SPE 80465
E8 Innovative Field Development
Aat Bos, Idawati Hamdan, Chin Hon Voon, Updesh Singh, Shell Malaysia E&P
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and
Exhibition to be held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 15-17 April 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
E8 is a carbonate reservoir with an estimated ultimate
recovery of 2.157 Tscf gas and 35 million stb of condensate.
The reservoir is a carbonate build-up, consisting of two
pinnacles connected through a saddle area. The field will be
developed at a peak capacity of 600 MMscf/d. As a result of
the study work for the FDP, the expectation recovery has
increased by 370 Bscf gas. This is driven by an updated
structural model based on a revised seismic interpretation.
This has been achieved through a combination of improved
depth conversion method (Depth Team Express) as well as
uncertainty reduction based on seismic inversion techniques.
In the era of uncertain hydrocarbon prices, optimisation is
aimed at ensuring high system availability, maintaining safety
and environmental standards while achieving an economic
development. This paper describes the efforts undertaken to
maximise recovery from the field and the initiatives
undertaken to resolve challenges. The main challenges faced
in converting the development concept from standalone to
satellite were production forecasting, security of supply, slug
management and unmanned operations.
Introduction
The E8 field is located some 140 km NW of Bintulu in a water
depth of around 195 ft. With current expectation gas reserves
of 2.5 Tscf (to an abandonment of 300 psi), it is the smallest of
the five Central Luconia gas fields (E8, E11, F13, F6, F23),
which have been committed to the MLNG PSC. The
accumulation is contained in a pinnacle-type carbonate build-
up with two culminations, separated by a saddle area. The
southern culmination has a gas column in excess of 1600 ft in
the pinnacle, whilst the northern culmination has a maximum
gas column of 650 ft. The gas is characterised by a low
measured CO2 content of 1.7% and H2S content of less than
10 ppm.
The southern culmination of the field was discovered by well
E8-1 in 1970, and the northern culmination in 1978 by well
E8-4 (the two appraisal wells E8-2 and E8-3 tested the
southern culmination and off structure silici-clastics
respectively).
The main subsurface uncertainties are degree of
communication and nature of the reservoir between southern
and northern accumulations, gross bulk volume and reservoir
properties distribution.
Start-up of production is planned for July 2006. The initial
development scenario was for a standalone facility at E8. All
processing would be carried out at E8 before piping the gas,
via the E11 and existing trunklines.
There are opportunities to further reduce the development cost
via options such as unmanned operations or produce E8 as a
satellite to the existing E11 Complex. The satellite option will
potentially reduce a substantial amount of capital expenditure.
At the start of the field development, there were a number of
surface uncertainties that had to be resolved such as security of
supply and scope of additional facilities at E11.
Subsurface
In this section an overview of the E8 reservoir is provided (see
Figures 1 and 2).
The E8 gas field is a carbonate reservoir of Middle Miocene
age (i.e. 10 million years ago). The carbonate reservoir was
developed during a period of extensive coral reef growth and
carbonate sedimentation over the Luconia shelf. Some modern
day analogues of such an environment would be Layang
Layang in the Spratly Islands, Bahamas Bank and the Great
Barrier Reef.
The E8 field is overlain by an extensive thickness of deep
marine shales, which provide the reservoir seal. In the very
shallow overburden, i.e. < 1000ft, seismic anomalies are seen
indicative of shallow gas bearing sands. In E8 this shallow gas
directly overlies and is aerially confined to the southern
pinnacle only (see Figure 3).
The structural geometry of the E8 field is relatively more
2 SPE 80465
complex than some of the existing producing gas fields e.g.
F23 and E11. It comprises two build-ups, a steep flanked
pinnacle-type in the south and a flat-topped platform-type in
the north. The top reservoir depth of the southern pinnacle is
approximately 3800ft, whilst in the north platform it is some
5000ft. The southern culmination has a gas column in excess
of 1600 ft in the pinnacle, whilst the northern culmination has
a maximum gas column of 650 ft.
Well data from E8-2 suggest presence of very thin carbonate
layers (stringers) occurring above the main carbonate build-up.
Stringers result from an influx of carbonate sediments from a
steep flank or build-up edge into the surrounding shales. Such
stringers have also been penetrated in the E11 field. The
stringers constitute only a minor part of the E8 GIIP
(approximately 5%) and reserves. They have limited thickness
and poor reservoir quality. It is uncertain whether the stringers
are connected to the main build-up.
The north and south culminations are connected by a saddle
area. The saddle is interpreted to contain carbonate reservoir
rocks of reasonable porosity. However the permeability of the
saddle reservoir rock is uncertain. Based on existing well log
and pressure data, both the south and north build-ups occur in
a similar pressure regime with a common GWC at 5645 ft.ss.
However, during production the saddle area could potentially
act as a permeability or pressure baffle (restriction) between
north and south parts of the E8 field.
The average well derived porosity for the gas-bearing zone in
the E8 field is 20%. The porosity is lowest in the north (17%)
and highest in the south (23%). The lower porosity in the north
is due to the relative predominance of fine-grained and mud-
supported rock types.
The main carbonate rock type (lithology) in E8 is limestone,
although dolomite is also encountered. The dolomite occurs
predominantly in the aquifer section and the lower parts of the
gas column. The main difference between dolomite and
Limestone is the permeability (see figure 4). Dolomite has a
much higher permeability (100’smD) than limestone
(10’smD), in E8.
In addition to dolomite, karst and/or fractures could result in a
much higher reservoir permeability. Well test data from E8
does not suggest contribution from any extensive non-matrix
permeability from either karst and/or faults, showing good
match with core and log data.
However the presence of fractures or other flow enhancing
features (non matrix permeability) cannot be entirely ruled
out. In other Luconia fields there are indications for presence
of non-matrix permeability. Also there is some seismic
evidence in E8 that indicates presence of potential fracture
zones in the southern pinnacle and near the eastern and
western flanks of the fields (Fig. 9)
As seen in several Central Luconia fields (e.g. E11/F13W,
F13E), a zone containing paleo-residual gas exists below the
moveable gas water contact (GWC). A review of GWC
concluded that the moveable GWC for the structure is at
5645ftss (+10 ft/-5 ft) with the North and South accumulations
having a common moveable GWC. The base of the paleo-
residual zone was determined to be at 5695 ft. in well E8-4
and 5750 ft. in well E8-2. The gas within the paleo-residual
gas zone will not be remobilised until it reaches its critical gas
saturation as it expands when the reservoir pressure is
decreased.
Description of fluids and PVT data
The initial reservoir pressure is 2550 psi and the dew point is
2428 psi at a formation temperature of 215 'F. E8-4 well
pressure data (pressure measurements in both gas and water
leg) were used to derive fluid gradients within the carbonates.
The derived gas and water gradient are 0.05 psi/ft and 0.42
psi/ft respectively and the E8 overpressure is estimated at 90
psi.
The well test data from E8-4 confirms a ‘sweet’ relatively lean
gas with low CO2 and H2S concentrations of some 2 mol%
and <10ppm respectively and an initial condensate gas ratio
(CGR) of 19stb/MMscf with a narrow range of +/-
4stb/MMscf (stabilised condensate at BSTAB).
At the start of the FDP development a much higher CGR
range (up-to 40 stb/MMscf) was carried. However a review of
the well test data (reference 1) shows that the higher CGR
measurements could be attributed to Unstable test conditions
Operation of sampling equipment outside its operating
envelope. Well tests have occurred at perforation intervals
representative for the bulk of the E8 reserves. Therefore
compositional grading is not likely to impact the
measured CGR.
No information is available on the presence of wax and
mercaptans. However these contaminants are generally not
found in the Central Luconia region.
During the development of the field, the produced gas will
become lighter and the CGR declines with pressure from 19
stb/MMscf to a minimum of 13.5stb/MMstf at a corresponding
pressure of 724 psi.
No down hole water samples were taken in any wells.
Produced water during DST production test proved to be
condensed water (salinity between 10000-24000 ppm). The
amount of condensed water produced initially with the gas is
estimated at some 1.5 bbl/MMscf. This will gradually increase
to 7 bbl/MMscf at abandonment conditions.
Well Concept
As part of the development optimisation, well completion type
selection was also carried out. The basis of this selection was
the optimization between well performance, cost effectiveness
and the ability to manage the risks and uncertainties
effectively. The 9.5/8” Mono-Bigbore Long Casing Flow
(MLCF) completion incorporating a high set 9.5/8” TR-
SPE 77940
SCSSV (ca. 1000 ft) is selected as the preferred completion
type for E8 due to the followings;
• The Cost of Capacity (CoC) is less than that for a 7.5/8”
completion.
• The technical risk of a 9.5/8” is less than that of higher
sizes, as they are relatively unproven and the higher tubing
sizes offer no cost advantage over a 9.5/8” MLCF
completion.
Figure 4 illustrates the proposed well design for E8
development wells. The large monobore completion
eliminates any restriction in the tubing string that creates
turbulent zones during production. As a result, production rate
will be maximized and the number of wells required to
develop the field is minimized.
The completion materials will be L80 13 Cr which is suitable
for use in E8 conditions characterised by about 2.5% CO2.
This material will prevent corrosion related well integrity
problems throughout the life of the well.
Drainage Plan
Based on the expected platform capacity of some 600
MMscf/d, a total of three 9.5/8” MLCF wells are planned from
a centrally located drilling platform.
A deviated producer is planned to manage uncertainties with
regards to potential presence of a baffle layer in the southern
pinnacle. The other well in the south, which is horizontal will
be positioned in the high porosity and permeability areas. It is
also planned to TD the deviated well some 300 ft tvd deeper
than the horizontal well to allow future gas water contact
movement monitoring when required.
In the north, a horizontal well will be placed close to the top
carbonate given its smaller gas column of some 650 ft. The
planned TD of this well is some 450 ft tvd above the OGWC.
A dedicated development well in the saddle is not currently
supported. In the event of sub millidarcy reservoir in the
saddle, a well in the saddle will be a very poor producer and
inflow constrained. If reservoir quality is good, then the
planned north and south producers will effectively drain the
saddle area even without a dedicated drainage point.
Well Performance
The predicted well deliverability is presented in Figure 5. The
well capacity is based on the initial reservoir conditions and
the base case permeability of 50 mD and 20 mD for south and
north reservoir respectively.
At the required Flowing Tubing Head Pressure (FTHP) of
1,600 psi, the horizontal wells for south and north are capable
of producing 310 and 240 MMscf/d respectively. The deviated
well in southern pinnacle is predicted to deliver some 270
MMscf/d.
3
Surface development options
Two main options have been considered for locating
processing facilities for E8:
1) Full processing at E8. The gas and condensate are de-
hydrated at E8 and transported to the existing trunk line
system.
2) Processing remote from E8. Well fluids are transported
from E8 to an existing platform complex for processing,
prior to evacuating to the trunk lines.
Surface initiatives
Several initiatives were undertaken in developing the E8 field
development plan. Among the foremost that had to be
addressed were:
Security of supply
An area of concern was security of supply should E8 be
developed as a satellite to E11 complex. There are a number of
upcoming projects that tie-in to E11 such as Shallow Clastics,
F13W and F13E. These projects would make E11 the largest
gas processing station in Central Luconia. It was perceived
that the heavy dependency on the E11 complex would
potentially jeopardise the gas supply should anything happen
on the E11 complex. The objective of the study was to
quantify security of supply for E8 satellite and standalone
development. The E8 standalone development scenarios are
compared to the satellite development scenario in terms of
potential assets and sales loss through occurrence of major
events such as fire or explosion and trips to platform.
Methodology. To assess the risks associated with each option
a quantitative risk approach has been selected. An overview of
this approach is provided in Figure 6. The center of the
model is an event tree. The event tree is a list of events (fire,
equipment trips, etc.) that can cause production or asset losses
in the E11 hub. For each event the expected financial losses
are calculated. Per option the total financial losses are
calculated from the individual events.
The expected financial losses are the financial losses in case
an event occurs, multiplied with the probability that an event
occurs. The financial losses are the production losses
multiplied with the gas price and the cost to replace the
production facilities. The expected financial losses are a
measure of the economic impact of the risk evaluated.
Two types of events have been considered:
1. Catastrophic events. These are events that would cause a
long down time. Typically these events have low
probability and involve asset losses. And example of this
type of event would be a platform fire, leading to a long
shut down (6-24 months).
The catastrophic events and their consequences have been
identified through a team review, involving multiple
engineering and operations disciplines. The probability of
these events has been obtained from industry databases.
4 SPE 80465
2. Equipment trips. These are typically much more likely than
catastrophic events, but have a shorter shutdown duration.
An example of this type of event would be failure of the
power generation at E11, leading to a shutdown of
several hours.
To identify these events, E8 facilities and the E11 platform
have been modeled with an availability model called MAROS.
From the MAROS model the frequency of trips and the
duration of the outage has been obtained and entered in the
event tree. A spreadsheet has been developed to calculate the
expected production losses per event from the event
frequency, duration and capacity shortfall. The main inputs in
to the model are:
· Frequency and duration of the event
· Capacity reduction during the event
The model calculates the production losses, taking into
account system excess capacity. Generally the production
losses will be significantly lower than the capacity losses. This
is due to a system wide capacity margin. This margin is
maintained to provide a buffer against equipment trips. The
losses calculated by the model are very conservative.
Results. The difference in production losses between the
standalone and satellite development concept to E11KA is not
substantially high and does not offset the lifecycle cost
savings. The risk to the security of supply is of developing E8
as a satellite of E11 is low, compared to the expected lifecycle
cost savings.
Slug management
For wet gas pipeline operations, pig-generated slugs is
expected and slug management has been studied through static
and dynamic simulation. Slugs are expected during start-up
and pigging.
In order to manage the incoming pig-generated slugs, a
dynamic simulation study was carried out to:
- Determine whether a slug control system was required
- Analyse the behavior of the proposed slug control system
Based on the simulations, a basic configuration for the
proposed slug control scheme is proposed :
· The pipeline pressure controller at E8. This controller
throttles the choke valve on E8 to maintain pipeline
pressure and avoid pressure build-up.
· Slug Catcher level controller. This controller first throttles
the slug catcher liquid outlet control valve (Output 0-50%),
then throttles the large slug control valve (Output 50-75%)
and finally throttles the small slug control valve (Output
75-100%).
· Two slug catcher inlet valves of 16” and 4” acting as slug
control valves. Two valves were selected to provide the
full range of turndown rates.
Slug Catcher liquid discharge control valve with high flow
override controller. High flow override was added to
prevent overloading of the downstream condensate system.
· Flow control Slug Catcher gas outlet control valve with
low pressure override controller – to maintain differential
pressure over the condensate system.
Results. The proposed slug control scheme can be used to
manage the liquid slug generated during pigging to prevent
high liquid levels and gas surge. The scheme can also be used
to manage the liquid slug generated during ramping-up and
start-up.
Operations philosophy
Studies carried out show that unmanned operations of E8
drilling jacket was possible with a clearly defined operating
philosophy to ensure minimum intervention of equipment.
The logistics and planning was derived from a maintenance
database. This maintenance execution plan is worked out to
minimise exposure of personnel to boat transport as well as
create the opportunity to share resources such as personnel and
boat between satellites and mother platform. One fast crew
boat will be shared between three new platforms following
this arrangement.
1. Scheduled visits to E8 remote satellite jacket will be once
per month based on the requirement for preventive
maintenance and pigging operations.
2. The control and monitoring systems for the satellite
facilities is to be designed for full remote operation,
including start-up and shutdown, Frontline maintenance
checks or operational activities that would necessitate
visits frequency of more than once per month will be
designed out.
3. To further enhance remote monitoring, surveillance
cameras will be installed at strategic locations such that
adequate coverage of the facility is possible from the
remote control centres located in the BOCC and E11 CCR.
This requirement will also contribute to enhancing physical
security and access control to the facility.
4. F&G system with executive action for fire detection will
be rationalised or totally eliminated to further minimise
intervention arising from spurious trips
5. Remote start-up after ESD will be possible if F&G system
is eliminated given that the only other cause of ESD will
be manual initiation either from platform or remote
location.
6. Online corrosion monitoring using minimal intervention
fast response corrosion monitoring system with probes in
relevant locations in the pipeline will be applied. The
chemical injection system will be designed for very high
reliability to ensure that overall system effectiveness of
98% is realised.
SPE 77940 5

7. Main parameters of the corrosion inhibition injection

system to be monitored and/or controlled from the BOCC
and E11 control centres. These parameters include flow
rate, tank level, pump status, pump start/stop capability,
and low flow alarm indication.

8. Platform will be designed for simultaneous maintenance

and operations and therefore special consideration would
be given to location of vent, general arrangement of
equipment, escape routes and life saving systems.
Provision of ‘pad eyes’ for anchoring of temporary well
testing rigs and clean up facilities will be made for such
future well intervention activities.

9. Storage requirement for all consumables (e.g. diesel,

corrosion inhibitor and portable water) to be for a
minimum of 2 months.

11. The injection system to be designed such that a cocktail of

corrosion inhibitor chemical and methanol are injected
simultaneously. This will further ensure that corrosion
inhibition injection is not compromised.

Results : The operation philosophy for E8 satellite

development clearly defines the parameters for remote
operations of E8 drilling jacket.

Conclusions

Key issues related to reliability, security and operational mode

were resolved through extensive studies that justified the
satellite development concept for E8, thus achieving
substantial lifecycle cost savings.

Acknowledgements
The Authors wish to extend their gratitude to PETRONAS for their
permission to publish this paper and to the E8 FDP team for
their contribution.
6 SPE 80465

9.5/8” Mono-Bigbore Long Casing Flow

M1 9.5/8” X/tree & WH

JINTAN SK308 SKE
M4
M3 BIJAN
SK8 Sea Bed
F14
SK10
G7 F29
BERYL/HELANG 26” Conductor
SEL CP B11
@+/- 800ft ah 9.5/8” TR-SCSSV
B12 BARONIA
F23 LAILA @1000 ft
F6

SK3 F13
18.5/8”
F28 LUTONG
E11
SK307 @+/- 2000ft ah
E6 MIRI
RA
RC
RB 9.5/8” 47# 13Cr
E8 Shallow
Clastics

D12 13.3/8” x
9.5/8” Packer
D35
D18 Tie-back Seals
13.3/8”
@+/- 3500ft ah
SK5 MLNG TIGA
0 50 KM
BAY MLNG
TEM MLNG DUA
MLNG TIGA
BINTULU
MLNG DUA
SMDS

MLNG
9.5/8” Csg shoe
OIL FIELDS
Top of Carbonate
o
o oo o o
o o oo
o o
Fig.1—Situation Map of E8 o
o oo ooo o o o o o o o o
o oo
7” Pre-drilled liner

S N
Fig.4 Proposed Well Completion Design
E8-2 E8-4 Schematic

2600

2400

E8 SOUTH 2200
Top Carbonate
2000
E8 NORTH
1800

1600
FTHP (psia)

Saddle Area 1400

1200

1000

800 South - Deviate d Well

600
South - Horiz ontal Well
Fig.3 Seismic Line across the E8 carbonate build-up 400
North - Horizontal Well
200

0
0 100 200 300 400 500

Gas Rate (MMscf/d)

Fig 5 Predicted Well Performance

Curves (Base Case, Initial
Reservoir Condition)

Modelling Approach
Team Industry Asset Costs
Review Database

System Expected
Capacity buffer Losses
Capacity Event Tree
Model

Minimum Tank
Select High
MAROS Vo lu me
Level
Scenarios

Fig.2 Petrophysical Log Expression – Well E8-2 Fig. 6 Security of Supply

Model