7/21/2019 Sabah Offshore Fields
1/16
BARRIERS FOR MARGINAL FIELDSBARRIERS FOR MARGINAL FIELDS
CCOPCCOP GROUP 10, EXERCISE 2:GROUP 10, EXERCISE 2:
--Zulkifli LatifZulkifli Latif
--Imron AsjhariImron Asjhari--WahyudinWahyudin B.B. NasifiNasifi
PRESENTATION OUTLINES
1. INTRODUCTION
2. DEVELOPMENT BARRIERS
TECHNOLOGY
SHARING OF INFRASTRUCTURE
FISCAL INCENTIVES
COMPANIES, ORGANISATION AND CO-OPERATION
3. KEY STEPS TO STIMULATE AN OPTIMIZED
DEVELOPMENT
4. CONCLUSIONS
7/21/2019 Sabah Offshore Fields
2/16
SB308
SB331
LEGEND
SB330
SB304K
H
G
J
SK307
SB303TitikTerang
TigaPapan
Barton
SFurious
StJoseph
ErbWest
Tembungo
SWEmerald
ErbSouth
Ketam
Benrinnes
SECollins
Kebabangan
Kinarut
BongawanN
Nosong
Samarang
Glayzer
HaselfootTrusmadi
Kinabalu
Samarang
Kecil
S A B A H
SARAWAK
PHILIPPINES
0 50 km
South China Sea
OPEN BLOCKS
Sandakan
KOTA
KINABALU
P Sebatik
P Timbun Mata
P Balabac
P Banggi
P Balambangan
SB302
NS96PSC
Padas
P.Labuan
KamunsuEast
KamunsuEast
Upthrown
Alab
SB1
N
Kudat
Lokan
NymphNorth Sulu Sea
SB301
BRUNEI
SB332
SB305SB305SB305
11600'
500'
11400' 11800' 11900'
800'
700'
600'
11500'
INDONESIA
SB3XX
L
M
Location
Offshore Sabah
PSC SAMARANG-
ASAM PAYA PSC
(1995-2020)
Sub-Block
SAMARANG
SUB-BLOCK
(6S18/12)
Equity
100% PCSB
Nearest Field
12 km from SMP-B
24 km from Sumandak CPP
PADAS
Sabah Acreage Map
Three Wells
Padas-1 (1972 EPMI)
Padas-2 (1977 EPMI)
Kotar-1 (1990 SSPC)
Distance Kotar-1 & Padas-2~ 2km
Distance Padas-1 & Padas-2~ 6.5km
Padas-2 tested (408 stb/d 22oAPI
oil)
Challenges in this study
3D Seismic affected bysurface carbonate anomaly
Complex faulted structure
Limited logging suites
PADAS-1
KOTAR-1
PADAS-2
Padas Field Overview
7/21/2019 Sabah Offshore Fields
3/16
Executive Summary Potential Recovery (PR)
Resource assessment on PADAS Crest in sand IVC-13
OilReservoir Case STOIIP
(MMSTBO)
RF
(%)
PR
(MMSTBO)
IVC-13 Low (P85) 13 15 2
Most Likely (P50) 49 30 15
High (P15) 115 45 52
Reservoir Case GIIP
(BSCF)
IVC-13 Low (P85) 0
Most Likely (P50) 20
High (P15) 51.4
Gas
Executive Summary Speculative Recovery (SR)
There is SR from other sands in the structure.
Oil
Gas
Reservoirs Risked OIIP
(MMSTB)
IVC-1 to
IVC-19
Expected
Value (EV)84
Reservoirs Risked GIIP
(BSCF)
IVC-1 to
IVC-19
Expected
Value (EV)45.9
7/21/2019 Sabah Offshore Fields
4/16
Executive Summary Padas Field
Resources have been assessed in Padas Crestal region.
Considerable uncertainties over the volume of hydrocarbon
in place and distribution of hydrocarbon within the structure
Significant uncertainty mainly due to:
Structural interpretation (seismic quality) since
relatively poor data at the crest area of interest where
the shallow carbonate causes data deterioration.
Executive Summary Padas Field
Secondary factors include
Degree of reservoir compartmentalisation and
lateral continuity
DST on Padas 2 appears to show minor faults on close to
the well. The extent of these fault is uncertain and it would
impact the recovery if the reservoir is morecompartmentalized than assumed.
Fluid PVT from correlations
PVT properties and SCAL parameters have been
estimated based on standard industry correlations. Actual
fluid PVT and SCAL data would help resolve the range of
key fluid parameters such as bubble point pressure, initial
oil formation volume factor, and saturation function curves.
7/21/2019 Sabah Offshore Fields
5/16
Executive Summary Padas Field
Secondary factors include
Sand production
There is a strong chance that the well will produce sand
when the wells start to produce water, as observed during
the DST from the lower IVC-13 intervals which flowed upto
58% water. Significant sand production will require
downhole sand control equipment and this will have a
direct impact on well productivity.
Executive Summary Padas Field
Secondary factors include
Gas cap presence
The GOC is not seen in any of the exploration wells so it
has been estimated based on a range of estimated bubble
point pressures. The presence of a gas cap will have an
impact on both the production strategy and the well
completion strategy.
Oil water contact
OWC is not seen in Padas 2 well, but the FWL has been
estimated using the Samarang J-curves. This puts the
FWL about 5 feet below the ODT level but there is a
possibility that the actual FWL is much deeper.
7/21/2019 Sabah Offshore Fields
6/16
Reservoir IVC-13 -Parameter Range Difference
Notes :2 GBV cases :
(1) Differences in GBV dueto CATEGORY (P15to P85 cases) whereP15 vol. is takenfrom max oil column(all segments) andP85 vol. from DSTcoverage areaaround the Padas-2well. The P50 vol.from segment 3 only
(2) GBV differences due toSTRUCTUREseismic horizonpicking ( Min ,MLand Max maps). TheP15 area case of
different map caseswere used byapplying the samefluid contact
Tornado Diagram of Petra input parameter range in Reservoir IVC-13
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
GBV (1)
N/G
So
PHIT
GBV (2)
1/Boi
% Difference
Series1
MIN
MAX
TECHNOLOGY &
INFRASTRUCTURE
2005
7/21/2019 Sabah Offshore Fields
7/16
13
24 KM
Full Well Stream Line (6 )
Gas Lift (6 )
PADAS-2
~50 ft (15.2m) Water Depth
3 Producers
3 Gas Lift
Sumandak CPP
Option 1 : Tie-in to Sumandak CPP
Lightweight
Structure (LWS)
Option 2 : LWS + FPSO
Full Well Stream Line (6 )
Gas Lift (6 )
PADAS-2
~50 ft (15.2m) Water Depth
3 Producers
3 Gas Lift
Lightweight
Structure (LWS)FPSO (Floating Production,
Storage and Offloading)
7/21/2019 Sabah Offshore Fields
8/16
Option 3 : MOPU (Mobile Operating Production
Unit) + FSO (Floating Storage and Offloading)
MOPU
FORWARD
SHUTTLE
TANKER N.E
FSO HEADING
FIELD PLAN
MOORING LINES
MOORING LINES
FSO
7/21/2019 Sabah Offshore Fields
9/16
FISCAL INCENTIVE
2005
CAPEX and OPEX Breakdown (Option 1 and Option 2 - Most Likely Case PR)
All in USD, million
Padas Seismic Appraisal
Drilling
[1]
Facilities
CAPEX
Drilling
CAPEX
Dev.
CAPEX
W/O [1]
Note: Excl.
seismic
Tot. Capital
Investment
With [1]
Note: Excl.
seismic
Annual
OPEX
Option 1(Tie-in)
7.89
(30)
5.26
(20)
30.60
(116)
11.40
(43)
42.00
(159)
47.26
(179)
0.92
(3.5)
Option 2
(LWS +
FPSO)
7.89
(30)
5.26
(20)
11.00
(42)
11.40
(43)
22.40
(85)
27.66
(105)
20.81
(79)
( ) Cost in RM
7/21/2019 Sabah Offshore Fields
10/16
Basis Assumptions
Development scheme based on 15 MMstb of oil (most likely case with gaslift) with 3 development wells
Incremental economics
Oil price : Brent USD22 per barrel, (equivalent to SamarangUSD1.50)
Annual OPEX : 3% of Facilities Cost
Escalation 3% on CAPEX and OPEX
1st oil: 2010
Project Economics Analysis
Project Economics Analysis
Oil Price : Brent USD 22/barrel, 15 MMstb
Padas Field Option 1
(Tie-in)
Option 2
(LWS + FPSO)
NPV @ 0% (RM, mil.) 136 - ve
NPV @ 10% (RM, mil.) 38 - ve
NPV @ 15% (RM, mil.) 17 - ve
IRR % 23%
Economic limit : 2020 -
UDC RM/BOE 10.80 -
UPC RM/BOE 3.60 -
UTC RM/BOE 14.40 -
Appraisal well (RM,mil.)
Development CAPEX (RM, mil)
Total Capital Investment (RM, mil.)
Annual OPEX (RM, mil.)
20
159
179
3.5 mil. /year
20
85
105
79 mil. /year
Note:
Option 1 : Tie-in to Sumandak
Option 2 : LWS + FPSO
7/21/2019 Sabah Offshore Fields
11/16
Projects Economics Analysis
Sensitivity Analysis at Brent USD 22/bbl
Development Option : Tie-in facilities to Sumandak CPP
Oil Reserves : 15 MMstb
0%
10%
20%
30%
-20% 0% 20%
Reserves Capex Opex
15%
Projects Economics Analysis / back-up slide
EMV Calculation NPV @10%
Development Option : Tie-in facilities to Sumandak CPP
Oil Reserves : 15 MMstb
Crude Oil Price : Brent USD 22 per barrel
DrillAppraisal well
No
Discovery25%
Dry75%
-18.2 x (75%)= -13.6
38.0 x (25%)= 9.5
0
EMV calculation yields negative result, -4.1
Drill
7/21/2019 Sabah Offshore Fields
12/16
Minimum Reserves Analysis, Brent USD 22/bbl
Projects Economics Analysis / back-up slide
Minimum oil reserves required is 10 MMstb
Development Option : Tie-in facilities to Sumandak CPP
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
MMSTB
IRR%
Padas RA: Approaches
APPROACHES PROS CONS DO WE
RECOMMEND
BASED ON RA
STUDY?
1. Conventional
i. Acquire 3D
ii. Re-validate the
volumetric based
on new
interpretation
iii. If i i. is OK, go for
Appraisal
iv. FDP
v. Development
i. Better define
development
ii. Reduce
uncertainties
iii. At each milestone,
we have a gate
either to proceed to
the next step or
otherwise.
Minimise exposure
and wastage of
limited resources.
i. Slow due
to
stepwise
approach
Yes to
address
uncertainties
identified by theRA study
7/21/2019 Sabah Offshore Fields
13/16
Padas RA: Approaches
APPROACHES PROS CONS DO WE RECOMMEND
BASED ON RA
STUDY?
2. Concurrent pre-
FDP (acquiring
seismic and
appraisal) and
FDP activi ties
Q:
Can we define
what FDP
activities we can
do based on
current data?
i. Potential
early 1st
oil
i. Under
exposure
ii. Inefficient
utilisation of
limited
resources in
the event pre-
FDP activities
not in favour to
proceed with
FDP works.
Not recommended.
Anticipate a lot of
reworks
Padas RA: Approaches
APPROACHES PROS CONS DO WE
RECOMMEND
BASED ON RA
STUDY?
3. Utilise
appraisal for
development
i. Potential
early 1st oil
i. Under exposure
ii. Well placement is
not optimum
iii. Inefficientutilisation of
limited resources
in the event
appraisal findings
not in favour for
development
Can be
considered after
seismic
acquisition andinterpretation.
7/21/2019 Sabah Offshore Fields
14/16
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the Most Likely Case PR of 15 MMstb and USD 22 per barrel
oil price, it yields +ve NPV. However, Resource Assessment study
identified the following challenges and uncertainties:
Main risks are the uncertainty over the distribution of hydrocarbons
and compartmentalisation.
Uncertainties in fluid and rock properties.
To minimise risks associated with volumetric uncertainties, it is
recommended to adhere to the RA technical recommendations as
previously presented. The strategy to further appraise and develop the
field is heavily dependent on the outcome of the interpretation of the new
3D.
COMPANIES,
ORGANIZATION &
COOPERATION
7/21/2019 Sabah Offshore Fields
15/16
WILLINGNESS TO TAKE RISKRESOURCES CONSTRAINT
Step the government
should Take to
Stimulate and
Optimized Development
7/21/2019 Sabah Offshore Fields
16/16
Reduction on TaxFlexibility in utilizing foreign contractor
THANK YOU
Top Related