Siz ing Method Calculated dP @ Orifice
Valv e Spacing Method Normal
Valv e Manufacturer Merla
Valv e Type LN-20R
Valv e Specification 1.5"
Max imum Gas Av ailable
1000.000 (Msc f/day )
Max imum Gas During Unloading
1000.000 (Msc f/day )
Flowing Top Node Press ure 390.00 (ps ig)
Unloading Top Node Press ure 390.00 (ps ig)
Operating Injec tion Pressure 1500.00 (ps ig)
Kick -Off Injection Pres sure 1500.00 (ps ig)
Des ired dP Ac ross Valve
50.00 (ps i)
Max imum Depth Of Injection 4800.0 (feet)
Water Cut 75.000 (percent)
Minimum Spac ing
300.0 (feet)
Static Gradient Of Load Fluid
8.000 (ps i/ft)
Minimum Trans fer dP
0.46 (percent)
Safety For Clos ure Of Las t Unloading Valve
0 (ps i)
Total GOR 336.00 (sc f/STB)
Thornhill-Craver DeRating Percentage For Valves 100.00 (percent)
Thornhill-Craver DeRating Percentage For Orific e 100.00 (percent)
ACTUAL Liquid Rate 2411.7 (STB/day )
ACTUAL Oil Rate
602.9 (STB/day )
ACTUAL Gas Injection Rate 988.156 (Msc f/day )
ACTUAL Injection Pres sure 1500.00 (ps ig)

Valv e
Valv e
Valv e
1022.15

Valv e

True Vertical Depth (feet)

Valv e

2338.25

3654.36

Orific e

4970.47
0

427.452

854.903

1282.35

1709.81

Press ure (psig)


PVT Method Blac k Oil
Bottom Meas ured Depth
Fluid Oil
Bottom True Vertical Depth
Flow Type Tubing
Surface Equipment Correlation
Well Type Producer
Vertical Lift Correlation
Artific ial Lift Gas Lift (Continuous)
Lift Type No Friction Los s In Annulus
First Node
Predicting Press ure and Temperature (offshore)
Last Node
Temperature Model Rough Approximation
Press ure
Company FDP 4
Temperature
Field GELAMA MERAH
Operating Gas Gradient
Location SABAH
Unloading Gradient
Well horiz ontal-1
Analys t PIQA
Date 04/16/11 22:51:17

6121.0 (feet)
4970.5 (feet)

Inflow Type Single Branc h


Completion Open Hole
Sand Control None
Gas Coning No

Beggs and Brill


Petroleum Experts 2
1 Xmas Tree 0 (feet)
25 Casing 6121.0
( feet)

Res ervoir Model Horizontal Well - Cons tant Pressure Upper Boundary
M&G Skin Model Enter Skin By Hand
Compaction Permeability Reduction Model No
Relativ e Permeability Yes
Correction For Vogel Yes
Formation PI
6.52 (STB/day /psi)
Absolute Open Flow (AOF) 7891.2 (STB/day )

Figure D.7 - Gas lift design for GM-A

Inf low (IPR) v Outf low (VLP) Plot (horizontal-1 04/23/11 21:00:10)
3475.38
04
03
02
01
00

IPR Curve
VLP Curve

Variables
1:Tubing/Pipe Diameter (inches)
2:First Node Pressure (psig)
1
2
0=2.38
0=100.00
1=2.79
1=200.00
2=3.50
2=300.00
3=400.00
4=500.00

2608.92

Pressure (psig)

14
13
12
11
10
24
1742.46

23
22
21
20

876.003

04
1
2
0
1
2
3

9.5456
7.89121

1977.14

3946.39

5915.64

7884.9

Liquid Rate (STB/day)


PVT Method Black Oil
Water Cut
0 (percent)
Fluid Oil
Bottom Measured Depth6121.0 (feet)
Flow Type Tubing
Bottom True Vertical Depth4970.5 (feet)
Well Type Producer
Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill
Artificial Lift Gas Lift (Continuous)
Vertical Lift Correlation Petroleum Experts 2
Lift Type No Friction Loss In Annulus
Predicting Pressure and Temperature (offshore)
Solution Node Bottom Node
Temperature Model Rough Approximation
Left-Hand Intersection DisAllow
Company FDP 4
Field GELAMA MERAH
Location SABAH
Well horizontal-1
Analyst PIQA
Date 04/16/11 22:51:17

Inflow Type Single Branch


Completion Open Hole
Sand Control None
Gas Coning No

Reservoir Model Horizontal Well - Constant Pressure U


M&G Skin Model
Compaction Permeability Reduction Model
Relative Permeability
Correction For Vogel
Formation PI
Absolute Open Flow (AOF)

Figure D.8 - Tubing performance at different wellhead pressure with GLI

232

Enter Skin By Hand


No
Yes
Yes
6.52 (STB/day/psi)
7891.2 (STB/day)

E
E

Inf low (IPR) v Outf low (VLP) Plot (horizontal-1 04/23/11 21:05:24)
E
Variables
1:Tubing/Pipe Diameter (inches)
2:Water Cut (percent)
1
2
0=2.38
0=0
1=2.79
1=20.000
2=3.50
2=40.000
3=60.000
4=80.000
E

3478.42
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
01
0

IPR Curve
VLP Curve

14
13
12
11
10

2608.82

Pressure (psig)

24
23
E

22
21
20

1739.21

869.606
E

01
1
2
03
1
2

00
1
2

02
1
2

04
1
2

0
7.89121

1977.14

3946.39

5915.64

7884.9
E

Liquid Rate (STB/day)

PVT Method Black Oil


Top Node Pressure390.00 (psig)
E
Fluid Oil
Bottom
Measured Depth6121.0
(feet)
E
E
Flow Type Tubing
Bottom True Vertical Depth4970.5 (feet)
Well Type Producer
Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill
Artificial Lift Gas Lift (Continuous)
Vertical Lift Correlation Petroleum Experts 2
Lift Type No Friction Loss In Annulus
Predicting Pressure and Temperature (offshore)
Solution Node Bottom Node
Temperature Model Rough Approximation
Left-Hand Intersection DisAllow
E
Company FDP 4
E
Field GELAMA MERAH
Location SABAH
E
Well horizontal-1
Analyst PIQA
Date 04/16/11 22:51:17
E
E

Inflow Type Single Branch


Completion Open Hole
Sand Control None
Gas Coning No

Reservoir Model Horizontal Well - Constant Pressure U


E
M&G Skin Model Enter Skin By Hand
Compaction Permeability Reduction Model No
E
Relative Permeability Yes
Correction For Vogel Yes
Formation PIE
4.50 (STB/day/psi)
E
Absolute Open Flow (AOF) 7891.2 (STB/day)
E
E
E

Figure D.9 - Tubing performance with increasing water cut @ WHP of 390 psi with GLI
E

E
E

E
E

E
E

E
E

E
IPR Curve
E

E
E

VLP Curve
E

E
E

22
E

E
E
2425.99

E
E

11
E

E
E
Variables
E (inches)
1:Tubing/Pipe
Diameter
E
2:Gas Oil Ratio (scf/STB)
1
2
E
0=2.38
0=5000.00
1=2.79
1=10000.00
E
2=3.50
2=15000.00

10
E
E

00
01
12

Pressure (psig)

Inf low (IPR) v Outf low (VLP) Plot (horizontal-1 04/23/11 21:08:56)
E
3294.55

E
E

21
E
E

02
1557.42

20

688.86

02
1
2

01
1
2

20
1
00

-179.703
7.89121

1359.29

2710.69

4062.09

5413.49

Liquid Rate (STB/day)


PVT Method Black Oil
Top Node Pressure390.00 (psig)
Fluid Oil
Water Cut
0 (percent)
Flow Type Tubing
Bottom Measured Depth6121.0 (feet)
Well Type Producer
Bottom True Vertical Depth4970.5 (feet)
Artificial Lift Gas Lift (Continuous)
Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill
Lift Type No Friction Loss In Annulus
Vertical Lift Correlation Petroleum Experts 2
Predicting Pressure and Temperature (offshore)
Temperature Model Rough Approximation
Solution Node Bottom Node
Company FDP 4
Left-Hand Intersection DisAllow
Field GELAMA MERAH
Location SABAH
Well horizontal-1
Analyst PIQA
Date 04/16/11 22:51:17

Inflow Type Single Branch


Completion Open Hole
Sand Control None
Gas Coning No

Reservoir Model Horizontal Well - Constant Pressure U


M&G Skin Model
Compaction Permeability Reduction Model
Relative Permeability
Correction For Vogel
Formation PI
Absolute Open Flow (AOF)

Figure D.10 - Tubing performance with varying GOR with GLI

233

Enter Skin By Hand


No
Yes
Yes
3.24 (STB/day/psi)
7891.2 (STB/day)

Inf low (IPR) v Outf low (VLP) Plot (horizontal-1 04/23/11 21:12:41)
3375.6
IPR Curve

03
0
1
2

VLP Curve

Variables
1:Tubing/Pipe Diameter (inches)
2:Reservoir Pressure (psig)
1
2
0=2.38
0=1500.00
1=2.79
1=1800.00
2=3.50
2=2000.00
3=2151.00

2531.7

Pressure (psig)

13
0
1
2

1687.8

23
0
1
2

843.9

03
1
2
01
1
2

00
1
2

02
1
2

0
7.89121

1977.14

3946.39

5915.64

7884.9

Liquid Rate (STB/day)


PVT Method Black Oil
Top Node Pressure390.00 (psig)
Fluid Oil
Water Cut
0 (percent)
Flow Type Tubing
Bottom Measured Depth6121.0 (feet)
Well Type Producer
Bottom True Vertical Depth4970.5 (feet)
Artificial Lift Gas Lift (Continuous)
Surface Equipment Correlation Beggs and Brill
Lift Type No Friction Loss In Annulus
Vertical Lift Correlation Petroleum Experts 2
Predicting Pressure and Temperature (offshore)
Temperature Model Rough Approximation
Solution Node Bottom Node
Company FDP 4
Left-Hand Intersection DisAllow
Field GELAMA MERAH
Location SABAH
Well horizontal-1
Analyst PIQA
Date 04/16/11 22:51:17

Inflow Type Single Branch


Completion Open Hole
Sand Control None
Gas Coning No

Reservoir Model Horizontal Well - Constant Pressure U


M&G Skin Model
Compaction Permeability Reduction Model
Relative Permeability
Correction For Vogel
Formation PI
Absolute Open Flow (AOF)

Enter Skin By Hand


No
Yes
Yes
6.52 (STB/day/psi)
7891.2 (STB/day)

Figure D.11 - Tubing performance with pressure depletion with GLI

Table D.1 - Advantages and disadvantages of cased hole and open hole completion

Cased hole

Pro

Cons

-Have proper isolation on any

-More rig time to cement and perforate target

hydrocarbon above the targeted sand

sand.

-Selective perforation

-Small (flush) tubular required for


perforation.

Open hole

-CTU might be required for perforation.


Less rig time (eliminate cementing and

-Long open hole section from top of liner

perforating cost)

-Swell packer or external casing packer

Less rig time (eliminate cementing and

required for isolation

perforating cost)

-Solid Expandable Tubular (SET) might be

Higher production with less damage

needed to isolate the open section (above the


targeted reservoir) high capital cost
(CAPEX).
-Swell packer or external packer isolation
cannot be confirmed.
234

Figure D.12 - Kawasaki and Sumitomo materials selection process

235

Figure D.13 - Typical horizontal completion configuration for oil producers

236

Figure D.14 - Typical vertical completion configuration for WAG injector

237

Appendix E

Drilling Engineering

E.1 Well Profiles and Trajectories for Six Horizontal Wells

Plan View
617000

616500

North (m)

616000

GM-A
GM-B

615500

GM-C
GM-D
GM-E

615000

GM-F
GM-1 / WAG

614500

614000
275000

275500

276000

276500

277000

277500

East (m)

Figure E.1 - Plan view for six horizontal wells

238

278000

Figure E.2 - Well trajectory for GM-A

Figure E.3 - Well trajectory for GM-B

239

Figure E.4 - Well trajectory for GM-C

Figure E.5 - Well trajectory for GM-D

240

Figure E.6 - Well trajectory for GM-E

Figure E.7 - Well trajectory for GM-F

241

E.2 Pressure Plot and Casing Setting Depth for the Proposed Wells
Table E.1 - Prognosed formation pressure and plan mud weight

242

Figure E.8 - Casing setting depth

243

E.3 Casing Design Configuration for the Proposed Wells


Casing Design Basic Data

Depth

Depth

Hole Size

Casing Size

(m-TVDDF)
150
700
1040
1515

(ft-TVDDF)
492.15
2296.70
3412.24
4970.72

(inch)
Driven
17 1/2
12 1/4
8 1/2

(inch)
20
13 3/8
9 5/8
7

Casing
Purpose
Conductor
Surface
Intermediate
Production

Min/Max
Pressure
Gradient
(ppg)
7.0 - 7.5
7.5 - 8.5
8.5 - 9.0

Fracture
Pressure
(ppg)
15
15.5
15.5

Mud Type

Mud Weight

KCL / PHPA
KCL / PHPA
KCL / PHPA

(ppg)
9.2 - 9.4
9.4 - 10
10 - 10.5

Collapse Presure Design for 20" Conductor


Conductor setting depth (CSD)
MSL to Mudline
Mud Weight (MW)
Rotary Kelly Bushing to MSL
MSL to Seabed

150
42.8
9.1
27.3
42.8

m TVDRKB
m TVDRKB
ppg
m TVDRKB
m TVDRKB

492.2 ft TVDRKB
140.4 ft TVDRKB
89.6 ft TVDRKB
140.4 ft TVDRKB

Assume complete evacuation so that internal pressure inside casing is zero. For offshore operation, the external pressures are
made of pressure due to column of seawater from sea level to mudline and pressure due to mud column at casing seat.
Collapse pressure due to seawater to mudline depth
=
C1
C1
=
(0.433 psi/ft) x (MSL to mudline depth)
C1
=
60.80 psi

244

Collapse pressure due to mudline


C2
=
C2
=

=
0.052 x MW x CSD
232.88538 psi

Collapse pressure at casing seat


Collapse pressure at casing seat

=
=

C2

C1 + C2
293.69 psi

Collapse Pressure for 13-3/8" Surface Casing


Mud Weight (MW)
Casing setting depth (CSD)
Design safety factor

=
=
=

9.2 ppg
700 m TVDRKB
1.0

Internal load: Assuming that the casing is totally evacuated due to losses of drilling fluid
Internal pressure at surface
Internal pressure at casing shoe

=
=

0 psi
0 psi

External load: Assuming that the pore pressure is acting at the casing shoe and zero pressure at the surface
External pressure at surface

0 psi

Pore pressure at the casing shoe


Pore pressure at the casing shoe

=
=

MW x 0.052 x CSD
1098.74 psi

245

2296.70 ft TVDRKB

Summary of Collapse Loads for 13 3/8" Surface Casing

Internal Load (psi)

Net
Load
(psi)

Design Load (x1.0)


psi

1098.74

1098.74

1098.74

Depth

External Load
(psi)

Surface
Casing
Shoe
(2296.7 ft
TVDRKB)

Burst Pressure Design for 13-3/8" Surface Casing


Pore pressure at 13 3/8" surface casing shoe setting depth
13 3/8" surface casing setting depth
Fracture pressure at 13 3/8" surface casing shoe
Maximum pore pressure at next hole 12 1/4" hole
Target depth of next hole 12 1/4" hole
Design safety factor

=
=
=
=
=
=

7.5
700
15
8.5
1040
1.1

ppg
m TVDRKB
ppg
ppg
m TVDRKB

2296.70 ft TVDRKB

3412.24 ft TVDRKB

Internal Load: Assuming that an influx of gas has occurred and the well is full of gas to surface.
Pore pressure at bottom of 12 1/4" hole
Pore pressure at bottom of 12 1/4" hole

=
=

max. pore pressure x 0.052 x TD


1508.21 psi

Pressure at surface

=
=

pressure at bottomhole of 12 1/4" - pressure due to colum


1508.21 - (0.05 x 3412.24)

246

Pressure at 13 3/8" surface casing shoe

Fracture pressure at 13 3/8" surface casing shoe

1337.60 psi

=
=

1337.60 + (0.05 x 2296.7)


1452.43 psi

=
=

15 x 0.052 x
2296.7
1791.43 psi

The formation at the casing shoe will breakdown at 1791.43 psi and therefore the maximum pressure inside the surface casing
at the shoe will be 1791.43
The maximum pressure at surface will be equal to the pressure at shoe minus the column of gas to surface
=
1791.43 - (0.05 x 2296.7)
=
1676.59 psi
External Load: Assuming that the pore pressure is acting at the casing shoe and zero pressure at surface.
Pore pressure at the 13 3/8" surface casing shoe

895.71 psi

External pressure at surface

0 psi

247

Summary of Burst Loads for 13 3/8" Surface Casing


Depth

External Load
(psi)

Internal Load
(psi)

Net Load (psi)

Design Load (x1.1)


psi

Surface

1676.59

1676.59

1844.2501

Casing Shoe
(2296.7 ft
TVDRKB)

895.71

1791.43

895.71

985.2843

Collapse Pressure for 9-5/8" Intermediate Casing


Mud Weight (MW)
Casing setting depth (CSD)
Design safety factor

=
=
=

9.4 ppg
1040 m TVDRKB
1.0

Internal load: Assuming that the casing is totally evacuated due to losses of drilling fluid
Internal pressure at surface
Internal pressure at casing shoe

=
=

0 psi
0 psi

External load: Assuming that the pore pressure is acting at the casing shoe and zero pressure at the surface
External pressure at surface

Pore pressure at the casing shoe

0 psi
MW x 0.052 x CSD
248

3412.24 ft TVDRKB

Pore pressure at the casing shoe

1667.90 psi

Summary of Collapse Loads for 9 5/8" Surface Casing

Internal Load (psi)

Net
Load
(psi)

Design Load (x1.0)


psi

1667.9

1667.9

1667.9

Depth

External Load
(psi)

Surface
Casing Shoe
(3412.24 ft
TVDRKB)

Burst Pressure Design for 9-5/8" Surface Casing


Pore pressure at 9 5/8" surface casing shoe setting depth
9 5/8" surface casing setting depth
Fracture pressure at 9 5/8" surface casing shoe
Maximum pore pressure at next hole 8 1/2" hole
Target depth of next hole 8 1/2" hole
Design safety factor

=
=
=
=
=
=

8.5
1040
15.5
9
1515
1.1

ppg
m TVDRKB
ppg
ppg
m TVDRKB

Internal Load: Assuming that an influx of gas has occurred and the well is full of
gas to surface.
Pore pressure at bottom of 8 1/2" hole
Pore pressure at bottom of 8 1/2" hole

=
=
249

max. pore pressure x 0.052 x TD


2326.29 psi

3412.24 ft TVDRKB

4970.72 ft TVDRKB

Pressure at surface

=
=
=

pressure at bottomhole of 8 1/2" - pressure due to column of gas


2326.29 - (0.05 x 4970.72)
2077.76 psi

Pressure at 9 5/8" surface casing shoe

=
=

2077.76 + (0.05 x 3412.24)


2248.37 psi

Fracture pressure at 9 5/8" surface casing shoe

=
=

15.5 x 0.052 x 3412.24


2750.27 psi

The formation at the casing shoe will breakdown at 2750.27 psi and therefore the maximum pressure inside the surface casing
at the shoe will be 2750.27
The maximum pressure at surface will be equal to the pressure at shoe minus the column of gas to surface
=
2750.27 - (0.05 x 3412.24)
=
2579.65 psi
External Load: Assuming that the pore pressure is acting at the casing shoe and zero pressure at surface.
Pore pressure at the 9 5/8" surface casing shoe

1508.21 psi

External pressure at surface

0 psi

250

Summary of Burst Loads for 9 5/8" Surface Casing


Depth

External Load
(psi)

Internal Load
(psi)

Net Load (psi)

Design Load (x1.1)


psi

Surface

2579.65

2579.65

2837.62

Casing Shoe
(3412.24 ft
TVDRKB)

1508.21

2750.27

1242.06

1366.26

Collapse Pressure for 7" Production Casing


Max. pore pressure at casing shoe

Depth of TOL
Design safety factor

=
=

9 ppg
m
887.61
TVDRKB
1.0

Internal load: Assuming that the casing is totally evacuated due to gas lifting operations
Internal pressure at surface
Internal pressure at casing shoe

=
=

0 psi
0 psi

External load: Assuming that the maximum pore pressure is acting on the outside of the casing at the Top of Liner (TOL)
External pressure at surface

0 psi
251

2912.24 ft TVDRKB

Pore pressure at TOL


Pore pressure at the casing shoe

=
=

9 x 0.052 x 2912.24
1362.93 psi

Summary of Collapse Loads for 7" Production Casing

Depth

External Load
(psi)

Internal Load (psi)

Net
Load
(psi)

Design Load (x1.0)


psi

Surface

TOL (2912.24
ft TVDRKB)

1362.93

1362.93

1362.93

Burst Pressure Design for 7" Production Casing


Depth of TOL
Depth of top of production zone
Maximum pore pressure at top of perforation zone
Weight of packer fluid
Minimum pore pressure at packer
Design safety factor

=
=
=
=
=
=

252

887.61
1515
9
8
8.5
1.1

m TVDRKB
m TVDRKB
ppg
ppg
ppg

2912.24 ft TVDRKB
4970.72 ft TVDRKB

Internal Load: Assuming that a leak occurs in the tubing at surface and that the closed in tubing head pressure
(CITHP) is acting in the inside of the top of the casing. This pressure will then act on the column of packer fluid. The 9 5/8"
casing is exposed to these pressures down to the TOL. The 7" line protects the remainder of the casing.
Max. pressure at the top of the production zone
Max. pressure at the top of the production zone

=
=

max. pore pressure x 0.052 x TD


2326.29 psi

CITHP (at surface)

=
=
=

pressure at top of perforation - pressure due to column of gas


2326.29 - (0.05 x 4970.72)
2077.76 psi

max. pressure at the top of production zone +


hydrostatic column of packer fluid
2326.29 + (8 x 0.052 x 2912.24)
3537.79 psi

Pressure at TOL

=
=

External Load: Assuming that the minimum pore pressure is acting at the liner depth and zero pressure at surface.
Pore pressure at the TOL

=
=

External pressure at surface

253

min. pore pressure x 0.052 x TOL depth


1287.21 psi
0 psi

Summary of Burst Loads for 7" Production Casing


Depth

External Load
(psi)

Internal Load
(psi)

Net Load (psi)

Design Load (x1.1)


psi

Surface

2077.76

2077.76

2285.53

TOL (2912.24
ft TVDRKB)

1287.21

3537.79

2250.58

2475.63

254

E.4 Cementing Calculations


Casing Shoe Depth For Every Well and Casing Size:
Casing Size (inch)
Well

Casing Shoe Depth (m-MDRKB)


20"

13-3/8"

9-5/8"

7"

GM-A

244

700

1041

1994.27

GM-B

244

700

1041

2034.72

GM-C

244

700

1042

2252.73

GM-D

244

700

1050

2986.06

GM-E

244

700

1050

2468.95

GM-F

244

700

1041

2152.02

Cementing Calculation:
20" CONDUCTOR CEMENTING CALCULATION

Rat Hole

Shoe joint
Oh - Csg

Tail Cement Slurry @ 15.8 ppg


2.1545
4.0
m x
=
bb/mtr

=
=

x
79.9
m

Excess

Cement

Silica

Sea water
Mixing fluid

576
ft3

488
sxs
488

255

8.6 bbls

1.4 m3

30%
1.1181
bb/mtr
0.8797
bb/mtr

2.6 bbls

0.4 m3

0.0 m3

30%

=
=

0.0 bbls
70.3
bbls
21.1
bbls
102.6
bbls

576 ft3

1.18 cps

488 sxs

40%

x
x

5.20 gps
5.28 gps

0 sxs
60.4
bbls
61.4

11.2 m3
3.4 m3
16.3 m3

20.81
Mton
0.00
Mton
9.6 m3
9.8 m3

sxs

bbls

=
FP-9LS

R-21LS

488
sxs
488
sxs

0.03 gps

0.03 gps

14.6
glns
14.6
glns

0.06 m3
0.06 m3

13 3/8" SURFACE CEMENTING CALCULATION


Tail Cement Slurry @ 15.8 ppg
Rate Hole

5.0

0.9761 bb/mtr

4.9 bbls

0.8 m3

30%

1.5 bbls

0.2 m3

Shoe joint

26 m

0.5072 bb/mtr

13.2 bbls

2.1 m3

Oh - Csg

150 m

0.4059 bb/mtr

60.9 bbls

9.7 m3

30%

18.3 bbls

2.9 m3

98.7 bbls

15.7 m3

554 ft3

Excess

Cement

Silica

Sea water

Mixing fluid

554 ft3

1.19 cps

466 sxs

19.9 Mton

40%

0 sxs

0.00 Mton

466 sxs

4.64 gps

51.4 bbls

8.2 m3

466 sxs

5.39 gps

59.8 bbls

9.5 m3

FP9LS

466 sxs

0.05 gps

23.3 glns

0.09 m3

BJ-XL

466 sxs

0.35 gps

163.0 glns

0.62 m3

CD-31L

466 sxs

0.30 gps

139.7 glns

0.53 m3

R-21LS

466 sxs

0.02 gps

9.3 glns

0.04 m3

Lead Cement Slurry @ 12.6 ppg.


Oh - Csg

400 m

0.4059 bb/mtr
30%

=
=

162.4 bbls
48.7 bbls

25.8 m3
7.7 m3

Csg-Csg

20 m

0.5479 bb/mtr

=
=
=

11.0 bbls
222.0 bbls
1247 ft3

1.7 m3
35.3 m3

256

Cement

Silica

Sea water

Mixing fluid

1247 ft3

2.14 cps

583 sxs

24.8 Mton

40%

0 sxs

0.00 Mton

583 sxs

11.39 gps

158.0 bbls

25.1 m3

583 sxs

12.50 gps

173.4 bbls

27.6 m3

FP9LS

583 sxs

0.05 gps

29.1 glns

0.11 m3

R-21LS

583 sxs

0.06 gps

35.0 glns

0.13 m3

BJ-XL

583 sxs

1.00 gps

582.5 glns

2.21 m3

9-5/8" - INTERMEDIATE CEMENTING CALCULATION


Tail Cement Slurry @ 15.8 ppg

Csg-Csg

30 m

0.1960 bb/mtr

5.9 bbls

0.9 m3

Shoe joint

30 m

0.2402 bb/mtr

7.2 bbls

1.1 m3

Oh - Csg

341 m

0.1830 bb/mtr

62.4 bbls

9.9 m3

30%

18.7 bbls

3.0 m3

94 bbls

15.0 m3

529 ft3

Excess

Cement G

529 ft3

1.520 cps

348 sxs

14.8 Mton

Sea water

348 sxs

5.870 gps

49 bbls

7.7 m3

Mixing fluid

348 sxs

7.870 gps

65 bbls

10.4 m3

FP9LS

348 sxs

0.05 gps

17.4 gals

0.3 Drums

BJ-XL

348 sxs

0.60 gps

208.8 gals

3.8 Drums

CD-33L

348 sxs

0.25 gps

87.0 gals

1.6 Drums

BA-58LS

348 sxs

1.00 gps

348.0 gals

6.3 Drums

R-21LS

348 sxs

0.10 gps

34.8 gals

0.6 Drums

257

7" WWS CEMENTING CALCULATION


Tail Cement Slurry @ 15.8 ppg
Csg-Csg

150.0

0.3351 bb/mtr

50.3 bbls

8.0 m3

Shoe joint

26 m

0.1219 bb/mtr

3.2 bbls

0.5 m3

Oh - Csg

638 m

0.0741 bb/mtr

47.3 bbls

7.5 m3

30%

14.2 bbls

2.3 m3

115 bbls

18.3 m3

645 ft3

Excess

Cement G

645 ft3

1.230 cps

524 sxs

22.4 Mton

Sea water

524 sxs

4.640 gps

58 bbls

9.2 m3

Mixing fluid

524 sxs

5.390 gps

67 bbls

10.7 m3

FP9LS

524 sxs

0.05 gps

26.2 gals

0.5 Drums

BJ-XL

524 sxs

0.55 gps

288.4 gals

5.2 Drums

CD-33L

524 sxs

0.25 gps

131.1 gals

2.4 Drums

BA-58LS

524 sxs

1.00 gps

524.5 gals

9.5 Drums

R-21LS

524 sxs

0.10 gps

52.4 gals

1.0 Drums

Overall Cementing Calculation:


Type of Cement
/ Additives

WELL

Casing

GM-A
GM-B

20

GM-C

Mixing Fluid
(bbls)
Fluid-Loss (gals)
13-3/8 Class G (sxs)
Sea Water (bbls)
Mixing Fluid
(bbls)
Retarder (gals)

GM-D
GM-E
GM-F

Lead Slurry
Volume

Class G (sxs)
Sea Water (bbls)

Tail Slurry
Volume

Total

488.05862

488.05862

60.42631

60.42631

61.35594

61.35594

14.64176
582.54036
465.61117
157.97940
51.43895

14.64176
1048.15152
209.41834

173.37511

59.75343

233.12854

34.95242

9.31222

44.26464

258

GM-A

9-5/8

GM-B

9-5/8

GM-C

9-5/8

Fluid-Loss (gals)
Dispersants
(gals)
Class G (sxs)
Sea Water (bbls)
Mixing Fluid
(bbls)
Retarder (gals)
Fluid-Loss (gals)
Dispersants
(gals)
Class G (sxs)
Sea Water (bbls)
Mixing Fluid
(bbls)
Retarder (gals)
Fluid-Loss (gals)
Dispersants
(gals)
Class G (sxs)
Sea Water (bbls)
Mixing Fluid
(bbls)
Retarder (gals)
Fluid-Loss (gals)
Dispersants
(gals)
Class G (sxs)
Sea Water (bbls)
Mixing Fluid
(bbls)
Retarder (gals)
Fluid-Loss (gals)
Dispersants
(gals)
Class G (sxs)
Sea Water (bbls)
Mixing Fluid
(bbls)
Retarder (gals)
Fluid-Loss (gals)
Dispersants
(gals)
Class G (sxs)

29.12702

23.28056

52.40758

582.54036

162.96391

745.50426

348.01155
48.63876

348.01155
48.63876

65.21074

65.21074

34.80116
17.40058

34.80116
17.40058

208.80693

208.80693

144.62575
39.22113

524.45358
57.93963

669.07932
97.16076

43.04338

67.30488

110.34825

8.67754
7.23129

52.44536
26.22268

61.12290
33.45397

144.62575

288.44947

433.07521

348.01155
48.63876

348.01155
48.63876

65.21074

65.21074

34.80116
17.40058

34.80116
17.40058

208.80693

208.80693

144.62575
39.22113

524.45358
57.93963

669.07932
97.16076

43.04338

67.30488

110.34825

8.67754
7.23129

52.44536
26.22268

61.12290
33.45397

144.62575

288.44947

433.07521

144.62575
259

348.89037
48.76158

348.89037
48.76158

65.37541

65.37541

34.88904
17.44452

34.88904
17.44452

209.33422

209.33422

524.45358

669.07932

GM-D

9-5/8

GM-E

9-5/8

GM-F

9-5/8

Sea Water (bbls)


Mixing Fluid
(bbls)
Retarder (gals)
Fluid-Loss (gals)
Dispersants
(gals)
Class G (sxs)
Sea Water (bbls)
Mixing Fluid
(bbls)
Retarder (gals)
Fluid-Loss (gals)
Dispersants
(gals)
Class G (sxs)
Sea Water (bbls)
Mixing Fluid
(bbls)
Retarder (gals)
Fluid-Loss (gals)
Dispersants
(gals)
Class G (sxs)
Sea Water (bbls)
Mixing Fluid
(bbls)
Retarder (gals)
Fluid-Loss (gals)
Dispersants
(gals)
Class G (sxs)
Sea Water (bbls)
Mixing Fluid
(bbls)
Retarder (gals)
Fluid-Loss (gals)
Dispersants
(gals)
Class G (sxs)
Sea Water (bbls)
Mixing Fluid
(bbls)
Retarder (gals)

39.22113

57.93963

97.16076

43.04338

67.30488

110.34825

8.67754
7.23129

52.44536
26.22268

61.12290
33.45397

144.62575

288.44947

433.07521

355.92094
49.74419

355.92094
49.74419

66.69280

66.69280

35.59209
17.79605

35.59209
17.79605

213.55256

213.55256

144.62575
39.22113

524.45358
57.93963

669.07932
97.16076

43.04338

67.30488

110.34825

8.67754
7.23129

52.44536
26.22268

61.12290
33.45397

144.62575

288.44947

433.07521

355.92094
49.74419

355.92094
49.74419

66.69280

66.69280

35.59209
17.79605

35.59209
17.79605

213.55256

213.55256

144.62575
39.22113

524.45358
57.93963

669.07932
97.16076

43.04338

67.30488

110.34825

8.67754
7.23129

52.44536
26.22268

61.12290
33.45397

144.62575

288.44947

433.07521

260

348.01155
48.63876

348.01155
48.63876

65.21074

65.21074

34.80116

34.80116

Fluid-Loss (gals)
Dispersants
(gals)
Class G (sxs)
Sea Water (bbls)
Mixing Fluid
(bbls)
Retarder (gals)
Fluid-Loss (gals)
Dispersants
(gals)

17.40058

17.40058

208.80693

208.80693

144.62575
39.22113

524.45358
57.93963

669.07932
97.16076

43.04338

67.30488

110.34825

8.67754
7.23129

52.44536
26.22268

61.12290
33.45397

144.62575

288.44947

433.07521

261

E.5 Drilling Time and Cost Estimation


Table E.2 - Drilling Days

Measured
Depth
(m-TVDRKB)
0
150
150
700
700
700
1041
1041
1041
2034.72
2034.72
2034.72
2034.72

Operations Descriptions
Rig up to drill
Drill 26" hole to 150m
Run / cmt 20" conductor / NU diverter
Drill 17.5" hole to 700m
Log hole
Run / cmt 13-3/8" csg / NU
Drill 12.25" hole to 1041m
Log 12.25" hole
Run / cmt 9-5/8" csd /NU
Drill 8.5" hole to 1994.27m
Log 8.5" hole
Run / cmt 7" liner, run CBL/VDL
Displace hole to completion fluids

Days
Activity
1
0.18
2.5
0.97
1
2
1.58
0.5
2
3.77
2
3.5
1.5
TOTAL

Cum.
1
1.18
3.68
4.65
5.65
7.65
9.23
9.73
11.73
15.50
17.50
21.00
22.50
22.50

Time-Depth Curve
Days
0

10

15

Depth (m-MDDF)

500

1000

1500

2000

2500
Figure E.9 - Time-depth curve

262

20

25

Table E.3 - Drilling cost

Project:

Gelama Merah

Well:
Lease:

GM-A
-

Mob/Demob

Rig Spread Cost


Rig Days
Estimate

Type of Expenditure:
(Capital or Expense)
Total #
of Wells

Jack Up Rig
Platform Rig

Yes = 1
No = blank
1
1

# of Rig
Days

Jack Up Rig
Platform Rig

Yes = 1
No = blank
1
1

Fishing/Cleanout
Drilling
Completion (nonGP)
Weather Delay
Trouble Time
Yes = 1
No = blank

Completion
Costs

Tangible Costs

Gravel Packed Zone


Frac Packed Zone
Non-GP'd Primary
Non-Gp'd Selective

Conductor Casing
Surface Casing
Intermediate Casing
Production Casing
Tubing
Isolation Packer
Mandrels
SCSSV
Misc. (tree, etc..)
GP/FP Equipment

Summary

Tangible
Intangible
G&A

Calculated
Cost

per rig day


per rig day

399,000
50,000
50,000

Yes = 1
No = blank
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Total ft or
# of items
492
2,297
3,416
6,543
6,543
2
10
1
n/a
2
Total
$
725,483
2,062,857
250,951
3,039,290

263

Unit

8.0
1.0
1.0

Total

per well
per platform

Calculated
Cost
200,000
142,857

0
1,121,000

9.0%

Unit Cost
($)
50,000
40,000

Unit

0.0
22.4

# of
Zones

G&A Rate
(%)

Unit Cost
($)
200,000
1,000,000

Capital

Unit Cost
($)
200,000
275,000
50,000
50,000
Unit Cost
($)
100.00
75.00
50.00
25.00
6.00
40,000
1,340
12,000
25,000
50,000

Unit

per zone
per zone
per zone
per zone
Unit
per foot
per foot
per foot
per foot
per foot
per packer
per mandrel
per SSV
n/a
n/a

Calculated
Cost
0
0
100,000
0
Calculated
Cost
49,215
172,253
170,776
163,580
39,259
80,000
13,400
12,000
25,000
0

Appendix F

Facilities Engineering

Figure F.1 - Pipeline Sizing using PIPESim

Figure F.2 - Option 1: A production platform tie-in to the nearby Samarang Mother Platform-B (SMP-B) Central
Processing Platform (CPP)

264

Figure F.3 - A production platform tie-in directly to Labuan Crude Oil Terminal (LCOT)

Figure F.4 - Production using floating, production, storage and offloading (FPSO)

265