Anda di halaman 1dari 208

FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

GELAMA MERAH, OFFSHORE SABAH

PREPARED BY: GROUP 11

Abdul Ajis Zaenal Mustopa 17820


Dharshini Yeap May Chen 16539
H'ng Ren Jie 15962
Juan Pablo Bacale Eyenga 15762
Khairul Ridzwan Bin Mohd Nor Hisham 16047
Muhammad Syahmi Bin Baderus 16533

Final Report submitted in partial fulfillment of


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

JANUARY 2016

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS


Bandar Seri Iskandar
32610 Tronoh
Perak Darul Ridzuan

1
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL

FIELD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (FDP)

PREPARED BY: GROUP 11

Abdul Ajis Zaenal Mustopa 17820


Dharshini Yeap May Chen 16539
H'ng Ren Jie 15962
Juan Pablo Bacale Eyenga 15762
Khairul Ridzwan Bin Mohd Nor Hisham 16047
Muhammad Syahmi Bin Baderus 16533

Final Report submitted in partial fulfillment of


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

JANUARY 2016

Approved by,

(DR CHEW KEW HONG) (DR MOHAMMED (MR AHMAD RADZI BIN
FDP SUPERVISOR IDRESS ALI) SHAHARI)
FDP CONSULTANT FDP CONSULTANT

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS


BANDAR SERI ISKANDAR
32610 TRONOH
PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN

2
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.

_________________________________________________
ABDUL AJIS ZAENAL MUSTOPA (17820)

_________________________________________________
DHARSHINI YEAP MAY CHEN (16539)

_________________________________________________
H'NG REN JIE (15962)

_________________________________________________
JUAN PABLO BACALE EYENGA (15762)

_________________________________________________
KHAIRUL RIDZWAN BIN MOHD NOR HISHAM (16047)

_________________________________________________
MUHAMMAD SYAHMI BIN BADERUS (16533)

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The preparation of this Field Development Project would not have been possible
throughout this final semester without the valuable contribution and assistance of
Petroleum Engineering Department of Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (UTP)
Malaysia. We wish to acknowledge the effort of Field Development Project Coordinator
for Petroleum Engineering Department, Mr. Berihun Mamo Negash for his initiatives in
coordinating every stages of the project.

Most importantly, we would like to express our deepest gratitude and


appreciation to our supervisor, Dr. Chew Kew Hong and also to our reservoir consultant,
Dr. Mohammed Idress Ali and drilling consultant, Mr. Ahmad Radzi bin Shahari on
their continuous guidance and encouragement throughout the whole project phase. We
truly appreciate their contribution with their respective professionalism throughout the
whole project life.

Lastly, we would hope that this report will provide a clear insight on the Gelama Merah
field development project and hope that the knowledge gained and methods devised will
be applied to ensure the success of the study. We are sincerely grateful for the
opportunity to carry out this meaningful project under UTP.

4
Table of Contents
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL ............................................................................................. 2
CERTIFICATION OF ORIGINALITY ........................................................................................ 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................. 4
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... 11
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 16
1.1 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 16
1.2 Objectives .................................................................................................................... 17
1.3 Scope of Study ............................................................................................................. 18
1.4 Problem Statement ....................................................................................................... 18
CHAPTER 2: PETROLEUM GEOLOGY .................................................................................. 19
2.1 Regional Setting ........................................................................................................... 19
2.2 Depositional Environment ........................................................................................... 21
2.2.1 Gamma Ray Log Evaluation ................................................................................ 21
2.2.2 Deltaic Environment ............................................................................................ 22
2.3 Petroleum System ........................................................................................................ 24
2.3.1 Source rock .......................................................................................................... 24
2.3.2 Accumulation, Migration and Maturation............................................................ 24
2.3.3 Reservoir Rock..................................................................................................... 25
2.3.4 Trap and Seal ....................................................................................................... 25
2.4 Stratigraphy and Correlation ........................................................................................ 25
2.4.1 500m- 1302.5m TVDSS (GM-1) & 1200m-1406.7m TVD (GM-1-ST-1).......... 27
2.4.2 Zone U3.2 (1302.5m - 1324.8m) ......................................................................... 27
2.4.3 Zone U4.0, U5.0, U6.0, U7.0 and U8.0 (1332.3m 1433.5m)........................... 27
2.4.4 Zone U9.0 ............................................................................................................ 27
2.4.5 Zone U9.1 ............................................................................................................ 28
2.4.6 Zone U9.2 ............................................................................................................ 29
2.4.7 Zone U9.3 ............................................................................................................ 29
CHAPTER 3: PETROPHYSICS ................................................................................................. 30
3.1 Petrophysical Parameters ............................................................................................. 30
3.1.1 Volume of Shale (Vsh) .......................................................................................... 31
3.1.2 Total and Effective Porosity ( and ) ............................................................ 32

5
3.1.3 Net To Gross Ratio (NTG)................................................................................... 33
3.1.4 Water Saturation (Sw) ........................................................................................... 33
3.2 Zonal Determination .................................................................................................... 34
3.3 Fluid Contacts .............................................................................................................. 35
CHAPTER 4: VOLUMETRIC CALCULATIONS ................................................................ 37
4.1 Gelama Map/ Scale ...................................................................................................... 37
4.2 Deterministic method ................................................................................................... 38
4.3 Probabilistic Method .................................................................................................... 43
4.4 Volumetric Calculations based on PETREL ................................................................ 46
4.4.1 Digitizing Maps for Gelama Merah-1 .................................................................. 46
4.4.2 STOIIP and GIIP Calculation based on PETREL................................................ 49
CHAPTER 5: RESERVOIR ENGINEERING ....................................................................... 52
5.1 Introduction to Reservoir Engineering ......................................................................... 52
5.2 Reservoir Rock Properties ........................................................................................... 52
5.2.1 Core Plug Data ..................................................................................................... 53
5.2.2 Permeability Porosity Relationship ...................................................................... 55
5.2.3 Capillary Pressure ................................................................................................ 56
5.2.4 Relative Permeability ........................................................................................... 58
5.2.5 Leveretts J-Function ........................................................................................... 62
5.3 Reservoir Fluid Properties (PVT Analysis) ................................................................. 63
5.3.1 Summary of PVT Analysis .................................................................................. 63
5.3.2 Preliminary Quality Check (QC) Test.................................................................. 65
5.3.3 Compositional Analysis ....................................................................................... 66
5.3.4 Constant Compositional Expansion (CCE) Test .................................................. 68
5.3.5 Differential Vaporization (DV) Test .................................................................... 70
5.3.6 Viscosity Test....................................................................................................... 72
5.3.7 Separator Test ...................................................................................................... 73
5.4 Well Test Data ............................................................................................................. 78
5.4.1 Production Test .................................................................................................... 78
5.4.2 Pressure Transient Analysis ................................................................................. 80
5.5 Reservoir Simulation Study ......................................................................................... 82
5.5.1 Objective of Reservoir Simulation Study ............................................................ 82
5.5.2 Model Set Up ....................................................................................................... 83

6
5.5.3 Well Placement .................................................................................................... 83
5.5.4 Base Case ............................................................................................................. 87
5.6 Sensitivity Analysis ..................................................................................................... 89
5.7 Production Profile ........................................................................................................ 94
5.7.1 Field ..................................................................................................................... 94
5.7.2 Individual Wells ................................................................................................... 95
5.8 Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) .................................................................................... 99
5.8.1 EOR Screening..................................................................................................... 99
5.9 Reservoir Management And Surveillance ................................................................. 104
5.9.1 Reservoir Management ...................................................................................... 104
5.9.2 Reservoir Surveillance ....................................................................................... 105
5.9.3 Risk Analysis And Uncertainties ....................................................................... 106
CHAPTER 6: DRILLING ENGINEERING ......................................................................... 107
6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 107
6.1.1 Offset Well Analysis Stick Chart .............................................................................. 107
6.1.2 Well Offset Analysis ................................................................................................. 108
6.2 Rig Selection .................................................................................................................... 110
6.3 Well Trajectory .......................................................................................................... 112
6.4 Drilling Schedule, Program and Cost Estimation ............................................................ 118
6.4.1 Drilling Schedule and Cost Estimation ..................................................................... 118
6.4.2 Drilling Programme and Drilling Schedule .............................................................. 119
6.5. Casing Design ................................................................................................................. 122
6.5.1 Casing Design and Configuration ................................................................................. 122
6.5.2 Casing Setting Depth Determination ............................................................................ 124
6.5.3 Casing Design Criteria .................................................................................................. 128
6.6 Cementing plan .................................................................................................................... 133
6.7 Drill Bit Plan ........................................................................................................................ 135
6.7.1 Bit Classification:.......................................................................................................... 135
6.7.2 Factors Affecting on the Bit Selection .......................................................................... 136
6.8 BHA Configurations ........................................................................................................ 138
6.9 Well Control System ........................................................................................................ 140
6.9.1 Blow Out Preventer Selection ................................................................................... 140
6.9.2 Actuator/SSV (Model 120) ....................................................................................... 140

7
6.9.4 Christmas Tree .......................................................................................................... 141
6.9.3 Wellhead Design ....................................................................................................... 142
6.10 Drilling Hazards ............................................................................................................. 143
6.10.1 Hole Cleaning. ........................................................................................................ 143
6.10.2 Pipe Sticking ........................................................................................................... 143
6.10.3 Shallow Gas ............................................................................................................ 144
6.10.4 Gas Migration Problem ........................................................................................... 144
6.10.5 Existing Seabed Pipeline......................................................................................... 144
6.11 Drilling Optimization ..................................................................................................... 145
6.11.1 Rotary Steerable system .......................................................................................... 145
6.11.2 Casing While Drilling ............................................................................................. 145
CHAPTER 7 : PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................... 147
7.1 Nodal Analysis ................................................................................................................. 147
7.1.1 Inflow Performance Prediction ................................................................................. 147
7.1.2 Outflow Performance Prediction .............................................................................. 150
7.2 Artificial Lift .................................................................................................................... 152
7.2.1 Gas Lift Method Justification ................................................................................... 152
7.2.2 Gas Lift Design ......................................................................................................... 153
7.3 Well Performance ............................................................................................................ 154
7.4 Sand Control .................................................................................................................... 160
7.5 Well Completion Design.................................................................................................. 162
7.6 Perforation Plan ............................................................................................................... 163
7.7 Potential Production Problem .......................................................................................... 163
7.7.1 Wax Deposition ........................................................................................................ 163
7.7.3 Scale Formation ........................................................................................................ 163
7.6.4 Emulsion Formation.................................................................................................. 163
CHAPTER 8: FACILITY DESIGN .......................................................................................... 164
8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 164
8.2 Development Options ................................................................................................ 165
8.3 Process Flow Diagram ............................................................................................... 168
8.4 Operation Facility And Equipment ............................................................................ 169
8.4.1 Main Facilities and Equipments ......................................................................... 169
8.4.2 Production Flowlines, Flow Control and Manifold ........................................... 169

8
8.4.3 Wellhead/X-mas tree.......................................................................................... 169
8.4.4 Gas Metering and Measurement ........................................................................ 169
8.4.5 3-Phase Separator ............................................................................................... 170
8.4.6 Pump .................................................................................................................. 171
8.1.1 Gas compressor .................................................................................................. 173
8.1.2 Water Injection................................................................................................... 175
8.1.3 Gas Handling ..................................................................................................... 175
8.1.4 Gas Lift Surface Facilities.................................................................................. 175
8.2 Utilities....................................................................................................................... 176
8.2.1 Electrical Power and Lighting............................................................................ 176
8.2.2 Drain System ...................................................................................................... 176
8.2.3 Flare Boom/Vent System ................................................................................... 176
8.2.4 Instrument Air System ....................................................................................... 176
8.3 Safety Facilities .......................................................................................................... 177
8.3.1 Safety Shutdown System ................................................................................... 177
8.3.2 Automatic Fire Detection and Alarm Systems ................................................... 177
8.3.3 Life Saving Appliances ...................................................................................... 178
8.3.4 Platform Data and Communication System ....................................................... 178
8.4 Pipeline Design .......................................................................................................... 179
8.4.1 Pipeline design using PIPESIM software .......................................................... 179
8.4.2 Flow Assurance .................................................................................................. 181
8.4.3 Pipeline Route Selection .................................................................................... 181
8.4.4 Geohazard Analysis ........................................................................................... 182
8.4.5 Trenching Requirements .................................................................................... 182
8.4.6 Wax mitigation................................................................................................... 183
8.4.7 Slug Suppression System ................................................................................... 183
8.5 Pipeline Corrosion Management ................................................................................ 184
8.5.1 Corrosion Inhibitor Injection ............................................................................. 184
8.5.2 Corrosion Allowance ......................................................................................... 184
8.5.3 Pipeline Pigging ................................................................................................. 184
8.5.4 Corrosion Monitoring ........................................................................................ 185
8.6 Operation and Maintenance ....................................................................................... 186
8.6.1 Operating Philosophy......................................................................................... 186

9
8.6.2 Maintenance Philosophy .................................................................................... 186
8.7 Facilities Capex, Opex and Decommissiong ............................................................. 187
8.10.1 Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) ........................................................................... 187
8.10.2 Operating Expenditure (OPEX) ......................................................................... 188
8.10.3 Decommissioning Cost ...................................................................................... 189
CHAPTER 9: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS.............................................................................. 190
9.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 190
9.2 Production Sharing Contract and Fiscal Terms ............................................................... 191
9.3 Economic Assumptions ................................................................................................... 191
9.4 Development Options and Scenarios ............................................................................... 193
9.5 Net cash Flow Profile....................................................................................................... 194
9.6 Revenue Split ................................................................................................................... 195
9.7 Conclusion and Recommendations .................................................................................. 195
CHAPTER 10: HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT (HSE) ...................................... 196
10.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 196
10.1.1 HSE Background ........................................................................................................ 196
10.1.2 Objective of HSE .................................................................................................... 197
10.2 HSE Policy ..................................................................................................................... 197
10.2.1 HSE Management System Policy ........................................................................... 197
10.2.2 PETRONAS Carigali Environment Objective Statement Policy ............................ 200
10.2.3 PETRONAS Carigali Drug and Alcohol Policy ..................................................... 200
10.2.4 Stop Work Policy .................................................................................................... 201
10.3 Safety and Risk Management ........................................................................................ 201
10.,3.1 Hazard and Effect Management Process................................................................ 202
10.3.2 HSE Risk Screening Criteria................................................................................... 203
10.4 Sustainable Development in PETRONAS ..................................................................... 204
10.5 Consideration of Sustainable Development in the project ............................................. 205
10.4.1 Reservoir Management ........................................................................................... 205
10.4.2 Drilling and Completion implementation plan ....................................................... 205
10.4.3 Production Technology ........................................................................................... 206
10.4.4 Facilities Engineering and Operations .................................................................... 207
10. 5 Quality Management ..................................................................................................... 207
10.6 Quality Assurance .......................................................................................................... 208

10
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Geochronic Interpretation of Episodic Evolution of South China Sea .......................... 20


Figure 2 Sabah Regional Geology Cross Sections ...................................................................... 20
Figure 3 Shapes of Gamma Ray .................................................................................................. 22
Figure 4 Deltaic Depositional Environment ................................................................................ 23
Figure 5 Correlation between Gelama Merah-1 ST-1 (left) and Gelama Merah-1 (right)........... 26
Figure 6 Pressure Plot for Gelama Merah-1 ................................................................................ 36
Figure 7 Map of GM-1 field ........................................................................................................ 37
Figure 8 Depths vs. area of GM-1 base map................................................................................ 39
Figure 9 Generic View of the Different Contact Gross Bulk Volumes ....................................... 41
Figure 10 Monte Carlo Simulation for Gas Case ......................................................................... 44
Figure 11 Monte Carlo Simulation for Oil Case .......................................................................... 44
Figure 12 3D View of Polygons Developed for Maps U3.2 to U9.2 ........................................... 46
Figure 13 3D View of Surfaces for Maps U3.2 to U9.2 .............................................................. 47
Figure 14 3D View of the Skeleton for Maps U3.2 to 9.2 ........................................................... 47
Figure 15 3D View of the Porosity Model ................................................................................... 48
Figure 16 3D View of the Water Saturation Model ..................................................................... 48
Figure 17 3D View of the Net-to-Gross Model ........................................................................... 48
Figure 18 3D View of the GOC and WOC .................................................................................. 49
Figure 19 Permeability-Porosity Relationship ............................................................................. 55
Figure 20 Pc vs. Sw for Sample 1-017......................................................................................... 57
Figure 21 Pc vs. Sw for Sample 2-010......................................................................................... 57
Figure 22 Pc vs. Sw for Sample 5-002......................................................................................... 58
Figure 23 Unsteady State Gas-Oil Relative Permeability ............................................................ 60
Figure 24 Unsteady State Water-Oil Relative Permeability ........................................................ 61
Figure 25 J Function .................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 26 Spike Flash Apparatus ................................................................................................. 67
Figure 27 Relative Volume vs Pressure Graph ............................................................................ 69
Figure 28 Graph of GOR vs Pressure for GM-1 .......................................................................... 71
Figure 29 Oil Formation Volume Factor (Boil) vs Pressure for GM-1 ....................................... 72
Figure 30 Oil Viscosity of GM-1 at 155 F ................................................................................. 73
Figure 31 Diagnostic Derivatives ................................................................................................ 81
Figure 32 Gelama Merah Field .................................................................................................... 83
Figure 33 Gas-Oil Contact (GOC) and Water-Oil Contact (WOC) ............................................. 83
Figure 34 PERMX Distribution ................................................................................................... 84
Figure 35 PERMY Distribution ................................................................................................... 84
Figure 36 PERMZ Distribution ................................................................................................... 85
Figure 37 Porosity Distribution ................................................................................................... 85
Figure 38 Water Saturation Distribution ...................................................................................... 85

11
Figure 39 Creaming Curve........................................................................................................... 87
Figure 40 Base Case Cumulative Production and Oil Rate ......................................................... 88
Figure 41 Cumulative Production and Flow Rate for BHP and Q Control ................................. 89
Figure 42 Production Control Higher than 800 m3 Analysis ...................................................... 90
Figure 43 Injector and Producer Wells Layout Pattern ................................................................ 91
Figure 44 Oil Recovery Factor for Different Injection ................................................................ 91
Figure 45 Injectors Optimization ................................................................................................ 92
Figure 46 Field Average Pressure Before and After Water Injection .......................................... 92
Figure 47 Field Production Water, Gas & Injection Water Rates ................................................ 94
Figure 48 Field Oil Rate and Water Cut ...................................................................................... 94
Figure 49 1P Flow Performance .................................................................................................. 95
Figure 50 2P Flow Performance .................................................................................................. 95
Figure 51 3P Flow Performance .................................................................................................. 95
Figure 52 4P Flow Performance .................................................................................................. 96
Figure 53 5P Flow Performance .................................................................................................. 96
Figure 54 6P Flow Performance .................................................................................................. 96
Figure 55 7P Flow Performance .................................................................................................. 97
Figure 56 8P Flow Performance .................................................................................................. 97
Figure 57 GOR for the 8 Producer Wells .................................................................................... 97
Figure 58 The Illustration of WAG Injection. ........................................................................... 103
Figure 59 The illustration of CO2 flooding. .............................................................................. 103
Figure 60 Offset Well Trajectory ............................................................................................... 107
Figure 61 Well Analysis Stick Chart ......................................................................................... 108
Figure 62 Top View of the Targets and The Platform Location ................................................ 113
Figure 64 GM B Trajectory ....................................................................................................... 114
Figure 63 GM A Trajectory ....................................................................................................... 114
Figure 66 GM C Trajectory ....................................................................................................... 115
Figure 65 GM D Trajectory ....................................................................................................... 115
Figure 67 GM E Trajectory........................................................................................................ 116
Figure 68 GM F Trajectory ........................................................................................................ 116
Figure 69 GM G Trajectory Figure 70 GM G Trajectory ..................................................... 117
Figure 71 Well Progress Chart ................................................................................................... 120
Figure 72 Drilling Schedule ....................................................................................................... 121
Figure 73 General Casing Design .............................................................................................. 122
Figure 74 Mud Window of Gelama Merah well ........................................................................ 126
Figure 75 Setting Depth for Casing Design ............................................................................... 127
Figure 76 Summary of Casing Setting Depth Selection Criteria ............................................... 128
Figure 77 Imposition Condition Collapse .................................................................................. 129
Figure 78 Position Illustration Burst On Casing ........................................................................ 131
Figure 79 Insert Bit Figure 80 Mill Tooth Bit ...................................................................... 136
Figure 81 PDC Bit Figure 82 Diamond Bit .......................................................................... 136
Figure 83 BHA Configuration Strings ....................................................................................... 139
Figure 84 Actuator/ SSV Model 120 ......................................................................................... 141
Figure 85 llustration of well Head and Christmas Tree ........................................................... 142

12
Figure 86 Common Type of Wellhead Assembly...................................................................... 142
Figure 87 Rotary Steerable System ............................................................................................ 145
Figure 88 Arrangement of casing while drilling ........................................................................ 146
Figure 89 Location of Gelama Merah field and Labuan Crude Oil Terminal (LCOT) ............. 166
Figure 90 Hoist Tie-ins to Existing Platform ............................................................................. 167
Figure 91 Size of the 3-Phase Vertical Separator ...................................................................... 171
Figure 92 Pump System Diagram .............................................................................................. 172
Figure 93 Schematic Diagram of a Two Stage Compressor ...................................................... 174
Figure 94 PIPESIM Result for Gas Pipeline .............................................................................. 179
Figure 95 PIPESIM result for Oil Pipeline ................................................................................ 180
Figure 96 Net Cash Flow and Cumulative Cash Flow............................................................... 194
Figure 97 HSEMS Approach Sequences ................................................................................... 198
Figure 98 HSEMS Standard Manual ......................................................................................... 199
Figure 99 Environment Objective Statement Policy.................................................................. 200
Figure 100 Hazard and effect management process .................................................................. 202

13
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Top and base sand Unit of Gelama Merah-1 and Gelama Merah-1 ST-1 ...................... 25
Table 2 Key Points Extracted off from Wireline Logging Data .................................................. 35
Table 3 Fluid gradients based on pressure plot of Gelama Merah-1 ........................................... 36
Table 4 Calculated Areas for Respective Contour Lines in GM-1 .............................................. 38
Table 5 Gross Bulk Volume Estimated Using Trapezoidal Rule ................................................ 40
Table 6 GBV of oil and gas base on 1P, 2P and 3P ..................................................................... 41
Table 7 Range of respective parameters involved in probabilistic method for gas case.............. 43
Table 8 Range of respective parameters involved probabilistic method for oil case ................... 43
Table 9 Results Based on P10, P50 and P90 for Each Simulation .............................................. 45
Table 10 Defined Maximum and Minimum Value for Water Saturation .................................... 49
Table 11 Defined Maximum and Minimum Values for Porosity ................................................ 50
Table 12 Defined Values for Net to Gross ................................................................................... 50
Table 13 Summary of Gross Volume, STOIIP and GIIP for Each Zones ................................... 51
Table 14 Core Samples for Relative Permeability Test ............................................................... 59
Table 15 Wettability of reservoir ................................................................................................. 60
Table 16 Result for Quality Check (QC) Test of GM-1 .............................................................. 65
Table 17 Compositional Analysis of Separator Oil, Separator Gas Samples and Calculated Well
Stream Composition..................................................................................................................... 66
Table 18 Compositional Analysis of Separator Oil, Separator Gas Samples and Calculated Well
Stream Composition (Bubble Point Adjusted to 2116psia) ......................................................... 68
Table 19 Result of CCE Test on the Fluid Sample ...................................................................... 69
Table 20 GM-1 Differential Vaporisation (DV) Test at 155 F................................................... 71
Table 21 GM-1 Oil and Gas Viscosity at 155 F ......................................................................... 73
Table 22 GM-1 Single-Stage Separator Flash Analysis for Case 1 ............................................. 74
Table 23 Composition of liberated gas collected for Case 1 ....................................................... 74
Table 24 Composition of residual oil for Case 1 ......................................................................... 75
Table 25 GM-1 Single-Stage Separator Flash Analysis for Case 2 ............................................. 75
Table 26 Composition of Liberated Gas Collected for Case 2 .................................................... 76
Table 27 Composition of Residual Oil for Case 2 ....................................................................... 76
Table 28 GM-1 Single-Stage Separator Flash Analysis for Case 3 ............................................. 77
Table 29 Composition of Liberated Gas Collected for Case 3 .................................................... 77
Table 30 Composition of Residual Oil for Case 3 ....................................................................... 78
Table 31 Analyzed Reservoir Interval ......................................................................................... 78
Table 32 Well Test Results Summary.......................................................................................... 80
Table 33 Input Data Summary for DST#1 ................................................................................... 80
Table 34 Summary of Pressure Transient Test ............................................................................ 81
Table 35 Description of Each Flow Regime ................................................................................ 82
Table 36 Producer Well Optimization ......................................................................................... 86
Table 37 Input Data for Base Case Model ................................................................................... 88
Table 38 Base Case Simulation Results ....................................................................................... 88
Table 39 Gelama Merah Hydrocarbons Cumulative Production in 20 Years Production ........... 93

14
Table 40 Reservoir and Fluid Properties of Gelama Merah ........................................................ 99
Table 41 Summary of screening criteria for EOR method ........................................................ 101
Table 42 Reservoir Surveillance ................................................................................................ 105
Table 43 Gelama Merah 1 and Gelama Merah ST-1 Well Analysis ......................................... 109
Table 44 Rig Types and Rates ................................................................................................... 110
Table 45 Name of Well and Targets Location based on Northing and Easting ......................... 112
Table 46 Drilling Schedule and Cost Estimation ....................................................................... 118
Table 47 Drilling Programme .................................................................................................... 119
Table 48 Typical Well Casing Design and Function ................................................................. 123
Table 49 Offset Wellpressure Profile of Gelama Merah ........................................................... 125
Table 50 Constants Joint Strength ............................................................................................. 131
Table 51 Design Factor for Casing Stress Check ...................................................................... 132
Table 52 Casing Specification and Load (Casing Stress Check) based on API Grade .............. 133
Table 53 Cementing Plan ........................................................................................................... 134
Table 54 Bit Selection Criteria................................................................................................... 138
Table 55 Single Ram BOP Specification ................................................................................... 140
Table 56 : Gelama Merah Test Data .......................................................................................... 147
Table 57 Reservoir AOF Respective to Pressure ....................................................................... 148
Table 58 Inflow Performance at Different Water Cut ............................................................... 149
Table 59 Tubing Performance with Increasing Water Cut ........................................................ 150
Table 60 Tubing Performance at Different Gas Oil Ratio ......................................................... 150
Table 61 Tubing Performance with Declining Pressure ............................................................ 151
Table 62 Tubing Performance at Different Wellhead Pressure ................................................. 151
Table 63 Gas Lift Design Properties .......................................................................................... 153
Table 64 Gas Lift Valves Setting Depth .................................................................................... 153
Table 65 Nodal Analysis Summary ........................................................................................... 154
Table 66 Tubing Performance at Max Oil / Water / Gas Production......................................... 159
Table 67 Gravel Pack and Slotted Liner Comparison ................................................................ 160
Table 68 Sand Control AOF ...................................................................................................... 161
Table 69 Well Completion ......................................................................................................... 162
Table 70 Reservoir Fluid Properties of Gelama Merah Field .................................................... 164
Table 71 Cumulative production profile of Gelama Merah field .............................................. 165
Table 72 Separator Sizing Results ............................................................................................. 170
Table 73 Comparison of Various Pump Capacities ................................................................... 172
Table 74 No. of Compression Stage Required for each Compression Ratio ............................. 174
Table 75 Capital Expenditure of the Gelama Merah CPP ......................................................... 187
Table 76 Estimated OPEX for Gelama Merah field .................................................................. 188
Table 77 Estimated Decommissioning Cost for a Jacket Platform ............................................ 189
Table 78 Fiscal Terms ................................................................................................................ 191
Table 79 Economic Assumptions .............................................................................................. 192
Table 80 Gelama Merah Assumptions ....................................................................................... 192
Table 81 Well Control Scenarios for Gelama Merah................................................................. 193
Table 82 Injection Scenario for Gelama Merah ......................................................................... 193
Table 83 Revenue Split .............................................................................................................. 195

15
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Executive Summary

The Field Development Project aims to carry out a technical and economic study
of the field in the context of latest technology, economics, environmental and politics
conditions. In this project, Gelama Merah field is chosen for students to perform
detailed development of the field by incorporating all skills gained from core modules.
Gelama Merah field is located at Offshore Sabah basin, Malaysia. A vertical exploration
well, Gelama Merah-1 (GM-1) was drilled for the purpose of evaluating the formation
followed by Gelama Merah ST-1 (GM-ST1) in order to correlate the field data between
2 wells. Several wireline logging tools are carried out and the log data are collected and
analyzed from depth 1300m to 1600m for the lithology description of the field and to
determine the volume pay zone.

The Gelama Merah field was separated into 9 layers, from units U3.2 to U9.2.
The lithological description of the layers were identified to be as shale in majority and
interbedded with sandstone judging by the gamma ray logs obtain. The petro physical
properties such as volume of shale, total porosity and effective porosity of each unit
layer were calculated by analyzing the log data together with applying suitable
mathematical equations. The Net to Gross (NTG) of the Gelama Merah field is 71.33%.
Water saturation were calculated using Archies equation and Indonesian equation for
total water saturation which is 70.55%. The fluid contacts of the reservoir are then
estimated from the log data. The pay zone which is between Gas Oil Contact (GOC)
and Water Oil Contact (WOC) is estimated to be at 1496ft and 1540ft base on the log
data analyzed.

After estimating the area of the reservoir layers with the use of planimeter, a
graph of Depth vs Area is plotted and the Gross Bulk Volume (GBV) of oil and gas are
calculated. After that, both deterministic and probabilistic methods are applied for
hydrocarbon volumetric calculation. Deterministic method shows that the average Stock
Tank Oil Initially in Place (STOIIP) is 393.681 MMSTB and Gas Initially in Place
(GIIP) is 246.840 BSCF. Probabilistic method shows that STOIIP is 390MMSTB and

16
GIIP is 212.87BSCF. Lastly, volumetric calculation from PETREL software shows that
the STOIIP and GIIP for the reservoir model to be 452.866MMSTB and 179.61BSCF.

1.2 Objectives

Field Development Project (FDP) aims to produce a sustainable field


development plan for Gelama Merah field base on real-time economic condition and
develop a dynamic model by using PETREL software. After that, plan and introducing
a feasible field development strategy to recover the reserves effectively. This helps to
estimate the potential recoverable reserves of the field and the economic return to in the
end, come out with a sustainable field development plan. To achieve the aim of the
project, the following objectives are defined:

1. To understand the historical information and lithology description of Gelama Merah


field.
2. To analyze the field, well test and PVT data with the help of MBAL and ECLIPSE
software.
3. To produce an economic oil recovery plan base on the current economic condition.
4. To perform detail analysis on the log data and report provided and give a precise
estimation on the fluid level contact.
5. To apply suitable equation and precise calculation on the petro physical properties of
the reservoir.
6. To compare the volumetric results calculated from deterministic method,
probabilistic method and PETREL software.

17
1.3 Scope of Study

This project focus on studying the lithology and petro physical properties of
Gelama Merah field to further estimate the Oil Initially in Place (OIIP) and Gas Initially
in Place (GIIP) with manual calculation. The geological data obtain from the whole
course of exploration are studied to identify the fluid level contact and further estimate
the hydrocarbon volume of the pay zone. For a better understanding of the volumetric
calculation, deterministic and probabilistic method of estimating the OIIP and GIIP is
studied. The exploration report of Gelama Merah field is analyzed to gather detail
information regarding the field. It requires the basic understanding of reservoir
modelling and well test analysis as well.

1.4 Problem Statement

Field development requires a huge amount of cost regarding CAPEX and OPEX.
Many risks and uncertainties exists in developing a field which are unable to be
identified without having a proper assessment such as well test analysis. The
commercial hydrocarbon volume were undetectable and the economic return of the
project is unclear. Without a proper field development plan, a company would have
suffer from a great loss in terms of economic aspect. A better understanding of a field
before development is crucial to eliminate the risk and uncertainties which could
increase the development cost significantly. Hence, a detail information of a field is
required before any development to come out with a field development plan which
comprise the most advocated technical solution for field optimization.

18
CHAPTER 2: PETROLEUM GEOLOGY

2.1 Regional Setting

Gelama Merah Filed is located within Blok SB 18-12 in the offshore Sabah
basin. The field lies in West Labuan-Paisley syncline and portrayed by a North-South
development Morris Fault which is the major of tectonic significance. The area wrench
fault was interpreted by Tan and Lamy (1990) which indicated the transition from the
Inboard and Outboard Belts. It had illustrated a high structural complexity, ascertain the
mechanism of the interpreted wrench along the fault. The field is located about 43 km
from Labuan and 130 km from Kota Kinabalu. The field lies between an average water
depth of 50 m. The primary targeted reservoir of the field characterized by coarsening
upwards interbedded sand shale. The field is located at coordinate locations as such:

Latitude: 053349.98 N
Longitude: 1145906.34 E

The offshore Sabah Basin has undergone a complex Paleogene regional setting,
which consist of Oligocene-Neogene sedimentary rocks. Neogene sedimentary rocks at
the circular basin Sabah from fluvio-deltaic facies to shallow marine deformed into sub-
circular to elliptical shaped, fault bonded areas. It is also located nearby the Sempora-
Sulu Arc, the region of volcanic activity between Miocene and Quaternary age in the
Semporna Peninsulas. The basin also close to the Rajang-Croker accretionary prism that
has Eocene-Oligocene Sediments that consisted by arcuate belt.

Based on the cross section data, a small erosion emersion can be observed and it
is believed to be the result of the movement of Morris fault passed by landslide near the
thrown block. Basement is presented by wrench-related structures in the deltaic
overburden including en-echeon faults alignments, basically followed by reverse fault
throws and dip reversals along individual faults (Tan & Lamy, 1990).

19
Figure 1 Geochronic Interpretation of Episodic Evolution of South China Sea

Figure 2 Sabah Regional Geology Cross Sections

20
2.2 Depositional Environment

It is crucial to determine the depositional environment of the zone of interest


prior to generate the static model. The significance of the depositional environment is to
determine the geo-properties of the reservoir, such as porosity and permeability
distribution. Normally, there are three types of the depositional environment which is
continental, transitional and marine environment identified based on lithofacies.
Depositional environments are able to be identified by the characterization of
depositional system that has different lithofacies. The depositional of Gelama Merah
Field is mostly dominated by the deltaic environment in which gamma ray curve
indicates the depositional environments respond in terms of coarsening and fining grain
size. A less significant dissimilarity in sorting and grain size was identified in the sand
body within the unit of interest.

2.2.1 Gamma Ray Log Evaluation

Gamma Ray (GR) log is one of the generic methods to determine the lithofacies
by analyzing the shape of the log. There are three different types of Gamma Ray trends
(see figure 1) which is Cylindrical GR log, funnel shaped log, and bell shaped log.
Basically, Gamma Ray curve indicates the depositional environment respond in terms of
coarsening and fining grain size. Upward coarsening in the gamma ray log readings
shows the presence of sandstone formation which is mostly formed at deltaic
depositional environment while fining up indicates the presence of shaly sand.

From the analysis, the depositional environments that suit such conditions is
dominated bu deltaic depositional environment which less change in the grain size and
sorting has been observed from the sand body contained in the hydrocarbon formation
and the shape of gama ray log itself is dominated by coarsening upward trend (funnel
shape log).

21
Figure 3 Shapes of Gamma Ray

2.2.2 Deltaic Environment

Deltaic environment connecting the marine environment and continental


environment due to the formation itself where deposit subaerial built by a river are
suspend by freshwater as they move across the denser surface of the seawater forming a
fluvial structure. Deltaic depositional environment can be classified into progression and
transgression depositional environment.

1. Progression delta exhibits a transition from mouth bar (prodelta offshore


muds through silty to sandy) deposits with upward-coarsening the latter stage
deposits with small-scale cross stratification and overlay by:
- Distributary and tidal channel deposits with respective larger and smaller
scale sedimentary structure.
- Subaqueous levees grading upwards into interdistributary sediment
2. Transgression occur upon delta-lobe switching, leading to:
- Intense wave reworking of mouth bar and beach ridge sand into barrier island
- Increasing salinity and eventual drowning up the delta plain
- Drowning of barrier island leading to offshore sand shoals

22
Figure 4 Deltaic Depositional Environment

To come out with an efficient method for extraction of hydrocarbons, engineers need to
visualize the reservoir in 3 dimension space. These conceptual models of reservoirs are needed
by the engineers as a guide for them in decision making process that would come afterward such
as forecasting the future amount of hydrocarbon production.

However, most engineering measurement made onto the reservoir is insignificant in


some cases due to the lack of information that can be analyzed regarding the spatial information.
As for example, the core sample that are retrieved from the reservoir can only give information
regarding the types of rock existed at the respective layer, rock permeability and porosity. All of
the information retrieved is in the form of 1 Dimensional. There are no information on the
dimensional, wireline logs, production data and pressure data which are volumetric spatial
information.

Thus Geologic information on the other hand needs to be included in other to build the
3D concept of the reservoir. Geologic information will provide the spatial information that can
be used in order to improve the 3D conceptual model made by the engineers as a guide for them
to make any engineering decisions regarding the reservoir.

The most important geologic information need to be understood is the petroleum system
of the reservoir.

23
2.3 Petroleum System

According to Demaison and Huizinga (1991, 1994), petroleum system, is a dynamic,


petroleum generating and concentrating physico-chemical system, functioning in a geologic
space and time scale.

It gave information regarding the effectiveness of the sources rock from its ability to
generate hydrocarbon, the drainage style or migration process of the hydrocarbon from source
into the reservoir rock and the structural and stratigraphy of the system in entrapping the
hydrocarbon upon maturation.

Petroleum System encompassed of essential elements and processes that must exist and
take place inside the petroleum in order for the formation of hydrocarbon to take place. The
essential elements for any petroleum system are ,it must to contain source rock, reservoir rock,
seal rock and overburden rock while the process that must happen inside petroleum system are
generation of hydrocarbon, migration, and accumulation of hydrocarbons and trap formation.

2.3.1 Source rock

The estimated hydrocarbon found in Sabah Basin is predicted its origins from the very
similar source rock which are rich with terrigenious organic matters. According to Mazlan,
Leong and Azlina (1999), there is a widespread of erosion of NW Sabah margin happened
during the Middle Miocene. The erosion then lead to the build-up of Stage IV siliciclastic
wedge forming the deposition of source beds that reach terrigenous organic matter
interbedded with sand prone reservoir facies.

2.3.2 Accumulation, Migration and Maturation

The hydrocarbon accumulation occur at Gelama Merah field is assumed to happen during
the Neogene period and in between Miocene-Pliocene epoch. The major method for
migration is probably happen along the faults of the unconformity layers due to the erosion.
Some migrations also are presumed happened through the sedimentary facies especially in
the formation with the up dip direction. For maturation period, it is assumed to be happened
starting from the middle of Miocene and up until present.

24
2.3.3 Reservoir Rock

The reservoir rock formation for Gelama Merah Field is predominantly sandstone with an
interbedded of claystone formation. Based on the well log data from the reading of Gamma Ray
log, the hydrocarbon reservoir can be found starting at the depth of 1320m until 1520m.

2.3.4 Trap and Seal

The formation for Gelama Merah Field can be characterizes with an anticlinal feature from the
growth faulting behavior and anticlinal features associated with tectonic plates. Gelama Merah
field also have features of deltaic growth related to the tectonics.

2.4 Stratigraphy and Correlation

From the wireline logging data retrieved from Gelama Merah-1 well, the well data can
be summarized into few section known as zone. Those Zones are labelled as Zone U3.2, U4.0,
U.5.0, U6.0, U7.0, U8.0, U9.0, U9.1, U9.2, U9.3 and U10.

Unit Gelama Merah - 1 Gelama Merah- ST-1

Top TVDSS (m) Base TVDSS (m) TOP TVDSS (m) Base TVDSS (m)
U3.2 1302.5 1324.8
U4.0 1332.3 1344.3
U5.0 1346.3 1353.6
U6.0 1362.2 1370.6
U7.0 1375.3 1402.7
U8.0 1405.8 1433.5
U9.0 1436.4 1484.6 1406.7 1414.1
U9.1 1493.4 1505.5 1416.7 1444.1
U9.2 1519.4 1571.7 1446.7 1508.3
U9.3 1510.1 1538.9

Table 1 Top and base sand Unit of Gelama Merah-1 and Gelama Merah-1 ST-1

25
Figure 5 Correlation between Gelama Merah-1 ST-1 (left) and Gelama Merah-1 (right)

26
2.4.1 500m- 1302.5m TVDSS (GM-1) & 1200m-1406.7m TVD (GM-1-ST-1)

The Gamma Ray graph show a very high value of reading with a range from 90
until 150 API indicating the formation are occupied by shale which known by its high
radioactive value. The formation is mostly covered by layers of shale and some very thin
layer of sandstone. For the resistivity log reading, it shows a very low reading thus
indicate that this zone contain salty water zone with no sign of hydrocarbon. Formations
with low porosity were also observed indicating the shale formation with poor porosity
value.

2.4.2 Zone U3.2 (1302.5m - 1324.8m)

At a depth of 1302m, the gamma ray logs have suddenly show a drop in reading
indicating the present of sandstone formation. The sandstone formations are interbedded
with claystone. The resistivity log also show a sudden increase in reading value indicate
the existence of hydrocarbon in the formation. While for neutron porosity log, a
butterfly effect or crossover between both log readings are observed indicating the
presence of gas in the zone formation.

2.4.3 Zone U4.0, U5.0, U6.0, U7.0 and U8.0 (1332.3m 1433.5m)

The range for the gamma ray show an average value of 60 to 120 API from U4.0
until U6.0 indicating a formation of sandstone interbedded with claystone. The same
trend can also be observed with formation from zone U7.0 up to U8.0. The resistivity
value is still high show the presence of hydrocarbon. Gas Zone is detected by the
reading.

2.4.4 Zone U9.0

GM-1 (1436.4m 1484.6m)

The gamma rays show decrease in value indicating the present of less radioactive
sandstone. The sudden increase of the gamma rays reading observed there is an
interbedding of shale in the sandstone as the dominant layer. The resistivity reading

27
shows that this formation are occupied with a mostly sandstone with a high porosity
value. The Gas Oil Contact (GOC) are assumed to be located within this zone.

GM-1-ST-1 (1406.7m 1414.1m)

For GM-1 ST, the readings are starts to taken at the depth of 1406m labelled as
zone U9.0. From the reading, it can be observed that the readings for gamma ray are low
indicating the presence of sandstone formation with layers of interbedded claystone. For
resistivity log, high resistivity level are recorded indicating the zone contain
hydrocarbon. This assumption then is supported by the butterfly effect that can be
observed from the reading of density log and neutron log reading. This zone is
containing gas.

2.4.5 Zone U9.1

GM-1 (1493.1m - 1505.5m)

Sandstone layers are recorded due to the low reading observed from gamma rays
logs. Thin Claystone layers are also found interbedded within the sandstone layer.
Resistivity log show the high reading at the upper part of the zone then show a decrease
in the reading when it goes deeper. The increase in the resistivity level indicate that the
zone have started to contain water. Assumption can be made that the log have reach the
Oil Water Contact level (OWC).

GM-1 ST-1 (1416.1m - 1444.11m)

Sandstone formation is detected interbedded with claystone. High resistivity


recorded indicated the presence of hydrocarbon. High porosity value recorded with low
density indicates the formation is filled with gas.

28
2.4.6 Zone U9.2

GM-1 (1519.4m- 1571.7m)

Low reading observed from gamma rays log, indicating the existence of
sandstone formation with interbedded with thin claystone layers. Low resistivity value
recorded indicates the existence of water in the zone. Water zone have been reached.

GM-1 ST-1 (1446.1m - 1508.3m)

Gamma rays reading are low indicating the formations are made up from
sandstone interbedded with claystone. Resistivity log give high value indicating the
presence of gas. The resistivity level then show a decrease in trend starting from the
depth 1470m TVDD indicating the water zone has been reached. Neutron and porosity
log then show no gas exists in the zone.

2.4.7 Zone U9.3

GM-1 ST1 (1510.1m 1538.88m)

Low Gamma rays reading are recorded indicating the formation of sandstone. The
resistivity readings were also decrease due to the presence of water. Neutron porosity
log and density log have confirmed that Free Water Level have already being reached
with 100% water composition. The zone for water aquifer has been reached.

29
CHAPTER 3: PETROPHYSICS

3.1 Petrophysical Parameters

The study involved in Petrophysics part is mainly emphasizing on the physical


and chemical properties of the porous media system and the flow and distribution of the
fluids contained in the media. From the study of these properties, few relationships can
be developed and then used to analyze and evaluate hydrocarbon reservoir and sources.
In general, the main discussion in Chapter 3 will be on the process of evaluating the
required Petrophysical parameters to evaluate the total hydrocarbon volume, which
involving Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place

(
ST
OII
P) and Gas Initially In Place (GIIP) for Gelama Merah-1 well. The formula for
calculating STOIIP and GIIP are shown below:

The petrophysical parameters needed to determine both STOIIP and GIIP are (A)
Area of hydrocarbon, (h) Height of Payzone, () Porosity and (SW) Water Saturation.
These specified parameters can be acquired through the interpretation of the GM-1
wireline logging data provided which is the Gamma Ray (GR), Resistivity (Rdeep),
Neutron (NEUT) and Density (RhoB) reading. The wireline logging data set gives the
detailed records of the geologic formation which then can be used to calculate required
parameters such as volume of shale (Vsh), net-to-gross ratio (NTG), both total and
effective porosity (t & eff) and saturation of water (Sw). By giving a continuous
record of rock formation properties, the set of logging data also helps to determining and
differentiating the water and hydrocarbon zone of Gelama Merah well.

30
3.1.1 Volume of Shale (Vsh)

Volume of Shale is required in order to determine the total porosity of the porous
media. The volume of shale for each depth can be determine by analyzing the Gamma
Ray (GR) Log data of Gelama Merah well. Gamma Ray (GR) log are used due to its
characteristic that enable one to differentiate potential productive sand intervals from
probable unproductive shale interval by measuring the intensity of the gamma ray
radiated from the formation. Shale which containing more radioactive minerals will
emits higher gamma ray reading instead of clean formation like sandstones, thus this
measurement is used to identify shale beds and measure shale volume. The formula used
to determine Shale Volume (Vsh) or Gamma Ray Index (IGR) is shown below.

GRlog = Gamma Ray reading at depth of interest

GRmin = Minimum Gamma Ray reading (Clean formation)

GRmax = Maximum Gamma Ray reading (Shale)

After reviewing the Gamma Ray log data for Gelama Merah-1, it is concluded
that the highest GR reading (Sand line) recorded is 104 API while the lowest reading
(Shale line) recorded is 45 API. After determining the maximum and minimum value,
the Gamma Ray Index for each depth is calculated and tabulated accordingly. The
threshold line which differentiating clean formation and shale formation is set to 0.5,
which is 50% of the total sum of the maximum and minimum reading. This threshold
line (74.5 API) helps in locating the reservoir zone that is needed in determining the
required petrophysical parameters.
31
3.1.2 Total and Effective Porosity ( and )

Another essential parameters needed in determining the hydrocarbon volume is


the porosity. The value of the total porosity can be determine by referring to the porosity
logs which is Neutron log (NEUT) and Density log (RHoB). Both logs which is widely
used in measuring porosity of a formation, provides a reliable source of porosity data
especially in a complex formation. Density logging is another type of gamma ray
application for formation evaluation that emits gamma ray into a formation and detect
those that are scattered back. The model for density porosity can be interpreted as:

Where,
= Density matrix
= Bulk Density
Water zone: = =(1.1 gm/cc)
Hydrocarbon zone: =0.9 L, =0.74 = Fluid Density

The function of the Neutron log to the porosity calculation is by measuring the
hydrogen concentration inside a porous formation. The total porosity is measured by
considering both neutron and density porosity into the calculation as given:

2 + 2
=
2

Where,

= Total Porosity / Neutron-Density Porosity

= Density Porosity

= Neutron Porosity

32
Determination of the Effective porosity is achieve by using the formula given:

= ( )

3.1.3 Net To Gross Ratio (NTG)

The Net To Gross is the ratio of the total amount of the sand zone divided by
the total thickness of the reservoir internal. Generally, it is the ratio of the net sand
thickness to the gross overall thickness. The goal of the net to gross calculations is to
eliminate nonproductive rock intervals.

3.1.4 Water Saturation (Sw)

Sw is defined as the volume fraction of pore space occupied by water. To this


date, the determination of Sw is the most challenging of petrophysical calculations. The
challenges and complexities arise because there are numerous methods, equations,
approaches that published in the literature. Resistivity log data is used for the calculation
of water saturation and zonal determination in differentiating oil, gas and water zone.
Since gas and oil are not as conductive as water, zones with high magnitude of
resistivity reflect that those zones potentially contain gas or oil. On the other hand, zones
containing water will always give low readings of resistivity log. Gelama Merah-1 is a
shaly sand reservoir where the usage of Archie equation for Water Saturation calculation
will be exaggerated and may lead to potentially hydrocarbon bearing zone being missed.
The equation used for Water Saturation calculation is the Indonesian model equation:

33

=
( )

+

Where,

= Volume of Shale

= Resistivity of Shale formation

= Effective Porosity

= Resistivity of formation water at formation temperature

= Resistivity of the formation (log data)

The Water saturation value for each depth is calculated and tabulated accordingly.

3.2 Zonal Determination

Zonal determination is primarily done using wireline logging data especially the
Gamma Ray log. This is because it gives the first screening in separating reservoir and
non-reservoir sections within the well. High gamma ray indicates potential shale
formation while low gamma ray indicates possible sand area.

In the case of Gelama Merah-1, the cut-off volume of shale (Vsh) is set to be
50% where any GR reading more than 74.5 API is considered to be non-reservoir.
Density (RhoB) log and Neutron (NEUT) log are used to complement the zonation made
based on the GR log by confirming whether or not within the zone lies hydrocarbon or
water.

For example, from the depth of 1300 m to 1410 m, there are four zones based on
the cut-off Vsh from the GR log. Based on the RhoB log and NEUT log, the logs

34
crossed each other forming butterfly effect where density curve goes to the left and
neutron curve goes to right. Therefore, this confirms that gas existed within the zones.

3.3 Fluid Contacts

The fluid contacts can be determined using a few methods. One of the many
methods is by using the wireline logging data namely Density Log (RhoB), Neutron Log
(NEUT) and Resistivity Log. Gas-Oil Contact (GOC) can be identified at the end of the
crossover between the RhoB and NEUT log curves which is also known as the butterfly
effect. Water-Oil Contact (WOC) is identified using Resistivity logs as oil will have
higher resistivity as compared to water.

Key Point Depth, MD-RKB (m) Depth, MD-SS (m)


Gas Up Tool (GUT) 1330 1302.7
Key Point Depth, MD-RKB (m) Depth, MD-SS (m)
Low Proof Gas (LPG) 1494 1466.7
Gas-Oil Contact (GOC) 1496 1468.7
High Proven Oil (HPO) 1498 1470.7
Low Proven Oil (LPO) 1530 1502.7
Water-Oil Contact (WOC) 1540 1512.7
Free Water Level (FWL) 1548 1520.7
Table 2 Key Points Extracted off from Wireline Logging Data
Where MD-SS (m) = MD-RKB (m) 27.3

Gas-Oil Contact (GOC) and Water-Oil Contact (WOC) obtained from the
wireline logging data as described above can be further confirmed using Gelama Merah-
1s Modular Formation Dynamic Test (MDT) data provided. From MDT data, a plot on
Depth/TVD-RKB (m) vs Formation Pressure (psia) is done. The contacts are identified
through the change of the straight lines slope. Figure -- shows the pressure plot of
Gelama Merah-1 based on MDT data.
35
Figure 6 Pressure Plot for Gelama Merah-1

Based on the pressure plot, it is confirmed that OWC is at 1494.51m TVD-RKB


while WOC is at 1535.09 m TVD-RKB. Besides that, since there are three slopes of
different straight lines existed in the pressure plot, it can be concluded that there are
three different fluids exist in the reservoir namely gas, oil and water. The gradient
(psi/ft) of each fluid type is shown in the table below.

Type of Fluid Slope of Line (m/psi) Fluid Gradient (psi/ft)


Gas 6.3705 0.0478
Oil 0.8571 0.3556
Water 0.7052 0.4322
Table 3 Fluid gradients based on pressure plot of Gelama Merah-1

36
CHAPTER 4: VOLUMETRIC CALCULATIONS

This chapter provides a general over view of the Gelama Merah-1 (GM-1) map
as well as the volumetric estimation of the Stock Tank Oil Initially In place (STOIIP)
and the Gas Initially in Place (GIIP) for the Gelama Merah-1 using gross bulk volume
defined in this chapter and the petro-physical parameters calculated from the previous
chapters. Two different methodologies will be used in this study to define the STOIIP
and the GIIP for the GM-1, which are the deterministic and the probabilistic methods.
For this report, the volumetric estimation of the hydrocarbons initially in place is limited
to the deterministic method.

4.1 Gelama Map/ Scale

The topographic maps given covering from the top down to the bottom of the
GM-1 are U3.2, U4.0, U5.0, U6.0, U7.0, U8.0, U9.0, U9.1, and U9.2, which at same
time are used for the volumetric evaluation of the GM-1. The scale for GM-1 field is
1:43103.45 with contour interval of 20m. The datum of the field is mean sea level
(MSL).

Figure 7 Map of GM-1 field

37
4.2 Deterministic method

In this section, the area of each contour line from the GM-1 Isopach map, with
defined reservoir fluid contacts, is determine using a planimeter and then plotted versus
the depth as shown below.

Contour depth (m-SS) Average area (km2) Remark

1300 0.0928953

1302.7 0.1470588 GUT

1320.0 0.4830559

1340.0 2.0994353

1360.0 3.6229194

1380.0 6.038199

1400.0 8.5835321

1420.0 11.834847

1440.0 14.900417

1460.0 19.04355

1466.7 20.588235 LPG

1468.7 20.882353 GOC

1470.7 21.470588 HPO

1480.0 23.539686

1500.0 28.834722

1502.7 29.705882 LPO

1512.7 33.529412 OWC

1520.0 35.987666

1520.7 36.176471 FWL

Table 4 Calculated Areas for Respective Contour Lines in GM-1

38
Figure 8 Depths vs. area of GM-1 base map

39
The estimation of the Gross Bulk Volume (GBV) is derived from the evaluation
of the area under the curve and by using the trapezoidal rule where the region under the
curve is segmented into small trapezoidal. Table below illustrates the BV.

Contour depth (km-SS) Average area (km2) BV (m3) Remark

1.3000 0.0928953

1.3027 0.1470588 4178433.535 GUT

1.3200 0.4830559 25824912

1.3400 2.0994353 57223547

1.3600 3.6229194 96611184

1.3800 6.038199 146217311

1.4000 8.5835321 204183791

1.4200 11.834847 267352640

1.4400 14.900417 339439670

1.4600 19.04355 132766479.8

1.4667 20.588235 41470588 LPG

1.4687 20.882353 42352941 GOC

1.4707 21.470588 209297774.1 HPO

1.4800 23.539686 523744080

1.5000 28.834722 79029815.4

1.5027 29.705882 316176470 LPO

1.5127 33.529412 253737334.7 OWC

1.5200 35.987666 25257447.95

1.5207 36.176471 FWL

Gross Bulk Volume 2739606971

Table 5 Gross Bulk Volume Estimated Using Trapezoidal Rule

40
Since the GBV is the sum of the bulk volumes (BVs), GM-1 GBV is
2739606971 m3 or 2.74km3 . And now, in order to estimate the STOIIP and GIIP
deterministically, it is require estimating the BV of the oil as the BV of the gas. Table
below illustrates the GBV of the oil and gas based on the probability assignment of
proven, probable and possible.
Gas Oil

Probability Level GBV (m3) Level GBV (m3)

1P (Proven) GUT-LPG 1,273,797,968 GOC-LPO 854,424,610.5


2P (Proven + GUT-GOC 1,315,268,556 GOC-OWC 1,170,601,081
Probable)
3P (Proven + GUT-HPO 1,357,621,497 GOC-FWL 1,491,066,451
Probable +
Possible)
Table 6 GBV of oil and gas base on 1P, 2P and 3P

Figure 9 Generic View of the Different Contact Gross Bulk Volumes

41
Then by using the petro-physic and reservoir fluids properties given in the
previous chapter, and the GBV from 2P for the oil and gas just calculated, STOIIP and
GIIP are calculated as fallow. 2P is used instead of 1P and 3P to avoid underestimation
or overestimation of the bulk volume.

Given and calculated the following parameters,

GBV gas = 1315268556 m3 = 49,059,517,149 ft 3 = 49.06 E9 ft 3

NTG gas = 0.62

NTG oil = 0.7

GBV oil = 1170601081 m3 = 43,663,420,303 ft 3 = 43.66E9 ft 3

Bg = 0.010 ft3/scf

Bo = 1.169 bbl/stb

= 0.24

Sw (averaging out the Waxman Smith Thomas Water Saturation) = 0.54.

GBVg NTGg (1Sw )


GIIP = = 3.314E + 11 SCF = 331.434 BSCF.
Bg

GBVo NTGo (1sw )


STOIIP = = 512.8E+6 STB = 512.8 MMSTB.
5.615Bo

42
4.3 Probabilistic Method
In this method, assigns range of values to each and every parameter involved in
the volumetric estimation are used, with Monte Carlo Simulation, to develop a
distribution curve used to estimate STOIIP and GIIP. This method is totally different as
compared to Deterministic method which averages out the properties of reservoir in
order to estimate STOIIP and GIIP. For the oil and gas formation factors, parameters
involved in the STOIIP and GIIP calculations, a tolerance of 10% is used in order to
provide the possible range. For other parameters, fluid properties in 1P are assigned as
minimum limit values and 3P as maximum limit. Table below summarizes the ranges
used.
Gas section

Parameter Minimum Medium/actual Maximum

GBV (106 m3 ) 1270 1315 1360

NTG (%) 52 53 53

Porosity gas zone (%) 13 24 34

Bg (ft3/scf) 0.009 0.01 0.011

Hydroc saturation (%) 65 65 90

RF (%) 50 70 95

Table 7 Range of respective parameters involved in probabilistic method for gas case

Oil section

Parameter Minimum Medium/actual Maximum

GBV (106 m3 ) 854.4 1170.6 1491.1

NTG (%) 82 77 70

Porosity oil zone (%) 12 22.5 33

Bo (bbl/STB) 1.159 1.169 1.179

Hydroc saturation (%) 60.32 53.5 53.31

RF (%) 20 30 40

Table 8 Range of respective parameters involved probabilistic method for oil case

43
Simulation is done by using Microsoft Excel, generating a set of 350 random
numbers ranging from 0 to 1 which multiply to each and with each one of the parameters
involved. The output is the distribution of the parameter ranging between the minimum
and maximum values assigned. The frequency and the probability of the distribution are
then studied using Frequency, Cumulative and Probability against STOIIP, GIIP and
Ultimate Recovery for (UR) for both oil and gas. The result of Monte Carlo Simulation
for both gas and oil case are shown in Fig 10 and 11.

CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY VS FREQ DIST


100% 6%
90%
80% 5%
70% 4%
60%
50% 3%
40%
30% 2%
20% 1%
10%
0% 0%
5

465.5
485.5
45.5
25.5

65.5
85.5
105.5
125.5
145.5
165.5
185.5
205.5
225.5
245.5
265.5
285.5
305.5
325.5
345.5
365.5
385.5
405.5
425.5
445.5

505.5
525.5
545.5
565.5
585.5
605.5
625.5
645.5
Frequency Cummulative

Figure 10 Monte Carlo Simulation for Gas Case

CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY VS FREQ DIST


100% 6%
90%
5%
80%
70%
4%
60%
50% 3%
40%
2%
30%
20%
1%
10%
0% 0%
2

266.5
86.5
14.5
26.5
38.5
50.5
62.5
74.5

98.5
110.5
122.5
134.5
146.5
158.5
170.5
182.5
194.5
206.5
218.5
230.5
242.5
254.5

278.5
290.5
302.5
314.5
326.5
338.5
350.5

Frequency Cummulative

Figure 11 Monte Carlo Simulation for Oil Case

44
Base on the OIIP and GIIP calculated from the probabilistic method, the
contingent reserve of the Gelama Merah field that could be recover is estimated by using
the formula:

The field is assumed to be gas cap drive reservoir since the volume of overlaying
gas zone is high and thus, the recover factor between the ranges of 20%-40% is used
according to the standard gas cap recovery factor. The result of the ultimate recovery of
oil and gas for Gelama Merah field calculated with probabilistic method is summarized
in Table 9 below.

Gas section

Probability GIIP (BSCF) URgas (BSCF)

P10 831.98 435.5

P50 339.76 295.5

P90 156.08 175.5

Oil section

Probability STOIIP (MMSTB) URoil (MMSTB)

P10 831.15 250.5

P50 597.49 166.5

P90 366.96 110.5

Table 9 Results Based on P10, P50 and P90 for Each Simulation

45
4.4 Volumetric Calculations based on PETREL

In the earlier parts of this section, the Oil Initially In Place (OIIP) and Gas
Initially In Place (GIIP) were determined using the Deterministic and Probabilistic
Methods. In this section, the reserve will be estimated using PETREL, a software
developed by Schlumberger.

4.4.1 Digitizing Maps for Gelama Merah-1

The first step is to plot the polygons for each main contour lines for maps U3.2
until U9.2. After that, the surfaces are create. In order to get a smooth curve and a good
structural surface, the Smooth function is run for each polygon.

Once done with the surfaces, the model of the Gelama Merah field is developed
using the Make Grid function. The Boundary polygon is created to ensure that the
software only computes the Gross Bulk Volume (GBV) within the pay zone.

Figure 12 3D View of Polygons Developed for Maps U3.2 to U9.2

46
Figure 13 3D View of Surfaces for Maps U3.2 to U9.2

Figure 14 3D View of the Skeleton for Maps U3.2 to 9.2

Next, the values of the porosity, water saturation and Net-to-Gross are
introduced. After that, the contacts such as the Gas-Oil Contact (GOC) and Water-Oil
Contact (WOC) are specified. Once this was done, the Volumetric Calculation was
carried out to determine the STOIIP and GIIP which will be discussed in the next
section.

47
Figure 15 3D View of the Porosity Model

Figure 16 3D View of the Water Saturation Model

Figure 17 3D View of the Net-to-Gross Model

48
Figure 18 3D View of the GOC and WOC

4.4.2 STOIIP and GIIP Calculation based on PETREL


The static model generated was used for volumetric calculation of STOIIP and
GIIP using PETREL software. As discussed above, the GOC was set at 1468.7m
TVDSS and OWC at 1512.7m TVDSS. After that, the STOIIP and GIIP were
calculated by inserting the random number of defined maximum and minimum value for
water saturation, porosity and net to gross properties for each zones. The values for the
properties are shown in Table 1, 2 and 3 below.

Zones Water Saturation

Min Max

Zone 1 0.55 0.99

Zone 2 0.1818 1

Zone 3 0.1428 0.78

Zone 4 0.19 0.72

Zone 5 0.17 0.79

Zone 6 0.1314 0.88

Zone 7 0.17 1

Zone 8 0.33 0.78

Table 10 Defined Maximum and Minimum Value for Water Saturation

49
Zones Porosity

Min Max

Zone 1 0.1326 0.3239

Zone 2 0.1443 0.2973

Zone 3 0.1818 0.2998

Zone 4 0.1533 0.2496

Zone 5 0.1581 0.3091

Zone 6 0.2007 0.3388

Zone 7 0.1558 0.3235

Zone 8 0.2155 0.2860

Table 11 Defined Maximum and Minimum Values for Porosity

Zones Net to Gross

Zone 1 0.64

Zone 2 0.75

Zone 3 0.5

Zone 4 0.5

Zone 5 0.85

Zone 6 1

Zone 7 0.74

Zone 8 0.71

Table 12 Defined Values for Net to Gross

After introducing all the values to the reservoir model, the resulting STOIIP and
GIIP shows a total of 320.9634 MMSTB and 515.5979 BSCF from U3.2 to U9.2. The
summary of volume calculation for each zones of the reservoir model generated were
shown in Table 4.

50
Zones Bulk Net Pore STOIIP GIIP (10^6
volume volume volume (10^6 sm) sm)
(10^6 m) (10^6 m) (10^6 rm)

Zone 1 670 426 100 15 6010

Zone 2 223 160 38 6 2148

Zone 3 8 6 1 0 133

Zone 4 94 68 16 2 1092

Zone 5 159 114 27 2 2161

Zone 6 126 90 21 4 1173

Zone 7 407 292 69 21 1107

Zone 8 16 12 3 1 0

Total 1703 1168 274 51 13823

Table 13 Summary of Gross Volume, STOIIP and GIIP for Each Zones

Conversion Factors:

1sm = 6.2934bbl

1sm = 37.3 ft

STOIIP in bbl: 320.9634 MMSTB

GIIP in scf : 515.5979 BSCF

51
CHAPTER 5: RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

5.1 Introduction to Reservoir Engineering

This chapter will summarize the reservoir data in order to build and run the
reservoir model of the Gelama Merah field. The data includes:
- Fluid data from PVT analysis
- Rock properties from routine core analysis and Special Core Analysis (SCAL)
- Production well test data

Apart from that, this chapter will also highlight the reservoir simulation
study, production profile, sensitivity analysis, Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
and reservoir management and surveillance.

5.2 Reservoir Rock Properties

Basic Core Analysis is carried out to determine the basic petrophysical


properties of the cores such as

- Porosity
- Permeability
- Grain density
- Fluid saturation
- Lithology of rock

Special Core Analysis (SCAL) on the other hand, provides more specific
information to distinguish reservoir rock properties such as:

- Capillary pressure
- Fluid flow (Relative and Absolute Permeability)
- Steady-state
- Unsteady-state
- Wettability determination

52
5.2.1 Core Plug Data

A total of forty-two (42) plug samples were scheduled for the following core
analyses:

- Basic Core Analysis


- Formation Resistivity Factor at Overburden Pressure
- Formation Resistivity Index by Continuous Injection Method
- Cation Exchange Capacity
- Oil-Water/Water-Oil Capillary Pressure by Overburden Centrifuge
- Unsteady-state Gas-Oil Relative Permeability
- Unsteady-state Water-Oil Relative Permeability
- Steady-State Water-Oil Relative Permeability
- High Pressure Mercury Injection (0-55,000psia)
- Rock (Pore Volume) Compressibility

The results obtained are summarized in the table below.

Net Overburden Pressure = 1300 psi


Grain
Sample Core
Klinkenberg Permeability to Porosity Density
ID Depth
Permeability, md air (est.), md % g/cm
Electrical Properties Test
1-004 1315.20 4242 4244 33.4 2.65
1-018 1319.35 661 667 30.0 2.66
2-012 1323.95 2760 2801 33.6 2.65
3-001 1327.30 106 115 26.4 2.65
3-002 1327.60 215 228 29.0 2.66
3-019 1332.70 1357 1379 31.9 2.65
5-006 1385.55 407 425 29.3 2.68
5-007 1385.88 0.355 0.518 15.3 2.68
8-005 1402.55 0.831 1.126 16.9 2.69
8-006 1402.80 1.78 2.24 18.9 2.69
Oil-Water Capillary Pressure by Overburden Centrifuge
1-017 1319.07 113 120 24.8 2.67

53
2-010 1323.35 2452 2491 34.6 2.65
5-002 1384.35 78 80.7 13.6 2.73
Unsteady-State and Steady-State Relative Permeability
1-021 1320.23 51.7 55.2 18.7 2.67
2-015 1324.85 190 204 27.6 2.66
2-017 1325.45 95.3 103 26.6 2.68
3-005 1328.50 1280 1280 32.8 2.67
3-015 1331.50 380 398 30.7 2.66
3-016 1331.80 392 411 30.4 2.67
3-022 1333.60 526 545 30.9 2.68
3-025 1334.50 11.1 13.7 23.8 2.66
4-026A 1343.25 6.53 7.41 17.4 2.72

Net Overburden Pressure = 500 psi


Grain
Sample Core
Klinkenberg Permeability to Porosity Density
ID Depth
Permeability, md air (est.), md % g/cm
Rock (Pore Volume) Compressibility
1-007 1316.05 629 688 32.5 2.66
2-005 1321.85 2640 2700 32.3 2.64
3-006 1328.80 1100 1130 32.0 2.65
3-013 1330.90 156 249 31.5 2.64
3-017 1332.10 664 688 32.2 2.66
4-004 1336.65 203 216 30.4 2.66
4-013 1339.35 108 117 29.3 2.67
4-021 1341.75 179 192 30.7 2.68
5-004 1384.95 880 909 33.2 2.66
5-016 1388.55 965 995 32.1 2.68
High Pressure Mercury Injection
1-010m 1316.95 1940 1970 33.8 2.67
2-011m 1323.65 1420 1450 33.5 2.66
4-002m 1336.05 17.9 21.5 21.6 2.70
4-028m 1343.85 19.3 24.5 20.6 2.70
5-001m 1384.05 172 269 28.0 2.66
5-005m 1385.25 1090 1110 32.4 2.66
5-015m 1388.25 467 483 30.5 2.67
5-019m 1389.36 6.22 7.52 17.3 2.70
8-002m 1401.70 20.4 24.5 26.7 2.67
8-003m 1401.95 169 179 27.9 2.67

54
5.2.2 Permeability Porosity Relationship

One of the way used to assign porosity values for the reservoir model is
to populate the porosity values obtained from the logging data of GM-1 and ST-1
in the reservoir model. The Basic Core Analysis data shown in the table in the
previous sub-section was used to assign the values. The permeability-porosity
crossplot for the Gelama Merah field is as shown below.

Permeability - Porosity Relationship


10000

y = 0.0008e0.4439x
1000
Good perm
(K>150 mD)
Permeability (md)

y = 38.863e0.0388x
100 Moderate perm
(20<K<150 mD)

Poor perm
10
(K<20 mD)

1
y = 0.0056e0.3337x

0.1
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Porosity (%)

Figure 19 Permeability-Porosity Relationship

From the crossplot above, it is observed that the measured core permeability
were in the range of as follows:

- For poor permeability rock: k = 0.0056e0.3337


- For moderate permeability rock: k = 38.863e0.0388
- For good permeability rock: k = 0.0008e0.4439

55
5.2.3 Capillary Pressure

The fluid distribution in the reservoir is depending on the capillary pressure or


Pc which is resulted from the interfacial tension across the interface of immiscible
multiphase fluids. The significance of the capillary pressure in a typical reservoir is
depending on a few governing parameters which are the surface and interfacial forces of
the rock matrix and fluids, the textural properties of the medium and the wetting
characteristic of the system.

Capillary pressure can be mathematically expressed as the pressure difference


due to interfacial force between the immiscible fluids, or the pressure of the non-wetting
phase minus the pressure of the wetting phase:

Where Pc = Capillary pressure

Pnw = Pressure in non-wetting phase

Pw = Pressure in wetting phase

Capillary Pressure data is commonly used to predict :

i. Initial saturation distribution


ii. Free Water Level
iii. Oil-Water Contact
iv. Rock quality
v. Pore Size distribution

Imbibition and drainage process in porous rock are crucial to the Capillary
Pressure determination. Imbibition is define as the increasing saturation of the wetting
phase in porous media, while drainage is define as the decreasing saturation of the
wetting phase in porous media.

56
The graphs below show all the Pc curves for both drainage and imbibition
obtained for core samples 1-017, 2-010 and 5-002. As mentioned earlier, all 3 samples
underwent the centrifuge test.

Pc vs. Sw for Sample 1-017


30
Drainage
Imbibition
20
Capillary Pressure

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
-10

-20

-30
Water Saturation

Figure 20 Pc vs. Sw for Sample 1-017

Pc vs. Sw for Sample 2-010


30
Drainage
Imbibition
20
Capillary Pressure

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
-10

-20

-30
Water Saturation

Figure 21 Pc vs. Sw for Sample 2-010

57
Pc vs. Sw for Sample 5-002
30
Drainage
20 Imbibition

Capillary Pressure
10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
-10

-20

-30
Water Saturation

Figure 22 Pc vs. Sw for Sample 5-002

Different rocks and fluids present will cause different drainage and imbibition
pattern as it depends on the fluid properties and morphological and topological aspects
of porous media. Figure above illustrate the trend of the Capillary pressure to water
saturation of oil-water system for each sample, 1-017, 2-010 and 5-002. From the
figure, it is observed that the drainage curve of the high permeability rock sample 2-010
reached the asymptote at approximately 15% to 20% of water saturation which is the
lowest among the three sample. With higher permeability, non wetting phase (oil) can
easily migrate and accumulate the reservoir rock to displace the initial saturating wetting
phase. This result proves that sample number 2-010 is a good quality rock compared to
the other sample 1-017 and 5-002 which having a lower permeability.

5.2.4 Relative Permeability

The flow of reservoir fluids can be estimated based on the relative permeability
information. Eight core plugs originate from Gelama Merah-2 ST1 were taken as sample
for relative permeability testing of gas-oil system and water-oil system.

The core plug sample permeability is studied by displacing one phase with
another (Unsteady state tests) or simultaneous flow of two phases (Steady state tests).

58
Initial water saturation for respective plugs was ranged from 0.206 to 0.425 fraction of
the total pore space.

The systems involved in the relative permeability study are:

I. Unsteady State Gas-Oil Relative Permeability


II. Unsteady State Water-Oil Relative Permeability
III. Steady-State Water-Oil Relative Permeability

Table below summarize the sample plugs that were subjected to the respective
relative permeability tests.

Sample ID Depth (m) Unsteady-State Unsteady-State Steady-State


Water-Oil Water-Oil
Gas-Oil

1-021 1320.23

2-015 1324.85

2-017 1325.45

3-005 1328.50

3-015 1331.50

3-016 1331.80

3-022 1333.60

3-025 1334.50
Table 14 Core Samples for Relative Permeability Test

The wettability of the reservoir (Water-wet or Oil-wet) can be determined based


from criteria described as below:

Conditions Water-Wet Oil-Wet

Connate Water Saturation Commonly greater than Mainly lower than 15% of
20% to 25% of the pore the pore volume

59
volume

Crossover point saturation Greater than 50% water Less than 50% water
saturation saturation

Relative permeability to Less than 30% Greater than 50% and


water at maximum water approaching 100%
saturation
Table 15 Wettability of reservoir

5.2.4.1 Unsteady State Gas-Oil Relative Permeability


Interpretation of the gas-oil relative permeability test results shows that the
displacement efficiency of the oil by gas appears to be above average for most of the
samples. For example, a sample with Kg/Ko ratio of 1.0 has a gas saturation of 20%.
This shows it has average displacement efficiency. If the gas saturation decreases below
20% for the same Kg/Ko ratio, the displacement efficiency is said to be above average.
The graph of the normalized unsteady state gas-oil relative permeability curve is shown
below.

1.000

0.900

0.800

0.700

0.600
Kr

0.500

0.400

0.300

0.200

0.100

0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
Sg*

Figure 23 Unsteady State Gas-Oil Relative Permeability

60
5.2.4.2 Unsteady State Water-Oil Relative Permeability

For unsteady state water-oil relative permeability, insufficient data was obtained
after the breakthrough to obtain full relative permeability curves for sample 3-025. The
sample indicates sensitivity/plugging as seen by the very low final Krw which is 0.014.
The graph of the normalized unsteady state water-oil relative permeability curve is
shown below.

1.000

0.900

0.800

0.700

0.600
Kr

0.500

0.400

0.300

0.200

0.100

0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000

Figure 24 Unsteady State Water-Oil Relative Permeability

5.2.4.3 Steady State Water-Oil Relative Permeability


The water-oil relative permeability test results show relative permeability to
water at the end of water floods. The oil recovery by water ranged from 61.9% to 74.1%
of the original oil in place while the residual oil saturations ranged from 19.3% to 36.8%
of pore space.

The oil recovery attained by water displacing oil tests and gas displacing oil tests
are similar, with water displacing oil tests slightly lower than gas displacing oil tests,
that is, between 1% to 4% different. The graph of the normalized steady state water-oil
relative permeability curve is shown below.

61
5.2.5 Leveretts J-Function

Leverett J-function is used to create a single correlation extrapolates capillary


pressure data for the same lithology but it has petrophysical parameters (permeability,
porosity and wettability) which different. This approach assumes that the saturation level
is only determined by capillary pressure only. J-function will not provide a single
solution if we work with different lithology. Reasons for using J-Function is to facilitate
modeling the reservoir engineer saturation in the reservoir simulation. Since most of
saturation data that is used, obtained from the correlation (mathematical correlation). J
function has been calculated from the air mercury injection data using the following
0.2166
equations: ( ) =

Where ;

J (Sw) = J- Leverett function Pc = capillary pressure, p


= interfacial tension, dynes/cm k = permeability, md

= fractional porosity

J-function
14.1

12.1

10.1
J(Sw)

8.1

6.1
y = 2420.9x-2.11
4.1 R = 0.9115

2.1

0.1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Figure 25 J Function

62
5.3 Reservoir Fluid Properties (PVT Analysis)

5.3.1 Summary of PVT Analysis

Reported Reservoir Condition.

Reservoir Pressure. 2116 psia


Reservoir Temperature.. 155 F

Constant Composition Expansion

Bubble Point Pressure. 2014 psig

Differential Vaporization Test (at 2104 psig and 155F)

Oil Formation Volume Factor. 1.169 bbl/stb


Reservoir Temperature..... 336 scf/stb
Oil Density 0.828 g/cc

Reservoir Fluid Viscosity (at 2014 psig and 155F)

Reservoir Pressure. 2116 psia


Reservoir Temperature.. 155 F

There are two type of taking sample for PVT Analyses.

1. Bottom holes sample


2. Separator sample

63
For bottomhole sample or subsurface samples, samples can be retrieved by using
subsurface sampling chamber or sampling bomb. These tools are lowered into the
reservoir depth inside the well by using wireline. This sampling technique required the
well to be flowing and the bubble point pressure of the reservoir must not exceed the
flowing bottomhole pressure in order to avoid segregation of the of the fluid phase.
Another tool that can be used for subsurface sampling is Repeat Formation Testing
(RFT) tools or Modular Dynamic Testing Tool (MDT).

Subsurface sampling are expensive as it need downhole sampling tools, therefore


surface sampling are more preferable due to the inexpensive and reasonable cost. For
surface sampling or separator samples, the samples are taken from the flowing fluid (gas
and liquid) through the surface test separators. Then sample, gas and liquid then are
recombined in the laboratory in an appropriate ratio such that it will represent the fluid
as in the reservoir. Then the PVT analysis will be performed.

Six (6) sub-surface fluid samples have been collected from Gelama Merah 1
during the stabilized Main Flow Period at 32/64 fixed choke on 11th January 2003. The
fluid samples consist of three (3) samples of oil collected from oil test separator and
three (3) samples of gas collected from gas test separator. The samples collected then
were forwarded to the lab for full PVT analysis and further examination by PETRONAS
Research & Scientific Services Sdn Bhd.

For PVT analysis test, the samples are then undergo 6 different test altogether.

Preliminary Quality Check (QC) Test on separator samples :


- Checking the opening pressure.
- Checking the bubble point of separator point at separator temperature.
Compositional Analysis of separator of oil and gas.
Constant Compositional Analysis at reservoir temperature.
Differential Vaporisation (DV) Test at reservoir temperature.
Viscosity Test
Separator Test

64
5.3.2 Preliminary Quality Check (QC) Test

During this stage, the samples undergo quality check to determine whether the reservoirs
are at field conditions. Detail of the opening pressure has been included in the table
below.

i. The opening pressure of the separator gas and oil cylinders is validated to
ensure only a representative samples to be used in the analysis.
ii. The bubble point pressure of the separator oil is checked to be at the reservoir
temperature.

Type of
Separator Oil Separator Gas
Sample

Cylinder no. 7990-QA 7991-QA 7989-QA 4339 A 4553 A 4588 A

Opening
pressure at
separator 105 90 100 146 150 149
temperature, @97.0 @97.2 @95.2 @97.2 @97.2 @95.2
F Psig

Approximate
sample
volume @ 2000@ 2000@ 2000@
553 593 536
1000 Psig cc 146 Psig 150 Psig 149 Psig

Bubble point
pressure at
separator 120 125 140
temperature, @97.0 @97.2 @95.2 NA NA NA
F Psig

Pair with Pair with Pair with Pair with Pair with Pair with
Remarks
4339 A 4339 A 4339 A 4339 A 4339 A 4339 A
Table 16 Result for Quality Check (QC) Test of GM-1

65
5.3.3 Compositional Analysis

A spike flash technique is used to analyze the composition and measuring the
solution gas-oil ratio (GOR) of the sample. The schematic diagram of the apparatus
is shown in Fig 13. The reservoir fluid is flashed in an oven with a flask at 120F
until its pressure reached atmospheric condition. Then, the volume of gas evolved
resulting from the flash are collected in a metal tube. After both the oil and gas
phase achieved equilibrium, they are analyze separately and the results are:

Component Mole % Molecular Density @


Weight 60F
Separator Gas Separator Oil Well stream

N 3.16 0.05 0.57

CO 2.78 0.27 0.69

C1 87.79 3.52 17.54

C 5.75 0.88 1.69

C3 0.41 0.21 0.25


i-C4 0.05 0.44 0.37
n-C4 0.05 0.4 0.34
i-C5 0.01 0.16 0.14
n-C5 0 0.24 0.2
C6 0 0.48 0.4
C7 0 3.45 2.88
C8 0 4.74 3.95
C9 0 5.48 4.57
C10 0 9.89 8.25
C11+ 0 69.79 58.24 195.39 0.821

TOTAL 100 100 100.08


Table 17 Compositional Analysis of Separator Oil, Separator Gas Samples and Calculated Well
Stream Composition

66
Figure 26 Spike Flash Apparatus

The separator oil and gas samples are then recombined according to the separator
gas/oil ratio of 126 SCF/STB to produce a fluid sample that represent the reservoir fluid
composition.

The fluid sample is then used for the remaining test program to represent the
reservoir fluid behavior. However, the bubble point for the fluid sample exhibits is
1035psia which differs with the bubble point pressure reported which is 2116psia.

Thus, the fluid sample is compared with the fluid sample from neighboring
saturated reservoir, Sumandak Selatan-1 and the gas/oil ratio (GOR) is readjusted
according to the specified bubble point pressure of 2116psia.

The resulting GOR obtained is known to be 256 scf/stb and the composition of
the fluid sample is then recalculated base on the separator GOR of 256 scf/stb. The
result of the compositional analysis is summarized in Table 16.

Component Mole % Molecular Density @


Weight 60F
Separator Gas Separator Oil Well stream

N 7.39 0 2.43

CO 2.85 0 0.94

C1 80.52 0 26.5

C 8 0 2.63

C3 0.78 0.28 0.45

67
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 0 6.23 4.18

C9 0 4.33 2.9

C10 0 6.68 4.48

C11+ 0 76.75 51.49 202.3 0.826

TOTAL 100 100 100.08

Table 18 Compositional Analysis of Separator Oil, Separator Gas Samples and Calculated Well
Stream Composition (Bubble Point Adjusted to 2116psia)

5.3.4 Constant Compositional Expansion (CCE) Test

Constant Composition Expansion (CCE) Test was a laboratory test that is usually
performed to measure volume changes of a reservoir fluid sample as a function of
pressure. The test measures the volume of reservoir fluid sample at various pressure
and further identify the bubble point pressure, oil compressibility and liquid volume
percentage below the bubble point pressure. Table 17 below shows the summary of the
test result.

Relative Single-Phase Liquid


Pressure,
Volume, Compressibility, Y-Function Volume
psig
V/Vsat V/V/PSI Percent
5000 0.976 - - -
4000 0.983 7.069E-06 - -
3500 0.987 7.101E-06 - -

68
3000 0.99 7.127E-06 - -
2700 0.993 7.171E-06 - -
2500 0.994 7.192E-06 - -
2300 0.995 7.214E-06 - -
2100 0.997 7.226E-06 - -
2014* 1 - - 100
2000 1.002 - 3.511 99.81
1800 1.034 - 3.482 97.43
1600 1.074 - 3.453 90.81
1400 1.127 - 3.425 83.05
1200 1.197 - 3.396 74.15
1000 1.297 - 3.367 64.12
800 1.446 - 3.339 52.31
Table 19 Result of CCE Test on the Fluid Sample

Base on the result above, it shows that the bubble point of the reservoir fluid
sample is 2014 psig where the relative volume is 1. It also shows that the relative
volume increases correspond to the reduction of pressure. The solution gas is liberated
from the fluid sample after it reaches bubble point pressure. This phenomena expands
the volume of the fluid sample and leads to increasing relative volume over pressure
reduction after bubble point pressure. In order to give a clear view of the behavior for
the test result, a Relative Volume vs Pressure graph is plotted base on the table above in
Fig 14.

Relative Volume vs Pressure Graph


1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Figure 27 Relative Volume vs Pressure Graph

69
5.3.5 Differential Vaporization (DV) Test

By carrying out the Differential Vaporization (DV) Test, the following data can
be determined:

- The amount of gas in the solution as a function of pressure


- The formation volume factor of oil (bbl/stb) and formation volume factor of
gas (cf/scf) as a function of pressure
- The properties of the gas liberated such as its composition, the gas
compressibility factor (z-Factor), and the Gas Specific Gravity
- The density of the remaining oil (g/cc) as a function of pressure

The fluid is subjected to a series of flash processes below the bubble point
pressure. The pressure is continuously decreased by a certain amount until it stabilizes
and reaches equilibrium. The amount of gas that is evolved is recorded down. Then,
Boil, Bgas, ygas and z-factor will be calculated. This process is repeated until the
pressure reaches 0 psig which is equivalent to the atmospheric pressure, 14.7 psia. Table
below sums up the results of the Differential Vaporization (DV) Test for GM-1.

Oil Solution Gas


Pressure Oil FVF Gas FVF Cummulative Z-
Density, Oil Ratio
psig bbl/stb cf/scf Gas Gravity Factor
g/cc scf/stb
5000 0.848 1.144 336 - - -
4000 0.842 1.152 336 - - -
3500 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

70
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 0.881 1.032 0 - 0.78 1
Density of residual oil @60 F = 0.909 g/cc
API Gravity of residual oil @60 F = 24.16
Table 20 GM-1 Differential Vaporisation (DV) Test at 155 F

As seen in Table 18, at above 2014 psig, which is the bubble point pressure, only
one phase exists, that is liquid oil. This shows that the reservoir is undersaturated. Any
gas dissolved in the oil above the bubble point pressure (2014 psig) would not result in
an increase of the Gas-Oil Ratio (GOR).

As shown in the Figure below, the GOR remains constant at 336 scf/stb as there
is no expansion of gas from oil in the reservoir. The GOR only starts to change when the
pressure drops below 2014 psig. As shown in the graph below, as the pressure decreases
below the bubble point pressure, the GOR also decreases. This is because more gas is
evolved from the oil, causing the volume of oil to reduce.

Solution GOR vs. Pressure


400
350
Solution GOR, scf/stb

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Pressure, psig

Figure 28 Graph of GOR vs Pressure for GM-1

71
The Figure below shows the formation volume factor of oil, Boil. As the pressure
is reduced to the bubble point pressure (2014 psig), the oil formation volume factor, Boil
increases. This is brought about by the oil expansion due to compressibility. The drop in
pressure causes the oil to expand as it is a slightly compressible liquid which in turn
increases its volume. However, below the bubble point pressure (2014 psig), Boil begins
to decrease. This is attributed to the dissolved gas in the oil escaping which is also
known as oil shrinkage.

Oil FVF vs. Pressure


1.18
1.16
1.14
Oil FVF, bbl/stb

1.12
1.1
1.08
1.06
1.04
1.02
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Pressure, psig

Figure 29 Oil Formation Volume Factor (Boil) vs Pressure for GM-1

5.3.6 Viscosity Test

The objective of the Viscosity Test is to determine the oil viscosity at 155 F.
A Capillary Viscometer was used. At each pressure drop below the bubble point
pressure (2014 psig), the gas that is liberated from the oil sample is removed from
the viscometer and is analyzed using Gas Analyzer. The gas composition obtained
using the Gas Analyzer is then used to estimate the gas viscosity. The Viscosity Test
results are shown in Table and graph below.

Pressure Viscosity (cP)


Oil/Gas Viscosity Ratio
psig Oil Gas
5000 1.7581 - -
4000 1.6066 - -

72
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
Table 21 GM-1 Oil and Gas Viscosity at 155 F

Oil Viscosity vs. Pressure


2.5

2
Viscosity, cP

1.5

0.5

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Pressure, psig

Figure 30 Oil Viscosity of GM-1 at 155 F

5.3.7 Separator Test

The test was carried out as single stage separator test at three cases with the
specified separator conditions. The objective of the separator test is to identify the effect
of separator pressure as well as the temperature on separator volume factor, gas oil ratio,
oil and gas density and stock tank oil gravity.

Table below shows the results of all the three cases of GM-1 separator test accordingly.

73
Case 1 : at 890 psig and 87F

Gas Oil Separator Formation


Separator Stock Tank
Pressure Ratio Volume Factor Volume Factor
Temperature Oil Gravity
psia scf/bbl bbl/stb bbl/stb
F API
(1) (2) (3)
890 87 110 1.086 - -
to
0 60 193 1 1.119 23.32
Table 22 GM-1 Single-Stage Separator Flash Analysis for Case 1

1. Cubic feet of gas at 14.73 psia, 60 F per barrel of oil indicated pressure and
temperature
2. Barrel of oil at indicated temperature and pressure per barrel of stock tank oil at 60
F
3. Barrels of saturated oil at 2014 psig and 155 F per barrel of stock tank oil at 60 F

Mole %
Component
890 psig 0 psig
N2 12.25 4.49
CO2 1.47 3.56
C1 83.44 78.88
C2 2.53 10.28
C3 0.17 1.47
i-C4 0.03 0.32
n-C4 0.03 0.37
i-C5 0.01 0.11
n-C5 0.01 0.08
C6 0.01 0.08
C7 0.05 0.36
TOTAL 100 100
Molecular Weight 18.41 20.22
Specific Gravity 0.636 0.698
Calculated Gross Heating Value
894.16 1045.26
(BTU/scf of gas)
Table 23 Composition of liberated gas collected for Case 1

74
Component Mole % Molecular Weight Density @ 60 F
N2 0
CO2 0
C1 0
C2 0
C3 0.1
i-C4 0.12
n-C4 0.21
i-C5 0.16
n-C5 0.17
C6 0.61
C7 98.63 182.82 0.817
TOTAL 100
Table 24 Composition of residual oil for Case 1

Case 2 : at 265 psig and 84F

Gas Oil Separator Formation


Separator Stock Tank
Pressure Ratio Volume Factor Volume Factor
Temperature Oil Gravity
psia scf/bbl bbl/stb bbl/stb
F API
(1) (2) (3)
265 84 241 1.032 - -
to
0 60 60 1 1.116 23.41
Table 25 GM-1 Single-Stage Separator Flash Analysis for Case 2

1. Cubic feet of gas at 14.73 psia, 60F per barrel of oil indicated pressure and
temperature
2. Barrel of oil at indicated temperature and pressure per barrel of stock tank oil at 60F
3. Barrels of saturated oil at 2014 psig and 155F per barrel of stock tank oil at 60F

Mole %
Component
265 psig 0 psig
N2 8.73 2.61
CO2 2.21 4.99
C1 84.04 71.49
C2 4.48 17.03

75
C3 0.34 2.36
i-C4 0.05 0.42
n-C4 0.05 0.46
i-C5 0.01 0.12
n-C5 0.01 0.09
C6 0.01 0.09
C7 0.06 0.36
TOTAL 99.99 100.02
Molecular Weight 18.55 21.68
Specific Gravity 0.64 0.748
Calculated Gross Heating Value
940.76 1118.55
(BTU/scf of gas)
Table 26 Composition of Liberated Gas Collected for Case 2

Component Mole % Molecular Weight Density @ 60 F


N2 0
CO2 0
C1 0
C2 0
C3 0.12
i-C4 0.16
n-C4 0.26
i-C5 0.17
n-C5 0.18
C6 0.62
C7 98.48 183.1 0.818
TOTAL 99.99
Table 27 Composition of Residual Oil for Case 2

Case 3 : at 60 psig and 91F

Gas Oil Separator Formation


Separator Stock Tank
Pressure Ratio Volume Factor Volume Factor
Temperature Oil Gravity
psia scf/bbl bbl/stb bbl/stb
F API
(1) (2) (3)
60 91 297 1.014 - -

76
to
0 60 9 1 1.117 23.36
Table 28 GM-1 Single-Stage Separator Flash Analysis for Case 3

1. Cubic feet of gas at 14.73 psia, 60F per barrel of oil indicated pressure and
temperature
2. Barrel of oil at indicated temperature and pressure per barrel of stock tank oil at 60F
3. Barrels of saturated oil at 2014 psig and 155F per barrel of stock tank oil at 60F

Mole %
Component
60 psig 0 psig
N2 7.65 2.82
CO2 2.69 4.58
C1 81.34 74.52
C2 6.81 14.7
C3 0.81 1.95
i-C4 0.16 0.37
n-C4 0.18 0.41
i-C5 0.05 0.11
n-C5 0.04 0.08
C6 0.05 0.08
C7 0.23 0.36
TOTAL 100.01 99.98
Molecular Weight 19.33 21.1
Specific Gravity 0.667 0.729
Calculated Gross Heating Value
977.13 1094.73
(BTU/scf of gas)
Table 29 Composition of Liberated Gas Collected for Case 3

Component Mole % Molecular Weight Density @ 60 F


N2 0
CO2 0
C1 0
C2 0
C3 0.26
i-C4 0.14
n-C4 0.24

77
i-C5 0.25
n-C5 0.37
C6 0.83
C7 97.91 184.16 0.823
TOTAL 100
Table 30 Composition of Residual Oil for Case 3

5.4 Well Test Data

Well test analysis was carried out in a specific interval of the Gelama Merah-
1 well to achieve the following main objectives (Gelama Merah-1, well test report,
P3-23):

1. To evaluate the GM-1 well productivity and flow performance.


2. To record the GM-1 reservoir data.
3. To obtain GM-1 representative samples.
4. To analyze the well sand productivity.

5.4.1 Production Test

One production test was conducted to analyze the potential of hydrocarbon in


the Unit 8 sand. The analyzed reservoir interval is as follow:

Test number Reservoir Perforation interval

DST#1 Unit 8 Sand 1521-1530 m MDRKB

Table 31 Analyzed Reservoir Interval

And it was done to estimate the following parameters:

1. To analyze the production rate, productivity index and the skin damage.
2. To analyze the reservoir fluid behaviors
3. To estimate reservoir data: P, T, K and reservoir model.

78
4. To obtain reservoir fluid representative samples.
5. To analyze the possibilities of producing sand (if any) and establish the critical
production rates for sand production.

The results obtained from the test are summarized in the following table:

Period Main flow period Main build up Max flow

Choke (64) 32 n/a 128

FBHP, psi@ 1496.1 m- 1753 n/a 1479


MDRKB

FBHT, degF@ 1496.1 m- 155 n/a 151


MDRKB

WHP, psi 390 n/a 156

WHT, degF 97 n/a 104

Sep. P, psi 155 n/a 139

Sep. T, degF 94 n/a 99

SIBHP, psi@ 1496.1 m- n/a 2014 n/a


MDRKB

SIBHT, degF@ 1496.1 m- n/a 154 n/a


MDRKB

Oil rate, STB/D 1378 n/a 2745

Gas rate, MMscf/d 0.16/0.39* n/a 0.73

Water rate, stb/d 0 n/a 0

GOR, scf/stb 119/283* n/a 267

Gas gravity, air =1 0.65 n/a 0.65

Oil, deg API 23.7 n/a 23.6

H2S, ppm 0 n/a 0

CO2, % 0 n/a 0

BS&W, % 0 n/a 0

79
Remark:
1. The BHP and BHT values were taken from the lowest gauge below the packer
at 1496.1 m-MDRKB at the point perforation depth of 1525.5 m-MDRKB.
2. With the measured GOR main flow period, the PVT sample could match the
observed Pbp. Adjustment was made to recombine the sample at Pbp resulting
GOR of 326 scf/stb. Based on Nodal Analysis, estimated gas rate for this
period should be about 0.39 MMscf/d
Table 32 Well Test Results Summary

5.4.2 Pressure Transient Analysis

In this section, the pressure data used for the test was recorded form the down-
hole pressure gauges over different time intervals. As stated by John Lee (2003, P29),
the objective of the test is to estimate reservoir properties such as the skin, radius of
investigation, permeability, as well as the reservoir model.

Table below illustrate the input data used for the well test interpretation.

Properties Input data Source

Porosity, % 27 Petro-physic/log

Water Saturation, % 36 Petro-physic/log

Oil Volume Factor, stb/bbl 1.17 PVT data*

Oil Viscosity, cP 1.36 PVT Data*

Oil Compressibility, 1/psi 9.77E-6 PIE correlation

Net Thickness, ft 29.5 Petro-physic/log

Rock Compressibility, 1/psi 3.22E-6 Hall Correlation

Wellbore Radius, ft 0.362 Casing ID


Table 33 Input Data Summary for DST#1

And the following figure and table illustrate the behavior of the pressure
derivative versus time (during the DST#1 test) in a log-log graph, as the results summary
obtained from the test respectively.

80
Properties Simulated Derivative

Wellbore storage, bbl/psi 0.00271

Permeability, mD 140

Kh, md-ft 4130

Extrapolated pressure, P*/ initial P at 2116


1496.1 m-MDRT, psi.

Extrapolated pressure, P*/ initial P at mid 2151


perf, 1525.5, psi.

+X boundary, ft 236

skin -2.1
Table 34 Summary of Pressure Transient Test

Figure 31 Diagnostic Derivatives

Based on the plot above and as stated by John Lee (2003, P41), the following
table summarize the different flow regimes observed DST#1.
81
Period Description

Early Time Region Wellbore storage effect is observed at the early stage until
reaching near stabilized flow. It exhibit radial flow.

Middle Time Region In this region the radius of investigation has not yet reached
the boundary. Spherical flow regime is observed during that
period.

Late Time Region In this region, the radius of investigation is assumed to be


reached the boundary. Or the pressure transient has
encountered the reservoir boundary. Normally, the flow
regime should exhibit linear flow. However, based on the log-
log plot, there is a slight deviation from the straight light flow
observed during the middle time region.
Table 35 Description of Each Flow Regime

5.5 Reservoir Simulation Study

For this Field Development Project, the reservoir simulation study is done using two
softwares, namely PETREL and ECLIPSE 100. PETREL is used for the static modeling
while ECLIPSE 100 is used for dynamic modeling.

5.5.1 Objective of Reservoir Simulation Study

Reservoir simulation makes it possible to forecast the reservoir performance and


determine the best development strategy that will give the maximum recovery oil
production. The main objectives of carrying out reservoir simulation study are to:

- Determine the optimum number of wells and also their locations


- Produce a production profile
- Predict reservoir performance

82
5.5.2 Model Set Up

First, all the data needed for the static model, such as reservoir rock properties,
and fluid contacts were defined in the PETREL software. Then, the model was
developed by constructing the polygons, surfaces and transformed to grid once the
simulation is successful. The static model is then exported to ECLIPSE 100 to develop
the dynamic model.

Figure 32 Gelama Merah Field

The model consists of 9 zones from U3.2, U4, U5, U6, U7, U8, U9.0, U9.1 and
U9.2 which includes the gas zone till the water zone. The Gas-Oil Contact (GOC)
indicated by green and Water-Oil Contact (WOC) indicated by blue have been
determined.

Figure 33 Gas-Oil Contact (GOC) and Water-Oil Contact (WOC)

5.5.3 Well Placement

83
With a dynamic model of the reservoir, optimum well placement can be determined. To
obtain maximum hydrocarbon recovery and minimize water production to extend life of
well, a well should be situated in the best pay zones.

Among the criteria taken into consideration when selecting the well location are:

- Low water saturation area


- High porosity
- Clearance from Oil-Water Contact (OWC)
- Thickness of the reservoir

The location for the wells for the Gelama Meah Field were chosen mostly based on high
porosity and low water saturation. The 3D model of the reservoir in PETREL was used
to view the distribution of the permeability, porosity and water saturation, as shown in
the figures below.

Figure 34 PERMX Distribution

Figure 35 PERMY Distribution

84
Figure 36 PERMZ Distribution

Figure 37 Porosity Distribution

Figure 38 Water Saturation Distribution

85
After taking into consideration the high porosity and low water saturation areas,
6 wells were proposed at various locations in the reservoir. All wells were subjected to
production performance analysis for 20 years by ECLIPSE 100.

It is important the estimation of the optimum number of wells to be used as


producers. For this purpose, creaming curve analysis is applied. Creaming curve
illustrates the plots of the expected volume of oil to be produced against the total number
of the vertical wells placed. In developing the curves, a total of 9 simulations, namely
Case A to I are run to produce the total cumulative volume of the oil, having the number
of the wells as the variable for each case. The table and plot below summarize the
cumulative oil production and the number of well used.

Number
Case Wells involved Np (mmbbl) RF (%)
of wells

A 1 P1 5.678602 1.25

B 2 P1, P2 21.9329 4.84

C 3 P1,P2,P3 27.81256 6.14

D 4 P1,P2,P3,P4 44.19098 9.76

E 5 P1,P2,P3,P4,P5, 51.18991 11.30

F 6 P1,P2,P3,P4,P5,P6 68.99144 15.23

G 7 P1,P2,P3,P4,P5,P6,P7 76.60778 16.92

H 8 P1,P2,P3,P4,P5,P6,P7,P8 99.5127 21.97

I 9 P1,P2,P3,P4,P5,P6,P7,P8,P9 98.80946 21.82

Table 36 Producer Well Optimization

86
Figure 39 Creaming Curve

Once plotting the creaming curve as is shown above, it is clearly observed that
the resulted oil cumulative production from one case to another is increasing as the
number of wells increase, and the trend turns to plateau when the number of vertical
wells has reached 8. The maximum recovery is reached when 8 to 9 wells are used. But,
as lesser number of wells is always welcome if the same volume of oil is produced by
both cases, it can be concluded that the optimal number of vertical wells to be used in
this particular reservoir is 8

5.5.4 Base Case

The base case model for the reservoir is defined once the producer well optimization
concluded. The model is used through the entire project as the main reference to be
compared with other simulation cases run. Table below summarizes the input data
utilized when designing the model base case.

UNPUT Remark

Number of wells 8

Type of wells Vertical

87
Depletion method Natural depletion

Perforated zone Oil zone

Production control mode Well control by rate

Oil rate from the reservoir 800 m3/d or 5032 bbl/d


Table 37 Input Data for Base Case Model

By using the above input data to analyze the simulation results, production
profiles for the base case are resulted as shown below

Figure 40 Base Case Cumulative Production and Oil Rate

Simulator results Remarks

Field control rate (bbl/d) 5032

Production life (year) 20

Total oil cumulative production (mmbbl) 99.51

Oil RF (%) 21.97

Total gas cumulative production (bscf) 125.39 BSCF


Table 38 Base Case Simulation Results

88
5.6 Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis has been done to estimate the most optimal development
strategy to be used to produce Gelama Merah field hydrocarbons. Accordingly, 3
different strategies were planned and run and the respective hydrocarbon production and
the recovery factor were noted.

The first scenario option analyzed was to estimate the optimum number of
producer well to be used for the production of the Gelama Merah field hydrocarbons.
Consequently, 9 vertical producer wells were drilled and the production of the wells was
determined in 20 years, it was concluded that the optimal number of vertical wells to be
used in this particular reservoir is 8, with a recovery factor of 21.97 %.

Having defined the number of producer wells, the second screening scenario was
to analyze the optimum well production control mode. Two parameters were considered
to analyze the production performance of the entire field, one considering well BHP as
the limiting parameter and with other controlling the production rate.

Figure 41 Cumulative Production and Flow Rate for BHP and Q Control

89
While the following plot was used to definitely stick with the production rate
control of 800 m3/d as the optimum rate control mode. Above 800 m3/d, the field
illustrated similar oil production rate as when controlling by BHP.

Considering the top side design facilities as to process the produced fluids, it is
obvious to define an optimum flow rate conditions at which the produced fluids can be
proceeded under rational cost. Both cases (control by BHP as controlling with q above
800) emphasise the design of huge process facility devices that may be useful for a short
period of time.

Figure 42 Production Control Higher than 800 m3 Analysis

The third scenario was to analyze the production performance of the field under
different external fluids injection, specially water and gas. Figure below summarizes the
cumulative production from the field in 20 years production life of the three strategies
developed. For injection of the fluid into the formation, 5 injection wells were found as
the optimum number of injectors to be placed as shown in the injectors optimization
plot, and the difference from one strategy to other was on the perforation zone.

Plot below illustrates the injector/producer wells layout pattern. The location of
the injector wells was basically based on the location of the existing wells, cost of the
new wells and the final RF associated with the various injection pattern. It should also

90
be noted that the flow pattern can be changed as the reservoir depletes to modify the
direction of the flow.

Figure 43 Injector and Producer Wells Layout Pattern

For water flooding, the injector wells perforation was done on the oil far enough from
the producer; for the water injection, the wells were perforated in the water zone; and for
gas injection, the injector wells were perforated at the gas zone.

Figure 44 Oil Recovery Factor for Different Injection

91
Figure 45 Injectors Optimization

For injection strategies, the formation fracture pressure were considered in order
to avoid damaging the formation. In the injected zones, for the Gelama Merah field,
calculated the fracture pressure ranges 255 bar to 279.37 bar, and the injection strategy
was defined using BHP control mode at 250 bar. Theoretically, the injection pressure
has to be above the reservoir pressure, but lower than the formation fracture pressure.
The following plot illustrates the average reservoir pressure when injecting fluids setting
the injectors BHP at 250 bar, as production depletes.

Figure 46 Field Average Pressure Before and After Water Injection

92
Considering all the above plots, the scenario under water flooding (WF) strategy
was clearly observed as the most optimal plan for Gelama Merah hydrocarbon
production. Thus, the entire project was studied considering the fluid production
performance under water flooding process. Below are the field and individual well
performance plots generated under water flooding process.

It is important to remember that the strategy for water flooding was implemented
perforating the injector in the oil zone, far from the producer to minimize the possibility
of an early water break through. In this strategy, the oil displacement toward to the
producer due to the injection of the water is horizontal. This strategy seems to increase
the volumetric sweep efficiency if compared to gas and water injection. It worth
mentioning again the different between the field vertical and horizontal permeability,
which may hay play an important role in the final resulting oil RF from the different
strategies after 20 years of production.

Fluid IIP Np RF (%)

Oil 452.866 mmbbl 181.52 mmstb 40.08

Gas 176.4 bscf 120.53 bscf 68.33

Table 39 Gelama Merah Hydrocarbons Cumulative Production in 20 Years Production

93
5.7 Production Profile

5.7.1 Field

Figure 47 Field Production Water, Gas & Injection Water Rates

Figure 48 Field Oil Rate and Water Cut

94
5.7.2 Individual Wells

Figure 49 1P Flow Performance

Figure 50 2P Flow Performance

Figure 51 3P Flow Performance

95
Figure 52 4P Flow Performance

Figure 53 5P Flow Performance

Figure 54 6P Flow Performance

96
Figure 55 7P Flow Performance

Figure 56 8P Flow Performance

Figure 57 GOR for the 8 Producer Wells

97
5.7.3 MBAL

It should be noted that the results shown above obtained using MBAL is only a
prediction. This is because no history matching was carried out as there is no production
data available. The reservoir simulation study considers a green field development
approach. The figure above shows the drive mechanism for the reservoir from years
2016 till 2036. The y-axis shows the percentage of the drive mechanism while the x-axis
on the other hand, shows the time.

The red coloured area shows gas cap expansion, the blue is fluid expansion and
the green is PV compressibility. From the energy plot obtained, it is identified that the
dominating drive mechanism is gas cap expansion and is assisted by fluid expansion and
PV compressibility.

98
5.8 Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
5.8.1 EOR Screening

Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) is chiefly concerned with the process of obtaining
stranded oil from an oil reservoir and it significantly increases the recovery factor of oil
reservoirs. It is always wise in a field development project to early consider the feasible
EOR plan that might be applied to an oil reservoir. EOR projects require a large amount
of capital investment and operating expense.

Gelama Merah was screened for potential EOR application. The economic
evaluation is crucial in the oil and gas industry, therefore it is important to establish the
best method of EOR and it must be undergone by screening among those methods. EOR
process screening assessment includes the reservoir characterization and fluid properties
such as the crude oil quality, reservoir pressure and reservoir temperature. The
following table shows the reservoir and fluid properties of Gelama Merah field. Based
on those properties, all the available technique of EOR will be screened out to get the
most appropriate method. Gelama Merah contains medium oil and favorable amount of
viscosity as its API at 23.7 API. The reservoir pressure is around 2116 psia and the basin
reservoir temperature at 155 F. the complete list of the Gelama Merah reservoir and fluid
properties is given in the table below.

Property Value

Oil Gravity API 23.7

Reservoir Temperature, F 155 F

Original Reservoir Pressure, psia 2116 psia

Oil Viscosity, cp 1.337 CP

Oil Density, g/cc 0.828 g/cc

Solution Gas Oil Ratio scf/stb 336 scf/stb

Porosity, fraction 0.27

Formation Type Shaly sandstone

Table 40 Reservoir and Fluid Properties of Gelama Merah

99
There are several techniques to be selectively considered in order to decide the most
suitable method of EOR project by considering the following conditions:

Screening criteria of EOR method

The screening criteria is carried out based on the combination of the reservoir
and oil haracteristic of successful projects and the optimum conditions needed for oil
displacement by different fluids properties. The summary of screening criteria is
tabulated in the following table.

Oil Properties Reservoir Characteristics


EOR Method Gravity Viscosity Composition Oil Formation Net Average Depth Temp
(API) (cp) Saturation Type Thickness Perm (ft) (F)
(%PV) (ft) (md)

Gas Injection Method (Miscible)


Sandstone
Nitrogen & High percent Thin unless
>3548 <0.40.2 >4075 or NC >6000 NC
floe gas of C1to C2 dipping
Carbonate

Sandstone
High percent Thin unless
Hydrocarbon >2341 <30.5 >3080 or NC >4000 NC
of C1to C2 dipping
Carbonate

Sandstone
High percent
CO2 >2236 <1015 >2055 or Wide range NC >2500 NC
of C1to C2
Carbonate

NC if
dipping
and/ or
Immiscible
>12 <500 NC >3570 NC good NC >1800 NC
gases
vertical
permeabilit
y

Enhanced Waterflooding
Light,
Micellar intermediate,
Polymer, some organic Sandstone >10450 >90003 >200
>2035 <3513 >3553 NC
ASP/ acids for preferred 250 80
Alkaline alkaline
floods

>11,500 >100
Polymer Sandstone
7 to 10 <150, >10 NC >50100 NC >50
Flooding preffered
2,500 125

Thermal/ Mechanic
High
Some
<5,000 porosity
Combustion >3548 Asphaltic >5072 >10 >50 >6000 NC
1,200 sand/
components
Sandstone

100
High
<200,000 porosity >10012 >45001
Steam >8 to 13.5 NC >4066 >20 NC
4,700 sand/ ,540 500
Sandstone

>5:1
Overbur
Surface >8 wt% Mineable
7 to 10 Zero to flow NC >10 NC den to NC
Mining sand Tar sand
sand
ratio

Table 41 Summary of screening criteria for EOR method

Current Oil-in-Place

Before proceed to EOR method, it is important to determine the residual oil in


the reservoir with good oil recovery (greater than 90% Original Oil in Place in the region
swept) as it is become parameter in which the project should or should proceed with the
tertiary recovery. That residual oil can be recovered using one of the EOR techniques.

Economic Criteria

The crude oil market is continuing to dive, bounce and then dive again.
Currently, the price is at around $35 per barrel. One of the most important
considerations is the cost capital expenditure which will be spent for EOR operation.
Hence, it is more important to consider the most economically feasible project that
provide a lower cost.

5.8.2 EOR Plan


Screening process were carried out to identify the most feasible EOR method for
Gelama Merah reservoirs. The EOR assessment process is done and illustrate manually.
The EOR processes that were considered for screening are specified:

1. Thermal Injection
2. Immiscible Gas Flooding/ injection method (CO2 gas Injection, Chemical
Injection)
3. Nitrogen Injection
4. CO2 Injection
5. Water Alternating Gas (WAG)

101
Thermal injection is an increasingly common method of extracting heavy crude
oil by injecting heat intentionally into a subsurface for the purpose of recovering
hydrocarbon through wells. Thermal injection mainly uses at heavy oil which has low
API value (less than 20 API) reservoir and has high viscosity. Therefore it is not
recommended to be applied in Gelama Merah Field as it has a high API value (> 20
API) and also Gelam Merah has moderate porosity. Moreover, thermal injection method
is costly and applicable for high porosity of sandstone.

Another injection method is chemical injection. Basically certain amount of


chemical/ surfactant is injected into the reservoir zone to sweep the residual oil into the
surface. The chemical solutions have been used to aid mobility and the reduction in
surface tension. One of the consideration that also important is economic analysis should
be conducted to identify whether it is feasible enough or not. The cost for chemicals are
expensive thus it is not recommended at the moment due to the current oil price is low.
Apart from that, further investigation has to be done to determine the suitable surfactant
and polymer that can work effectively in the reservoir.

Nitrogen displacement is also not recommended as the criteria to apply this


method is not match with the reservoir and fluid properties of Gelama Merah. This
criteria is applicable at oil gravity above 35 and viscosity les sthan 0.4 cp. However,
Gelama Merah has oil gravity at 23.7 API (<35 API) and oil viscosity at 1.33 cp
(>0.4cp). Water Alternating Gas (WAG) is also feasible EOR since it is easy to find the
material such as hydrocarbon gas and water and the process for injection is not complex.
Several of Malay basins such as in Dulang Field has successfully implemented this EOR
method. WAG is more recommended as compared to the other single method (gas
injection or water injection) because WAG injection has better macroscopic sweep
efficiency due to the fingering effects as it reduces the gas mobility ratio that results in
better sweep efficiency. Water alternating gas (WAG) method is commonly cheap as the
volume of gas injected can be minimized and water can be injected alternately. If this
method is preffered, a proper facilities equipment are required to mitigate the CO2
corrosion.

102
Figure 58 The Illustration of WAG Injection.
The technology was intended originally to improve sweep efficiency during gas
flooding. Typically, improved oil recovery (IOR) potential for WAG injection is better
when compared with water injection at 5-10%.

CO2 Injection is carried out by injecting large quantities of CO2 (30% or more of
the hydrocarbon Pore Volume) into the reservoir. The CO2 extracts the light-to-
intermediate components from the oil even though CO2 is not first-contact miscible with
the crude oil ,and if the pressure is high enough, develops miscibility to displace the
crude oil from the reservoir (MMP). Immiscible displacements are less effective, but
CO2 recover oil better than waterflooding. CO2 recover crude oil by (1) swelling the
crude oil (CO2 is very soluble in high-gravity oils); (2) lowering the viscosity of the oil
(much more effectively than N2 or CH4); (3) lowering the interfacial tension between
the oil and the CO2 /oil phase in the near-miscible regions; and (4) generation of
miscibility when pressure is high enough.

Figure 59 The illustration of CO2 flooding.

103
5.9 Reservoir Management And Surveillance

5.9.1 Reservoir Management

The term reservoir management can be defined as a strategy for applying


multiple technologies in an optimal way to achieve synergy. The steps taken to achieve
maximum economic recovery are as follows:

1. The reservoir rock and fluid properties are determined using all the geological
and reservoir data available to estimate the oil initially in place (OIIP) and gas
initially in place (GIIP).
2. Creaming curve to determine the optimum number and location of wells which is
plotted with the data gathered from running the reservoir simulation using
PETREL.
3. The wells locations were determined by taking into consideration factors such as
high porosity area, low water saturation area, clearance from oil-water contact
and thickness of reservoir.
4. Avoid the drilling of unnecessary wells by looking at the creaming curve where
it was decided that 6 wells would be sufficient.
5. The field is planned to start producing 11,321.66 stb/d of oil on 1st January 2016
for 20 years up till 2036.
6. The Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) technique is chosen using the technical and
economical screening method. It was decided the suitable EOR techniques are
Water-Alternating-Gas (WAG) injection and CO2 gas injection by taking into
consideration reservoir and oil properties by screening criteria, current oil in
place and considering current oil price for economic criteria and operating
expenditure (Opex).
7. The use of various recovery technologies will be evaluated throughout the life
stages of the reservoir.

104
5.9.2 Reservoir Surveillance

Frequent monitoring and surveillance of the reservoir is necessary to adhere to


the management plan. The reservoir surveillance has been divided into a few types,
which are done according to how frequently it should be carried out. The table below
summarizes the reservoir surveillance plan:

Frequency Reservoir Surveillance Description

Tubing Head Pressure To monitor the well pressure.


Everyday
Production Rate To monitor the well production.

Bottom Hole Pressure To monitor the reservoir pressure.


Monthly API Gravity To monitor the viscosity of the
hydrocarbon.

Static Gradient Survey To monitor the pressure of the well during


shut-in.
Yearly
Flowing Gradient To monitor the pressure of the flowing
Survey well.
Table 42 Reservoir Surveillance

However, it is important to note that the plan in the table above is merely a
guideline and it is not rigid. The surveillance may be carried out as and when necessary,
even if it does not follow the period as suggested in the table. Reservoir surveillance will
assist in the understanding of the reservoir performance.

105
5.9.3 Risk Analysis And Uncertainties

1. Core analysis did not provide sufficient sand distribution information.

High uncertainties regarding the heterogeneity of the sands and


complexities of the trap due to unconformity

2. Insufficient seismic data to build the 3D static model.

Unable to build an accurate fault model

3. Varieties of lithofacies increases reservoir heterogeneity which may reduce


connectivity between layers.

Presence of shale between sand layers reduces vertical permeability as


well.

4. Possible inaccuracy in well log data.

Feldspar highly radioactive

106
CHAPTER 6: DRILLING ENGINEERING

6.1 Introduction
In order to develop the Gelama Merah Field, the Drilling Engineering team have
been tasked to develop the wells as per requested by the Reservoir Engineer team. For
this field, the total number of wells that are planned to be develop are 13 which is
comprising eight producer wells and five injector wells.

In term of the wells profile, there will be 12 deviated wells and 1 vertical well connected
to one single platform. The drilling program is created with the objective of planning
and executing safe and cost effective approach.

6.1.1 Offset Well Analysis Stick Chart


From the information that are obtained through the well report that have been provided,
an offset well analysis based on Gelama Merah 1 and Gelama Merah ST-1 wells have
been made in order to identify existing drilling problem and to anticipate the future
drilling problems from the wells that are going to
be drilled.

Offset well analysis will show the problems that


have been anticipated from GM 1 and GM ST 1
base on the depth location.

Figure 60 Offset Well Trajectory


107
6.1.2 Well Offset Analysis

Rig Hakuryu III Hakuryu III


Water Depth 70.1 m 70.1 m
DF Elevation 27.3 m 27.3 m
Max Inclination 1 .91 39.41
Date finish 25-Jan-03 26-Jan-03
Well Name GM - 1 GM - 1 ST - 1

21-1/2" Cond 21-1/2" Cond


MD/TVD @ 110 m MD/TVD @ 110 m

2
500'
13-3/8" CSG 13-3/8" CSG
MD/TVD @ 550.78 m MD/TVD @ 550.78 m

1000' 3 4&5

1500' 9-5/8" CSG


MD/TVD @ 1606.89 m

6 - 10
Legend

Stuck Pipe t
Reaming up

Reaming down MW increase

Figure 61 Well Analysis Stick Chart

108
Gelama Merah 1 and Gelama Merah ST-1 Well Analysis :

Gelama Merah 1 Well Stick Chart Analysis

No. Depth (m)

1 110-553 RIH does not pass 26. Reaming well.

2 582-620 Pulser failure lead to MWD tools failed when drilling into
new formation. Pull out of hole (POOH)

3 1132 - 1208 Tight spot detected while bit POOH. Jar with 10-20 tons
applied

GM 1 ST-1 Well Analysis

No. Depth (m) Problem

4. 1220 - 1229 Pack-off and tight spot detected. Increase mud weight

5. 1258 - 1316 Tight spot detected at 1258m, 1286m, 1316m

6. 1402 Hard reamed. Change the Bottom Hole Assembly (BHA)

7. 1447 - 1455 Pipe Stuck due to tight spot

8. 1733 - 1337 Back Ream

9. 1740 - 1767 Back Ream

10. 1797 - 1780 Back Ream


Table 43 Gelama Merah 1 and Gelama Merah ST-1 Well Analysis

By analyzing the problem that happened during the drilling operation of the
offset wells, the chances of the drilling schedule to be meet as planned would be higher
as the problems at the respective depth have already being expected..

109
6.2 Rig Selection

After considering the criterias such as water depth, number of wells to be drilled,
location of the targets, target depth and water depths, the type of the rig that are going to
be used for Gelama Merah development project are selected.

Table below summarize the option for type of the drilling rig that can be choose.

Type of Drilling Water Depth Average Daily Average Daily Average Daily
Unit (ft) Rate (USD) Rate (USD) Rate (USD)
Minimun
Average Maximun

Jack Up Rig 450 max $43,300 $141,099 $389,000


$35,000 $138,896 $414,000
Tender Assisted Anchor Length $147,000 $287,000 $395,000
Drilling Rig $135,000 $314,000 $512,000
(TAD)

Semi- 150 7500 $145,000 $386,874 $641,000


Submersible $115,000 $400,940 $624,000

Drilling Ship 1000-8000 $151,000 $497,377 $737,000


$97,000 $500,953 $670,000
Table 44 Rig Types and Rates

Based from the information that can be retrieved from report, the water depth or
Mean Sea Level (MSL) for the location of the project is 42.8 metres ( 140.39 ft). This
water depth is important as it can decide the factors for the type of the rig that are
suitable for the project.

The increase in the water depth would directly increase the difficulty of the
drilling operation thus would need more complicated drilling rigs.

110
Gelama Merahs water depth can be categorized as shallow water thus the
selection of the rigs can be simplified into the Jack up Rig and Semi-Submersible Rig.
Tender Assisted Drilling Rig are not selected as it is unsuitable for the drilling operation
in Gelama Merah field location especially during Monsoon season which would put
safety of the drilling crew on the line during the drilling operation.

For records, semi submersible rigs have been used by the drilling operator who
managed to drill GM 1 and GM 1 ST 1 wells without any distinctive problem. However,
the team has come to an agreement to use Jack-up rig as the drilling rig for the project
for several reasons.

Jack up rig can be operated within water depth maximum of 450 ft which is
suitable for this field drilling operation which operated at water depth 140.39 ft. It also
have the least daily rate compare to semi-sub rig. Beside, Jack Up rig is easy to mobilize
from one location to another location desired. Another advantages for jack up rig is, it
can drill multiple wells from a single platform which through the slots of hull which
high efficiency without moving the rig entirely which would be time consuming and
would increase the cost of the drilling operation.

111
6.3 Well Trajectory

According the well optimization plan, the optimized number of well that can be
drilled for Gelama Merah Field are 1 Vertical Wells and 12 deviated wells. Based on the
well positioning, it is recommended to use one platform to connect all of the wells and
one drilling rig will be used to drill all the 13 wells.

Name of Wells X - axis Y - axis


GM A 25276116.98 25615896.41
GM B 25275538.82 25616221.70
GM C 25275517.89 25617198.73
GM D 25274422.96 25617302.16
GM E 25276182.79 25615228.37
GM F 25273877.85 25618027.65
GM G 25274067.64 25616725.85
GM H 25274800.00 25615800.00
GM INJ1 25274874.93 25616882.35
GM INJ2 25275123.96 25615244.94
GM INJ3 25270605.40 25613773.87
GM INJ4 25273403.18 25617519.76
GM INJ5 25277101.92 25615658.84
Table 45 Name of Well and Targets Location based on Northing and Easting

112
x 100000 256.19

GM F
256.18

Inj 4
256.18 GM D
GM C

256.17 Inj 1
GM G
Y Axis

Platform
256.17

GM B GM A
256.16 Inj 3 GM H
Inj 5

256.16
Inj 2 GM E

256.15
252.73 252.74 252.75 252.76 252.77 252.78
X axis x 100000

Figure 62 Top View of the Targets and The Platform Location

Figure above showed the distribution of the wellbore targets and the location of
the platform. Based on the team discussion, it have been decided that the location of the
platform is on the top of the Target 2 or GM B as it is the most strategic location where
it can reach to the all target in the lowest distance.

113
Planned Survey
GM A
Measured Vertical Vetical Build up
Inclination Azimuth +N/-S (ft) +E/W (ft) Dogleg rate
Depth Depth (ft) Section Rate
(ft) () () (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (/100ft) (/100ft)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0
5078.8 37.38 118.37 42726.8 -758.1 1404 1595.6 0.74 0.74
6055.6 37.38 118.37 5503 -1039.9 1925.8 2188.6 0 0

Figure 63 GM A Trajectory Figure 64 GM B Trajectory

Planned Survey
GM B
Measured Vertical Vetical Build up
Inclination Azimuth +N/-S (ft) +E/W (ft) Dogleg rate
Depth Depth (ft) Section Rate
() () (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (/100ft) (/100ft)
0 0 0 0 20 30 0 0 0
7.5 0.38 236.31 7.5 20 30 0 5 5
5503.1 0.38 236.31 5503 0 30 36.1 0 0

114
Planned Survey
GM C
Measured Vertical Vetical Build up
Inclination Azimuth +N/-S (ft) +E/W (ft) Dogleg rate
Depth Depth (ft) Section Rate
() () (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (/100ft) (/100ft)
0 0 0 0 40 30 0 0 0
628.8 31.44 358.21 597.7 208.1 24.8 168.2 5 5
6378.1 31.44 358.21 5503 3205.5 -68.7 3167 0 0

Figure 66 GM C Trajectory Figure 65 GM D Trajectory

Planned Survey
GM D
Measured Vertical Vetical Build up
Inclination Azimuth +N/-S (ft) +E/W (ft) Dogleg rate
Depth Depth (ft) Section Rate
() () (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (/100ft) (/100ft)
0 0 0 0 30 20 0 0 0
439.9 43.99 313.68 398 131 -96.3 160.8 10 10
7536 43.99 313.68 5503 3544.8 -3661.5 5089.5 0 0
7357 44.19 314.08 5503.7 3543.3 -3661.5 5090.2 34.27 34.27

115
Planned Survey
GM E
Measured Vertical Vetical Build up
Inclination Azimuth +N/-S (ft) +E/W (ft) Dogleg rate
Depth Depth (ft) Section Rate
() () (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (/100ft) (/100ft)
0 0 0 0 10 30 0 0 0
7172.8 70.32 70.32 5503 -3259 2112.8 3876.1 0.98 0.98

Figure 67 GM E Trajectory
Figure 68 GM F Trajectory

Planned Survey
GM F
Measured Vertical Vetical Build up
Inclination Azimuth +N/-S (ft) +E/W (ft) Dogleg rate
Depth Depth (ft) Section Rate
() () (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (/100ft) (/100ft)
0 0 0 0 40 20 0 0 0
139.9 55.96 317.1 118.7 86.2 -22.9 63.1 40 40
9759.1 55.96 317.1 5503 5925 -5449.4 8034.2 0 0

116
Planned Survey
GM G
Measured Vertical Vetical Build up
Inclination Azimuth +N/-S (ft) +E/W (ft) Dogleg rate
Depth Depth (ft) Section Rate
() () (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (/100ft) (/100ft)
0 0 0 0 30 10 0 0 0
107.8 43.13 288.56 97.9 42.3 -26.7 38.7 40 40
7514.1 43.13 288.56 5503 1654 -4826.7 5102.1 0 0

Figure 69 GM G Trajectory Figure 70 GM G Trajectory

117
6.4 Drilling Schedule, Program and Cost Estimation

6.4.1 Drilling Schedule and Cost Estimation

Days Cost
Well Names Drilling & Cumulative USD Cumulative
Other
Completion Days mil USD mil
Start 0 - 0 - 0.00
Rig
-
Mobilization 2.5 2.5 0.1 0.10
Rig Up 0.5 - 3 0.2 0.26
GM - A - 29 32 14.3 14.56
GM - B - 29 61 10.2 24.76
GM - C - 29 90 15.7 40.46
GM - D - 29 119 16.0 56.46
GM - E - 29 148 15.0 71.46
GM - F - 31 179 16.3 87.76
GM - G 31 210 15.0 102.76
GM - H 29 239 15.0 117.76
Injector 1 - 27 266 15.0 132.76
Injector 2 - 27 293 15.0 147.76
Injector 3 - 31 324 20.3 168.06
Injector 4 - 31 355 16.0 184.06
Injector 5 - 27 382 15.0 199.06
Rig Down 0.5 382.5 0.2 199.22
Demobilization 2.5 385 0.1 199.32
Total 385 199.32
Table 46 Drilling Schedule and Cost Estimation

Total of 13 wells are going to be drilled. One vertical well named GM B and 12 other wells all
are deviated.

118
6.4.2 Drilling Programme and Drilling Schedule

Duration Cumulative Days Depth (m)


Activity
Start 0 0 0
Skid rig, N/U
0.5 0.5 0
Diverter
Drill 8-1/2 Pilot
0.5 1 300
Hole to 300m
Open Hole to 24
1 2 500
to 500m
Set 20 casing 1.5 3.5 500
N/D Diverter, N/U
1.5 5 500
and test BOP
Drill 12 1/4" hole
1.5 6.5 950
to 950m
Open Hole to 17-
2 8.5 1300
1/2
Set 13-3/8 casing 2.5 11 1300
Drill 12-1/4" hole
4 15 1650
to 1650 m
Open hole Logging 1.5 16.5 1650
Set 7 casing 3 19.5 1650
Cement Bond
1 20.5 1650
Logging (CBL)
Completion 4 24.5 1650
Contingency 4.5 29 1650
Table 47 Drilling Programme

119
Well Progress Chart
Drilling Activity
Drilling Completion
0
200
400
600
Depth (m)

800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800

Days form Spud

Figure 71 Well Progress Chart

Well progress chart are divided into two section. The first section is the drilling time
and the second section is the completion time. For the drilling time, base on the calculation
and estimation, it took 16.5 day or 396 hours to drill the well starting from the surface up
until the target depth. While for well completion, it estimated to take 12.5 day or 300 hours
in other to complete a well.

The actual well progress chart for different well may varied due to different well dogleg
severity, different wellbore length and the different problems that may encountered during
the drilling operation.

120
Drilling Schedule

The Drilling Schedule is estimated to started on the first of May 2016 and estimated to finish at the late of May 2017. In this schedule, the
drilling strategy that have been used is drilling back to back strategy, once the current well have been finised drilling, the drilling team then
will proceed with the next well.

May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17

GM A

GM B

GM C

GM D

GM E

GM F

GM G

GM H

INJ 1

INJ 2

INJ 3

INJ 4

INJ 5

Drilling
Producing

Figure 72 Drilling Schedule

121
6.5. Casing Design

6.5.1 Casing Design and Configuration

Casing is a large diameter pipe that is assembled and inserted into a recently drilled
section of borehole and held into place with cement. Casing program is an early stage of
planning the construction of wells, then program the cementing of the casing. If the entire
casing and cementing program has been completed and striking productive formations
subsequent wells completed to produce hydrocarbon fluid phase to the surface. It is very
important for drilling engineers to design the optimum casing design that allows well to be
drilled and operated through its life.

The main purpose of the casing is to protect the wells from the certain problems that
may be encountered during the operation. The casing used for oil and gas wells have been
standardized by the API which has the following specifications such as diameter, nominal
weight, type of connection, grade and length.

From the specifications it can be determined casing strength. The stronger a cover
price more expensive. So the price is expensive casing would cause costs to a larger wells
comes. It is necessary to plan the casing setting to be lowered into the wellbore.

Figure 73 General Casing Design

122
Below are the standard applications of casing according to the types and its function along
with the setting depth (from seabed):

Casing Type Functions Setting Depth


To prevent damage at the base of
the tower and on offshore drilling
Conductor Enables circulation of drilling 150-600 ft

fluid.

Prevent collapse of the borehole


wall in compact formations
Surface Support the wellhead and BOP 1000-5000 ft

equipment

Isolate troublesome formation


between surface and production
Intermediate 1000-10000 ft
casing

Separate the producing zone


from the other formation
Set across or above pay
Production Conduit for production and
zone
testing tubing

A casing string that does not


extend to the top of the wellbore
Set above the
Liner Substantial savings in steel
production casing
Capital costs

Table 48 Typical Well Casing Design and Function

123
6.5.2 Casing Setting Depth Determination

The primary criteria for casing setting depth are based on the isolation of lost
circulation zones and differential sticking problems. Usually the primary consideration is
based on the abnormal formation pressure as well as preventing the exposure to weaker
shallow zones. The casing setting depth for this project are designed baed on the offset well
pressure profile of the formation such as pore pressure and fracture pressure of the
formation. Those data are required to to generate the mud-operating window for the well
formation in order to drill the formation without fracturing the formation and preventing
fluid from invading wellbore. It is very crucial to be set up in order to set the casing setting
depth according to the mud-operating window.

The casing setting depth for this project is started by knowing the geological
condition of Gelama Merah field such as formation pressure and fracture gradient. This
information is generally available with some degree of accuracy. Pre-spud calculation and
the actual drilling conditions determine the exact locations for each casing seat. These type
of data will generate the mud-operating windows which is used to determine the casing
depth according to the mud operating window.

The principle used to determine setting-depth selection can be adequately described


by the Adage (2002), that the initial step is to determine the formation pressures and
fracture mud weights that will be penetrated. After these have been established, the
operator must design a casing program based on the assumption that he already knows the
behavior of the well before it is drilled.

This principle is used extensively for infill drilling where the known conditions
dictate the casing program. Using these guidelines, the operator can select the most
effective casing program that meets the necessary pressure requirements and minimize the
casing cost.

124
Depth Formation Trip Margin Formation Fracture Kick Fracture
Depth (m)
(ft) Pressure (psi) (psi) Gradient (psi/ft) Pressure (psi) Margin Gradient (ppg)
42 137.80 75.93 75.93 82.68 82.68
400 1312.34 511.81 611.81 0.39 787.40 687.40 11.54
600 1968.50 829.13 979.13 0.42 1259.84 1109.84 12.31
720 2362.20 1019.53 1169.53 0.43 1559.06 1409.06 12.69
950 3116.80 1345.21 1495.21 0.43 2150.59 2000.59 13.27
1050 3444.88 1486.81 1636.81 0.43 2411.42 2261.42 13.46
1200 3937.01 1781.10 1931.10 0.45 2834.65 2684.65 13.85
1332.0 4370.08 2092.58 2242.58 0.48 3190.16 3040.16 14.04
1349.0 4425.85 2095.60 2245.60 0.47 3275.13 3125.13 14.23
1379.5 4525.92 2099.96 2249.96 0.46 3394.44 3244.44 14.42
1414.5 4640.75 2105.14 2255.14 0.45 3480.56 3330.56 14.42
1442.0 4730.97 2109.12 2259.12 0.45 3595.54 3445.54 14.62
1466.0 4809.71 2112.51 2262.51 0.44 3655.38 3505.38 14.62
1488.5 4883.53 2116.16 2266.16 0.43 3696.83 3546.83 14.56
1495.0 4904.86 2119.70 2269.70 0.43 3727.69 3577.69 14.62
1507.5 4945.87 2131.90 2281.90 0.43 3758.86 3608.86 14.62
1523.0 4996.72 2150.35 2300.35 0.43 3797.51 3647.51 14.62
1528.0 5013.12 2156.32 2306.32 0.43 3809.97 3659.97 14.62
1536.0 5039.37 2166.26 2316.26 0.43 3829.92 3679.92 14.62
1540.5 5054.13 2172.52 2322.52 0.43 3841.14 3691.14 14.62
1544.0 5065.62 2178.02 2328.02 0.43 3849.87 3699.87 14.62
1548.0 5078.74 2183.55 2333.55 0.43 3859.84 3709.84 14.62
1550.0 5085.30 2221.77 2371.77 0.44 3875.00 3725.00 14.65
1587.0 5206.69 2238.69 2388.69 0.43 3957.09 3807.09 14.62
1600.0 5249.34 2293.44 2443.44 0.44 3989.50 3839.50 14.62
Table 49 Offset Wellpressure Profile of Gelama Merah

125
Mud Window
Depth Vs Pressure
Pressure (psi)

0.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00 2500.00 3000.00 3500.00 4000.00 4500.00
0
100
200
300
400
500
True Vertival

600
Depth (m)

700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700

Fracture pressure Formation Pressure Trip Margin Kick Margin

Figure 74 Mud Window of Gelama Merah well

126
Figure below showed the setting depth determination for each type of casing based
on the pore pressure and fracture gradient generated from the mud window.

Mud Window
Pressure (psi)
0.00 1000.00 2000.00 3000.00 4000.00
0
100 30 Conductor
@110m
200
300
400
500
13 3/8"
600 Surface

700
800
True Vertival
Depth (ft)

900
9 5/8"
Production
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600

Fracture pressure Formation Pressure

Trip Margin Kick Margin

Figure 75 Setting Depth for Casing Design

127
Top Formation (m-TVDDF
Reason Casing Setting Depth
30" casing serves as conductor. Set @110 m to conduit driling
fluid and isolate wellbore from shallow formation.
13-3/8" casing serves as surface casing. Set @550 m. sufficient of
26 formation strength to support the planned MW for the next hole
section.
Conductor seal off fresh water zones and provide structural support for BOP
equipment and Wellhead

17-1/2
to case off Top Red to stage Mid Uc formation (well known thick
shale formation), to cased of top unit 5 to unit 9 dominat
claystone interbedded with minor sandstone.

12-
1/4
Well Target Depth TD 35 m below Top Unit 9

Figure 76 Summary of Casing Setting Depth Selection Criteria

6.5.3 Casing Design Criteria

Casing is used for oil and gas wells have been standardized by the API
(American Petroleum Institute), which has the following specifications such as grade,
nominal weight, range, dimeter and type of connection. From the specifications it can
be determined the casing strength. The stronger casing is more expensive. Therefore,
It is necessary to plan the casing to be lowered into the wellbore.

The casing must be planned in order to be able to withstand all the forces
acting on it, the forces are taken into account in planning casing common are:
External Pressure, Internal Pressure and Tension Load. Clearly will be explained as
below:

128
External Pressure
In the borehole, the pressure outside the casing may be greater than inside the
casing because of the formation fluid pressure or because of the high pressure fluid
column (hydrostatic) between the casing the borehole. At a state where the outer
casing pressure far greater than the pressure inside, the casing will tend to collapse. If
the collapse associated with permanent deformation, so-called plastic failure and if no
permanent deformation is called elastic failure. The ability of the casing to withstand
the pressure from the outside without deformation (permanent or not permanent)
called the collapse resistance.
Usually the design factor for collapse cost between 1.0 - 1:25 which has a
relationship:
Pc = Pext x Nc
Where :
Pc = collapse resistance or strength of the casing to withstand the pressure f
rom the outside, psi
Pext = pressure coming from outer casing, in this case the external pressure
considered to be equal to the hydrostatic pressure of the mud pressure.
Because external pressure equal to the hydrostatic pressure of mud, the biggest
pressure comes from the outside at the bottom of the hole. With this planning is the
strongest casing mounted on the bottom.

Figure 77 Imposition Condition Collapse

129
Internal Pressure
Load burst due to pressure inside the casing (internal pressure) that is not able
to withstand the casing. Internal pressure occurs when formation fluids enter into the
casing, as well as in similar circumstances such as when performing squeezing and
fracturing, the casing must be able to withstand high pressure. The biggest part is
exposed to pressure from within is at the top of the circuit casing. And when the
pressure in the very large and not able to be detained by the casing so it can lead to
rupture of the casing longitudinally.

In a burst load, the maximum load is a load resulting burst of gas column which fills
the entire length of the casing. So that the maximum pressure limit is only found on
the feet of casing injection pressure:

Pi= d Z 0.052

Where:

ds = maximum cement slurry density

dm = minimum mud density

Zs = Shoe depth

In planning the casing, the casing has been internal pressure withstand strength (called
internal yield pressure) is greater than the pressure interval, namely:

IP 0.052 Gf Ni L
Where :
Pi = internal yield pressure, psi
Pint = internal pressure, psi
NI = design factor
If PI <Pint, the casing will experience bursting or rupture. The amount of internal
pressure in the casing usually used assumption is equal to the formation pressure.

130
Figure 78 Position Illustration Burst On Casing

Tension Load
Each connection on the casing must be able to withstand the weight of the
circuit casing underneath and tensile load (tension load) occurred at the very top of
the circuit. The weakest part of the tensile load is at the connection or joint, so that the
burden is borne collectively, the joint load. The strength of the casing withstand a
tensile load or load joint called the joint strength.

Joint Grade Cs C1 C

F 25 53.5 - 135

H 40 72.5 - 182

J 55 96.6 159 243

N 80 112.3 185 282

P 110 146.9 242 369

Table 50 Constants Joint Strength

Joint load a casing, ignoring buoyancy factor, can be taken from the casing
weight hanging on a connection that had held, namely:

131
W BN L
Where :
W = tension load. Lb
BN = nominal weight casing, lb / ft
L = display casing that hangs, ft
In planning casing, used casing which has FJ greater than W, namely:
F W NJ
Where :
Nj = price factor design.
Based on statistical data, Nj prices used in the planning of the casing ranges
between 1.6 - 2.0.

Biaxial Stress
Biaxial strees is the casing which receives two forces simultaneously affect
each other. In general, forces of biaxial strees considered in the planning of the casing
is in the form of gravity of the casing collapse resistance. Casing collapse resistance
price will be reduced if the casing receives tensile force, which tensile force of gravity
derived casing circuit casing that hangs on the casing investigated. Therefore, the
price of casing collapse resistance must be corrected by the weight of the casing that
hangs it.

The casing specification is nominated created on pressure control, cost


efficiency and also conformance to the PETRONAS Procedures and Guideline For
Upstream Activities (PPGUA) and completion supplies created on Gelama Merahs
Main. Design factor that are set by PCSB are shown below.

Design factor PCSB Required Factor


Collapse(Psi) 1.125
Burst(Psi) 1.1
Tension 1.3
Table 51 Design Factor for Casing Stress Check

132
Type Conductor Surface production liner
Size 20" 13-3/8" 9-5/8" 7"
Shoe Depth. ft
360 1236 3610 3110
TVDSS
Grade H-40 H-40 H-40 H-40
Nominal Weight
94 48 32.3 20
lb/ft
Wall thickness ,in 0.438 0.33 0.312 0.279
Mud density 7.04 8.78 8.84 9.72
Body Yield strength
1077 2070 410 230
1000lbf
Tension of casing
208 208 220 236
1000 lbf
Burst Load at
243.94 838.19 1345 2107
surface, Psi
Burst Load ,Psi 112 384.85 1001 1240
reservoir pressure
149.94 555.95 1740 787.4
Psi
The minimum
1640 1640 2560 1940
internal yield PSi
yield strength psi 56796.38 23396.72 20721 19949
Table 52 Casing Specification and Load (Casing Stress Check) based on API Grade

6.6 Cementing plan

Oil well cementing is a process of mixing a slurry of cement and water and
pumping it through the casing pipe into the annulus between the casing pipe and the
drilled hole. Cement plugs are also set in the wellbore in order to isolate zones such as
loss zones, water bearing zones.

The objectives of cementing are to support the casing pipe and restrict the
movement of formations fluid behind the casing (Primary cementing), repairing
primary cementing, zone abandonment, sidetracking and plug back cementing and
squeeze cementing (Secondary cementing).

133
In the Field Development Plan, cementation is an essential measure to ensure
the wellbore integrity. The type of cement that were chosen is API Class G Cement
and were knows as well as HSR, high sulphate resistant. The reason why API Class G
cement were chosen is because of this Class G cement is suitable for Gelama Merah
field environment instead of it can be operated up until 10000 ft below the subsea
surface (TVDSS). It is the most optimum type of cement that will be the safety
measure for this well integrity.

The cementing plan for each producing well in this project are proposed as
shown in the following table:

Casing Size Parameter Main Slurry Tail Slurry


Volume 407.35 bbls 165.03 bbls
Cement Grade G G
Weight 12.5 ppg 15.8 ppg
21-1/2 csg & Mix Water 307.21 bbls 94.65 bbls
13-3/8" csg Yield 2.17 cuft/sk 1.19 cuft/sk

Sea Water, D47, Sea Water, D75,


Composition D75, D110, D80 D80, D11, D168
Total Cement 572 bbls
Volume 99.0 bbls
Cement Grade G
Weight 15.8
Mix Water 60 bbls
9-5/8" csg
Yield 1.18 cuft/sk
Sea Water, D47,
D80, D168,
Composition D110

Total Cement 99.0 bbls


Table 53 Cementing Plan

134
6.7 Drill Bit Plan

Drill bit is equipment installed at the bottom of the drill string that touch to the
formations. The function of the bits is to drill the hole. Bit receives the load and
rotation of the drill string which can penetrate and destroy the formation. Cuttings will
be lifted up by the drilling mud and drill bit will continue to penetrate and destroy the
new rock formations continuously. Each bit has a different ability to make a hole
wells.

The success of drilling operations is determined by the bit performance or the


ability to make a hole drill in any wells as much as possible. Therefore, the type of
drill bit used must be in accordance with the coating hardness formations drilled.

Selecting the proper bits for well is an important decision that affects the overall
well cost. Many factors must be considered:

Bit Cost
Rig and overall operation spread cost
Expected parameters
Formation types and properties
Mud System

6.7.1 Bit Classification:

Roller cone bits (Milled tooth, tungsten carbide insert)


Fixed cutter bits (PDC and Diamond)

135
Figure 79 Insert Bit Figure 80 Mill Tooth Bit

Figure 81 PDC Bit Figure 82 Diamond Bit

6.7.2 Factors Affecting on the Bit Selection

There are two main factors that play a big role on the bit selection. These factors are;

Formation characteristics

The type of the selected bit depends on the formation drillability which relates
to the formation hardness characteristics. For example, long tooth soft bits are used to
drill soft formations in shallow depths and short tooth ones to drill hard formations.
Drillability usually decreases with depth due to increasing in the rock hardness and
overburden. Other factors such as the mud flow properties and low hydraulic power
also make drilling harder at deeper depths. Generally, milled tooth bits are used for

136
soft to medium formations, insert bits are usd for medium to hard formations while
Diamond bits are used for hard and very hard formations.

Bits are classified according to the International Association of Drilling Contractors


(IADC) code. This code is defined by three numbers and one character. The sequence
of numeric characters defines the Series, Type and Features of the bit. The
additional character defines additional design features. The (IADC) bit comparison
table is used to select the best bit for a particular application.

Economic considerations:

The most important factor in bit selection is the drilling cost ($/ft) and the bit cost.
This cost can be minimized by selecting the best bit that gives less drilling cost. There
are other factors that effect on the rate of penetration (ROP) and the drilling cost such
as weight on bit (WOB), rotary speed and hydraulics. However, the choice of the bit
type can have a bigger impact on drilling costs than the operating parameters.

For all drilling operating, bit selection should be based on a cost per foot of hole
drilled. This provides a bit comparison based on an optimum relationship between
penetration rate, bit footage, rig cost, trip time, and bit cost. Generally, the equation
below is used throughout the industry to calculate the cost per foot of hole for each bit
run.

Equation: Drill Bit Cost

+ + ( + )
=

Where; C = drilling cost ($/ft). T = drilling time (hr).

B = bit cost ($). t = round trip time (hr).

R = rig operating cost ($/hr). F = hole drilled by bit (ft).

137
In this field development project, the proposed drill bits to use for Gelama Merah
Field are Smith SDS and PDC Bit. The bit selection was decided based on the type of
formation that yield a different and specific compressive strength for each formation type and
zone. The reservoir environment of Gelama Merah field is mostly a fluvial environment,
which means that majority of the formation lithology is based on sandstone and clay. PDC
(polycrystalline Diamond Compact) bit is considered to be used in this drilling operation
because this PDC bit is the most suitable and hydratable sediments, which are sand or shale.
The entire bit properties are tabulated below:

WOB
Run No Depth (m) Size (inch) Serial Code Bit Selected RPM
(Tons)

1 110 26" HJ0528


SMITH SDS (Rock
0.5 to 15 80 to 120
Bit)
2 553 17-1/2" JS9314

3 800 12-1/2" 6005695

110 to
4 1250 12-1/2" W25DM HTC (PDC BIT) 4 to 23
150

5 1600 12-1/2" W25DM

SMITH SDS (Rock 110 to


6 1636 12-1/2" MK7092 0.5 to 15
Bit) 150

Table 54 Bit Selection Criteria

6.8 BHA Configurations

A bottom hole assembly (BHA) is a component of a drilling rig. It is the lowest part
of the drill string, extending from the bit until drill pipe. It consists of drill collars, subs such
as stabilizers, reamers, shocks, hole-openers and the bit sub and bit. Bottom Hole Assembly
is used to help the drilling process. The proper selection of BHA would go long way in
ensuring high ROP and thus help drill quickly and efficiency. This would lead to lowered
drilling costs.

138
There are three types of BHA configurations. These configurations addressed are
usually concern with the use or layout drill collars, heavy weight drill pipe and standard drill
pipe. Type 1, standard simple configuration, uses only drill pipe and drill collars. In this
instance the drill collars provide the necessary weight on the bit. Type 2 uses heavy weight
drill pipe as a transition between the drill collars and the drill pipe. Weight on bit is achieved
by the drill collars. Type 3 uses the drill collars to achieve directional control. The heavy
weight drill pipe applies the weight on the bit. Such a layout promotes faster rig floor BHA
handling. It may also reduce the tendency for differential sticking.

In most cases the above three types of configurations usually apply to straight/vertical
wellbores at most low to medium angle wellbores. For high angle and horizontal wellbore
careful weight control of the BHA is a must. In this instance the weight may be applied by
running the drill pipe in compression in the high angle section. The high angle may help to
stabilize the drill pipe allowing it to carry some compression.

The BHA configuration for Gelama Merah Field are using configuration type 2 which
consist of heavy weigh drill pipe as a transitional between the drill collars and drill pipe.
Type 3 considered to be apply at to achieve the directional control due to the some wells are
directional wells.

Below are the configuration strings used for bottom hole assembly (BHA):

276 m
5" DP 226 m 5" DP
5" DP

4 jnt HWDP 4 jnt HWDP 84 m


72 m 4 jnt HWDP

8"DC 8"DC
8"DC

32 m 18 m
17-1/2" STB 12-1/2"
12-1/2" STB STB

17-1/2" Bit
12-1/2"
12-1/2" Bit Bit

Figure 83 BHA Configuration Strings

139
6.9 Well Control System

6.9.1 Blow Out Preventer Selection

The maximum formation pressure of Gelama Merah well at target depth is 2217.93
psi, hence the blow out preventer to be selected is single ram blowout preventer instead of
annular blowout preventer this is due to higher competence for the well safety control
according to its formation pressure at target depth. The advantage of using ram blowout
preventer has effective seal on an open hole compare to annular preventer. Anular preventer
has to be reinforced by aseries of several ram preventers located bellow the annular
preventer. The service specialist company will be selectively choose the size of BOP
according to the well tubing size. Below is the single Ram BOP specifications:

Single Ram BOP Specification


Size (inch) Maximum operation pressure (psi)
5 1/2 2000
5 3000
7 2000
7 3000
8 5/8 2000
10 3/4 2000
16 2000
Table 55 Single Ram BOP Specification

6.9.2 Actuator/SSV (Model 120)

For actuator and SSV, model 120 from FMC technology has been chosen compared to
the other model due to correspondence to our well conditions such as pressure, temperature
and direction. The model 120 provides option in low pressure and critical service. 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. Our maximum formation pressure is around 2300psi
so this type of actuator can easily handle whenever there is a blowout. 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

140
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.

Figure 84 Actuator/ SSV Model 120

6.9.4 Christmas Tree

A Christmas tree is the assembly of spools, valves and fittings used for oil, gas, and
the other type of wells. The name Christmas comes from its similarity to a Christmas tree
decoration. They are commonly made from blocks comprising multiple valves.

Usually, there are two types of Christmas tree which are wet tree and dry tree. For
Glema Merah field, during the life span of wells, it requires dry three Christmas tree instead
of wet tree due to the well are intricately extended to a surface platform. Any personnel will
have more space to monitor the operations to maintenance or to complete the inspection.
While for the wet tree Christmas tree the system to be located at the sea floor, thousand meter
from the mean sea level.

141
Figure 85 llustration of well Head and Christmas Tree

6.9.3 Wellhead Design

Wellhead is the component at the surface of an oil and gas well that provides the
structural and pressure-containing interface for drilling and production equipment. The
ultimate purpose of wellhead is to provide the suspension point and pressure seals for casing
string that run from the bottom hole sections to the surface pressure control equipment. The
wellhead is installed after the casing string is run. The wellhead itself contains casing hangers
to suspend the casing and offer annulus seal.

Figure 86 Common Type of Wellhead Assembly

142
6.10 Drilling Hazards

Drilling hazard must be identified before, during and after the drilling operation.Identifying
potential drilling hazards are vital in order to avoid time loss during the operation and more
importantly to avoid any injury during the operation.

There are numbers of drilling operation that can be found throughout the Gelama Merah field
development plan. These drilling hazard can be identified as below.

6.10.1 Hole Cleaning.

Accumulation of the cuttings around the bottom of the edge of the drilling string need to be
handled properly, especially in highly deviated well. The high deviated well oftently have poor
efficiency of the borehole cleaning. The mud would take longer time travelling from the bit to the
surface due to the inclination angle and of the well and the increase in the drag force.

Problems that may arise from the inefficiency of borehole cleaning are high torque and drag,
pipe sticking, difficulty while running the casing and it will cause drill bit to become dull and wear off
quickly. As recommendation, the borehole cleaning operation can be increased by using Rotary
Steering System. The wab tools will clean up the borehole by turning

6.10.2 Pipe Sticking

Pipe sticking or known as the differential sticking is the condition when the drillstring are no
longer free to move as the driller desires. The drillstring might not be able to move either vertically by
running into or out the well, and rotating horizontally inside the wellbore.

Pipe sticking commonly happened due to the large pressure different of the hydrostatic
pressure of the mud and the pore pressure of the formation. Based on the Drilling Diary Report for
Gelama Merah 1, there is an reported pipe sticking that happened during the drilling operation, thus
this problem is expected to be happened during the drilling operation for the new wells proposed.

Contigency plan are needed in order to avoid this problem from repeating, especially during
the drilling operation for all the deviated well in the project because the risk of having pipe sticking
are higher with the high dogleg severity of the wells.

143
Pipe sticking chances can be reduced by the introducing reaming operation after the some
moment of the well have been drilled. This is to ensure that well diameter are always on gauge and
this will reduce the the chances of casing stuck during the casing running into the troubled formation
depth.

6.10.3 Shallow Gas

Gelama Merah reservoir is a gas cap reservoir, thus shallow gas is expected to be a problem
during the drilling operation. As per report, there is the probability of a shallow gas at 646m TVDDF
inside the gas cap region of the reservoir. Shallow gas is a common problem gas cap reservoir. As
the drill bits drilled into the shallow gas formation, the sudden changes of pressure will happen to thus
putting the drillers and crew in the risk of having the kick or the worst, blow-out. As a precaution, the
drillers may need to drill a pilot hole in the suspicious section. This pilot hole will act by limiting the
gas volume entering the annulus.

6.10.4 Gas Migration Problem

As mention before Gelama Merah field have a large gas cap presence that support the
reservoir pressure. This large gas cap would eventually causes some problem during the cementing
operation. Gas migration would eventually causes disruption during the cement bonding. The higher
the inclination angle, the higher the severity of the this problem. Thus a good cement mixture and
technique are required in order to solve for the problem.

The cement bonding problem due to the presence of the gas migration can be minimized by
using special cement with gas blocking capability, uses of external packer to separate between each
zone, and the practice of good cementing job and good casing centralization. These are the most
conducive method that can be used in to reduce the problem.

6.10.5 Existing Seabed Pipeline.

Another possible problem that may arise during the drilng operation ate the presence of the
existing marine cable and the seabed pipeline. The well trajectory can only be finalized once the
location of these obstacles have been identified and confirmed.

144
As for the Gelama Merah field, the well trajectory have been designed without the
consideration of any marine cables and seabed pipeline on the location as there is no data that can be
obtained of these obstacles whereabout. Therefore, this problem need to be reviewed as soon as the
location of the obstacles have been identified.

6.11 Drilling Optimization

Drilling Optimization are one of section where several alternatives and method for the
optimization of the drilling operation are introduced into the industry. The objective of the drilling
optimization is to reduce the time taken for the drilling operation,and to drill well as efficient as
possible and of course with the most cost-effective way. The objective of the drilling optimization
must also take into the consideration the safe working environment.

6.11.1 Rotary Steerable system

Conventional drilling operation commonly would expend more cost and time especially when drilling
an horizontal and highly deviated well. The time consumed while drilling that wells can be reduced
significantly by introducing the new technology of Rotary Steerable system into the operation. The
Rotary Steerable system will improve the drill cutting movement thus increasing the borehole
cleaning efficiency during drilling time. RSS would also yielded a smoother well trajectory with less
drag on the drill strings.

Figure 87 Rotary Steerable System

6.11.2 Casing While Drilling

Casing while drilling use a retrievable BHA while steering the casing into the wellbore. Instead of
using the drillpipe to rotate the BHAs as how the conventional drilling practices is, Casing while

145
drilling technology uses the casing as the substitute of the drillpipe in rotating the bit. The advantage
of this new technology is, it would work effectively especially when handling the drilling operation in
the lost circulation zone and any unconsolidated formation in the reservoir. It will reduce the time
consumed in order to ream the wellbore to be on gauge before running casing as per conventional
method. This new technology would also improve the well control due to its ability to allow fluid
circulation while BHA being tripping in or tripping out.

Figure 88 Arrangement of casing while drilling

146
CHAPTER 7 : PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY

The focus of this chapter will be on the production technology of the eight (8)
drainage points in Gelama Merah field that have been recognized to yield an ample amount
of oil production based on the findings from PETREL simulation. The analysis and reviews
by using the PROSPER software includes the Inflow and outflow performance, tubing size
selection, artificial lift consideration, sand control management, completion design and the
potential production issues.

7.1 Nodal Analysis


Nodal analysis is a total system analysis that is used to analyse the lift performance
systems composed of multiple component. The movement of the hydrocarbon fluids from the
reservoir to the surface will requires energy to overcome the pressure losses or friction losses
at the reservoir completion up to the tubing. The aim of the system analysis is to take into
account all various components of the production systems for an individual well by dividing
the system into two parts, inflow and outflow performance. The procedure is by selecting a
node point where the system will be divided into two parts at this point. All of the
components upstream from the node gives the inflow performance while the outflow
performance is comprises of all the components downstream of the selected node. A
relationship between inflow performance and outflow performance will gives the optimum
flow rate and pressure drop for each component in the system.

7.1.1 Inflow Performance Prediction

7.1.1.2 Exploration well Gelama Merah-1


The deliverability or the inflow performance of the reservoir is studied by utilizing the
exploration well data which is gained from the GM-1 and GM-1ST well test report. The test
data used in PROSPER software to predict the inflow performance of the exploration well is
tabulated as below:

Bottomhole Pressure 1753 psia


Rate 1378 stb/day
Wellhead Pressure 390 psi
Reservoir Pressure 2116 psia
Temperature 155 F
Table 56 : Gelama Merah Test Data

147
The model used to generate the Inflow Performance of the reservoir is Vogel model.
By using the input from the data provided from well test report, the IPR model generates the
productivity index (J) of 4.27 (STB/day/psi) with absolute open flow (AOF) of 4985.4
STB/day.

The reservoir future inflow performance as the reservoir pressure declines throughout years:

Reservoir Pressure (psia) Absolute Open Flow (stb/day)


2000 4744.6
1800 4270.0
1600 3795.5
1400 3320.0
Table 57 Reservoir AOF Respective to Pressure

148
Reservoir inflow performance at different water cut respective to reservoir pressure:

Reservoir Pressure Water Cut Absolute Open Flow (stb/day)


(Psia)
2000 20 3879.2
40 3006.5
60 2118.1
80 1185.4
1800 20 3491.2
40 2705.8
60 1906.3
80 1066.8
1600 20 3103.2
40 2405.1
60 1694.4
80 948.3
1400 20 2715.3
40 2104.4
60 1482.6
80 829.7
Table 58 Inflow Performance at Different Water Cut

The table above shows the trend of the inflow performance at different water cut
respective to reservoir pressure. This section is focusing on the effect of water cut and
reservoir pressure to the inflow performance. The well is completed with a cased hole
without incorporating any artificial lift or sand control method. To isolate the gas effect, the
total GOR value used for this section is set constant at 360 scf/STB as the GOR value only
gives significant effect to the outflow performance. The outflow performance, artificial lift
selection, sand control and sand control method will be discussed on the next section.

149
7.1.2 Outflow Performance Prediction
This section will focus on the outflow performance of the well that will be evaluate by
referring to the performance and deliverability of GM-1 well. The parameters concerning to
the outflow performance that are selected for the sensitivity analysis are the tubing sizes
performance, water cut and gas oil ratio (GOR) effect and well head pressure.

7.1.2.1 Tubing Size Performance


The selected tubing sizes for the sensitivity are 2.375, 2.875, 3, 3.375 and 3.5.
The performance of the selected tubing sizes will be tested with different water cut, gas oil
ratio, well head pressure and reservoir pressure.

Tubing performance with increasing Water Cut (WC)

Tubing ID Oil production rate (STB/Day)


WC 0% WC 10% WC 20% WC 30% WC 40% WC 50%
2.375 1608 1343 1090 832 572 311
2.875 1748 1460 1167 876 588 302
3 1842 1525 1209 896 587 /
3.375 1895 1561 1228 898 575 /
3.5 1921 1574 1229 888. / /
Table 59 Tubing Performance with Increasing Water Cut

Tubing performance at different Gas Oil Ratio (GOR) at 0% water cut

Tubing ID Oil production rate (STB/Day)


GOR 150 GOR 300 GOR 500 GOR 800 GOR 1000 GOR 2000
2.375 214 1745 2495 2772 2798 2591
2.875 219 1944 2902 3320 3398 3301
3 220 1974 2966 3417 3504 3443
3.375 221 2034 3107 3626 3744 3777
3.5 222 2048 3139 3677 3802 3864
Table 60 Tubing Performance at Different Gas Oil Ratio

150
Tubing performance as the Reservoir Pressure declines

Tubing ID Oil production rate (STB/Day)


Pr 2000 Pr 1800 Pr 1600 Pr 1400
2.375 1482 912 237 /
2.875 1637 985 245 /
3 1659 995 246 /
3.375 1705 1015 248 /
3.5 1715 1019 248 /
Table 61 Tubing Performance with Declining Pressure

Tubing performance at different Wellhead Pressure

Tubing Oil production rate (STB/Day)


ID WHP 200 WHP 300 WHP 350 WHP 400 WHP 450
2.375 2699 2495 2012 1745 1466
2.875 3175 2894 2271 1944 1612
3 3255 2958 2311 1974 1633
3.375 3433 3097 2393 2034 1675
3.5 4474 3129 2410 2048 1685
Table 62 Tubing Performance at Different Wellhead Pressure

It is observed that the outflow performance is very sensitive to the increase of water
cut, decrease in reservoir pressure, selection of well head pressure and gas oil ratio. For the
water cut, it is anticipated that the total pressure gradient will increase as the fraction of
water inside the tubing increases. This will resulted with a higher liquid density inside the
tubing as water is heavier than oil. The max water cut to lift the liquid to the surface is 50%
for 2.375 and 2.875 tubing, 40% for 3 and 3.375 tubing and 30% for 30 tubing. This
means that the well is unable to flow naturally after the max water cut for each respective
tubing size has been reached. It is also observed that the rate of oil production is very low at
low Gas Oil Ratio (GOR) will increase as the GOR increases up until 1000. This is due to
gas inside the tubing that help to reduce the density of the liquid mixture and thereby lower
down the pressure loss due to hydrostatic forces. Artificial lift will be introduced to lower
down the bottomhole pressure as the reservoir are unable to flow naturally after the reservoir
pressure drops below than 1600 psia. To achieve a high flow rate demand, it is
recommended to set the wellhead pressure between 200 to 300 psia as it gives the highest rate
available.

151
7.2 Artificial Lift

Artificial lift is needed when a well has reached a stage where it is no longer able to
flow naturally. It increases pressure within the reservoir and encourages the flow rate to the
surface to recover more production.
For Gelama Merah, it is suggested to implement the gas lift method which is a very
common practice in the industry. This is done by injecting gas into the producing tubing. The
injected gas function is to lower the viscosity of the fluids which will in turn reduce the
flowing bottom hole pressure. The flowing gradient in the production string is reduced. This
will cause the desired fluids to flow more efficiently to the surface.

7.2.1 Gas Lift Method Justification

One of the reasons why gas lift is widely used is because it is cost-effective, easy to
operate and applicable in a wide range of conditions. To save work over cost in the future, it
is suggested that side pocket mandrels should be installed at the tubing at the desired depth
during the early completion stages.
The gas produced will be treated and injected. As Gelama Merah well is producing on
offshore location, gas lift is most favourable method recommended due to space constraint on
the surface units. There are two basic types of gas lift commonly which are continuous and
intermittent flow. For Gelama Merah, it is continuous flow is recommended.
Gas-lift valve is used to control the flow from the tubing into the well. The valve
enables the well to flow by:-
Reducing the average fluid density above the injection point.
Partially dissolving into the produced fluids. The un-dissolved gas (bubbles)
will expand due to reduction in hydrostatic pressure as the fluids rise up the
tubing.
The coalescence of these gas bubbles into large bubbles occupying the full
width of the tubing will help the well to flow (slug flow).

152
7.2.2 Gas Lift Design

Maximum casing head pressure 1500 psia


Operating casing head pressure 1300 psia
Differential P across valves 100 psia
Gas lift Type Continuous
Gas lift gravity 0.6534
Injected gas rate 6 MMscf/day
Water Salinity 40000 ppm
Table 63 Gas Lift Design Properties

Gas lift valves setting depth (ft)

Well GLV 1 GLV 2 GLV 3


Setting Depth (ft)
Well 1 1200 2500 3125
GLV 1
Well 2 1200 2500 3125
Well 3 1100 2300 2915
Well 4 1200 2500 3125 GLV 2

Well 5 1100 2300 2900


Well 6 1000 2000 2750 GLV 3
Well 7 1200 2500 3500
Well 8 1200 2500 3500
Table 64 Gas Lift Valves Setting Depth

It is proposed to implement gas lift method to


each well from the first year as it gives higher
production rate. This justification also is based from the
expected recovery rate or oil production rate from the
reservoir model simulation using PETREL that is
expecting around 4900 bbl/day production rate during
the early years.

153
150 psig

Wellhead P
Main Flow :
350 psig @ 95F

Max Flow :
200 psig @ 95 F

7.3 Well Performance


This section will focus on the discussion about the individual well performance for
each eight (8) production well in our reservoir which is based from the analysis on the inflow
and outflow performances from previous section. The well performance prediction is done by
using PROSPER software. Based from the analysis on previous section:

Max Water Cut (Natural Flow) 2.375 & 2.875 : 50%


3 & 3.375 : 40%
3.5 : 30%
Min Reservoir Pressure (Natural Flow) 1600 psig
Wellhead Pressure 200 psig to 300 psig
Separator Pressure 155 psig
Table 65 Nodal Analysis Summary

Based from the analysis on inflow and outflow performance on previous section,
3.375 tubing size is selected for all the well as it gives the highest production rate and the
most ideal performance on different water cut, declining reservoir pressure and gas oil ratio.
Large tubing size is needed as it will give the expected flow rate from the reservoir
simulation done on PETREL. The performance of each well throughout the years are
recorded as below:

154
Well 1

Natural Flow
Year Pressure Water Cut GOR Oil Rate STB Operating Psig
0 2145 0 1886 4320 1100
5 1646 41 842 / /
10 1451 95 859 / /
15 1300 97 866 / /
20 1168 98 870 / /
*Well stop flowing around the 5th year

After Implement Gas Lift

Year Pressure Water Cut GOR Oil Rate STB Operating Psig
0 2145 0 1886 4995 1100
5 1646 41 842 3314 700
10 1451 95 859 143 712
15 1300 97 866 77 678
20 1168 98 870 40 647

Well 2

Natural Flow
Year Pressure Water Cut GOR Oil Rate Operating Psig
0 2119 0 1886 3932 1864
2 1851 14 3705 3020 746
4 1581 15 819 / /
10 1372 59 797 / /
15 1218 66 864 / /
20 1078 90 870 / /
*Well stop flowing around the 4th year

After Implement Gas Lift


Year Pressure Water Cut GOR Oil Rate Operating Psig
0 2119 0 1886 4478 1075
2 1851 14 3705 4020 746
4 1581 15 819 2668 634
10 1372 59 797 1072 613
15 1218 66 864 753 580
20 1078 90 870 193 570

155
Well 3

Natural Flow
Year Pressure Water Cut GOR Oil Rate Operating Psig
0 2119 0 1886 3480 1834
2 1851 23 640 / /
5 1663 39 679 / /
10 1466 83 701 / /
15 1318 92 814 / /
20 1179 94 859 / /
*Well stop flowing around the 2nd year

After Implement Gas Lift


Year Pressure Water Cut GOR Oil Rate Operating Psig
0 2119 0 1886 4478 1075
2 1851 23 640 3277 742
5 1663 39 679 2214 695
10 1466 83 701 509 663
15 1318 92 814 208 633
20 1179 94 859 133 600

Well 4

Natural Flow
Year Pressure Water Cut GOR Oil Rate Operating Psig
0 2119 0 1886 2684 1883
2 1856 14 3696 2011 1654
5 1581 15 817 / /
10 1372 59 795 / /
15 1218 66 862 / /
20 1078 90 828 / /
*Well stop flowing around the 5th year

After Implement Gas Lift


Year Pressure Water Cut GOR Oil Rate Operating Psig
0 2119 0 1886 4478 1075
2 1856 14 3696 3032 747
5 1581 15 817 2621 660
10 1372 59 795 1034 649
15 1218 66 862 717 617
20 1078 90 828 177 615

156
Well 5

Natural Flow
Year Pressure Water Cut GOR Oil Rate Operating Psig
0 2119 0 6109 4298.7 675.08
2 1480 40 1612 / /
5 1251 62 722 / /
10 1055 83 812 / /
15 923 92 750 / /
20 815 96 879 / /
*Well stop flowing around the 2nd year

After Implement Gas Lift


Year Pressure Water Cut GOR Oil Rate Operating Psig
0 2119 0 6109 4298.7 675.08
2 1480 40 1612 1706.5 628.66
5 1251 62 722 841 600.12
10 1055 83 812 289.2 591.21
15 923 92 750 106.1 580.69
20 815 96 879 40.5 557.03

Well 6

Natural Flow
Year Pressure Water Cut GOR Oil Rate Operating Psig
0 2119 0 2352 4127 720
2 1744 8 3903 3579 511
5 1486 21 5633 3106 449
10 1352 33 2365 1345 999
15 1213 34 1640 / /
20 1073 32 1002 / /
*Well stop flowing around the 15th year

After Implement Gas Lift


Year Pressure Water Cut GOR Oil Rate Operating Psig
0 2119 0 2352 4127 720
2 1744 8 3903 3579 511
5 1486 21 5633 3106 449
10 1352 33 2365 1345 999
15 1213 34 1640 1450.2 563
20 1073 32 1002 1173.4 543.88

157
Well 7

Natural Flow
Year Pressure Water Cut GOR Oil Rate Operating Psig
0 2119 0 660 932.4 1883.4
2 1841 0 761 152.9 1802.3
5 1682 19 655 / /
10 1464 40 688 / /
15 1319 61 789 / /
20 1174 74 834 / /
*Well stop flowing around the 5th year

After Implement Gas Lift


Year Pressure Water Cut GOR Oil Rate Operating Psig
0 2119 0 660 932.4 1883.4
2 1841 0 761 152.9 1802.3
5 1682 19 655 3702 693
10 1464 40 688 2817 700
15 1319 61 789 2145 714
20 1174 74 834 1629 736

Well 8

Natural Flow

Year Pressure Water Cut GOR Oil Rate Operating Psig


0 1967 0 621 231 1908
2 1827 4 593 / /
5 1450 8 638 / /
10 920 32 728 / /
15 823 57 812 / /
20 746 81 828 / /
*Well stop flowing around the 2nd year

After Implement Gas Lift

Year Pressure Water Cut GOR Oil Rate Operating Psig


0 1967 0 621 4568.6 787.9
2 1827 4 593 4146.9 757.9
5 1450 8 638 2672.5 652.6
10 920 32 728 903.7 525.5
15 823 57 812 469.7 519.9
20 746 81 828 161.7 523.3

158
Max Gas production Artificial Lift : Gas Lift
Tubing performance at Maximum Oil / Water / Gas production for each well Max Oil production Wellhead P : 200 psia
Max Water production
Well Date Pr Water Cut GOR Pwf Liquid Rate Oil Rate Gas Rate Water Rate
1 10/2/2016 2117 464.47 4271.9 4271.9 1.435 0
0 1886
20/1/2016 467.12 4333.8 4333.8 1.456 0
2145 0 649
1/1/2036 1160 98 856 828.80 1313.5 26.3 0.004 1287.0
2 10/2/2016 2100 0 111 1075.21 3200.2 3200.2 0.822 0
15/2/2016 1943 0 109 709.51 4727.8 4727.8 0.515 0
1/1/2036 1073 98 155 818.64 1003.6 20.1 0.003 983.5
3 9/3/2017 1870 0 336 550.46 3836.9 3836.9 1.455 0
10/1/2016 2073 0 186 581.92 4616.8 4616.8 0.858 0
1/1/2036 1179 94 155 811.45 1437.0 86.2 0.01 1350.8
4 10/2/2016 2119 0 336 464.73 4278.8 4278.8 1.438 0
10/2/2016 2119 0 186 589.90 4791.7 4791.7 0.891 0
1/1/2036 1078 90 148 787.29 1131.8 113.2 0.02 1018.44
5 2/1/2016 2117 0 1091 427.45 4287.8 4287.6 4.777 0
10/2/2016 2102 0 1107 426.34 4315.2 4315.2 4.746 0
1/1/2036 812 91 133 770.56 163.4 14.7 0.001 148.7
6 10/2/2020 1479 17 1032 351.94 3043.3 2526.0 2.607 517.4
6/7/2017 2102 0 540 422.87 4302.2 4302.2 2.323 0
5/7/2033 1145 37 218 536.92 1966.3 1238.8 0.27 727.5
7 4/1/2016 2073 0 336 461.34 4099.2 4099.2 1.411 0
10/2/2016 2030 0 336 457.09 4198.9 4198.9 1.377 0
1/1/2036 1174 74 139 743.44 1604.7 417.2 0.06 1187.4
8 2/1/2016 1986 0 111 631.02 4645.5 4645.5 0.69 0
5/8/2016 1986 0 150 711.3 4875.3 4875.3 0.54 0
1/1/2036 739 81 148 717.61 83.9 15.9 0.02 68.0
Table 66 Tubing Performance at Max Oil / Water / Gas Production

159
7.4 Sand Control

From the core analysis, well site interpretation shows that Gelama Merah
consists of unconsolidated sand formation. However, based on the well test result
from Gelama Merah-1, 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%.

The possible reason for this contradicting information is the fine particles of
sand might not be produced because water was not produced. Thus, there is no drag
force to cause near wellbore sand grain migration. This means sand production may
occur at higher drawdown pressure. Hence, sand control is proposed for all wells.

The comparison between two possible sand control methods are given in the
table below:-

Gravel Pack Slotted Liner


Description Screen placed in the wellbore and Steel pipe (e.g. tubing) where a
the surrounding annulus packed series of parallel slots have been
with high permeability gravel cut through the metal
Slot Size Gravel is sized to retain the 0.012 to 0.250 (increased cost
formation sand and the screen is for slots <0.02)
sized to retain the gravel
Cost High Low
Open Flow Area 6 10% 14%
Plugging Tendency Moderately easy Easy
Disadvantage Requires pumping equipment Natural sand pack is inherently
which brings additional cost and unstable and can breakdown with
logistical considerations changes in rate or shutdown
Table 67 Gravel Pack and Slotted Liner Comparison

By using PROSPER software, the inflow performance is generated with


incorporating these two sand control method. The absolute open flow (AOF) and the
pressure drop for both sand control method was recorded and compared.

160
Inflow Performance Gravel Pack

Technique AOF rate


Without Sand Control 4985.4 STB/d
Gravel Pack 4801.6 STB/d
Slotted Liner 4503.2 STB/d
Table 68 Sand Control AOF

Based from the graph and table above, it is observed that the reduced in
absolute open flow for gravel pack is lower compared to slotted liner. Therefore
gravel pack is selected based on the low pressure drop and higher absolute open flow.
A high gravel pack permeability is proposed to ensure a better filtration without
jeopardizing the inflow performance.

161
7.5 Well Completion Design

Based from the simulation work done in PETREL, 8 producing wells are
proposed to be drilled vertically only. Horizontal well are not considered in the field
as it not gives any significant rises to the field oil recovery and also due to higher
drilling and completion cost.

The proposed completion strategy is to lift the hydrocarbon through a cased hole
completion. The selection of cased hole is based on a few governing factors:
Based from Gelama Merah well test report, the reservoir formation is
unconsolidated and sand production is expected especially when the water cut
is high, produced together with water due to the drag force by the water.
The cost for an open hole completion might be lesser compared to cased hole,
however less problems or issues are expected to happen during the production
phase through selective perforated sand.
Based from the MDT data provided from the report, all reservoir units in
Gelama Merah is likely to behave as one pressure system. In terms of
completion, the production strategy is to produce the oil in single strings as it
is very unlikely to occur cross flow during shut in conditions.

Well Completion for each production well

Well Type String Description


1 Vertical Single String Cased hole with Gravel Pack
2 Vertical Single String Cased hole with Gravel Pack
3 Vertical Single String Cased hole with Gravel Pack
4 Vertical Single String Cased hole with Gravel Pack
5 Vertical Single String Cased hole with Gravel Pack
6 Vertical Single String Cased hole with Gravel Pack
7 Vertical Single String Cased hole with Gravel Pack
8 Vertical Single String Cased hole with Gravel Pack
Table 69 Well Completion

162
7.6 Perforation Plan

In Gelama Merah-1:
- Tubing Conveyed Perforation (TCP) gun 4 5/8
- 12 Shot Per Foot (SPF)
- 23 gm RDX explosive
It has been proven to be effective with a negative skin of -2.1, as evidenced from DST
results. Therefore, the same is suggested for all the other wells.

7.7 Potential Production Problem


7.7.1 Wax Deposition
Wax is the solid precipitate that forms when crude oil is cooled. It is dissolved
in the crude oil at reservoir temperature and when temperature reduces to below cloud
point, a crystalline precipitate forms. Cloud point is the temperature at which the first
seed crystals appear. As the way to mitigate the deposition of wax:

Make sure the temperature is always above cloud point to keep the wax in
solution of crude oil. This can be done by insulating flow lines, tanks and
heaters
Add inhibitor to reduce the rate of agglomeration of the wax crystals
Scrape or dissolve the wax in hot Stock Tank crude oil to remove the wax

7.7.3 Scale Formation


Scale is precipitation of organic or inorganic materials that deposits in the
tubing, surface flow line, formation and at production facilities. The presence of
incompatible minerals from water causes scale formation which may block the pores
in the formation or the tubing itself.
It is proposed to analyze the water sample for scale tendency. This analysis
can help in determining suitable preventive to prevent scale depositions.

7.6.4 Emulsion Formation


There is an uncertainty about emulsion formation in Gelama Merah crude oil.
As a precaution, emulsifier injection points at the production header will be included.

163
CHAPTER 8: FACILITY DESIGN

8.1 Introduction

The platform design aims to withstand the monsoon season at offshore Sabah
Basin and 20 years of production life. Consider that the estimated STOIIP of 450MM
STB and recovering factor of 40%, the recovered reserve is assume to be able to cover
a higher expenses for maximum facility implementation and future modification for
Gelama Merah field. The facility will be designed according to the corresponding
well production data and each equipment will be sized to attain the require production
capacity of the wells. In this field development plan, there will be 13 wells drilled
including 8 producing wells and 5 water injector. The well production data of
Gelama Merah field are as followS:

Table 70 Reservoir Fluid Properties of Gelama Merah Field

Years Cumulative Oil rate Cumulative Gas rate Cumulative water


STB/D MMSCF/D rate STB/D
2016 29562.1097 23.22 634.6
2017 27829.2669 76.72 28914.14
2018 23869.2021 56.58 36769.83
2019 21453.2859 48.95 35809.77
2020 18068.1098 46.84 31451.3

164
2021 15901.2701 40.29 32611.3
2022 15844.0328 35.15 34953.43
2023 15599.3592 30.83 38782.79
2024 15289.9005 29.91 48826.28
2025 13623.1007 30.89 68942.12
2026 10194.525 29.14 76052.42
2027 10500.8387 27.84 75071.16
2028 9056.06926 27.32 87918.56
2029 7723.88738 27.43 97256.4
2030 6930.11329 26.32 102904.8
2031 6474.731 25.20 110070.8
2032 6254.71343 24.05 125270.2
2033 5289.10171 22.36 146290.2
2034 5034.49018 19.76 162734
2035 4440.85785 17.76 160679.3
2036 3962.95805 15.64 142109.5
Table 71 Cumulative production profile of Gelama Merah field

8.2 Development Options

Option 1: Building a CPP for Gelama Merah field

This option takes into consideration of the surface facility required to process
the fluid produced. This option provide enough spaces for necessary operation
facility and also safety facility to safeguard the workers safety on site. It is
commercially feasible as the STOIIP calculated in Gelama Merah field were
453MMSTB. This high amount of reserve is sufficient to design our own Central
Processing Platform (CPP) that has the crude processing facility which outfit the
production capacity of Gelama Merah field. The processed oil and gas will then be
sent to the Labuan Crude Oil Terminal (LCOT) 45km away via a dual-phase pipeline
to store and export later on.

165
Gelama Merah
LCOT

45km

Figure 89 Location of Gelama Merah field and Labuan Crude Oil Terminal (LCOT)

Option 2: Leasing Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO)

This option includes leasing a FPSO to process, store and export the produced
fluid for 20 years of production life. The FPSO already holds the necessary
equipment and crude processing facilities which saves the time and cost on purchase
and installing the facilities. However, this option requires the FPSO to have the
suitable crude processing facility to process the specific reservoir fluid properties and
flowrate. Besides that, this option would require the FPSO to withstand the monsoon
season at Sabah offshore basin.

Option 3: Hoist tie-ins to existing platform

This option involves pipeline tie-in to the nearby Central Processing Platform
(CPP) which is Samarang-B platform (SMP-B) located at 17km south west from
Gelama Merah platform. This eliminate the needs to fabricate and install surface
facilities on Gelama Merah platform and expected to be more economical compare to
leasing FPSO for 20 years. The produced fluid is plan to be sent to Samarang-B
platform to processed and then to Labuan Crude Oil Terminal (LCOT) 50km away

166
from SMP-B for further processed, store and export. However, based on the
production profile data of the Gelama Merah field, the field producing wells produced
high gas-oil ratio and high water cut, thus this will be a challenge for this option to
send the multiphase-flow from GM-1 to Samarang-B platform that is 17km away to
be further process.

45km pipeline to shore

Figure 90 Hoist Tie-ins to Existing Platform

As a conclusion, option 1 is chose which is to build our own Gelama Merah


field CPP is because the estimated STOIIP is 450MMSTB. This huge amount of
reserve requires a maximum surface facility that has the capacity to suit the well
production profile. Option 3 is neglected as the producing wells have high gas-oil-
ratio and high water cut which indicates that the multiphase flow to Samarang-B
platform that is 17km away will be impossible due to the low delivery pressure.
Other than that, Samarang-B surface facilities are designed without considering other
fields production. Thus, hoist tie-in to Samarang-B may cause the platform to have
insufficient facility production capacity to process such amount of produced fluid.
Similar to Option 2 which is to lease an FPSO, the floating vessel may not contain the
necessary facility and equipment to process the produced fluid. Besides that, the cost
for leasing a FPSO for the whole 20 years production life is more expensive compare
to the other 2 options.

167
8.3 Process Flow Diagram

Fuel Gas
Gas Gas Gas
Treatment Compressor
Gas Lift

Sales Gas
Gas Pipeline
Metering

Labuan Crude Oil


Terminal (LCOT)

Sales Oil
Production Production 3-Phase Oil Oil Export Oil Pipeline
Wellheads Manifold Separator Pump Metering

Produced Water Produced Water Discharge Overboard


Treatment

Pump Water Injection


Injection Water
Sea Water
Treatment
168
8.4 Operation Facility And Equipment

8.4.1 Main Facilities and Equipments

From the well test, it is seen that Gelama Merah has high chances of producing gas
and water. Hence, the surface facilities have to be designed to separate fluids. The
surface facilities are selected based on four main criteria which are:-

Transport and hydrocarbon evacuation


Substructure options
Processing facilities
Wellhead location

8.4.2 Production Flowlines, Flow Control and Manifold

The production manifold will allow each production completion to flow to the
production header. A multiphase flow meter will be provided for well testing.

8.4.3 Wellhead/X-mas tree

The wellhead panel will be driven by instrument air. The fluids from each
individual well will flow through the Christmas tree. Then, it will be sent to the
production manifold through the rotary selector valve (RSV) by individual flowlines
equipped with manual chokes. The manifold will direct the fluid to the main flowline.
Maintenance by visual inspection should be carried out to check for physical damage,
corrosion and leaks.

8.4.4 Gas Metering and Measurement

Among the items included in the gas metering hardware are an orifice box,
orifice plate, recorder, Differential Pressure (Dp) cell, pressure element and seal pot
for the measurement of gas volume. For data recording, a circular chart will be used.
Frequent maintenance should be performed for the zero check, calibration, clock
wound and time set and to check the accuracy of the orifice meter. As for the orifice
size, the d/D selected should be in a range of 0.2 and 0.7 and the Dp reading on the
chart is between 20% to 70%.

169
8.4.5 3-Phase Separator

A three phase vertical separator is selected to be used at the CPP as the field is
predicted to produce water, oil and gas phases. Vertical separator is known to have
higher flow rate capacity and handling gas separation as well. The separator is sized
so that the diameter of the vessel is large enough to allow water droplets to settle in
the upward-flowing oil phase and oil droplets to rise in the downward-moving water
phase. The slenderness ratio of the separator should be kept below 3 to keep the
height of the liquid collection section to a reasonable level. Slenderness ratio is
defined as ratio between separator length and diameter. The summarized result of the
separator sizing is tabulated as follow:

do (in) Ho + Hw (in) Lss (ft) Slenderness Ratio (12Lss/d)


90 260.42 32.53 4.3
95 233.73 30.73 3.9
100 210.94 29.24 3.5
110 174.33 27.03 2.9
Table 72 Separator Sizing Results

Based on the result shown, the slenderness ratio of 2.9 is the maximum limit
for the separator sizing and is selected according to the Gelama Merah reservoir fluid
properties and the production flowrate. A schematic diagram of the separator sizing is
shown in figure below.

170
Figure 91 Size of the 3-Phase Vertical Separator

8.4.6 Pump

A pump is require to generate sufficient pressure to transfer the produced fluid


from the platform to the crude oil terminal or to the nearby CPP. Thus, each pumps
will be selected based on their pump efficiency and their capacity to carry out the
task. Table below summarizes the parameter of various pumps:

171
Table 73 Comparison of Various Pump Capacities

The pump is sized to suit the flow rate of the liquid phase that is required to be
delivered. Also, the total differential head of the pump must be considered in order to
deliver the required flow rate to the destination. The schematic diagram of pump
system is given in figure below.

Figure 92 Pump System Diagram

The pump power required to deliver a liquid phase is calculated as follow:

.
=

172
Suction static head = 69m Flow rate = 0.05 m/s

Discharged static head = 70m (assumption) Liquid density = 828 kg/m

Frictional head losses = 5m (assumption) Acc. Due to gravity = 9.81 m/s

Total differential head = 2m Pump efficiency = 90% (assumpt

0.05 6 828 9.81


= = 3.05
0.8

Base on the result shown, a pump power of 13.4kW is sufficient to pump the
produced oil to the elevation stated. In short, after comparing all kinds of pumps,
rotary pump has the lowest cost and sufficient pump capacity to perform the task.

8.1.1 Gas compressor

Gas compressor is used to compress the volume of the gas in a confined


pipeline space and consequently increase their pressure sufficiently to transfer the gas
from one place to a specific destination. Compression ratio defines the degree of
compression of the compressor to compress the suction pressure and discharge it at a
higher pressure. It determines the number of stages requires to compress the gas until
a designated discharge pressure. The Compression ratio required to discharge the
produced gas from GM-1 to LCOT is calculated:

1000
=
155

= 6.45

173
The table below shows the no. of stages require to compress the gas according to the
compression ratio.

Table 74 No. of Compression Stage Required for each Compression Ratio

The result shows that the compression ratio of 6.45 can be achieve normally
with a two-stage compressor. Hence, the two-stage compressor selected to deliver the
produced gas to LCOT. Figure 4 shows the schematic diagram of a two stage
compressor.

Figure 93 Schematic Diagram of a Two Stage Compressor

174
8.1.2 Water Injection

Water injection will be used as a secondary recovery method for pressure


maintenance. It is efficient yet its cost is low, making it favourable in improving oil
production. Among the factors that should be taken into consideration before starting
water injection are:-

Injection well completions


Quality, quantity and reliability of the water supply
Water treatment and pumping equipment
Maintenance and operation of the water injection installation

The main physical treatments of injection water are filtration and de-
oxygenation. Filtration is done to remove particles and organic matter while de-
oxygenation is done to reduce corrosion and bacterial growth.

8.1.3 Gas Handling

A portion of the produced gas will be used for the future gas lift supply and
also for power generation. The produced gas, after going through the separator might
still have a little water content and needs to undergo fuel gas treatment before it can
be used for power generation.

8.1.4 Gas Lift Surface Facilities


Gas lift is expected to be used and the time it would start to be used varies for each well.
Side pocket mandrel with dummy valve is installed at the beginning of the production.
Hence, provision of space at the topside should be made for future implementation.

175
8.2 Utilities

8.2.1 Electrical Power and Lighting

Electric power generation and distribution are important facilities as they are
key tools for equipments to run and operate. A diesel engine driven generator will be
installed to provide power for crude oil transfer pump, crane, instrument air
compressors and instrumentation in the case of an emergency.

8.2.2 Drain System

Drain systems are needed to enable equipments to be drained, opened,


inspected and repaired. It is also important to avoid the floor from flooding especially
during rainy season. The drain piping will run throughout the platform and will be
transported to the vessels on the lowest level of the platform.

8.2.3 Flare Boom/Vent System

The flare system has two main functions as below:-

To depressure gas from various pieces of equipment within the platform


As a safety mechanism for abnormal pressure operations that may lead to
pressure surges.

To protect the equipments and to ensure the safety of the personnel, the pressure surge
is relieved to the flare system through pressure relief valves.

8.2.4 Instrument Air System

The instrument air system will be out to use to operate instrument valves wellhead
control panel and fusible plug loop.

176
8.3 Safety Facilities

8.3.1 Safety Shutdown System

The main purpose of safeguarding is to safeguard the equipments and the


overall facilities. New components installed will be linked to the currently existing
safeguarding system which will allow them to shut down in the event of an
emergency shutdown (ESD) of the facility. A safety shutdown system will provide
shutdown, fire detection and fail safe operation of all shutdown equipments. It
performs a specified function to achieve and maintain a safe state when a dangerous
condition is detected. The system is separate from the regular control system but it is
composed of similar items such as sensors, actuators, support system and also logic
solvers.

8.3.2 Automatic Fire Detection and Alarm Systems

The alarm system will be capable of automatic activation and no manual


activation by the crew is required. The system will include:-

When any detector operates, both visual and audible alarm signals shall be
given automatically at one or more indicating units
The indicating unit shall show the location of the fire in any space served
by the system when activated
The indicating unit shall be placed on the Main Fire Control station, which
will be equipped in such a way that any alarm from the system is
immediately received by the crew

The detection system shall be operated by an abnormal concentration of


smoke, abnormal temperature and any other factors that may serve as an indication of
fire in one of the spaces and needs to be protected. Detectors shall be:-

Suitable to be used in the marine environment


Placed in a suitable position that is protected from impact and physical
damage

177
For example, away from beams or any objects that are likely to block of
smoke or hot gases to its sensitive element
Have at least one detector installed in spaces where detection facilities are
required

There shall be at least two sources of power supply for the system, one of which
would be an emergency source. The supply shall be provided for by separate feeders
whose purpose is solely that.

8.3.3 Life Saving Appliances

The number of life jackets must be enough to provide for double the number
of persons on board. Each lifejacket should be equipped with a whistle and a light
powered by water activated batteries. Life jackets, survival crafts, lifebuoys and life
rafts should have reflective materials. The platform should also have sufficient
communication and emergency evacuation equipment to ensure safe evacuation if
there is an emergency.

8.3.4 Platform Data and Communication System

A digital microwave radio system and a marine VHF radio system will be
installed in Gelama Merah. The system will enable direct routing and interfacing to
and from Semarang field. The distance of 17km between Selama Merah and
Semarang makes a satellite communication necessary.

178
8.4 Pipeline Design

8.4.1 Pipeline design using PIPESIM software

In order to process the produced fluid from Gelama Merah field, a dual phase
pipeline will connects the platform to the nearest Labuan Crude Oil Terminal (LCOT)
to process, store and export the crude oil and gases. The Pipeline performance can be
optimize by sizing it using PIPESIM software. The following parameters should be
considered while sizing the pipeline:

Distance between the platform and crude oil terminal


Pipeline operating pressure and the terminal receiving inlet pressure
Maximum liquid flowrate from Gelama Merah field
The fluid properties of the fluid delivered.
Assume the receiving inlet pressure at LCOT for oil is between 50~100psia.
Assume the receiving inlet pressure at LCOT for gas is between 400~600psia

Figure 94 PIPESIM Result for Gas Pipeline

The gas pipeline was designed base on the maximum gas flowrate from
Gelama Merah field which is 76MMscf/d to reach the Labuan Crude Oil Terminal
(LCOT) within 45km. Base on the result shown, it can be seen that the pressure drop
at diameter 20in is higher than other diameter and hinders the gas delivered from

179
reaching the destination since the lower the pipe diameter the higher the frictional
pressure loss. Other pipeline diameter size has a lower friction pressure drop and is
sufficient to reach the destination. Thus, in order to successfully deliver gas produced
to LCOT, the pipeline diameter should be above 22 inch with the wall thickness of
12.7mm and after compress it to reach 1000psia and temperature of 94F. In this
case, diameter 22in is chosen since it is the lowest pipeline diameter possible to
successfully deliver the gas to the destination. In addition, carbon steel is selected as
the pipeline material since no corrosive gas is produced base on the reservoir fluid
properties report summarized in table above.

Figure 95 PIPESIM result for Oil Pipeline

Figure above shows the result of PIPESIM for oil pipeline base on the
maximum oil flowrate of 29562.11stb/d. The separator operating pressure of 155psia
is insufficient to deliver the crude oil terminal. Hence, the produced oil is treated to
be pump up to 1000psia pressure to flow through the whole pipeline length. The
result shows that the pipeline diameter 6in and 8in has a high pressure drop over pipe
length and stops before 45km at the operating pressure of 1000psia and 94F
temperature. Diameter with 10in and above is required to deliver the oil phase to

180
LCOT successfully and the receiving pressure at the crude oil terminal is estimated to
be 400psia. The pipeline material will be carbon steel as well and it will be inspect
regularly to avoid any corrosion occur.

8.4.2 Flow Assurance

In order to ensure that the produced fluid from Gelama Merah field can be
successfully deliver to the designated location, some potential flow assurance
challenges should be consider during pipeline sizing. The following potential
challenges that will occur are defined:

Pipeline blocking by wax and hydrates


Dead liquid in well
High pressure losses in pipeline during delivery and lowers the liquid flow
rate.
Pipeline corrosion
Slugging in riser causes separator problems.

8.4.3 Pipeline Route Selection

The surface facilities requirement and production capacity of Gelama Merah


field are studied to implement an appropriate development plan to produce the field.
Various option that were studied and compared are listed as follow:

A multiphase pipeline is tie-in to Samarang-B platform and the oil produced


will be deliver right after reaching the surface. The water injection facilities
can be utilize at Samarang platform which requires the water pipeline to
connect GM-1 from Samarang CPP. This option is estimated to be the most
economical than others.
The produced fluid will be separated in our own CPP and deliver to Labuan
Crude Oil Terminal 45km away to be further process, store and export. This
requires a dual phase pipeline to transfer from the Gelama Merah CPP directly
to LCOT.

181
A multiphase pipeline is connected to a leased FPSO where the required
facility is on the floating vessel and be processed on the spot. Then, the
processed oil can be exported with the oil tanker.

8.4.4 Geohazard Analysis

A seismic hazard assessment is crucial to predict the level of tectonic motion


that could potential occur at Gelama Merah field. This system allows the pipeline
constructor to aware to the surrounding condition and assess potential hazard before
designing the pipeline capacity and route. This system takes account of the level of
vibratory of the ground motion which should be included in the pipeline design
criteria. Other than that, the system priories high risk sites to conduct field
assessment protocol and manage the information from pipeline inspection by yearly
basis to be aware of the surrounding situation. In short, geohazard analysis is vital to
identify potential hazard and counter them during the whole construction, routing and
operation of the pipeline life.

8.4.5 Trenching Requirements

In the oil production history, pipeline are usually trenched to enhance the
pipeline life and safeguard them from trawling damage. The pipeline requires some
degree of protection considering the pipeline is subjected to damage by erosion or
corrosion throughout the whole pipeline life. Trenching (lowering) or burial
(covering) should be apply along the segment of the pipeline route for quality
assurance.

For offshore platform such as Gelama Merah field, where the pipeline will be
install on the seabed, the pipeline could subject o concrete protective coating,
trenching and gravel protection. This also requires the periodic assessment to ensure
the pipeline are not corroded and re-coat the pipeline when the pipeline are corroded
to enhance the pipeline quality and life.

182
8.4.6 Wax mitigation

Wax precipitation often causes plugging in pipeline and consequently causes


pipeline to shut down. To prevent wax precipitation, the Wax Appearance
Temperature (WAT) or pour point should be defined and prepare some counter
measurements. The average range of pour point temperature of a crude is between
32C and 36 C. Based on the PVT report available for Gelama Merah field, it shows
that there is no wax content in the crude. However, measure should be taken for wax
accumulation in pipeline to avoid any potential flow assurance problem since there
can be possible wax appearance in the future. The following wax mitigation plan is
defined as the counter measurement:

Conduct regular pigging operation to prevent pipeline plugging


Injecting wax inhibitor into the pipeline
Usage of pour point depressant

8.4.7 Slug Suppression System

In the history of oil and gas industry, slugs and surges will usually occur in the
flow line/riser system. This is caused by flow condition and physical characteristic of
the flow line. Liquid slugs and gas surges could potentially causes production losses
during their arrival on the platform. In Gelama Merah field, this problem is expected
as the produced fluid is deliver via a 10in and 22in pipeline for oil and gas phase.
Thus, this system is required to break slugs and smooth flow streams to avoid plant
upsets.

183
8.5 Pipeline Corrosion Management

8.5.1 Corrosion Inhibitor Injection

From the PVT data and DST sample, it is seen that the fluids in Gelama Merah
are not corrosive. Based on the reservoir simulation done, the water cut is estimated to
increase --% upon production and would reach its highest at --% at the end of its life.
Thus, Gelema Merah needs regular sampling and observation to detect any occurrence
of corrosion from the beginning of production life till the end to protect the carbon
steel pipeline.

One way of preventing corrosion is to spray or paint a thin layer of corrosion


inhibitor to provide protection. Another option would be to apply a suitable coating
such as polyethylene or coal tar enamel that would prevent the interaction of the
carbon steel surface with any corrosion mechanism. The system reliability is targeted
at 95% to ensure minimal corrosion allowance in the subsea pipeline.

8.5.2 Corrosion Allowance

Corrosion allowance refers to the difference between the diameter needed for
initial pressure containment and the diameter needed for placing the pipe.

8.5.3 Pipeline Pigging

Pigging is the process of performing various operations on the pipe without


having to stop the flow of the fluids in the pipeline. The purpose of carrying out
pigging is to:-

Remove solids from settling in the pipeline


Remove stagnant water pools from low spots in the pipeline

Initial pigging frequency after start up is recommended at once a week. This will then
reduce to about one in three months time which should be sufficient to take

184
advantage of the build-up of waxy layer on the wall of the pipe to control corrosion.
Apart from that, pigging debris should be analysed for corrosion products.

8.5.4 Corrosion Monitoring

Corrosion monitoring is vital for:

Monitor the ability of the inspection system to optimize inspection frequency


Monitor pigging debris for corrosion products
Cathodic protection and external anti corrosion coating shall be applied to
maintain the pipeline integrity

185
8.6 Operation and Maintenance

The principles of operation and maintenance are as follows:

Health, Safety and Environment (HSE): Any step taken or any activity
conducted should take into account the safety of the workers on board,
safeguarding the companys reputation and preserving the surroundings.
Periodic inspection, evaluation and correction: Systems and equipments
should be checked to gauge the effectiveness and to plan for maintenance and
operations accordingly.
Effective manpower utilization: Ensure optimum number of workers on board
and encourage the possession of sufficient knowledge and skills of current
technology.

8.6.1 Operating Philosophy

The purpose of production is to produce crude oil from Gelama Merah with
efficient cost expenditure and by being HSE compliant. The Gelama Merah field is
designed to be a manned platform with fulltime workers onboard. The personnel will
travel by helicopter or boat, depending on the conditions.

8.6.2 Maintenance Philosophy

Maintenance is done to make sure all equipments function as they are


supposed to and to reduce operating expenditure. The maintenance philosophy that
will be practiced is:-

Standard system and equipment types to reduce spare holding


Standardize the system skids with platform
Equipments and systems installed should be of proven technology with
technical support and regional spares
Equipments and systems should be designed for minimal operator intervention
concept yet reliable

186
8.7 Facilities Capex, Opex and Decommissiong

8.10.1 Capital Expenditure (CAPEX)

The development plan selected is to build a Gelama Merah CPP to produce


and process the produced fluid by itself. A jacket platform is plan to operate for 20
years of production life. The surface facilities are designed base on the maximum
production profile of the field. The estimated CAPEX for the main surface facilities
are calculated and shown in table below.

Equipment
Equipment Cost (USD) Combined
Installation
Item Cost
Cost (USD)
Minimum Maximum Mean (USD)
Christmas Tree/Wellhead 50,000 100,000 75,000 7,500 82,500
3-Phase Vertical Separator 200,000 600,000 400,000 40,000 440,000
Gas Metering 500 1,000 750 75 825
Gas Compressor 10,000 100,000 55,000 5,500 60,500
Rotary pump 5,000 8,000 6,500 650 7,150
Water Treatment Facility 500,000 1,000,000 750,000 75,000 825,000
Fuel Power Generator 165,000 250,000 207,500 20,750 228,250
TOTAL 1,644,225
Topside
Item Cost (USD)
Material 1,200,000
Hookup & Commissioning 300,000
Fabrication 600,000
TOTAL 2,100,000
Jacket
Item Cost (USD)
Material 2,400,000
Hookup & Commissioning 600,000
Fabrication 1,200,000
TOTAL 4,200,000
Pipeline
Item Cost (USD)
Material 4,045,000
Installation 14,763,800
TOTAL 18,808,800
TOTAL COST 26,753,025
Table 75 Capital Expenditure of the Gelama Merah CPP

187
8.10.2 Operating Expenditure (OPEX)

The estimated annual Operating Expenditure for Gelama Merah field is summarize in
table below.

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Operating Expenditure US Dollar (USD)

INSPECTION COST

Overhead 492,000 612,000 306,100

Tangential Radial Tomography 1,409,000 1,753,000 876,700


Inspection

Ultrasonic Inspection 361,000 449,200 224,600

Other 1,054,000 2,300,000 650,000

MONITORING COST

Coupons 924,000 924,000 924,000

Bacteria Monitoring 13,000 26,000 13,000

Laboratory Analysis 40,000 40,000 40,000

Repairs 600,000 1,200,000 600,000

Engineering Staffs 1,416,000 2,832,000 1,416,000

CORROSION EXPENSE

Inspection, monitoring and staff 9,625,000 11,976,000 5,988,000


costs

Repairs 1,350,000 1,680,000 840,000

Corrosion Inhibitor 7,200,000 8,960,000 4,480,000

TOTAL (USD) 24,484,000 32,752,200 16,358,400


Table 76 Estimated OPEX for Gelama Merah field

Option 1: Build a Gelama Merah CPP

Option 2: Lease a FPSO

Option 3: Hoist tie-in with Samarang-B platform

188
8.10.3 Decommissioning Cost

Decommissioning cost is needed to be consider in a platform cost estimation


for abandonment phase at the end of the platforms production life. Table 5 shows the
estimated decommissioning cost for a jacket platform.

Task Task Hours Task Cost, $


Fab Explosive Charges Lump Sum 74,400
Platform Removal Preparation 504 504,000
Setup Derrick Barge 6.61 80,763
Cut Deck/Miscellaneous Equip 4.64 55,192
Remove Equipment 4 47,580
Remove 4 Pile Deck 9.35 111,218
Jet/Airlift Pile Mud Plug 16 195,440
Standby for Daylight Det. 8 97,720
Pre/Post Detonation Survey 1 18,715
Sever Piles - Explosive 2.92 35,667
Sever Conductors - Explosive 6.22 75,977
Remove Conductors 61.5 743,473
Remove Jacket 21.7 262,331
Demob & Tug 21 20,580
Pick Up anchors 6.75 74,986
Site Clearance - with Trawler 273.29 149,489
Site Clearance Verify 402.57 181,869
Offload 384 77,600
TOTAL (USD) 1733.55 2,807,000
Table 77 Estimated Decommissioning Cost for a Jacket Platform

Based on the estimated OPEX, although monitoring a CPP cost more than
monitoring a platform that tie-in with Samarang platform, option 1 provides a more
complete surface facility compare to option 3. Furthermore, the estimated recovered
reserve is huge enough to cover the CAPEX and OPEX of a Central Processing
Platform. The economic evaluation of this option will be discussed in the next phas

189
CHAPTER 9: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

9.1 Introduction

Economic analysis is done in order to compare and contrast the costs and
profits of two or more viable options. It is one of the most important parts of this
project as all oil and gas companies aim to garner the highest profit possible. In this
section, the economic analysis on the development options will be done based on
three parameters namely Net Present Value (NPV), Payback Period and Internal Rate
of Return (IRR).

A spider plot will be done to analyze and indicate the the effects of increasing
and decreasing capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenditure (OPEX), oil
price and production rates towards the NPV. The results gained from this analysis
will serve as a tool to provide the economic justifications on the development option
that has been chosen.

There are three main objectives for carrying out the economic analysis for the
Gelama Merah field namely:-

1. To perform economic evaluation on all the viable options for all the technical
aspects of the field development plan including the reservoir, drilling,
production and facilities developments for Gelama Merah.
2. To analyze the economic outcomes of each viable option by studying the
decreasing capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenditure (OPEX),
oil price and production rates for all the wells.
3. To identify the most economical option for the development of Gelama
Merah based on Net Present Value (NPV), Payback Period and Internal Rate
of Return (IRR).

190
9.2 Production Sharing Contract and Fiscal Terms

Fiscal terms are terms and conditions agreed between two or more oil
companies. It includes the development of legal contract of partnership between oil
companies in terms of economic risks and investment capital. The fiscal terms for
our company are as follows:

Fiscal Terms Description


Start Date 1st January 2016
Duration of agreement 25 years
Exploration Period 2 years
Development Period 3 years
Production Period 20 years
Royalty 10%
Discount Rate 10%
Profit share ratio 60:40
Petroleum Income Tax 38%
Table 78 Fiscal Terms

9.3 Economic Assumptions

The economic assumptions made are as follows:-

Field Operating Expenses


Monthly Field Operating Cost USD 200,000 per month
New Well Drilling Expenses
Cost of a vertical well USD 15,000,000 per well
Cost of a horizontal well USD 30,000,000 per well
Cost of a horizontal or multi-lateral well drilled USD 15,000,000 per multi-lateral
form historical well location well
New Well Setup Costs - Costs for Equipment and Construction to Setup New
Injection Wells
Cost of water injection well USD 500,000
Cost of a gas injection well setup USD 1,000,000

191
Cost of a WAG injection well setup USD 2,000,000
Injection Water Treatment Expenses
Cost of injected water USD 1.00 per STB
Injected Methane/Separator Gas Costs
Cost of injected methane/separator gas USD 4.00 per Mscf
Water Production Expenses
Cost of treating production streams to remove USD 5.00 per Mscf
water
Income from Gas Production
Sale price for separator gas ($/Mscf) USD 4.00 per Mscf
Income from Oil Production
Sale price for separator oil ($/STB) USD 60.00 per STB
Table 79 Economic Assumptions

For Gelama Merah, the following assumptions were made:-

Base Case For base case, the reservoir engineer proposed 8


production wells and 5 water injector wells
Reference Year The reference year for Gelama Merah is to be determined
as 2016
First Oil The first oil to be produced is expected to be in 2016
Production Period The field is projected to product for 20 years
Decommissioning The abandonment period will begin after 20 years of
Year production period
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 to be USD 60 per barrel
Table 80 Gelama Merah Assumptions

192
9.4 Development Options and Scenarios

It is better to select the best field development analyzing the net present value
(NPV), the internal rate of return (IRR) or the breakeven point. From the different
scenarios studied in reservoir part, the following cases are analyzed in term of NPV.
For the cost evaluation of the field, the expenditures involves the development cost
including the operation expenditure and capital expenditure. The NPV value of the
field project is discounted at 10% to reflect on the capital cost, and 0% of risks since
they can be neglected in this particular project.

CASE Scenario RF Np NPV@10% IRR (%)


(mmbbls)
(B$)

A 8 vertical well, BHP 21.18 95.79 0.68 14


control

B 8 vertical well, 500m3 21.1 95.58 0.65 13.7


control

C 8 vertical well, 800m3 21.97 99.86 0.71 14.3


control

D 8 vertical well, 1000m3 22.12 100.09 0.69 14.7


control
Table 81 Well Control Scenarios for Gelama Merah

For the first analysis, case B has higher C has higher NPV and IRR values,
the case C is selected for the following screening. Even the case D has higher Np, it
will need huge oil process devices.

CASE Scenario RF Np NPV@10% IRR


(mmbbls) Gp (B$)
E GI (5 gas injectors) 25.05 113.29 - 0.73 16
JF WI (5 water 27.33 123.61 - 0.78 18
injectors)
G WF (5 water 40.08 181.23 142.43 1.71 23.66
injectors), sell gas
Table 82 Injection Scenario for Gelama Merah

193
Under different injection mechanism, production life of 20 years is the most
profitable in all parameters (Np, IRR, and NPV), under water flooding estragy.

9.5 Net cash Flow Profile

The net cash flow is to analyze the inflow and outflow of money for the all
the operations starting with the capital expenditures until the end of the oil
production, from case G.

Net Cash Flow Profiles


18,000

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000
Million USD

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0
2029

2035
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028

2030
2031
2032
2033
2034

2036

-2,000
Year
NPV Cumulative

Figure 96 Net Cash Flow and Cumulative Cash Flow

From the plot, the operation breakeven is after 6 years, and it needs 4 year for
payback period.

194
9.6 Revenue Split

Table below illustrates the total revenue split for the case G at NPV@10. The total
revenue is USD 1.71 billion. Deduction cost is considered USD 4 and Petroleum Tax
used is 38% from the total revenue which is about USD 0.17 billion. The resulting
revenue split is as follow.

NPV, USD B
Contractor 0.521
Government 0.4563
Total 1.17
Table 83 Revenue Split

9.7 Conclusion and Recommendations

From the final case chosen (G), oil development of the field gives positive
NPV at oil price of USD 60. With that oil price trend, developing Gelama Merah
field is considered quiet economical and profitable.

More screening processes can be done in order to estimate a more profitable


scenario that can give better profit for Petronas.

Selling of gas is also considered as the price for separator of gas is around
USD 4/cf. improving the profitability.

195
CHAPTER 10: HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT (HSE)

10.1 Introduction

The integration of Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) practices as a


prerequisite for sustainable operation excellent and integrity of Gelama Merah Field
Development. The presumed operator is PETRONAS, thus the project should adhere
to PETRONAS HSE policy in preventing harm to people, the environment and
assets. Application of industry best practices alongside compliance with regulatory
requirements, collectively demonstrate towards improving Group wide HSE
performance and efficiency, while accelerating business competitiveness.

10.1.1 HSE Background

Safety precaution should be taken as a priority when it comes to conducting


exploration, development and abandoning operations in order to minimize any
negative impact that its processes, facilities and service may have on the
environmental. Taking special attention to protecting its employees, contractors,
customers and local surroundings, health safety and environmental management is
vital in order to reach the highest possibility level of safety.

The management are the one who is responsible in integrating environmental


and safety matters into general management of business as well as ensuring the
effectiveness of the HSE policyfor all people including equipment and system under
their area of responsibility. Furthermore, they are also responsible for leading and
implementing the HSE Management (HSEMS) System and meeting its goals.

HSE criteria are assimilated into all phases of operations, from initial
planning, through operations management and up until final decommissioning. The
company aims to make enduring and positive contributions to the host communities
and its surrounding environments. Sites have processes in place for understanding
risks that they face. Each Site is required to maintain a Risk Register. Significant
risks at Gelama Merah Sites include slips and falls, falls of ground, chemical

196
hazards, and use of explosives, noise, electricity and moving equipment, especially
heavy equipment.

10.1.2 Objective of HSE

Implementation of Health Safety and Environment (HSE) in development of Gelama


Merah Field is important and should meet the following desire:

Selection and engagement of contractors whose management systems for


HSE are equivalent or at par with HSE management and commitment
towards health, safety and environmental protection can be clearly
demonstrated.

The design of Gelama Merah must be incorporate the control of substances


hazardous to health, effluent discharges and solid wastes, gaseous emissions
and noise and vibrations.

To design the Gelama Merah facilities in a way that is inherently safe and can
be verified by means of systematic reviews such as Hazards and Operability
Studies (HAZOP) and Risk Assessment reviews. Optimizing hydrocarbon
e6traction while best safeguarding the environment, assessing the
probabilities of hydrocarbon release and ignition sources in order to be
reduced and to mitigate the consequences of major accidents.

10.2 HSE Policy

HSE policy intent and commitment of management for HSE objectives


depends on long term goals to operationalize policy which includes strategies to
achieve these goals. This should be converted to framework of yearly and included in
business objectives.

10.2.1 HSE Management System Policy


In all the business activities, every company shall comply with the HSEMS
which generally defines the strategic objective, policy, organization and the
arrangement in terms of HSE perspective which is necessary to be able to identified
risks that are associated. The diagram below shows the approach used in HSEMS:

197
Figure 97 HSEMS Approach Sequences

198
PETRONAS is committed to Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) and
shall take reasonable and practicable steps to eliminate or prevent the risk of personal
injury, occupational illnesses and damage to properties. PETRONAS shall take
proactive steps and measures in the protection and the conservation of the
environment. In line with PETRONAS Group Policy Statement on Health, Safety
and Environment, PETRONAS Shall therefore:

Comply with HSE Legal Requirement


Implement effective risk control measures in all activities including
operations covering acquisition, exploration or reduce risk to a level as
low as reasonably practicable.
Build and effective and resilient HSE Management System as an integral
part of our business philosophy and cultivate a desired HSE Culture.
Provide competent workforce, adequate resources and organization in all
activities in ensuring a safe environment at the workplace.
Promote HSE engagement between joint venture partners, regulatory
authorities, contractors and key stakeholders.
Drive and promote continuous improvement in HSE performance.
Establish effective crisis management and emergency response
capabilities in all operations.

Figure 98 HSEMS Standard Manual

199
10.2.2 PETRONAS Carigali Environment Objective Statement Policy

In line with PETRONAS Carigali Health, Safety and Environment Policy,


PETRONAS Carigali Sdn Bhd., in undertaking the exploration, development and
production of oil and gas, shall enhance its environmental management through the
following:

Identify and assess environmental risks

compli with applicable environment legislation

Establish and review environmental objectives and targets

Promote and use of environmentally friednly materials

Provides forum for emloyees, joint venture partners, contractors and stakeholders

Undertake effective recovery and restoration

Perform peridic and comprehensive environmental management assurance


Figure 99 Environment Objective Statement Policy

10.2.3 PETRONAS Carigali Drug and Alcohol Policy

In accordance with Health, Safety and Environment Policy, PETRONAS Carigali


Sdn Bhd recognizes that any drug and alcohol abuse with affect the employees work
performance and can be threat to the companys operations. It is the companys
policy that its employees and workplaces are free from drug and alcohol abuses in
line with PETRONAS Code of Conduct and Discipline.

This policy should be enforced through drug and alcohol free programmes of
prevention, counseling and rehabilitation as prescribed under PETRONAS Carigalis
guidelines on Drug and Alcohol Free Workplace Programme. Employees who are
found to be in contravention of the said guidelines shall be subjected to disciplinary
action.

200
The company requires all its employees, contractors and others to strictly adhere to
this policy at all times. Joint ventures partners of the company are expected to
implement an effective drug and alcohol programme, which is in line with the
industrys best practices.

10.2.4 Stop Work Policy

PETRONAS Carigali Management is committed to giving priority to Health, Safety,


and Environment wherever PCSB operates and shall endeavour to take every
reasonable and practicable step to minimize or eliminate the risk of injuries, health
hazards, damage to properties or environment.

It is the companys policy that all employees, including contractor staff, shall stop
work when there is an imminent and real threat which can physically endanger them
and others or cause adverse impact to the environment.

This stop work policy has the full support of management. When there is doubt on
wheter work should continue, employees including contractor staff, should promptly
notify their immediate supervisor for assessment of the hazardous condition.

10.3 Safety and Risk Management

Despite the fact involved in the identification of HSE risk hazards, and the
recovery measures, personnel from all organizational levels shall provide required
support and resources. The prerequisite for a structured HSE risk management shall
be pragmatic for all the activities throughout the operations, including the activities
conducted by contractors on behalf for the operator or even for the third party
member. All identified concerned risk on the chemicals should be listed in the
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and operational safety in the Hazards Effect
Register (HER) and reduced to a certain level. The risk management process is:-

201
10.,3.1 Hazard and Effect Management Process

Hazard and effect management is very essential to be investigated by the HSE


Management in during the project operation is conducted to ensure the safety in all
aspects. The flow process of hazard and management is shown below.

Identification hazard and effects then establish screening criteria

Assess-evaluation hazard and effects, document significant hazard and effects and applicable
statutory requirement and define detailed objectives and performance criteria

Control-identify-evaluation and implementation risk reduction measures

Recovery-identify-and implement risk containment and mitigation measures.


Figure 100 Hazard and effect management process

202
10.3.2 HSE Risk Screening Criteria

1
2 3 4 5
Severity
Insignifican
Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic
t

Minor Single Multiple


People Slight Injury Major Injury
Injury Fatality Fatality

Slight Minor Local Major Extensive


IMPACT Assets
Damage Damage Damage Damage Damage

Localized
Slight Minor Massive
Environment Major Impact
Impact Impact Impact
Impact

Considerabl Major Major


Slight Limited e
Reputation National International
Impact Impact
Impact Impact Impact

E Happens several
times per year E1 E2 E3 E4 E5
Almost Certain at location

D Happens several
times per year D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
Likely in company

C Incident has C5
LIKELIHOOD

occurred in our C1 C2 C3 C4
Possible company

B Heard of
Incident in B1 B2 B3 B3 B5
Unlikely Industry

A
Never heard of
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
Remotely likely in industry
to happen

Green - Low Risk - Manage for Continuous Improvement


Yellow - Medium Risk - Incorporate Risk Reduction Measures
Red - High Risk - Intolerable

203
The matrix is used in determining the effectiveness and feasibility of identified
control and recovery barriers.

10.4 Sustainable Development in PETRONAS

Sustainability to PETRONAS means carrying out the business in a socially


responsible and holistic manner. This is to ensure continued growth as well as
success for the benefit of present and future generations where the business operate.
Approach to sustainability aims to create lasting social benefits, safeguard the health
and safety of employees, contractors and neighbours; minimize disruptions to the
community, lower emissions, minimize impact on ecosystems and biodiversity, and
use energy, water and other resources efficiency. Some approaches on sustainable
development have been and still being implemented by PETRONAS are;

Meeting the Energy Challenge


The need for oil and gas resources is rising with the increase in global
population and urbanisation. PETRONAS aims for greater operational
excellence in the conventional and unconventional sources of energy.
Appetite for sustainable Development
PETRONAS will continue to embed Sustainable development practices
across the operations in Malaysia and internationally. The present economic
landscape calls for us to be more prudent in managing our investments.
nevertheless, business expansion entails venturing into newer markets,
undertaking complex projects, developing innovative products and leveraging
on partnerships for shared synergy.
Taking structured and measured approach to strengthen the foothold of
sustainable development for the future plans
Deliberate on best practices and emerging trends in response to business
needs such as promoting industry growth.

204
10.5 Consideration of Sustainable Development in the project

One of the main objective of this development is to maximize as well as


optimize the production performance of the Gelama Merah field in a long term run.
Detailed approached have been put in this project in order to ensure the prominent
for the field as planned. The details of these are discussed in the respertive chapter of
this project.

10.4.1 Reservoir Management

A detailed and approved reservoir management plan shall be ready in place


before the field is handled over to the operation team . the element of the plan shall
include but not limited to:

Pressure survey requirements


Reservoir monitoriong guidelines
Hydrocarbon accounting through monthly production well testing
Update of reservoir dynamic model by time by reservoir team
Pre-planned reservoir development for future (IOR, EOR)
Identification of blocks/ area for production oprimization

10.4.2 Drilling and Completion implementation plan

Drilling operation is one of the most risky in the workplace, so that in order
to reduce the hazard faced during drilling period, the exploration data obtained
should be fully utilized to extract more subsurface information on the pressure data
and lithological sequence since Gelama Merah is categorized as green field. The
elements of interest includes but limited to the following:

Collaborate with the contractors to improve drilling fluid formulation aiming


to minimize reservoir impairment

Technical Limit Approach (TLA) in drilling to optimize cost, minimize


reservoir impairment and reducing non-productive time (NPT).

205
Continuous consideration of completion profile and proper data record for
future enhancement planning

Flexible drilling design to cater for future possibilities with cost effectiveness
utilizing new technologies as consideration

10.4.3 Production Technology

Active and close communication with the Resource Management (RM) team and
supply various operating limits and updates to ensure smooth and optimal
productivity of the wells shall be maintained by the operations team (well integrity
and production analyst/field engineer). The element of the interest shall include not
limited to:

Full field performance review

Continuous consideration of new technologies to be applied for suitable field

Production of well surveillance (GOR, Water production, Pressure


maintenance)

Production enhancement plan (Cement packer, Additional Perforation, Acid


Stimulation) utilizing bubble maps, past production data and adjacent wells
production profile.

Production optimization (Gas Lift plans, Production Logging Plans, Zone


Change)
sdfd Proposal for sand control method during well servicing stages for new
perforated zones.

Proper and complete well clean up directions and well kick off procedures.
Troubleshoot production problems with well integrity team and field
engineers.

206
10.4.4 Facilities Engineering and Operations

Facilities design should aim to provide storage and energy capacity of surface
facilities required to provide for possible higher than planned production. Surface
facilities should be properly designed so that operation pressure would be kept at the
optimal level.
However, over-design of facilities should be avoided as this would increase the
overall cost as well as reduce the cost effectiveness. Elements of interest include and
not limited to:
Well testing procedures and schedule in place.

Routine maintenance plan on the surface structure

Well Integrity to provide full information on available tool specification for


RM team for smooth optimization plan.

10. 5 Quality Management

The Project and contractors team must work together with parallel
objectives towards quality work and also management. In order to improve the
compliance, the approaches that have been adopted are:

Project and contractor team to foster proactive approach to project


management and Quality Assurance (QA) awareness.
Identify and apply project resources in prioritized manner to continually
respond to areas of greater quality concern.
Besides, the project team shall also have pre-planned operations with the
contractor to:

Ensure contractors provide qualified and adequate QA personnel and also to


develop and implement effective Quality Management System (QMS).
Ensure sub-contractors (third party) implement an effective QMS.
Perform QA audits on contractors team to evaluate the compliance to work
procedures and to control or improve the work processes.

207
10.6 Quality Assurance

The project shall meet the terms in order to comply and meet the standards
for the safety of the people and structure, quality of the operations, environment,
operational integrity and reliability. Furthermore, the project shall adopt a quality
management system and attempt to complete on time, within the tolerable expenses,
and also to comply in accordance to the specified requirement. In order to optimize
process flow and meeting of various requirements, the project team, asset team and
contractor should be close together in the loop especially in terms of preparation and
HSE. The team shall at all times internalize the 5 PETRONAS Quality Principles in
every stage of the project.

208