Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
by
January 2016
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
Gelama Merah Field Development Plan
by
Approved by,
______________
(Mr. Asif Zamir)
ii
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.
_____________________________________________
LUM JUON KWANG (16023)
_____________________________________________
KWEH CHIA SHIN (16274)
_____________________________________________
SITI HIDMAYATI BINTI ZULKEFLI (16653)
_____________________________________________
RAKIB HASAN (17786)
_____________________________________________
MUHAMMAD ATIF BIN BAHARUDDIN (16414)
_____________________________________________
MOHAMED SULIMAN ADAM MOHAMED (15751)
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Gelama Merah is located in Offshore Sabah Basin at approximately 43km from
Labuan and 130km from Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia owned by PETRONAS. The
objective of the field development project (FDP) of the field Gelama Merah is to carry
out a technical and economic study of a field focusing on the latest technology,
economics and environmental condition. This FDP group intended to provide a
comprehensive descriptive development plan which includes Petroleum Geology,
Petrophysics, Volumetric Calculations, Reservoir Engineering, Reservoir Simulation,
Production Technology, Facilities Engineering, Drilling Program, Economic Analysis
and Health, Safety and Environmental (HSE) and Sustainable Development Plan of
the Gelama Merah field. Gelama Merah field is divided to 9 layers which are U3.2,
U4.0, U5.0, U6.0, U7.0, U8.0, U9.0, U9.1 and U9.2 respectively.
The main lithology identified are interbedded claystone and unconsolidated sandstone.
From the well log results, it is identified that Gelama Merah is an oil dominant field.
The GOC is found to be 1467.5 m TVDSS and the WOC is 1507.5 m TVDSS. The
STOIIP calculated from PETREL was found to be 610.00 MM STB. After performing
reservoir simulation, it was found that the creaming curve peak at 14 oil producing
wells with a recovery factor of 15.48%. To enhance the reservoir, 6 water injector
wells are placed to perform water flooding and the recovery factor increases to
32.82%. The production is set to be 20 years. The production technology section
determines that the producing well is equipped with 2.875-inch tubing while it was
found that water injector normally used a 7-inch tubing size. It was also found that a
small presence of carbon dioxide exists, which makes all the surface facilities to have
a minimum 13-Chrome material. The entire drilling program for a total of 20
producing and injector wells cost USD 507.68 million. The economic analysis uses
the price of USD 60 per barrel and it was found that within the payback period is 1.42
years after production.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, we would like to express our highest gratitude to our Field Development
Project (FDP) supervisor, Dr. Mohammed Idrees Ali, and Mr. Asif Zamir, for their
dedication and expertise in supervising our group in completing this FDP final report.
Also, we would like to give thanks to our Reservoir Engineering consultant, Dr.
Mahbubur and Production and Facilities Engineering consultant, Dr. Mysara Eissa for
their help in directing us to complete this report from every phase has been
significantly beneficial to us, as well as motivating every member in this group from
time to time.
Next, we would like to give thanks to the coordinator of the FDP, Mr. Mohammad
Luqman bin Hassan, and Mr. Berihun, for planning the necessary briefing for us
throughout the semesters. All the FDP briefing session has provided much valuable
information for us to progress in this report.
We would like to offer a special thanks to Mr. Md Yazid Mansor, from PETRONAS
and Mrs. Mariam, from Onyx IES Sdn. Bhd., for their valuable insight and comments
about the oil and gas industry. The wisdom and knowledge shared by them related to
the management system, strategy and techniques on petroleum industry has certainly
been an eye opening session. Also, Mr. Yazids technical experience related to base
map, depositional environment, isopaching and planimeter and probabilistic method
lecture has strengthened our foundation on the oil and gas industry.
TABLE OF CONTENT
ix
xi
9.1.5. Driver for schedule and critical date to meet ............. 157
9.1.6. Modus of Operandi .................................................... 158
9.2. Basis of Design ......................................................................... 159
9.2.1. Overall layout of surface development plan .............. 159
9.2.2. List of missing data and assumptions......................... 160
9.3. Offset Well Analysis ................................................................. 161
9.4. Well Trajectory and Target Tolerance ...................................... 163
9.5. Well Architecture and Casing Design ....................................... 165
9.5.1. Casing Configuration ................................................. 165
9.5.2. Well Architecture ....................................................... 166
9.5.3. Kick Tolerance ........................................................... 170
9.5.4. Load Calculation ........................................................ 172
9.5.5. Feasibility Check On Casing Running ....................... 173
9.5.6. Material Selection ...................................................... 173
9.5.7. Bit Type...................................................................... 174
9.5.8. Wellhead Design ........................................................ 176
9.5.9. Geological Drilling Order (GDO) .............................. 178
9.6. Drilling Fluid and Hydraulic Optimization ............................... 180
9.6.1. Drilling Fluid Design ................................................. 180
9.6.2. Hydraulics Optimization ............................................ 182
9.7. Cementing ................................................................................. 185
9.8. Well Completion Design ........................................................... 188
9.8.1. Summary .................................................................... 188
9.8.2. Well Completion Matrix ............................................ 189
9.8.3. Completion String Design and Accessories ............... 190
9.8.4. Material Selection ...................................................... 191
xii
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 FDP 1 Organizational Chart ....................................................................... 7
Figure 1.2 FDP 2 Organizational Chart ....................................................................... 8
Figure 2.1 Tectono-Stratigraphic Provinces of Northwest Sabah .............................. 13
Figure 2.2 Structural Elements of The Southern Inboard Belt................................... 13
Figure 2.3 Main Types of Sedimentary Depositional Environment .......................... 14
Figure 2.4 Progradation of Delta ................................................................................ 15
Figure 2.5 Gamma Ray Response To Interpret Depositional Environment .............. 16
Figure 2.6 Gamma Ray Response for Gelama Merah-1 ............................................ 16
Figure 2.7 Petroleum System Elements ..................................................................... 17
Figure 2.8 Petroleum Reservoir ................................................................................. 17
Figure 2.9 Petroleum System Process ........................................................................ 18
Figure 2.10 Traps ....................................................................................................... 19
Figure 2.11 Correlation between GM-1 and GM1-ST1 ............................................. 20
Figure 3.1 Gamma Ray Log sample of well GM-1 ................................................... 22
Figure 3.2 Gamma Ray Index Chart .......................................................................... 23
Figure 3.3 Graphical Presentation of The Different Generalized Relationships
Between F and ........................................................................................................ 24
Figure 3.4 Determination of Fluid Contacts in the Reservoir .................................... 28
Figure 3.5 The Top Was Identified Where The First Butterfly Effect Was Detected 29
Figure 3.6 The GDT, OUT, GOC, ODT, WOC and WUT Are Identified From Gamma
Ray Log, Resistivity Log and Neutron Log ............................................................... 29
Figure 3.7 Pressure Profile Plot ................................................................................. 30
Figure 3.8 Fluid Contacts From the Well Test Report ............................................... 31
Figure 3.9 Fluid Contacts In Base Map ..................................................................... 32
Figure 3.10 Shale Volume Cutoff .............................................................................. 33
Figure 3.11 Gas Porosity Cutoff ................................................................................ 34
xvi
xvii
xx
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 FDP 1 Gantt Chart ....................................................................................... 3
Table 1-2 FDP 2 Gantt Chart ....................................................................................... 5
Table 2-1 Top and Base of Sand Unit ........................................................................ 19
Table 3-1 Identification of Zones ............................................................................... 27
Table 3-2 Fluid Contacts From Logs ......................................................................... 28
Table 3-3 Fluid Contacts from Pressure Profile Plot ................................................. 31
Table 3-4 Fluid Contacts from Well Test Report....................................................... 31
Table 3-5 Summary Of The Fluid Contacts By All Three Sources ........................... 32
Table 3-6 Classification of Colour Marking for Type of Formation ......................... 33
Table 4-1 Area Of The Contour Line In Topographic Map....................................... 40
Table 4-2 GRV for Gas (Proved, Probable and Possible).......................................... 43
Table 4-3 GRV for Oil (Proved, Probable and Possible) ........................................... 43
Table 4-4 Computation of GIP, OIP and CR for oil and gas ..................................... 46
Table 4-5 Values Used for GRV and Monte Carlo Results ....................................... 48
Table 4-6 Values Used for NTG and Monte Carlo Results ....................................... 49
Table 4-7 Values Used For Porosity and Monte Carlo Results ................................. 49
Table 4-8 Values Used For Hydrocarbon Saturation and Monte Carlo Results ........ 50
Table 4-9 Values Used For Formation Volume Factor and Monte Carlo Results ..... 50
Table 4-10 OOIP & OGIP from Monte Carlo Simulation ......................................... 52
Table 4-11 Estimated Oil CR based on Confidence Level ........................................ 53
Table 4-12 Estimated OGIP based on Confidence Level .......................................... 54
Table 4-13 Comparison of OOIP & OGIP ................................................................. 56
Table 4-14 Tabulation of the calculation of OIP and GIP for Deterministic Method 57
Table 4-15 OOIP & OGIP from Monte Carlo Simulation ......................................... 58
Table 4-16 OOIP & OGIP from Petrel Simulation .................................................... 58
xxi
Table 6-6 Field Oil Production and Recovery Factor for Water Injection .............. 107
Table 6-7 Field Oil Production and Recovery Factor for Water Injection .............. 110
Table 6-8 Optimized Rate For Individual Well (After Sensitivity Studies) ............ 112
Table 6-9 Recovery Factor For All Optimized Rate Cases (After Sensitivity Studies)
.................................................................................................................................. 112
Table 7-1: Comparison between Slotted Liner, WWS and Gravel Pack ................. 117
Table 7-2: Well Test Result Summary ..................................................................... 119
Table 7-3: Tubing performance with pressure depletion ......................................... 121
Table 7-4: Tubing performance with different Wellhead Pressure (0% WC) ......... 121
Table 7-5: Tubing performance with Varying GOR ................................................ 121
Table 7-6 Tubing performance with increasing water cut at 300 psi ............. 122
Table 7-7: Production data for various tubing size .................................................. 123
Table 7-8 Tubing Performance With Respect To Different Reservoir Pressure Before
And After Applying Gas Lift ................................................................................... 127
Table 7-9 Production Profile Natural Flow Vs. Gas Lift Injection (Water Cut) ..... 127
Table 7-10 Production Profile Natural Flow vs. Gas Lift Injection (GOR)............. 128
Table 7-11 Production Profile Natural Flow vs. Gas Lift Injection (Wellhead) ...... 128
Table 8-1 Field Oil Production Of GM Field........................................................... 133
Table 8-2 Reservoir Fluid Properties Of GM Field ................................................. 134
Table 8-3: CAPEX for Gelama Merah..................................................................... 153
Table 8-4: Comparison of CAPEX for Gelama Merah ............................................ 153
Table 8-5 OPEX Comparison of Three Different Options ...................................... 154
Table 9-1 Proposed Operation Summary ................................................................. 156
Table 9-2 Monsoon Season ...................................................................................... 157
Table 9-3 Missing Data And Assumptions Made .................................................... 160
Table 9-4 Lithology Summary ................................................................................. 161
Table 9-5 Setting Depth for All Casing ................................................................... 163
xxiii
Table 9-6 Hole and Casing Size for Producing Well ............................................... 165
Table 9-7 Hole and Casing Size for Water Injector Well ........................................ 165
Table 9-8 Recommended Drill Collar ...................................................................... 166
Table 9-9 Well Architecture for Oil Producer ......................................................... 166
Table 9-10 Well Architecture for Water Injector Well ............................................ 167
Table 9-11 Properties of DP and DC for Producer Well ......................................... 168
Table 9-12 Properties of DP and DC for Water Injector Well ................................. 169
Table 9-13 Influx Gradient Evaluation Guidelines .................................................. 170
Table 9-14 Kick Tolerance Parameters .................................................................... 170
Table 9-15 Burst and Collapse Design .................................................................... 172
Table 9-16 Tension Check for All Casing ............................................................... 173
Table 9-17 Casing Material for Producing Well ...................................................... 173
Table 9-18 Casing Material for Water Injector Well ............................................... 174
Table 9-19 Lithological Summary ........................................................................... 174
Table 9-20 Drill Bit Economic Analysis .................................................................. 175
Table 9-21 Number of Bit Run ................................................................................ 175
Table 9-22: Casing Head Configuration .................................................................. 176
Table 9-23: Casing Spool Configuration ................................................................. 176
Table 9-24: Casing Hanger Configuration ............................................................... 176
Table 9-25: Tubing Head Configuration .................................................................. 177
Table 9-26: Tubing Hanger Configuration .............................................................. 177
Table 9-27: Tubing Head Adapter Configuration .................................................... 177
Table 9-28 Drilling Fluid Parameters ...................................................................... 181
Table 9-29 Hydraulics Optimization for Producer Well .......................................... 183
Table 9-30 Hydraulics Optimization for Injector Well ............................................ 184
Table 9-31 Cement Excess Factor............................................................................ 185
xxiv
xxv
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of Study
Gelama Merah field located in Block SB-18-12 Offshore Sabah, Malaysia is explored
by PETRONAS CARIGALI SDN. BHD. using semi-submersible rig, name Hakuryu
III. The drilling contractor is run by Japan Drilling Company. At the point of receiving
this project, the status of Gelama Merah 1 well is plug and side tracked. The well has
drilled a total depth of 1636 m MD-TVDSS using 3 casings, with 21 conductor
casing setting at 110 m, 13 3/8 surface casing setting at 553 m and 9 5/8
production casing setting at 1636 m. Throughout the entire drilling operation,
underbalanced drilling was performed. A total of 26 sidewall core samples has been
run with only 22 successful samples retrieved. Based on the well test report, the
productivity index was found to be 3.45 STB/D/psi, which is 140% increased and a
skin factor of -2.125.
Production Technology
Economic Analysis
1.3. Objectives
The objective of FDP Gelama Merah field is to carry out a technical and economic
study of Gelama Merah field focusing on the latest technology, economics and
environmental point of view. The feasibility of producing the hydrocarbon from the
reservoir shall be assessed, as well as developing a dynamic reservoir model by
selecting an adequate development strategy.
1.4. Scopes of Study
The scope of study in this FDP includes the following areas:
1. Understand the geology and reservoir conditions.
2. Measure the petrophysical properties of the field.
3. Conduct volumetric calculation of the field.
4. Evaluate and propose development strategies on the field.
5. Develop reservoir dynamic model.
6. Design facilities and drilling program.
7. Assess the feasibility of the field in terms of economic study.
ACTIVITIES/WEEK
21/9
to
27/9
28/9
to
4/10
5/10
to
11/10
12/10
to
18/10
19/10
to
25/10
26/10
to
1/11
2/11
to
8/11
9/11
to
15/11
16/11
to
22/11
23/11
to
29/11
30/11
to
6/12
7/12
to
13/12
14/12
to
20/12
21/12
to
27/12
10
11
12
13
14
ACTIVITIES/WEEK
21/9
to
27/9
28/9
to
4/10
5/10
to
11/10
12/10
to
18/10
19/10
to
25/10
26/10
to
1/11
2/11
to
8/11
9/11
to
15/11
16/11
to
22/11
23/11
to
29/11
30/11
to
6/12
7/12
to
13/12
14/12
to
20/12
21/12
to
27/12
10
11
12
13
14
Probabilistic Method
Volumetric Calculation from Petrel
*Progress Report Submission (G&G and
Petrophysics)
*Progress Presentation (G&G and
Petrophysics)
Reservoir Engineering Phase Begin
Reservoir Rock Properties
Reservoir Fluid Properties
Well Test Data
Reserve Estimation
Conclusion
*Final Report Submission
Final Report Correction
*Final Presentation
*Corrected Report Submission
Peer Review
FDP Test
*Bold = Milestone
Planned Time
ACTIVITIES/WEEK
18/1
to
24/1
25/1
to
31/1
1/2
to
7/2
8/2
to
14/2
15/2
to
21/2
22/2
to
28/2
29/2
to
6/3
7/3
to
13/3
14/3
to
20/3
21/3
to
27/3
28/3
to
3/4
4/4
to
10/4
11/4
to
17/4
18/4
to
24/4
10
11
12
13
14
Kick-Off Briefing
Reservoir Engineering Seminar 1
Reservoir Simulation
Well Placement
Base Case Model
Sensitivity Analysis
Production Profile
Reservoir Management and Surveillance
Reservoir Engineering Seminar 2
*Progress Report Submission
*Progress Presentation
Production and Facilities Seminar
Production Technology
Sand Control
Nodal Analysis
Facilities Engineering
Design Feature and Basis
Operation Facilities and Equipment
Pipelines
Operation and Maintenance
Facilities CAPEX, decommissioning
Cost and OPEX
ACTIVITIES/WEEK
18/1
to
24/1
25/1
to
31/1
1/2
to
7/2
8/2
to
14/2
15/2
to
21/2
22/2
to
28/2
29/2
to
6/3
7/3
to
13/3
14/3
to
20/3
21/3
to
27/3
28/3
to
3/4
4/4
to
10/4
11/4
to
17/4
18/4
to
24/4
10
11
12
13
14
Drilling Seminar
Drilling Engineering
Basis of Design
Offset Well Trajectories
Well Trajectory, Architecture
Casing Design
Hydraulics Optimization
Cementing Program
Well Completion Design
CAPEX of Producer and Injector Well
Economics
Health, Safety and Environment
Conclusion
*Final Report Submission
Test
*Final Presentation and Peer Review
*Bold = Milestone
Planned Time
FDP 1 SUPERVISOR
Dr Mohammed Idrees Ali
LEADER
Lum Juon Kwang
GEOLOGY &
GEOPHYSICS
1. Mohammad Atif
(Lead)
2. Rakib Hasan
VOLUMETRIC
CALCULATION
1. Siti Hidmayati
(Lead)
2. Kweh Chia Shin
PETROPHYSICS
1. Lum Juon Kwang
(Lead)
2. Mohamed Suliman
RESERVOIR
ENGINEERING
1. Kweh Chia Shin
(Lead)
2. Rakib Hasan
3. Mohammad Atif
4. Siti Hidmayati
5. Lum Juon Kwang
6. Mohamed Suliman
FDP 2
SUPERVISOR
Mr. Asif Zamir
LEADER
Lum Juon Kwang
RESERVOIR
SIMULATION
1. Kweh Chia Shin
(Lead)
2. Lum Juon
Kwang
3. Suliman
4. Siti Hidmayati
5. Mohammad Atif
PRODUCTION
TECHNOLOGY
1. Suliman (Lead)
2. Siti Hidmayati
FACILITIES
ENGINEERING
1. Siti Hidmayati
(Lead)
2. Kweh Chia
Shin
3. Suliman
DRILLING
ENGINERRING
1. Lum Juon
Kwang (Lead)
2. Mohammad Atif
3. Rakib Hasan
ECONOMICS AND
HSE
1. Rakib Hasan
(Lead)
2. Suliman
3. Mohammad Atif
4. Siti Hidmayati
5. Kweh Chia Shin
covers on the classification of the Gas, Oil, and Water interval. Few methods are being
used in determining the fluid contact which is the Gas-Oil contact (GOC) and WaterOil contact (WOC). Net gross covers about the cut-off properties and the determination
of Net-to-Gross (NTG) based on each unit interval.
CHAPTER 4: VOLUMETRIC CALCULATION
This chapter discussed about the methods used to estimate the reserves present in the
reservoir. There are three main methods to achieve this objective. The methods used
includes deterministic method, probabilistic method and by using PETREL software.
The oil in place (OIP) and gas in place (GIP) can be estimated by using these methods
and be segregated into P10, P50 and P90 according to their confidence level.
CHAPTER 5: RESERVOIR ENGINEERING
This Chapter illustrates properties of reservoir rocks and fluids of Gelama Merah-1
field. Forty-two cores were taken and sent to Petronas Research and Scientific Services
Sdn. Bhd. for sample and data analysis. Later, Graph of porosity versus permeability
was plotted and calculation of relative permeability of cores were done. Then, resulted
values were introduced into PETREL software for each zone.
CHAPTER 6: RESERVOIR SIMULATION
This chapter demonstrates simulation on the production of oil in Gelama Merah over
20 years after introduction of reservoir and fluids data. Recovery process can be
separated into three main parts, including primary recovery from natural depletion
method, secondary recovery by injecting water or gas into the reservoir as well as
tertiary recovery process which includes the injection of foreign materials like
surfactants, polymer and so on to recovery residual oil trapped in the formation. This
approach can aid in estimating volume of recoverable oil, revenue can be generated
and also investment decision.
CHAPTER 7: PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY
This chapter will cover about production technology in Gelama Merah field. The
studies and reviews comprises of Nodal Analysis, tubing size selection, artificial lift,
9
sand control method, well completion design and address possible production
problems that might happened during production. Well completion design is explained
on the aspect from bottom hole up to the wellhead.
The main outcomes from this production technology are to determine a safe and
effective design of a well completion for producers, to maintain well integrity during
the producing life and maximizing the recovery, to allow future intervention and
recompletion for any production enhancement activities.
CHAPTER 8: FACILITIES ENGINEERING
Based on the study conducted on reservoir engineering and production technology,
Gelama Merah field will be developed through twenty vertical wells fourteen wells are
producers and six as injectors. All these wells are completed by installing slotted liner
and expandable packer in cased hole section. The basis of design philosophy is safety
consideration since the operation is dealt with various kinds of potential hazards and
also cost effectiveness.
From production technology part, gas lift will be introduced into Gelama Merah as the
artificial lift when the field needs it, meaning the gas lift is not necessary during the
early age of production. At the early installation of tubing string, dummy valve is
placed beside the side pocket mandrel (SPM).
CHAPTER 9: DRILLING ENGINEERING
This chapter discusses in detail about the entire drilling program. It begins by defining
the basis of design with logical assumptions and reasoning due to insufficient data
availability. Well architecture and casing configuration based on a pre-defined hole
geometry is designed for producer and injector wells. The drilling fluid, hydraulics
optimization, cementing, well completion design cost estimation, potential drilling
problems and abandonment method is also discussed.
CHAPTER 10: ECONOMICS
Economic analysis is an important aspect of field development. Feasibility of all
planning and operations depend on it. Total cost of all equipment and operations is
10
estimated in this phase. Fiscal terms and Production Sharing Contract is also stated in
this phase based on which the estimation is made for the revenue split between
Contractor Company and Government.
CHAPTER 11: HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT
Health, Safety and Environment is a very important policy for every company to
comply with national and international standards and regulations to ensure that the
operations of the companies are not harmful to the workers and natural environment.
Violating Health, Safety and Environment regulations can result as strict penalty such
as fine, jail and suspension of license and permits.
11
12
13
According to Bjorlykke (2010), gamma ray logs used to identify the depositional
environment of the rock and depositional environment will result in different grain size
and sorting. This method is used in order to cross check with the depositional
environment stated above with the Gamma Ray logs. Referring to Figure 2.5,
identification of the depositional environment can be done.
15
Comparing Figure 2.5 to Figure 2.6, funnel shape is observed. According to Bjorlykke
(2010), the serrated funnel shapes represent coarsening upwards sequences and are
interpreted as distributary mouth bars, distal deep-sea fan and delta marine fringe.
Based on Figure 2.7, petroleum system has 5 elements namely source rock, reservoir
rock, maturation, migration and traps. Figure 2.8 illustrates a common petroleum
reservoir (Jasmi, 2012).
17
Source Rock: The source rocks in Gelama Merah are rich in mainly terrigenous
organic matter. The source rocks are most likely within the post-DRU (Stage IV)
sequences, as the pre-DRU (basement) deep marine shales are generally clean and
thermally over-mature. Widespread erosion of the NW Sabah margin during the early
Middle Miocene and the extensive outbuilding of the Stage IV siliciclastic wedge,
resulted in the deposition of source beds that are rich in terrigenous organic matter,
interbedded with sand prone reservoir facies (Zainul et al., 1999). The source rocks
host the processes that involve in the formation oil and gas until they start to immigrate
toward the upper or nearer rocks named reservoir due to the fluidity of oil and gas.
Reservoir Rock: Interbedded sandstone with non-reservoir formation of thin
dolomites constitute the reservoir rock in Gelama Merah (International Logging
Overseas, 2003). Oil and gas usually accumulate on the top of water and they are
always there due to their difference of densities. The reservoir rock is basically
analyzed by means of assessing their porosity and permeability.
Maturation & Migration: The Gelama Merah field is of the Miocene-Pliocene
deltaic accumulation at a convergent margin. The major method of migration is
upward movement along the faults in unconformity layers due to erosion. Migration
through sedimentary facies also occurred. The timing for the maturation varies from
Middle Miocene to present. Figure 2.9 shows the migration route of the petroleum
system process (Jasmi, 2012).
18
Trap & Seal: Gelama Merah field has anticline structural trap, either from growth
faulting or anticlinal features associated with tectonics. There are also stratigraphic
traps unrelated to anticlinal features as the unconformity trapping mechanism that traps
the hydrocarbons. Shale acts as seal rock in Gelama Merah which is impermeable and
blocks the fluids. Figure 2.10 shows the structure of an anticline trap (Maroo, 2014).
19
In Gelama Merah field, the available well log data of GM-1 is correlate with Gelama
Merah-1 ST1 (GM1-ST1). Thus, based on the data provided, the correlation between
GM-1 and GM1-ST1 is shown in Figure 2.11.
Gelama Merah-1
Gelama Merah-1ST1
20
CHAPTER 3 PETROPHYSICS
3.1. Petrophysical Parameter
3.1.1. Introduction
Petrophysical parameters is very much dependent on the well log data. The well log
data provided are gamma ray, deep resistivity and neutron-density logs. These three
logs are sufficient to determine the various parameters which includes estimation of
fluid contacts, total and effective porosity, shale volume and water saturations.
The water saturation for every types of formation uses different model. The water
saturation model to be selected depends on the type of formation whether they are
shale, shaly sand or sandstone formation. By obtaining all these parameters, the Stock
Tank Oil Initially in Place (STOIIP) and Gas in Place (GIP) can be estimated.
21
Base Line
Shale
Sand Base
Line
Sand Base
Line
Sandstone
=
Where:
Equation 3-1
22
Based on Figure 3.2, the shale volume ( ) can be calculated using many formula. In
order to determine which formula to use, the lithology of the formation should be
identified. Based on the sidewall core lithology description extracted from
International Logging Overseas (2003), the sandstone formation is poorly
consolidated. It lies in between consolidated (older rocks) and unconsolidated
(Tertiary rocks) equation. Thus, Stieber equation is chosen for determining . The
Stieber equation is shown in Equation 3-2 (Asquith, Krygowski, & Gibson, 2004),
3 (2 )
23
Equation 3-2
1.97
1.29
Equation 3-3
Using the F value calculated from Equation 3-3, the water saturation for sandstone
formation can be determined using Archies Equation (Equation 3-4). This equation
requires the user to define certain parameters to be constant, in which is 0.265, n
is 2 and constant a and m using Equation 3-3.
1
.
= ( )
Where:
Equation 3-4
= ( (1
Where:
. )
)
2 .
Equation 3-5
=
Where:
( + )
2
25
Equation 3-6
= . 2
( ) =
Where:
Equation 3-7
( ) + ( )
2
Equation 3-8
= . ( ) 2
Equation 3-9
.
+ (1 )
Equation 3-10
Equation 3-11
2
1
2
= ( )
Equation 3-12
26
Region
High Proved Gas (HPG)
Low Proved Gas (LPG)
High Proved Oil (HPO)
Low Proved Oil (LPO)
High Proved Water (HPW)
Low Proved Water (LPW)
The Gas-Oil contact is between the LPG and HPO region as it is the transition from
the gas hydrocarbon to fluid hydrocarbon. The same goes for Oil-Water contact. It is
between the LPO and HPW region.
27
Legends:
Gas
Oil
Water
TVDDF (m)
1300.0
1494.0
1497.0
1500.0
1532.0
1536.0
1548.0
28
TVDSS (m)
1272.2
1466.7
1469.7
1472.7
1504.7
1508.7
1520.7
Figure 3.5 The Top Was Identified Where The First Butterfly Effect Was Detected
Figure 3.6 The GDT, OUT, GOC, ODT, WOC and WUT Are Identified From
Gamma Ray Log, Resistivity Log and Neutron Log
29
WOC
Gas
Oil
Water
5300.0
5200.0
5100.0
5000.0
WATER
y = 0.4283x + 9.0783
R = 0.9998
4900.0
4800.0
4700.0
OIL
y = 0.3375x + 465.72
R = 0.9933
4600.0
4500.0
GAS
y = 0.0456x + 1893.7
R = 0.9998
Equation 3-13
= 0.3375 + 465.72
Equation 3-14
= 0.4283 + 9.0783
Equation 3-15
30
Depth (ft)
GOC
4400.0
2090.0 2100.0 2110.0 2120.0 2130.0 2140.0 2150.0 2160.0 2170.0 2180.0 2190.0 2200.0
Pressure Profile
4300.0
Pressure (psia)
It was found that the intersection between gas and oil is GOC and oil and water is
WOC. The GOC and WOC from the pressure profile plot are illustrated Table 3-3.
Table 3-3 Fluid Contacts from Pressure Profile Plot
Fluid Contact
GOC
WOC
TVDDF (m)
1491.09
1532.87
TVDSS (m)
1463.79
1505.57
TVDDF (m)
1495.2
1535.5
31
TVDSS (m)
1467.9
1508.2
GOC
TVDDF
TVDSS
1497.00
1469.70
1491.09
1463.79
1495.20
1467.90
1467.50
WOC
TVDDF
TVDSS
1536.00
1508.70
1532.87
1505.57
1535.50
1508.20
1507.50
In conclusion, by comparing the result with the log data again, the GOC is located at
1467.5m TVDSS whereas, the WOC is located at the depth of 1507.49m TVDSS.
32
Range
< 20%
20% < < 60%
> 60%
33
Colour
34
35
Equation 3-16
Gross interval was simply the gross thickness of the zone of interest while net pay was
obtained after applying the 3 cut-offs criteria in the zones of interest. The 3 cut-offs
criteria are listed as below:
i.
ii.
Porosity cut-off
iii.
36
37
38
39
Area ( )
0.18207
0.07283
0.61905
0.69188
3.82357
7.13734
11.98053
Depth (m)
1400
1420
1440
1460
1480
1500
1520
40
Area ( )
16.71448
22.43163
28.40369
36.41499
43.7344
58.22756
72.50224
Where:
43560 (1 )
Equation 4-1
The formula for OIP is given as shown in Equation 4-2 (Epgeology.com, 2015; Satter,
Iqbal, & Buchwalter, 2008). The field unit for OIP is barrel (bbl).
Where:
7758 (1 )
Equation 4-2
Several parameters need to be identified so that Equation 4-1 and Equation 4-2 can be
solved. They are listed below:
i.
ii.
41
Depth (ft)
4200
4300
Depth (ft)
4400
GDT
4500
GOC
4600
OUT
ODT
4700
WOC
4800
HPW
4900
5000
5100
0
5000
10000
15000
42
Area (Acre)
20000
Figure 4.3 Identification of Proved, Probable and Possible for Oil and Gas
GRV for gas and oil can be obtained by calculating the area under the graph of depth
vs area.
As a result, for gas zones, it is in a triangle shape from the graph and GRV for gas can
be obtained by calculating for the area of triangle. It is well known that area of
triangle= *base *height.
However, there are three major parts for gas, including proved, probable and possible
gas. GRVs for proved, probable and possible gas zone are calculated and taken as the
GRV of gas. The field unit of GRV is acre-feet.
Table 4-2 GRV for Gas (Proved, Probable and Possible)
Proved gas (1P)
3047039.798
Z-factor was obtained by getting intersection point of the pseudo-reduced pressure and
pseudo-reduced temperature from Figure 4.5.
44
In order to obtain the formation volume factor for gas, Equation 4-3 is used.
= 0.0283
3 /
Given that:
Psc
Tsc
zsc
P
T
z
14.7 psia
520
1
2028.7
520
0.72
45
Equation 4-3
Equation 4-4
Equation 4-5
Since Gelama Merah is having a dominant gas cap. Thus, we assume that gas cap drive
is the primary drive mechanism for this case and will aid in pressure maintenance
during the production stage. The oil recovery factor is ranging from 30- 60%, with a
median value of 45%, in which is considered in the calculation.
The result for OIP, GIP and CR for gas and oil are shown in Table 4-4.
Table 4-4 Computation of GIP, OIP and CR for oil and gas
Formula for
GIP
Conversion
from acrefeet
to cubic feet
GRV (1P)
GRV (2P)
GRV (3P)
NTG (1P)
NTG (2P)
NTG (3P)
phi
Sw (1P)
Units
Gas
SCF
43560*V*phi*N
TG*
(1-Sw)/Bg
acrefeet
acrefeet
acrefeet
-
Units
Oil
Formula
for OIP
STB
7758*A*h*phi*
NTG*
(1-Sw)/Bo
43,560
Conversio
n from
acre-feet
to barrels
7,758
2,437,631.838
GRV (1P)
acre-feet
1,317,585.344
3,059,572.607
GRV (2P)
acre-feet
1,760,045.332
3,272,597.576
GRV (3P)
acre-feet
2,845,669.382
0.531
0.620
0.660
0.375
0.180
NTG (1P)
NTG (2P)
NTG (3P)
phi
Sw (1P)
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.280
0.650
46
Sw (2P)
Sw (3P)
Bg
FT^3/S
CF
0.211
0.240
Sw (2P)
Sw (3P)
0.011
Bo
BBL/ST
B
0.710
0.790
1.169
1,534,635,895,0
OIP (1P)
BBL
428,459,818.511
80.570
2,162,335,550,7
GIP (2P)
FT^3
OIP (2P)
BBL
474,225,771.011
24.950
2,371,723,674,0
GIP (3P)
FT^3
OIP (3P)
BBL
555,222,472.385
00.800
GIP (1P)
Bft^3
1,534.636
OIP (1P)
MMbbl
428.460
GIP (2P)
Bft^3
2,162.336
OIP (2P)
MMbbl
474.226
GIP (3P)
Bft^3
2,371.724
OIP (3P)
MMbbl
555.222
Drive Mechanism: Gas Cap Drive
RF: 30-60%
Recovery Factor
Not producing gas for this project. Gas
0.15
cap will act as primary drive mechanism.
CR (1P)
MMSTB
64.269
So no value for the contingent reserve for
gas.
CR (2P)
MMSTB
71.134
CR (3P)
MMSTB
83.283
GIP (1P)
FT^3
47
48
Input
Output
Oil Zone
50.00%
45.00%
55.00%
10.00%
45.00%
50.10%
55.0%
Gas Zone
62.60%
40.00%
85.20%
45.20%
40.10%
62.58%
85.05%
4.3.1.3. Porosity
Porosity data is extracted from the well log data from depth 1310m to 1600m. The
minimum and maximum porosity data is computed within the depth interval for oil
zone and gas zone as summarized in Table 4-7.
Table 4-7 Values Used For Porosity and Monte Carlo Results
Zone
Input
Output
Oil Zone
17.43%
46.06%
28.63%
17.5%
31.7%
46.0%
Min
Max
Delta
Rand. Min
Rand. Avg
Rand. Max
49
Gas Zone
14.29%
61.26%
46.97%
14.64%
38.50%
61.23%
Oil Zone
61.03%
89.62%
28.59%
61.00%
76.20%
89.60%
Min
Max
Delta
Rand. Min
Rand. Avg
Rand. Max
Input
Output
Gas Zone
76.53%
85.57%
9.04%
76.56%
80.93%
85.56%
4.3.1.5. Oil and Gas Formation Volume Factor (Bo & Bg)
The value of Formation Volume Factor for oil zone can be obtained in the Reservoir
Fluid Study Report of Gelama Merah-1 by Rashidi, Salleh, Daud, and Anwar (2003).
As for the , it has been calculated in the deterministic section above. The minimum
and maximum value of formation volume factor is assumed to be 2% from the median
line (Satter et al., 2008). The values are shown in Table 4-9.
Table 4-9 Values Used For Formation Volume Factor and Monte Carlo Results
Zone
Input
Output
Oil Zone
1.169
1.146
1.192
0.047
1.146
1.169
1.192
Median Line
Min
Max
Delta
Rand. Min
Rand. Avg
Rand. Max
50
Gas Zone
0.005223
0.005119
0.005327
0.000209
0.005120
0.005226
0.005327
51
The results of Monte Carlo Simulation for OOIP and OGIP in Excel is attached in the
appendix.
52
The histogram and probability curve from Figure 4.6 is analyzed to estimate the oil
CR based on the confidence level. The estimated oil of P90, P50 and P10 is tabulated
in Table 4-11.
Table 4-11 Estimated Oil CR based on Confidence Level
Confidence Level (%)
P90
P50
P10
53
Figure 4.7 is analyzed to extract the estimated OGIP. The estimated OGIP is tabulated
in Table 4-12.
Table 4-12 Estimated OGIP based on Confidence Level
Confidence Level (%)
P90
P50
P10
54
55
Gas (MMMscf)
Confidence Level
P90
P50
P10
P90
P50
P10
Volume of Hydrocarbons
Deterministic Probabilistic
428
510
474
1403
555
2839
1,534
1276
2,162
5164
2,371
11267
Petrel
610.11
769.61
As shown in Table 4-13, the deterministic method resulted in minimal difference range
unlike probabilistic method. This is because probabilistic used a larger range of
parameter value in order to calculate the OOIP and OGIP. The difference in estimation
is less than 100% which can be assumed that the estimation is quite near to each other.
The same pattern as the estimation of OOIP and OGIP occurred in oil and gas CR.
This is due to probabilistic method used a larger distribution of range which is 350
random values to obtain this result. The probabilistic method could be more accurate
than deterministic method as it includes the necessary range of parameter values into
the calculations. Unlike deterministic that used an average parameter value, it is less
reliable and has many uncertainties as well as possibility of errors.
Table 4-13 shows a comparison between the deterministic, probabilistic and petrel
values. For oil zone, the values computed in Petrel is compared with the values of P90
has high difference. The cause of this may be due to the uncertainties of calculations,
limited data and inaccurate measurement of area using Digital Planimeter. Thus, we
conclude that our petrel model values can be used for further investigation.
56
Formula for
GIP
Conversion
from acrefeet
to cubic feet
GRV (1P)
GRV (2P)
GRV (3P)
NTG (1P)
NTG (2P)
NTG (3P)
phi
Sw (1P)
Sw (2P)
Sw (3P)
Bg
Units
Gas
SCF
43560*V*phi*N
TG*
(1-Sw)/Bg
acrefeet
acrefeet
acrefeet
FT^3/S
CF
GIP (1P)
FT^3
GIP (2P)
FT^3
GIP (3P)
FT^3
GIP (1P)
GIP (2P)
GIP (3P)
Bft^3
Bft^3
Bft^3
Units
Oil
Formula
for OIP
STB
7758*A*h*phi*
NTG*
(1-Sw)/Bo
43,560
Conversi
on from
acre-feet
to
barrels
7,758
2,437,631.838
GRV (1P)
acre-feet
1,317,585.344
3,059,572.607
GRV (2P)
acre-feet
1,760,045.332
3,272,597.576
GRV (3P)
acre-feet
2,845,669.382
0.531
0.620
0.660
0.375
0.180
0.211
0.240
NTG (1P)
NTG (2P)
NTG (3P)
phi
Sw (1P)
Sw (2P)
Sw (3P)
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.280
0.650
0.710
0.790
0.011
Bo
BBL/STB
1.169
1,534,635,895,0
OIP (1P)
BBL
80.570
2,162,335,550,7
OIP (2P)
BBL
24.950
2,371,723,674,0
OIP (3P)
BBL
00.800
1,534.636
OIP (1P)
MMbbl
2,162.336
OIP (2P)
MMbbl
2,371.724
OIP (3P)
MMbbl
Drive Mechanism: Gas Cap Drive
57
428,459,818.511
474,225,771.011
555,222,472.385
428.460
474.226
555.222
RF: 30-60%
Recovery Factor
CR (1P)
CR (2P)
CR (3P)
MMSTB
MMSTB
MMSTB
0.45
192.807
213.402
249.850
OOIP (MMBBL)
510.77
1403.78
2839.91
OGIP (BSCF)
632.08
4111.74
11447.44
4.6.3. Petrel
The Original oil and gas in place were calculated by Petrel with the data we introduced
into the simulator. Hence, the result can be found from Table 4-16.
Table 4-16 OOIP & OGIP from Petrel Simulation
Oil Initial In Place (MMSTB)
610.11
58
59
Sample
ID
Core
Depth
(m)
K Perm.
(md)
Porosity
(%)
grain
density
(g/cm3)
Overburden
Pressure
(psi)
Remark
1-004
1-018
2-012
3-001
3-002
3-019
5-006
5-007
8-005
8-006
1-017
2-010
5-002
1-021
2-015
2-017
3-005
3-015
3-016
3-022
3-025
4-026A
1315.20
1319.35
1323.95
1327.30
1327.60
1332.70
1385.55
1385.88
1402.55
1402.80
1319.07
1323.35
1384.35
1320.23
1324.85
1325.45
1328.50
1331.50
1331.80
1333.60
1334.50
1343.25
4242.000
661.000
2760.000
106.000
215.000
1357.000
407.000
0.355
0.831
1.780
113.000
2452.000
78.000
51.700
190.000
95.300
1280.000
380.000
392.000
526.000
11.100
6.530
33.4
30.0
33.6
26.4
29.0
31.9
29.3
15.3
16.9
18.9
24.8
34.6
13.6
18.7
27.6
26.6
32.8
30.7
30.4
30.9
23.8
17.4
2.65
2.66
2.65
2.65
2.66
2.65
2.68
2.68
2.69
2.69
2.67
2.65
2.73
2.67
2.66
2.68
2.67
2.66
2.67
2.68
2.66
2.72
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
60
1-007
2-005
3-006
3-013
3-017
4-004
4-013
4-021
5-004
5-016
1-010m
2-011m
4-002m
4-028m
5-001m
5-005m
5-015m
5-019m
8-002m
8-003m
1316.05
1321.85
1328.80
1330.90
1332.10
1336.65
1339.35
1341.75
1384.95
1388.55
1316.95
1323.65
1336.05
1343.85
1384.05
1385.25
1388.25
1389.36
1401.70
1401.95
629.000
2640.000
1100.000
156.000
664.000
203.000
108.000
179.000
880.000
965.000
1940.000
1420.000
17.900
19.300
172.000
1090.000
467.000
6.220
20.400
169.000
32.5
32.3
32.0
31.5
32.2
30.4
29.3
30.7
33.2
32.1
33.8
33.5
21.6
20.6
28.0
32.4
30.5
17.3
26.7
27.9
2.66
5.64
2.65
2.64
2.66
2.66
2.67
2.68
2.66
2.68
2.67
2.66
2.70
2.70
2.66
2.66
2.67
2.70
2.67
2.67
61
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
Permeability , mD
1000
100
10
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Porosity, %
Zone
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Porosity (%)
Minimum
0
0.1327
0.0859
0.1945
0.0710
0.0551
0.0998
0.1282
0.0637
Porosity (%)
Maximum
0.1248
0.5243
0.3453
0.4375
0.4094
0.5949
0.5866
0.3267
0.2541
Permeability (mD )
Minimum
0.0127
1.3153
0.2560
11.4172
0.1521
0.0872
0.4163
1.1238
0.1178
62
Permeability (mD)
Maximum
0.9979
1164228.4080
2226.7471
55957.4419
20946.8994
13746707.7100
10283749.7600
1161.9935
91.7636
From Table 5-2, it clearly shows that the permeability of the reservoir is considered
quite high and thus it can result in high recovery in oil production.
5.1.3. Capillary Pressure Test
Petroleum reservoir contains two or more immiscible fluids, generally water, oil and/or
gas. A clear interface exists between two or more immiscible fluid that were in contact
with one another. Interfacial tension is the resulting effect from this phenomenon
where the interface, the concave side are having pressure that exceeds that in the
convex side. This difference in pressure is known as capillary pressure (Engler, 2003).
The centrifuge tests which consist of both drainage and imbibition were conducted to
obtain the Oil-Water capillary pressure as shown in Table 5-3. The overburden
condition of maximum 25 psi of capillary pressure was applied. Three samples were
subjected to the centrifuge test (core samples of 1-017, 2-010, and 5-002). The
drainage process yielded end-face residual water saturation ranged from 10.4% to
55.2% pore volume. On the other hand, the imbibition process yielded residual oil
saturation ranged from 22.0% to 31.4% pore volume. Figure 5.2 shows all the Pc
curves (drainage and imbibition) obtained from the core samples of 1-017 (1319.07
m), 2-010 (1323.35 m) and 5-002 (1384.35 m) which had undergone the centrifuge
tests.
63
Sample
no
Depth
(m)
Perm.to
air (md)
Porosity
(%)
1-017
1319.07
120
24.8
2-010
1323.35
2491
34.6
5-002
1384.35
80.7
13.6
Drainage
Capillary
Water Saturation
Pressure (psi)
(%PV)
0
100
0.5
96.8
1
82.2
2
69.8
5
56.2
10
47.6
15
43.2
25
38.2
0
100
0.5
74.5
1
54
2
31.4
5
17.7
10
12.9
15
11.4
25
10.4
0
100
0.5
100
1
100
2
74.2
5
63.9
10
58.5
15
56.5
25
55.2
64
Imbibition
Capillary
Water Saturation
Pressure (psi)
(%PV)
0
38.2
-0.5
68.9
-1
72
-2
74.2
-5
76.1
-10
77.1
-15
77.6
-25
78
0
10.4
-0.5
64.6
-1
66.6
-2
67.6
-5
68.2
-10
68.5
-15
68.6
-25
68.6
0
55.2
-0.5
70.1
-1
72.7
-2
73.6
-5
74
-10
74.1
-15
74.1
-25
74.1
30
20
10
drainage
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
-10
imbibition
-20
-30
30
20
10
drainage
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
-10
imbibition
-20
-30
30
20
10
drainage
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
-10
imbibition
-20
-30
Figure 5.2: Capillary Pressure Results for sample (a) 1-017, (b) 2-010, and (c)5-002
65
Where:
Equation 5-1
2-015
2-017
3-005
Sw
0.346
0.423
0.475
0.523
0.559
0.615
0.654
0.696
0.73
0.765
0.425
0.489
0.546
0.599
0.632
0.653
0.686
0.713
0.733
0.781
0.206
0.42
66
S*w
0.0000
0.1838
0.3079
0.4224
0.5084
0.6420
0.7351
0.8353
0.9165
1.0000
0.0000
0.1798
0.3399
0.4888
0.5815
0.6404
0.7331
0.8090
0.8652
1.0000
0.0000
0.3639
0.534
0.58
0.637
0.69
0.706
0.737
0.752
0.794
0.243
0.374
0.579
0.633
0.657
0.669
0.687
0.704
0.727
0.741
3-015
0.5578
0.6361
0.7330
0.8231
0.8503
0.9031
0.9286
1.0000
0.0000
0.2631
0.6747
0.7831
0.8313
0.8554
0.8916
0.9257
0.9719
1.0000
The normalized relative permeability for the oil and water phase at different water
saturation is calculated by using Equation 5-2.
=
( )
( )
/ = relative permeability of water/oil at different Sw
( ) /( ) = relative permeability of water/oil at critical oil
saturation/connate water saturation
= normalized water saturation
=
Where:
Equation 5-2
67
2-015
2-017
3-005
3-015
Sw
0.346
0.423
0.475
0.523
0.559
0.615
0.654
0.696
0.73
0.765
0.425
0.489
0.546
0.599
0.632
0.653
0.686
0.713
0.733
0.781
0.206
0.42
0.534
0.58
0.637
0.69
0.706
0.737
0.752
0.794
0.243
0.374
0.579
0.633
0.657
0.669
0.687
0.704
0.727
0.741
S*w
0.0000
0.1838
0.3079
0.4224
0.5084
0.6420
0.7351
0.8353
0.9165
1.0000
0.0000
0.1798
0.3399
0.4888
0.5815
0.6404
0.7331
0.8090
0.8652
1.0000
0.0000
0.3639
0.5578
0.6361
0.7330
0.8231
0.8503
0.9031
0.9286
1.0000
0.0000
0.2631
0.6747
0.7831
0.8313
0.8554
0.8916
0.9257
0.9719
1.0000
68
k*rw
0.0000
0.2527
0.3886
0.5054
0.5842
0.7391
0.8125
0.8777
0.9348
1.0000
0.0000
0.2156
0.4275
0.5874
0.6729
0.7323
0.7918
0.8550
0.8848
1.0000
0.0000
0.2290
0.4806
0.5871
0.7194
0.8161
0.8419
0.8935
0.9226
1.0000
0.0000
0.0933
0.3990
0.5440
0.6218
0.6528
0.7358
0.8342
0.9378
1.0000
k*ro
1.0000
0.6990
0.4250
0.2720
0.1890
0.1020
0.0590
0.0270
0.0100
0.0000
1.0000
0.7740
0.4200
0.1800
0.1000
0.0650
0.0310
0.0140
0.0060
0.0000
1.0000
0.3870
0.1430
0.0860
0.0380
0.0130
0.0090
0.0030
0.0020
0.0000
1.0000
0.4660
0.0860
0.0350
0.0220
0.0150
0.0090
0.0060
0.0020
0.0000
0.9000
0.8000
0.7000
k*ro 2-015
kr*
0.6000
k*rw 2-015
k*ro 2-017
0.5000
k*rw 2-017
k*ro 3-005
0.4000
k*rw 3-005
k*ro 3-015
0.3000
k*rw 3-015
0.2000
0.1000
0.0000
0.0000
0.2000
0.4000
0.6000
0.8000
1.0000
S*w
= [( ) ]
= ()
( ) =
= [( ) ]
= ()
69
Equation 5-3
Where:
The averaged normalized relative permeability values are calculated for oil and water
as a function of normalized water saturation in Table 5-6 by using Equation 5-4.
( ) =
( )
= ( )
= ()
Equation 5-4
= ( )
=
= ()
k*ro
2-015
0.8047
0.6201
0.4597
0.3236
0.2117
0.1240
0.0606
0.0213
0.0064
2-017
0.8336
0.6385
0.4690
0.3250
0.2065
0.1136
0.0463
0.0046
1.0000
3-005
0.79806
0.61569
0.45688
0.32163
0.20995
0.12183
0.05728
0.01629
1
3-015
0.7808
0.6016
0.4459
0.3138
0.2052
0.1200
0.0585
0.0204
0.0058
k*rw
2-015
0.136313
0.261032
0.378457
0.488588
0.591425
0.686968
0.775217
0.856172
0.929833
2-017
0.129833
0.256932
0.376097
0.487328
0.590625
0.685988
0.773417
0.852912
0.924473
3-005
0.05667
0.13832
0.22654
0.32134
0.42273
0.53068
0.64522
0.76634
0.89403
70
3-015
0.0119
0.02151
0.05543
0.11367
0.19623
0.30309
0.43427
0.58977
0.76958
k*ro (Avg)
0.8043
0.6190
0.4579
0.3210
0.2083
0.1199
0.0557
0.0156
0.5030
k*rw (Avg)
0.083678
0.169447
0.259132
0.352733
0.45025
0.551683
0.657032
0.766297
0.879478
The current data is then de-normalized (refer to Table 5-7) to be extracted into the
reservoir model simulation in Petrel using Equation 5-5.
= (1 ) +
= ( ) ( )
Equation 5-5
= ( ) ( )
Sw
0.3879
0.4298
0.4717
0.5136
0.5555
0.5974
0.6393
0.6812
0.7231
kro
0.804289
0.618971
0.457871
0.320989
0.208325
0.119879
0.055651
0.015641
0.50304625
krw
0.024335053
0.049278206
0.075360202
0.10258104
0.130940721
0.160439244
0.19107661
0.222852818
0.255767869
The same normalization procedure is being applied to gas-oil system and the result of
de-normalization is tabulated in Table 5-8.
Table 5-8 De-normalized Permeability Data for Gas-Oil System
S*g
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
Sg
0.04209
0.08418
0.12626
0.16835
0.21044
0.25253
0.29461
0.3367
0.37879
Kro
0.67263
0.46446
0.28985
0.17246
0.09811
0.05258
0.02298
0.008
0.00594
71
Krg
0.01028
0.0305
0.05952
0.0972
0.14266
0.19776
0.26144
0.34108
0.43784
() =
Where:
0.2166
cos
Equation 5-6
Pc
Leverett J function is used in this study to average capillary pressure curves for given
core samples. Figure 5.4 shows the J function plot.
Plotting of J (sw) vs. Sw* yielded Equation 5-7 which is used to calculate the capillary
pressure for the reservoir model.
() = 0.1925 0.974
Equation 5-7
The highest J-function value comes from core sample 2-010 at depth 1323.35 m.
Higher capillary pressure from the centrifuge tests conducted shows the core sample
contain less pore volume or in other word, the formation is more compacted. This
result to a higher pressure required for the fluid to be displaced from the core. Since
the core sample 2-010 have the highest J-Function value compared to other sample,
the formation at depth 1323.35 m have highest tendency to be the seal rock of the
reservoir based on high capillary entry pressure.
73
74
Separator Oil
799079917989QA
QA
QA
105
@97.0
90
@97.2
Separator Gas
4339 A 4553 A 4588 A
100
@95.2
146
@97.0
150
@97.2
149
@95.2
20000
@ 150
psig
20000
@ 149
psig
553
593
536
20000
@ 146
psig
120
@97.0
125
@97.2
140
@95.2
NA
NA
NA
Pair
with
7990QA
Pair
with
7991QA
Pair
with
7989QA
Pair
Pair
Pair
with
with
with
4339 A 4553 A 4588 A
75
Table 5-10 summarize the results for compositional analysis of the separator oil and
gas samples.
Table 5-10 Compositional Analysis of Separator Oil, Separator Gas Samples and
Calculated Wellstream Composition
Component
Separator
Gas
Mole %
Separator
Oil
N2
CO2
C1
C2
C3
i-C4
n-C4
i-C5
n-C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11+
TOTAL
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
100.00
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
100.00
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
100.00
Molecular
weight
Density @
60F
195.39
0.821
Note: The wellstream composition was calculated based on GOR of 126 scf/stb.
The separator oil and separator gas are recombined to obtained reservoir fluid for PVT
analysis. The composition of recombination fluid was calculated using separator gas
oil ratio (GOR). The issue stated that the reservoir fluid that was based on separator
GOR of 126 scf/stb, exhibited bubble point pressure of 1035 which is far below from
reported reservoir pressure of 2116 psia. Therefore, by correlating with a nearby
saturated well Sumandak Selatan-1, PRSS has adjusted the recombination ratio to the
specified bubble point pressure which is 2014 psig. The obtained separator GOR is
256 scf/stb. The recombined fluid is heated to reservoir temperature and subjected to
bubble point determination.
76
Table 5-11 summarizes the results for recombination of separator oil and gas.
Table 5-11 Compositional Analysis of Stock Tnk Oil, Stock Tank Gas and
Calculated Wellstream 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
Stock
Tank
Gas
Mole %
Stock
Tank
Wellstream
Oil
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
100.00
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
Molecular
weight
Density
@ 60F
202.3
0.826
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
Note: The wellstream composition was calculated based on GOR of 326 scf/stb.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
N2
CO2
C1
C2
C3
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10 C11+
Component
Pb=1035
Pb=2014
As shown in Figure 5.6, the pressure in PVT cell is initially raised to a value far in
excess of the bubble point pressure. The pressure is then subsequently reduced in
stages, and the total volume is recorded. The volume is measured relative to the volume
of bubble point. When the bubble point is reached, gas is liberated from the oil and
overall compressibility increases significantly. Thus, small changes in pressure will
result in large changes in total fluid.
78
Relative
Volume
0.976
0.983
0.987
0.990
0.993
0.994
0.995
0.997
1.000
1.002
1.034
1.074
1.127
1.197
1.297
1.446
Single-Phase
Y-Function
Compressibility
7.096E-006
7.101E-006
7.127E-006
7.171E-006
7.192E-006
7.214E-006
7.226E-006
-
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
=
Where:
Equation 5-8
79
Where:
Equation 5-9
( 1)
As for the third column in Table 5-12, the single-phase compressibility can be
calculated using Equation 5-10.
Equation 5-10
The oil compressibility coefficient, c, is also obtained from relative volume data above
1.5
3.6
1.4
3.55
1.3
3.5
1.2
3.45
1.1
3.4
Y-Function
3.35
0.9
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
3.3
4000
Pressure, Psig
Relative Volume
Y-Function
80
81
Oil
Density
(g/cc)
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
Gas
FVF
( /
)
0.010
0.013
0.020
0.041
0.080
0.150
-
Solution
Oil FVF
Gas/Oil
(bbl/STB)
Ratio
(scf/STB)
1.144
336
1.152
336
1.156
336
1.160
336
1.163
336
1.164
336
1.166
336
1.168
336
1.169
336
1.141
272
1.117
210
1.093
146
1.067
80
1.053
45
1.045
27
1.032
0
Cumulative
Gas
Gravity
ZFactor
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
1.18
1.16
1.14
1.12
1.1
1.08
1.06
1.04
1.02
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Pressure (psig)
82
4500
5000
Pressure (psig)
5000
4000
3000
2500
2014*
1600
1200
800
400
200
100
2.2
0.015
2
1.8
0.014
1.6
0.013
1.4
1.2
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Pressure, Psig
Oil
Gas
83
0.012
5000
2.4
Note:
Gas Oil
Ratio
(scf/bbl)
Separator
Volume
Factor
(bbl/STB)
FVF
(bbl/STB)
890
to
0
87
110
1.086
Stock
Tank
Oil
Gravit
y
(API)
-
60
193
303
1.000
1.119
23.32
265
to
0
84
241
1.032
60
60
301
1.000
1.116
23.41
60
to
0
91
297
1.014
60
9
1.000
1.117
23.36
306
1. Cubic feet of gas at 14.73 psia, 60 per barrel of oil at indicated
pressure and temperature.
2. Barrel of oil at indicated temperature and pressure per barrel of
stock tank oil at 60.
3. Barrels of saturated oil at 2014 psig and 155 per barrel of stock
tank oil at 60.
84
Based on Ahmed and McKinney (2011), the criteria to select as optimized separator
pressure is based on the following conditions:
i.
ii.
iii.
Thus, using the criteria stated above, the optimized separator pressure to maximize
oil production based on the values in
Table 5-15 is Case 2. Case 2 has a minimum of total solution gas oil ratio of 301
scf/bbl, minimum oil formation volume factor of 1.116 bbl/STB and maximum
stock-tank oil gravity of 23.41 API.
85
32/64 choke. The well flow was observed to be 1378stb/d of oil and 0.16
MMscf/d of gas with a GOR of 119 scf/d. However, the gas rate measured
during this period was incorrect and based on the Nodal Analysis, the gas rate
should be about 0.39 MMscf/d. The specific gravity for gas was observed to
be 0.654 and the API for oil is 23.7 by the onsite analysis measurement. No
Carbon dioxide (CO2) and Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) were detected during the
main flow period. The main flow period last for about 8 hours.
5. Next, the well was shut-in for main Build up Period and the observed stabilized
Well Head Pressure (WHP) was 387 psia. The real time surface read-out tool
(LINC) was carried out on Schlumberger wireline to obtain the real time
pressure and temperature to make sure the down hole data are good quality and
also to decide whether to shorter or lengthen the duration of shut in period or
the main build up period. From the result of the real time bottomhole pressure
behaviour and derivative plot from the onsite well test analysis, constant
boundary effect was observed after 7 hours and thus, shut in period was
shorten, Total main build up period was about 9-1/2 hours.
6. The well was then opened for Maximum Flow Period at 128/64 fixed choke.
The well was produced at an average oil production flow of 2745 stb/ d and
gas production of 0.73 MMSCF/D with GOR of 267 SCF/STB. No Carbon
dioxide and hydrogen sulphide were detected during the maximum flow period
and no production of sand too.
7. The well was then shut in and DST string was pulled out from hole.
The entire whole well test lasted about 3 days of rig time to complete.
87
Source
Petrophysics/ Log
Petrophysics/ Log
PVT data*
PVT data*
PIE Correlation
Petrophysics/ Log
Hall Correlatin
Casing ID
The period of analysis included the Clean-Up Period, Main Flow Period and Main
Build up Period. The analysis was carried out based on the data from the Main Build
up Period. The best model to represent Unit 8 Sand of Gelama Merah-1 from the
pressure transient Analysis is the constant pressure boundary with skin and wellbore
storage.
Production test was conducted in Unit 8 in Gelama Merah-1 well and the flow results
are shown in Table 5-17.
Table 5-17 Properties for the Main Flow and Maximum Flow
Period
Main Flow
Maximum Flow
Oil rate,
STB/d
1378
2745
Gas rate,
MMSCF/ d
0.16
0.73
88
GOR,
SCF/STB
119
267
Choke Size,
inch
32/ 64
128/ 64
API
24
24
The data analysis was done based on the Main Build-up Period. From the derivative
analysis plot, it is clearly shown that the boundary at the end has been identified as a
constant pressure boundary. Water- oil contact was identified at the depth of 1355.5
m- MDRKB, which is located 5m below the perforation. So, the boundary seen in the
derivative plot is most likely to be the WOC.
From the log- log plot of the delta pressure (dP) and derivative of delta Pressure (dP)
vs delta time, the average permeability and permeability thickness were 140md and
4130 md-ft respectively. The wellbore storage effect in this well was quite small which
is about 0.00271 bbl/psi since downhole shut in valve was used during the test. The
radius of investigation was found at the end of the wellbore storage effect and was
estimated at 101 feet at t=0.3 hour after the shut in. Whereas, the radius of
investigation was found to be at the end of main build up period at 669 feet after 9.6
hours from the shut in.
The initial reservoir pressure at gauge depth of 1496.1m was calculated about 2116
psia. By using the oil gradient of 0.3689 psi/ft, the initial reservoir pressure of Unit 8
Sand mid perforation at 1525.5 m-MDRKB was calculated to be 2151 psi. The skin
value of -2.1 was calculated, where the flow efficiency of the reservoir was
3.46stb/d/psi.
From the diagnostic derivative plot, the main build flow period can be segregated into
three time regions and they can be illustrated in Table 5-18 and Figure 5.12.
1. Early time region (ETR) started at 0.001 hour and ended at 0.3 hour.
2. Middle time region (MTR) started at 0.3 hour and ended at 1.2 hour.
3. Late time region (LTR) started at 1.2 hour
90
Time
0.001 hr till 0.3 hr
Late Time
(LTR)
Region
>1.2 hr
Remarks
Wellbore storage effect is
observed during the ETR till it
reaches radial flow. Only slight
distortion of pressure data was
observed.
Radial flow pattern was observed
with the straight horizontal line at
the MTR.
Boundary effect (fault) which is
5m below the perforation at
1535.5m- TVDDF caused the
pressure data to deviate from the
radial flow and distortion of
pressure plot were observed.
91
Simulated
Derivative
0.00271
Remarks
In a nutshell, there are several outcomes from the pressure transient analysis:
1. The initial reservoir pressure at the depth of 1496.1m- TVDDF (Unit 8- Oil
Bearing zone) is 2116 psia.
2. The permeability and skin are 140 mD and -2.1 respectively.
92
Main Flow
Period
32
1753
Main Build
Up
N/A
N/A
Max Flow
Choke (x/64)
128
Formation
Bottom
Hole
1479
Pressure, psi
@ 1496.1m- MDRKB
Formation
Bottom
Hole
155
N/A
151
Temperature, degF @ 1496.1mMDRKB
Well Head Pressure, psia
390
N/A
156
Well Head Temperature, degF
97
N/A
104
Seperator Pressure, psi
155
N/A
139
Separator Temperature, degF
94
N/A
99
SIBHP, psi @ 1496.1mN/A
2104
N/A
MDRKB
SIBHT,
degF
@1496.1mN/A
154
N/A
MDRKB
Oil Rate, stb/d
1378
N/A
2745
Gas Rate, MMscf/d
0.16/ 0.39*
N/A
0.73
Water rate, stb/d
0
N/A
0
Gas Oil Ratio, scf/ stb
119/ 283*
N/A
267
Gas gravity, Air= 1
0.65
N/A
0.65
Oil, deg API
23.7
N/A
23.6
H2S, ppm
0
N/A
0
CO2, %
0
N/A
0
Basic Sediment and Water, %
0
N/A
0
Remarks:
The BHP and BHT values were taken from the lowest gauge below the packer at
1491.1 m- MDRKB at the midpoint perforation depth of 1525.5 m-MDRKB.
*With the measured GOR during Main Flow Period, the PVT sample could match
the observed Pbp. Adjustment was made to recombine the sample at Pbp resulting
GOR of 326 scf/ stb. Based on Nodal Analysis, estimate gas rate for this period
should be about 0.39 MMscf/d.
93
Well
Placement
Base Case
Creaming
Curve
Production
Profile
Sensitivity Analysis
- Water Injection
6.1. Objectives
Reservoir simulation is usually performed at the early stage of development of a new
field. It is required to foresee the production over the years and also to help in
investment decision.
The objectives of reservoir simulations are stated as below:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
To assure the government approve with the development plan and also the
rules for health, safety and environment.
vi.
94
Date
Pressure [psi]
2143.1
2143.1
2143.1
2143.1
2143.1
2143.1
2101.7
2101.7
2100.5
2099.6
2099.0
2094.5
2093.9
2093.5
2093.3
2093.1
2092.9
2092.8
2092.6
01-02-2016
01-02-2016
01-02-2016
01-02-2016
01-02-2016
01-03-2016
01-03-2016
01-03-2016
01-03-2016
01-03-2016
01-03-2016
01-03-2016
01-03-2016
01-03-2016
01-03-2016
01-03-2016
01-03-2016
01-03-2016
Bottom hole
pressure
Pressure [psi]
2137.9
2138.0
2139.1
2139.9
2140.5
2140.9
2141.2
2141.4
2141.6
2141.8
2141.9
2051.2
2048.6
2047.2
2136.6
2136.6
2138.0
2139.1
When these information were introduced into the simulator, resulted graph can be
found in Figure 6.2. Production forecast by using the reservoir simulator were to
expect to have the same reservoir behaviour.
95
ii.
High NTG
iii.
High porosity
iv.
High permeability
v.
vi.
Reservoir thickness
96
97
Table 6-3 Number of Wells versus Field Oil Production and Recovery Factor
Number of wells
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
RF (%)
Profit ($USD)
4.65%
6.96%
8.14%
9.60%
10.93%
11.51%
12.37%
12.74%
13.83%
14.37%
14.70%
14.98%
15.24%
15.48%
15.49%
15.43%
15.38%
12.48%
1,701,964,760
2,546,163,483
2,978,070,374
3,512,454,071
4,001,917,877
4,214,779,358
4,528,282,013
4,664,993,134
5,063,103,790
5,259,078,827
5,382,654,419
5,482,194,214
5,579,902,954
5,666,118,164
5,668,565,826
5,646,894,379
5,629,382,172
4,567,658,386
In order to determine the most optimum number of wells to be drilled for the field,
creaming curve need to be produced. 18 wells were placed and according to the
creaming curve as plotted in Figure 6.4, the most optimum number of well is 14 and it
provides the highest field oil production of approximately 94.44 million STB and
recovery factor of 15.48% of original oil in place over 20 years.
From Figure 6.4, it can clearly show that 14 wells are giving the highest field oil
production and the field oil production begins to remain constant and starts to drop
after the introduction of more wells. Although there is slight increase in field oil
production with 15 wells but the field oil production is very minor. Therefore, it is not
profitable to drill more than 14 wells.
98
10
12
14
16
18
20
No. of Wells
Apart from that, with the introduction of 14 wells can obtain the highest revenue of
$USD 5.67 billion dollar. The graph of revenue versus number of wells are plotted as
Figure 6.5.
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
0
10
12
14
16
No. of Wells
99
18
20
According to Figure 6.6, the green zone are the filtered oil zone from zone 1 to zone 9
and producing with 14 wells can provide the highest field oil production.
100
Figure 6.7 shows that production rate of oil gradually decreases over years as the
pressure of reservoir decreases. This is because reservoir pressure is draining upon
production over time. On the other hand, the field oil production is approximately 94
million STB. Apart from that, Figure 6.8 shows the field production of oil, water and
gas over the production life of 20 years for 14 wells.
Figure 6.7 Graph Of Field Oil Production, Oil Producing Rate And Reservoir
Pressure Versus Time For Base Case
Figure 6.8 Graph Of Field Production Of Gas, Oil And Water Versus Time For
Base Case
101
First Phase
-
ii.
iii.
Second Phase
-
Water Injection
Water flooding
Third Phase
-
EOR Screening
EOR Plan
102
Case 1 (STB/Day)
Case 2 (STB/Day)
Case 3 (STB/Day)
2000
2000
3800
2000
1800
1800
700
2500
2000
1800
2000
1800
2500
1800
1250
1250
3500
1250
1250
1350
500
1800
1000
1250
900
1000
1850
1000
1600
1800
3400
1800
1500
1600
1000
2000
1500
1500
1300
1300
2000
1600
15.92 %
Optimized
Rate Case 1
22.87 %
Optimized
Rate Case 2
23.79 %
Optimized
Rate Case 3
21.69 %
6.95 %
7.87 %
5.77 %
Base Case
Recovery Factor (%)
Increment in
Recovery Factor (%)
On the other hand, Table 6-5 shows that highest recovery factor can be achieved by
Optimized Rate Case 2. From the following figure, it can also clearly show Case 2
provides the highest increment in recovery factor. Thus, Optimized Rate Case 2 was
chosen instead of the base case due to its higher recovery factor as compared to the
base case as shown in Table 6-3.
103
Field oil production for each case are illustrated in Figure 6.9. It clearly shows that the
highest field oil production was achieved by the Optimized Rate Case 2.
Figure 6.9 Field Oil Production for Optimized Rate Case 1, 2 and 3
Apart from that, the optimized rate for each well of case 2 can be observed from Figure
6.10. However, sudden drop in oil production rate at year 2 can be seen from Figure
6.10 as well. Hence, secondary recovery method is applied at year 2 which is year
2018.
Figure 6.10 Oil Production Rate for Individual Well for Optimized Rate Case 2
104
105
106
Table 6-6 Field Oil Production and Recovery Factor for Water Injection
Injection water rate,
MMSTB/D
628.981
1,886.943
3,144.905
5,031.848
10,063.697
12,579.621
18,869.432
Recovery Factor
(%)
15.80
15.92
15.98
16.02
16.07
16.10
16.09
From Figure 6.13, it can be observed that the reservoir pressure was not improving but
decrease gradually along its production life. Hence, the water aquifer below the
reservoir does not support the pressure of the reservoir and the injection of water might
travel or channel to another part which is out from the reservoir and this do not
contribute in maintaining pressure of the reservoir. Due to the insufficient data given
such as seismic, it can be concluded that the water aquifer is not supporting the
Case1_WI_Q_2000sm3 Field
Pressure [psi]
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
Date
Oil production cumulative
Pressure
Figure 6.13 Graph of Field Oil Production, Oil Production Rate and Reservoir
Pressure for Water Injection
107
Field gas, oil and water production after the application of water injection into the
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2032
2034
2036
2.5E+08
1.5E+08
5E+07
3E+08
2E+08
1E+08
Case1_WI_Q_2000sm3 Field
Date
Gas production cumulative
Figure 6.14 Field Oil, Water and Gas Production for Water Injection
Furthermore, the graph of gas-oil ratio and water cut versus time can be observed from
Figure 6.15. Gas- oil ratio and water cut increase over the production life. Thus, it does
not have any effect on the increment of oil production.
Figure 6.15 Graph Of Gas- Oil Ratio And Water Cut Versus Time For Water
Injection
108
Field Oil
Producing rate,
STB
108468528.7
118350433.3
171755081.2
183661270.1
191571609.5
190114227.3
186416458.1
186455200.2
Recovery
Factor (%)
Increment in
Recovery Factor (%)
17.78%
19.40%
28.15%
30.10%
31.40%
31.16%
30.55%
30.56%
4.36%
6.31%
7.61%
7.37%
6.76%
6.77%
Application of water flooding was done at year 2018 due to decrease in oil production
rate at year 2018. As shown in Figure 6.17, we can see that the reservoir pressure
increase tremendously after the application of water flooding at the oil zone and it
causes increase in recovery factor of 7.61% at water injection rate of 150,000 STB/D.
110
Figure 6.17 Graph of Field Oil Production, Oil Production Rate and Reservoir
Pressure versus time for Water Flooding
However, the highest increment of oil production rate is only 7.61% due to water
breakthrough and high production of water at the oil producing wells.
Figure 6.18 Graph Of Gas, Oil and Water Production Rate for Water Flooding
111
Case 1
(STB/Day)
2,500.00
2,500.00
4,000.00
2,500.00
2,500.00
2,700.00
1,800.00
350.00
2,000.00
1,500.00
1,800.00
2,500.00
2,000.00
2,500.00
Case 2
(STB/Day)
2,500.00
2,500.00
7,000.00
2,500.00
2,500.00
2,700.00
1,800.00
3,500.00
2,000.00
1,500.00
1,800.00
2,000.00
1,000.00
2,500.00
Case 3
(STB/Day)
1,600.00
2,000.00
7,000.00
1,800.00
1,600.00
1,800.00
1,200.00
3,500.00
1,600.00
800.00
1,200.00
1,400.00
600.00
1,800.00
Hence, with the application of trial and error method, we can see that case 2 achieved
the highest recovery factor from Table 6-9. Thus, method 2 will be chosen.
Table 6-9 Recovery Factor For All Optimized Rate Cases (After Sensitivity Studies)
Water
flooding
31.40
Optimized
Rate Case 1
31.04
Optimized
Rate Case 2
32.82
Optimized
Rate Case 3
29.81
0.36
1.42
1.59
On the other hand, Table 6-5 shows that highest recovery factor can be achieved by
Optimized Rate Case 2. From Figure 6.19, it clearly show Case 2 provides the highest
increment in recovery factor. Thus, Optimized Rate Case 2 was chosen instead of the
112
base case due to its higher recovery factor as compared to the base case as shown in
Table 6-3.
Field oil production for each case are illustrated in Figure 6.19. It clearly shows that
the highest field oil production was achieved by the Optimized Rate Case 2.
Figure 6.19 Graph Of Field Production Of Oil, Water And Gas After Rate
Optimization
On the other hand, the optimized oil producing rate for individual rate can be found in
Figure 6.20.
Figure 6.20 Optimized Rate For Individual Well After Sensitivity Studies
113
Last but not least, the reservoir pressure is increased after application of water flooding
at year 2 (refer to Figure 6.21) and the increment in field oil production after rate
optimization at each wells can be observed.
Figure 6.21 Graph Of Field Oil Production, Oil Producing Rate And Reservoir
Pressure Versus Time
115
To establish a well completion design that is highly safe and effective for
producers.
To increase the recovery factor and perform well integrity throughout the
production life.
Pre-Packed Screen
Table 7-1: Comparison between Slotted Liner, WWS and Gravel Pack
Wire Wrapped
Pre-Packed
Slotted Liner
Aspect
Screen (Stainless
Screen (Resin
(Mild Steel)
Steel)
Coated Sand)
Description
Wire welded to
Gravel
Rectilinear slots/
longitudinal rods
sandwiched
machined in pipe
between two wire
wrapped screens
Concept
Formation sand
Gravel provide
Wellbore
exclusion or
sand exclusion
reinforcement,
gravel retention
sand bridges
around slots
Material
Stainless steel on
Stainless steel on
Mild steel
mild steel base
mild steel base
pipe
pipe
Sand Exclusion
Better than slotted Excellent: as with Poor: 0.012 slot
liner since slot
gravel pack
width minimum
width 0.006
0.040
Works with gravel Yes
Yes, but should
Yes
pack
not be necessary
Flow Restriction
Low, = 10 times
High, as for wire
High
flow area of
wrapped screen
slotted liner
Mechanical
Poor to
Fair: base pipe
Good
Resistance
collapse/tension if reinforces
base pipe omitted. structure
Also susceptible to
erosion
Plugging
Moderate
High: Fine + mud Low (Too wide to
Tendency
cake. Also
retain to formation
impairment while sand)
RIH
Cost
2 -3 x slotted liner 2 3 x wire
Cheapest
wrapped screen,
but often less than
gravel pack
Application
High productivity Retains sand
Borehole
wells medium
grains of all sizes
reinforcement
grained formation.
coarse grained
Allows fines
formation
production
117
Based on characteristic in Table 7-1, the best option to be installed is the slotted liner.
This is due to cost effective, more productive and operationally more efficient. There
are several types of slotted liner inside the productive interval. High percentage of
particle is expected and the optimum screening opening size is approximately around
120-150 microns range base on the particle size from 42 cores tested. The proposed
sand screens for Gelama Merah are:
118
119
The inflow performance relationship (IPR) was generated in Figure 7.3 based on the
data from Table 7-2.
120
Tubing
ID
(inch)
2.375
2.875
3.500
4.500
5.563
6.625
GOR 800
GOR1200
GOR
2000
GOR
5000
GOR
10000
GOR
15000
2071
2370
2550
2585
2030
2529
2696
3278
3729
4048
4152
4173
2730
3354
3833
4159
4304
4381
2647
3313
3805
4158
4301
4379
2000
2879
3289
3889
4658
5154
1458
2250
2998
3468
3965
4512
1000
1589
2559
3150
3421
3899
121
Table 7-6 Tubing performance with increasing water cut at 300 psi
Tubing ID
(inch)
2.375
2.875
3.500
4.500
5.563
6.625
WC 0%
1319
1520
1572
1515
N/A
N/A
WC 40%
432
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
According to Table 7-3, the sensitivity of tubing performance with different reservoir
pressures can be analysed. As the reservoir pressure decreases, the production rate also
decreases. On the other hand, the production rate is increase as the tubing size increase.
Based on Table 7-4, the sensitivity analysis of the tubing performance with varying in
wellhead pressure was done. The result shown explain that the increase in wellhead
pressure is resulted in a decrease in production rate. As well as the increase in tubing
size is resulted in an increase of production rate. It can also be noticed that a very high
tubing size is decreasing the production rate.
Table 7-5 shows the sensitivity of tubing performance with varying gas oil ratio, which
shows that the increase in GOR has high effect on the production rate. Also, the
increase in tubing size will increase the production rate.
According to Table 7-6, the sensitivity analysis is based on the tubing performance
with increasing in water cut at fixed reservoir pressure. It can be seen that as the water
cut increase, the production rate decreases. Also, as the tubing size increase, the
production rate increases.
122
Operating
pressure
(Psig)
300
300
300
300
300
300
Oil rate
(STB/day)
Water rate
(STB/day)
GOR
(SCF/STB)
1319
1520
1572
1515
N/A
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
267
267
267
267
267
267
123
The production rate must be in the acceptable range based on the reservoir
simulation data.
The maximum production rate after applying the gas lift method must
accommodate most producing wells.
The most two common types in offshore field are gas lift and electrical submersible
pump.
7.3.3.1. Gas Lift
The operation of gas lift is represented by a gas injected into tubing through the
operating valve which enables the well to flow by reducing the average fluid density
above the injection point and partially dissolving into the produced fluids. The
undissolved gas (bubbles) will expand due to reduction in hydrostatic pressure as the
fluids rise up the tubing. The coalescence of these gas bubbles into large bubbles
occupying the full width of the tubing will help the well to flow (slug flow) (Lea &
Nickens, 1999).
124
The design of gas lift completion consists of the choice of the installation depth, type
and design of the gas lift valves placed beside the optimization of the flowing gas lifted
well. Gas lift has different applications such as production wells which will not flow
naturally, increase production rate in flowing wells, unload liquids from wells that will
flow naturally once on production and lift aquifer wells (Lea & Nickens, 1999).
Gas lift is often the preferred artificial lift method for wells with the following
characteristics:
High bottom hole pressure due to reservoir pressure support being provided
by natural or water drive.
Gas lift has several advantages which can help in offshore fields such as the following:
Provides full bore tubing access for coiled tubing or other well service work.
High fluid gas oil ratio improves lift performance rather than presenting
problems as with other artificial lift methods.
Gas lift has also several disadvantages that can affect the production rate such as the
following:
Gas compressors have a high capital cost. They require expensive maintenance
& require skilled operations staff.
125
Gas lifting of viscous crude (<15 API) is difficult and less efficient.
High production rates and suitable for high water cut wells
To sum up, the lifespan is longer for the gas lift than ESPs which is between 10-20
years, while the lifespan for ESPs is to be between 3-6 years only. Also, the ESPs is
required for maintenance from time to time, whereas the gas lift requires less
maintenance. Based on our reservoir calculation, the estimated production rate is to be
in the range of 1000 to 2500 STB/d, that is an indication of low production rate per
126
day which is applicable for gas lift. Meanwhile, ESPs is designed to handle high
flowrate which is in the range of 1000 up to 6400 STB/d. Therefore, after analysing
these factors it can be concluded that gas lift is the best option to be consider in Gelama
Merah field (Amao, 2013).
7.3.3.3. Gas Lift Design
By designing and installing the gas lift design the production rate should be increased.
The sensitivity analysis is carried out on the same parameters that were analysed based
on the nodal analysis section.
Table 7-8 Tubing Performance With Respect To Different Reservoir Pressure
Before And After Applying Gas Lift
Tubing
ID
(inch)
2.375
2.875
3.500
4.500
5.563
6.625
Table 7-8 shows that the production rate decreases by the decrease in reservoir
pressure. However, after installing gas lift it can be seen that the production rate
increases to reach more than 2500 STB/ Day.
Table 7-9 Production Profile Natural Flow Vs. Gas Lift Injection (Water Cut)
Tubing
ID
(inch)
2.375
2.875
3.500
4.500
5.563
6.625
1319
1520
1572
1515
N/A
N/A
2562
2569
3089
2868
2102
1834
1180
1304
1309
875
N/A
N/A
979
1056
1061
N/A
N/A
N/A
716
726
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
432
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
127
1906
2201
2404
2652
1999
1653
1510
1666
1789
1969
1789
N/A
1169
1254
1199
1321
N/A
N/A
1201
1310
1423
1389
N/A
N/A
Based on Table 7-9, it can be seen that the production is decreasing by the increase in
water cut, as well as the increase in production rate by the increase in tubing size.
However, applying the gas lift resulted in lifting the hydrocarbon up to 3089 STB/day
oil production, considering that is only applicable for the tubing sizes of 2.375, 2875,
3.5 and 4.5. The other two tubing sizes 5.563 and 6.625 considered to be large tubing
sizes.
Table 7-10 Production Profile Natural Flow vs. Gas Lift Injection (GOR)
Tubing
ID
(inch)
2.375
2.875
3.500
4.500
5.563
6.625
GOR
800
2696
3278
3729
4048
4152
4173
GOR
1200
2730
3354
3833
4159
4304
4381
GOR
2000
2647
3313
3805
4158
4301
4379
GOR
5000
2000
2879
3289
3889
4658
5154
GOR
10000
GOR
15000
1458
2250
2998
3468
3965
4512
1000
1589
2559
3150
3421
3899
GOR
267
2189
2501
2689
2732
2159
2649
GOR
800
2732
3409
3878
4199
4287
4300
GOR
1200
2902
3495
3966
4277
4404
4503
GOR
2000
2598
3212
3776
4043
4221
4127
GOR
5000
1995
2877
3288
3888
4658
5152
GOR
10000
GOR
15000
1458
2249
2997
3667
3964
4511
998
1587
2559
3150
3420
3897
Table 7-10 shows that the difference in values are not that significant by applying gas
lift or not applying it. This means that no matter how much increased GOR, the
production rate will not be affected by applying gas lift.
Table 7-11 Production Profile Natural Flow vs. Gas Lift Injection (Wellhead)
Tubing
ID (inch)
2.375
2.875
3.500
4.500
5.563
6.625
200
250
300
350
400
200
250
300
350
400
500
1701
2026
2237
2335
2242
1738
1515
1747
1948
1948
1520
N/A
1309
1494
1531
1556
1515
N/A
1071
1200
1195
N/A
N/A
N/A
798
870
643
N/A
N/A
N/A
1863
2198
2388
2575
2399
1901
1685
1908
2100
2189
1684
1519
1456
1565
1669
1789
1673
1600
1201
1352
1487
1499
N/A
N/A
904
999
643
600
N/A
N/A
763
798
620
N/A
N/A
N/A
Table 7-11 show that, there is an increase in production rate as gas lift injection method
is used. On the other hand, using high value of wellhead pressure is resulting in a
decrease in the production rate whereby the occurrence of a flow back will take a place.
In conclusion, it can be said that the production of GM is not effected by the GOR as
long as we have the safe and well-equipped surface facilities that can handle the oil
and gas produced.
128
The temperature at which wax will crystallize and appears from crude oil
Hot oiling
Solvent flushing
Chemical treatment
As for this particular field, the most recommended procedure is maintaining the crude
oil temperature below the wax crystallization point throughout the use of wax
inhibitor. The use of insulated tubing is also recommended to control thermally. Since
there is no data available for wax formation, it is suggested to run a lab test to study
the potential of wax deposition on this field. If there are potential for wax formation,
a good early measure to prevent it is by injecting points for poor point dispersant (PPD)
129
and wax dispersant at the production header and pipeline launcher. Having a good wax
management will control the wax problem effectively.
7.4.4. Scale Formation
Scale is an assemblage of deposits that cake perforations, casing, production tubing,
pumps, valves and downhole completion equipment. Scale will clog the wellbore and
preventing fluid flow. It can be deposited all along water paths from injectors through
the reservoir to surface equipment.
7.4.5. Scale Mechanism
As the water inside the well experiences changes in temperature or pressure during
production, the system will shift the equilibrium order to combat these changes. This
shift can bring the system from the stable to the metastable and labile thus scale can
be formed. Scale is usually a mineral compound consisting mainly calcium carbonate,
magnesium carbonate or calcium-sulphate.
As there is no formation water sample available for Gelama Merah field, thus it is
recommended to obtain a sample for analysis to be conducted.
7.4.6. Scale Removal and Control
One method to determine the blockage is scale is to test the material using hydrochloric
acid. If there is no reaction, it is possible that the blockage was not caused by scales.
The best scale removal technique depends on the type of scale, quantity and its
physical composition. It must be quick, non-damaging to the wellbore, tubing or
formation environment also effective at preventing re-precipitation. Several type of
scale removal and control for this field includes:
130
131
field so that it can within such harsh environment every year. However, Since the
production of Gelama Merah lasts for 20 years and therefore renting is not economical
feasible. So, buying a jack-up platform is more economical and it will act as a master
platform for the field. Then, jack-up platform will be towed to the location from the
shore and be installed at the targeted spot. Pipelines will be connected from each well
with manifold and be sent to master platform for proper separation process.
Next, separated oil from gas or water will be sent to Sabah onshore for further
processing for higher market values.
8.2. Design Feature and Basis
8.2.1. Facilities Design Concept
A platform should be designed to accommodate all necessary equipment like
separators, pumps, blow out preventer and so on. Apart from that, the actual life of a
designed platform should be longer than the expected producing life which is 20 years
for Gelama Merah field due to harsh environment during those monsoon seasons. The
reservoir is 43 kilometres away from Labuan in the North West direction ad 130
kilometres away from Kota Kinabalu in the direction of West. On the other hand, the
depth of the sea water is approximately 50 meters. There are fourteen oil producing
wells and six water injector according to the field development plan and they are all
vertical wells.
Table 8-1 Field Oil Production Of GM Field
Date
01-02-2016
01-01-2017
01-01-2018
01-01-2019
01-01-2020
01-01-2021
01-01-2022
01-01-2023
01-01-2024
01-01-2025
01-01-2026
Date
01-01-2027
01-01-2028
01-01-2029
01-01-2030
01-01-2031
01-01-2032
01-01-2033
01-01-2034
01-01-2035
01-01-2036
133
Value
23.7
155
2116 psia
1.337 CP
0.27 %
140 mD
1276 ft
0.56
Option 3: Production via MOPU + tie-in to Samarang-B CPP (15 km) and +
flow line to Labuan Crude Oil Onshore Terminal (75 km)
135
7
6
5
4
1
1. Crane
2. Utilities & Storage
- Drain system
3. Process Area
- Separators
- Injection Facilities
- Compressors & Pump
4. Wellhead and
Manifolds
- Pipelines tie in few
wells together
- Christmas trees are
located on the sea bed
5. Living Quarters
6. Helipad
7. Flare Boom
136
as rough surface pipelines is discouraging as it will cause the fluid flow to lose energy
and because fluid cannot be sent to designated location.
8.3.2. Wellhead
Wellhead is usually installed on top of the derrick floor. It provides a seal for the casing
string up to the surface and blow out preventer is usually installed on top of that.
8.3.3. Phase Separator
Separators are usually placed at the platform in order to separate oil from unwanted
gas and water. After that, dry oil will be sent to refinery for further separating for a
higher market value through pipelines or tankship.
8.3.4. Water Injection
Water injection is used as secondary recovery process in order to improve oil recovery
efficiency. It can be achieved by re- injecting back produced water into the reservoir.
8.3.5. Gas Handling
Produced gas is usually not for sales as the quantity is usually inconsistent. These
produced gas will be sent to flare or gas lift. However, produced gas is usually wet so
it needs to send for dehydration before sending for gas lift.
8.3.6. Gas Lift Surface Facilities
After 8 years of production, gas lift method is expected to be used in Gelama Merah
field Side pocket mandrel with dummy valve is installed at the beginning of
production. Thus, provision of space at the topside should be made for future
implementation.
8.3.7. Electrical Power and Lightings
Electrical power is very important for a platform as there are hundreds of crew on
board. Without proper lightings, injuries might happen. Apart from that, electrical
power is required to run those pumps, separators and so on. Next, lightings are also
important to prevent ships or foreign vehicles to hit on the platform and cause
unnecessary problems.
137
138
139
Samarang Field
LCOT
The scope of work required for tie-in Gelama Merah master platform includes:
1. Connected pipeline and other modification on the existing facilities.
2. Installation of riser (launcher/receiver).
3. Structure strengthening based on platform upgrading.
4. Deck extension at cellar due to accommodate riser.
SMP-B CPP
GM-MP
Labuan
Crude Oil
Terminal
75km pipeline to shore
17km pipeline
GM wells
SMP-B Wells
140
The range of centrifugal pump discharge velocity is 6 to 9 ft/s based on the API RP
14E. Since the average daily flow rate is 2500 stb/day for a well, the equation is shown
in Equation 8-1.
=
Where:
0.012
2
Equation 8-1
Taking the minimum liquid flow capacity with a flow rate of 2500 stb/day for 20 wells:
6 =
0.012(2500 20)
2
= 10
Therefore, a 10-inch pipe size is recommended to be used to transport crude oil from
Master Platform of Gelama Merah to Samarang-B platform.
141
This section is critical for its cost can be optimized through designing the pipeline
route. There are several options to process the fluid produced which are:
The master platform will tie-in with SMP_B for storage and transportation.
This one is very recommended as it is the most economical option
The crude oil from SMP-B will be transferred to Labuan Crude Oil Terminal
on shore to be further processed.
The crude oil is transferred to the master platform and FPSO will be used to
load out every three months. However, FPSO is very costly to rent for 20 years
of production.
As for the producing gas, a pipeline is suggested from master platform to SMPB platform.
8.5.2.3. Geohazard Analysis
In order to predict the level of ground motion that might occur at Gelama Merah field,
seismic hazard assessment need to be done. By determining the level of vibratory
ground motion, seismic hazard could be assessed based on probabilistic
considerations.
The system includes the structure that should be design complying the regulatory
design criteria as follows:
142
Avoid excessive bending stress from the uniform and concentrated loads
between supports
The maximum span of Gelama Merah can be determined using the following
equations.
i.
143
Equation 8-2
Where:
ii.
Maximum Deflection:
Where:
iii.
(54 + 8 3 )
384
iv.
Equation 8-4
Weight of pipe:
=
Where:
v.
Equation 8-3
2( + )
Equation 8-5
144
Equation 8-6
The maximum support system to transport water htorugh a stainless steel pipe
(ASTM A 312 TP 316L) of 300 NPS for 17km distance from Gelama Merah
Master Platform to Samarang-B is calculated.
Given,
D = 0.3239 m
P = 20 bar
145
Pressure surges Pig action combined with pressure surges. To release the
deposited solids, a discontinue release of pressure courses at sonic condition is
introduced to the pipeline.
Oil or solvent injection By using cold oil with cold seeding equipment, recirculate current of cold oil or solvent down the pipeline.
Wax eater Enters the oil in loop which the external temperature is below wax
appearance temperature (WAT) to encourage the build-up wax and cool the oil
to seabed temperature (Mohammed Al-Yaari, 2011).
Crystals modifiers Wax crystal modifiers are believed to interfere with the
crystal growth and agglomeration process thus reduce paraffin wax deposition
Slugging can happen in flowline or riser system that is formed by operational changes
or by the flow conditions and physical characteristic of flow line. This may result in
large oil and gas production losses at production platform. Slugging may lead to
unstable operation of topside facilities due to high-level trips in separators. Therefore,
slug suppression system provides a reliable solution to the slugging problem.
One method to avoid the slugging problem in Gelama Merah field is to install a large
slug catcher or topside choking. They are placed at the upstream of the production
separator and maintains an acceptable liquid level in the production separator
(Kovalev, Cruickshank, & Purvis, 2003).
146
147
148
2. Level 3 Shutdown
This level affects section of high pressure injection pump, turbo generator, gas
compressor and a separator train by shutting down a complete process section.
This level can be initiated automatically by designated process signal or
manually from the control room.
3. Level 2 Shutdown
This level compromises a complete process plant shutdown which can be
initiated automatically or manually. This shutdown level affects separation
system, wellhead lines and also compressors.
4. Level 1 Shutdown
Within a complete process area, this is the highest level of shutdown. It closes
down all of the process system along with utilities and life support systems
during emergency. This level resulted in complete process depressurization.
5. Level 0 Shutdown
This is the total field emergency depressurized shutdown and only can be
initiated manually by a hard wired pushbutton. All the power sources will be
cut off if gas is detected within this period of time.
8.7.2. Life Saving Appliances
Lifeboats, life rafts and fast rescue boats are located outside the hazardous area. The
number of these boats is sufficient for a capacity of the total number of persons on
board. Immersion suits and life jackets is stored on board and readily available in the
living quarters. Immersion suits equivalent to 50% of lifeboat capacity at the lifeboat
station. The number of life jackets must be twice the number of people on board.
Lifebuoys must be readily in accessible places on the platform. At least 8 lifebuoys
need to be carried. Additional life-saving appliances includes emergency ladders
extending from the deck to the pontoon, one line-throwing appliances and rocket
parachute flares (NorwegianMaritimeAuthority, 2007).
149
150
The health safety and environment should take a major role in the operation
and maintenance plan by considering the personal protected equipment and the
area surrounding the operation field, besides the reliability of the surface and
subsurface equipment for hydrocarbon production.
The equipment that is going to be used for the operation stage must be checked
and tested in order to satisfy the maintenance requirement.
8.8.2. Operation Philosophy
Health safety and environment and the expenditure costs are the base factors of
production for the purpose of transferring the oil produced from Gelama Merah to
Samarang-B platform. The Samarang-B platform is designed and well-equipped based
on the full time working environment per day and workers mobility in the platform.
The transportation availability for the crew workers will be via helicopter or boats if
the sea condition is calm.
8.8.3. Pipeline Operation Philosophy
It is operation of connecting or transferring the crude oil produced from the reservoir
to the Samarang-B platform and all other platforms related to that.
8.8.4. Process Control
There are some factors that need to be taken into consideration in order for the
operation to be controlled and maintained:
151
The production rate, temperature and pressure distribution must be wellcontrolled and exported.
The main purpose of doing maintenance is to make sure that the function of all
equipment is in well condition as well as to reduce the danger and cost in case of any
equipment is damaged, which that may lead to many other issues. There are some
factors must be considering when it comes to the maintenance of the designing phase
such as:
Six sigma improvement plan for existing or new process development (DMAIC),
(DMADV) which is Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control for existing
process and Define, Measure, Analyze, Design and Verify and a new development
process. The six sigma process improve the quality maintenance and improve the
equipment function as well as reducing the production cost damage.
152
Components
Topside/FPSO
Jacket/Tanker
Offshore Pipeline
Topside
Decommissioning
Jacket
Decommissioning
Pipeline
Decommissioning
Methods
Option 1 Mil USD Option 2 Mil USD Option 3 Mil USD
($)
($)
($)
50.71
133.82
44.33
17.88
27.40
110.75
14.64
44.20
52.10
8.28
11.48
8.40
9.85
9.93
6.0
10.09
9.75
153
Topside
Jacket
Tanker
Total
Chemical Suppliers
Fuel
Supply boats
Total Estimated
OPEX
Operating Cost
Option 1 Mil
Option 2 Mil
USD ($)
USD ($)
Platform Maintenance
0.45
1.35
1.05
2.18
0
0
Pipeline Maintenance
0.43
1.60
Logistics
0.077
0.077
0.010
0.005
2.227
2.227
2.244
7.439
154
Option 3 Mil
USD ($)
0.50
0
2.77
1.70
0.77
0.60
1.73
8.07
155
Days
Cumulative
(Days)
5.0
5.00
1.0
2.0
1.5
9.5
2.0
11.5
6.0
17.5
2.0
19.5
0.5
13.0
10.0
2.0
20.0
33
43
45
45 days
To complete drilling as soon as possible and begin first oil production, 20 jack-up rigs
will be used to drill 14 producer wells and 6 injector wells at the same time. Following
the proposed schedule, drilling work should be completed within 2 months. Thus, the
first oil shall be produced 24 months later.
156
South-West Monsoon
(Not Affected)
Apr
May Jun
Jul Aug Sep Oct
Safe Drilling Operation (7 months)
North-East
Monsoon
(Affected)
Nov Dec
The nearest oil and gas hub to Gelama Merah field is located at Labuan, which is 43
km away. The jack-up rig is towed from Labuan port to Gelama Merah field using a
towing barge, moving at a maximum speed of 5 knots (9.3 km per hour).
157
START
Set up Rig
Drill
Install
Casing
Perform
CBL
Cement
No
Have all
casings
installed?
Perform
LOT
Yes
Well
Completion
Logging
Perforation
END
Figure 9.1 shows the modus of operandi of the drilling program. The drilling program
begins by commissioning the jack-up rig. It is then followed by drilling a hole and
running in conductor casing. Cement is the pumped and allowed to settle. A Cement
Bond Log (CBL) is then run to measure the cement integrity followed by leak-off test
(LOT). The procedure to drill using a smaller bit is the repeated to install surface and
production casing. After all casings has been installed, a simple logging is run before
well completion. After well completion, perforation is performed and the well is then
ready to produce.
158
159
35623000
35619500
35616000
35612500
35269500
35273000
35276500
Master Platform
160
Description
Interbedding sandstone, claystone and dolomite
Interbedding claystone and thin sandstone
Interbedding sandstone and claystone
Gelama Merah 1
Oil
42.8 m
Vertical
Depth
140.42
361
21-1/2"
1807
13-3/8"
3123
3340
Tight Spot
3714
3865
3963
4774
5272
9-5/8"
Well Name
Type
Coordinate
Water Depth
(ft-TVDSS) Well Profile
Depth
P1
Oil
35275126.81 Y 35615763.1
42.8 m
Vertical
P2
Oil
35273974.44
Y
42.8 m
Vertical
35615114.3
P3
Oil
35274164.01
Y
42.8 m
Vertical
Well Name
Type
Coordinate
Water Depth
(ft-TVDSS) Well Profile
Depth
35614213.29
140.42
140.42
160
160
720
720
4275-4370
4275-4370
Gas zone
4511-4711
P5
Oil
35274917.02 Y
42.8 m
Vertical
35617373.98
4275-4370
4275-4416
Gas zone
4511-4711
P4
Oil
35274719.16 Y 35618987.58
42.8 m
Vertical
P6
Oil
35273079
Y
42.8 m
Vertical
35614326.6
Gas zone
Gas zone
4511-4613
4613-4711
5200
Well Name
Type
Coordinate
Water Depth
(ft-TVDSS) Well Profile
Depth
P7
Oil
35270391.71 Y 35620210.66
42.8 m
Vertical
P8
Oil
35275100.22 Y
42.8 m
Vertical
35614577.07
P9
Oil
35276192.52 Y
42.8 m
Vertical
35615558.41
Well Name
Type
Coordinate
Water Depth
(ft-TVDSS) Well Profile
Depth
P10
Oil
35271751.02 Y
42.8 m
Vertical
35617442.2
P11
Oil
35275864.19 Y
42.8 m
Vertical
35617506.55
P12
Oil
35270544.44 Y
42.8 m
Vertical
35619199.9
Well Name
Type
Coordinate
Water Depth
(ft-TVDSS) Well Profile
Depth
140.42
140.42
140.42
160
160
160
720
720
720
4275-4370
P13
Oil
35273664.9
Y 35616768.43
42.8 m
Vertical
4469-4613
P14
Oil
35276112.32 Y
42.8 m
Vertical
4469-4511
4511-4612
5200
162
35614849.65
Gas zone
Gas zone
Gas zone
4511-4711
4275-4416
4275-4370
4275-4370
Gas zone
5200
5200
Casing Point
(ft-TVDSS)
160.00
720.00
5200.00
163
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
0.00
1000.00
2000.00
3000.00
4000.00
5000.00
6000.00
Pore Gradient
Kick Margin
Trip Margin
Fracture Gradient
EMW
Casing Point
164
18.00
In the case for water injection well, the recommended tubing size for offshore based
on Bellarby (2009) was found to be 7 inch. Thus, the hole and casing size for water
injector well is designed and shown in Table 9-7. The casing point selection is the
same as producing well, as shown in Figure 9.6 and Figure 9.7.
Table 9-7 Hole and Casing Size for Water Injector Well
Depth (ft-TVDSS)
0 160
160 720
720 5200
Figure 9.7 Casing Schematic for Producer (Left) and Injector (Right)
165
The length of drill collar (DC) is assumed to be 800 ft. As for the drill pipe (DP) geometry, it is desirable that the DP size is smaller than the DC
outer diameter (OD). Thus, the well architecture for oil producer is as shown in Table 9-9.
Table 9-9 Well Architecture for Oil Producer
Hole Size
(inch)
10 5/8
8
6
Casing
ID
(inch)
9.001
6.456
4
Producer Well
Drill Pipe
Drill Collar
OD
ID
OD
ID
8
3
6
2
3-
2.764
4-
2-
Length (ft)
166
DP
DC
DC/OH
DP/OH
DP/C
DC/C
4400
160
720
800
160
720
800
3680
720
160
-
Casing
ID
(inch)
19.124
12.715
8.755
Producer Well
Drill Pipe
Drill Collar
OD
ID
OD
ID
8
3
8
3
5
4.276
8
3
Length (ft)
DP
DC
DC/OH
DP/OH
DP/C
DC/C
4400
160
720
800
160
720
800
3680
720
160
-
167
The properties of all the DP and DC chosen for producer and water injector well are displayed in Table 9-11 and Table 9-12 respectively.
Table 9-11 Properties of DP and DC for Producer Well
Properties
OD / ID
Weight/foot
Grade
Burst Rating
Collapse Rating
Tensile Strength
Length
Check for tension
Total Weight
Weight-On-Bit, WOB
168
169
5200 ft
720 ft
0.052 13.76 = 0.72 /
13.6 ppg
500 + [0.052 13.6 5200] = 4177.44
0.9 720 = 648
2720 (0.052 13.6 720) = 2210.8
The calculation of kick tolerance is based on three steps. They are shown below:
Step A: Calculating the influx height;
170
2210.8 500
= 3373.06
0.052(13.6) 0.2
Since the drill collar is 800 ft, the drill pipe length is 2573.06 ft.
800 = 10.44
2573.06 = 59.36
bbls
= 77.82
ft
By comparing the lower value of Step A and Step C, the kick tolerance is found to be
12.07 barrels.
For injector, the total influx volume is 379.48 bbl. As for the downhole condition based
on Boyles law, the value is 63.57 bbl. Thus, the kick tolerance for water injector well
is 63.57 barrels.
171
Burst Design
Cement
Burst
Density
Load
(ppg)
(psi)
132
592
15.8
4272
Burst Rating
(psi)
(S.F. = 1.1)
145
651
4700
172
Assumptions
The hydrostatic
pressure due to
the cement
filling up the
annulus column
Collapse Design
Cement Collapse
Density
Load
(ppg)
(psi)
12.6
105
592
15.8
4272
Collapse
Rating (psi)
(S.F. = 1.125)
118
666
4806
1
(
)
. .
Equation 9-1
Casing
Grade
OD
(in)
ID
(in)
Conductor
H-40
32.3
lbm/ft
9.625
9.001
Burst Design
Casing Actual
Burst
Burst
Rating Rating
(psi)
(psi)
2270
173
145
Collapse Design
Casing
Actual
Collapse Collapse
Rating
Rating
(psi)
(psi)
1370
118
H-40
20 lbm/ft
L-80
Production
11.6
lbm/ft
Surface
7.000
6.456
2720
651
1970
666
4.500
4.000
7780
4700
6350
4807
Table 9-18 shows the casing material chosen for designing all the three casings for
water injector well.
Table 9-18 Casing Material for Water Injector Well
Casing
Grade
OD
(in)
Burst Design
Casing Actual
Burst
Burst
Rating Rating
(psi)
(psi)
ID
(in)
H-40
Conductor
94
20.000 19.124
lbm/ft
H-40
Surface
48
13.375 12.715
lbm/ft
HCL-80
Production
43.5
9.625 8.755
lbm/ft
Collapse Design
Casing
Actual
Collapse Collapse
Rating
Rating
(psi)
(psi)
1530
145
520
118
1730
651
740
666
6330
4700
5600
4807
Description
Interbedding sandstone, claystone and dolomite
Interbedding claystone and thin sandstone
Interbedding sandstone and claystone
formations is Polycrystalline Diamond Compact (PDC) bit. The same type of bit shall
be applied for all three hole sizes using different bit sizes.
The consideration of the bit selection includes the following parameter:
1. Average bit cost in the market.
2. Depth interval of the oil zone.
3. Average Rate of Penetration for respective lithology. In Gelama Merah field,
the main lithology is sandstone, claystone and dolomite (quartzite trace and
calciferous trace). It can also be based on common performance schedule
proposed by any drilling contractors such as Schlumberger Ltd.
4. Cost per foot is the reference parameter to screen economical bits.
Table 9-20 Drill Bit Economic Analysis
Bit Type
Bit Cost
($)
8,500
15,000
Footage
(ft)
118.1
118.1
Rt
(hr)
2.36
7.87
Ct
($/ft)
83.3
277.8
PDC
Natural
Diamond
TSP
15,000
118.1
4.72
166.7
Impregnated
15,000
118.1
3.94
138.9
Diamond
Roller Bearing
9,500
118.1
2.95
104.2
Friction Bearing
9,000
118.1
7.87
277.8
Note
Rig Rate = $100,000/Day = $4167/Hour
Trip Time = 1 hr / 1000 ft
ROP
(ft/hr)
50
15
Cost/Foot
($/ft)
74.34
147.9
25
30
135.1
132.8
40
15
83.9
97.1
Based on the economic analysis performed in Table 9-20, PDC bit cost USD 74.34 per
feet and drilling at a rate of 50 ft per hour.
In order to determine the life span of one bit per run, the bit life assumption should be
made. According to the experimental data by Hui Zhang (2013), the rotary speed of
110 rpm has 80 hours of bit life. Also, the float collar is set to be 50ft from the casing
shoe. With this information, the number of bit run can be determined as shown in Table
9-21.
Table 9-21 Number of Bit Run
Section
Conductor
Surface
Production
Drilled Depth
160 ft
720-160+50=610 ft
5200-720+50=4530 ft
Duration
3.2 hours
12.2 hours
90.6 hours
Thus, 4 bit runs are required to drill the producer and injector wells.
175
10.88
9 5/8
11
23
17.5
20
20 3/4
33 3/4
19
Bolt
Bolt Weight
Circle
No
(Lb)
Diameter
19.12 20.12
19
12
680
29 1/2
20
1331
Production
wells
Injection
wells
Top
Flange
Bottom
Flange
Outlet
Size
11
11
2 1/16
13 5/8
20 3/4
2 1/16
26
3/8
25
3/8
13
3/8
12
1/4
C
8
12
1/2
D
10
7/8
13
1/2
Weight
(Lb)
1250
1850
L
4 15/16
4 15/16
4 15/16
Weight (Lb)
80
65
95
5 3/8
4 15/16
120
80
Production
wells
Injection
wells
Top
Flange
Bottom
Flange
Outlet
Size
7 1/16
11
2 1/16
11
11
2 1/16
Weight
(Lb)
25
1/8
26
3/8
11
3/4
13
3/8
6
7/16
850
10
7/8
1300
Tubing Size
2 7/8
7
Top Flange
7 1/16
11
Weight (Lb)
65
65
Top Flange
2 9/16
4 1/16
Bottom Flange
7 1/16
11
Weight (Lb)
300
1300
Figure 9.9 Diagram of Casing Head, Casing Spool, and Casing Hanger
Figure 9.10 Diagram of Tubing Head, Tubing Hanger and Tubing Head
Adapter
177
179
pounds in 100 barrels of water. That will cost around 90 USD (KCl of 282 USD per
metric ton). Meanwhile, the partially hydrolysed acrylamide polymer will cost roughly
about USD 25 per barrel.
Table 9-28 Drilling Fluid Parameters
Casing
Conductor
Surface
160 720
Production
720 1814
Production
1814-5200
Mud design
Mud density (ppg)
Seawater
+
High
10.8
viscosity sweeps
Seawater
+
High
11.9
viscosity sweeps
Seawater
+
High
13.0
viscosity sweeps
Seawater
+
High
13.0
viscosity sweeps + KCL
+ PHPA
The mud design throughout the entire drilling operations shall meet the following
requirements:
1. Viscosity: between 55 to 70
2. Filtration: less than 13.5 cc
3. Percentage of Sand: less than 2.5% (using No. 200 sieve)
4. pH: between 8.0 to 9.5
181
Equation 9-2
2. The maximum flowrate is the upper limit of the laminar flow where the drilling
fluid goes into turbulent flow around the drill collars.
3. The maximum allowable pump flowrate is set to be 3,000 psi.
4. Three nozzles are used.
5. The discharge coefficient of the bit is 95%.
6. Surface connection type 1 is selected.
182
Pressure Loss(psi)
y = 0.3537x1.5694
R = 0.9998
y = 0.0299x1.7592
R = 1
y = 0.0046x1.7849
R = 1
1,000
100
100
1000
Flowrate, Q (gpm)
conductor
surface
production
Figure 9.13 Log-Log Graph of Pressure Loss vs. Flowrate for Producing Well
Conductor 1.7849
Surface
1.7592
Production 1.5694
(gpm) (gpm)
410
296
177
815
683
379
,
(psi)
,
(psi)
(gpm)
1585
1596
1681
1415
1404
1319
1265
487
220
Nozzle
Size
(inch)
22/32
14/32
10/32
Figure 9.13 shows the log-log graph of pressure loss versus flowrate for producing
well, and the hydraulics optimization for every sections are calculated as shown in
Table 9-29.
183
100,000
y = 0.0191x1.7805
R = 1
10,000
y = 0.0084x1.7992
R = 1
y = 0.0041x1.8
R = 1
1,000
500
5000
Flowrate, Q (gpm)
conductor
surface
production
Figure 9.14 Log-Log Graph of Pressure Loss vs. Flowrate for Injector Well
(gpm)
(gpm)
,
(psi)
,
(psi)
(gpm)
Conductor
Surface
Production
1.8000
1.7992
1.7805
1530
855
506
4150
2593
1409
1579
1579
1587
1421
1421
1413
1263
854
578
Nozzle
Size
(inch)
22/32
18/32
15/32
Figure 9.14 shows the log-log graph of pressure loss versus flowrate for producing
well, and the hydraulics optimization for every sections are calculated as shown in
Table 9-30.
184
9.7. Cementing
The cement class chosen for cementing job is Class G. Class G is intended for the use
as a basic cement from surface down to a maximum depth of 8,000 ft, covering wide
range of depths and temperatures. In this well, no sulphur is detected, thus, there is no
need for sulphate-resistant additives.
Table 9-32 shows the proposed cement design and Table 9-34 and Table 9-35 shows
the cement volume required based on the cement density. While planning for the
cementing phase, the following assumptions are taken into consideration:
1. Based on PETRONAS Procedures and Guidelines for Upstream Activities 3.0
(PPGUA 3.0), the conductor casing and surface casing shall be cemented up to
the surface. The production casing shall be cemented up to one third of its
casing length.
2. Based on PPGUA 3.0, the excess factor for cementing based on the casing is
listed in Table 9-31.
Table 9-31 Cement Excess Factor
Casing
Conductor
Surface
Production
Excess Factor
50%
30%
10%
3. The cement density shall not be higher than the fracture gradient, to avoid
fracturing the formation.
4. One sack of cement is equivalent to 94 lbm.
5. Depth of float collar to casing shoe is 50 ft.
185
The composition of all the cement slurry with its specific function is listed in Table
9-32.
Table 9-32 Cement Composition
Conductor and
Production
Surface Casing
Casing
Lead
Tail
Description
Tail Slurry
Slurry
Slurry
12.6 ppg 15.8 ppg
15.8 ppg
SW
Seawater
D47
Liquid antifoam agent
D75
Silicate for low water
D80
Liquid dispersant
D110
Cement Retarders lignin derivatives
Fluid loss additive and gas migration control
D168
additive
Latex liquid to improve cement bond to pipe
D600G
and formation, with low fluid loss grout
cementing
Cement
Slurry
Lead
Tail
Lead
Tail
Tail
Density
12.6 ppg
15.8 ppg
12.6 ppg
15.8 ppg
15.8 ppg
Grade
186
Mix Water
307.21 bbl
96.46 bbl
307.21 bbl
96.46 bbl
60 bbl
Yield
2.17 3 /
1.19 3 /
2.17 3 /
1.19 3 /
1.18 3 /
Table 9-34 shows that one oil producing well requires 220 sacks of cements. A total of 14 producer requires 2800 sacks. As for Table 9-35, one
water injector well requires 1032 sacks of cement. Similarly, a total of 6 water injector well requires 6192 sacks of cement. In total, all 20 wells
require 8992 sacks of cements.
After primary cementing, it is required that Cement Bond Log (CBL) to be run to ensure the cement is firm and strong. If poor cementing is
detected, it is compulsory to perform remedial cementing.
187
From the Final Well Report, it was reported that the formation of Gelama
Merah consist of unconsolidated formation which may lead to fracture
formation or sand production in the production stage, thus using cased hole
completion may support the formation and prevent it from fracture or collapse,
besides controlling the sand production problem.
188
189
Remark
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
The tubing size of 2.875 is the considerable size for the tubing string as it
achieved the target performance.
In order to prevent the internal and external corrosion blast joint and flow
compelling is always recommended to be chosen. Besides, XN-Nipple and XNipple. Nipple is functioned to ease the future well intervention campaign
while XN Nipple is installed to prevent any wireline tools from dropping off
the string (Halliburton).
Christmas tree
Piece Christmas tree (as shown in Figure 9.15) is recommended to be install in all
production wells which it has its own standard specification of API 6A, where it has
the lower and upper master valves, beside the king and wing valves and on the top of
it the tubing pressure gage. Lastly, the surface chock valve connected with a flow line.
BHP (psia)
BHT (F)
Content
(%)
2151
155
1.15
Partial
Pressure
(psia)
25
Content
(%)
0
Partial
Pressure
(psia)
0
According to Table 9-37, it can clearly identify that based on the number of percentage
of the gases given must be meet in order for the material to be reliable and withstand
all the external factors affecting it. The specified needed materials can be found or
provided by the API standard which is considering the chemical, physical and
mechanical properties where some important factors are considered such as yield
strength and tensile strength.
Precautions on 2 must be taken into account even though Table 9-37 indicates the
absence of it, the materials grade needed for that is L-80 grade. 13-Cr alloy is the
recommended material for the water injection well to prevent corrosion.
191
Considering the water depth of 42.8 m (140 ft), Jacket Rig and Jack-up Rig are
feasible. Because of excessive cost, semi-submersible and drill ship are not desired at
shallow water. Jack-up rig is the most preferred option due to its relatively low cost
and portability. It can be towed to location with its legs elevated. Some of the key
advantages of jack-up rig are low cost, stable platform, and availability.
formation with no return to surface. If drilling continues during total lost circulation,
it is referred to as blind drilling.
193
contamination can result from overtreatment of the mud system with additives or from
material entering the mud during drilling.
9.10.6. Hole Cleaning
Hole cleaning is a serious problem in directional drilling. Though directional wells are
not chosen for this field, hole cleaning can always create various problems. Inadequate
hole cleaning can lead to costly drilling problems such as mechanical pipe sticking,
premature bit wear, slow drilling, formation fracturing, excessive torque and drag on
drill string, difficulties in logging and cementing, and difficulties in casings landing.
The most prevalent problem is excessive torque and drag, which often leads to the
inability of reaching the target in high-angle/extended-reach drilling.
9.10.7. Cementing/ Gas Migration
Presence of a large gas cap may cause problems wherein the potential problem in
obtaining good cement bond due to gas migration. Good cementation technique and
cement recipe will be developed to overcome this problem and achieve good cement
strength. The composition of cement slurries will be studied carefully to combat this
problem.
9.10.8. Occupational Safety
The potential worker safety risks include those associated with standard construction
operations. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements
must be reviewed. All drilling methods involve high noise level and hazards associated
with drilling near overhead or subsurface power lines or utilities.
194
Component
Rig Costs
Surface Equipment Type 1
3.5" Drill Pipe
8" Drill Collar
6-1/4" Drill Collar
4-3/4" Drill Collar
9-5/8" Casing
7" Casing
4-1/2" Casing
10-5/8" PDC Drill Bit
8-1/2" PDC Drill Bit
6" PDC Drill Bit
Cementing
10.8 ppg Drilling Fluid
11.8 ppg Drilling Fluid
13.6 Drilling Fluids
LWD
MWD
Mud Motor
Solid Control Equipment
Fishing
Remedial Works
Micellaneous
Wellhead
Blow-Out Preventer (BOP)
Wet Christmas Tree
Tubing
Packer
Perforation Gun
Completion Treatment
TOTAL
Drilling Operation
Unit
Cost Per Unit
45 days
USD 100,000
1 set
USD 50,000
5200 ft
USD 70
160 ft
USD 120
720 ft
USD 110
800 ft
USD 100
160 ft
USD 80
720 ft
USD 75
5200 ft
USD 70
1 unit
USD 175,000
1 unit
USD 175,000
2 units
USD 175,000
1032 sacks
USD 10
340 barrel
USD 35
10900 barrel
USD 40
39300 barrel
USD 45
set of basic
1
USD 1,000,000
evaluation
set of basic
1
USD 1,000,000
evaluation
3 unit
USD 50,000
1 set
USD 150,000
1 set
USD 50,000
1 set
USD 50,000
1 set
USD 1,000,000
Well Completion Operation
1 set
USD 450,000
1 set
USD 200,000
1 set
USD 200,000
5200 ft
USD 75
1 unit
USD 18,000
1 unit
USD 10,000
60 barrel
USD 12
Total Cost
USD 4,500,000
USD 50,000
USD 364,000
USD 19,200
USD 79,200
USD 80,000
USD 12,800
USD 54,000
USD 364,000
USD 175,000
USD 175,000
USD 350,000
USD 10,320
USD 11,900
USD 436,000
USD 1,768,500
USD 1,000,000
USD 1,000,000
USD 150,000
USD 150,000
USD 50,000
USD 50,000
USD 1,000,000
USD 450,000
USD 200,000
USD 200,000
USD 390,000
USD 18,000
USD 10,000
USD 720
USD 13,118,640
Based on Table 9-39, the cost of one producing well is USD 13.1 million. With 14
producing well, the total cost would sum up to USD 183.7 million.
195
Component
Rig Costs
Surface Equipment Type 1
5" Drill Pipe
8" Drill Collar
20" Casing
13-3/8" Casing
9-5/8" Casing
26" PDC Drill Bit
17-1/2" PDC Drill Bit
12-1/4" PDC Drill Bit
Cementing
10.8 ppg Drilling Fluid
11.8 ppg Drilling Fluid
13.6 Drilling Fluids
LWD
MWD
Mud Motor
Solid Control Equipment
Fishing
Remedial Works
Micellaneous
Wellhead
Blow-Out Preventer (BOP)
Wet Christmas Tree
Tubing
Packer
Perforation Gun
Completion Treatment
Drilling Operation
Unit
Cost Per Unit
45 days
USD 100,000
1 set
USD 50,000
5200 ft
USD 70
800 ft
USD 120
160 ft
USD 90
720 ft
USD 85
5200 ft
USD 80
1 unit
USD 175,000
1 unit
USD 175,000
2 units
USD 175,000
6192 sacks
USD 10
22700 barrel
USD 35
46300 barrel
USD 40
163700 barrel
USD 45
set of basic
1
USD 1,000,000
evaluation
set of basic
1
USD 1,000,000
evaluation
3 unit
USD 50,000
1 set
USD 150,000
1 set
USD 50,000
1 set
USD 50,000
1 set
USD 1,000,000
Well Completion Operation
1
1
1
5200
1
1
60
set
set
set
ft
unit
unit
barrel
USD 450,000
USD 200,000
USD 200,000
USD 75
USD 18,000
USD 10,000
USD 12
TOTAL
Total Cost
USD 4,500,000
USD 50,000
USD 364,000
USD 96,000
USD 14,400
USD 61,200
USD 416,000
USD 175,000
USD 175,000
USD 350,000
USD 61,920
USD 794,500
USD 1,852,000
USD 7,366,500
USD 1,000,000
USD 1,000,000
USD 150,000
USD 150,000
USD 50,000
USD 50,000
USD 1,000,000
USD 450,000
USD 200,000
USD 200,000
USD 390,000
USD 18,000
USD 10,000
USD 720
USD 20,945,240
Based on Table 9-40, the cost of one injector well is USD 20.9 million. With 6 injectors
well, the total cost would sum up to USD 125.7 million.
196
severity of up to 50 can access and produce pockets of oil in the reservoir. However,
coiled tubing having small diameter limits the hydraulics circulating, in which the hole
cleaning capability is limited.
9.12.4. Jet-In and Drill Ahead Operation
Jet-in and drill ahead operation is very suited for drilling soft formation with weak soil
strength. Jet-in equipment consist of motor, rotary steerable system (RSS) and casing
running tool. When the drilling operation is equipped with bigger bit size, jet-in is
more effective because it can accommodate more hydraulics. This type of operation is
very suitable for Gelama Merah field because the lithology summary from the offset
well shows soft formation throughout the reservoir.
198
9.13. Abandonment
9.13.1. Introduction
As a certain level of production drop below the targeted production rate, the well will
be required to be stimulated or are subjected to a secondary or perhaps even for a
tertiary recovery options. However, the well will eventually resort to the last option
which is abandonment when the well is no longer determined as economical. This is
where the well is producing below the minimum level of production. In order to
abandon a well, a strict regulatory requirement is obligated to be followed. The
regulatory requirements based on PPGUA are listed as below:
1. All of the producing zones ought to be effectively isolated from each other.
2. Complete isolation of all the producing zones from the sea-bed.
3. Complete isolation of all the potential producing zones either over pressured
or having hydrocarbon from the sea-bed.
substantial amount of void volume has been constituting in the tubing and
tubing or casing annulus.
7. Cement is mix and pump through both the tubing and the tubing or casing
annulus. Nitrogen and top plug is used to displace the below non return
valves sections in the tubing.
8. At this particular stage, the reservoir has been fully permanent sealed with the
respective barriers and cement across the reservoir, non-return valve that acts
as the second barrier in the tubing tailpipe, as well as cement that also acts as
the third barrier in the tubing and tubing or casing annulus that is above the
packer and another non return valve in tubing as the fourth barrier.
9. Run perforating gun to shoot holes through all casing at calculated depth.
This is to allow all the fluids remaining in the respective annuli to flow or
drain into the created void. In further assisting in this draining process as well
as the remaining cementing process, additional hole would help where it will
be perforated just below the sea-bed level.
10. All the higher up annuli and tubing are filled with cement to constitute a
lasting solid steel and cement structure. This might as well ensure there is no
material oozing from any zone of the wellbore into the ocean. Since the well
is totally isolated now from the ocean, there are zero hydrocarbon remaining
and it is safe for the riser to be cut at any desirable depth below the sea level.
200
Bullhead
Cement
using
nitrogen
200ft
Drilling Mud or
Perforate
Completion fluids
Production fluids
Blown
Gel
tailpipe
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Bullhead contents of
Perforate tubing
above packer
non
burst
(barrier/seal
return
(NRV)
Nitrogen
valve
disc
assembly.
plug
for
bullhead contents)
Perforate
Plug is used.
Perforate
if
Mechanical barrier 4
Cement barrier 3
Mechanical barrier 2
Cement barrier 1
Step 7
Step 8
Step 9
Step 10
content
Squeeze of cement
simultaneously of both
(Monitor
tubing annulus
pressure)
Step 6
Bullhead
the
nitrogen
202
Fiscal Terms
Features
Start Date
Duration of Agreement
Exploration Period
Development Period
Abandonment Period
Production Period
Discount Rate
Profit Sharing Ratio
Petroleum Income Tax
1 January 2012
25 years
2 years
2 years
1 year
20 years
10%
60:40
38%
203
Component
Rig Costs
Surface Equipment Type 1
3.5" Drill Pipe
8" Drill Collar
6-1/4" Drill Collar
4-3/4" Drill Collar
9-5/8" Casing
7" Casing
4-1/2" Casing
10-5/8" PDC Drill Bit
8-1/2" PDC Drill Bit
6" PDC Drill Bit
Cementing
10.8 ppg Drilling Fluid
11.8 ppg Drilling Fluid
13.6 Drilling Fluids
LWD
MWD
Mud Motor
Solid Control Equipment
Fishing
Remedial Works
Micellaneous
Wellhead
Blow-Out Preventer (BOP)
Wet Christmas Tree
Tubing
Packer
Perforation Gun
Completion Treatment
TOTAL
Drilling Operation
Unit
Cost Per Unit
45 days
USD 100,000
1 set
USD 50,000
5200 ft
USD 70
160 ft
USD 120
720 ft
USD 110
800 ft
USD 100
160 ft
USD 80
720 ft
USD 75
5200 ft
USD 70
1 unit
USD 175,000
1 unit
USD 175,000
2 units
USD 175,000
1032 sacks
USD 10
340 barrel
USD 35
10900 barrel
USD 40
39300 barrel
USD 45
set of basic
1
USD 1,000,000
evaluation
set of basic
1
USD 1,000,000
evaluation
3 unit
USD 50,000
1 set
USD 150,000
1 set
USD 50,000
1 set
USD 50,000
1 set
USD 1,000,000
Well Completion Operation
1 set
USD 450,000
1 set
USD 200,000
1 set
USD 200,000
5200 ft
USD 75
1 unit
USD 18,000
1 unit
USD 10,000
60 barrel
USD 12
Total Cost
USD 4,500,000
USD 50,000
USD 364,000
USD 19,200
USD 79,200
USD 80,000
USD 12,800
USD 54,000
USD 364,000
USD 175,000
USD 175,000
USD 350,000
USD 10,320
USD 11,900
USD 436,000
USD 1,768,500
USD 1,000,000
USD 1,000,000
USD 150,000
USD 150,000
USD 50,000
USD 50,000
USD 1,000,000
USD 450,000
USD 200,000
USD 200,000
USD 390,000
USD 18,000
USD 10,000
USD 720
USD 13,118,640
Based on Table 10-2, the cost of one producing well is USD 13.1 million. With 14
producing well, the total cost would sum up to USD 183.7 million.
204
Component
Rig Costs
Surface Equipment Type 1
5" Drill Pipe
8" Drill Collar
20" Casing
13-3/8" Casing
9-5/8" Casing
26" PDC Drill Bit
17-1/2" PDC Drill Bit
12-1/4" PDC Drill Bit
Cementing
10.8 ppg Drilling Fluid
11.8 ppg Drilling Fluid
13.6 Drilling Fluids
LWD
MWD
Mud Motor
Solid Control Equipment
Fishing
Remedial Works
Micellaneous
Wellhead
Blow-Out Preventer (BOP)
Wet Christmas Tree
Tubing
Packer
Perforation Gun
Completion Treatment
Drilling Operation
Unit
Cost Per Unit
45 days
USD 100,000
1 set
USD 50,000
5200 ft
USD 70
800 ft
USD 120
160 ft
USD 90
720 ft
USD 85
5200 ft
USD 80
1 unit
USD 175,000
1 unit
USD 175,000
2 units
USD 175,000
6192 sacks
USD 10
22700 barrel
USD 35
46300 barrel
USD 40
163700 barrel
USD 45
set of basic
1
USD 1,000,000
evaluation
set of basic
1
USD 1,000,000
evaluation
3 unit
USD 50,000
1 set
USD 150,000
1 set
USD 50,000
1 set
USD 50,000
1 set
USD 1,000,000
Well Completion Operation
1
1
1
5200
1
1
60
set
set
set
ft
unit
unit
barrel
USD 450,000
USD 200,000
USD 200,000
USD 75
USD 18,000
USD 10,000
USD 12
TOTAL
Total Cost
USD 4,500,000
USD 50,000
USD 364,000
USD 96,000
USD 14,400
USD 61,200
USD 416,000
USD 175,000
USD 175,000
USD 350,000
USD 61,920
USD 794,500
USD 1,852,000
USD 7,366,500
USD 1,000,000
USD 1,000,000
USD 150,000
USD 150,000
USD 50,000
USD 50,000
USD 1,000,000
USD 450,000
USD 200,000
USD 200,000
USD 390,000
USD 18,000
USD 10,000
USD 720
USD 20,945,240
Based on Table 10-3, the cost of one injector well is USD 20.9 million. With 6 injectors
well, the total cost would sum up to USD 125.7 million.
205
Facilities
Topside facilities
Jacket
Pipelines (Producer Well)
Pipelines (Injector Well)
Decommissioning
TOTAL
Master Platform
Cost Per Unit
Unit
(USD)
1 Unit
50,270,000
1 Unit
12,819,000
19.1 km
1,000,000
8.8 km
1,000,000
107,360,000
Total Cost
(USD)
50,270,000
12,819,000
19,100,000
8,800,000
107,360,000
198,349,000
Based on Table 10-4, the cost of one master platform is USD 198.35 million.
10.2.2. OPEX
Table 10-5 OPEX for Entire Operation
OPEX
Component
Rig
Logistics
Helicopter
Pipeline maintenance
Platform maintenance
TOTAL
Unit
50
1
1
1
1
manpower
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
Total Cost
(USD)
150,000
4,558,000
360,000
430,000
1,500,000
6,998,000
Based on Table 10-5, the operating expenditure (OPEX) for the entire operation is
estimated to be USD 7 million annually. Thus, the total OPEX for the 25 years is USD
175 million.
10
14
140
206
Net cash flow profile is tabulated and represented as the spread of the net value of
revenue and expenditures (CAPEX and OPEX) to express the economic indicators in
terms of payback period, maximum capital outlay, terminal cash surplus and most
importantly profit to investment ratio. Figure 10.1 shows the net cash flow profile for
Gelama Merah field. Economic indicators are stated in Table 10-7.
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
-2000
Year
Cumulative Cash Flow
207
5.42 years
USD 507.68 Million
USD 11.360 Billion
22.25
145.48 %
USD 3,461.32 Million
CAPEX
(MM USD)
OPEX (MM
USD)
Oil
Production
(MM BBLS)
Oil Prices
(USD)
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
3,599
3,561
3,525
3,492
3,461
3,432
3,406
3,382
3,360
3,489
3,482
3,475
3,468
3,461
3,454
3,447
3,440
3,433
1,883
2,277
2,672
3,066
3,461
3,855
4,250
4,644
5,039
1,883
2,277
2,672
3,066
3,461
3,855
4,250
4,644
5,039
Spider Plot
NPV (MMUSD)
6000
5000
Capex (MMUSD)
4000
Opex (MMUSD)
3000
2000
Oil Production
(MMBBL)
1000
0
USD 18.9
USD 14.04
(USD 5.33)
USD 27.61 (46%)
Government Share
USD 6
Royalty (10%)
USD 54 (Net Revenue)
Cost Recovery (35%)
USD 35.1 (Remaining)
Profit Split (40:60)
Tax (38%)
Total
USD 21.06
USD 5.33
USD 32.39 (54%)
The contractor company PETRONAS receives USD 27.61 per barrel of oil which is
46% of total revenue whereas the government receives the larger share of USD 32.39
per barrel of oil which is 54%. Considering a cumulative oil production of 200 million
barrels, PETRONAS will receive USD 5.522 billion whereas government will receive
USD 6.478 billion.
10.6. Investment Decision
NPV is calculated using different increasing discounting rates to analyse the feasibility
of investment decision. Positive NPV represents valid investment decision. Project
should be rejected if NPV is negative. Table 10-9 shows the investment decision of
GM field.
Table 10-9 Investment Decision
Discounting Rate (%)
NPV (MMUSD)
Investment Decision
10
3,461.32
20
1,318.56
30
556.68
40
235.60
50
84.97
60
9.56
70
(29.48)
209
confidence in stakeholders that HSE risks in the business are being handled to a level
that is as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP).
11.2.2. Key Principle
There are three (3) key principle regarding PETRONAS HSEMS
1. Business Controls
a. Policy
b. Organization
c. Roles and responsibilities
d. Procedures and processes
e. Activities and tasks
f. Supervision
g. Appraisal and reviews
2. Quality Management Principles
a. Define requirements
b. Prevention
c. Right thing every time
d. Price of Non-conformance
e. Proactive leadership at all level
3. Hazard & Effects Management (Risk Management)
a. Identify hazards
b. Assess the risk
c. Set up controls to reduce risk
d. Plan for recovery and mitigation
211
Exploration drilling
Facilities design
Fabrication/Installation
Onshore
Offshore
Table 11-2 General Guidance for Incident Classification (based on actual impact
of incident) (Extracted from PPGUA 3.0 volume 3)
Class
Minor
Rat.
Impact
People
Asset
Environment
Reputation
Scrutiny
-Slight
injury or
health
effect
-First aid
case
-Slight
damage
-No
disruption
Fire/Explo
sion
causing
less than
USD25K
-Slight effect
-Contained
within
secondary
containment
-Slight
impact
-Public
awareness
exist
-Slight
impact
Trespass
ing
214
of direct
cost
-Minor
injury or
health
effect
-Medical
treatment
, LI of 4
days or
less
-Major
injury or
health
effect
Permane
nt partial
disability
, LTI of
more
than 4
days
Major
4
-Single
fatality
Permane
nt total
disability
-Multiple
fatalities
-Minor
damage
-Brief
disruption,
<2 hours
Fire/Explo
sion
causing
less than
USD25K
of direct
cost
-Local
damage
-Shutdown
of a single
unit
Fire/Explo
sion
causing
USD25K
and more
of direct
cost
-Major
damage
-Shutdown
of multiple
units
Fire/Explo
sion
causing
USD25K
and more
of direct
cost
-Extensive
damage
-Total
facility
shutdown
Fire/Explo
sion
-Minor effect
-Causing
volatilisation
to atmosphere
and limited
contaminatio
n of soil or
water within
the
containment
area
-Limited
impact
-Some local
public
concern
-Minor
impact
-Minor
criminal
case
-Local effect
-Spill
spreading
outside the
secondary
containment
but within
facility
perimeter
Considerabl
e impact
-Regional
public
concern
-Extensive
adverse
attention in
local media
-Major
impact
-Major
criminal
case
resulting
injury
-Arson
-National
-Major effect impact
-Spill
-National
spreading
public
outside
concern
perimeter
-Extensive
causing major adverse
contaminatio attention in
n
national
media
-Serious
impact
-Major
criminal
case
resulting
in single
fatality
Kidnapp
ing
-Massive
effect
-Spill
spreading
outside
perimeter
causing
massive
Extensiv
e impact
-Major
criminal
case
resulting
in
215
International
impact
-Extensive
adverse
attention in
international
media
causing
USD25K
and more
of direct
cost
contaminatio
n
multiple
fatalities
-Bomb
threat
Table 11-3 Incident Notification Table (Extracted from PPGUA 3.0 volume 3)
Notification Period
Incident Classification
Fatality/Lost if Vital Sign
PPD/PTD/LWC/RWC/MTC
Missing Person
Man Overboard
MEDEVAC/BODYVAC
Endemic/Pandemic Disease
Detection of Contagious Disease
Major Fire (Process & Non-Process)
Minor Fire (Process & Non-Process)
Major LOPC
Major Oil & Chemical Spills (>5bbls)
Major Property Damage
High Potential Near Misses
Sighting of Armed Boat
Hijacking
Piracy/Sea robbery
Sighting of foreign submarine/foreign
warship/foreign aircraft
Security Intrusion
No ECC
Activation
With ECC
Activation
Immediate
Within 24 hours
Immediate
Immediate
Within 24 hours
Within 24 hours
Within 24 hours
Immediate
Within 24 hours
Immediate
Immediate
Within 24 hours
Immediate
Immediate
Within 24 hours
Immediate
Immediate
Within 24 hours
Immediate
Immediate
Immediate
Immediate
Within 24 hours
216
217
Take the responsibility to segregate roles for each parties in order to ensure
the agreed objectives of HSE, plans and target can be achieved and to be
submitted to respective managers.
II.
Operations Manager
To ensure the HSE performance of the assets and crew and report it back
to the general manager.
Responsible to assign roles and working tasks for the crew depending on
their respective area of expertise towards ongoing activities in different
platforms.
III.
Project Manager
IV.
V.
HSE Managers
VI.
Head of Departments
To identify and minimized risk that could have for forseeable risk on the
assigned activities.
VII.
Superintendents or Supervisors
To assure all working procedures are competent with his or her area of
expertise and also make sure it is not violating HSE policies.
VIII.
To obey the regulated HSEMS including its policies, objectives and plans.
Committed to take care of own and colleagues health and safety during
operations.
219
The contractors can provide qualified personnel on site and also to practice
effective quality management system (EQM).
220
than that, it is recommended to incorporate health and safety functions with other
management functions.
The recommended procedures for health and safety procedures are as follows:
1. Toolbox meeting prior to any operation
2. Job Safety Analysis (JSA)
3. Offshore Safety Passport System
4. Hazards Effect Registers (HER)
5. Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)
6. PETRONAS Health Risk Assessment
11.7. Environmental Management
Offshore exploration and production contains many complicated procedures and
processes which might have some impacts towards the environment. The impacts
might come from drilling operation, well interventions and also development phase
where there is emission or discharge into the sea or even in atmosphere thus affecting
the local environment ("Management of occupational health risks in the offshore oil
and gas industry,") Several impact assessment and methods in reducing it are discussed
below.
11.7.1. Emission to Air
Several potential impacts that can affect the local atmosphere are:
Flaring
The main purpose or objective for the field oh Gelama Merah is to increase the
hydrocarbon produced from the reservoir as much as it can be produced for a very long
time. To achieve the objective, a strategic development plans must be put by all
assigned engineers (Reservoir, Drilling and Production) as well as geologist which it
was discussed in previous chapters. Moreover, these plans must include the
development of facilities, economic and health safety and environment (HSE).
11.8.1. Reservoir Management
Usually the development of the reservoir plan is set before the production stage.
However, the development includes the followings:
222
Water production.
Pressure maintenance.
223
Green field is the type recognized as Gelama Merah field, and due to that some other
information is to be obtained for the purpose of well-planning the drilling program and
minimize the risk involve the respected operation, some factors were analysed in the
drilling operation such as:
Pre-Planned drilling program in order to reduce the risk and buy time.
Production surveillance
224
The project has to satisfy the international standard for the sake of safety of people,
workers and environment. Reliability and operational integrity are important aspects
for the safety purposes. The importance of applying the quality management system is
always taking into account due to the importance of the time and cost management.
The engineering teams, geologists and contractors must put their hands together in
order to optimize and establish the quality management and by that the risks will be
reduced as well as costs. In addition, the 5 PETRONAS Quality Principles shall always
be practiced in all projects stages.
225
Reserve Estimation
PETREL
610 MMstb
Oil Recovery
Recovery Stage
Method
Primary Recovery
23.79
Secondary Recovery
Water Flooding
32.82
Drilling Engineering
Casing Setting Depth
3 Casings
Drilling Fluid
WBM
8,992 sacks
Economics
22.25
PETRONAS Profit
Government Profit
CHAPTER 3: PETROPHYSICS
The petrophysical parameter is determined and tabulated in chapter 3. This,
information will be filtered using the cutoff properties (shale volume > 33%, porosity
< 4%, and water saturation > 50%). Then, the Net-to-Gross on each unit interval can
be calculated. The zonal determination is classified into High Prove Gas (1330-1494
m), Low Proved Gas (1494-1498 m), High Proved Oil (1498-1510 m), Low Proved
Oil (1510-1524 m), High Proved Water (1524-1548 m), and Low Proved Water (15481600 m). The Gas-Oil contact (GOC) is determined at 1467.5m and the Water-Oil
contact (WOC) is determined at 1507.5m.
CHAPTER 4: VOLUMETRIC CALCULATION
As a result from the calculations done in chapter 4, reserve estimation for deterministic
method is 428.460 MM STB, while probabilistic method gives 510.77 MM STB. On
the other hand, PETREL estimated 610.11 MM STB for oil reserve. As compared to
these methods, the results are close and reserve estimation from PETREL is the most
reliable because calculated porosity, Net to gross ratio and saturation of water for all
layers were introduced into the software to obtain the reserve estimation.
CHAPTER 5 &6: RESERVOIR ENGINEERING and RESERVOIR SIMULATION
Reservoir rocks and fluids data were introduced into the software like permeability,
relative permeability and so on in order to simulate the production of oil over 20 years.
Production of oil for primary recovery was done by using natural depletion method
and the recovery factor is 15.92% from total oil in place. On the other hand, the method
of water injection was chosen for this reservoir due to its highest recovery of 16.10%.
However, there is no application of tertiary recovery process for this reservoir at this
stage yet. Suggested tertiary recovery process is miscible gas flooding and water gas
alternating method. Recommended process is advisable to apply this recommended
method when the operation is economical as operating cost for tertiary recovery
process is usually much higher than others. Rate optimization was done after these
methods and the recovery factor is 32.82%.
CHAPTER 7: PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY
227
receives USD 5.23 billion and Government receives USD 6.13 billion. It was found
that the payback period was 1.42 years after production started.
CHAPTER 11: HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT
PETRONAS has excellent policy on Health, Safety and Environment. It has HSE
Management System (HSEMS) which has three key principles which are business
control, quality management principles and risk management. Every employee has
their own roles and responsibilities towards HSE. The company has planned approach
for quality management and assurance. Through occupational health management, the
company ensures safety of workers. Environmental management which considers
emissions and sustainable development options ensures that the environment is not
affected by company operations.
229
REFERENCES
(OLF), T. (2008). Technical Safety. The Norwegian Oil Industry Association (OLF),
4, 33-40.
Ahmad, T. (2006). Reservoir Engineering Handbook. Burlington, MA, USA: Elsevier
Inc.
Ahmed, T., & McKinney, P. (2011). Advanced reservoir engineering: Gulf
Professional Publishing.
Amao,
M.
(2013).
Artificial
Lift
System.
http://fac.ksu.edu.sa/sites/default/files/3-artificialliftsystems
from
Asquith, G. B., Krygowski, D., & Gibson, C. R. (2004). Basic well log analysis (Vol.
16): American association of petroleum geologists Tulsa.
Bassiouni, Z. (1994). Theory, measurement, and interpretation of well logs.
Bellarby, J. (2009). Well completion design (Vol. 56): Elsevier.
Bjorlykke, K. (2010). Petroleum geoscience: From sedimentary environments to rock
physics: Springer Science & Business Media.
Clear Directional. (2015). Hole Size vs. Casing Size. Retrieved 15 March 2015, from
http://www.cleardirectional.com/holesize.html
Commission, B. O. G. (2015). WELL COMPLETION, MAINTENANCE AND
ABANDONMENT GUIDELINE.
Dawes, R. L. (2011). Introduction to Physical Geology: Basics of Depositional
Environment.
Epgeology.com. (2015). HCIIP Formula : General Discussion - Exploration &
Production Geology.
Retrieved 23 November 2015, from
http://www.epgeology.com/general-discussion-f29/hciip-formula-t5776.html
Glendasmith. (2012). Kicks.
Retrieved 2 April 2016, from
http://petrowiki.org/File%3ADevol2_1102final_Page_199_Image_0002.png
Halliburton. Subsurface Flow Control Systems.
Hamada, G. (1996). An Integrated Approach to Determine Shale Volume and
Hydrocarbon Potential in Shaly Sand. Paper presented at the SCA paper 9548,
presented at SCA Intl. Symposium.
Hamdani, M. T. (2014). Drillstring and BHA Design. Retrieved 3 April 2016, from
http://www.slideshare.net/MTaherHamdani/drillstring-bha-design
Heraiba, F. A., & Rahman, O. A. (1993). Safety and Shutdown Systems for Offshore
Facilities Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Hui Zhang, W. L., Deli Gao, Chen Anming, Liu Jun. (2013). A New Approach to
Predict PDC Bit Life under the Action of Dynamic Load. Paper presented at
the EJGE.
Humg,
M.
N.
(2014).
Production
Engineering.
http://www.slideshare.net/minhnguyen_humg/heriot-watt-universityproduction-technology-ii
230
from
Zainul, A. J. B., Anuar, A., & Ali, A. (1999). The petroleum geology and resources of
Malaysia. In M. B. H. Madon, L. K. Meng & A. Anuar (Eds.), Sabah Basin
(Vol. 22, pp. 500-542): Kuala Lumpur: Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas).
Zaki, M. (2003). Well Test Report for Gelama Merah-1 (P. E. Department, Trans.):
PETRONAS CARIGALI.
232