sP 1"7 70/

7th Offshore South East Asia

Conference, Singapore
2-5 February 1988

SPE 17701

OSEA88198
Development Planning of the F6 Gas Field in
Central Luconia, Offshore Sarawak, Malaysia
by P.Y. Wee and S.L. Liew, Sarawak Shell Bhd. (Malaysia)
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 7th Offshore South East Asia Conference held in Singapore,
2-5 February 1988. This paper was selected for presentation by a programme committee following review of information in an
abstract. Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by OSEA and are subject to correction by the author(s).

ABSTRACT

IBTRODUCTIOR

Development of the Central Luconia gas fie.lds,

located offshore Sarawak, started in 1982. To
date three gas fields have been developed, Ell,
F23 and the third and largest gas field, F6, which
came on stream in January 1987. The daily
production rate averages some 1000 MMscf/d.

The Central Luconia province is situated some

100 miles offshore Sarawak, Malaysia in 230 - 290
ft of water (Fig. 1). During the late 1960's,
Sarawak
Shell
Berhad
(SSB)
carried
out
exploration
drilling
in
Central
Luconia.
Numerous
gas accumulations were
found
in
carbonate buildups and the gas reserves were
evaluated to be large enough for a viable LNG
scheme.
Proposals were presented
to
the
Malaysian government in 1971, which eventually
led to the formation of Malaysian LNG Sendirian
Berhad' (MLNG) in 1978. Petronas (the Malaysian
national petroleum company) took up 60% equity in
this:venture, while Shell Gas B.V. and Mitsubishi
Corporation of Japan took up 17.5% each , and the
State of Sarawak 5%.

The gas is delivered via a single 36" trunkline

from Ell to the Malaysian LNG liquefaction plant
for the manufacture of LNG at approximately 6
million tonnes per year for a period of 20 years.
Gas is also distributed to the ASEAN Bintulu
Fertilisation plant for the.prodtiction of urea and
ammonia, _and to Sarawak Electricity Supply
Corporation for power generation.
This paper describes the 3D simulation study that
has been carried out for the F6 field which forms
the basis for the development planning of the
field. The plan proposed a total of ten producer
and one observation well to be drilled from the
drilling platform F6DP-A located near the crestal
part of the field.

Central Luconia gas is further distributed to the

ASEAN Bintulu Fertiliser plant for the production
of urea and amuionia, and to Sarawak Electricity
Supply Corporation to generate power for local
use.
The results of seismic surveys taken during the
mid - 1960's indicated the possibility of large
carbonate
structures
in
Central
Luconia.
Exploration drilling in 1968 confirmed the
existence of these carbonate structures.
The
first significant gas accumulation was discovered
by well F6 .lX in 1969. Exploration drilling in
43 carbonate structures within the period 1968 led
to
the
discovery
of
20
gas
1975
accumulations, of which 10 contained significant
quantities of non-associated gas.

Despite the large reservoir areal extent of about

168 km2, it is expected that the field can be
adequately drained from a single platform with ten
producers.
The main uncertainties which may affect the field
performance are the transmissibility of a tight
argillaceous layer which may separate the gas
bearing part of the field into two zones and the
possibility of water drive. The likely impact of
these uncertainties on the development plan and
gas recovery has been addressed in the simulation
study.

Appraisal drilling in the five largest gas

fields, Ell, F23, F6, E8 and Fl3, which are
committed to the LNG project, was completed
before end 1978 to better define geology,
reserves,
productivities
and
wellstream
compositions.

Taking the above uncertainties into consideration,

recovery factors are estimated to be between 61%
and 75%.

Ell was the first gas field to be developed,

being
closest
to
shore.
By
1982,
the
installation of offshore platforms and associated
facilities, and the 78 miles long 36" trunkline
to shore was completed. Delivery of gas to MLNG
References and illustrations at end of page

849

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING OF THE F6 GAS FIELD IN CENTRAL LUCONIA, OFFSHORE SARAWAK

for commissioning purposes commenced in August

1982 with the first commercial shipment of LNG to
Japan in January 1983.
Shortly thereafter, in
October 1983 the second gas field, F23, came on
stream.
The third and largest gas field, F6,
started production in January 1987; The trunkline
riser platform is located at the Ell complex.
Gathering
lines
from
outlying
fields
are
terminated here and the streams are combined and
produced together via the 36" trunkline to shore
(Fig. 2).
Each production complex consists of a
Drilling Platform, a Production Platform and a
Living
Quarters
Platform,
all
connected
by
bridges, plus a remote vent on the Vent Platform.

i)

Zone 1

This is the top zone of the carbonate

buildup, and consists of predominantly
mouldic limestone with excellent reservoir
development.
The average porosity is 35%
and its permeability ranges between 1 to
4D.
The maximum thickness is some 250 ft
but it covers only a small area, and only 7%
of the total GIIP of the field is contained
in this zone.
ii)

Zone 2

This zone consists of mainly mouldic to

chalkified limestone intercalated with less
porous
and
permeable
argillaceous
limestone.
Towards the base of Zone 2, a
30 to 40 ft thick less porous argillaceous
limestone layer is found.
This
tight
streak, though slightly less prominent in
the western half of the field, separates
Zones 1 and 2 (upper reservoir unit) from
Zone 3 (lower reservoir unit).

Two additional fields, E8 and F13, are planned to

be developed in the future to maintain potential.
Depending on LNG and gas market demands, the
possibility exists for the development of other
smaller Central Luconia gas fields.
This paper discusses the development planning of
the F6 field which, to. a large extent, is bas~d on
the results of a full field simulation study,
encompassing the results of the exploration and
appraisal wells.

The average porosity of Zone 2 above the

tight streak is about 21%, and its average
permeability ranges from 20 to 50 mD.
The
tight streak has an average porosity of 10%
and a horizontal permeability of 2 mD. The
vertical permeability of the tight streak
as established from core measurement from
an appraisal well drilled in the eastern
part of the field is 0.02 mD. The vertical
permeability in the western part of the
f"ield might be higher than 0.02 mD, in view
of the lesser prominence of the tight streak
in that part of the field.

FIELD HISTORY

The F6 field is situated in the central part of

the Central Luconia province, about 180 km NNW of
Bintulu, Sarawak in a water depth of about 280 ft.
It is the largest gas field found to date in
Central Luconia, measuring some 6 by 28 k~.
Following the successful discovery of the F6 field
in 1969 by the exploration well F6.1X, an
appraisal campaign was carried out between 1972
and
1979
to
assess
the
geology,
reserves,
reservoir quality, compositions and productivities
with extensive coring and production testing.
A
total of five appraisal wells were drilled and
sufficient information was available to formulate
a dev.elopment plan.

The maximum thickness of Zone 2 is some 350

ft and it contains about 24% of the total
GIIP.
iii)

Zone 3

This is the largest zone in the field,

containing 69% of the total GIIP of the
f"ield.
It
consists
of
predominantly
mouldic limestone with an average porosity
of 29% and a permeability range of 100 to
1000
mD.
An
approximately
100
ft
transition zone is present above the GWC at
4355 ft ss.
The gas column in this zone
has a maximum height of some 350 to 400 ft,
while the total zone has a thickness of at
least some 1550 - 1600 ft.

RESERVOIR DESCRIPTION

The F6 field is a large platform type carbonate

buildup, with the top of the carbonate located at
about 3,500 ft ss and the gas water contact at
about 4355 ft ss.
The aquifer in the carbonate
buildup is overpressured by about 300 psi above
hydrostatic. The gas accumulation is confined to
the upper part of the carbonate buildup.
No
extension of the gas reservoir outside the
carbonate buildup is expected. There is no major
faulting in the carbonate buildup.
The field
structure is shown in Fig. 3.
The
gas
reservoir
is
divided
lithostratigraphic
zones
which
described below (see also Fig. 4).

Paper No. 88198

AQUIFER DESCRIPTION

Below the gas bearing part of the build-up there

are three additional zones, Zones 4, 5 and 6.
Zones 5 and 6 generally have low porosities and
frequently contain tight intervals. The part of

into
three
are
briefly

850

Paper No. 88198

The stratigraphic Zones 5 and 6 have been excluded

from the model, as Zone 5 is identified as
sealing. The bottom water in Zones 3 and 4 is
regarded as the minimum connected aquifer to the
gas reservoir, and is represented by model layer
5. The maximum aquifer support is represented by
bottom water in Zones 3 and 4 plus that in the
surrounding carbonate and clastic aquifers, the
latter being represented by infinite analytical
aquifers attached to the outermost grid blocks of
model layer 5.
Thus any aquifer support from
Zones 5 and 6 would be taken into account in the
maximum aquifer support case. The transition zone
of Zone 3 has been represented as a separate model
layer, layer 4. The initial water saturation of
this layer is the average water saturation over
the 100 ft transition zone.

the water leg that is in communication with the

gas reservoir is consequently expected to be
restricted to Zones 3 and 4 only. Together these
have a thickness of some 2400 ft below the GWC.
The average porosity of the water leg section is
26% with a permeabilHy of 40 mD.
The bottom
aquifer is overpressurised by 300 psi.
Zones 3
and 4 may be in communication with the surrounding
clastic aquifers and via these to aquifers in
neighbouring carbonate buildups.
UNCERTAINTIES FOR THE FIELD PERFORMANCE

The two most important geological features which

may have a significant impact on the development
of the field are:
i)

ii)

WEE PHEK YAN/LIEW SHIEW LING

The tight argillaceous streak between Zones 2 and

3 is represented by a transmissibility factor
between the two zones, which can be varied when
testing the effect of communication on the
recovery and development.

The possibility of water drive

The
geological model shows that the carbonate
aquifer ;volume within the F6 build-up is
approximately
ten times
the
reservoir
volume. In addition the aquifer may be in
communication with surrounding clastic and
carbonate aquifers.
Therefore there is a
potential risk of water influx during the
producing life of the field.

Reservoir Parameters
Reservoir parameters such as porosity, initial
water saturation, permeability (both horizontal
and vertical) and thickness for each model layer
are based on log and core derived data from the
exploration/appraisal wells.
For grid blocks
where no well was drilled, interpolated and
extrapolated estimates from available data have
been assumed.

The presence of a tight argillaceous streak,

separating the upper (Zones 1 and 2) and
lower (Zone 3) reservoir units, with the
possibility of restriction to vertical flow
between Zones 2 and 3.

A pre-development 3D simulation study has' been

carried ou~, in which the effects of various
strength of aquifer support and various degrees of
transmissibility over the tight streak have been
assessed.

Residual Gas Saturation/Relative Permeability

The results of this simulation study provides the

basis for the planning of an optimised field
development plan, taking into account the impact
of the above uncertainties.

In a gas water system displacement will generally

take place under segregated flow conditions.
Therefore straight line relative permeability
curves have been used in the simulation study.

The details for each model layer are shown in

Appendix A.

There is only one laboratory measurement of end

points in F6.
The residual gas saturation was
measuted at above 50% of the initial gas
saturation from a core plug with a low porosity of
about 12%. This figure is not representative for
the type of porosity expected for the field and
therefore has not been used.
For simulation
purposes, residual gas saturations have been
estimated using Agarwal's formula (Ref. 1), which
relates the porosity, permeability and initial gas
satuxation, and average between 23 and 25% for the
zones considered.

MODEL DESCRIPTION

Model Selection
A 3-D grid-block model has been set up to
represent the F6 field as shown in Fig. 5 and 6.
The five layers in the cross-section represent the
three stratigraphic units of the gas bearing
reservoirs and the water leg as follows:
Model La:ler

Stratisraphic Zone

1
2
3
4
5

Zone
Zone
Zone
Zone
Zone

1
2
3 above transition zone
3 transition zone only
3 below GWC and Zone 4

End points as used

Appendix A.

851

in the model are shown in

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING OF THE F6 GAS FIELD IR CENTRAL LUCOBIA. OFFSHORE SARAWAK

Fluid Properties
PVT data available from the
drilled in F6 have been used.
shown in Appendix A.

appraisal wells
These data are

Well Data
The platform has been placed in the centre of the
field, to allow positioning of wells. close to the
crest of the various reservoirs. Both the Zone 1
and Zone 3 drainage point locations are spread
along a circle, limited by a maximum deviation
angle of 50, close to the crest of the
reservoirs.
The offtake per well used in the model is 100
MMscf/d, with a ma~imum total field production of
820 MMscf/d, the nominal design capacity of the
platform facilities.
The productivity indices used in the model wells
are based on production test results from
appraisal wells. The skin factor is adjusted in
accordance with the perforation interval, taking
into consideration the possible inflow impairment
as a result of drilling/completion operations.
Details of these parameters and the well locations
are shown in Appendix A.

Aquifer Parameters
In view of the lack of information on the
surrounding
aquifers,
properties
of
these
analytical aquifers, including thickness, porosity
and permeability are assumed the same as that of
the bottom water section.
The radii of the
aquifers are assumed to be infinitely large.

Paper No. 88198

Zone 1 and Zone 2 will deplete volumetrically

until the assumed abandonment pressure of 800
psia is reached.
A recovery factor of 75% is estimated when the
bottom aquifer is in communication with the
edge aquifer in the surrounding clastics,
giving rise to a moderate water drive, and the
tight streak provides vertical transmissibility
between Zones 3 and 2. A large amount of gas
from Zone 3 will migrate to Zone 2 and will be
produced by Zone 1 wells.
If there is support from a large aquifer and a
sealing streak exists, the recovery factor is
expected to be only about 53% from the central
platform. Both Zone 1 and Zone 2 will behave
as a volumetric depletion reservoir with a
recovery of 60%. The recovery in Zone 3 will
be poor, as a result of lack of crossflow into
the Zone 2 reservoir and uneven rise of the gas
water contact. Some 22% of the gas in place in
Zone 3 is expected to be bypassed by the
invading water.
This would
require an
additional drilling structure to the west of
the field to complete the recovery. The second
phase of development drilling will increase the
recovery factor to 64%.
Based on
abandonment
about 59%
pressure of
estimated.

volumetric depletion, assuming an

pressure of 800 psia, a recovery of
is estimated.
At an abandonment
700 psia a recovery of some 70% is
For
this
scenario
the
final
aban~onment
pres~ure
will
depend
on
the
compression requirements and hence the economic
justification of these requirements.

HUIIber of wells
Results of the simulation study
The primary objective of the simulation study was
to investigate and quantify the ultimate recovery,
gas water contact movement and field performance
with
respect
to
the
two main geological
uncertainties to optimise development planning of.
the field.

Various
scenarios
of
aquifer
support,
communication between zones 3 and 2, and number of
wells were iuvestigated.
The results can be
briefly summarised as follows:-

Recovery Factors
In the presence of water drive,
range of recoveries is possible:

the following

Under the same conditions of aquifer support and

transmissibility over the tight streak there is no
difference in recovery between eight and twelve
wells.
Although the eight well scenario will
suffer a slightly faster capacity decline compared
with the twelve well scenario, the former will not
have a significant impact on the long term gas
supply to shore.
Gas water contact movement
If water drive occurs, there will be an uneven
rise of the gas water contact level, with higher
rate towards the producers. Water breakthrough to
the producing wells is estimated between 9-14
years.

KECOHHENDATIOHS FOB. FIELD DEVELOPMENT

A recovery factor of 61% is estimated if the
aquifer support is restricted to the expansion
of bottom water only and the tight argillaceous
layer is completely sealing. In this case both

852

Based on the results of the simulation study, the

following
have
been
incorporated
in
the
development planning of the field:-

Paper No. 88198

i)

WEE PIIEK YAB/LIEW SBIEW LING

A total of ten producers were proposed, four

to be completed on Zone 1 and six to be
completed on Zone 3. Nine are required to
meet the nominal design capacity of the
platform treating facilities.

ACKNOWLEDGEKERTS

The authors would like to express sincere thanks

to the Management of PETRONAS, Sarawak Shell
Berhad and to Shell Internationale Petroleum
Maatschappij B.V. (SIPM, The Hague) for permission
to publish this paper.

additional well has been included to

allow
for
mechanical
problems
or
disappointing deliverability in any of these
wells.
A vertical observation well was
planned .to be drilled through the reservoir
into the underlying bottom water to monitor
the gas water contact movement. In addition
radio-active markers were also planned to be
placed in both the gas and water bearing
part of the carbonate in this well to
monitor compaction. According to laboratory
measurements on the core samples, pore
collapse could occur as a result. of
effective stress increase as the reservoir
deplete~.
Based on theoretical calculations
maximum surface subsidence is estimated to
using the available well and core data. the
be some 6 metres in the centre of the field,
which has been incorporated in the design of
the platform complexes.
An

Reference 1. The importance of water influx in gas

reservoirs, by R.G. Agarwal et. al,
JPT, SPE of AIME, July 1971.

During development drilling total losses

were encountered in several of the Zone 3
wells, it was doubtful if it was:viable to
drill the observation well through the gas
water contact. For.safety reasons, the well
was eventually suspended near the base of
Zone 2. It is now proposed to use one of
the deepest Zone 3 producers as an
alter~ative
for
gas
water
contact
monitoring.
Regarding
compaction
monitoring, this can still be satisfactorily
carried out in the suspended well, where
radio-active markers have been placed in the
Zone 1 and 2 carbonates.
iii)

To prevent the possibility of premature

water breakthrough, the bottom perforations
in the Zone 3 wells were located not less
than 180 ft vertically above the gas water
contact.

iv)

Regular BHP surveys with high precision

pressure gauges will be taken in selective
wells to monitor the reservoir performance
to assess the possibility of water drive.
Should field performance
indicate
the
possibility of a sealing streak together
with a large aquifer support a separate
drilling structure to the west of the field
will be necessary, requiring an additional
three wells to drain the remaining Zone 3
gas which. is bypassed by the iuvading water.

853

APPENDIX A
Page 1 of 2
SIMULATION MODEL: BASIC DATA

The following have been used in the model.

1.

RESERVOIR PARAMETER

Stratigraphical
Zone

Model Layer

35

18

25

29

28

36

3+4

26

100

2.

FLUID PROPERTIES

2.1

PVT Data

Bg, rb/Mscf

Pressure, psia

g, cP
0.0170
0.0167
0.0164
. 0.0167
0.0159
0.0154
0.0150
0.0145
0.0141
0.0138
0.0134

1.27
1.34
1.39
1.47
1.55
1.75
.1. 98
2.31
2.78
3.43
4.45

2300
2190
2100
2000
1900
1700
1500
1300
1100
900
700
2.2

sw,

, %

End 2oint saturations and relative 2er.meabilities

swe
Model Layer

-Fr.-

1
2
3
4

0.05
0.25
0.08
0.36

s gr
K

rg

at

0.94
0.68
0.89
0.57

854

swe

Fr.
0.23
0.23
0.25
0.25

rw

at S

gr

0.14
0.14
0.13
0.13

APPENDIX A
Page 2 of 2

2.3

Well Parameter
Well locations in model layer 1:
2

5 6 7 8 9 tOt 1 I 2

13

14

13

14

1.

Well locations in model layer 3:

--

561

a 91011

12

4
5

Model
Layer Well
1

Grid
location
I-J

Grid Block
Permeability
Thickness
___!!!!L
__ll_

Kh

Skin

mD.ft

Non-Darcy
Flow Factor 1

1
2
3
4

11-4
9-4
10-5
8-5

230
200
195
170

3900
4600
4600
4600

897000
920000
879000
789200

5
5
5
5

20
20
20
20

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

S-4
7-3
9-4
11-4
S-6
7-6
9-6
11-6

90
65
55
40
170
130
100
70

850
720
850
700
850
800
750
700

76500
46800
46750
28000
144500
104000
75000
49000

16
19
22
27
11
12
15
20

50
70
85
115
25
35
45
60

855

-6
6
X 10-6
X 10
10- 6
X 10

6
X 10-

6
X 10-

6
X 106
X 106
X 106
X 10-

6
X 106
X 10-

PI
Mscfld{gsi

Remarks On
Perforation

1.13
1.00
1.01
1.01

Full
Full
Full
Full

0.14
0.09
0.08
0.05
0.21
0.16
0.12
0.08

4060'-4150 1 ss
4085 1 -41SO'ss
4095 1 -4150'ss
4110'-41SO'ss
3980 1 -41SO'ss
4020'-4150'ss
40S0'-41SO'ss
4080'-4150 1 ss

interval
interyal
interval
interval

 1,1100.000.

-Jl

t=-

i"'

i=

I" ......

.'J :

. 114

NOinH CENTRAL ~TFOftM COM~UX

tJ.

...

...

en

!.

-N ~o

a
z

...

oo

c..o

,.,

()"'

..

'"

~ LUCONIA

C(NTII&L .

. ~;~

2
~t.

...

HIGH

CENTRAL

=.:~ /e1z

LkONiA

., \

-~o

00

IIIITI..

OIL

ISIITIIII 1;&1

Pl.ANN[O OIL PIPELINE

~~~1.111(

~~~hiiOI

PLANNED IOAS PIPELIIooiE

MA..tO 'A\JLI

DELTA

~
....

'\~/

r.

~De~

._

~Lasnc" , ~~~ ,.,'-t.

0
-../
,.
...~o" \\

EI

u~

.....

taIOIIATII

",.~o,...,
. .

PROVINCE

.,_,~-~IJ

U"'

...... l

OTHflt OIL DISCOVERY

~~~,~..+

..

C'~.:>OC

.....

.....

BARAM

....... .

,. ,'!~> . ~'n

.1"':T~~::

Ontl lAS ,,I,D

II'/~

...

..

G.:;;.;- :"\.

___,

""
~

OIL PIILD

IAI PI(LD Ill CYCLI

:..:;
:'
\

....

"

.,.t.~'\

'"""'

y.

~~

~'\

~0

.. -

\\

:.r-'

v-. '<"

\\

""40()()

SOlJTMW~ST

L .J(

'Iii'~

Dll
,.

Dl~

.14

t---

\\

DIZ

- ""Jlz- -

(\\)

-~(DEI! .. IAI)

'

~-.

DJO

'

BALING IAN

\\

PROVINCE

....

'

....../ r'

\"
<~.

',,~ ...
' .......

W.BAYAN

........

~,.J

"''

SARAWAK

\\

.,./

.!~~~

fig.

,'

Sarawak province map.

~:.1
~-(

----\.,
~

50 KM

:;-.
<.
:

i ~_.

"/
l

~v.

Dll

VPE 1892 15/10/87

Central Luconla PIatfonn l.oclltlon.

-..

~
AREA LIMIT
AREA
OF ZONE 1
LIMIT OF ZONE 2
DRILLING

PLAT FORM.

COMPLETED
ABANDO
AND FLOWING
NED WELL
GWC AT 43!5!5' ss .t
0

!5,000
r-~~~--~IOv~POOFT

2KM

F8 Field' depth contour map top carbon~~te.

857

20'

F6 CROSS-SECTION

. I ~..... ~~ ,. :.:.:::~:

oo:soo
"''IITICt.L.II&IIIII&fl . .

m ..

II

111----- ... _.._~I

Fig.

DIIAW.NO.-

F& cross HCtlon.

13

567891011 12

I = I

14
3930'
2700'
1640'

3
4

5
6
7
8

}
15500'
15790'
12870'

328o'---..~328o

7880'

900' each
1640'
1880'

7880'

990' each

100,000

Scale

grid boundary for Layer 1

r---.

Fig.

3500

L_J

grid boundary for Layer 2

grid boundary for Layer 3, 4, 5

F& : Model dimension (areal).

AT LOCATION J

,....
Model Layer =

3700

I--

r-

11 111

,...----

I
U1
U1

3900

2
f--

...a.

.s:::

QJ

222 2 2 2 2

4100
3
4300

3
.4

3
4

3 3 3 3 33 3
~44

44 414

13

14

56 7 a 9n11 12

HoriwnLal Scale:
Fig.

I: 100,000

F6 : Model dimension (vertical).

858

GWC 4355'ss