Final Report (FDP1 Group 2)

Gelama Merah Field Development Plan
by
Group 2
Melvinderjit Singh
0015557
Nur Izzaty Syuhada Binti Romzi
0015657
Obwor Peter Severino
0017885
Naqiuddin Azim Bin Nordin
0015683
Ginza Fazli Mohamad
0017747
Nasim Karimi Namech
0017769
Final Report submitted in partial fulfilment of

the requirements for the
Bachelor of Engineering (Hons)
(Petroleum Engineering)
AUGUST 2015
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS

Bandar Seri Iskandar
31750 Tronoh
Perak Darul Ridzuan
1
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
Gelama Merah Field Development Plan
by
Group 2
Melvinderjit Singh
0015557
Nur Izzaty Syuhada Binti Romzi
0015657
Obwor Peter Severino
0017885
Naqiuddin Azim Bin Nordin
0015683
Ginza Fazli Mohamad
0017747
Nasim Karimi Namech
0017769
Final Report submitted in partial fulfilment of

the requirements for the
Bachelor of Engineering (Hons)
(Petroleum Engineering)
Approved by,
____________________
(Dr. Abdul Haque Tunio)
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS

TRONOH, PERAK
AUGUST 2015
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.
________________________________
Melvinderjit Singh (15557)
________________________________
Nur Izzaty Syuhada Binti Romzi (15657)
________________________________
Obwor Peter Severino (17885)
________________________________
Naqiuddin Azim Bin Nordin (15683)
________________________________
Ginza Fazli Mohamad (17747)
________________________________
Nasim Karimi Namech (17769)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Gelama Merah Field is located in Block SB-18-12 offshore Sabah Basin, Malaysia. The
field is about 43 km from Labuan and 130 km from Kota Kinabalu. The water depth is
around 50 m with the wells, Gelama-1, Gelama-2 and Gelama Kuning-1 in near vicinity.
The FDP Report covers the aspects of field development which are Geology and
Geophysics, Petrophysics, Volumetric and Reservoir Engineering. With the time
constraint, limited data and large number of uncertainties, the determination of the best
Field Development Plan (FDP) option has been considered as a tough and challenging
task. The main objective of the FDP report is to execute technical and economic evaluation
based on the given field within the given timeframe.
The ultimate aim of the first FDP phase from this report is to determine if the field is
economically viable to be developed thorough determination of numerous petrophysical
properties and reserve estimates. In this first phase, data comprising from the wells and
field has been studied to determine the geology of the field as well as the petrophysical
properties involved. Ultimately, the reserves in place has been determined from different
approaches. In addition, Gelama Merah Field static model has been developed using
PETREL Software to provide a basis of analysis and comparision. This report would
eventually provide a basis for the project continuation of FDP Phase 2.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
There are several people we would like to express our gratitude towards in completing
this project. Firstly, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to our supervisor, Dr.
Abdul Haque Tunio for the continuous support of our field development project and
related research, as well as for his patience, motivation and immense knowledge. Dr.
Haque Tunio has been very positive with the teams development, supervising every
progress of the team. Our sincere thanks also goes to Mr. Muhammad Luqman for his
guidance and support as the course coordinator. Also, we would like to acknowledge the
input from the well experienced Mr Md Yazid from PETRONAS .He has encouraged,
guided and supported us from the beginning to the final stage, and through this enabled
us to develop an understanding of the whole project. In addition to that, we appreciate the
guidance from Dr. Sia Chee Wee, who was more than willing to provide some generous
input when approached by the team in the first few weeks of the project phase.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES .
LIST OF TABLES
12
ABBREVIATIONS .
15
1. INTRODUCTION .
16
16
1.2 Problem Statement
17
1.3 Objectives .
18
1.4 Scope of Study
18
1.5 Methodology
19
22
2.1 Organisation Chart of the Team .
22
2.2 Roles and Responsibility of Each Member
23
1.1 Preface
2. PROJECT TEAM .
3. DELIVERABLES .
26
3.1 Petroleum Geology
26
26
3.1.2 Depositional Environment
29
3.1.3 Petroleum Systems
31
33
3.1.1 Regional Geology
3.1.4 Stratigraphy and Correlation

6
3.2 Petrophysics
37
37
3.2.2 Petrophysical Parameters
39
3.2.3 Petrophysical Cut-Offs .
45
3.2.4 Zonal Determination
48
3.2.5 Fluid Contacts .
51
3.2.6 Pressure Plot
54
3.2.7 Net to Gross
55
58
3.3.1 Base Map / Scale
58
3.3.2 Hydrocarbon in Place
60
3.3.3 Deterministic Method .
65
3.3.4 Probabilistic Method
67
3.3.5 Volumetric Calculation from PETREL.
73
77
3.4.1 Porosity Permeability Relationship
77
3.4.2 Relative Permeability
78
3.4.3 Capillary Pressure and J-Leverett Function
80
3.4.4 Pressure-Volume-Temperature Analysis
84
3.4.5 Well test data
97
3.2.1 Reservoir Upscaling
3.3 Volumetric
3.4 Reservoir Engineering 1 .
.
7
3.4.6 Reserve estimation
4. CONCLUSION
100
105
4.1 Range of Volume .
105
4.2 Uncertainty
106
4.3 Assumptions
108
REFERENCES
109
APPENDICES
110
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location of the Gelama Merah Field, offshore Sabah.
Figure 2: Organisation Chart of the team (Group 2).
Figure 3: Geochronic interpretation of episodic evolution of South China Sea (Tan &
Lamy, 1990).
Figure 4: Sabah regional geology cross sections (Tan & Lamy, 1990).
Figure 5: Deltaic depositional environment (Howard, 1981 & Boyd et al., 1992).
Figure 6: The coarsening upwards and Gamma Ray log spikes indicating Deltaic
structures.
Figure 7: Correlation between GM-1 and GM-1 ST-1.
Figure 8: Simple grid method.
Figure 9: Structural grid method.
Figure 10: Pillar gridding method.
Figure 11: Graph of shale volume cut-off determination.
Figure 12: Graph of porosity cut-off determination.
Figure 13: Graph of water saturation cut-off determination.
Figure 14: The main zones identified from the Gelama Merah-1 Log.
Figure 15: The sub zones within an interval, at the spikes of GR log.
Figure 16: Fluid contacts at respective depths.
Figure 17: Fluid contacts drawn on the cross section of the map.
9
Figure 18: Pressure plot obtained for the Gelama Merah Field.
Figure 19: Gross gas and oil heights with associated N/G values.
Figure 20: Base map U3.2, which is used for the volumetric determination.
Figure 21: Map U3.2 created by drawing of polygons in PETREL.
Figure 22: Map U3.2 created in a 3-Dimensional view using PETREL.
Figure 23: The fluid contacts marked on the base map.
Figure 24: The Depth vs Area plot used to calculate the bulk volume.
Figure 25: Generic View of GBV distribution.
Figure 26: The first 10 trials of random number and random values generated for N/G in
the oil bearing zone.
Figure 27: Graph of cumulative probability and confidence interval, resulting from the
Monte-Carlo Simulation for oil reserves.
Figure 28: Graph of confidence level of oil reserves.
Monte-Carlo Simulation for gas reserves.
Figure 30: Graph of confidence level of gas reserves.
Figure 31: Main step for gross bulk volume calculation using PETREL.
Figure 32: Establishing different fluid contacts in PETREL.
Figure 33: Data from well log imported into PETREL.
Figure 34: Permeability-porosity relationship showing the porosity and permeability
transform.
Figure 35: Relative permeability curves for unsteady state (Temperature = 70 degree
Fahrenheit).
10
Figure 36: Graph of capillary pressure results of sample 1-017.

Figure 39: The drainage curves for 3 different core samples Equation 1: Shale Volume
Determination.
Figure 40: The J-Leverett Function graph obtained for the core samples.
Figure 41: The Graph of Pc vs Sw
Figure 42: The graph of relative volume and Y-Function.
Figure 43: Graph of pressure vs solution gas-oil ratio, Rs.
Figure 44: Graph of pressure vs oil formation volume factor, Bo.
Figure 45: Graph of oil and gas viscosity.
Figure 46: GM-1 DST-1 well test interpretation.
Figure 47: Pressure (Psig) Versus Cumulative Oil Production (MMSTB)(Solis et. Al.,
2011).
Figure 48: Reservoir drive mechanism.
11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: List of software used in each phase of the project.

Table 2: The steps and description of each phase involved in the project.
Table 3: The significance of different logs method.
Table 4: The different map units and respective top and bottom depths.
Table 5: Overall lithological summary analysed from GM-1.
Table 6: Lithological description of Gelama Merah-1 from different map layers.
Table 7: Lithological description of Gelama Merah-1 ST-1 from different map layers.
Table 8: Volume of shale calculated for the interval 1330m-1336m.
Table 9: Total porosity and effective porosity calculated for the interval 1330m-1336m.
Table 10: Volume of shale for two intervals exceeding the cut-off volume.
Table 11: The GOC and OWC contacts obtained from the pressure plot.
Table 12: Fluid gradient and density obtained from the pressure plot.
Table 13: Area of each contacts measured by the Planimeter.
Table 14: GBV from the Trapezoidal and Pyramidal rule.
Table 15: GBV of reserves converted into standard units.
Table 16: Probabilities of gas and oil GBV.
12
Table 17: STOIIP and GIIP from the Deterministic Method.

Table 18: Probability table of the recoverable volume of oil from the Probabilistic Method.
Table 19: The recoverable reserves obtained from the Probabilistic Method.
Table 20: Gross bulk volume of oil and gas zones obtained from PETREL.
Table 21: Comparison of gross bulk volume from manual calculation and from PETREL.
Table 22: Gas Initially In Place (GIIP) and recoverable gas volumes obtained from
PETREL.
Table 23: Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place (STOIIP) and recoverable oil volumes obtained
from PETREL.
Table 24: Quality check of separator samples.
Table 25: Compositional analysis of separator oil, separator gas samples and calculated
well stream composition.
Table 26: Compositional analysis of stock tank oil, stock tank gas and calculated well
stream composition (Adjusted Bubble Point Pressure to 2014 psig).
Table 27: Constant composition expansion test at 155F.
Table 28: Differential vaporization test at 155F.
Table 29: Oil and Gas Viscosity at 155F.
Table 30: Single stage separator flash analysis case 1.
Table 31: Composition of liberated gases collected from single stage separator flash test
case 1.
Table 32: Composition of residual oil from single stage separator flash test case 1.
13
case 2.
case 3.
Table 38: Compositional of residual oil from single stage separator flash case 3.
Table 39: Well test result summary.
Table 40 : Pressure transient analysis summary.
Table 41: Summary of deterministic volume.
Table 42: Summary of probabilistic volume.
Table 43: Summary of PETREL based volume.
14
ABBREVIATIONS AND NOMENCLATURES
BHP: Bottom-hole Pressure

GBV: Gross Bulk Volume
GIIP: Gas Initially In Place
GM-1: Gelama Merah-1
GM-1 ST-1: Gelama Merah 1, Sidetrack-1
GR: Gamma Ray
N/G: Net-to-Gross
STOIIP: Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place
15
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Preface
The Gelama Merah Field is located in offshore of Sabah Basin. The location is about 43
km away from Labuan and 130 km away from Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. Two main wells,
known as the Gelama Merah-1 and Gelama Merah-1 ST-1 ( a side tracked well) have been
drilled in this field. International Logging Overseas provided the mud logging service
from below 70.1 meters (seabed) to the total depth which were then presented in
corresponding logs for interpretation. The geological maps were provided to aid in this
study. The operator for the field is PETRONAS CARIGALI SDN BHD with the Japan
Drilling Company as the drilling contractor. With respect to current time, the status of the
exploration has stopped and sidetracked. However, the drilled wells were utilized to gather
geographical, reservoir fluid characteristic, petrophysical and reservoir information for
the field development. Geological and petrophysical studies were carried out to ultimately
determine the fields volumetric properties.
Figure 1: Location of the Gelama Merah Field, offshore Sabah.
16
1.2 Problem Statement

Advancement of a fundamentally complex oil and gas field requires a careful considering
of the geographical qualities and reservoir characteristics with a specific end goal to
upgrade the field performance. This procedure additionally requires a good understanding
of all available data to come up with a suitable drilling and completion program together
with necessary health, safety and environment considerations in developing the field.
Thus, this case study analyses the Gelama Merah field and focuses on the necessary
aspects in field development process. There are a few difficulties of the evaluation project
for example, constrained accessible information. The main problem statement would be:
Is the Gelama Merah Field economically viable to be developed? To solve the problem,
the complete Field Development Project (FDP) report should cover all aspects of field
development which are as following:
Sub-phase I: Geology and Geophysics ; Petrophysics
Sub-phase II: Reservoir Engineering
Sub-phase III: Drilling Engineering, Production Technology and Facilities

Engineering
Sub-phase IV: Project Economics
Sub-phase V: Sustainable Development and Health, Safety, & Environment
However, only two phases are focused on throughout this FDP 1 project, which are:
Sub-phase I: Geology and Geophysics ; Petrophysics
Sub-phase II: Reservoir Engineering
17
1.3 Objectives
The main objective of the Gelama Merah Field Development Project (FDP) is to execute
a technical and economical evaluation of the specified field with respect to current
technology advancement, government regulation and economy. Other than that, the
project aims to integrate both technical and non-technical knowledge as well as construct
a feasible field development plan within the given timeframe. This project would also
enable recommendations to be made in reducing risks and uncertainties associated with
the field. Some of the other sub-objectives include:
To determine types of fluid present and their contacts
To determine depositional environment of the field
To determine stratigraphy of the field and find the correlation between the exploration
wells
To determine the Stock Tank Oil Initially in Place (STOIIP) and Gas Initially in Place
(GIIP)
To analyse the economic evaluation of the appraisal well
1.4 Scope of Study

The general scope for the Gelama Merah Field Development Project involves:
Determining geology of the field, lithological description, petrophysical properties,
reservoir properties and volumetric calculations
Developing the static model of Gelama Merah Field
Performing simulation to achieve highest recovery factor (RF) and economic return of
the field
Performing economic evaluation and sensitivity analysis for all development stages
and options
Ensuring the FDP is in compliance with national regulation and HSE requirements
18
1.5 Methodology
1.5.1 Modeling Softwares

The softwares available and used for the Field Development Project (FDP) 1 for Gelama
Merah are listed below:
Table 1: List of software used in each phase of the project.
No
Phases
Softwares
Geology and Geophysics
PETREL, Microsoft Excel

Spreadsheet
Reservoir Development
PETREL
Economic Analysis
Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet
1.5.2
Steps Involved in Field Development Project 1
Table 2: The steps and description of each phase involved in the project.
Phase
Step
Geology
Dimensional Cross
Imaging to identify
the layering of each
zones based on
contour
surface
maps (U3.2, U6,
Description
Software/Tools
/Method Used
The identification of Microsoft

regional,
Spreadsheet
depositional setting, Planimeter
stratigraphy,
and
geological structure
of Gelama Merah
Field
19
Excel,
U9), and
provided.
Petrophysics
logs
A
Quick Look
identification
applied
on
available logs to
identify
the
possible
of
hydrocarbon
bearing zone
Analyze the log Archies

reading based on Equation,Microsoft
depth of formation Spreadsheet Excel
(m), and obtain the
correct reading from
Gamma Ray log,
Resistivity log, and
Density log.
Location of oil,
gas, and water zone
is detected with the
verification
GOC,WOC
and
Free Water Level
(FWL).
Based on that, few

analysis can be made
to calculate total
porosity, effective
porosity, Net Sand,
Net To Gross, Water
Saturation (Sw),and
Bulk Volume
Create a pressure
plot (pressure vs.
depth) to verify the
GOC&WOC
obtained from the
formation pressure
plot in Drill Stem
Test (DST)
Volumetric
calculation
Bulk
volume Use
deterministic Microsoft
calculation
for methods such as Spreadsheet
Trapezoidal,
STOOIP
Pyramidal
and
Simpsons rule
Excel
Select the initial Microsoft

minimum, maximum Spreadsheet
Calculate the value and range and range
of STOOIP based values of parameters
on random values (Gross
Bulk
generation
Volume, Net to
Gross, porosity, Shc,
Excel
20
Bg , RF),and allows
Microsoft Excel to
generate hundreds of
possible
STOOIP
solutions
Model
Development
of PETREL software
developments to static model by using
with
calculate STOOIP software
appropriate
data
from
properties
modelling and well
insertion to get the
reservoir illustration
and STOOIP values
21
2. PROJECT TEAM
2.1 Organisation Chart of the Team
Figure 2: Organisation Chart of the team (Group 2).
22
2.2 Roles and Responsibility of Each Member
a) Leader and Assistant Leader:

To coordinate group tasks and project division between group members.
To liaison information flow between group supervisor and group members.
To lead the team in achieving the milestones set out within the Gantt Chart.
b) Geologist:
Geologist have been involved in phases of any given project study right from exploration,
planning, design, construction and maintenance. Some of the responsibilities are:
Study composition, structure, and history of the earth's crust to examine rocks,
minerals, and fossil remains to identify and determine the sequence of processes
affecting the development of the earth.
Helps to locate mineral and petroleum deposits and underground water resources.
Prepares geologic reports, maps, and interprets research data obtained from seismic to
recommend further action for study.
c) Petrophysicist:
Petro-physics emphasizes those properties relating to the pore system and its fluid
distribution and flow characteristics. These properties and their relationships are used to
identify and evaluate:
Hydrocarbon reservoirs
Hydrocarbon sources
Seals
Aquifers
23
The petro-physicist or petro-physical engineer practices the science of petro-physics as a

member of the reservoir management team. The petro-physicist provides answers on
products needed and used by team members, as well as physical and chemical insights
needed by other teammates.
d) Geophysicist:
Geophysicists are responsible for studying the structure, composition and behavior of the
earth using a variety of methods and equipment. The study of the earths structure and
composition also involves the study of oceans, gravity, and magnetic and electrical fields.
The roles are described as follows :
Perform quality control, monitoring, and interpretation of geophysical data.
Identify areas to be surveyed and determine the appropriate survey methods.
Process the geophysical data and determine the type, shape and location of rock
structures underground.
e) Reservoir Engineer:
Reservoir engineers play a central role in field development planning, recommending
appropriate and cost effective reservoir depletion schemes such as water flooding or gas
injection to maximize hydrocarbon recovery. Some of the other roles include:
Generate accurate reserve estimates for the report (formula, material balance method).
Helping with the generation of dynamic modelling of the reservoir.
f) Production Engineer:
Modelling and optimizing well inflow and outflow performance.
Conceptual well and completion design.
Design of well/reservoir interface (including sand management).
24
Well, Reservoir and Facility Management (including specification of the operating

envelope for the well.
g) Petroleum Economist:
To carry out financial and economic modelling of the given project.
To evaluate the hydrocarbon worth and profitable future through economic analysis.
To estimate the total expenditure beginning from the exploration phase, including the
operating expenses.
h) Health, Safety and Environment Officer:

Report and investigate incidents, injuries and hazards and implement agreed control
measures.
Outlining safe operational procedures which identify and take account of all relevant
hazards.
Making changes to working practices that are safe and comply with legislation.
Ensuring the safe installation of equipment for project work.
25
3. DELIVERABLES
3.1 Petroleum Geology
3.1.1 Regional Geology

Gelama Merah Field is located in Block SB-18-12, which is part of the Sabah Basin,
Malaysia. The field is part of the enigmatic circular basic, the origin of which remains
unknown. The Paleogene regional setting of Sabah is very complex, consisting of
Oligocene-Neogene sedimentary rocks. The water depth is around 50 m with the offset
wells, Gelama-1, Gelama-2 and Gelama Kuning-1. The field is located at the location
having coordinates as such:
Latitude: 053349.98 North
Longitude: 1145906.34 East
Offshore Sabah has broken formations and mlanges showing characteristics of tectonic,
sedimentary and diapiric. The geology of Sabah is complicated, reflecting the extreme
kinematic complexity of the South China Sea region. Sabah is located at the intersection
of two mega-tectonic trends: the North East-South West Northwest Borneo Trend and the
North West-South East Sulu Trend.
The North West Borneo Trend, comprising the Late Cretaceous-Early Eocene Rajang
Accretionary Prism in Sarawak and the Paleocene-early Middle Miocene Crocker
Accretionary Prism in Sabah, marks an imbricated terrain/melange resulting from the
southwesterly and southeasterly subductions of the South China Sea plate beneath the
Sunda Shield and the Borneo accreted crust. The subduction zone migrated progressively
northwards and became inactive during late Miocene/early Pliocene times. These
subduction zones are related to the episodes of rifting and seafloor spreading in the South
China Sea basin from the Late Cretaceous to Late Miocene.
26
The North West Sabah continental margin consists of a Tertiary trench-associated

sedimentary basin, with up to 12 km (stratigraphic thickness) of siliciclastic sediments.
The Tertiary sedimentary sequences were deposited during two main phases of basin
development:
i.
A pre-early Middle Miocene phase of generally deep-marine clastic sedimentation

(Stages I, II, III) which was subjected to strong compression related to the
subduction of the Cretaceous oceanic crust portion of the South China Sea plate
beneath the accreted crust.
ii.
A post-early Middle Miocene phase of clastic sheiflslope deposition (Stage IV) in

which progradation was to the northwest over the underlying imbricate wedge,
overstepping onto the foundered and attenuated continental crust of the South
China Sea Platform.
Most prominently, the Gelama Merah field is part of the West Labuan-Paisley Syncline
and characterized by a major North-South growth Morris Fault, a significant tectonic
structure. From the cross section data, small erosions can be observed and it is believed
that it is the results of the Morris Fault. Basement influence is most clearly represented by
wrench-related structures in the deltaic overburden, like en-echelon fault alignments,
occasionally accompanied by reverse fault throws and dip reversals along individual faults
(Tan & Lamy, 1990). It is inferred that the wrench-fault zones are linked to deeper, upper
crustal levels, possibly down to the basal part of the accretionary basement of the
Northwest Borneo margin.
27
Figure 3: Geochronic interpretation of episodic evolution of South China Sea (Tan &
Lamy, 1990).
Figure 4: Sabah regional geology cross sections (Tan & Lamy, 1990).
28
3.1.2 Depositional Environment

In any reservoir system, its vital to identify the depositional environment of the reservoir
zones that have hydrocarbon deposits. From the Gelama Merah field log analysis, the
dominant depositional environment is the deltaic environments in which Gamma Ray
curve responses shows how different depositional environments respond in terms of
coarsening and fining of grain size. Upward coarsening in the Gamma Ray log readings
indicates the presence of sandstone formation which is mostly formed at deltaic
depositional environment at the lower basin while fining up indicates the presence of shaly
sand. Another effect of deltaic environment can be attributed to the possible presence of
a jet with a settling impact on the sediments that are suspended by freshwater (river) as
they move across the denser surface of the seawater forming eventually a fluvial structure.
Deltaic depositional environment is subdivided into progressive and transgressive
depositional environments:
i.
Progradational delta succession exhibits a transition from mouth bar (prodelta

offshore muds through silty to sandy) deposits with upward-coarsening, while the
latter stage is commonly with small-scale cross stratification and overlain by:
Distributary and tidal channel deposits with respective larger and smaller scale
sedimentary structures.
ii.
Subaqueous levees grading upward into interdistributary sediments.
Transgression occurs upon delta-lobe switching, leading to:
Intense wave reworking and transformation of mouth bar and beach ridge
sands into barrier islands.
Drowning of barrier islands leading to offshore sand shoals.
Increasing salinity and eventual drowning of the delta plain.
29
Figure 5: Deltaic depositional environment (Howard, 1981 & Boyd et al., 1992).
From the analysis that Gelama Merah is dominated by deltaic depositional environment,
less changes in the grain size and sorting has been observed from the sand body contained
in the hydrocarbon formations.However, the Gelama-2 ST-1 core data indicated that the
zone beyond unconformity is shaly sand while shale in the Gelama Merah field is hard to
fairly hard, smoothly sloppy, finely fissile, well compacted and micromicaceious.
The field also has fluvial deltaic environment of deposition based on the examination of
cores that shown regional tilting of the basin North West wards and the basin ward
migration of the lines that separate that separate unconformities from their correlative
conformities and this also contain cross bedded layers of sand and shaly sand. Based on
the Gamma Ray interpretation for Gelama Merah 1, it can be stated that it can be either in
shore line deposits or deltaic environment simply because the shape of the Gamma Ray
log, that is dominated with coarsening upward trend (funnel shaped log).
30
Figure 6: The coarsening upwards and Gamma Ray log spikes indicating Deltaic
structures.
3.1.3 Petroleum Systems

The petroleum system is a unifying concept that encompasses all of the disparate elements
and processes of petroleum geology. Practical application of petroleum systems is used in
exploration, resource evaluation, and research. This subtopic discusses its application to
petroleum exploration through migration and maturation of hydrocarbon, source rock
generation, reservoir rock development followed by the trap system.
a) Migration and Maturity of Hydrocarbon:
The migration process of hydrocarbon occurred along the faults within the unconformity
layers. This creates an assumption that a Miocene-Pliocene accumulation fits the Gelama
Merah field description consisting of a deltaic nature. With the rapid cooking of organic
matter, the source rock matured to then stimulate movement of hydrocarbon to flow away
from the source also known as migration.
31
b) Source Rock:
It is known that there is a trend of similar compositions of source rock throughout the
Sabah basin. The main lithology source is lower coastal plain shales, at the marine
interval, with no identification of rich source of rock layers. With the nearby fields used
as a reference point, the source rock is similarly identified to be rich in terrigenious, an
important organic matter.
c) Reservoir Rock:
It is identified that the reservoir rock of the field consists of sandstone interbedded with
clay. Clean sand formations indicate presence of hydrocarbon and is shown from map unit
9.1 and 9.2. Shaly sand is indicated from map unit 3.2 up to map unit 8.0.
d) Trap and Seal:
The petroleum system of Gelama Merah has an anticline trap feature. The trap can either
be a result of faulting within the reservoir or a movement of tectonic plates. The
impermeable shale act as a good seal to the stratigraphy.
To identify a petroleum system, the explorationist must find some petroleum. Any
quantity of petroleum, no matter how small, is proof of a petroleum system. An oil or gas
seep, a show of oil or gas in a well, or an oil or gas accumulation demonstrates the presence
of a petroleum system. Thus data of the reservoir/petroleum system were obtained from
the drilling report provided. For this project, collection of cutting sample from the
reservoir is collected started at 553 m below the 13-3/8 casing shoe until 1636 m of
Gelama Merah-1. Reportedly, the reservoir pressure and temperature are 2116 psia and
155 respectively.
32
3.1.4 Stratigraphy and Correlation

Stratigraphic correlation is the important attributes in order to determine the level of
success in the field development plan (FDP).It will give the utmost information regarding
the lateral extent of reservoir formations, as wells as very useful in the process of
interpreting the depositional environments at the reservoir area. In stratigraphy
correlation, the relationships between the layers of rock need to be clarified .Then, the
information relating to the arrangement of facies ,porosity and potential barriers of
reservoir can be obtained.
In order to have a good stratigraphic correlation, multi techniques are available such as
seismic data, and well logging. The Gelama Merah-1 well is divided into few sections
based on wireline logging data which are Zone U3.2, U4.0, U5.0, U6.0, U7.0, U8.0, U9.0,
U9.1, U9.2, U9.3 and U10. The Gelama Merah-1 and Gelama Merah-1 ST1 drilled in this
field is correlated to each other in order to study about their lithology.
Table below shows the correlation logs used for Gelama Merah Field:
Table 3: The significance of different logs method.

Core-relation Logs
Gamma Ray
Description
To measure the shaliness of formation
and to know lithological facies of
reservoir
Density log
To determine the gas bearing zone
Resistivity log
To determine the conductivity of the

formation
33
Table 4: The different map units and respective top and bottom depths.
Figure 7: Correlation between GM-1 and GM-1 ST-1.

34
The table below shows the lithological summary analyzed from the cutting samples
obtained earlier during drilling process.
Table 5: Overall lithological summary analysed from GM-1.
Depth (m)
Lithology
Major sandstone interbedded with claystone and dolomite

553 m 1120 m
Moderately to well sorted matrix of sandstone
Some area with poor porosity, some with fair porosity
Traces of carbonaceous matters, pyrite and dolomite were

observed in this interval
Inter bedding of claystone and thin sandstone
1120 m 1320 m
Sandstone is occasionally transparent, from soft to friable,

silty to very fine quartz grain.
Moderately to well sorted matrix
Claystone is in whitish gray/brownish gray, light/medium

gray
Claystone is soft, firm in part
Trace of 5% of pyrite were observed in this interval
Inter bedding of sandstone and claystone

1320 m 1636 m
Sandstone from olive gray to light gray
Sandstone consists of very fine to loose quartz grain
Traces of carbonaceous matter, pyrite, lignite were observed

in this interval
35
Table 6: Lithological description of Gelama Merah-1 from different map layers.
Table 7: Lithological description of Gelama Merah-1 ST-1 from different map layers.
36
3.2 Petrophysics
3.2.1 Reservoir Upscaling
Upscaling of a reservoir grid model is essential in the preparation of the static model for
dynamic modeling. It allows the reservoir Engineers to create a coarser reservoir model
from the fine scaled geological model to be used for simulation. Upscaling reservoir grid
model helps to:
Reduce the overall results processing by using a simulator for uncertainty analysis and
risk assessment.
Make the fine scale simulation practical because the average simulator requires
between 100,000 to one million cells for effective performance.
An up-scaled reservoir grid model has:

Reduced number of cells (bigger cells)
Zigzag or stair-step type faults.
Coarser vertical layering.
To upscale the reservoir model, its important to follow some of the procedures below:
Coarsen the fine grid in X and Y direction.
Make a vertical subdivision of the coarse grid by using a simulator to capture main
flow barriers in the stratigraphic model of the reservoir.
Quality check the resulting 3D grid that includes the cell volumes, cell inside out, and
cell angles that should be the same with the fine grid model.
Sample properties from the grid into the coarse grid. Its important to ensure that there
is consistency in STOIIP between the fine and the coarse model after validating the
bulk volumes of both grids.
37
From the above procedures, the major important section that should be discussed is the
coarsening of the grid model to make reduced number of cells that can facilitate effective
performance of the simulator.
3.2.1.1 Making Coarse Grid

To make a coarse reservoir grid model with reduced number cells has three methods that
can be used and are explained as follows:
Simple grid method: it is a simple and fast method that is being used for models without
faults. However, simulation faults can be inserted when there is need.
Figure 8: Simple grid method.
Structural grid method: This is mostly used when the fine grid is made with the structural
gridding tool.
Figure 9: Structural grid method.
38
Pillar gridding method: This is applied when the constructed grid is based on fault model.
Figure 10: Pillar gridding method.

3.2.2 Petrophysical Parameters
Petrophysical parameters basically encompass the parameters required to calculate Stock
Tank Oil Initially in Place (STOIIP) and Gas Initially in Place (GIIP). The logging data
of the Gelama Merah-1 well provided for the project include Gamma Ray (GR) log,
Resistivity log (Rdeep) as well as Neutron and Density log. The analysis and evaluation of
the log data sets would yield important parameters including shale volume (Vsh), total
porosity (t), effective porosity (eff), net-to-gross (N/G) and water saturation (Sw).
In other words, the petrophysical properties can be obtained from logging and core
sampling data. The scope of the petrophysical parameters for Gelama Merah field has
been summarized as follows:
Lithology study
Log data correlation
Identification of permeable and non-permeable zones
Determination of hydrocarbon zone thickness
Identification of fluid types
Determination of porosity in the zone of interest
Determination of water and hydrocarbon saturation in the zone of interest
39
3.2.2.1 Shale Volume (Vsh)

The volume of shale can be determined from the Gamma Ray (GR) log readings at each
depth interval. Shale gives higher reading of GR log instead of normal sandstones as it
contains more radioactive minerals. Shale volume differentiates reservoir layers from nonreservoir layers. The formula of Vsh is as the following:
Equation 1: Shale Volume Determination.
Vsh IGR
Where;
GR log GR min
GR max GR min
GRmax = maximum gamma ray reading from entire log section

GRmin = minimum gamma ray reading from entire log section
GRlog = gamma ray reading at specific log depth
From the reading and analysis of the GR log of Gelama Merah-1 Well, the following are
determined:
Minimum GR reading: 45 GAPI
Maximum GR reading: 105 GAPI
Volume of shale, Vsh for each height interval
Table 8: Volume of shale calculated for the interval 1330m-1336m.

Interval (m)
1330-1332
1332-1334
1334-1336
Height (m)
2.00
2.00
2.00
GR
62.00
80.00
71.00
Resistivity (total)
180.00
5.50
14.00
40
Density log
1.98
2.05
2.26
V shale
0.27
0.56
0.42
3.2.2.2 Porosity ()
The total porosity (t) is measured from the Density (RhoB) log. The Density log provides
the values for bulk density of a known rock matrix density (ma) and the density of fluid
within the pores (f). The total porosity can be expressed in the following formula:
Equation 2: Total Porosity Determination.
t =
Where;
ma = density of rock matrix (typically, sandstone = 2.65 g/cm3)

f = density of fluid occupying pores (low salinity water = 1.10 g/cm3)
= bulk density of formation (from Density log)
The Neutron (NEUT) log is used to measure the effective porosity of the formation.
Neutron log measurement utilizes a neutron source to measure the hydrogen atoms in the
formation. The more hydrogen atoms a formation contains, more neutrons are slowed
down, scattered and absorbed into the formation. Effective porosity (eff) can be calculated
using the following formula:
Equation 3: Effective Porosity Determination.
eff = t (1-Vsh)
Initially, the reading from the Density log is tabulated for each height interval, and then
Equation 2 is applied to obtain the t. These values are then used together with Vsh values
in Equation 3 to finally obtain the eff. For this field, the total and effective porosity is
calculated for each layer interval to eventually produce the following:
Average effective porosity: 0.18
Gas layer average effective porosity: 0.26
Oil bearing layer average effective porosity: 0.147
(18%)
41
(26%)
(14.7%)
Table 9: Total porosity and effective porosity calculated for the interval 1330m-1336m.
Interval (m)
1330-1332
1332-1334
1334-1336
Height (m)
2.00
2.00
2.00
Density
log
1.98
2.05
2.26
Porosity
(total)
0.43
0.39
0.25
V shale
0.27
0.56
0.42
Porosity (effective)
0.31
0.17
0.15
3.2.2.3 Water Saturation (Sw)

3.2.2.3.1 Archies Equation
Resistivity log is used to determine water saturation (Sw). Zones with high resistivity
readings indicate hydrocarbons of either oil or gas since hydrocarbons are not as
conductive as water. Low resistivity readings indicate water zones. A few methods can
be used to evaluate Sw including Archies Equation, Waxman-Smits Equation and
Indonesia Equation.
Using Archies Equation, the existence of clays are negligible as it assumes a clean
sandstone. The following formula represents Archies Equation:
Equation 4: Archies Equation.
aR
S w m w
Rt
Where;
1
n
a = tortuosity factor (a=1)

Rw = formation water resistivity (Rw= 0.265)
Rt = true resistivity from Resistivity log
= porosity effective (based on eff calculated)
42
m = cementation exponent (m=1.72)

n = saturation exponent (n=1.64)
3.2.2.3.2 Waxman-Smits-Thomas (WST) Equation

Referring to the field Gamma Ray Log, it it clear that Gelama Merah-1 is not 100%
consisting of a clean formation. The existing of interbedded shales between the layers has
made the reservoir heterogenous. Due to that, the Waxman-Smith-Thomas (WST)
equation is implemented in order to consider the presence of shales in between the layers
of formation.We assume that Archie Equation is not proper to use because it is only used
in the clean formation.
Few reasons that lead to the implementation of WST equations are:
It is calibrated with respect to presence of clay within the shaly sandstones.
Provides better representation of physics of the conductivity terms, thus, improving

the accuracy of the Sw calculation.
According to the Gelama-2 ST1 Advance Properties Report, the value of n is 1.64, and the
value
of
is
1.72.
In
addition,
the
values
of
, ,B,CEC
and
Rw
are1.86,2.1,3.2(1/ohm)/meq/mL),5.543 meq/100g and 0/265 ohm.m respectively. From

given CEC value, the computation of Qv is done by using the following equation:
Equation 5: Equation to obtain Qv.
=
Where;
(1 )
100
CEC =cation-exchange capacity, meq/100g

t
= porosity total
ma = density of rock matrix (sandstone =2.65 g/cm3 )

43
After getting the Qv values for each interval, WST formula can be implemented as
follows:
Equation 6:The Waxman-Smits-Thomas General Equation

1
1
= (
+
)
Where;
Rt
= true resistivity of uninvaded,deep formation,ohm.m
Rw = connate-brine resistivity,ohm.m
Sw = water saturation
B = specific cation conductance,[(1/ohm.m)/(meq/mL)]
t = porosity total
= WST cementation exponent
= WST saturation exponent
Qv = cation-exchange capacity of total PV,meq/mL
3.2.2.3.3 Average Water Saturation Calculation

For the above reasons, the WST equation was used to calculate the average water
saturation. The average water saturation using both methods gave the following values as
comparison:
Average water saturation using Archies Equation: 0.758
Average water saturation using WST Equation: 0.590
44
Using Archies Equation gave an overestimation of water saturation by 0.17. Therefore,

WST Equation was then further employed to obtain:
Average water saturation in gas bearing zone: 0.3971
Average water saturation in oil bearing zone: 0.6056
3.2.3 Petrophysical Cut-Offs

Cut-off points for shale volume, porosity and water saturation are important to determine
the ideal net-to-gross (N/G) value of the reservoir. For this study, the Cumulative
Hydrocarbon Column Technique was used to obtain the cut-off values based on the trend
line generated on the graph. A graph of hydrocarbon column in percentage was plotted
against each petrophysical parameter. The elbow point or the point where the graph turns
is taken as the cut-off value, negating either values above or below the cut-off points.
Based on the generated graphs, the cut-off values determined are as the following:
Shale volume cut-off: 0.57. Vsh values above 0.57 are considered non-reservoir.
Effective porosity cut-off: 0.08. eff values below 0.08 are considered nonhydrocarbon bearing.
Water saturation cut-off: 0.65. Sw values above 0.65 are considered non-hydrocarbon
bearing.
45
Figure 11: Graph of shale volume cut-off determination.
Figure 12: Graph of porosity cut-off determination.
46
Figure 13: Graph of water saturation cut-off determination.
Another method to determine cut-off for shale is from the Gamma Ray log. A cut-off
value of 79 GAPI is selected based on a full analysis of the log. This indicates that all
Gamma Ray readings above 79 GAPI would be treated as shale. From the calculation, Vsh
is determined to be 0.567 or 56.7%, close to the cut-off value determined from the
Cumulative Hydrocarbon Column Technique. This indicates that any value of shale
volume above or equal 0.567 would be treated as a non-reservoir.
Cut-off points are determined to be able to differentiate clean, permeable sands to
impermeable shale. In other words, it is important to classify a reservoir rock and a nonreservoir rock to eventually calculate the hydrocarbon bearing volume and other similar
properties.
Table 10: Volume of shale for two intervals exceeding the cut-off volume.
Interval (m)
1310-1312
1312-1314
Height (m)
2.00
2.00
GR
90.50
105.00
Resistivity (total)
2.90
2.60
47
Density log
2.30
2.31
V shale
0.73
0.97
3.2.4 Zonal Determination

Establishing the reservoir zones requires the reservoir and existing fluid type
identification. Density and neutron log have been the most reservoir rock indicators
evidence by the curve crossover between the two logs from right to left and left to right
(Bernhart, 2014). The Gamma Ray has also been identified as important log for the
determination of reservoir zones. However, its believed that Gamma Ray log is not a
reliable indicator due the presence of radioactive minerals in sands.
From the Gelama Merah (GM-1) log analysis based on density, neutron, and resistivity
response characteristics, gas, oil, and water zones were identified as follows.
Gas zone:
For the same porosity, gas zones have greater Neuron and density curve crossovers
(also known as butterfly effect) than oil and water zones because both of them ate
determined statistically.
Mirror image of density and resistivity log curve response with the higher resistivity
response and less density response.
Oil zone:
Mirror image of density and resistivity log curve response with less but greater than
water zone resistivity response and higher density log response.
No density and neuron log response curve crossover.
Water zone:
No density and neuron log response curve crossover.
Less resistivity response than oil zone.
48
Density and neutron log response curve crossover has one major problem of wiggling
homogeneous formations and this result to doubt in determining the net sand in the
presence of curve crossover. To determine sandstones and shaly formations for most
reservoirs, it is important to:
Take average reading for the Gamma Ray in clean sands and shales.
Calculate the volume of shale to be used as cut-off by comparing shale volume with
density and neutron log. For this study, shale volume of 57% (79GAPI on Gamma
Ray Log) was used as cut-off.
49
Figure 14: The main zones identified from the Gelama Merah-1 Log.
50
Other than the main gas, oil and water zones, the sub zones are determined from the log
data. For instance, on the GR log, every major spike in GR is taken as a reading and the
interval is classified as a subzone. The reason for the very small sub zones height is to
obtain a more accurate representation of log data across each zones. A larger number of
sub zones would result in a better distributed average petrophysical properties since more
values are involved. Every small changes in log readings can be evaluated with the smaller
zones. Evidently, each sub zones would have a height between 1-2 meters. The figure
below shows the sub zones in the top of the reservoir layer.
Figure 15: The sub zones within an interval, at the spikes of GR log.
3.2.5 Fluid Contacts

The fluid contacts can be determined from the log data. The main fluid contacts include:
Gas Down To (GDT)
Gas-Oil Contact (GOC)
High Proof Oil (HPO)
51
Low Proof Oil (LPO)

Oil-Water Contact (OWC)
High Proof Water (HPW) or Free Water Level (FWL)
The Prove Gas is located in between Top of Gas Cap and GDT, Probable Gas in
between GDT and GOC and so on. The following figure shows the fluid contacts and
their depth. Notice a difference between TVD MD and TVD SS due to the RKB height
of 27.3 meters.
LAYER
TOP OF GAS CAP
TVD MD (m)
1330
TVD SS (m)
1302.7
GDT
1494
1466.7
GOC (FROM PRESSURE PLOT)
1495.3
1468
HPO
1500
1472.7
LPO
1533
1505.7
OWC (FROM PRESSURE PLOT)
1537.3
1510
HPW/FWL
1548
1520.7
Gross gas height=165.3m
PROVE GAS
PROBABLE GAS
POSSIBLE GAS
Gross oil height= 42m
PROVE OIL
PROBABLE OIL
POSSIBLE OIL
Figure 16: Fluid contacts at respective depths.
52
Figure 17: Fluid contacts drawn on the cross section of the map.
53
3.2.6 Pressure Plot

The pressure plot was obtained as shown in the figure by using the MDT data. The line of
best fit was generated and the intersection between the lines which indicates the fluid
contacts were obtained. The Gas Oil Contact (GOC) was located at 4815.74 ft while the
Oil Water Contact (OWC) was located at 4953.14 ft. Both of the GOC and OWC falls
within the range between GDT & HPO and the LPO & HPW.
Figure 18: Pressure plot obtained for the Gelama Merah Field.
Table 11: The GOC and OWC contacts obtained from the pressure plot.
Contact
GOC
OWC
TVD-SS (ft)
4815.74
4953.14
TVD-SS (m)
1467.84
1509.72
54
TVD-SS (m)
1468
1510
The gradient of the separate line of best fit are the fluid gradient of the specific fluids. The
value of the fluid gradients are equivalent to the mutual of the gradient. As the fluid
gradients are in psi/ft while the actual gradient given from the linear equations are in ft/Psi.
Table 12: Fluid gradient and density obtained from the pressure plot.
Fluid
Fluid gradient (psi/ft)
Fluid density (ppg)
Gas
0.0453
0.8712
Oil
0.3699
7.1135
Water
0.4268
8.2077
3.2.7 Net to Gross (N/G)
The Gelama Merah field sandstones are heterogeneous and one useful parameter for
quantification of the heterogeneity of sands is net-to-gross (N/G), which is the fraction of
clean, permeable sand to the complete reservoir including reservoir sands and intercalating
impermeable shales. In other words, N/G is a measure of the amount of sand or pay in the
overall reservoir and is used to appraise reservoir quality and the economics associated
with reservoir development.
Equation 7: Net-to-Gross Determination.

N/G =
55
The N/G is a useful parameter when we upscale from alternating thin beds of different
lithologies and/or fluid saturations to an effective medium, during rock physics analysis
of well log and seismic data. Indeed, when the shale baseline impedance can be estimated,
the departure from this trend can be argued to represent a certain measure of the
hydrocarbon saturated sand volume on the reservoir scale
In our study, the average N/G is calculated from the log data interpretation. Furthermore,
the additional N/G of the gas layer and the oil layer were also determined. After the
determination of cut-off points, the following data were obtained:
Gross sand height: 290 meters
Net sand height: 197 meters
N/G = net sand height / gross sand height = 68%
The determination of N/G for gas layer and oil layer follows the similar approach, with
the following results:
N/G for Gas: 67.76%
N/G for Oil: 61.90%
These calculations indicate that the gas layer has a higher fraction of clean sand to shale.
67.76% of the gas layer consist of clean permeable sands and 61.90% of the oil layer
consists of permeable sands. The following figure shows the N/G indicated on the log.
56
Figure 19: Gross gas and oil heights with associated N/G values.
57
3.3 Volumetric
3.3.1 Base Map/Scale

Isopach maps display lines of equal thickness in a layer where the depth is measured
perpendicular to the layer boundaries. The isopach maps are in the units of meters in True
Vertical Depth (TVD). The datum in this case is the mean sea level (MSL). There are a
total of 10 maps provided for Gelama Merah-1 project which includes U3.2, U4.0, U5.0,
U6.0, U7.0, U8.0, U9.0, U9.1, U9.2 and U9.3.
The logs provided are in reference to the Rotary Kelly Bushing (RKB). Therefore, any
comparisons between the map and pressure plots from log data need to be adjusted to the
right datum by subtracting the depth from the logs by 27.3 meters. The logs will then be
based on the MSL.
For scaling the isopach map, the length of one interval on the map is measured. The
measurement is then equated, stating x centimeter= y meter to find the ultimate ratio. From
the map U3.2 (base map), it is established that 5.4cm=2000m. The ultimate ratio for the
scale of Gelama Merah field is 1: 37037, with the datum being the MSL. Each contour
sub interval is 20 meters.
Figure 20: Base map U3.2, which is used for the volumetric determination.
58
The base map and other maps are then imported into PETREL, completed with polygons
for each main contour and finally generated into a 3-Dimensional surface map. These
maps will then be the basis for volume calculation in PETREL.
Figure 21: Map U3.2 created by drawing of polygons in PETREL.
Figure 22: Map U3.2 created in a 3-Dimensional view using PETREL.

59
3.3.2 Hydrocarbon in Place

The hydrocarbon in place is the amount of oil and gas originally in place in the reservoir.
It consists of the Stock Tank Oil Initially in Place (STOIIP) and Gas Initially in Place
(GIIP). There are two different approaches which are used to determine the STOIIP and
GIIP for the Gelama Merah Field. These approaches are:
i.
Deterministic method
ii.
Probabilistic method
The deterministic method would encompass one value for each petrophysical parameters
however the probabilistic method would encompass a range of values for each parameters.
The parameters are solved using the Monte Carlo simulation to obtain the proved,
probable and possible reserves. Finally, the estimations from both method would be
compared to the volume calculated by using PETREL simulation.
In order to proceed with the determination of hydrocarbon in place in both the oil and gas
bearing zones, first the bulk volume of the layers are needed to be calculated. The area of
the map is obtained using a planimeter and the volume is determined through either
pyramidal or trapezoidal rule application. The following shows how the gross bulk volume
(GBV) is obtained.
3.3.2.1 Determination of Gross Bulk Volume (GBV)
To proceed with the deterministic method, first, the fluid contacts are drawn onto Map
U3.2 with proper labels. The datum used is the Mean Sea Level.
Figure 23: The fluid contacts marked on the base map.

60
Then, the area of each contour line is determined using a Planimeter. The following
table shows the area from each contour line, including the fluid contacts.
Table 13: Area of each contacts measured by the Planimeter.
Depth (m)//TVD SS (m)
Area (km2)
1300
0.08
1302.7
0.18
1320
0.62
1340
1.41
1360
2.61
1380
4.10
1400
5.98
1420
7.96
1440
10.29
1460
13.07
1466.7
14.25
GDT
1468
14.48
GOC (FROM
PRESSURE PLOT)
1472.7
15.32
HPO
1480
16.32
1500
20.16
1505.7
21.81
LPO
1510
23.08
OWC (FROM
PRESSURE PLOT)
1520
26.04
1520.7
26.12
61
Fluid Contact
TOP OF GAS CAP
HPW/FWL
The table above can then be represented into a plot of Depth vs Area, yielding a smooth
curve. The following figure shows the plot.
Figure 24: The Depth vs Area plot used to calculate the bulk volume.
The area under the curve represents the gross bulk volume (GBV). The GBV is estimates
by using the Trapezoidal and/or Pyramidal Rule. The rule of thumb is that when ratio of
area of any 2 successive isopach line (Ai/Ai+1) > 0.5, Trapezoidal rule is applied and when
the ratio < 0.5, Pyramidal rule is applied. The GBV for each layer obtained is as the
following.
62
Table 14: GBV from the Trapezoidal and Pyramidal rule.

Layer
Ratio of areas of
successvive isopach lines
(Ai/Ai+1)
Method/Rule
used
GB Volume(106
m3 )
Top of Gas
Cap - GDT
< 0.5 & > 0.5
Pyramidal rule
& Trapezoidal
rule
881.4284
GDT - GOC
> 0.5
Trapezoidal rule
18.6745
GOC- HPO
> 0.5
Trapezoidal rule
70.03
HPO - LPO
> 0.5
Trapezoidal rule
599.9005 (using
multiple small
trapezoids)
LPO - OWC
> 0.5
Trapezoidal rule
96.5135
OWC - HPW
> 0.5
Trapezoidal rule
263.22
Figure 25: Generic View of GBV distribution.

63
The Proven, Probable and Possible volumes are represented separately. The volumes are
converted to their respective units, MM Cubic Feet for Gas and MM Barrel for Oil.
Table 15: GBV of reserves converted into standard units.

Layer
TOP OF GAS CAP
1P/2P/3P
GB Volume (10^6 m3)
GBV (MMCF)
PROOVE GAS
881.4284
31127.643946
PROBABLE GAS
18.6745
659.489968
POSSIBLE GAS
70.03
PROOVE OIL
599.9005
2473.109450
GBV (MMBBL)
3773.26
PROBABLE OIL
96.5135
607.05
POSSIBLE OIL
263.22
1655.60
GDT
GOC (FROM PRESSURE PLOT)
HPO
LPO
OWC (FROM PRESSURE PLOT)
HPW
The GBV for oil and gas for each layer is appended to obtain 1P, 2P and 3P respectively
as shown below.
Table 16: Probabilities of gas and oil GBV.
Gas
Oil
Probability
Level: GBV (MMCF)
Level: GBV (MMBBL)
1P (Proven)
TOP - GDT: 31127.643946
TOP - GDT: 3773.26
2P (Proven + Probable)
TOP - GOC: 31787.13391
TOP - GOC: 4380.31
TOP - HPO: 34260.24336
TOP - HPO: 6035.91
3P (Proven + Probable +
Possible)
64
3.3.3 Deterministic Method

Once the GBV is determined, with the other petrophysical properties obtained from
Chapter 3: Petrophysics, the hydrocarbons in place can be determined with the
deterministic method. The following equations are used to determine the Stock Tank Oil
Initially In Place (STOIIP) and Gas Initially in Place (GIIP) respectively.
Equation 8: Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place.

STOIIP ( STB)
GBV N / G (1 Sw)
Bo
Equation 9: Gas Initially In Place.
GIIP ( SCF )
Where;
GBV N / G (1 Sw)
Bg
GBV = Gross bulk volume (bbl)

N/G = Net-to-Gross
= Porosity
Sw = Water Saturation
Bo = Oil formation volume factor (rbbl/stb)
Bg = Gas formation volume factor (rcf/scf)
65
The following table shows the STOIIP and GIIP calculated for a range of petrophysical
parameter values. The deterministic method yields a large range of hydrocarbon in place
and therefore provides a rough estimate of the STOIIP and GIIP respectively. The volume
of hydrocarbon in place can be further narrowed down using the Probabilistic method in
the next section.
Table 17: STOIIP and GIIP from the Deterministic Method.
Parameter
GBV (MMBBL)
N/G
So
Sg
Bo (RB/STB)
Bg (RCF/SCF)
STOIIP (MMSTB)
Min
3773.2602
0.4190
0.0800
0.0100
1.0320
1.2256
Oil zone
Median
4904.5851
0.5190
0.1136
0.2022
1.1005
53.1299
Gas zone
Maximum Parameter
Min
Median Maximum
6035.9100 GBV (MMCF) 31127.6439 32693.9437 34260.2434
0.6190
N/G
0.4776
0.5776
0.6776
0.1472
0.0800
0.1707
0.2614
0.3944
So
Sg
0.0100
0.3065
0.6029
1.1690
Bo (RB/STB)
Bg (RCF/SCF) 0.0100
0.0130
0.0150
185.5511 GIIP (BSCF)
1.1893
75.9879 243.9065
From the deterministic table above:
STOIIP ranges from 1.23 MMSTB to 185.55 MMSTB.
GIIP ranges from 1.19 BSCF to 243.91 BSCF.
66
3.3.4 Probabilistic Method
The Probabilistic Method is the next step to determine the total hydrocarbon in place. It is
a more precise method to evaluate STOIIP and GIIP, further narrowing the range of
hydrocarbon volume provided by the Deterministic method to eventually provide an
output of recoverable volume. This technique that includes a range of values for each
parameters. Therefore, it differs completely from the Deterministic Method. In the
Probabilistic Method, the porosity, N/G and other parameters have minimum, range and
maximum values assigned to them. To simulate the parameters, the Monte Carlo
simulation is applied based on the distribution of the reservoir properties. For example,
the GBV has a minimum value of 1P and maximum value of 3P.
The simulation is done by using Microsoft Excel and a set of 500 random fractions
between [0, 1] is generated. The random value is then calculated based on the following
formula for each 500 data sets. The steps are repeated for each parameter (N/G, GBV,
etc). The following equation is utilized to calculate the random values:
Equation 10: Random Values Calculation.
RandomValues ( RandomNumber Range) MinimumValue
67
NTG Oil
Unit: fraction
The NTG Oil value is calculated from overall logging data to be 0.6190
Input data:
Min
0.519000
Max
0.719000
Average
0.619000
Range
0.200000
Trial number
Random number
Random value (NTG Oil)
1
0.364492
0.591898
2
0.629847
0.644969
3
0.405582
0.600116
4
0.143706
0.547741
5
0.037990
0.526598
6
0.079803
0.534961
7
0.190656
0.557131
8
0.434077
0.605815
9
0.703972
0.659794
10
0.136320
0.546264
Figure 26: The first 10 trials of random number and random values generated for N/G in
the oil bearing zone.
The random values generated for each parameters and each trial are then used to compute
STOIIP and GIIP for all 500 trials. The resulting volumes are then multiplied by the
recovery factor to obtain the recoverable reserves. The recovery factor is determined from
the drive mechanism prominent in the reservoir. With the strong aquifer and gas cap in
this study, the recovery factors used are:
20%-45% for Oil
70%-90% for Gas
The contingency recovery, or the recoverable volume of hydrocarbon are then tabulated
in a probability table (both for oil and gas) to obtain the median, cumulative probability
and confidence level.
68
Table 18: Probability table of the recoverable volume of oil from the
Probabilistic Method.
Low (MMSTB)
0.035549515
5.035549515
10.03554951
15.03554951
20.03554951
25.03554951
30.03554951
35.03554951
40.03554951
45.03554951
50.03554951
55.03554951
60.03554951
65.03554951
70.03554951
75.03554951
80.03554951
85.03554951
90.03554951
95.03554951
100.0355495
105.0355495
110.0355495
115.0355495
120.0355495
125.0355495
130.0355495
135.0355495
140.0355495
145.0355495
150.0355495
155.0355495
180.0355495
190.0355495
195.0355495
200.0355495
240.0355495
245.0355495
High (MMSTB)
5.035549515
10.03554951
15.03554951
20.03554951
25.03554951
30.03554951
35.03554951
40.03554951
45.03554951
50.03554951
55.03554951
60.03554951
65.03554951
70.03554951
75.03554951
80.03554951
85.03554951
90.03554951
95.03554951
100.0355495
105.0355495
110.0355495
115.0355495
120.0355495
125.0355495
130.0355495
135.0355495
140.0355495
145.0355495
150.0355495
155.0355495
160.0355495
185.0355495
195.0355495
200.0355495
205.0355495
245.0355495
250.0355495
Median (MMSTB)
2.535549515
7.535549515
12.53554951
17.53554951
22.53554951
27.53554951
32.53554951
37.53554951
42.53554951
47.53554951
52.53554951
57.53554951
62.53554951
67.53554951
72.53554951
77.53554951
82.53554951
87.53554951
92.53554951
97.53554951
102.5355495
107.5355495
112.5355495
117.5355495
122.5355495
127.5355495
132.5355495
137.5355495
142.5355495
147.5355495
152.5355495
157.5355495
182.5355495
192.5355495
197.5355495
202.5355495
242.5355495
247.5355495
Frequency
35
48
37
27
33
25
27
17
12
26
19
12
29
18
15
6
8
12
6
16
9
12
6
7
3
7
7
1
2
5
2
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
Cumulative Frequency
35
83
120
147
180
205
232
249
261
287
306
318
347
365
380
386
394
406
412
428
437
449
455
462
465
472
479
480
482
487
489
493
494
495
497
498
499
500
Frequency Probability
7.00%
9.60%
7.40%
5.40%
6.60%
5.00%
5.40%
3.40%
2.40%
5.20%
3.80%
2.40%
5.80%
3.60%
3.00%
1.20%
1.60%
2.40%
1.20%
3.20%
1.80%
2.40%
1.20%
1.40%
0.60%
1.40%
1.40%
0.20%
0.40%
1.00%
0.40%
0.80%
0.20%
0.20%
0.40%
0.20%
0.20%
0.20%
Cumulative Probability
7.00%
16.60%
24.00%
29.40%
36.00%
41.00%
46.40%
49.80%
52.20%
57.40%
61.20%
63.60%
69.40%
73.00%
76.00%
77.20%
78.80%
81.20%
82.40%
85.60%
87.40%
89.80%
91.00%
92.40%
93.00%
94.40%
95.80%
96.00%
96.40%
97.40%
97.80%
98.60%
98.80%
99.00%
99.40%
99.60%
99.80%
100.00%
Confidence Level
100.00%
93.00%
83.40%
76.00%
70.60%
64.00%
59.00%
53.60%
50.20%
47.80%
42.60%
38.80%
36.40%
30.60%
27.00%
24.00%
22.80%
21.20%
18.80%
17.60%
14.40%
12.60%
10.20%
9.00%
7.60%
7.00%
5.60%
4.20%
4.00%
3.60%
2.60%
2.20%
1.40%
1.20%
1.00%
0.60%
0.40%
0.20%
From each of the Probability Table for oil and gas volumes, the graphs are plotted to
finally obtain the recoverable reserves from the Probabilistic Method. The results of the
Probabilistic Method can be shown as below:
69
Monte-Carlo Simulation for oil reserves.
Figure 28: Graph of confidence level of oil reserves.
70
Monte-Carlo Simulation for gas reserves.
Figure 30: Graph of confidence level of gas reserves.
71
Table 19: The recoverable reserves obtained from the Probabilistic Method.
Recoverable
Reserves
Oil (MMSTB)
Gas (BSCF)
P90
10.0355
4.0020
P50
42.5355
25.0020
P10
112.5355
94.0020
72
3.3.5 Volumetric Calculation from PETREL

3.3.5.1 Gross Bulk Volume (GBV)
Volumetric calculation using PETREL would provide a good comparison basis to the
volume determined through manual method. After the map U3.2 has been digitalized in
the software, the boundary polygons for each fluid contact is drawn and defined. The
volume calculation enables PETREL to calculate the gross bulk volume (GBV) from the
top of the gas cap to the specific contact.
Figure 31: Main step for gross bulk volume calculation using PETREL.
Table 20: Gross bulk volume of oil and gas zones obtained from PETREL.
73
The table below shows the comparison of GBV from manual calculation and from
PETREL. The percentage difference is most likely due to:
Error during the measurement of contour areas using the Planimeter.
Limitation of the Planimeter in accurately measuring fluid contacts between contour

lines
Table 21: Comparison of gross bulk volume from manual calculation and from
PETREL.
3.3.5.2 Recoverable Hydrocarbon Volumes
In order to estimate the Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place (STOIIP) and Gas Initially in
Place (GIIP), the fluid contacts are pre-set to be able to obtain prove, probable and possible
reserves. Then, the well log file is imported into PETREL to provide a basis of data.
74
Figure 32: Establishing different fluid contacts in PETREL.
Figure 33: Data from well log imported into PETREL.

The following tables shows the recoverable reserves obtained from PETREL. The GIIP
and STOIIP obtained from PETREL falls inside the range of the GIIP and STOIIP
obtained from Probabilistic Method. This provides a good comparison basis, narrowing
down the amount of recoverable reserves to obtain an accurate volume.
75
Range of recoverable gas reserves from Probabilistic Method:

4.00 BSCF to 94.00 BSCF
Range of recoverable gas reserves from PETREL:
84.08 BSCF to 92.42 BSCF
Range of recoverable oil reserves from Probabilistic Method:
10.04 MMSTB to 112.54 MMSTB
Range of recoverable oil reserves from PETREL:
48.13 MMST to 78.44 MMSTB
Table 22: Gas Initially In Place (GIIP) and recoverable gas volumes obtained from
PETREL.
Table 23: Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place (STOIIP) and recoverable oil volumes
obtained from PETREL.
76
3.4 Reservoir Engineering 1

This section will give the explanation regarding the important reservoir data needed to
construct the dynamic modelling. These data consist of:
i.
Basic rock properties obtained from Routine Core Analysis (RCA)
ii.
Special Core Analysis data (SCAL)
iii.
Fluid properties data from PVT analysis
iv.
Production test data
3.4.1 Porosity Permeability Relationship

By populating the porosity from the result of logging of the well Gelama Merah-1 and
Gelama ST-1 in the reservoir, the value of porosity can be assigned for the reservoir
model. The permeability values was assigned to the model from the Poro-Perm Transform
Relationship Figure 34 which was extracted from the Routine Core Analysis (RCAL) for
42 plug samples obtained in the reservoir. The measured core permeabilitys were in the
ranges of <50md 50md<k<250md, and 250md, these measurements produced the
expected transforms:
Equation for the good quality of rock: k = 0.0051e0.3811x
Equation for the medium quality of rock: k = 21.097e0.0721x
Equation for poor quality of rock: k = 0.0176e0.295x
77
Perm-Poro Relationship
poorperm(<50md)
10000
y = 0.0051e0.3811x
R = 0.7035
Peremability(md)
1000
100
moderateperm(50md<k
<250md)
goodperm(>250md)
y = 21.097e0.0721x
R = 0.6566
10
Expon.
(poorperm(<50md))
y = 0.0176e0.295x
R = 0.5784
1
0
10
0.1
20
30
Porosity(%)
40
Expon.
(moderateperm(50md<
k<250md))
Figure 34: Permeability-porosity relationship showing the porosity and permeability

transform.
For the samples prepared for rock compressibility tests, the basic properties of these
samples were conducted under confining pressure of 500 psi. The remaining core samples
were tested under confining pressure of 1300 psi. A simulated brine of 23000 ppm (80%
of NaCl and 20%KCL) was used in the analysis.
3.4.2 Relative Permeability

Three measurements/investigations were carried out in order to determine the relative
permeability data. These methods can be summarized as the following:
Steady state method under the gravity drainage conditions in an oil/gas system in order to
determine oil relative permeability
Steady state method was carried out in order to determine oil/water relative permeability in
the imbibition cycle
Investigation of the effect of the oil/water viscosity ratio on residual oil saturation
78
The make rock physics functions process is used to create functions that represent the physics
of the rock and the interaction between rock and fluids, or saturation functions and rock
compaction functions.
Figure 35: Relative permeability curves for unsteady state (Temperature = 70 degree
Fahrenheit).
The non-wetting phase relative permeability curve shows that the non-wetting phase begins to
flow at the relatively low saturation of the non-wetting phase. The saturation of the oil at this
point is called critical oil saturation Soc.
The wetting phase relative permeability curve shows that the wetting phase will cease to flow
at a relatively large saturation. This is because the wetting phase preferentially occupies the
smaller pore spaces, where capillary forces are the greatest. The saturation of the water at this
point is referred to as the irreducible water saturation Swir or connate-water saturation Swi - both
terms are used interchangeably.
The non-wetting phase relative permeability curve shows that, at the lower saturations of the
wetting phase, changes in the wetting phase saturation have only a small effect on the
magnitude of the non-wetting phase relative permeability curve. The reason for the
phenomenon at Point 4 is that at the low saturations, the wetting phase fluid occupies the small
79
pore spaces that do not contribute materially to flow, and therefore changing the saturation, in
these small pore spaces has a relatively small effect on the flow of the non-wetting phase.
The wetting phase relative permeability shows that a small saturation of the non-wetting phase
will drastically reduce the relative permeability of the wetting phase. The reason for this is that
the non-wetting phase occupies the larger pore spaces, and it is in these large pore spaces that
flow occurs with the least difficulty.
3.4.3 Capillary Pressure and J Leverett Function

Capillary pressure data are obtained on small core samples that represent an extremely small
part of the reservoir and, therefore, it is necessary to combine all capillary data to classify a
particular reservoir. The fact that the capillary pressure-saturation curves of nearly all naturally
porous materials have many features in common has led to attempts to devise some general
equation describing all such curves (Leverett, 1941).
Leverett J function method was used to correlate and interpolate capillary pressure data from
laboratory Measurements. J function has been calculated from the air mercury injection data.
The measurements made on core plugs taken from the reservoir sand and MDT data, with
permeability range. J function has been calculated using the following equation:
Equation 11: J Leverett Function Equation.
J (Sw) =0.21645
Where;
0.21645

J (Sw) = J- Leverett function

Pc = capillary pressure, psi
= interfacial tension, dynes/cm
k = permeability, md
= fractional porosity
80
The following figures show the capillary pressure of different core samples obtained in a
graphical form.

81
Figure 39: The drainage curves for 3 different core samples.
Figure 40: The J-Leverett Function graph obtained for the core samples.
Plotting of J (sw) versus Sw yielded the following equation which is used to calculate
the capillary pressure for the reservoir model.
Equation 12: Relationship between Sw and J(Sw)
J (Sw) = 1041.4 Sw-1.8444
82
Figure 41: The Graph of Pc vs Sw.
From the log analysis, the free water level was established to be located at 1520.7m (TVD
SS). At this depth, the saturation of water is 100%. To provide an analysis basis to check
the oil water contact, the following equation is used to calculate the height of water
column.
Equation 13: Relationship between Pc and height of water column
Pc 144
w oil
Equation 13 is then utilized to calculate the height of water column above the high profile
water or free water level to then establish the oil-water contact. Given the water density =
61.40 pound per cubic feet and oil density = 53.21 pound per cubic feet. The height of
column is found to be 17.5 ft when the capillary pressure is 0.995 psi (the point at which
water saturation drops). The oil water contact obtained is then 1514 m which is close to
the value from the pressure plot (1510 m).
83
3.4.4
Pressure-Volume-Temperature (PVT) Analysis
The tables below tabulate the properties and compositional analysis of separator oil as
well as separator gas as part of the fluid study.
Table 24: Quality check of separator samples.

Type of sample
Cylinder no.
Separator Oil
7990- 7991- 7989QA
QA
QA
Separator Gas
4339 A 4553 A 4588 A
Opening pressure at
separator
temperature, F
(psig)
105 @
97.0
90 @
97.0
100 @
95.2
146 @
97.0
150 @
97.2
149 @
95.2
Approximate sample
volume @ 1000 Psig
(cm)
553
593
536
20000
@ 146
Psig
20000
@ 150
Psig
20000
@ 149
Psig
Bubble point
pressure at separator
temperature, F
(psig)
120 @
97.0
125 @
97.2
140 @
95.2
NA
NA
NA
Remarks
Pair
with
4339
A
Pair
with
4553
A
Pair
with
4588
A
Pair
with
7990QA
Pair
with
7991QA
Pair
with
7989QA
84
Table 25: Compositional analysis of separator oil, separator gas

samples and calculated well stream composition.
N2
CO2
C1
C2
C3
i-C4
n-C4
i-C5
n-C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11+
Separator
Gas
3.16
2.78
87.79
5.75
0.41
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mole %
Separator
Oil
0.05
0.27
3.52
0.88
0.21
0.44
0.40
0.16
0.24
0.48
3.45
4.74
5.48
9.89
69.79
TOTAL
100.0
100.00
Component
Wellstream
0.57
0.69
17.54
1.69
0.25
0.37
0.34
0.14
0.20
0.40
2.88
3.95
4.57
8.25
58.24
Molecular
Weight
Density
@ 60F
195.39
0.821
100.00
Note: The well stream composition was calculated based on GOR of 126 scf/stb.
85
Table 26: Compositional analysis of stock tank oil, stock tank gas and
calculated well stream composition (Adjusted Bubble Point Pressure to 2014 psig).
Component
N2
CO2
C1
C2
C3
i-C4
n-C4
i-C5
n-C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11+
TOTAL
Separator
Gas
7.39
2.85
80.52
8.00
0.78
0.16
0.18
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.0
Mole %
Separator
Oil
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.14
0.24
0.17
0.17
0.63
4.38
6.23
4.33
6.68
76.75
100.00
Wellstream
2.43
0.94
26.50
2.63
0.45
0.15
0.22
0.13
0.13
0.43
2.95
4.18
2.90
4.48
51.49
100.00
Molecular
Weight
Density
@ 60F
202.3
0.826
Note: The composition of well stream was calculated based on GOR value of 326
scf/stb.
86
Table 27: Constant composition expansion test at 155F.

Pressure
(psig)
Relative
Single-Phase
Volume
Compressibility
(V/Vsat)
(V/V/psi)
5000
0.976
4000
0.983
7.096E-006
3500
0.987
7.101E-006
3000
0.990
7.127E-006
2700
0.993
7.171E-006
2500
0.994
7.192E-006
2300
0.995
7.214E-006
2100
0.997
7.226E-006
2014*
1.000
2000
1.002
1800
1.034
1600
1.074
1400
1.127
1200
1.197
1000
1.297
800
1.446
Note: *Bubble point pressure
87
Y-Function
3.511
3.482
3.453
3.425
3.396
3.367
3.339
Liquid
Volume
Percent
100.00
99.81
97.43
90.81
83.05
74.15
64.12
52.31
3.52
3.5
3.48
3.46
3.44
3.42
3.4
3.38
3.36
3.34
3.32
1.6
Y-Function
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
Y-Function
Rlative Volume
Relative Volume and Y Function
0.4
0.2
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0
6000
Pressure (psig)
Figure 42: The graph of relative volume and Y-Function.
This graph above shows the determination of the bubble point pressure of the reservoir.
When the relative volume is equal to 1, the pressure at the specific point is considered as
the bubble point pressure of the reservoir which is 2014 psig. Above the bubble point
pressure, the reservoir would remain as a under saturated reservoir phase reservoir consist
of oil and water phase. Gas only will evolve when the pressure is below the bubble point
pressure.
88
Table 28: Differential vaporization test at 155F.

Pressure
(psig)
Oil
Density
(g/cm)
Oil FVF
(bbl/stb)
Solution
Gas/Oil
Ratio
(scf/stb)
Gas FVF
(cf/scf)
Cumulative
Gas
Gravity
Z-Factor
5000
4000
3500
3000
2700
2500
2300
2100
2014*
1600
1200
800
400
200
100
0
0.848
0.842
0.839
0.836
0.834
0.833
0.832
0.829
0.828
0.836
0.845
0.855
0.866
0.873
0.876
0.881
1.144
1.152
1.156
1.160
1.163
1.164
1.166
1.168
1.169
1.141
1.117
1.093
1.067
1.053
1.045
1.032
336
336
336
336
336
336
336
336
336
272
210
146
80
45
27
0
0.010
0.013
0.020
0.041
0.080
0.150
-
0.610
0.601
0.623
0.624
0.629
0.682
0.780
0.895
0.913
0.936
0.968
0.983
0.991
1.000
Solution Gas Oil Ratio (scf/stb)
Note:
Density of residual oil @60F = 0.909g/cm
API Gravity of residual oil @60F = 24.16
*Bubble point pressure
Pressure vs Rs
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
1000
2000
3000
Pressure (psig)
4000
Figure 43: Graph of pressure vs solution gas-oil ratio, Rs.

89
5000
As the graph portrays, the solution gas oil ratio will increase as pressure increase. This is
due to the expansion of gas trapped in oil when the reservoir pressure is above the bubble
point pressure.
Pressure versus Bo
Oil
Formation Volume Factor, bbl\stb
1.18
1.16
1.14
1.12
1.1
1.08
1.06
1.04
1.02
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Pressure, psig
Figure 44: Graph of pressure vs oil formation volume factor, Bo.
From the graph above, it can be analysed that above the bubble point pressure value of
2014 psig, the only phase exists in the reservoir is the liquid oil. This indicates that the
reservoir is still in under saturated condition. Any presence of gas dissolved in the oil
above the bubble point of 2014 psia would not increase the value GOR but remain constant
at 336 scf/stb until the pressure drop under bubble point). When pressure declines below
bubble point pressure, more gas is liberated from the saturated oil.
90
Table 29: Oil and Gas Viscosity at 155F.

Pressure
Viscosity (cP)
(psig)
Oil
5000
1.7581
4000
1.6066
3000
1.4759
2500
1.4020
2014*
1.3374
1600
1.5105
1200
1.6567
800
1.8453
400
2.0740
200
2.2157
100
2.3541
Note: *Bubble Point Pressure
Oil/Gas Viscosity
Ratio
99
116
136
158
173
188
Gas
0.0152
0.0143
0.0136
0.0131
0.0128
0.0125
Oil and Gas Viscosity

0.016
Oil Viscosity
Oil Viscosity (cp)
2.2
Gas Viscosity
0.0155
0.015
0.0145
0.014
1.8
0.0135
1.6
0.013
1.4
Gas Viscosity (cp)
2.4
0.0125
1.2
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0.012
6000
Pressure (psig)
Figure 45: Graph of oil and gas viscosity.
The oil and gas viscosity is determined by using viscosity test. Then, the result from the
test was plotted against pressure. The viscosity of oil in the reservoir can be seen at the
bubble point pressure which is equal to 1.3374 cp.
91

Pressure
(psia)
Separator
Temperature F
Gas Oil
Ratio
(scf/bbl)
(1)
Formation
Volume
Factor
(bbl/stb)
(3)
-
Stock Tank
Oil Gravity
API
110
Separator
Volume
Factor
(bbl/stb)
(2)
1.086
890
to
0
87
60
193
1.000
1.119
23.32
Note:
Cubic feet of gas at 14.73 psia, 60F per barrel of oil at indicated pressure and
temperature.
Barrel of oil at indicated temperature and pressure per barrel of stock tank oil at 60F.
Barrels of saturated oil at 2014 psig and 155F per barrel of stock tank oil at 60F.
case 1.
Component
N2
CO2
C1
C2
C3
i-C4
n-C4
i-C5
n-C5
C6
C7
TOTAL
Molecular Weight
Specific Gravity
Calculated Gross Heating
Value (BTU/scf of gas)
Mole%
890 psig
12.25
1.47
83.44
2.53
0.17
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
100.00
18.41
0.636
894.16
0 psig
4.49
3.56
78.88
10.28
1.47
0.32
0.37
0.11
0.08
0.08
0.36
100.00
20.22
0.698
1045.26
92
Component
N2
CO2
C1
C2
C3
i-C4
n-C4
i-C5
n-C5
C6
C7
TOTAL
Mole %
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.12
0.21
0.16
0.17
0.61
98.63
100.00
Molecular Weight
182.82
Density @ 60F
0.817

Pressure
(psia)
Separator
Temperature F
Gas Oil
Ratio
(scf/bbl)
(1)
Formation
Volume
Factor
(bbl/stb)
(3)
-
Stock Tank
Oil Gravity
API
241
Separator
Volume
Factor
(bbl/stb)
(2)
1.032
265
To
0
84
60
60
1.000
1.116
23.41
Note:
temperature.
93
case 2.
Component
N2
CO2
C1
C2
C3
i-C4
n-C4
i-C5
n-C5
C6
C7
TOTAL
Molecular Weight
Specific Gravity
Calculated Gross Heating
Value (BTU/scf of gas)
Mole%
265 psig
8.73
2.21
84.04
4.48
0.34
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.06
100.00
18.55
0.640
940.76
0 psig
2.61
4.99
71.49
17.03
2.36
0.42
0.46
0.12
0.09
0.09
0.36
100.00
21.68
0.748
1118.55
Component
N2
CO2
C1
C2
C3
i-C4
n-C4
i-C5
n-C5
C6
C7+
TOTAL
Mole, %
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.16
0.26
0.17
0.18
0.62
98.48
100.00
Molecular Weight
Density @ 60
183.10
0.818
94

Pressure,
psia
Separator
GOR
Temperature, Scf/bbl
Formation
Volume
Factor
Bbl/stb
-
Stock Tank
Oil Gravity
297
Separator
Volume
Factor
Bbl/stb
1.014
60
to
0
91
60
1.00
1.117
23.36
Note:
temperature.
case 3.
Component
N2
CO2
C1
C2
C3
i-C4
n-C4
i-C5
n-C5
C6
C7+
TOTAL
Molecular Weight
Specific gravity
Calculated Gross
Heating Values
(BTU/scf of gas)
Mole, %
60 psig
7.65
2.69
81.34
6.81
0.81
0.16
0.18
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.23
100
19.33
0.667
977.13
95
0 psig
2.82
4.58
74.52
14.70
1.95
0.37
0.41
0.11
0.08
0.08
0.36
100
21.10
0.729
1094/73
Table 6: Compositional of residual oil from single stage separator flash case 3.
Component
N2
CO2
C1
C2
C3
i-C4
n-C4
i-C5
n-C5
C6
C7+
TOTAL
Mole, %
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.14
0.24
0.25
0.37
0.83
97.91
100.00
Molecular Weight
Density @ 60
184.16
0.823
96
3.4.5 Well Test Data

3.4.5.1 Production Tests
Production tests were carried out in well Gelama Merah-1 (DST-1) for unit 8 reservoir.
The well test operation was completed in three major flow event; Main Flow Period, Main
Build-Up and Maximum Flow Period. As one of the objectives in conducting the
production test, three sets of surface PVT samples were collected during the stabilized
Main Flow period. The sampling was taken during this period because this is the best stage
to characterize the reservoir fluid since the reservoir is still virgin. Table X shows the
summary of well test results.
Table 39: Well test result summary.
PERIOD
Choke ( /64)
FBHP, psi @ 1496.1 m-MDRKB
FBHT, F @ 1496.1 m-MDRKB
WHP, psi
WHT, F
Separator P, psi
Separator T, F
SIBHP, psi @ 1496.1 m-MDRKB
SIBHT, F @ 1496.1 m-MDRKB
Oil Rate, stb/d
Gas Rate, MMscf/d
Water Rate, stb/d
GOR, scf/stb
Gas Gravity, Air = 1
Oil Gravity, API
H2S, ppm
CO2, %
BS&W, %
Main
Flow
32
1753
155
390
97
155
94
1378
0.16
0
119
0.65
23.7
0
0
0
97
Build Up
2104
154
-
Max Flow
128
1479
151
156
104
139
99
2745
0.73
0
267
0.65
23.6
0
0
0
3.4.5.2 Pressure Transient Analysis

Pressure transient analysis has been conducted based on the well test data
obtained during the well test operation. All pressure data was obtained from the
downhole pressure gauge. The interpretation was carried out using PIE-Well Test
Analysis software.
Transient
Regime
Wellbore storage
regime
Pseudo steady state regime
Figure 46: GM-1 DST-1 well test interpretation.
Figure above shows the log-log plot for the pressure transient analysis. The log-log
plot was then matched by using type curve analysis to get the best reservoir model.
After the model matched, the average permeability, Kh product, wellbore storage
constant, and reservoir boundary is determined. From the plot, the best pressure transient
model represented is a homogeneous reservoir with wellbore storage, skin and a constant
pressure boundary.
98
In the derivative plot, the curve deviate downwards at the late time shows the effect
of constant pressure boundary. The constant pressure boundary is corresponds to the
OWC depth in 1508 mss. The radius of investigation for unit 8 Sand at the end of the
wellbore storage effect was estimated at 101 ft after 0.3 hour of shut in time. The
radius of investigation at the end of main build period or 9.6 hour of shut time was
about 669 ft.
Table 40 : Pressure transient analysis summary.

Properties
Simulated Derivative
Wellbore storage, bbl/psi

Permeability, mD
Kh, mD.ft
Skin
Extrapolated Pressure,
P*/Pi @ 1496.1 m-MDRKB, psi
Extrapolated Pressure,
P*/Pi @ mid perf. , 1525.5 m-MDRKB, psi
(0.369 psi/ft pressure gradient)
+ x boundary, ft
0.00271
140
4130
-2.1
2116
2151
236
From the pressure transient analysis in the given Well Test report, the well
productivity index was calculated by the software. The actual productivity index is
3.4556258 STB/D/PSI and the ideal productivity index is 2.4692214 STB/D/PSI.
The calculated skin pressure loss due to the skin effect is -159.30064 Psi. The flow
efficiency is 1.3994800.
99
3.4.6
Reserve Estimation
Reserves can be defined as the amount of petroleum resources that has been projected
to be economically recoverable from the known reservoir accumulations from a
specific date forward. To estimate reserves, it is important to understand the degree of
uncertainties involved. The uncertainties involved in reserve estimation can be divided
into three as follows: (Wheaton, R. & Coll, C., 2010).
Uncertainty based on project maturity that includes commercial, political,

transportation and market problems, time taken to make full field appraisal and
discovery.
Uncertainty based on technical issues that arise from geological and engineering
data. These are mostly significant on discovery and slowly decrease with appraisal
and production.
Uncertainty based on economic that involves oil and gas future prices and
operating costs.
There are various methods of reserve estimation. However, this Field Development
Project is analyzed based on Gelama Merah field data by volumetric, Material balance
and reservoir simulation methods. The STOIIP and GIIP were determined by using
volumetric method after having analyzed the log data from Gelama Merah field. By
using PETREL software to build the base map of U3.2 of Gelama Merah field, the
proved, probable and possible reserves of gas and oil bulk volume were determined in
which it has been used to calculate the STOIIP and GIIP.
3.4.6.1 Methods of Reserve Estimation

a) Volumetric
By using PETREL software, a map of U3.2 of the Gelama Merah was built with all
fluid contacts that were used to identify the gas and oil zones. By taking into account
all depths of given proved, probable and possible zones of base case U3.2, the Gross
volume of gas and oil reserves were determined and eventually, the Volumetric
method of reserve estimation was employed to calculate the Stock Tank Oil Initially
In Place (STOIIP) and Gas Initially in Place (GIIP) by using both probabilistic and
deterministic methods.
100
b) Material balance
Material balance method is mostly applicable in dynamic model to estimate the
reserves by considering the reservoir fluids and the rock expansion by using MABAL
software. The equation governing the material balance for oil reservoirs is expressed
as:
Expansion of fluids + reduction in HCPV = Underground withdrawal
The major focus of this equation is to calculate the commutative volume to be used to
match production and pressure history.
Material balance can be used to:
Estimate Hydrocarbon Initially In Place
Determine the drive mechanism and production prediction profile (Farough, 1970)
Reduce the degree of uncertainties HCIIP volume and presence of faults (Eugene,
2004)
Capture the complex dynamic behavior (Mazloom, 2007)
Model reservoirs that are hydraulically fractured (Nwaokorie, 2013)
Analyze complex mature reservoirs (Bui, 2006)
3.4.6.2 Production Prediction

History matching and establishment of production operating strategies is an essential
process in determining the future production of the reservoir. Because the Gelama
Merah field dynamic model that would include production and pressure history, fluid
and rock properties, relative permeability, compressibility and aquifer parameters has
never be built for consistency check, there is no established production forecast profile
for this field. However, the below production profile forecast plot can act as a
representative.
101
Figure 47: Pressure (Psig) Versus Cumulative Oil Production (MMSTB)

(Solis et. Al., 2011).
3.4.6.3 Drive Mechanisms

If history matching is properly done, it becomes easier to determine the reservoir drive
mechanisms after having obtained the right reservoir model (Solis, 2011). From the
below historical reservoir drive mechanism plot, fluid expansion has been identified
as the predominant drive mechanism as per the producing lines. It can clearly be seen
from the figure below that fluid expansion and pore volume compressibility
contributed to 90% of the reservoir drive mechanism. Drive mechanisms have a greater
contribution to the reservoir ultimate recovery. The Gelama Merah ultimate recovery
has never been determined because it depends on the reservoir rock and fluid
properties heterogeneities and most of all being the major drive mechanism which is
yet to be determined from the dynamic model analysis.
102
Figure 48: Reservoir drive mechanism.
3.4.6.4 Simulation
Reservoir simulation is a very important study to be conducted in the oil and gas
industry. It reservoir engineers a good platform of
Determining accurate recoverable reserves
Managing assets for easy determination of most economical well patterns, number
of wells to be drilled and injection rates, perforations methods and better facilities
Managing risks for proper estimation of financial risks of exploration prospects

and assessing the effects of early water breakthrough
To allow the government to approve secondary and tertiary optimization programs

as per the policies of the country.
Monitoring and evaluation of the performance during reservoir life.
The simulation study has been designed to predict the future performance of the
reservoir by establishing good history matching and development strategies with given
production and economic constraints to produce optimum oil from the Gelama Merah.
To reach this target, below are some of the objectives:
Determination of optimum number of wells that can be supported by a depletion

strategy proposed.
To establish production prediction profile and calculation of reserves according to

the wells capability.
103
To develop logical numerical simulation model for reservoir performance

prediction.
3.4.6.5 Reservoir Model Set Up

This project study static model was built by using PETREL software and later, the
model will be exported to ECLIPSE for dynamic modelling. This section is still be
discussed in the second phase of this project.
104
4. CONCLUSION
4.1 Range of Volume
The calculation of oil initially in place (OOIP) of gas initially in place (GIIP) is the
common practice by the oil and gas operators to evaluate the economic aspect of the
field development. Due to that fact, it requires the value of volumetric calculation as
the basic representation of the hydrocarbon volume lies inside the reservoir. The
inadequacy of any production data might lead to the incorrect volumetric estimation.
The use of deterministic calculation will yield the STOOIP and GIIIP represent the
rigid approach of volumetric estimation. It only provides a single value for
hydrocarbon calculation, which is considered risky with respect to the proper
economic analysis. Plus, by solely dependent on the averaged values for the reservoir
properties, the deterministic method is less reliable to quantify the entire uncertainties
lie inside the reservoir. As the time prolongs, more information of the reservoir data
will be captured, therefore, the only value obtained from the deterministic approach is
volumetric calculation will be expected to change throughout the reservoir.
On the other hand, the different input variables uses in probabilistic method as the
result of the combined parameters may lead to the inaccuracy of the calculation of
hydrocarbon reserves. Some values might represent the overestimation of hydrocarbon
value, and some of them represent the underestimation of the hydrocarbon volume.
The reliance of probabilistic method causes the team to take the value of P50 as the
considered values as it symbolizes the median throughout all of the calculations.
Table 41: Summary of deterministic volume.

Deterministic
Method
GIIP (BSCF)
STOIIP(MMSTB)
Minimum
1.18932502
1.225578301
Median
75.98787311
53.12990831
Maximum
243.906542
185.5511326
105
Table 42: Summary of probabilistic volume.

Probabilistic
Method
P90
P50
P10
Recoverable Gas
(BSCF)
4.002
25.002
94.002
Recoverable Oil (MMSTB)

10.0355
42.5355
112.5355
Table 43: Summary of PETREL calculated volume.
PETREL
1P
2P
3P
GIIP (BSCF)
168.1601825
172.3326498
184.8412228
Recoverable
Gas (BSCF)
84.08009127
86.1663249
92.4206114
STOIIP(MMSTB)
148.0933327
172.7265158
241.3516533
Recoverable
Oil
(MMSTB)
48.13033311
56.13611764
78.43928734
Based on the tables above, the Deterministic approach provides a large range of
hydrocarbon volume both for oil and gas, most likely because it uses a single value for
each petrophysical parameter. The Deterministic method is not the most accurate
method but it provides a basis for the hydrocarbon range. The Probabilistic method
then uses a Monte-Carlo simulation to narrow the range of reserves based on
confidence intervals. Notice that the reserves yielded from this method falls inside the
range of the deterministic value. This Probabilistic approach is more accurate than the
former. Next, with PETREL, the recoverable reserves are further narrowed down
yielding a range of 84-92 BSCF of recoverable gas and 48-78 MMSTB of recoverable
oil. Notice that the PETREl based recoverable reserves fall inside the range of the
Probabilistic approach as well.
4.2 Uncertainty
Exploration and production of hydrocarbons1is a high-risk venture. Geological
concepts are uncertain with respect to structure, reservoir seal, and hydrocarbon
charge. On the other hand, economic evaluations have uncertainties related to costs,
probability of finding and producing economically viable reservoirs, technology and
106
oil price. Even at the development and production stage the engineering parameters
embody a high level of uncertainties in relation to their critical variables
(infrastructure, production schedule, quality of oil, operational costs, reservoir
characteristics etc.).These uncertainties originated from geological models and
coupled with economic and engineering models involve high-risk decision scenarios,
with no guarantee of successfully discovering and developing hydrocarbons resources.
Understanding the reservoir properties is important to better estimate the initial oil inplace and gas in-place. Averaging rock properties without proper well control might
either lead to the underestimation or over of the expected oil and gas reserves
Key concerns are:
Lack of well data (uncertainties of rock properties).
Representative of fluid properties data (PVT) is unavailable.
o PVT data used is based on newer fluid composition that was generated using
PVTi. Calibration of newer fluid composition is based on the measured bubble
point pressure.
Uncertainties in core depth.
o When the core samples were used for the log calibration, problems are
encountered.
o Mismatched depth may occur during log calibration exercise was conducted
(porosity calibration and core-log fancies correlation) due to missing gamma
ray core for the correlation control.
Representative core data for the petro physical input is unavailable
Probabilistic Evaluation is related to the various parameters involved in the
computation
107
4.3 Assumptions
Most assumptions in an economic evaluation are uncertain. The assumptions made in

constructing the project cash flow come from the best available assessment of the
technical and the economical parameters. But the reality will be different, and the
impact of a realistic range of possible deviations from the base case should always be
tested. Varying the parameters manually is a way to test the impact on the project
results of possible deviations from the base case
The key assumptions used throughout his study include:
Areas from two contour interval of same elevation is summed to obtain volume.
The fluid contacts are in constant level throughout the reservoir.
Shale volume exceeding 0.56 and effective porosity below 0.08 are classified as
non-reservoir rock, and excluded from net sand calculation.
Hydrocarbon volume by Probabilistic Method narrows down the range of volume

from the Deterministic Method and can be further supported by the volume
obtained from PETREL.
108
REFERENCES
Character of log response. Sequence stratigraphy. Retrieved 20 July 2015 from
http://www.sepmstrata.org/page.aspx?pageid=168.
Daines, S.R. (1985). Structural History of the W. Natuna Basin and the Tectonic
Evolution of the Sunda region. Indonesian Petrol, Assoc. 14th Annual Proceedings, p.
39-61.
Hinz, K. & Schulter, H.V. (1985). Geology of the Dangerous Ground, South China
Sea and the continental margin off SW Palawan: Results of SONNE Cruise SO-23 and
SO-27. Energy vol.10, p.297-315. Holloway, N.H. (1981).
Jing, Q. C. & Chang, K. 2004. Advanced Rock Properties Report. Gelama-2 ST1.
Retrieved 23 July 2015.
Letouzey, J., Sage, L. & Muller, C. (1988). Geological and Structural Map of Eastern
Introductory Notes. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. 1988.
PETRONAS CARIGALI SDN. BHD. 2003. Final Well Report for Gelama Merah-1
and Gelama Merah-1 ST-1. Retrieved 25 July 2015.
Rashidi, M., Salleh, I. K., Daud, W. A.W., & Anwar, M. L. 2003. Reservoir Fluid
Study. Gelama Merah-1. Retrieved 16 July 2015.
Salim, M. 2015. Quicklook interpretation. Lecture notes. Retrieved 20 June 2015.
Tan, D.N.T & Lamy, J.M. 1990. Tectonic evolution of the NW Sabah continental
margin
since
Late
Eocene.
Retrieved
July
2015
from
http://www.gsm.org.my/products/702001-101074-PDF.pdf.
Yazid, M. 2015. Depositional Environment. Lecture notes. Retrieved 16 July 2015.
Zaki, M. Gelama Merah-1 Well Test Report. 2003. PETRONAS CARIGALI SDN.
BHD. Retrieved 02 August 2015.
109
APPENDICES
Drainage
Perm.
water
Capillary
Sample Depth
Porosity
To air
saturation pressure
no
(m)
(%)
(md)
(% pv)
(psi)
1-017 1319.07 120
24.8
100
0
0.248
96.8
0.5
82.2
1
69.8
2
56.2
5
47.6
10
43.2
15
38.2
25
Drainage
Perm.
water
Capillary
Sample Depth
Porosity
To air
saturation pressure
no
(m)
(%)
(md)
(% pv)
(psi)
2-010 1323.35 2491
34.6
100
0
0.346
74.5
0.5
54
1
31.4
2
17.7
5
12.9
10
11.4
15
10.4
25
Drainage
Perm.
water
Capillary
Sample Depth
Porosity
To air
saturation pressure
no
(m)
(%)
(md)
(% pv)
(psi)
5-002 1384.35 80.7
13.6
100
0
0.136
100
0.5
100
1
74.2
2
63.9
5
58.5
10
56.5
15
55.2
25
1
0.968
0.822
0.698
0.562
0.476
0.432
0.382
Imbibition
water
Capillary
saturation pressure J-function
Sw*
(% pv)
(psi)
38.2
0
0
1
68.9
-0.5
0.0916262 0.94822
72
-1
0.1832525 0.711974
74.2
-2
0.366505 0.511327
76.1
-5
0.9162625 0.291262
77.1
-10
1.8325249 0.152104
77.6
-15
2.7487874 0.080906
78
-25
4.5813123
0
1
0.745
0.54
0.314
0.177
0.129
0.114
0.104
Imbibition
water
Capillary
Sw*
(% pv)
(psi)
10.4
0
0
1
64.6
-0.5
0.3534304 0.715402
66.6
-1
0.7068608 0.486607
67.6
-2
1.4137217 0.234375
68.2
-5
3.5343042 0.081473
68.5
-10
7.0686083 0.027902
68.6
-15
10.602913 0.011161
68.6
-25
17.671521
0
1
1
1
0.742
0.639
0.585
0.565
0.552
Imbibition
water
Capillary
Sw*
(% pv)
(psi)
55.2
0
0
1
70.1
-0.5
0.1014664
1
72.7
-1
0.2029329
1
73.6
-2
0.4058658 0.424107
74
-5
1.0146644 0.194196
74.1
-10
2.0293288 0.073661
74.1
-15
3.0439932 0.029018
74.1
-25
5.073322
0
Appendix 1: Tabulated data used to obtain the graph of J-function vs Sw for different
samples.
110
Appendix 2: The Depth vs Area graph used to calculate gross bulk volume.
111
Appendix 3: 3-Dimensional PETREL view showing the GIIP (red) and STOIIP
(purple).
112

Final Report (FDP1 Group 2)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Final Report (FDP1 Group 2)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Gelama Merah Field Development Plan

Nur Izzaty Syuhada Binti Romzi

Obwor Peter Severino

Naqiuddin Azim Bin Nordin

Ginza Fazli Mohamad

Nasim Karimi Namech

Final Report submitted in partial fulfilment of

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS

Nur Izzaty Syuhada Binti Romzi

Obwor Peter Severino

Naqiuddin Azim Bin Nordin

Ginza Fazli Mohamad

Nasim Karimi Namech

Final Report submitted in partial fulfilment of

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS

1.2 Problem Statement

1.4 Scope of Study

2.1 Organisation Chart of the Team .

2.2 Roles and Responsibility of Each Member

3.1 Petroleum Geology

3.1.2 Depositional Environment

3.1.3 Petroleum Systems

3.1.1 Regional Geology

3.1.4 Stratigraphy and Correlation

3.2.2 Petrophysical Parameters

3.2.3 Petrophysical Cut-Offs .

3.2.4 Zonal Determination

3.2.5 Fluid Contacts .

3.2.6 Pressure Plot

3.2.7 Net to Gross

3.3.1 Base Map / Scale

3.3.2 Hydrocarbon in Place

3.3.3 Deterministic Method .

3.3.4 Probabilistic Method

3.3.5 Volumetric Calculation from PETREL.

3.4.1 Porosity Permeability Relationship

3.4.2 Relative Permeability

3.4.3 Capillary Pressure and J-Leverett Function

3.4.4 Pressure-Volume-Temperature Analysis

3.4.5 Well test data

3.2.1 Reservoir Upscaling

3.4 Reservoir Engineering 1 .

3.4.6 Reserve estimation

4.1 Range of Volume .

Figure 36: Graph of capillary pressure results of sample 1-017.

Table 1: List of software used in each phase of the project.

Table 17: STOIIP and GIIP from the Deterministic Method.

ABBREVIATIONS AND NOMENCLATURES

BHP: Bottom-hole Pressure

Figure 1: Location of the Gelama Merah Field, offshore Sabah.

1.2 Problem Statement

Sub-phase I: Geology and Geophysics ; Petrophysics

Sub-phase II: Reservoir Engineering

Sub-phase III: Drilling Engineering, Production Technology and Facilities

Sub-phase IV: Project Economics

Sub-phase V: Sustainable Development and Health, Safety, & Environment

Sub-phase I: Geology and Geophysics ; Petrophysics

Sub-phase II: Reservoir Engineering

1.4 Scope of Study

1.5.1 Modeling Softwares

Geology and Geophysics

PETREL, Microsoft Excel

Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet

Steps Involved in Field Development Project 1