Gelama Merah Field Development Plan

by

Lum Juon Kwang

Kweh Chia Shin
Siti Hidmayati Binti Zulkefli
Rakib Hasan
Muhammad Atif Bin Baharuddin
Mohamed Suliman Adam Mohamed

Final Report submitted in partial fulfilment of

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

January 2016

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS

Bandar Seri Iskandar
31750 Tronoh
Perak Darul Ridzuan

CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
Gelama Merah Field Development Plan

by

Lum Juon Kwang

Kweh Chia Shin
Siti Hidmayati Binti Zulkefli
Rakib Hasan
Muhammad Atif Bin Baharuddin
Mohamed Suliman Adam Mohamed

Final Report submitted in partial fulfilment of

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

Approved by,

______________
(Mr. Asif Zamir)

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI PETRONAS

TRONOH, PERAK
January 2016

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

CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL ........................................................................... ii

CERTIFICATION OF ORIGINALITY ..................................................................... iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... v
TABLE OF CONTENT .............................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. xvi
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... xxi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
1.1. Background of Study .................................................................... 1
1.2. Problem Statements....................................................................... 1
1.3. Objectives ...................................................................................... 2
1.4. Scopes of Study ............................................................................. 2
1.5. Gantt Chart .................................................................................... 3
1.6. Organizational Chart ..................................................................... 7
1.7. Chapter Summary.......................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2 GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS ....................................................... 12
2.1. Regional Geology........................................................................ 12
2.2. Depositional Environment .......................................................... 14
2.3. Petroleum System ....................................................................... 17
2.4. Stratigraphy and Correlations ..................................................... 19
CHAPTER 3 PETROPHYSICS ................................................................................ 21
3.1. Petrophysical Parameter .............................................................. 21
3.1.1. Introduction .................................................................. 21
3.1.2. Gamma Ray Index........................................................ 21
vi

3.1.3. Shale Volume ............................................................... 23

3.1.4. Water Saturation for Sandstone Formation .................. 24
3.1.5. Water Saturation for Shaly Sand Formation ................ 25
3.1.6. Water Saturation for Shale Formation ......................... 25
3.2. Zonal Determination ................................................................... 27
3.3. Fluid Contact ............................................................................... 27
3.3.1. Half- Way Method ....................................................... 28
3.3.2. Pressure Profile Plot ..................................................... 30
3.3.3. Well Test Report .......................................................... 31
3.3.4. Summary of the Fluid Contacts ................................... 32
3.4. Net Gross ..................................................................................... 33
3.4.1. Shale Volume Cutoff ................................................... 33
3.4.2. Porosity Cut-off............................................................ 34
3.4.3. Water Saturation Cut-off .............................................. 35
3.4.4. Determination of Net-to-Gross (NTG)......................... 36
CHAPTER 4 VOLUMETRIC CALCULATION ...................................................... 40
4.1. Base Map/Scale ........................................................................... 40
4.2. Estimation of Hydrocarbon in Place Using Deterministic Method
............................................................................................................ 41
4.2.1. Gross Bulk Volume by Area Under the Graph ............ 42
4.2.2. Formation Volume Factor ............................................ 44
4.2.3. Gas-In-Place and Oil-In-Place ..................................... 46
4.3. Estimation of Hydrocarbon in Place Using Probabilistic Method
............................................................................................................ 48
4.3.1. Parameters of Distribution ........................................... 48
4.3.2. Result of Probabilistic Estimation for Hydrocarbon in
Place ....................................................................................... 52
vii

4.3.3. Result of Probabilistic Estimation for Contingent

Resource of Oil and Gas ........................................................ 52
4.4. Volumetric Calculation from Petrel ............................................ 55
4.5. Summary of Volumetric Calculation .......................................... 56
4.6. Reserves Estimation .................................................................... 57
4.6.1. Volumetric Method ...................................................... 57
4.6.2. Probabilistic Method .................................................... 58
4.6.3. Petrel ............................................................................ 58
CHAPTER 5 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING ........................................................... 59
5.1. Reservoir rock properties ............................................................ 59
5.1.1. Core plug data .............................................................. 59
5.1.2. Porosity-Permeability Relationship ............................. 62
5.1.3. Capillary Pressure Test ................................................ 63
5.1.4. Normalization and Averaging on Relative Permeability
Data ........................................................................................ 66
5.1.5. Leverett J-Function ...................................................... 72
5.2. Reservoir Fluid Properties .......................................................... 74
5.2.1. Preliminary Quality Checks ......................................... 75
5.2.2. Compositional Analysis ............................................... 75
5.2.3. Constant Composition Expansion (CCE) Test............. 78
5.2.4. Differential Vaporization Test ..................................... 81
5.2.5. Viscosity Test ............................................................... 83
5.2.6. Separator Test............................................................... 84
5.3. Well Test Analysis ...................................................................... 86
CHAPTER 6 RESERVOIR SIMULATION ............................................................. 94
6.1. Objectives .................................................................................... 94
6.2. History Matching ........................................................................ 95
viii

6.3. Well Placement ........................................................................... 96

6.4. Base Case Model ......................................................................... 97
6.5. Optimum Number of Wells to be Applied .................................. 97
6.6. Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................... 102
6.6.1. First Phase: Method 2 Optimizing Rate for All Wells
.............................................................................................. 103
6.6.2. Second Phase: Water Injection................................... 105
6.6.3. Second Phase: Water Flooding .................................. 109
6.7. Production Profile ..................................................................... 112
6.8. Reservoir Management and Surveillance.................................. 114
6.8.1. Reservoir Management .............................................. 114
6.8.2. Reservoir surveillance ................................................ 115
CHAPTER 7 PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY ..................................................... 116
7.1. Introduction ............................................................................... 116
7.2. Sand Control Method ................................................................ 116
7.3. Nodal Analysis .......................................................................... 118
7.3.1. IPR and PVT correlation ............................................ 119
7.3.2. Tubing size ................................................................. 123
7.3.3. Artificial Lift Method Justifications .......................... 124
7.4. Potential Production Problem ................................................... 129
7.4.1. Wax Deposition.......................................................... 129
7.4.2. Wax Mechanism......................................................... 129
7.4.3. Wax Remedial and Control ........................................ 129
7.4.4. Scale Formation ......................................................... 130
7.4.5. Scale Mechanism ....................................................... 130
7.4.6. Scale Removal and Control........................................ 130

ix

7.4.7. Sweet Corrosion ......................................................... 131

CHAPTER 8 FACILITIES ENGINEERING .......................................................... 132
8.1. Introduction ............................................................................... 132
8.1.1. Overview on Facilities ............................................... 132
8.1.2. Types of Development Platform Options .................. 132
8.2. Design Feature and Basis .......................................................... 133
8.2.1. Facilities Design Concept .......................................... 133
8.2.2. Platform Selection ...................................................... 134
8.2.3. Production Development Options .............................. 135
8.3. Operation Facilities and Equipment .......................................... 136
8.3.1. Production Flow Line, Flow Control and Manifold .. 136
8.3.2. Wellhead .................................................................... 137
8.3.3. Phase Separator .......................................................... 137
8.3.4. Water Injection ........................................................... 137
8.3.5. Gas Handling.............................................................. 137
8.3.6. Gas Lift Surface Facilities.......................................... 137
8.3.7. Electrical Power and Lightings .................................. 137
8.3.8. Drain System .............................................................. 138
8.3.9. Flare Boom/Vent System ........................................... 138
8.3.10. Instrument Air System ............................................. 138
8.4. Surface Facilities & Equipment ................................................ 138
8.5. Pipelines & Host Tie-Ins to Existing Platform ......................... 139
8.5.1. Pipeline Tie-Ins .......................................................... 139
8.5.2. Pipeline Sizing ........................................................... 141
8.5.3. Wax Mitigation .......................................................... 146
8.5.4. Slug Suppression System (SSS) ................................. 146
x

8.6. Pipeline Corrosion Management ............................................... 147

8.6.1. Corrosion Inhibitor ..................................................... 147
8.6.2. Cleaning Pigs ............................................................. 148
8.6.3. Cathodic Protection .................................................... 148
8.7. Safety Facilities System ............................................................ 148
8.7.1. Emergency Shutdown System (ESD) ........................ 148
8.7.2. Life Saving Appliances .............................................. 149
8.7.3. Fire Detection and Alarm System .............................. 150
8.7.4. Platform Communication and Intruder Detection System
.............................................................................................. 150
8.8. Operation and Maintenance ...................................................... 151
8.8.1. Operations .................................................................. 151
8.8.2. Operation Philosophy ................................................. 151
8.8.3. Pipeline Operation Philosophy................................... 151
8.8.4. Process Control .......................................................... 151
8.8.5. Maintenance Philosophy ............................................ 152
8.9. Facilities CAPEX, Decommissioning Cost and OPEX ............ 153
8.9.1. Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) ................................... 153
8.9.2. Decommissioning cost ............................................... 153
8.9.3. Operating Expenditure (OPEX) ................................. 154
CHAPTER 9 DRILLING ENGINEERING ............................................................ 155
9.1. Project Description .................................................................... 155
9.1.1. Subsurface overview .................................................. 155
9.1.2. Surface facilities summary ......................................... 155
9.1.3. Well summary ............................................................ 155
9.1.4. Schedule and first hydrocarbon .................................. 156

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

9.8.5. Completion Fluid ....................................................... 191

9.9. Rig Selection ............................................................................. 192
9.10. Potential Drilling Problems ..................................................... 192
9.10.1. Pipe Sticking ............................................................ 192
9.10.2. Loss of Circulation ................................................... 192
9.10.3. Hole Deviation ......................................................... 193
9.10.4. Drill Pipe Failures .................................................... 193
9.10.5. Mud Contamination ................................................. 193
9.10.6. Hole Cleaning........................................................... 194
9.10.7. Cementing/ Gas Migration ....................................... 194
9.10.8. Occupational Safety ................................................. 194
9.11. Cost Estimates and Analysis ................................................... 195
9.11.1. CAPEX of Producing Well ...................................... 195
9.11.2. CAPEX of Injector Well .......................................... 196
9.12. Advanced Technologies .......................................................... 197
9.12.1. Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD) .......................... 197
9.12.2. Casing While Drilling .............................................. 197
9.12.3. Coiled Tubing .......................................................... 197
9.12.4. Jet-In and Drill Ahead Operation ............................. 198
9.13. Abandonment .......................................................................... 199
9.13.1. Introduction .............................................................. 199
9.13.2. Abandonment Sequence ........................................... 199
9.13.3. Time breakdown....................................................... 200
CHAPTER 10 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ............................................................... 203
10.1. Production Sharing Contract (PSC) and Fiscal Term ............. 203
10.2. CAPEX and OPEX for Surface Facilities and Drilling .......... 204
xiii

10.2.1. CAPEX..................................................................... 204

10.2.2. OPEX ....................................................................... 206
10.3. Net Cash Flow Profile ............................................................. 206
10.4. Sensitivity Analysis................................................................. 208
10.5. Revenue Split .......................................................................... 209
10.6. Investment Decision ................................................................ 209
CHAPTER 11 HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT ................................ 210
11.1. General Health, Safety & Environment .................................. 210
11.2. PETRONAS HSE Management System (HSEMS) ................ 210
11.2.1. Definition ................................................................. 210
11.2.2. Key Principle ............................................................ 211
11.2.3. HSEMS Elements .................................................... 212
11.3. Safety and Risk Management ................................................. 213
11.4. HSE Delineation of Responsibility ......................................... 218
11.5. Quality Management ............................................................... 220
11.6. Occupational Health Management .......................................... 220
11.7. Environmental Management ................................................... 221
11.7.1. Emission to Air ........................................................ 221
11.7.2. Emission to Water .................................................... 222
11.8. Sustainable Development Option............................................ 222
11.8.1. Reservoir Management ............................................ 222
11.8.2. Production Technology ............................................ 223
11.8.3. Drilling and Completion Implementation Plans ...... 224
11.8.4. Facilities Engineering and Operation ....................... 224
11.9. Quality Management and Assurance ...................................... 225
11.9.1. Quality Management ................................................ 225
xiv

11.9.2. Quality Assurance .................................................... 225

CHAPTER 12 CHAPTER SUMMARY.................................................................. 226
REFERENCES......................................................................................................... 230

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

Figure 3.12 Oil Porosity Cutoff ................................................................................. 34

Figure 3.13 Water Saturation Cutoff.......................................................................... 35
Figure 3.14 Petrophysics Calculation in Microsoft Excel ......................................... 39
Figure 4.1 Topographic map of Gelama Merah reservoir.......................................... 40
Figure 4.2 Graph of Depth vs. Area ........................................................................... 42
Figure 4.3 Identification of Proved, Probable and Possible for Oil and Gas ............. 43
Figure 4.4 Computation of Z-Factor .......................................................................... 44
Figure 4.5 Z-Factor Correlation for Gas .................................................................... 45
Figure 4.6 Cumulative Probability vs. Frequency Distribution For Oil CR .............. 53
Figure 4.7 Cumulative Probability VS. Frequency Distribution for Gas CR ............ 54
Figure 4.8 Petrel surface model ................................................................................. 55
Figure 4.9 Petrel Volume Calculation........................................................................ 55
Figure 5.1 Graph of permeability versus porosity ..................................................... 62
Figure 5.2: Capillary Pressure Results for sample (a) 1-017, (b) 2-010, and (c)5-002
.................................................................................................................................... 65
Figure 5.3 Normalized Relative Permeability versus Normalized Water Saturation 69
Figure 5.4 J-Function Plot (drainage) ........................................................................ 72
Figure 5.5 Mole Fraction of Each Component........................................................... 77
Figure 5.6 Constant Composition Expansion Test(Ahmad, 2006) ............................ 78
Figure 5.7 Relative Volume and Y-Function at 155 F ............................................. 80
Figure 5.8 Differential Vaporization of Hydrocarbons in Cells ................................ 81
Figure 5.9 Solution Gas Oil Ratio At ............................................................. 82
Figure 5.10 Oil Viscosity @ 155 F........................................................................... 83
Figure 5.11 Graph of Pressure and Flow rate versus time ......................................... 89
Figure 5.12 Derivative Plot Analysis (Main Build-Up Period) ................................. 91
Figure 6.1 Reservoir Simulation Steps....................................................................... 94

xvii

Figure 6.2 History Matching ...................................................................................... 96

Figure 6.3 Placement of Wells ................................................................................... 97
Figure 6.4 Creaming Curve for the Base Case ........................................................... 99
Figure 6.5 Graph of Revenue versus no. of wells ...................................................... 99
Figure 6.6 Well Placement of 10 Wells (Optimum Number of Wells) ................... 100
Figure 6.7 Graph Of Field Oil Production, Oil Producing Rate And Reservoir Pressure
Versus Time For Base Case ..................................................................................... 101
Figure 6.8 Graph Of Field Production Of Gas, Oil And Water Versus Time For Base
Case .......................................................................................................................... 101
Figure 6.9 Field Oil Production for Optimized Rate Case 1, 2 and 3 ...................... 104
Figure 6.10 Oil Production Rate for Individual Well for Optimized Rate Case 2 ... 104
Figure 6.11 Well Placement for Oil Producing Wells ............................................. 105
Figure 6.12 Well Placement for Water Injectors ..................................................... 106
Figure 6.13 Graph of Field Oil Production, Oil Production Rate and Reservoir Pressure
for Water Injection ................................................................................................... 107
Figure 6.14 Field Oil, Water and Gas Production for Water Injection .................... 108
Figure 6.15 Graph Of Gas- Oil Ratio And Water Cut Versus Time For Water Injection
.................................................................................................................................. 108
Figure 6.16 Water Injector for Water Flooding ....................................................... 109
Figure 6.17 Graph of Field Oil Production, Oil Production Rate and Reservoir Pressure
versus time for Water Flooding ............................................................................... 111
Figure 6.18 Graph Of Gas, Oil and Water Production Rate for Water Flooding .... 111
Figure 6.19 Graph Of Field Production Of Oil, Water And Gas After Rate
Optimization............................................................................................................. 113
Figure 6.20 Optimized Rate For Individual Well After Sensitivity Studies ............ 113
Figure 6.21 Graph Of Field Oil Production, Oil Producing Rate And Reservoir
Pressure Versus Time ............................................................................................... 114
Figure 7.1: System Analysis Approach .................................................................... 118
xviii

Figure 7.2: Inflow Performance Data....................................................................... 120

Figure 7.3: IPR Plot ................................................................................................. 120
Figure 7.4: Inflow/Outflow curve for various tubing sizes ...................................... 123
Figure 8.1 Platform Utilities & Service Facilities .................................................... 136
Figure 8.2 Surface Facilities & Equipment .............................................................. 139
Figure 8.3 Samarang Field Location ........................................................................ 140
Figure 8.4 Tie-in from Master Platform to SMP-B ................................................. 140
Figure 8.5 Corrosion Mechanism in Pipeline .......................................................... 147
Figure 9.1 Modus of Operandi of Drilling Program ................................................ 158
Figure 9.2 Oil Production and Water Injection Well Coordinate ............................ 159
Figure 9.3 Surface Development Plan ..................................................................... 160
Figure 9.4 Stick Chart for Gelama Merah 1 ............................................................. 161
Figure 9.5: Prediction for OP1-14............................................................................ 162
Figure 9.6 Graph of Pore Gradient and Fracture Gradient ...................................... 164
Figure 9.7 Casing Schematic for Producer (Left) and Injector (Right) ................... 165
Figure 9.8 Well Architecture Schematic .................................................................. 167
Figure 9.9 Diagram of Casing Head, Casing Spool, and Casing Hanger ................ 177
Figure 9.10 Diagram of Tubing Head, Tubing Hanger and Tubing Head Adapter . 177
Figure 9.11 Geological Drilling Order for Producing Well ..................................... 178
Figure 9.12 Geological Drilling Order for Injector Well ......................................... 179
Figure 9.13 Log-Log Graph of Pressure Loss vs. Flowrate for Producing Well ..... 183
Figure 9.14 Log-Log Graph of Pressure Loss vs. Flowrate for Injector Well ......... 184
Figure 9.15 Cross Piece Xmas Tree ......................................................................... 190
Figure 9.16 Partial and Total Loss of Circulation .................................................... 193
Figure 9.17: Step 1-5 of the abandonment sequence ............................................... 201
Figure 9.18: Step 6-10 of abandonment sequence ................................................... 202
xix

Figure 10.1 Net Cash Flow Profile .......................................................................... 207

Figure 11.1 Incident and Emergency Notification Flowchart. (Extracted from PPGUA
3.0 volume 3) ........................................................................................................... 217

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 5-1 Core Analysis Result ................................................................................. 60

Table 5-2 Porosity and Calculated Permeability for each zone ................................. 62
Table 5-3 The Core Samples Centrifuge Results ....................................................... 64
Table 5-4 Calculation of Normalized Water Saturation (S*w) .................................. 66
Table 5-5 Normalized Properties ............................................................................... 68
Table 5-6 Averaging Relative Permeability Data ...................................................... 70
Table 5-7 De-normalized Permeability Data for Oil-Water System .......................... 71
Table 5-8 De-normalized Permeability Data for Gas-Oil System ............................. 71
Table 5-9 Quality Checks of Separator Samples ....................................................... 75
Table 5-10 Compositional Analysis of Separator Oil, Separator Gas Samples and
Calculated Wellstream Composition.......................................................................... 76
Table 5-11 Compositional Analysis of Stock Tnk Oil, Stock Tank Gas and Calculated
Wellstream Composition (Adjusted Bubble Point Pressure to 2014 psig) ................ 77
Table 5-12 Constant Composition Expansion at 155 F ............................................ 79
Table 5-13 Differential Vaporization Test At ................................................ 82
Table 5-14 Oil And Gas Viscosity At ............................................................ 83
Table 5-15 Summary of Single-Stage Separator Flash Analysis ............................... 84
Table 5-16 Summary of the Input Data...................................................................... 88
Table 5-17 Properties for the Main Flow and Maximum Flow ................................. 88
Table 5-18 Determination of the Time Regions And Justification ............................ 91
Table 5-19 Pressure Transient Analysis ..................................................................... 92
Table 5-20 Well Test Result Summary ...................................................................... 93
Table 6-1 BHP of Gelama Merah 1 ........................................................................... 95
Table 6-2 Parameters for Base Case Model ............................................................... 97
Table 6-3 Number of Wells versus Field Oil Production and Recovery Factor ........ 98
Table 6-4 Optimized Rate for Individual Well (Before sensitivity studies) ............ 103
Table 6-5 Recovery Factor for All Optimized Rate Cases ...................................... 103
xxii

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

Table 9-32 Cement Composition ............................................................................. 186

Table 9-33 Proposed Cement Design ....................................................................... 186
Table 9-34 Cement Volume for Producing Well ..................................................... 187
Table 9-35 Cement Volume for Water Injector Well .............................................. 187
Table 9-36 Well Completion Matrix ........................................................................ 189
Table 9-37: Basic Data For Material Selection ........................................................ 191
Table 9-38 Depth and Daily Rates of Offshore Rigs ............................................... 192
Table 9-39 CAPEX of Producing Well .................................................................... 195
Table 9-40 CAPEX for Injector Well ...................................................................... 196
Table 10-1 Fiscal Terms........................................................................................... 203
Table 10-2 CAPEX for Oil Production Well ........................................................... 204
Table 10-3 CAPEX for Water Injection Well .......................................................... 205
Table 10-4 CAPEX for Master Platform ................................................................. 206
Table 10-5 OPEX for Entire Operation ................................................................... 206
Table 10-6 Cost of Each Phases ............................................................................... 206
Table 10-7 Economic Indicator ................................................................................ 207
Table 10-8 Revenue Split ......................................................................................... 209
Table 10-9 Investment Decision .............................................................................. 209
Table 11-1: Risk Assessment Activities by E&P Phases (Extracted from PPGUA 3.0
volume 3) ................................................................................................................. 213
Table 11-2 General Guidance for Incident Classification (based on actual impact of
incident) (Extracted from PPGUA 3.0 volume 3) .................................................... 214
Table 11-3 Incident Notification Table (Extracted from PPGUA 3.0 volume 3) .... 216
Table 12-1 Summary of Gelama Merah Oil Production Field ................................. 226

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.

1.2. Problem Statements

The need to gather information from Gelama Merah 1 well arose when Gelama Kuning
was identified to be gas bearing reservoir. With limited data, tight schedule and high
uncertainties in many areas, the decision and consideration for the development of this
field is difficult. There is a need to understand and quantify the amount of
hydrocarbons in the field.
In this report, there are 6 main aspects which must be taken into consideration when
developing this field. They are listed as below:

Geology and Formation Evaluation

Reservoir Development Plan

Production Technology

Facilities and Drilling Program

Economic Analysis

Health, Safety and Environment (HSE)

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.

1.5. Gantt Chart

Table 1-1 FDP 1 Gantt Chart

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

FDP 1 Kick-Off Briefing and Grouping Release

Team Building
Introduction
Executive Summary
Objectives and Scope of Study
Problem Statement
Petroleum Geology Phase
Regional Geology
Depositional Environmental
Petroleum Systems
Stratigraphy and Correlation
Petrophysics Phase
Reservoir Upscaling
Petrophysical Parameters
Zonal Determination
Fluid Contacts
Net To Gross
Volumetric Phase
Base/Map / Scale
Hydrocarbon in Place
Deterministic Method

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

Table 1-2 FDP 2 Gantt Chart

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

1.6. Organizational Chart

This FDP team consist of six members. Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2 shows the
organizational chart of this FDP 1 and FDP 2 respectively. The team is led by Lum
Juon Kwang as the team leader, and another five members, in which all members are
from Petroleum Engineering programme. A duration of 13 weeks is allocated for the
team to prepare the first part of the report, whereas the second part is allocated 12
weeks.
The project begins on 28th September 2015 after the grouping has been released by the
FDP coordinator.

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

Figure 1.1 FDP 1 Organizational Chart

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

Figure 1.2 FDP 2 Organizational Chart

1.7. Chapter Summary

This report consists of a total of 10 main chapters starting from Chapter 2. A brief
summary of the chapters is listed as below:
CHAPTER 2: GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS
This chapter discusses about the regional geology, depositional environment,
petroleum system, and stratigraphy and correlation. Regional geology covers about the
location of Gelama Merah 1 field and the geology of the specific location. Depositional
environment covers about the environment where the sediments are deposited and the
evidence of the stated environment. Petroleum system covers about the source rock,
reservoir rock, maturation and migration, and trap and seals in details. Stratigraphy
and correlations covers about the classification of the layered strata and the correlation
between Gelama Merah 1 and Gelama Merah ST-1.
CHAPTER 3: PETROPHYSICS
This chapter discusses about the petrophysical parameter, zonal determination, fluid
contact, and net gross. Petrophysical parameter covers on the determination of Gamma
Ray Index, shale volume, and water saturation of each depth. Zonal determination
8

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

CHAPTER 2 GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS

2.1. Regional Geology
The location of Gelama Merah field is in Block SB-18-12 Offshore Sabah basin which
is 43 kilometers North West of Labuan & 130 kilometers West of Kota Kinabalu in a
water depth of about 50 meters (International Logging Overseas, 2003). Its latitude is
05 33 49.98" N and its longtitude is 114 59 06.34" E.
Based on Figure 2.1, the GM-1 field is located in the Inboard Belt, slightly north from
Glayzer gasfield. The Inboard Belt stretches from Northeast to Southwest of Sabah
and is further subdivided into Northern and Southern Inboard Belt, in which the GM1 field lies in the Southern Inboard Belt region. The Jerudong Line of Brunei and
Morris Fault are the two south western boundaries which separates the Baram Delta
and Inboard Belt (Hutchison, 2005), whereas the Kinarut-Mangulum Fault and the
Kinabalu Culmination are the two boundaries which separates the southern and
northern Inboard Belt, which can be seen in Figure 2.2.
The region of Southern Inboard Belt is made up of huge north-trending Labuan-Paisley
Syncline which is surrounded by the Morris-Padas-Saracen fault line (Zainul, Anuar,
& Ali, 1999). Also, Southern Inboard Belt is defined by the trending anticlines with 5
to 20 km distance in between one another as shown in Figure 2.2.
According to Zainul et al. (1999), the sedimentation history in Inboard Belt consist of
three phases namely early Middle Miocene regression, late Middle Miocene
transgression and Late Miocene to Pliocene regression. The Southern Inboard Belt
exhibit the characteristics of extreme deformation during Late Miocene and tectonic
stability. This causes compaction of the older structures and depositional troughs
inversion resulting in the formation of complex ridges and syncline patterns.

12

Figure 2.1 Tectono-Stratigraphic Provinces of Northwest Sabah

(Extracted from Hutchison, 2005)

Figure 2.2 Structural Elements of The Southern Inboard Belt

(Extracted from Zainul, Anuar & Ali, 1999)

13

2.2. Depositional Environment

Depositional environment is where the sediments are deposited, like a lake, stream
channel, a lake or the bottom of the deep ocean. It can also be named as sedimentary
environments. Geology history can be obtained by observing the layers of sediments
accumulated. By having the knowledge of depositional environment, there are several
important things that can be discovered. For instance, the time when the sediment was
deposited and what was happening on earth at this place (Dawes, 2011).
Figure 2.3 shows different types of sedimentary depositional environment
(Mikenorton, 2008).

Figure 2.3 Main Types of Sedimentary Depositional Environment

(Extracted from Mikenorton, 2008)

Gelama Merah field is situated around Labuan-Paisley Syncline which contains up to

4 km of deep marine sands and deltaic sediments (Hutchison, 2005). This evidence of
deltaic environment is supported by Rice and Oxley (1991) that states the initial
deltaic progradation in the Southern Inboard Belt can be traced as far as the LabuanPaisley Syncline, and was followed by a rapid northwestward progradation of a major
delta towards the Samarang area. This subsequent outbuilding is maintained by uplift
of the hinterland and erosion of older foresets.
14

Figure 2.4 Progradation of Delta

(Extracted from Railsback, n.d.)

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

Figure 2.5 Gamma Ray Response To Interpret Depositional Environment

(Extracted from Bjorlykke, 2010)

Figure 2.6 Gamma Ray Response for Gelama Merah-1

16

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.

2.3. Petroleum System

Figure 2.7 Petroleum System Elements

(Extracted from Jasmi, 2012)

Figure 2.8 Petroleum Reservoir

(Extracted from Jasmi, 2012)

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).

Figure 2.9 Petroleum System Process

(Extracted from 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).

Figure 2.10 Traps

(Extracted from Maroo, 2014)

2.4. Stratigraphy and Correlations

Stratigraphy shows the arrangement and the succession of the strata. Strata is the
parallel layers of material arranged one on top of another. According to Van Wagoner
(1988), stratigraphy is the study of rock relationships within a chronostratigraphic
framework of repetitive, genetically related strata bounded by surfaces of erosion or
non-deposition, or their correlative conformities.
From the data provided, the stratigraphy is categorised into top and base of sand unit
interval according to the depths as shown in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1 Top and Base of Sand Unit

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

Figure 2.11 Correlation between GM-1 and GM1-ST1

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.

3.1.2. Gamma Ray Index

Gamma ray logging is a method of measuring naturally occurring gamma radiation to
characterize the rock or sediment in a borehole or drill hole. It is a wire-line logging
method used distinguish shale, shaly sand and sandstone formation.
In order to distinguish the three types of formations, a base line should be established
first to determine the sand and shale base line as shown in the Figure 3.1. According
to Bassiouni (1994), the maximum gamma ray reading represents the shale base line,
which is 106.25, and the minimum gamma ray reading represents the sand base line,
which is 45. Thus, the base line is 75.6.

21

Base Line

Shale

Sand Base
Line

Sand Base
Line

Sandstone

Figure 3.1 Gamma Ray Log sample of well GM-1

Next, the gamma ray index ( ) is calculated using Equation 3-1.

=
Where:

Equation 3-1

= gamma ray reading in the depth of interest

= maximum gamma ray reading in the zone of interest
= minimum gamma ray reading in the zone of interest

22

3.1.3. Shale Volume

Figure 3.2 Gamma Ray Index Chart

(Extracted from Asquith, Krygowski, and Gibson, 2004)

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

3.1.4. Water Saturation for Sandstone Formation

Figure 3.3 Graphical Presentation of The Different Generalized Relationships

Between F and
(Extracted from Bassiouni, 1994)
Based on Bassiouni (1994), there are many different models of formation resistivity
factor (F) available. Since the sedimentary history of Gelama Merah field is during the
Miocene period, the U.S gulf coast Miocene model is selected to calculate the F as
shown in Equation 3-3 (Refer to Figure 3.3).

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:

a = tortuosity factor (1.97)

= formation water resistivity (0.265 ohm-m)
= true formation resistivity
m = cementation exponent (1.29)
n = saturation exponent (2)
= porosity
24

Equation 3-4

3.1.5. Water Saturation for Shaly Sand Formation

Based on the lithology summary from International Logging Overseas (2003), the
cuttings exhibit laminated and interbedded claystone and sandstone. Moreover,
Indonesia and Malaysia shares a similar regional geology. Thus, Indonesia Equation
(Equation 3-5) is suitable for this laminated clay behaviour (Hamada, 1996).

= ( (1

Where:

. )

)
2 .

Equation 3-5

= resistivity of rock filled with water

= resistivity of shale (2.58 ohm-m)

3.1.6. Water Saturation for Shale Formation

According to Bassiouni (1994), there are two methods to determine the water
saturation in shaly formations, namely Fertl and Hammack Equation, and Cyberlook
water saturation model. However, Fertl and Hammack Equation requires spontaneous
potential (SP) log, which is not provided. Thus, Cyberlook water saturation model is
selected.
Cyberlook water saturation model takes into account the term free water saturation
( ) and bound water saturation ( ). By using Equation 3-6 for average depth of
interest of clean water bearing formation, free water resistivity ( ) can be calculated
using Equation 3-7. For 100% shale formation, Equation 3-8 is calculated to determine
the bound water resistivity ( ) using Equation 3-9.

=
Where:

( + )
2

= total porosity from sand interval

= density porosity from sand interval
= neutron porosity from sand interval

25

Equation 3-6

 = . 2

( ) =
Where:

Equation 3-7

( ) + ( )
2

Equation 3-8

( ) = total porosity from shale interval

( ) = density porosity from shale interval
( ) = neutron porosity from shale interval

= . ( ) 2

Equation 3-9

By assuming = , the mixed water resistivity ( ) can be calculated using

Equation 3-10. The is the substituted into Equation 3-11 to find , and
subsequently calculate the water saturation ( ) using Equation 3-12.

.
+ (1 )

Equation 3-10

Equation 3-11

2
1

2
= ( )

Equation 3-12

26

3.2. Zonal Determination

Deep understanding of the geology of the reservoir is vital for future development and
production. It helps in determination of the size of the reservoir, the net pay zone and
also which zone in which layer. There is many layers of rock and minerals as it is drill
deep down the reservoir. In order to ease the identification of the fluid contact, the
zone will be determined first. The zones in the reservoir can be determined by using
the three logs given for this Gelama Merah reservoir. The three logs that were given is
the gamma ray log, resistivity log and the neutron-density log.
Based on the given logs, the zonal determination is shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 Identification of Zones
Depth from and to,
TVDDF (m)
1330-1494
1494-1498
1498-1510
1510-1524
1524-1548
1548-1600

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.

3.3. Fluid Contact

There are several methods can be used to determine fluid contacts like Gas-Down-To
(GDT), Oil-Up-To (OUT), Oil-Down-To (ODT) and Water-Up-To (WUT). Whereas,
the Gas Oil Contact (GOC) lies between GDT and OUT, Water Oil Contact (WOC)
lies between ODT and WUT. The exact depth can be identified by using pressure
profile plot and to compare the result with the well test report as well as the
determination of the zones from the logs data.

27

3.3.1. Half- Way Method

By using half- way method, the WOC and GOC can be determined. The WOC and
GOC can be identified when there is a sudden spike of log data for the neutron log and
resistivity log. Figure 3.4 can be used to illustrate the location of the GDT, OUT, ODT,
WUT, WOC and GOC. Whereas, TOP was determined by discovering the first
butterfly effect in the neutron and porosity logs.

Legends:
Gas
Oil
Water

Figure 3.4 Determination of Fluid Contacts in the Reservoir

Table 3-2 shows the depths for each fluid contact.

Table 3-2 Fluid Contacts From Logs
Fluid contacts
TOP
GDT
GOC
OUT
ODT
WOC
WUT

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

3.3.2. Pressure Profile Plot

GOC and WOC can also be identified by using the pressure profile plot of pressure
versus depth. Line of best fit was generated and the intersections point of gas and oil
determines the GOC, whereas the intersection point of oil and water determines the

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

Figure 3.7 Pressure Profile Plot

From Figure 3.7, the equation for gas, oil and water has been generated as shown in
the three equations below using the trend line with regression close to 1.0.
= 0.0456 + 1893.7

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)

WOC as shown in Figure 3.7.

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

3.3.3. Well Test Report

From the well test report by Zaki (2003), the fluid contacts are shown in Figure 3.8.

Figure 3.8 Fluid Contacts From the Well Test Report

(Extracted from Zaki, 2003)

Table 3-4 Fluid Contacts from Well Test Report

Fluid contacts
GOC
WOC

TVDDF (m)
1495.2
1535.5

31

TVDSS (m)
1467.9
1508.2

3.3.4. Summary of the Fluid Contacts

By comparing the fluid contacts retrieved from the logs, pressure profile plots and well
test report, Table 3-5 and Figure 3.9 illustrate the summary of the fluid contacts by
comparing the results from all three sources.
Table 3-5 Summary Of The Fluid Contacts By All Three Sources
Sources
Logs
Pressure Profile Plot
Well Test Report
Conclusion

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

Figure 3.9 Fluid Contacts In Base Map

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

3.4. Net Gross

3.4.1. Shale Volume Cutoff
Shale volume cutoff is used to differentiate between shale, shaly sand and sandstone
formation, in which exist in the reservoir. Based on Figure 3.10, when is less than
20%, the formation is sandstone. When is between 20% to 60%, the formation is
shaly sand. If the exceeds 60%, the formation is considered shale (Kamel &
Mabrouk, 2003).
Based on Figure 3.14, under the column , the classification of colour marking
corresponding to the type of formation is shown in Table 3-6.
Table 3-6 Classification of Colour Marking for Type of Formation
Type of Formation
Sandstone
Shaly Sand
Shale

Range
< 20%
20% < < 60%
> 60%

Figure 3.10 Shale Volume Cutoff

33

Colour

3.4.2. Porosity Cut-off

Porosity cutoff is a criteria which determined whether the reservoir can contain
hydrocarbons in the pore volume. When the porosity at the certain depth is greater than
the cutoff value, then the reservoir is said to be able contain the hydrocarbon. The
methodology of carrying out porosity cutoff is the same as shale volume cutoff where
porosity cutoff value is assumed to be less than 4% for gas (refer to Figure 3.11) and
8% for oil (refer to Figure 3.12) (McCain, Voneiff, Hunt, & Semmelbeck, 1993).
Based on Figure 3.14, the porosity cut-off is highlighted in red.

Figure 3.11 Gas Porosity Cutoff

Figure 3.12 Oil Porosity Cutoff

34

3.4.3. Water Saturation Cut-off

Based on McCain et al. (1993) and Bassiouni (1994), it was found that the water
saturation cutoff was 50%. For water saturations above 50%, McCain notices that the
reservoir will produce hydrocarbon with high water cut, while for saturations below
50%, the reservoir produces hydrocarbon with low water cut. It is also a common
situation where 50% water saturation cutoff is being used in many fields. However, in
the Gelama Merah field, the water saturation cutoff value was found to be 40% as
shown in Figure 3.13. Based on Figure 3.14, the water saturation cut-off is highlighted
in red.

Figure 3.13 Water Saturation Cutoff

35

3.4.4. Determination of Net-to-Gross (NTG)

Net-to-gross is the ratio of the net pay to the gross interval of the interest zone. NTG
implies the amount of sand which exist in the zone and it can represent the potential
containment of hydrocarbon in the zone. Equation 3-16 was used to calculate the NTG
of a zone.

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.

Shale volume (Vsh) cut-off

ii.

Porosity cut-off

iii.

Water Saturation cut-off

36

37

38

Figure 3.14 Petrophysics Calculation in Microsoft Excel

39

CHAPTER 4 VOLUMETRIC CALCULATION

4.1. Base Map/Scale
The topographic map is a map that show the contour lines with variation in thickness
of a specific interval or group of such intervals. The map is very important in the
determination of the tectonic framework and also in the structural relationship that is
responsible for a particular type of sediment accumulation. The circles enclosed
represents the hills of a specific height. Using a digital Planimeter, the area of every
contours can be determined. Figure 4.1 shows that topographic map of the Gelama
Merah reservoir where the region Red is gas and the region green is oil. Table 4-1
shows the area of contour line measured using Digital Planimeter.

Figure 4.1 Topographic map of Gelama Merah reservoir

Table 4-1 Area Of The Contour Line In Topographic Map
Depth (m)
1300 (1)
1300 (2)
1320 (1)
1320 (2)
1340
1360
1380

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

4.2. Estimation of Hydrocarbon in Place Using Deterministic Method

In order to calculate Gas-In-Place (GIP) and Oil-In-Place (OIP), the following
formulas below were applied.
The formula for GIP is given as shown in Equation 4-1 (Epgeology.com, 2015;
William C. Lyons & Gary J Plisga, 2011). The field unit for GIP is standard cubic feet
(scf).

Where:

43560 (1 )

Equation 4-1

43560= Conversion from acre-feet to cubic feets

NTG = Average Net-To-Gross ratio (dimensionless)
= Gross Rock Volume of gas (acre-feet)
= Porosity, void space in V (fraction)
= Water Saturation as a percentage of fluid content (percentage)
= Gas Formation Volume Factor (rcf/scf)

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

7758 = Conversion from acre-feet to barrels

NTG = Average Net-To-Gross ratio (dimensionless)
= Gross Rock Volume of oil (acre-feet)
= Porosity, void space in V (fraction)
= Water Saturation as a percentage of fluid content (percentage)
= Oil Formation Volume Factor (bbl/stb)

Several parameters need to be identified so that Equation 4-1 and Equation 4-2 can be
solved. They are listed below:
i.

Gross bulk volume

ii.

Formation volume factor

41

4.2.1. Gross Bulk Volume by Area Under the Graph

The gross rock volume (GRV) can be determined by using two methods. First is the
Digital Planimeter, which is used to calculate the area of the contour from the depth of
1300m till 1520m. These values were initially in meter square (2 ) and then
converted to acre-feet. . Besides, the depth of the contour will be converted into feet
as well.

Depth (ft)

Graph of Depth vs Area

4200
4300

Depth (ft)

4400

GDT

4500

GOC

4600

OUT
ODT

4700

WOC
4800

HPW

4900
5000
5100
0

5000

10000

15000

Figure 4.2 Graph of Depth vs. Area

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

GRV for gas (acre feet)

Proved gas (2P)
3059572.607

Proved gas (3P)

3272597.576

Meanwhile, for oil zone, it is shown in a shape of trapezium. The area of

trapezium=*(a+b)*c. GRV for oil is also including the proved, probable and possible
oil zone. An average of these three values will be taken as GRV for oil.
Table 4-3 GRV for Oil (Proved, Probable and Possible)
Proved Oil (1P)
1317585.344

GRV for Oil (acre feet)

Proved Oil (2P)
1466704.443
43

Proved Oil (3P)

2188976.448

4.2.2. Formation Volume Factor

Formation Volume Factor for oil, is given in the reservoir fluid study report which
is 1.169 bbl/STB. However, formaton volume factor for gas, Bg is not given and thus,
it needs to be determined.

Figure 4.4 Computation of Z-Factor

Z-factor was obtained by getting intersection point of the pseudo-reduced pressure and
pseudo-reduced temperature from Figure 4.5.

44

Figure 4.5 Z-Factor Correlation for Gas

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

Hence, the is 0.005223 3 /.

45

Equation 4-3

4.2.3. Gas-In-Place and Oil-In-Place

Oil and Gas in place can be obtained by inserting values for , GRV, Sw and Bg into
the Equation 4-1 and Equation 4-2. Table 4-4 illustrate the data and result for OIP and
GIP. Apart from that, contingent reserve (CR) can be defined as those quantities of
petroleum estimated, as of a given date, to be potentially recoverable from known
accumulations, but which are not currently considered commercially recoverable
(Satter et al., 2008). It can be obtained by using the Equation 4-4 and Equation 4-5.

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

4.3. Estimation of Hydrocarbon in Place Using Probabilistic Method

This method uses a different approach than deterministic method. The probabilistic
method assigns a range of values for each parameters. The value of parameters that are
used to calculate Original-Oil-In-place (OOIP) and Original-Gas-In-Place (OGIP)
such as porosity, water saturation and bulk volume are being ranged from minimum to
maximum to compute the probability with some statistical distribution. Monte Carlo
Simulation method is used by a series of 350 random values. The more random values
computed the more accurate the distribution will be.

4.3.1. Parameters of Distribution

4.3.1.1. Gross Rock Volume (GRV)
The value of gross rock volume is calculated from the graph of Depth vs. Area by
using the trapezium method of area under the graph. The maximum value for gross
rock volume is taken from the 3P value obtained by the determination method while
minimum value is 1P of the GRV.
The range of values for GRV and the Monte Carlo results is shown in Table 4-5.
Table 4-5 Values Used for GRV and Monte Carlo Results
Zone
Median Line
Min
Input
Max
Delta
Rand. Min
Output
Rand. Avg
Rand. Max

Oil Zone (acre-ft)

1466704.443
1317585.344
2188976.448
871391.104
1317995.43
1741233.815
2187321.408

48

Gas Zone (acre-ft)

3059572.607
3047039.798
3272597.576
225557.778
3047383.706
3161060.462
3272457.448

4.3.1.2. Net-To-Gross (NTG)

The net to gross value is ranged with minimum and maximum values according to the
petro physics data from the log data. The range of values are shown in Table 4-6.
Table 4-6 Values Used for NTG and Monte Carlo Results
Zone
Median Line
Min
Max
Delta
Rand. Min
Rand. Avg
Rand. Max

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%

4.3.1.4. Hydrocarbon Saturation (1-Sw)

Hydrocarbon saturation is basically a percentage of saturation without water saturation
which can be put as (1-Sw). The water saturation is extracted from the log data within
the interval of oil zone and gas zone. The minimum and maximum hydrocarbon
saturation can be obtained in Table 4-8.
Table 4-8 Values Used For Hydrocarbon Saturation and Monte Carlo Results
Zone

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

4.3.1.6. Recovery Factor (RF)

Since this well is assumed to be a gas cap well, the recovery factor for OOIP is in the
range of 10-20%. This is because of the presence of gas bearing zone being dominant
in the reservoir. For OGIP, a general recovery factor was taken into account since this
project are lack of information. The recovery factor for OGIP is in the range of 7090% of recovery (Ray Mireault, 2008). This recovery factor is used to calculate the
Contingent Resources (refer to appendix) with the same equation as deterministic
method above.

51

4.3.2. Result of Probabilistic Estimation for Hydrocarbon in Place

The original oil in place (OOIP) and original gas in place (OGIP) are calculated based
on the same equation with deterministic method. The parameters above have been an
input to the Monte Carlo Simulation to calculate the OOIP and OGIP. The results is
shown in Table 4-10.
Table 4-10 OOIP & OGIP from Monte Carlo Simulation
Confidence Level
P90
P50
P10

OOIP (MM bbl)

510.77
1403.78
2839.91

OGIP (MMM scf)

632.08
4111.74
11447.44

The results of Monte Carlo Simulation for OOIP and OGIP in Excel is attached in the
appendix.

4.3.3. Result of Probabilistic Estimation for Contingent Resource of Oil and

Gas
The result of CR from the Monte Carlo Simulation is used to plot a histogram. The
histogram is used to obtain a range of CR at different probabilities. The CR for oil and
gas can be determined based on the confidence level.
Proven reserves are the reserves that can be estimated with reasonable certainty based
on engineering and geoscientific data and are recoverable. It refers to the minimum
confidence which is P90 (90%) probability. Probable reserves are unproven reserves
that can be most likely recoverable, but slightly less than proven reserves. It is based
on reservoir temperature from nearby wells or from natural surface discharge. Proven
and probable reserves gave P50 (50%) of probability. Possible reserves have a slightly
lower chance of recovery than probable recovery. Proven reserves or being referred as
the maximum, with proven and probable yields a P10 (10%) of probability. (Zosimo f
sarmiento1 & Benedikt Steingrmsson, 2011)

52

4.3.3.1. Estimation of Contingent Resource for Oil

Figure 4.6 Cumulative Probability vs. Frequency Distribution For Oil CR

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

Oil (MM bbl)

98.57
181.94
319.57

53

4.3.3.2. Estimation of Contingent Resource for Gas

Figure 4.7 Cumulative Probability VS. Frequency Distribution for Gas CR

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

Gas (MMM scf)

1575
3669
6267

54

4.4. Volumetric Calculation from Petrel

The volumetric calculation from Petrel software depends strictly on the parameters
that the engineer has input into the program. The parameters include hydrocarbons
contacts (GOC & OWC), net-to-gross (N/G), porosity up-scaled model (), water
saturation (Sw), oil formation volume factor (Bo) and the gas formation volume factor
(Bg). Figure 4.8 shows the static surface model which was constructed using Petrel
software and Figure 4.9 shows volume calculated by Petrel in SI unit. Figure 4.9 shows
the stock-tank oil in place (STOIIP) and gas initially in place (GIIP) for the model
which was built in field units.

Figure 4.8 Petrel surface model

Figure 4.9 Petrel Volume Calculation

55

4.5. Summary of Volumetric Calculation

The results of OOIP, OGIP and CR estimations from both method is summarized in
Table 4-13 to analyse the difference in estimation.
Table 4-13 Comparison of OOIP & OGIP
Zone
Oil (MMbbl)

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

4.6. Reserves Estimation

The summary of all three methods in volumetric calculation is discussed below. In
order to calculate reserve estimation, there are three methods to be applied including
deterministic method, probabilistic method as well as Petrel.
4.6.1. Volumetric Method
Calculation of Original oil and gas in place were done by using those formulas as stated
in Table 4-14. Apart from that, respective data were tabulated in the same table as well.
Table 4-14 Tabulation of the calculation of OIP and GIP for Deterministic Method

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

Not producing gas for this project. Gas

cap will act as primary drive mechanism.
So no value for the contingent reserve for
gas.

RF: 30-60%
Recovery Factor
CR (1P)
CR (2P)
CR (3P)

MMSTB
MMSTB
MMSTB

0.45
192.807
213.402
249.850

4.6.2. Probabilistic Method

The original oil in place (OOIP) and original gas in place (OGIP) are calculated based
on the same equation with deterministic method. The parameters above have been an
input to the Monte Carlo Simulation to calculate the OOIP and OGIP. The results is
shown in Table 4-15.
Table 4-15 OOIP & OGIP from Monte Carlo Simulation
Confidence Level
P90
P50
P10

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

Gas Initial In Place (BSCF)

769.61

58

CHAPTER 5 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

5.1. Reservoir rock properties
5.1.1. Core plug data
In order to gain the rock properties of the Gelama Merah field, PETRONAS Carigali
Sendirian Berhad (PCSB) were outsourcing this process to Core Laboratories
Malaysia Sdn Bhd to perform advanced rock properties analyses. The samples that
were analysed is collected from the Gelama-2 ST1 well.
The list below are the 10 analyses performed by the Core Laboratories Sdn Bhd.
1. Basic Core Analysis
2. Formation Resistivity Factor at Overburden Pressure
3. Formation Resistivity Index by Continuous Injection Method
4. Cation Exchange Capacity
5. Oil-Water/Water-Oil Capillary Pressure by Overburden Centrifuge
6. Unsteady-State Gas-Oil Relative Permeability
7. Unsteady-State Water-Oil Relative Permeability
8. Steady-State Water-Oil Relative Permeability
9. High Pressure Mercury Injection (0-55,000 psia)
10. Rock (Pore Volume) Compressibility
42 core plug samples are taken for the listed analyses as shown in Table 5-1. A net
confining pressure of 1300 psi were applied on the core. It is exceptional for the rock
compressibility analysis, as the confining pressure determined for the samples were
500 psi.
The core sample for testing were generally ranged from silty to fine grained, poor to
moderately cemented sandstone. They have a 1-inch diameter of dimension and the
samples condition were unconsolidated.

59

Table 5-1 Core Analysis Result

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

Electrical Properties Test

Electrical Properties Test
Electrical Properties Test
Electrical Properties Test
Electrical Properties Test
Electrical Properties Test
Electrical Properties Test
Electrical Properties Test
Electrical Properties Test
Electrical Properties Test
Oil-Water Capillary Pressure
Oil-Water Capillary Pressure
Oil-Water Capillary Pressure
Rel Perm (Steady & Un-steady)
Rel Perm (Steady & Un-steady)
Rel Perm (Steady & Un-steady)
Rel Perm (Steady & Un-steady)
Rel Perm (Steady & Un-steady)
Rel Perm (Steady & Un-steady)
Rel Perm (Steady & Un-steady)
Rel Perm (Steady & Un-steady)
Rel Perm (Steady & Un-steady)

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

Rock Compressibility Test

Rock Compressibility Test
Rock Compressibility Test
Rock Compressibility Test
Rock Compressibility Test
Rock Compressibility Test
Rock Compressibility Test
Rock Compressibility Test
Rock Compressibility Test
Rock Compressibility Test
High Pressure Mercury Inj.
High Pressure Mercury Inj.
High Pressure Mercury Inj.
High Pressure Mercury Inj.
High Pressure Mercury Inj.
High Pressure Mercury Inj.
High Pressure Mercury Inj.
High Pressure Mercury Inj.
High Pressure Mercury Inj.
High Pressure Mercury Inj.

5.1.2. Porosity-Permeability Relationship

In order to determine the permeability for each zone to be introduced in the reservoir
simulation tool, Schlumberger Petrel, a graph of permeability versus porosity was
plotted. These data were obtained from the core analysis report. From the equation
obtained, the permeability for each zone can be calculated respectively. Meanwhile,
permeability for each zone are listed in Table 5-2.

Porosity -Permeability curve

10000
y = 0.0127e34.968x
R = 0.7668

Permeability , mD

1000

100

10

0.1

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Porosity, %

Figure 5.1 Graph of permeability versus porosity

Table 5-2 Porosity and Calculated Permeability for each zone

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

Table 5-3 The Core Samples Centrifuge Results

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

a) Capillary Pressure Results for sample 1-017

Capillary Pressure, psi

30
20

10
drainage

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

-10

imbibition

-20
-30

Water saturation, pore volume percentage

b) Capillary Pressure Results for sample 2-010

Capillary Pressure, psi

30
20
10
drainage

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

-10

imbibition

-20
-30

Water saturation, pore volume percentage

c) Capillary Pressure Results for sample 5-002

Capillary Pressure, psi

30
20
10
drainage

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

-10

imbibition

-20
-30

Water saturation, pore volume percentage

Figure 5.2: Capillary Pressure Results for sample (a) 1-017, (b) 2-010, and (c)5-002

65

5.1.4. Normalization and Averaging on Relative Permeability Data

The relative permeability provided in the core analysis data given should first be
normalized to eliminate the effect of different initial water and critical oil saturations.
The data is then de-normalized to be extract to the different regions of the reservoir
based on existing critical fluid saturation for each reservoir region in the dynamic
model. (Ahmad, 2006)
The normalized water saturation (S*w) is calculated for each set of core sample in
Table 5-4 by using Equation 5-1.

1
= critical oil saturation
= connate water saturation
= normalized water sturation
=

Where:

Equation 5-1

Table 5-4 Calculation of Normalized Water Saturation (S*w)

Core Sample

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

The calculated values are tabulated in Table 5-5.

Table 5-5 Normalized Properties
Core Sample

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

The normalized is plotted using regular Cartesian coordinate versus

for all core samples on Figure 5.3.

Unsteady State Normalized Relative Permeability vs

Normalized Water Saturation
1.0000

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

Figure 5.3 Normalized Relative Permeability versus Normalized Water Saturation

Average relative permeability of oil and water at connate water and critical oil is
calculated in Table 5-6 using the relationship show in Equation 5-3.
( ) =

= [( ) ]
= ()

( ) =

= [( ) ]
= ()

69

Equation 5-3

Where:

= total number of core samples

= thickness of sample i
= absolute permeability of sample i

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

= ( )
=
= ()

Table 5-6 Averaging Relative Permeability Data

S*w
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
S*w
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

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

= ( ) ( )

Table 5-7 De-normalized Permeability Data for Oil-Water System

S*w
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

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

5.1.5. Leverett J-Function

Leverette J function method was used to correlate and interpolate capillary pressure
data from laboratory Measurements. J function has been calculated from the air
mercury injection data. The measurements made on core plugs taken from the reservoir
sand and MDT data, which had undergone the oil-water capillary pressure by
centrifuge. J function has been calculated using the Equation 5-6

() =

Where:

0.2166

cos

Equation 5-6

Pc

= Capillary Pressure, psi

=Interfeial tension
= Contact Angle
=Permeability (mD)
=Porosity (fraction)
() =Leverette J function (dimensionless)
cos =26, for Air-braine

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.

Figure 5.4 J-Function Plot (drainage)

72

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

5.2. Reservoir Fluid Properties

There are two methods in obtaining the samples for laboratory work. One of it is called
bottom-hole sample or subsurface sample which the liquid at the wellbore is taken
when the well is at shut in phase. The other method is called separator sample or
surface sample where the samples were taken at the separator. The samples must be
taken at undersaturated condition whereby before the reservoir pressure drops below
the bubble point pressure of the reservoir liquid. This is because, at the pressure below
bubble point, the samples taken would not represent the original reservoir mixture
(William D. McCain, 1990). As for the Gelama Merah-1 well, 3 sets of liquid and gas
samples were collected at separator from Unit 8 formation. The samples were analyzed
by Petronas Research & Scientific Services Sdn. Bhd. (PRSS) for a detailed study of
reservoir fluid properties or as it is called PVT analysis.
Six major procedures were done for Gelama Merah-1 which are:
1. Preliminary quality checks
2. Compositional analysis
3. Constant Composition Expansion (CCE)Test
4. Differential Vaporization Test
5. Viscosity Test
6. Single Stage Separator Test

74

5.2.1. Preliminary Quality Checks

This procedure is done to ensure valid outcomes of the analysis, the quality of fluid
samples needed to be check before detailed study are performed. Based on this
measure, the sets of sample are selected for further analysis. This procedure is done by
checking the opening pressure of separator oil and gas as well as the bubble point of
separator point at separator temperature. The summary of the quality checks are
tabulated in Table 5-9.
Table 5-9 Quality Checks of Separator Samples
Type of sample
Cylinder no.
Opening pressure at
separator temperature, F
Psig
Approximate sample
volume @ 1000 psig
Cc
Bubble point pressure at
separator temperature, F
Psig
Remarks

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

5.2.2. Compositional Analysis

Compositional analysis is performed to determine the compositions of hydrocarbon in
the black oil. Using a spike flash technique, the composition of the separator oil was
analyzed. The gas oil ratio (GOR) was measured when the oil and gas achieved
equilibrium.
Using the High Temperature Gas Chromatography (HTGC), the equilibrium gas was
analyzed and detailed hydrocarbon composition from C3 to C33 was obtained. From
the HGTC results, the molecular weight was derived and using ANTON PAAR
Densitometer, the density was measured.

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

Reservoir Fluid (%)

50
40
30
20
10
0
N2

CO2

C1

C2

C3

i-C4 n-C4 i-C5 n-C5

C6

C7

C8

C9

C10 C11+

Component
Pb=1035

Pb=2014

Figure 5.5 Mole Fraction of Each Component

Referring to Figure 5.5, the reservoir is high in proportion of heavy hydrocarbons. This
and since the GOR is below than 2000 scf/stb, it can be concluded that this is a black
oil type of reservoir fluid.
77

5.2.3. Constant Composition Expansion (CCE) Test

CCE test are performed on crude oil to simulate the pressure-volume relations of these
hydrocarbon systems. The objective of CCE test is to determine the saturation pressure
which is the bubble point pressure and dew point pressure of the reservoir, the
isothermal compressibility factors of gas phase and total hydrocarbon volume as a
function of pressure.

Figure 5.6 Constant Composition Expansion Test(Ahmad, 2006)

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

Table 5-12 summarizes the results on constant composition expansion.

Table 5-12 Constant Composition Expansion at 155 F
Pressure
(Psig)
5000
4000
3500
3000
2700
2500
2300
2100
2014*
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800

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

Note: *Bubble point pressure

As in Table 5-12, the relative volume can be calculated using Equation 5-8

=
Where:

Equation 5-8

Vrel = relative volume

Vt= total hydrocarbon volume
Vsat = volume at saturation phase

The Y-function is a dimension-less compressibility function that is used to smooth the

values of the relative volume. This is due to the relative volume data usually need

79

smoothing in order to correct the laboratory inaccuracies in measuring the total

hydrocarbon volume below the bubble-point pressure as well as at lower
pressure(Ahmad, 2006). The function is given by Equation 5-9.

Where:

Equation 5-9

( 1)

Psat = saturation pressure, psia

P = pressure, psia
Vrel = relative volume at pressure p

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

Relative Volume, CC/CC

the bubble point pressure.

3.35

0.9
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

3.3
4000

Pressure, Psig
Relative Volume

Y-Function

Figure 5.7 Relative Volume and Y-Function at 155 F

The primary used of Y-function (Referring to Figure 5.7) is to extrapolate data to
different saturation pressure as a comparison data from different wells in reservoir.

80

5.2.4. Differential Vaporization Test

Differential vaporization test is similar to flash vaporization test (also known as
constant compositional expansion test) except that it is focused on pressure below
bubble point pressure ( ) under reservoir temperature. Figure 5.8 shows a schematic
diagram of a differential vaporization test. When the pressure reached below , the
liberated gas is continuously removed from the PVT cell, and the gas properties is
measured using gasometer and Natural Gas Analyzer (NGA). The pressure steps
interval below is set to be 400 psig.

Figure 5.8 Differential Vaporization of Hydrocarbons in Cells

(Extracted from Abdus Satter, 2008)
From the differential vaporization test, many important parameters can be evaluated.
The main parameters of interest from this differential vaporization test are oil
formation volume factor and solution gas oil ratio to predict the behavior below .
Table 5-13 shows the data obtained from differential vaporization test of the Gelama
Merah-1 sample conducted at reservoir temperature.

81

Table 5-13 Differential Vaporization Test At

Pressure
(psig)

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

Note: 1. Density of residual oil at 60 = 0.909 g/cc

2. API Gravity of residual oil 60 = 24.16
From the data obtained in Table 5-13, the oil formation volume factor curve is
demonstrated as shown in Figure 5.9. Above , increases slightly as pressure
decrease. However, as pressure decreases below , decreases significantly.

Oil Formation Volume Factor

(bbl/STB)

1.18
1.16
1.14
1.12
1.1
1.08
1.06
1.04
1.02
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Pressure (psig)

Figure 5.9 Solution Gas Oil Ratio At

82

4500

5000

5.2.5. Viscosity Test

The viscosity measurement for oil was performed using Capillary Viscometer. Below
, liberated gas is removed and the viscosity of gas is measured using Gas Analyzer.
The viscosity values of oil and gas are tabulated in Table 5-14.

Pressure (psig)
5000
4000
3000
2500
2014*
1600
1200
800
400
200
100

Table 5-14 Oil And Gas Viscosity At

Viscosity (cP)
Oil/Gas Viscosity
Ratio
Oil
Gas
1.7581
1.6066
1.4759
1.4020
1.3374
1.5105
0.0152
99
1.6567
0.0143
116
1.8453
0.0136
136
2.0740
0.0131
158
2.2157
0.0128
173
2.3541
0.0125
188

Note: * Bubble point pressure

From Table 5-14, the oil and gas viscosity curve can be plotted as shown in Figure
5.10. Above , the oil viscosity decreases as pressure decreases. Below , the gas is
liberated from oil. It can be observed that the gas viscosity decreases as a function of
decreasing pressure as gas molecules can easily past each other, whereas oil viscosity
increases as pressure decreases.
0.016

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

Figure 5.10 Oil Viscosity @ 155 F

83

0.012
5000

Gas Viscosity (cP)

Oil Viscosity (cP)

2.4

5.2.6. Separator Test

The objective of separator test is to provide relevant information related to fluid
properties for optimizing surface separation conditions to maximize stock-tank oil
production (Ahmed & McKinney, 2011). Three case of single stage separator test at
different separator conditions are studied. The conditions for every case is stated
below:
a. Case 1: Separator condition at 890 psia.
b. Case 2: Separator condition at 265 psia.
c. Case 3: Separator condition at 60 psia.

Table 5-15 Summary of Single-Stage Separator Flash Analysis

Case Pressure
Separator
(psia)
Temperature
()

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.

Minimum solution gas oil ratio

ii.

Minimum oil formation volume factor

iii.

Maximum API value.

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

5.3. Well Test Analysis

The objectives of conducting Drill Stem Test (DST#1) in Unit 8 in Gelama Merah-1:
1. To evaluate well deliverability and flow performance (production rate,
productivity index (PI) and skin damage.
2. To confirm reservoir fluid behaviour (GOR and Basic Sediment and water),
condensate API, specific gravity of gas and gas composition.
3. To obtain reservoir data (pressure, temperature, permeability and reservoir
model).
4. To obtain representative sample of oil, water and gas for fluid analysis (PVT,
corrosion, refinery, fluid compatibility, pipeline, geochemical and so on) for
field development, engineering and exploration studies.
5. To investigate the sand producibility and establish critical rates for sand
production (if sand is produced).
Drill stem test, denoted DST#1 was conducted in Gelama Merah-1 and it is usually
done in the early stage of the production life of a reservoir. DST#1 was conducted to
evaluate the hydrocarbon potential in Unit 8 sand from the interval of 1521- 1530mMDRKB. Cement Bond log (CBL) was done in order to determine the cement integrity
behind the 9-5/8 casing before the test was carried out. This log indicates that there
was a good cement placed across Unit 8 sand.
The procedure of conducting DST#1 in Gelama Merah are listed as follow:
1. The test string with TCP gun, DST tools, drill collars and tubing was dropped
into the hole.
2. The well was initially opened at 16/34 adjustable choke size and beaned up to
32/64 for clean- up period.
3. After 2 hours of clean-up period, the choke size was increased to 48/64 and
the downstream pressure was decreased. The choke size was again increased
to 56/63 and the downstream pressure was again observed to decrease after
15 minutes. Then, the flow was diverted to 48/64 fixed choke to inspect the
adjusted choke box. The pressure was then increased.
4. After the well was sufficiently cleaned with stable wellhead pressure and 0%
BS&W, the flow was then diverted for main flow period which produce at
86

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

The Summary of Input data for DST#1 I shown in Table 5-16.

Table 5-16 Summary of the Input Data
Properties
Input data
Porosity, %
27
Water Saturation, %
36
Oil Volume Factor, stb/ bbl
1.17
Oil Viscosity, cp
1.36
Oil Compressibility, 1/ psia
9.77106
Net Thickness, ft
29.5
Rock Compressibility, 1/ psia
3.22106
Wellbore Radius, ft
0.362
Note: *Data from Sumandak Selatan-1 PVT Report

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

Three main periods are shown in Figure 5.11.

Figure 5.11 Graph of Pressure and Flow rate versus time

89

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

Table 5-18 Determination of the Time Regions And Justification

Period
Early Time Region
(ETR)

Time
0.001 hr till 0.3 hr

Middle Time Region

(MTR)

0.3 hr till 1.2 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.

Figure 5.12 Derivative Plot Analysis (Main Build-Up Period)

91

The summary of the Pressure Transient Analysis is shown in Table 5-19.

Table 5-19 Pressure Transient Analysis
Properties
Wellbore Storage, bbl/
psi

Simulated
Derivative
0.00271

Remarks

It is quite low and only slight

distortion at the data from the
early time region.
Permeability, mD
140
The permeability of Unit 8 is
considered average permeable,
which falls between the ranges of
50- 200mD.
Kh, mD- ft
4130
It is the product of permeability
and height or pay zone of the
reservoir.
Skin
-2.1
No hump was observed from the
pressure
derivative
curve.
Negative skin indicates the well
is not damaged.
Extrapolated Pressure,
2116
It can be taken as the initial
P* or Initial Pressure at
reservoir. This is because the
1491.1m- MDRKB, psi
DST#1 was conducted at the
beginning of the reservoir which
had not damaged. It was
obtained by extrapolating the
slope of the Superposition plot
for main build up period at t=0.
Productivity index (PI) 3.4556258 STB/D/psi The productivity index is great
due to the small skin of the
reservoir.
Reservoir Model
Homogeneous
It can be analysed that the
reservoir has skin, wellbore
storage and constant pressure
boundary. It was happened due
to the WOC effect which is about
5 meters below the perforation.
Boundary effect also indicates
the presence of fault in the
formation.

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

3. The productivity index of this reservoir is 3.4556258 STB/D/psi.

4. The best model to represent this reservoir is a homogeneous reservoir with
skin, wellbore storage and constant pressure boundary.
5. There is no water production during maximum flow period.
Well test result summary can be summarized as shown in Table 5-20.
Table 5-20 Well Test Result Summary
Period

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

CHAPTER 6 RESERVOIR SIMULATION

The reservoir simulation is performed step by step according to Figure 6.1.

Well
Placement

Base Case

Creaming
Curve

Production
Profile

Sensitivity Analysis
- Water Injection

Figure 6.1 Reservoir Simulation Steps

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.

To determine the initial oil in place.

ii.

To provide a better prediction for development plan.

iii.

To foresee the oil production over the production life.

iv.

To convince the management team with the development plan.

v.

To assure the government approve with the development plan and also the
rules for health, safety and environment.

vi.

To monitor the performance of the reservoir over the production life.

94

6.2. History Matching

History matching was done by using the information obtained from the well test report
and it can be used to modify reservoir model so that it produces like it was in the real
reservoir. As a result, reliable production forecast can be achieved by using reservoir
simulator.
Table 6-1 shows bottom hole pressure of Gelama Merah field from well test analysis.
Table 6-1 BHP of Gelama Merah 1
Date
01-02-2016
01-02-2016
01-02-2016
01-02-2016
01-02-2016
01-02-2016
01-02-2016
01-02-2016
01-02-2016
01-02-2016
01-02-2016
01-02-2016
01-02-2016
01-02-2016
01-02-2016
01-02-2016
01-02-2016
01-02-2016
01-02-2016

Bottom hole pressure

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

Figure 6.2 History Matching

6.3. Well Placement

In order to maximise the oil recovery and increase the recovery factor, well placement
is one of the major factor regarding to this matter. A few criteria need to be met in
order to meet these objectives and these criteria are listed as follows:
i.

High oil saturation and low water saturation

ii.

High NTG

iii.

High porosity

iv.

High permeability

v.

Depth of oil- water contact and gas- oil contact

vi.

Reservoir thickness

96

6.4. Base Case Model

The base case model for the Gelama Merah is made up of 14 wells and details of the
base case model are tabulated in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2 Parameters for Base Case Model
Title of base case
Number of Wells
Type of Wells
Depletion Method
Control Mode
Oil Production rate
Limit
Bottom Hole Pressure

Gelama Merah Field Base Case

14
Vertical Wells
Natural Depletion
Well rate production control
3100 STB/D
Bottom Hole Pressure
1500.0 psia

6.5. Optimum Number of Wells to be Applied

18 wells were introduced into the reservoir simulator in order to determine optimum
number of wells for the operations which can result in the highest field oil production.
The well placement for all 18 production wells can be found from Figure 6.3.
However, all the wells are perforated at the targeted zone and simulations were done
in order to observe oil production for each well and these results are listed in Table
6-3.

Figure 6.3 Placement of Wells

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

Field Oil Production

(MMSTB)
28.366
42.436
49.635
58.541
66.699
70.246
75.471
77.750
84.385
87.651
89.711
91.370
92.998
94.435
94.476
94.115
93.823
76.128

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

Field Oil Prodction, MMSTB

Graph of Field Oil Production vs

Number of Wells
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

No. of Wells

Figure 6.4 Creaming Curve for the Base Case

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.

Graph of Revenue vs Number of Wells

Profit (Billions USD)

$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
0

10

12

14

16

No. of Wells

Figure 6.5 Graph of Revenue versus 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.

Figure 6.6 Well Placement of 10 Wells (Optimum Number of Wells)

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

6.6. Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitive analysis was done in order to make comparison among all cases applied and
to study the results of the applications. Sensitivity analysis can be separated into three
phases; first, second and third phase.
The first phase includes primary recovery with individual rate optimisation with its
natural reservoir energy. In this section, there are only one sensitivity factor taken into
consideration, which is oil production flow rate by limiting the bottom hole pressure
of each well. Every well has different producing capability and thus the oil production
rate for each well were optimized in order to achieve plateau rate which can promise
a more stabilized oil producing rate and higher field recovery.
On the other hand, it includes secondary recovery with water flooding and water
injection in the second phase. By perforating in oil zone, performance of oil recovery
has improved and result in the highest increment of recovery.
In the third phase, it includes the Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) screening and
planning. However, this is only applicable or considerable if the petroleum economics
has improved and can achieve break-even point or the revenue is exceeding all the cost
needed.
As a result, the above 3 phases can be separated as below:
i.

First Phase
-

ii.

iii.

Optimizing Rate for All Wells

Second Phase
-

Water Injection

Water flooding

Third Phase
-

EOR Screening

EOR Plan

102

6.6.1. First Phase: Method 2 Optimizing Rate for All Wells

In this method, the flow rate for each individual well has been adjusted to maximize
the field oil production. Each well has different capability to produce. The values are
adjusted through trial and error method. The rates for every individual well has been
tabulated as shown in Table 6-4.
Table 6-4 Optimized Rate for Individual Well (Before sensitivity studies)
Oil Producing
Well
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

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

Table 6-5 Recovery Factor for All Optimized Rate Cases

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

6.6.2. Second Phase: Water Injection

The primary purpose of applying water flooding to this reservoir is to maintain the
reservoir pressure as it decreases gradually along its producing life. For this case, water
injection is applied on to the Optimized Rate Case 2 which possess the highest
recovery factor for the primary recovery methods among all. A regular six-spot pattern
was used as the injector well pattern. 6 water injectors were placed in order to maintain
the pressure of reservoir or to increase the reservoir energy. Same operating strategies
were used for water flooding as the base case but only added new strategies for the
injection of water.
6.6.2.1. Injection/Producing Well Pattern Layout

Figure 6.11 Well Placement for Oil Producing Wells

105

Figure 6.12 Well Placement for Water Injectors

6.6.2.2. Water Injection Rate

Water injection rate was varied in order to find the highest increment in oil recovery.
The simulations were done by using trial and error method and the most optimum
water injection rate was found to be 12 Billion STB/Day as shown in Table 6-6.
6.6.2.3. Results
The results of field oil production with recovery factor after the application of water
injection at year 2018 is tabulated in Table 6-6. However, there is no incremental in
the oil recovery from the Optimized Rate Case 2 after the application of water
injection. This is due to the high water and gas production of at the oil producing well
and lead to no increment of oil recovery.

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

Field Oil Production

(MMSTB)
96.399
97.125
97.506
97.722
98.041
98.207
98.169

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

Liquid Flowrate [STB/d]

10000 20000 30000 40000

5000 15000 25000 35000 45000

Case1_WI_Q_2000sm3 Field

1E+07 3E+07 5E+07 7E+07 9E+07

2E+07 4E+07 6E+07 8E+07 1E+08
0

Liquid Production Volume [STB]

Pressure [psi]

1700 1800 1900 2000 2100

1650 1750 1850 1950 2050 2150

reservoir pressure and no increase in oil production.

2018

2020

2022

2024

2026

2028

2030

2032

2034

2036

Date
Oil production cumulative

Oil production rate

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

Liquid Production Volume [STB]

2E+07 4E+07 6E+07 8E+07 1E+08

0
1E+07 3E+07 5E+07 7E+07 9E+07

2.5E+08
1.5E+08
5E+07
3E+08
2E+08
1E+08

Case1_WI_Q_2000sm3 Field

Gas Production Volume [MSCF]

water zone at year 2 are plotted in Figure 6.14.

Date
Gas production cumulative

Oil production cumulative

Water 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

6.6.3. Second Phase: Water Flooding

The main objective of the application of water flooding to the Gelama Merah Field is
to improve the reservoirs sweep efficiency as well as increase recovery of oil. For
this case, water is injected in oil zone and this is applied on to the Optimized Rate Case
2 as well which possess the highest recovery factor for the primary recovery methods
among all. A regular six-spot pattern was used as the injector well pattern. 6 water
injectors were located at the same spot for water injection as shown in Figure 6.12 or
Figure 6.16. The same operating strategies were used for water injection.
6.6.3.1. Injection Well Pattern Layout

Figure 6.16 Water Injector for Water Flooding

6.6.3.2. Water Injection Rate

Water injection rate was varied accordingly and injected into the oil zone in order to
find the highest increment in oil recovery. The method of trial and error was used in
order to complete the simulations and the most optimum water injection rate of 150,
000 STB/day as shown in Table 6-7.
6.6.3.3. Results
An increment of 7.61% was obtained after the application of water flooding at the oil
zone as oil production rate starts to decrease after 2 years. As shown in Table 6-7, the
109

highest incremental of recovery factor is 7.61% and it can be achieved by injecting

150,000 STB/ D into the oil zone. In fact, water is very efficient in sweeping oil due
to the medium gravity of oil in the reservoir. Water flooding is very suitable to be
applied to this field because it is a water- wet reservoir. By applying water flooding,
the wetting phase fluid (water) will displace the non-wetting phase fluid (oil) and
hence it increases the overall oil recovery. Apart from that, water is cheaper as
compared to other injecting materials to be injected in the reservoir and its availability
promote the application of water flooding for this project.
Table 6-7 Field Oil Production and Recovery Factor for Water Injection
Water Injection
Rate, MSTB/D
5
10
50
100
150
200
250
300

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

6.7. Production Profile

From the sensitivity analysis, the highest recovery factor yield from water flooding is
31.40% of original oil in place. As a result, rate optimization is again applied to the
field, so that plateau rate can be achieved and increase in oil recovery factor. Optimized
rate for each individual wells are tabulated as shown in Table 6-8.
Table 6-8 Optimized Rate For Individual Well (After Sensitivity Studies)
Oil Producing
Well
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

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)

Recovery Factor (%)

Increment in
Recovery Factor (%)

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

6.8. Reservoir Management and Surveillance

6.8.1. Reservoir Management
Reservoir management are usually performed before field development work begins
and been monitored throughout production life of the reservoir in order to perform
production forecast and minimize the risk of investment. Information from all
disciplines will be collected including geologic mapping, exploration and development
well, and log and core data acquisition, reservoir rock and fluid properties and so on.
This information is then analysed and studied to develop a resource database, which
supports both geologic and reservoir simulation models. These models are used to
evaluate reservoir development and depletion plans. Both technical and economic
issues are taking into considerations for reservoir development plan. These plan were
performed in order to maximize oil recovery and revenues made with proper
application of safe, and reliably procedures.
However, there are a few major problems encountered with field development plan for
Gelama Merah field including insufficient information like geological data was
114

provided. It caused well correlation cannot be done. Therefore, placement of wells

might defer and be affected. Seismic data were not provided and the strength of water
aquifer cannot be predicted. Lastly, there is only single well core data were provided
and same properties were assumed for the whole reservoir may cause error in the result
of reservoir simulations.

6.8.2. Reservoir surveillance

In order to detect potential causes that could leads to reduce in recovery efficiency,
constant monitoring field and individual well performance namely reservoir
surveillance is essential. The most common parameters to be monitored includes
reservoir pressure, producing flow rate, field oil and water production.
However, graph of field oil production and reservoir pressure versus time are quite
commonly used. By observing these plots, production problems such as abnormal
pressure, water influx, leakage or loss to the formation, or bad data can be detected.
Once sufficient history has been obtained under reasonably stabilized operating
conditions, it is possible to extrapolate the historical plot to anticipate abandonment
pressure. Apart from that, reservoir pressure should also be monitored. As it goes
below bubble point pressure, development strategies need some changes as dissolved
gas can liberate from the oil into gas cap.
Producing rate of oil, water and gas are so important for reservoir surveillance. For
instance, high water production shows that the oil producing wells are producing at
very high rate beyond its capability and it should be producing at lower rates. Lastly,
Sand production monitoring is also important as sand is most likely contributed to
production problems. Thus, proper measurement need to be taken so that scaling
problem can be avoided. Fluid samples need to be collected from time to time to
monitor the reservoir performance.

115

CHAPTER 7 PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY

7.1. Introduction
This chapter will include all the details and information about the production
technology regarding Gelama Merah. According to the creaming curve, 14 wells were
taking as the optimized wells to achieve the plateau production rate 2500 STB/D which
is based on the results of reservoir simulation model. Moreover, studies will carry out
the methods of Nodal Analysis using software analysis (Prosper) which consists of
inflow and outflow performance, as well as sand control, artificial lifts am tubing sizes.
In addition, the problem that encounters production will be further explained. The
objectives for this chapter is listed as follow:

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.

To consider the future use of a production enhancement or recompletion plan.

7.2. Sand Control Method

From the core analysis information from the Final Well Report of Gelama Merah 1,
the formation is considered as unconsolidated sands. Therefore, a sand production
might occur later in production. Several methods have been identified to control and
remove sand production are by stand-alone sand screen, installing gravel pack or
slotted liner.
Gravel packing will not be considered as one of this fields sand control. This is
because gravel pack is more difficult to operate, time consuming and expensive in
deviated wells which increases cost of installation phase. Furthermore, gravel pack
requires a large wellbore diameter to achieved required through bore which
significantly requires larger size casing in upper section.
Table 7-1 shows the active sand control methods that shall be implemented in Gelama
Merah field which are:

Wire Wrapped Screen

116

Pre-Packed Screen

Wire Wrapped 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:

Compound Grading Sand Control Screen (CGS) on Liner

Continuous Wire Wrapped Sand Control (CWWS)

Spiral Welded Liner (SWL)

7.3. Nodal Analysis

System analysis approach, often called NODAL Analysis, has been applied for many
years to analyse the performance of systems composed of interacting components. The
procedure consists of selecting a node in the well and dividing the system at this point.
All of the components upstream of the node comprise the inflow section, while the
outflow section consists of all the components downstream of the node.

Figure 7.1: System Analysis Approach

The effect of change in any of the components can be analysed by recalculating the
node pressure versus flowrate using new characteristics of the component. If a change
was made in an upstream component, the outflow curve will remain unchanged. If
either curve is changed, the intersection will be shifted and a new flow capacity and
node pressure will exist. The curves will also be shifted if either of the fixed pressures
are changed which may occur with depletion or a change in separation conditions.

118

7.3.1. IPR and PVT correlation

7.3.1.1. Inflow Performance Prediction
For predicting the performance of the inflow, some data were required to be set in the
software analysis (Prosper). One production test in unit 8 was carried out in Gelama
Merah-1 in the 9-5/8 cased hole section. The flow results were as follow:
Main flow period 1378 stb/d of oil with 24-degree API, 0.16 MMscf/d of gas, GOR
of 119 scf/stb at 128/64 chock size. Table 7-2 shows the well test data used to obtain
the required results
Table 7-2: Well Test Result Summary
Period
Chock ()
FBHP psi @ 1496.1 m-MDRKB
FBHT @ 1496.1 m-MDRKB
WHP, psia
WHT,
Sep, P, psi
Sep, T,
SIBHP, psi @ 1496.1 m-MDRKB
SIBHT, @ 1496.1 m-MDRKB
Oil rate stb/d
Gas rate, MMscf/d
Water rate stb/d
GOR, scf/stb
Gas gravity, SG (Air = 1)
Oil, API
H2S, ppm
CO2, %
BS & W, %

119

Main flow period

32/64
1753
155
390
97
155
94
n/a
n/a
1,378
0.16
0
119
0.65
23.7
0
0
0

The inflow performance relationship (IPR) was generated in Figure 7.3 based on the
data from Table 7-2.

Figure 7.2: Inflow Performance Data

Figure 7.3: IPR Plot

120

7.3.1.2. Outflow Performance Prediction

The outflow performance will be studied based on the tubing well performance and
well deliverability. Selected parameters were chosen to be analysed and discussed for
the sensitivity purposes; namely tubing diameter, water cut, reservoir pressure and gas
oil ratio (GOR).
For the tubing size sensitivity selection, six diameters were selected to be analysed;
2.375, 2.875, 3.5, 4.5, 5.563 and 6.625. As well as the water cut that varies
between 0% to 100% with every 10% increase. Lastly, the reservoir pressure was
identified to be 2650 psig. The results are displayed as shown in Table 7-3, Table 7-4,
Table 7-5 and Table 7-6.
Table 7-3: Tubing performance with pressure depletion
Tubing ID
Production Rate, Qo (STB/day)
(inch)
P 2116
P 2000
P 1800
P 1500
2.375
1786
1199
805
N/A
2.875
1977
1276
932
N/A
3.500
2169
1388
1096
N/A
4.500
2300
1438
998
N/A
5.563
2404
1609
975
N/A
6.625
2496
1690
897
N/A
Table 7-4: Tubing performance with different Wellhead Pressure (0% WC)
Production Rate, Qo (STB/day)
Tubing
ID (inch) 200
250
300
350
400
500
2.375
1701
1515
1309
1071
798
N/A
2.875
2026
1747
1494
1200
870
N/A
3.500
2237
1948
1531
1195
643
N/A
4.500
2335
1948
1556
N/A
N/A
N/A
5.563
2242
1520
1515
N/A
N/A
N/A
6.625
1738
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Tubing
ID
(inch)
2.375
2.875
3.500
4.500
5.563
6.625

Table 7-5: Tubing performance with Varying GOR

Production Rate, Qo (STB/day)
GOR 267

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

Production Rate, Qo (STB/day)

WC 10%
WC 20%
WC 30%
1180
979
716
1304
1056
726
1309
1061
N/A
875
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
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

7.3.2. Tubing size

According to the nodal analysis evaluation, the tubing size selected were as follow
2.375, 2.875, 3.5, 4.5, 5.563 and 6.625. After simulating them using a software
analysis (Prosper), it was found that 2.875 is the best size to be selected and that is
for the reason of avoiding formation fracture and sand production in the high rate
production. At the same time, low production rate is not abdicable as well. Therefore,
2.875 was selected as it is the not a big size avoiding the high production rate which
will result in formation fracture and sand production. Figure 7.4 and Table 7-7 shows
the results for the production data for various tubing sizes.

Figure 7.4: Inflow/Outflow curve for various tubing sizes

Table 7-7: Production data for various tubing size

Tubing ID
(inch)
2.375
2.875
3.500
4.500
5.563
6.625

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

7.3.3. Artificial Lift Method Justifications

Artificial lift is any method used to raise oil to the surface through a well after reservoir
pressure has declined to the point at which the well no longer produces by means of
natural energy. It may prove necessary from the beginning of production for oil wells
when the reservoir does not have enough energy to lift the fluid to the surface process
facilities or when the productivity index is deemed inadequate. The most common
types of artificial lifts are: Rod Pumps, Electrical Submersible Pumps, Hydraulic
Pumps, Progressive Cavity Pumps and Gas Lift (Humg, 2014). Over 90% of the global
producing wells are currently using some form of artificial lift. 94% of oil wells will
need artificial lift or pumps at some point in their lifecycle. 70% of the worlds oil and
gas production is derived from mature fields, including a large percentage in the
secondary or tertiary production phase.
Regarding the gas life section, there are some consideration that might be taken into
account:

Maximizing the production rate.

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 gas-oil ratio produced fluid.

High reservoir inflow productivity index.

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:

Operation of gas lift valves is unaffected by produced solids.

Gas lift operation is unaffected by deviated or crooked holes.

Use of side pocket mandrels allows easy wireline replacements of

(inexpensive) gas lift valves.

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.

Can produce from a wide range depths & flow rates.

Uses the same well equipment from 100-10,000bpd production rates.

Copes with uncertainties and changes in reservoir performance, reservoir

pressure, water cut & production index over the well life.

Low operating and maintenance cost (wireline servicing is possible).

Gas lift operation independent of bottom hole temperature.

Gas lift has also several disadvantages that can affect the production rate such as the
following:

Gas lift is inefficient in energy terms (typically 15-20%).

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.

Lifting of low fluid volumes is inefficient due to gas slippage.

7.3.3.2. Electrical Submersible Pump

Electrical Submersible Pump (ESP) is a versatile form of artificial lift with pumps
ranging from 150 to 60,000 bfd in operation. ESPs have been used since the 1930s
and manufacturing technology has evolved greatly since then to extend their
application in a range of harsh operating environments (subsea, sandy, gassy, high
temperature etc.). Electric submersible pumps (ESPs) is a widely used artificial lift
method, particularly for heavier or low GOR oils (Amao, 2013).
The advantages for ESPs as follow (Amao, 2013):

High production rates and suitable for high water cut wells

Controllable production rate and efficient energy use

Access below ESP via Y tool and comprehensive downhole measurement

available

Minimum surface footprint and Quick restart after shutdown

No extra flow lines required Long run pump life possible

The disadvantages for ESPs were found to be as follow (Amao, 2013):

Susceptible to damage during completion installation

Tubing has to be pulled to replace pump

Power cable requires penetration of well head and packer integrity

High temperatures can degrade the electrical motor.

Increased production casing size often required

Pump susceptible to damage by produced solid (sand/scale)

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

Without Gas Lift

With Gas Lift
Production Rate, Qo (STB/day)
Production Rate, Qo (STB/day)
P2116 P 2000 P 1800 P 1500 P 2116 P 2000 P 1800 P 1500
1786
1199
805
N/A
1932
1355
964
N/A
1977
1276
932
N/A
2120
1432
1064
N/A
2169
1388
1096
N/A
2324
1510
1199
N/A
2300
1438
998
N/A
2450
1656
1040
N/A
2404
1609
975
N/A
2554
1787
1000
N/A
2496
1690
897
N/A
2641
1822
976
N/A

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

Without Gas Lift

Production Rate, Qo (STB/day)
WC WC WC WC WC
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

With Gas Lift

Production Rate, Qo (STB/day)
WC WC WC WC WC
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

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

Without Gas Lift

Production Rate, Qo (STB/day)
GOR
267
2071
2370
2550
2585
2030
2529

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

With Gas Lift

Production Rate, Qo (STB/day)

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

Without Gas Lift

Production Rate, Qo (STB/day)

With Gas Lift

Production Rate, Qo (STB/day)

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

7.4. Potential Production Problem

7.4.1. Wax Deposition
One of the familiar reasons for workovers and production downtime is wax buildup.
Wax build up occurs when paraffin crystallizes out of the crude oil, equipment,
pipelines, coating tubulars and the walls and bottoms of storage tanks. Three primary
interest of wax in crude oil during production are:

The temperature at which wax will crystallize and appears from crude oil

The formation of emulsions in the produced water

The amount of wax in the crude oil

7.4.2. Wax Mechanism

During the production, the temperature of oil will decline from the time it leaves the
formation until it reaches the refinery unless heat is added. The wax will plate out from
the oil and form crystals when the temperature drops below the wax crystallization
point. The crystals will form and grow in volume later then precipitate onto tubular
and equipment surfaces.
7.4.3. Wax Remedial and Control
Several procedures have been created to overcome wax deposition including:

Hot oiling

Solvent flushing

Chemical treatment

Adding heat to the system

Reducing heat loss utilizing insulation

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:

Mechanical techniques using tools and techniques applicable in tubular

and at sandface. (eg; milling and jetting).

Chemical removal dissolves scale by chemicals (eg; HCl).

Scale inhibitor squeezing inhibitor to prevent scale build up.

130

7.4.7. Sweet Corrosion

Based on Reservoir Fluid Report of Gelama Merah, the carbon dioxide content in
compositional analysis of separator oil, separator gas and well stream at unit 8.0 shows
2.78%, 0.27% and 0.69% respectively. With the initial GOR of 326 scf/stb and no
water production, no sweet corrosion is expected to occur initially. However, after
water injection for pressure maintenance, this problem would become severe. To
prevent this, the 13-Chrome material for tubing and all downhole equipment is
recommended to resist corrosion.

131

CHAPTER 8 FACILITIES ENGINEERING

8.1. Introduction
8.1.1. Overview on Facilities
After reservoir simulations were performed onto Gelama Merah field, a total of
fourteen producing wells and six water injector need to be completed in order to
achieve recovery factor as high as 32.82%. Both producing and injecting wells will be
drilled vertically to minimize operating cost. Production technologist has come into
agreement to use slotted liner for sand control strategy in order to prevent sand
production along the reservoir life. This method has been chosen because it is cheap,
easier to operate and its high efficiency. Apart from that, gas lift is chosen for artificial
lift method in order to raise hydrocarbon up to the surface as pressure declines over
time due to its longer life span and it is more reliable as compared to electrical
submersible pump.
8.1.2. Types of Development Platform Options
Selection for development platform needs to be done carefully in order to provide crew
a safer and reliable working environment as well as to ensure the operations can be
done safely, reliably and do not bring harm to the public. Apart from promising a safer
operation, economics and technical issues will be taken into consideration. For
instance, a platform cannot be approved if it is economical viable but it is not
technically works or vice versa.
There are plenty of selection for development platforms including jacket platform,
semi- submersible platform, drillship, tension leg platform, floating, production,
storage and offloading (FPSO) and so on. But, a company cannot afford a wrong
decision to be made as installation of a platform can easily reach up to more than $USD
1 million and hence proper investigation need to be done.
As for Gelama Merah field, jack up platform was chosen due to its low cost, high
stability over harsh environment and its availability. This is because there are two
monsoon season that usually hits Malay basin, namely Northeast (May to September)
and Southwest (October to March) Monsoon. Therefore, Jack-up rig is chosen for this
132

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

Field Oil Production,

STB
35,800.09
12,916,753.77
24,741,777.42
36,707,775.12
49,737,770.08
62,807,621.00
75,751,380.92
88,282,981.87
100,809,226.99
113,261,863.71
125,373,687.74

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

Field Oil Production,

STB
136,823,944.09
147,299,774.17
156,530,395.51
165,017,471.31
172,656,555.18
179,625,869.75
185,554,199.22
190,874,206.54
195,824,523.93
200,250,595.09

Reservoir fluid properties can be found as shown in Table 8-2.

Table 8-2 Reservoir Fluid Properties Of GM Field
Property
Oil Gravity
Reservoir Temperature
Original Reservoir Pressure
Oil Viscosity
Porosity
Horizontal Permeability
Reservoir Depth
Residual Oil Saturation

Value
23.7
155
2116 psia
1.337 CP
0.27 %
140 mD
1276 ft
0.56

8.2.2. Platform Selection

Gelama Merah is considered as shallow marine water based on data provided due to
the water level of 43 meters (141 ft). The total number of wells to be drilled and
installed in Gelama Merah is taking into consideration for platform selection
procedure. The platform will be chosen due to its suitability to produce, facilities
required for future development, operation and effective cost. Several types of
platform are considered and taken into study are as follows:
1. Central Processing Platform (CPP)
A processing hub and has a very large crude oil storage for complex reservoirs.
It is equipped with topside facilities and living quarters.

2. Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO)

This unit is designed particularly for remote offshore area. Includes topside
facilities and living quarters.

3. Mobile Offshore Processing Unit (MOPU)

A jack-up type of platform as a processing unit platform. Equipped with
topside facilities and living quarters.

4. Fixed Wellhead Platform

A satellite facilities type of platform with minimal cost budget. Does not
equipped with living quarters.
134

8.2.3. Production Development Options

Several options are taken into account to consider in building the production of Gelama
Merah field which are:

Option 1: Production via FPSO and subsea tie-back

Option 2: Production via MOPU and pipeline to onshore

Option 3: Production via MOPU + tie-in to Samarang-B CPP (15 km) and +
flow line to Labuan Crude Oil Onshore Terminal (75 km)

Duration for Gelama Merah field to produce is approximately 20 years. Therefore, it

is not feasible to rent or buy a FPSO because of the period of production. In addition,
FPSO has the lowest capacity in storing fluid and low deck capacity which is a
disadvantage to be used for Gelama Merah field. The cost of renting or buying FPSO
is also high and not economical.
The most preferable option is option 4. The MOPU which is a jack up platform with 4
legged structured and 20 well slots (16 producing well and 4 water injection well).
This option is suitable for shallow water depth for Gelama Merah field. Furthermore,
the water condition in offshore Sabah is quite severe due to the monsoon at the end of
the year, therefore for its stability to withstand the weather a jack up platform is
recommended.

135

8.3. Operation Facilities and Equipment

According to well test analysis, there are some gas produced during main flow period
and maximum flow period. However, there is no hydrogen sulphide, carbon dioxide,
basic sediment and water produced during main flow and maximum flow period. Oil
rate is 1378 STB/day for main flow while flow rate during maximum flow period is
2745 STB/day.
As a result, operation facilities and equipment need to be selected carefully based on
a few criterions. They are substructure options, processing facilities, location and
installation of wellhead and also transportation of hydrocarbon. Figure 8.1 shows the
platform utilities and also its service manifold. The platform consists of 7 basic area
which are crane, utilities and storage, process area, wellhead and manifold, loving
quarters, helipad and flare boom.

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

Figure 8.1 Platform Utilities & Service Facilities

8.3.1. Production Flow Line, Flow Control and Manifold

As for Gelama Merah field, extracted hydrocarbon from 14 producing wells will be
transported through pipelines and then connected with manifold will be sent to the
master platform for separation purposes. Multi- phase flow meters will be installed in
order to monitor the flow rate of hydrocarbon so that fluid can send to designated
location or customer on time. Apart from that, selection of pipeline is very important

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

8.3.8. Drain System

In order to avoid the floor from flooding especially during rainy season, drain system
is important to be introduced. The equipment will be drained, inspected and repaired
for maintenance purposes by the drain system. To run throughout the platform and
transport it to the vessels on the lowest level of the platform, drain piping is designed
specifically. The water that flows at drain system will be disposed into sea while oil is
skimmed off and pumped into Closed Drain Vessel.
8.3.9. Flare Boom/Vent System
Flare system is needed when fluid samples are obtained during the sampling period.
However, hydrocarbon is not biodegradable and cannot be disposed into the ocean
directly. So it will be sent to the flare system to burn off. On the other hand, vent
system is needed when overpressure is happened at a pump and the fluid will be sent
through vent system to the atmosphere to relieve the valve so that blow out will not
happen. However, this will only be applicable to non- harmful gases.
8.3.10. Instrument Air System
Instrument air system is as important as some of the equipment like valves can be
operated from the control room. No man power is required for simple task.

8.4. Surface Facilities & Equipment

Surface facilities is the facilities from the wellhead of the wells to the processing
equipment of the production. Figure 8.2 shows the surface facilities of Gelama Merah
field. The wellhead and Christmas tree will be on the subsea thus this is a wet tree
design of facilities. Therefore, a riser is needed to connect all the gathering lines from
subsea to the platform surface.

138

Figure 8.2 Surface Facilities & Equipment

8.5. Pipelines & Host Tie-Ins to Existing Platform

8.5.1. Pipeline Tie-Ins
Tie-ins processing platform is preferable as this can reduce cost while producing oil
from various well. A master platform will be connected to all the 20 wells in Gelama
Merah field. The platform is located strategically in the center of 16 producing wells
and 4 injection wells.
The gathering pipeline will be installed from every wells to the master platform. Since
the closest Central Processing Plant from Gelama Merah is Samarang-B Platform
(SMP-B), it is recommended to tie-in the master platform to SMP-B as that will save
much more cost than renting an FPSO for 20 years. In addition, the location of SMPB to the master platform is approximately 15-20km only. Figure 8.3 shows the location
of Samarang Field from Labuan Crude Oil Terminal. Two pipelines which one is for
oil production and one is gas production will be tie in to Samarang CPP. From there,
the oil will be transported to the Labuan Crude Oil Terminal (LCOT) while the gas
will be transported to Labuan Gas Terminal (LGAST).

139

Samarang Field

LCOT

Figure 8.3 Samarang Field Location

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

Figure 8.4 Tie-in from Master Platform to SMP-B

140

8.5.2. Pipeline Sizing

The optimum pipeline sizing must be selected in order to ensure a smooth
transportation of fluids. Crude oil pipelines will gather the products from wells and
transport them to the nearby refineries for further processing.
There are several standards and requirement that must be followed including:

ANSI B31.3 Power Piping

ANSI B31.3 Chemical Plant and Petroleum Refinery Piping

ANSI B31.4 Liquid Petroleum Transportation Piping System

ANSI B31.8 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping System

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

= average liquid flow capacity

= liquid flow rate
= pipe inside diameter

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

8.5.2.1. Flow Assurance

Flow assurance is basically to ensure the reservoir fluids can travel through the
pipelines smoothly without any interruption. Assurance can be carry out through
physical examination, visual inspection or testing. Several concerns should be taken
in consideration of building the pipeline includes:

Separator flooded by liquids

Pipeline problems such as blockage by hydrates or wax

Vast pressure losses in pipelines would cause lower flow rates

Severe slugging in risers will deteriorate separator

8.5.2.2. Pipeline Route Selection

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

1. Prioritize high risk sites for detail assessment

2. Field assessment protocols and database applications (manage inspection
information and manually analyze)
This analysis can provide the most current information about this field such as
pictures, hazard history, date of last inspection and when its due for next
inspection. It can be used to reduce the risk during construction, routing and
operation stages of pipeline life.
8.5.2.4. Trenching Requirements
In order to protect the pipeline against trawling damage and to improve its stability,
the pipelines are trenched. Trenching needs to be considered at any points along the
pipeline route as it need to possess some degree of protection. Pipeline measures can
be put together in Gelama Merah for instance:

Concrete protective coating

Gravel protection if necessary for offshore

Thicker wall pipe

8.5.2.5. Pipe Span Analysis

Three aspects are considered for supporting piping:

Avoid excessive bending stress from the uniform and concentrated loads
between supports

Ability to provide support at some desired location

Permit drainage by keeping fall in the line within limit

The maximum span of Gelama Merah can be determined using the following
equations.
i.

Maximum Bending Stress:

(0.0622 + 0.1248 )
=
/2
1

143

Equation 8-2

Where:

ii.

= uniformly distributed weight of pipeline in N/m

= span length in m
= inside diameter of pipe in m
= concentrated weight on pipeline in N

Maximum Deflection:

Where:

iii.

(54 + 8 3 )

384

= uniformly distributed weight of pipeline in N/m

= span length in m
= inside diameter of pipe in m
= concentrated weight on pipeline in N
= modulus of elasticity of pipe in N/m2
= moment of Inertia of pipe in m

Calculation of Total Weight:

= ()
+ ()

iv.

Equation 8-4

Weight of pipe:
=

Where:

v.

Equation 8-3

2( + )

Equation 8-5

= Pressure of the fluid in pipe in N/m2

= Allowable stress in pipe in N/m2
= Quality Factor from ASME B31.3
= Coefficient of material from ASME B31.3

Calculation of weight of fluid

=

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

Sb = 34.53 MPa (30% of Sa = 11.51 MPa)

Using equation (4), thickness of pipe is equivalent to 6 mm.

Thus, d = 0.3071 m (equation 3)
Weight of stainless steel pipe is calculated 641.16 N/m (5)
Weight of water = 726.64 N/m
Total weight = 1367.8 N/m
Moment of inertia = 1.0369x10-4 m4
Modulus of Elasticity = 195122 MPa
Maximum Span between supports is calculated at 11.38 meter, rounded to 11
meter. Thus, the number of supports required is about 1364 units to cater that 17
km pipeline.

145

8.5.3. Wax Mitigation

No indication of wax content based on DST and PVT data. However, there might be a
potential of wax build up after some time of production. The mitigation plan if there
is a buildup of wax in the pipeline are:

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).

To prevent wax building up in the pipeline, wax control is planned as follows:

Crystals modifiers Wax crystal modifiers are believed to interfere with the
crystal growth and agglomeration process thus reduce paraffin wax deposition

Inhibitor surfactant Additional volumes of surfactant are advised to feed into

system to maintain the water film that prevents contact with the pipe.
8.5.4. Slug Suppression System (SSS)

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

8.6. Pipeline Corrosion Management

Pipeline corrosion management provides the maintenance of reliable and safe oil and
gas pipelines through inspection, assessment and mitigation. Most pipeline failures are
due to corrosion. The mechanism of corrosion can be prevented by many variables
such as flow, deposits, and internal stresses ("Pipeline Integrity and Corrosion
Management," 2014). Both the external and internal pipe corrosion can be influenced
by bacteria, fungus and algae deposited on the surface of pipe. Figure 8.5 shows the
corrosion mechanism in pipeline.

Figure 8.5 Corrosion Mechanism in Pipeline

Several methods could be used to prevent and mitigate corrosion. The internal
corrosion can be prevented by injecting corrosion inhibitors while for the external
corrosion, sacrificial anode can be installed to prevent it.
8.6.1. Corrosion Inhibitor
From fluid report of Gelama Merah well, the fluids are not corrosive initially.
However, throughout the production, the water cut is expected to be increase therefore,
this field requires continuous monitoring and sampling to detect corrosion. Corrosion
inhibitor could be injected and produce thin layer of protection from corrosion. The
injection system is operated by utility gas.

147

8.6.2. Cleaning Pigs

There are many types of cleaning pigs. Cleaning pigs can effectively direct both liquid
and corrosive solids to pig traps for removal from the pipeline. Since build-up of solids
can also contribute to internal corrosion, therefore, pipeline pigging is needed to make
sure no solid deposited in pipeline. Routine pigging will channel any liquid pool away
from low points up to the entire pipeline (Jr & Raymond, 2008). Initial pigging
frequency after production is once a week. After operational experience is gained, this
schedule will reduce to once every three months. Furthermore, pigging debris will be
analyzed to optimize pigging frequency for carrion products.
8.6.3. Cathodic Protection
Cathodic protection is a method used to control the external corrosion of pipeline. The
pipeline will be coat with sacrificial metal acting as the anode. The sacrificial metal
will then corrode instead of the protected metal.
8.7. Safety Facilities System
8.7.1. Emergency Shutdown System (ESD)
The main goal of installing the emergency shutdown system is to reduce the
consequences of emergency conditions such as leak of hydrocarbons, uncontrolled
flooding, and outbreak of fire in hydrocarbon areas or any areas that might be
hazardous. The typical ESD will shut down part of the systems and equipment, isolate
hydrocarbon inventories, stop hydrocarbon flow, and depressurize or blow down. To
ease the system, the system was designed in five separate level of safety which from a
minor process, Level 4 to complete field shutdown, Level 0 (Heraiba & Rahman,
1993).
The five level of shutdowns are categorized as follows:
1. Level 4 Shutdown
This level consists of minor process trips for example, a shutoff valve of water
injection wellhead will be closed if high flow is detected in that particular well.
His level includes individual safety trips with pumps, compressors and
turbines.

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

8.7.3. Fire Detection and Alarm System

To alert personnel and allow control actions to be activated manually or automatically,
the fire detection system shall monitor the presence of fire. This is to minimize a fire
escalation and probability of personnel exposure. Fire detection system interfaces with
the ESD safety functions.
The fire detection function shall provide fast and reliable detection of a fire by number,
type and location of fire detectors. This can ensure timely alarm and initiation control
actions. Detectors shall be put considering the potential fire sources area and
environmental conditions. The smoke characteristic, flame size and heat is used to
determine the fire detection coverage for the respected areas.
Fire detection alarms shall be given as fast as possible to guide and warn personnel
upon fire detection. The maximum response time to the detection of fire is defined to
ensure that total reaction time for every safety function can be fulfilled ((OLF), 2008).
8.7.4. Platform Communication and Intruder Detection System
A digital microwave system and marine VHF radio system will be installed in Gelama
Merah platform with direct routing and interfacing back and forth onshore operating
system.

150

8.8. Operation and Maintenance

8.8.1. Operations
The operation and procedures of Gelama Merah was set to be based on the relevancy
of PETRONAS guidelines, The department of Safety and Health (DOSH), Malaysia
Operation Philosophy (MPOP) and more other requirements. The activity of the
principle operation and maintenance will be as follow:

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 manpower utilization must be considered as the should be very effective

and well-knowledge by the new technology that could be used in the operation
stage.

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 oscillation of flow rate.

Types of operation mode

The level of dew point

8.8.5. Maintenance Philosophy

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:

Reliability of equipment and minimum operating intervention are main factors

to be initially considered in the designing phase.

The equipment and other installation parts are set to be according to

international standard as well as recent technologies and technical support.

Platforms must be according to certified standards where it eases the

maintenance work.

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

8.9. Facilities CAPEX, Decommissioning Cost and OPEX

8.9.1. Capital Expenditure (CAPEX)
The capital expenditure for Gelama Merah requires a total of USD 80.2 million for the
surface facilities. The cost breakdown is shown in Table 8-3.
Table 8-3: CAPEX for Gelama Merah
Cost Breakdown
Topside
Jacket
Offshore Pipeline
Total Cost

Mil USD ($)

50.27
12.819
17.088
80.177

8.9.2. Decommissioning cost

There are some options that should be considered in the decommissioning plan such
as:

Option 1: Tie-in pipeline from offshore to Samarang-B (17km).

Option 2: Pipeline to LCOT (75km).

Option 3: Production via FPSO and subsea tie-back.

Table 8-4: Comparison of CAPEX for Gelama Merah

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

8.9.3. Operating Expenditure (OPEX)

The comparison of operating expenditure for surface facilities is shown in Table 8-5.
Table 8-5 OPEX Comparison of Three Different Options
Components

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

CHAPTER 9 DRILLING ENGINEERING

9.1. Project Description
9.1.1. Subsurface overview
Based on the Geology and Geophysics in Chapter 2, it was assumed that the Gas Oil
Contact (GOC) of 4813.4 ft-TVDSS (1467.5 m-TVDSS) and Water Oil Contact
(WOR) of Gelama Merah field 4,945 ft-TVDSS (1507.5 m-TVDSS) to be
homogenous throughout the entire field. Also, the field was found to be anticline and
there was no fault identified.

9.1.2. Surface facilities summary

Based on the information provided by Production Technology in Chapter 7, there is a
small presence of 2 gas, which may cause sweet corrosion. Thus, from the Surface
Engineering in Chapter 8, it was recommended that the materials for facilities to
incorporate corrosion-resistant material such as 13-Chrome material.

9.1.3. Well summary

Based on the data provided in the Reservoir Simulation in Chapter 6, a total of 20
vertical wells will be drilled in a safe, cost effective and simple manner. Of these 20
wells, 14 well are drilled for the purpose of production and 6 wells are drilled for water
injector. All the wells shall install subsea wellhead and the producing well will be
completed with a wet Christmas tree.

155

9.1.4. Schedule and first hydrocarbon

It is estimated that 22 months is required for contractor company to design and
commission one single jack-up rig.
Drilling operation for a single producer well is expected to be completed in 45 days
(Non-productive time (NPT) is considered in case of bad weather condition). Proposed
drilling schedule is shown in Table 9-1.
Table 9-1 Proposed Operation Summary
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Drilling Operation Schedule

Move and tow rig. Perform anchor job and
rig-up drilling rig (0.25 day towing, 2 days
anchoring, 2.75 days crane installation)
Drill 10-5/8" conductor hole to 160 ft-TVDSS.
Install 9-5/8" conductor casing and subsea
wellhead. Then perform cementing up until
surface, Wait-On-Cement (WOC), CBL and
LOT.
Drill 8-1/2" surface hole to 720 ft-TVDSS.
Install 7" surface casing and subsea wellhead.
Then perform cementing up until surface,
WOC, CBL and LOT
Drill 6" production hole to 5200 ft-TVDSS.
Install 4-1/2" production casing and subsea
wellhead. Then perform cementing up until
surface, WOC, CBL and LOT
Run logging
Install Well Completion
Stretch time: waiting on weather (NPT)
Rig down
TOTAL

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

9.1.5. Driver for schedule and critical date to meet

The country Malaysia is affected by two seasons of monsoon, namely North-East
Monsoon and South-West Monsoon season. North-East Monsoon begins from the
month of November until March, while South-West Monsoon begins from May until
September every year. Table 9-2 shows the monsoon season for Gelama Merah field.
The location of Gelama Merah field located at Sabah region is greatly affected by the
North-East Monsoon season every year. Thus, the available month for safe drilling
schedule can be estimated to begin from the month of April until October for 7 months.
Table 9-2 Monsoon Season
North-East
Monsoon
(Affected)
Jan Feb Mar

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

9.1.6. Modus of Operandi

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 Modus of Operandi of Drilling Program

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

9.2. Basis of Design

9.2.1. Overall layout of surface development plan
Figure 9.2 shows both the oil production and water injection well coordinates. The
development plan on the surface is planned in such a way that all the 14 oil producing
well are connected using manifold and pipelines and linked to one master platform as
shown in Figure 9.3. All the oil producing wells are installed using wet Christmas tree
and subsea wellhead.

Figure 9.2 Oil Production and Water Injection Well Coordinate

159

35623000

35619500

35616000

35612500
35269500

35273000

Oil ProductionProduction Well

Water Injection Well

35276500

Master Platform

Figure 9.3 Surface Development Plan

9.2.2. List of missing data and assumptions

There are many insufficient data during planning for drilling operations. Thus,
assumptions have to be made in order to plan drilling operations in a safe manner.
With every data missing, the assumptions are provided as listed in Table 9-3.
Table 9-3 Missing Data And Assumptions Made
No.
Data Missing
Assumptions
1
The geological contour of sea level The sea level for all 20 wells is set to
is unavailable.
be the same as Gelama Merah 1 well
when planning casing depth.
2
Rock Stress Index is unavailable.
The rate of penetration (ROP) of bit is
assumed to be constant for all types of
formation.
3
The pore gradient and fracture The pore gradient and fracture gradient
gradient at other location is is assumed to be the same throughout
unavailable.
the field.
4
The maximum allowable pump The maximum allowable pump
pressure at surface is unavailable.
pressure has been set to 3000 psi.

160

9.3. Offset Well Analysis

After drilling of the Gelama Merah 1, many information was collected. This
information would be very useful for the drilling for each subsequent wells.
The lithology summary of Gelama Merah rock formation consist of interbedding of
different type of formation as listed on Table 9-4.
Table 9-4 Lithology Summary
Depth of Lithology
m-TVDSS
ft-TVDSS
493 1050
1617 3444
1050 1250
3444 4100
1250 1566
4100 5136

Description
Interbedding sandstone, claystone and dolomite
Interbedding claystone and thin sandstone
Interbedding sandstone and claystone

Sandstone is considered to be the softest formation encountered in Gelama Merah 1

well followed by claystone and dolomite.
A stick chart for the Gelama Merah 1 (refer to Figure 9.4) is generated based on the
well diary of International Logging Overseas (2003). There is no major problem
detected during drilling. Mostly is just a tight spot that will then be reamed up to
enlarge the borehole diameter.
This analysis will be helpful in predicting the drilling phase for all the producing wells.
Plus, with the help of Petrel software, the depth of gas zone can be detected. This
information is required to better equip from gas related issues such as kick.
Well
Type
Water Depth
(ft-TVDSS) Well Profile

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

Tight Spot While POOH, 10-20 tonnes overpull

4774

Tight Hole While POOH, 15tonnes Overpull

5272

9-5/8"

Figure 9.4 Stick Chart for Gelama Merah 1

161

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

4275-4370 Gas zone

Gas zone

Gas zone

4511-4613

4275-4711 Gas zone

4613-4711

4768-4954 Perforation zone

4687-4954 Perforation zone

4788-4954 Perforation zone

4824-4954 Perforation zone

5200

Well Name
Type
Coordinate
Water Depth
(ft-TVDSS) Well Profile
Depth

P7
Oil
35270391.71 Y 35620210.66
42.8 m
Vertical

4729-4954 Perforation zone

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

4788-4903 Perforation zone

P13
Oil
35273664.9
Y 35616768.43
42.8 m
Vertical

4469-4613

4850-4954 Perforation zone

4769-4954 Perforation zone

P14
Oil
35276112.32 Y
42.8 m
Vertical

4469-4511

4511-4612

4781-4909 Perforation zone

4775-4954 Perforation zone

4780-4954 Perforation zone

4806-4954 Perforation zone

5200

5200

Figure 9.5: Prediction for OP1-14

162

35614849.65

Gas zone

Gas zone

Gas zone

4511-4711

4275-4416

4275-4370

4275-4370
Gas zone

5200

4829-4954 Perforation zone

5200

4757-4954 Perforation zone

9.4. Well Trajectory and Target Tolerance

Based on International Logging Overseas (2003) of the Gelama Merah 1 well in
Appendix D1 for D-exponent and Pressure Plot, the pore gradient and fracture gradient
from subsea until 5138 ft-TVDSS are plotted in Figure 9.6. The following points
should be highlighted when plotting Figure 9.6:
1. Points are taken every 164 ft-TVDSS (50 m-TVDSS)
2. No sign of overpressure was observed during drilling of Gelama Merah 1.
3. No significant pressure related to gas was detected.
4. The slight increase in pore pressure at 4424.4 ft-TVDSS (1348.9 m-TVDSS)
from 0.2%-2.0% to 10%-20% is due to gas reservoir expansion.
A kick margin and trip margin of 0.5 ppg are applied on the graph. The tolerance for
kick and trip margin is set based on the following reasons:
1. The formation fluid does not enter the wellbore during shut-in period.
2. The formation does not fracture while drilling fluid circulates.
Since the WOC is 4,945 ft-TVDSS (1507.5 m-TVDSS), a deeper setting depth of 5200
ft-TVDSS is set to be drilled for all wells. Figure 9.6 shows the pore gradient and
fracture gradient graph together with the casing point (blue line) and equivalent mud
weight (EMW green dotted line) to be used. From the graph, a total of three casings
is set to be used. Table 9-5 shows the casing points for all three casings.
Table 9-5 Setting Depth for All Casing
Casing
Conductor
Surface
Production

Casing Point
(ft-TVDSS)
160.00
720.00
5200.00

163

Graph of Pore Gradient and Fracture Gradient

Equivalent Mud Weight (ppg)
6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

0.00

1000.00

Depth (ft, TVDSS)

2000.00

3000.00

4000.00

5000.00

6000.00
Pore Gradient

Kick Margin

Trip Margin

Fracture Gradient

EMW

Casing Point

Figure 9.6 Graph of Pore Gradient and Fracture Gradient

164

18.00

9.5. Well Architecture and Casing Design

9.5.1. Casing Configuration
Based on the production technology data, the tubing size used for all wells is 2 7/8
(2.875 inch). Thus, the hole size and casing size to be applied for all well shall be the
same. Based on the hole geometry by Clear Directional (2015), the hole size and casing
size is determined. Table 9-6 shows the hole size and the outer diameter of the casing
size to be used and the casing schematic is shown in Figure 9.7.
Table 9-6 Hole and Casing Size for Producing Well
Depth (ft-TVDSS)
0 160
160 720
720 5200

Hole Size (inch)

10 5/8
8 1/2
6

Casing Size (inch)

9 5/8
7
4

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

Hole Size (inch)

26
17
12

Casing Size (inch)

20
13 3/8
9 5/8

Figure 9.7 Casing Schematic for Producer (Left) and Injector (Right)

165

9.5.2. Well Architecture

After selecting the hole geometry of the oil producer and water injector, the well architecture can be designed. A recommended drill collar (DC)
geometry for respective hole geometry is selected based on Hamdani (2014) as shown in Table 9-8.
Table 9-8 Recommended Drill Collar

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
-

As for the water injector well architecture, it is shown in Table 9-10.

Table 9-10 Well Architecture for Water Injector Well
Hole Size
(inch)
26
17
12

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
-

Figure 9.8 Well Architecture Schematic

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

Conductor Section (10 5/8 hole)

DP
DC
8 / 3
147 lbs/ft
160 ft
23,520 lbs
23,520 lbs
(10.7 metric ton)

Surface Section (8 hole)

DP
DC
6 / 2
91 lbs/ft
720 ft
65,520
65,520 lbs
(29.7 metric ton)

168

Production Section (6 hole)

DP
DC
3 / 2.764
4 / 2
13.3 lbs/ft
47 lbs/ft
E-75-EU
13,800 psi
14,100 psi
272,000 lbs
4400 ft
800 ft
8535 ft > 4400 ft
58,520 lbs
37,600 lbs
96,120 lbs
(43.6 metric ton)

Table 9-12 Properties of DP and DC for Water Injector Well

Properties
OD / ID
Weight/foot
Grade
Burst Rating
Collapse Rating
Tensile Strength
Length
Check for tension
Total Weight
Weight-On-Bit, WOB

Conductor Section (26 hole)

DP
DC
8 / 3
147 lbs/ft
160 ft
23,520 lbs
23,520 lbs
(10.7 metric ton)

Surface Section (17 hole)

DP
DC
8 / 3
147 lbs/ft
720 ft
105,840 lb
105,840 lb
(48 metric ton)

169

Production Section (12 hole)

DP
DC
5 / 4.276
8 / 3
19.5 lbs/ft
147 lbs/ft
E-75-IEU
9,500 psi
9,960 psi
396,000 lbs
4400 ft
800 ft
8535 ft > 4400 ft
85,800 lbs
117,600 lbs
203,400 lbs
(92.3 metric ton)

9.5.3. Kick Tolerance

In order to calculate the kick tolerance, the number of parameters need to be identified
(refer to Table 9-14) and a few assumptions have been made. The assumptions are
listed below:
1. Shut-In Drill Pipe Pressure (SIDPP) is set to be 500 psi.
2. Influx gas gradient is assumed to be 0.2 psi/ft. The maximum value for influx
gas gradient is taken based on Glendasmith (2012) as shown in Table 9-13. For
simplicity, assume all wells have the same kick tolerances.
Table 9-13 Influx Gradient Evaluation Guidelines

Table 9-14 Kick Tolerance Parameters

Depth
Surface Casing Shoe
Fracture gradient
Mud density
Formation Pressure
Breakdown Pressure at
Surface Casing shoe /
LOT
Maximum Allowable
Annulus
Surface
Pressure (MAASP)
DC/OH Capacity
DP/OH Capacity

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

Producer Well: 0.01305 bbls/ft

Injector Well: 0.08360 bbls/ft
Producer Well: 0.02307 bbls/ft
Injector Well: 0.12149 bbls/ft

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.

The influx volume at BHA is given by;

0.01305

800 = 10.44

The influx volume at casing shoe is given by;

0.02307

2573.06 = 59.36

The total influx volume is 69.8 bbl.

Step B: The length 3373.06 ft is converted to a volume below shoe:
3373.06 ft 0.02307

bbls
= 77.82
ft

Step C: Converting Step B to downhole condition by rearranging Boyles law is given

by;
648 77.82
= 12.07
4177.44

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

9.5.4. Load Calculation

The load calculation is based on two factor, which is the burst and collapse load. When designing the casing, the worst case scenario is taken into
consideration. The worst case scenario takes into consideration of the cement slurry density to be designed. From the Final Well Report by
International Logging Overseas (2003), the cement slurry density designed is taken into consideration during designing burst and collapse load.
Since the setting depth for water injector is the same as oil producer, the load calculations for burst and collapse design is the same as oil producer.
Table 9-15 Burst and Collapse Design
Setting
Depth
Casing
(ftAssumptions
TVDSS)
Conductor
160
The cement
density used for
Surface
720
next casing string
Production
5200
The cement
density used for
this casing string

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

9.5.5. Feasibility Check On Casing Running

To check whether the casing run has the ability to withstand the tension load, a safety
factor of 1.8 is used. Using Equation 9-1, the maximum length of the casing is
calculated as shown in Table 9-16. It is desirable that the calculated maximum length
is longer than the proposed casing length.

1
(
)
. .

Equation 9-1

Table 9-16 Tension Check for All Casing

Casing
Conductor
Surface
Production

Casing Length (ft)

160
720
5,200

Calculated Maximum Length (ft)

6,278
6,389
8,812

9.5.6. Material Selection

When choosing the material for casings, the actual burst and collapse rating calculated
from Table 9-15 should be lower than the burst and collapse rating of the casing itself.
This scenario is favourable to ensure the cheapest casing selected can withstand both
burst and collapse scenario.
Also, it should be noted that for production casing, it will be susceptible to corrosion
due to a small presence of carbon dioxide as discussed in Chapter 7. Based on API
5CT, the minimum material requirement to prevent sweet corrosion is L-80.
Table 9-17 shows the casing material chosen for designing all the three casings for
producing well.
Table 9-17 Casing Material for Producing Well

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

9.5.7. Bit Type

Based on the information provided from the offset well, a lithological summary has
been made for Gelama Merah 1 as shown in Table 9-19.
Table 9-19 Lithological Summary
Depth of Lithology
m-TVDSS
ft-TVDSS
493 1050
1617 3444
1050 1250
3444 4100
1250 1566
4100 5136

Description
Interbedding sandstone, claystone and dolomite
Interbedding claystone and thin sandstone
Interbedding sandstone and claystone

From the classification of International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC),

unconsolidated sandstone and claystone is considered soft formation, while dolomite
is considered medium formation. There is no hard formation present in this field. With
this information, the type of drill bit that can accommodate both soft and medium
174

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

No. of Bit Run

1
1
2

Thus, 4 bit runs are required to drill the producer and injector wells.
175

9.5.8. Wellhead Design

The maximum pressure exerted on the bottom-hole is 0.052 13.43 5200 =
3,631 . Thus, the selected Blow-Out Preventer rating is 5,000 psi, with API Class
5M for medium pressure.
Wellhead design consist of 6 components, which are listed below. The sizes are
selected based on the suppliers information, VetcoGray.
1. Casing Head (refer to Table 9-22)
2. Casing Spool (refer to Table 9-23)
3. Casing Hanger (refer to Table 9-24)
4. Tubing Size (refer to Table 9-25)
5. Tubing Hanger (refer to Table 9-26)
6. Tubing Head Adapters (refer to Table 9-27)
Table 9-22: Casing Head Configuration
Casing Top
Flange
Size
Flange Diameter
Production
wells
Injection
wells

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

Table 9-23: Casing Spool Configuration

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

Table 9-24: Casing Hanger Configuration

Casing Size Flange Size
D
9 5/8
13 5/8
13 7/16
Production wells
7
11
10 13/16
4 1/2
11
10 13/16
20
Injection wells
13 3/8
16 3/4
16 9/16
9 5/8
13 5/8
13 7/16
176

L
4 15/16
4 15/16
4 15/16

Weight (Lb)
80
65
95

5 3/8
4 15/16

120
80

Table 9-25: Tubing Head Configuration

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

Table 9-26: Tubing Hanger Configuration

Production wells
Injection wells

Tubing Size
2 7/8
7

Top Flange
7 1/16
11

Weight (Lb)
65
65

Table 9-27: Tubing Head Adapter Configuration

Production wells
Injection wells

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

9.5.9. Geological Drilling Order (GDO)

The GDO of the entire producing and injector well has been illustrated as shown in
Figure 9.11 and Figure 9.12.

Figure 9.11 Geological Drilling Order for Producing Well

178

Figure 9.12 Geological Drilling Order for Injector Well

179

9.6. Drilling Fluid and Hydraulic Optimization

9.6.1. Drilling Fluid Design
The proposed mud type for drilling for producer and injector well is water-based-mud
(WBM). Sea water is chosen as the solvent as it is readily available. WBM is chosen
because it is inexpensive and more economical compared to Synthetic-based-mud
(SBM) or Oil-based-mud (OBM). Plus, it is easy to control and having higher and
quicker kick detection ability.
Initially, OBM were the solution for wellbore instability problem cause by shale
stabilization. However, environmental restrictions, high costs, used mud and cuttings
disposal difficulties and most importantly is concerning the safety of handling the mud
has limited the usage of OBMs. Therefore, as waste management is very important in
offshore operation as it is affecting the marine coastal life, WBM would be preferable
because it is more environmental friendly compared to the rest.
High shale or claystone percentage was detected based on the offset well data. This
suggest that high potential or possibility of encountering shale instability issues within
the formation. Thus, there is a need of additives to be added in the drilling mud. The
suggested additives to be added in the drilling mud would be potassium chloride and
partially hydrolysed acrylamide polymer.
As the polymer coats the surface of the clay, it will reduce the surface hydration. These
protective coating will also seal or limit the surface fracture and restricts the pores,
preventing and reducing capillary movement of filtrate towards the shale formation.
The potassium chloride is used to reduce the chemical alteration of the shale content.
It enhances the rate of polymer adsorption on the clay. Plus, these additives provide
borehole stability, a high rate of penetration, and minimum formation damage. There
are also several other advantages by using potassium chloride such as easily
obtainable, inexpensive, compatible with most drilling fluid additives, stabilizes water
sensitive shales and clays, prevent issues concerning shale instability, and fast
dissolving.
It is common to use two percent of potassium chloride in drilling fluid. However, it
can be higher depending on the clay characteristic and the clay contents of that specific
well. A two percent solution estimates roughly require potassium chloride of 700
180

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

Depth (TVD, ft)

0 160

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

9.6.2. Hydraulics Optimization

Hydraulic Optimization is important to increase the bottom-hole cleaning efficiency
which will increase the drilling ROP and remove the rock cuttings efficiently. Since a
PDC bit is used, in which the ROP reaches 50 ft per hour, there is a high risk that the
annulus will be overloaded with cuttings, and thus, higher mud velocity is required to
remove the cuttings.
A number of considerations are taken into account when designing hydraulics
optimization. Since both the producing and injector wells are vertical flow, the annular
flow shall be flowing at laminar flow. The reason why laminar flow is favoured is
because laminar flow has smaller equivalent circulating density (ECD), to avoid
fracturing the formation. Also, a number of assumptions are set as listed below:
Assumptions.
1. The minimum circulation rates given by WiperTrip (n.d.) is shown in equation
Equation 9-2.
= 12.72 1.47

Equation 9-2

Where: is the minimum flowrate (gpm)

D is the internal diameter of pipe (inch)

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

Log of Pressure Loss vs Log of Flowrate

10,000

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

Table 9-29 Hydraulics Optimization for Producer Well

Sections

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

Log of Pressure Loss vs Log of Flowrate

Pressure Loss(psi)

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

Table 9-30 Hydraulics Optimization for Injector Well

Sections

(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

Table 9-33 Proposed Cement Design

Casing
Conductor
Surface
Production

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 Cement Volume for Producing Well

Table 9-35 Cement Volume for Water Injector Well

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

9.8. Well Completion Design

9.8.1. Summary
Based on the reservoir simulation analysis on the reservoir engineering phase, for 20
years of production life the Gelama Merah has been set to be developing 20 wells 14
producing wells and 6 injection wells.
Horizontal wells were not applied in the development stage and that is due to the
thickness of the reservoir which is considered to be thin reservoir. Thus, the
development plan team decided to ignore the idea of drilling horizontal wells.
Moreover, secondary enhanced oil recovery was applied by injecting 6 wells in
different places in the reservoir at different depths. Water was introduced in oil zone
as water injection to maintain the reservoir pressure as soon as the reservoir pressure
tends to be depleted, whereby the production rate is maintained and increases in most
cases.
Tertiary recovery of the enhanced oil recovery stage was only a consideration for the
future use of the developing plan in Gelama Merah field. Hydrocarbon miscible
flooding and 2 flooding were proposed to be injected as chemical injection.
The completion of a cased hole was applied to produce the crude oil from the reservoir.
There are some factors were considered in producing the crude oil, which are listed
below:

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.

During the perforation stage, cased hole is always preferable as compared to

open hole even though the cased hole cost more than the open hole completion.

188

9.8.2. Well Completion Matrix

A total of twenty development wells are considered and they are classified to 14
producing well as well as 6 injection wells. The well completion matrix is summarized
in Table 9-36.
Table 9-36 Well Completion Matrix
Well
Type
Description
Name
GM-1
SSV
SS flow from different units, cased hole with SL
GM-2
SSV
SS flow from different units, cased hole with SL
GM-3
SSV
SS flow from different units, cased hole with SL
GM-4
SSV
SS flow from different units, cased hole with SL
GM-5
SSV
SS flow from different units, cased hole with SL
GM-6
SSV
SS flow from different units, cased hole with SL
GM-7
SSV
SS flow from different units, cased hole with SL
GM-8
SSV
SS flow from different units, cased hole with SL
GM-9
SSV
SS flow from different units, cased hole with SL
GM-10
SSV
SS flow from different units, cased hole with SL
GM-11
SSV
SS flow from different units, cased hole with SL
GM-12
SSV
SS flow from different units, cased hole with SL
GM-13
SSV
SS flow from different units, cased hole with SL
GM-14
SSV
SS flow from different units, cased hole with SL
GM-15
SSV
SS flow from different units, cased hole with SL
GM-16
SSV
SS flow from different units, cased hole with SL
GM-17
SSV
SS flow from different units, cased hole with SL
GM-18
SSV
SS flow from different units, cased hole with SL
GM-19
SSV
SS flow from different units, cased hole with SL
GM-20
SSV
SS flow from different units, cased hole with SL
Where: SSV = Single String Vertical
SS = Single String
OP = Oil Producer
WI = Water Injector

189

Remark
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI

9.8.3. Completion String Design and Accessories

Oil Producer and Water Injectors
The oil producer is considered to be producing in a cased hole and single tubing string
with respect to a vertical configuration of direction as well as the injector wells. The
design is based on the nodal analysis reading as follow:

The tubing size of 2.875 is the considerable size for the tubing string as it
achieved the target performance.

Surface-controlled subsurface safety valve (SCSSV) is recommended to be

installed along with the tubing string encountering any unrespectable problem
that might be caused in the well completion (Lea & Nickens, 1999).

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).

Completion Packers are recommended as they isolate the production fluid

from moving or reaching unwanted zones.

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.

Figure 9.15 Cross Piece Xmas Tree

190

9.8.4. Material Selection

Based on the Reservoir Fluid Study report, the PVT analysis shows that 2 exist in
a very low amount and absence of 2 . The Table 9-37 show some of the basic data
required for material selection.
Table 9-37: Basic Data For Material Selection

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.

9.8.5. Completion Fluid

For the completion fluid, brine is always recommended due to its characteristics of
reducing the formation damage. The following types of brine are always considered
for the use of the completion purposes; 4 , NaCl, KCl and ZnBr with density
ranging between 10.0 ppg to 11.5 ppg (Commission, 2015).

191

9.9. Rig Selection

Capacity of rig, stability, cost, condition of soil, depth of water are main criteria on
which drilling rig selection is based. Specifications of some of the available marine
offshore drilling units (MODU) are shown in Table 9-38.
Table 9-38 Depth and Daily Rates of Offshore Rigs

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.

9.10. Potential Drilling Problems

9.10.1. Pipe Sticking
During drilling operations, a pipe is considered stuck if it cannot be freed and pulled
out of the hole without damaging the pipe and without exceeding the drilling rigs
maximum allowed hook load. Differential-pressure pipe sticking occurs when a
portion of the drill string becomes embedded in a mud cake that forms on the wall of
a permeable formation during drilling.
9.10.2. Loss of Circulation
Lost circulation is defined as the uncontrolled flow of whole mud into a formation,
sometimes referred to as thief zone. Figure 9.16 shows partial and total lost-circulation
zones. In partial lost circulation, mud continues to flow to surface with some loss to
the formation. Total lost circulation, however, occurs when all the mud flows into a
192

formation with no return to surface. If drilling continues during total lost circulation,
it is referred to as blind drilling.

Figure 9.16 Partial and Total Loss of Circulation

9.10.3. Hole Deviation

Hole deviation is the unintentional departure of the drill bit from a preselected borehole
trajectory. Whether drilling a straight or curved-hole section, the tendency of the bit to
walk away from the desired path can lead to higher drilling costs and lease-boundary
legal problems.
9.10.4. Drill Pipe Failures
Drill pipe failures can be twist-off caused by excessive torque; parting because of
excessive tension; burst or collapse because of excessive internal pressure or external
pressure, respectively; or fatigue as a result of mechanical cyclic loads with or without
corrosion.
9.10.5. Mud Contamination
A mud is said to be contaminated when a foreign material enters the mud system and
causes undesirable changes in mud properties, such as density, viscosity, and filtration.
Generally, water-based mud systems are the most susceptible to contamination. Mud

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

9.11. Cost Estimates and Analysis

9.11.1. CAPEX of Producing Well
Table 9-39 CAPEX of Producing Well

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

9.11.2. CAPEX of Injector Well

Table 9-40 CAPEX for Injector Well

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

9.12. Advanced Technologies

9.12.1. Managed Pressure Drilling (MPD)
MPD is done using a closed system and an automated choke at the flowline. The closed
system is achieved by utilizing a rotating head that is able to seal the annulus clearance
while still allowing the ability to drill ahead. The automated choke at the flowline is
able to create an extra surface backpressure by closing certain proportion of the
flowline. MPD in other term can be said as wellbore pressure management. This
technology developed to limit well kicks, lost circulation, and differential pressure
sticking, in an effort to reduce the number of additional casing strings required to reach
total depth (TD). For MPD, common objectives are to stretch or eliminate casing
points to allow drilling beyond conventional limits of depth or pressure variation. MPD
is more complex than conventional drilling but should be considered as an option when
it is impractical to drill using conventional means.
9.12.2. Casing While Drilling
Casing while drilling has been proven and used in industry for its capability for
decreasing penetrating time. With the utilization of this technology, the expenses of
the project can be reduced. Casing while drilling has numerous of benefits such as
torque improvement, reduce loss circulation problem due to plastering effects,
improve borehole stability and reduce stuck pipe problems. This method can be
suggested for a formation that is already well known with lost circulation issues and
to save drilling time, thus reducing the cost. If combined with overbalance technique,
this technique will significantly reduce the wellbore damage and skin, thus enhancing
well productivity. CWD also has shown to create more stable wellbore and less open
hole problems.
9.12.3. Coiled Tubing
Coiled tubing drilling uses a very long and flexible pipe while drilling. The application
of coiled tubing drilling is huge, ranging from directional drilling, workover, plug and
abandonment, underbalanced drilling and Telecoil. Coiled tubing eliminates the time
required for pipe connection, which saves tripping time. Also, it has the advantage to
continuously circulate drilling fluid during tripping, which has the ability to maintain
a stable equivalent circulating density (ECD). Coiled tubing having a maximum dogleg
197

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.

9.13.2. Abandonment Sequence

1. Explosively cut the tubing tailpipe few feet below the tubing packer. NRV or
non-return valve would be deployed by wireline or slick-line and it was set in
the tubing tailpipe underneath the tubing packer.
2. The contents of the tubing below the non-return valve will be subjected to
bullhead using nitrogen or a wiper plug comprising a burst disc on a preset
differential pressure.
3. The tubing just above the packer will be perforated. This will allow either the
tubing or casing annulus to equalise by creating a space in the upper part of
both the tubing and the tubing or casing annulus.
4. Meanwhile, set a second non return valve and run 200 ft above the
equalisation hole perforated in the tubing. This will ensure an amount of
known column of cement is higher up the packer in subsequent steps.
5. A second burst disc type plug is install into the tubing and a gel is pump into
the tubing or casing annulus for in a column for roughly of 300 ft. The gel
acts as a form of barrier.
6. The contents of the tubing and the tubing or casing annulus is bullhead
simultaneously underneath the non-return valves. At this particular stage, a
199

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.

9.13.3. Time breakdown

The total time required for this service to perform would be approximately 45 hours
(Jordan & Head, 1995).

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

Blow off tailpipe

Bullhead contents of

Perforate tubing

Run 2nd NRV and set

Install 2nd burst disc

and deploy tubing

tubing through NRV

above packer

200ft above packer

plug and pump gel

non

into formation using

into tubing annulus

burst

(barrier/seal

return

(NRV)

Nitrogen

valve

disc

assembly.

plug

Figure 9.17: Step 1-5 of the abandonment sequence

201

for

bullhead contents)

Perforate

Plug is used.

Perforate

Plus with gel

should

if

Mechanical barrier 4
Cement barrier 3
Mechanical barrier 2
Cement barrier 1

Step 7

Step 8

Step 9

Step 10

content

Pump cement into

Squeeze of cement

Perforate all upper

Pump cement into

simultaneously of both

both the tubing and

(Monitor

casing annuli and

all upper annuli

the tubing and tubing

tubing annulus

pressure)

Step 6

Bullhead

the

nitrogen

drain into nitrogen

Figure 9.18: Step 6-10 of abandonment sump

sequence

202

CHAPTER 10 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Economic analysis of Gelama Merah field development is discussed in this phase. The
objectives are to carry out cost estimates of equipment and operation, discuss fiscal
term, net cash flow, revenue split and investment decision.
10.1. Production Sharing Contract (PSC) and Fiscal Term
Two or more oil companies agree on the terms and conditions of the fiscal terms. It
involves the development of legal contract of partnerships between oil companies in
terms of economic risks and also investment capital. For this report, a fiscal term with
assumptions are stated in Table 10-1.
Table 10-1 Fiscal Terms

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

10.2. CAPEX and OPEX for Surface Facilities and Drilling

10.2.1. CAPEX
Table 10-2 CAPEX for Oil Production Well

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

Table 10-3 CAPEX for Water Injection Well

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

Table 10-4 CAPEX for Master Platform

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

Cost Per Unit

(USD)
3,000
4,558,000
360,000
430,000
1,500,000

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.

10.3. Net Cash Flow Profile

Before presenting the net cash flow profile, the cost for each phase has to be defined
first as shown in Table 10-6.
Table 10-6 Cost of Each Phases
Component/Phase Exploration
Year
2012-2013
Duration (Years)
2
Total CAPEX
20
(MM USD)
Total OPEX (MM
14
USD)

Development Production Abandonment

2014-2015
2016-2036
2037
2
20
1
508

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.

Cash Flow Profile

12000

Cumulative Cash Flow (MMUSD)

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

Figure 10.1 Net Cash Flow Profile

Table 10-7 Economic Indicator

Payback Period
Maximum Capital Outlay
Terminal Cash Surplus
Profit to Investment Ratio
Internal Rate of Return
Total Net Present Value @ 10%

207

5.42 years
USD 507.68 Million
USD 11.360 Billion
22.25
145.48 %
USD 3,461.32 Million

10.4. Sensitivity Analysis

Spider plot is the method chosen for sensitivities analysis as it can see how your
models output depends on the percentage changes for each models input variables.
The input variables were determined as Oil production, Oil price, Capex and Opex.
The percentage changes for the sensitivities control is +- of 40%. The results are shown
in below figure and table.
Table 10-2: Sensitivities values for NPV at 10%

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

Oil Prices (USD)

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Percentage

Figure 10.2: Spider plot at 10% NPV

According to the spider plot, it can be seen that oil production and oil price factor did
not differ from each other but compared to the CAPEX and OPEX, it has the steepest
line which mean this model is most sensitive on this factor.
208

10.5. Revenue Split

Revenue is split between contractor company and host government under PSC terms.
Considering a price of USD 60 per barrel of oil at present time, the split of revenue
between PETRONAS and government is shown in Table 10-8.
Table 10-8 Revenue Split
One Barrel of Oil = USD 60
PETRONAS Share

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

CHAPTER 11 HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT

11.1. General Health, Safety & Environment
Few case where accidents involving casualties in 2012, has spark the public concern
regarding the safety procedure in oil and gas industry specifically in Malaysia. Since
then, PETRONAS are reviewing back the system, processes and procedures, to
ascertain all the operations bind to the highest level of standard in safety and health
sector.
PETRONAS policy on Health, Safety and Environment: 1. PETRONAS is committed to Health, Safety, and Environment excellence in
all its activities wherever it operates.
2. PETRONAS shall take reasonable and practicable steps to prevent and
eliminate the risk of injuries, occupational illnesses and damage to properties.
3. PETRONAS shall take proactive steps to protect the environment and to use
natural resources efficiently/
4. PETRONAS shall ensure that the facilities it designs, builds and operates, the
products it manufacturers and the services it provides are in accordance with
appropriate legal requirements and industry best practices.
5. PETRONAS shall provide the necessary resources and organization, and
where appropriate, engage with key stakeholders on Health, Safety, and
Environment matters.
6. PETRONAS shall ensure that contingency plans are in place to deal with
emergencies.
7. PETRONAS shall ensure continual improvement in its Health, Safety, and
Environment management and performance, leveraging on people, process,
and technology.
8. PETRONAS requires all its employees and contractors to strictly adhere to
this policy at all times.
11.2. PETRONAS HSE Management System (HSEMS)
11.2.1. Definition
A preliminary measure to control and manage all the HSE hazards and the
consequences that affecting the business process and might as well to provide
210

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

11.2.3. HSEMS Elements

There are 8 elements in PETRONAS HSEMS that comprises all section of process and
organization throughout PETRONAS.
1. Leadership and Commitment
a. Visibility
b. Pro-active in target setting
c. Informed involvement
2. Policy and Strategic Objectives
a. Content of policy statement
b. Dissemination
c. Strategic objective and HSE plan
d. HSE programme and activities
3. Organisation, Responsibilities, Resources, Documentation, and
Communication
a. Roles and responsibilities (organisational structure and
responsibilities)
b. Management representative
c. Resources
d. Competence
e. Contractors
f. Communication
g. Legal, standards, and other requirement
h. Documentation and control
4. Hazard and Effects Management Process (HEMP)
a. Identification of hazard and effect
b. Assessment
c. Control measures
d. Recovery measures
e. Statutory HSE risk assessment requirement
5. Planning and Procedures
a. Asset integrity
b. Procedures and work instruction
c. Management of change
212

d. Contingency and emergency planning expectation

6. Implementation and Monitoring
a. Implementation
b. Monitoring
c. Records
d. Non-compliance and corrective action
e. Incident reporting and follow up
7. Assurance
a. Assurance plan
b. Auditor competency
c. Contractor assurance
8. Management Review
a. Review

11.3. Safety and Risk Management

As PETRONAS is actively ameliorating the safety measures, it has developed a
guideline to outline the process during exploration and production phase (refer to Table
11-1) and also a guideline on incident classification and its action to be taken out.
Table 11-1: Risk Assessment Activities by E&P Phases (Extracted from PPGUA
3.0 volume 3)
Phase
Data acquisition

Exploration drilling

Facilities design

Risk Assessment Required

Exploration
Safety risk assessment
Security risk assessment
Environmental risk assessment/Environmental Impact
Assessment (as required under EQA 1974)
Health risk assessment
Safety risk assessment
Security risk assessment
Environmental risk assessment/Environmental Impact
Assessment (as required under EQA 1974)
Health risk assessment
Development
Health risk assessment (focus on Ergonomic/Human Factors)
Safety risk assessment
Health impact assessment (onshore)
Social impact assessment (onshore)
213

Quantitative risk assessment (QRA)

Environmental risk assessment/Environmental
Assessment (as required under EQA 1974)
Design HSE case (recommended)

Fabrication/Installation

Onshore

Offshore

Offshore and Onshore

*at this stage EIA proposal is required. Full EIA is subject to

DOEs decision.
Safety risk assessment
Security risk assessment
Environmental risk assessment/Environmental Impact
Assessment (as required under EQA 1974)
Health risk assessment
Production
Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards (CIMAH)
Safety risk assessment
Health risk assessment (including CHRA)
Security risk assessment
Environmental impact assessment (as required under EQA
1974)
Post EIA Monitoring
Operation HSE Case
Safety risk assessment
Health risk assessment (including CHRA)
Security risk assessment
Environmental impact assessment (as required under EQA
1974)
Post EIA Monitoring
Abandonment and Decommissioning
Environmental Management Plan (EMP)
Health risk assessment

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

Figure 11.1 Incident and Emergency Notification Flowchart. (Extracted from

PPGUA 3.0 volume 3)

217

11.4. HSE Delineation of Responsibility

Safety is always the main priority of an oil and gas company. Every crew and staff is
responsible to ensure a safer environment to work on and extract as much hydrocarbon
as possible. As a result, every employee has their own roles and responsibilities
towards HSE and they are listed as below:
I.

General Manager (GM)

To develop a clear, strong leadership and good example to other employees

in maintaining HSEMS and to attain HSE Policy and strategic objectives.

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.

To assure that predicted risks can be identified and overcome.

Responsible to assign roles and working tasks for the crew depending on
their respective area of expertise towards ongoing activities in different
platforms.

III.

To confirm HSE performance of contractors are also monitored.

Project Manager

To assign responsibilities like achieving HSE objectives, plans and target

to supervisors or engineers for the respective project.

Carries the responsibility to report to GM for the implementation of

HSEMS.

To prepare Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for a new project.

To assure critical risk management is well organized and propose

recommendations for each case at the development stage.

IV.

Head of Procurement and Logistics

Person in charge of activities for procurement, warehouse and logistics.

To ensure that HSEMS is applied in procurement or purchase of equipment,

machineries or other goods from contractors or suppliers.

To assure that all contracts achieve HSEs requirements.

218

V.

HSE Managers

Accountable to provide valuable advices and guidance to all managers

during meeting on HSEMS.

To manage internal HSEMS audits and records all incidents or accidents

happened during operations.

VI.

To plan and perform investigation after incidents happened.

To arrange for emergency drills.

Head of Departments

To assure all employees in respective department are competent to the

assign tasks.

To identify and minimized risk that could have for forseeable risk on the
assigned activities.

VII.

Superintendents or Supervisors

Inform progress to the respective head of department.

To assure all working procedures are competent with his or her area of
expertise and also make sure it is not violating HSE policies.

To ensure all the employees are owning appropriate personal protective

equipment (PPE).

VIII.

Employees and contractors

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

11.5. Quality Management

In order to assure the quality of management, all employees including management
teams, operators and contractors to have similar objectives. Hence, a few measures
were proposed:

To create awareness towards project management and quality assurance to

all employees.

To arrange project resources according to respective priorities to assure

better quality.

In addition, management team should have some pre-discussion or pre-agreement with

the contractors, so that:

The contractors can provide qualified personnel on site and also to practice
effective quality management system (EQM).

The contractors can cooperate with operators to implement effective

quality management system with operators.

Competent personnel to do auditing on quality assurance on the working

procedure.

11.6. Occupational Health Management

Occupational health is about protecting the mental and physical health of personnel
and ensuring their welfare in the workplace. Even though this area is wide, however,
the priority is to prevent ill health arising out of conditions at work. Some of other
important expect includes:
1. Recovery after injury or illness
2. Health awareness and education
3. Safeguarding fitness in order to perform job safely
4. Providing emergency medical services and first aids
The basic principle in managing occupational health is by having a clear health and
safety policy. Every management should be committed to achieve the policy. Other

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:

Gas emission from combustion

Engine and generator emissions

Fugitive emission from unsealed containers, maintenance operation, and poor

housekeeping practices

Flaring

The proposed measures for this are:

Regular maintenance of machines, engines and generators

Use of high efficiency flare tip design

Good operational control and high level of housekeeping

221

11.7.2. Emission to Water

Some of the potential causes for water environmental issue:

Discharge of sewage, drainage waters, wash waters and cooling water

Discharge of cuttings to seafloor and water column

The proposed management measures are as follows:

Treatment of sewage prior to discharge

Use of only low toxicity chemicals on board

Use and regular maintenance of solid controls package

Discharge cuttings from lower holes

11.8. Sustainable Development Option

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:

Guidelines for monitoring the reservoir.

The Requirements for pressure surveys.

The reservoir dynamic model updates, which is monitored by the reservoir

engineers.

Accounting the hydrocarbon via well testing monthly production.

Locating the hydrocarbon zones that need to be optimized in the development.

Consideration of any future plans such as enhanced oil recovery.

222

11.8.2. Production Technology

The production technologists are teamed together to ensure that the reservoir is
producing at its maximum with concerning on some factors such as the followings:

Gas oil ratio.

Water production.

Pressure maintenance.

Production optimization and enhancement plan.

Accounting the new development technologies.

Considering sand control methods.

Fulfil performance review.

223

11.8.3. Drilling and Completion Implementation Plans

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:

Flexibility in the drilling design which would adopt the future

implementations.

Accounting the new development technologies.

Flexibility in the completion profile which would adopt the future

implementations.

Pre-Planned drilling program in order to reduce the risk and buy time.

11.8.4. Facilities Engineering and Operation

Identifying and planning facilities is a very important stage after the production
technology stage, the factors must be considered as follow:

Production surveillance

Well test must be done periodically

Scheduling the maintenance plan on the surface equipment

224

11.9. Quality Management and Assurance

11.9.1. Quality Management
The engineering teams, geologists and contractors have to put an equal work with
communication of one to another to achieve a quality work management. For the sake
of meeting the respective objective the following approaches has to be satisfied:

Quality assurance awareness program must be undertaking by engineers,

geologists and contractors.

Project resources must be identified in prioritized manner to continually

respond to areas of greater quality concern.
11.9.2. Quality Assurance

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

CHAPTER 12 CHAPTER SUMMARY

Table 12-1 Summary of Gelama Merah Oil Production Field
Reserves Estimation
Method

Reserve Estimation

PETREL

610 MMstb
Oil Recovery

Recovery Stage

Method

Recovery Factor (%)

Primary Recovery

Natural Depletion Method

23.79

Secondary Recovery

Water Flooding

32.82

Drilling Engineering
Casing Setting Depth

Variable based on formation depth

3 Casings

At 160, 720 and 5,200 ft-TVDSS

Drilling Fluid

WBM

Amount of Cement required

8,992 sacks
Economics

Profit to Investment Ratio

22.25

PETRONAS Profit

USD 5.522 billion

Government Profit

USD 6.478 billion

CHAPTER 2: GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS

The Gelama Merah field is situated in Block SB-18-12 Offshore Sabah basin, 43
kilometers North West of Labuan and 130 kilometers West of Kota Kinabalu with a
latitude and longitude of 05 33 49.98" N and 114 59 06.34" E respectively. It is
actually located in the Inboard Belt, slightly north from Glayzer gas field and having
a deltaic environment. Its source rock is made up mainly of terrigenous organic matter
while sandstone are the main elements in reservoir rock. The timing for maturation of
Gelama Merah field varies from Middle Miocene to present and having an upward
movement along the faults as its migration method. Gelama Merah field consist of
anticline structural trap with shale acts as the seal rock. The stratigraphy of Gelama
Merah field is categorized into top and base of sand unit interval. It is classified into
U3.2, U4.0, U5.0, U6.0, U7.0, U8.0, U9.0, U9.1, and U9.2.
226

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

In this chapter, the production technology has discussed in a comprehensive way

which its objectives have met. The main and most important part in this section was
the tubing performance with respect to different nodal analysis, whereby the three
variables were taken into account for the analysis study (reservoir pressure, water cut,
gas oil ratio). Moreover, sand control method was taking into consideration by
analysing different sand methods and choosing the most optimum one. Besides,
applying an artificial lift was a very essential plan as it increases the oil produced. Well
completion and design was studied in details whereby the type of completion is very
important in the production plan. Lastly, the potential of production problem was
studies for further enhancement.
CHAPTER 8: FACILITIES ENGINEERING
The facility engineering part is discussing the facilities needed for the field to be used
in order to process the hydrocarbon transferring from the reservoir to the surface. The
design feature and basis is discussing the top structure and substructure facilities
besides the operation facilities and equipment needed such as wellhead, production
flowline, production flow control and manifold. The pipeline was considered as well
as its potential problems and what is the safety system for that. Lastly the operation
and maintenance was taking a place besides the OPEX and CAPEX expenditures.
CHAPTER 9: DRILLING ENGINEERING
The setting depth for all 20 producer and injector wells are designed to be the same.
Both types of wells shall install three casings, namely conductor, surface and
production casing at 160, 720 and 5200 ft-TVDSS respectively. The drilling fluid used
is WBM and the a total of 8992 sacks of cement is required for all 20 wells. All drilling
operation shall be using jack-up rig and the total CAPEX for 20 wells is estimated to
be USD 309.4 million.
CHAPTER 10: ECONOMICS
The fiscal term is based on 40:60 sharing contract between PETRONAS and
Government. The development cost is approximately USD 400 million. For
cumulative production of 200 million barrel and oil price consideration of USD 60 /
barrel, the total revenue is approximately USD 11.815 billion from which PETRONAS
228

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

Hutchison, C. S. (2005). Geology of North-West Borneo: Sarawak, Brunei and Sabah:

Elsevier.
International Logging Overseas, I. (2003). PETRONAS CARIGALI SDN. BHD. Final Well Report for Gelama Merah-1 & Gelama Merah-1 ST1 Malaysia.
Jasmi, A. T. (2012). Lecture 12: Petroleum System (P. G. Department, Trans.):
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS.
Jordan, R., & Head, P. (1995). Cost Effective Well Abandonment.
Jr, M. B., & Raymond, R. F. (2008). Pipeline Corrosion.
Kamel, M. H., & Mabrouk, W. M. (2003). Estimation of shale volume using a
combination of the three porosity logs. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, 40(3), 145-157.
Kovalev, K., Cruickshank, A., & Purvis, J. (2003). The Slug Suppression Sytem in
Operation. Aberdeen: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Lea, J. F., & Nickens, H. V. (1999). Selection of Artificial Lift.
Management of occupational health risks in the offshore oil and gas industry.
Maroo, A. (2014). Syncline or Anticline? Retrieved 22 November 2015, from
https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC5EQPC&title=
syncline-or-anticline
McCain, W. D., Voneiff, G. W., Hunt, E. R., & Semmelbeck, M. E. (1993). A Tight
Gas Field Study: Carthage (Cotton Valley) Field.
Mikenorton. (2008). Types Of Depositional Environment.
Mohammed Al-Yaari, K. F. (2011). Paraffin Wax Deposition: Mitigation & Removal
Techniques. Saudi Arabia: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
NorwegianMaritimeAuthority. (2007). Draft Regulations on evacuation and lifesaving appliances on mobile offshore units. Norwegian Maritime Authority.
Pipeline Integrity and Corrosion Management. (2014).
Rashidi, M., Salleh, I. K., Daud, W. A. W., & Anwar, M. L. (2003). Reservoir Fluid
Study for Gelama Merah-1 (L. Services, Trans.). PETRONAS RESEARCH &
SCIENTIFIC SERVICES SDN. BHD.: PETRONAS RESEARCH.
Ray Mireault, L. D. (2008). Reservoir Engineering for Geologist: CSPG Reservoir.
Satter, A., Iqbal, G. M., & Buchwalter, J. L. (2008). Practical enhanced reservoir
engineering: assisted with simulation software: Pennwell Books.
Van Wagoner, J. (1988). An overview of the fundamentals of sequence stratigraphy
and key definitions.
William C. Lyons, P. D. P. E., & Gary J Plisga, B. (2011). Standard Handbook of
Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering: Elsevier Science.
William D. McCain, J. (1990). The Properties of Petroleum Fluids. Oklahoma:
PennWell Publishing Company.
WiperTrip. (n.d.). Hydraulics Optimization - Hole Cleaning. from
http://www.wipertrip.com/drilling-fluids/miscellaneous/349-hydraulicsoptimization-hole-cleaning.html
231

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