Professional Documents
Culture Documents
-Zulkifli Latif
-Imron Asjhari
-Wahyudin B. Nasifi
PRESENTATION OUTLINES
1. INTRODUCTION
2. DEVELOPMENT BARRIERS
TECHNOLOGY
SHARING OF INFRASTRUCTURE
FISCAL INCENTIVES
COMPANIES, ORGANISATION AND CO-OPERATION
3. KEY STEPS TO STIMULATE AN OPTIMIZED
DEVELOPMENT
4. CONCLUSIONS
11400'
Location
Offshore Sabah
11600'
SB303
800'
P Balambangan
P Banggi
Tiga Papan
SW Emerald
SB304
Barton
11900'
N
Titik Terang
PSC
SAMARANGASAM PAYA PSC
(1995-2020)
11800'
P Balabac
SB302
Kamunsu East
Upthrown
Tembungo
Kamunsu East
Kudat
700'
PHILIPPINES
S Furious
St Joseph
SB330
Kebabangan
Erb West
Sub-Block
SAMARANG
SUB-BLOCK
(6S18/12)
Kinarut
Erb South
Lokan
SE Collins
Nosong
Alab
Ketam
Bongawan N
L
SB1
Samarang
Kecil
Padas
KOTA
KINABALU
Benrinnes
Nymph North
Sandakan
Glayzer
Haselfoot
Trusmadi
PADAS
Sulu Sea
600'
SB305
Samarang
Kinabalu
Equity
100% PCSB
NS 96 PSC
SB301
S A B A H
SB331
P. Labuan
SB332
500'
P Timbun Mata
Nearest Field
12 km from SMP-B
24 km from Sumandak CPP
SK307
LEGEND
BRUNEI
SB308
P Sebatik
INDONESIA
50 km
SARAWAK
Three Wells
Padas-1 (1972 EPMI)
Padas-2 (1977 EPMI)
Kotar-1 (1990 SSPC)
Distance Kotar-1 & Padas-2
~ 2km
Distance Padas-1 & Padas-2
~ 6.5km
KOTAR-1
PADAS-1
PADAS-2
Oil
Reservoir
IVC-13
Gas
Reservoir
Case
(MMSTBO)
RF
(%)
Low (P85)
13
15
49
30
15
High (P15)
115
45
52
Case
STOIIP
PR
(MMSTBO)
GIIP
(BSCF)
IVC-13
Low (P85)
Most Likely (P50)
High (P15)
0
20
51.4
Reservoirs
Risked OIIP
(MMSTB)
IVC-1 to
IVC-19
Gas
Expected
Value (EV)
Reservoirs
84
Risked GIIP
(BSCF)
IVC-1 to
IVC-19
Expected
Value (EV)
45.9
Sand production
OWC is not seen in Padas 2 well, but the FWL has been
estimated using the Samarang J-curves. This puts the
FWL about 5 feet below the ODT level but there is a
possibility that the actual FWL is much deeper.
Notes :
2 GBV cases :
% Difference
-150
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
GBV (1)
N/G
So
500
550
600
650
PHIT
GBV (2)
1/Boi
TECHNOLOGY &
INFRASTRUCTURE
2005
PADAS-2
~50 ft (15.2m) Water Depth
3 Producers
3 Gas Lift
Lightweight
Structure (LWS)
24 KM
Sumandak CPP
13
PADAS-2
~50 ft (15.2m) Water Depth
3 Producers
3 Gas Lift
Lightweight
Structure (LWS)
MOORING LINES
MOPU
FORWARD
FSO HEADING
SHUTTLE
TANKER
FSO
MOORING LINES
FIELD PLAN
N.E
FISCAL INCENTIVE
2005
CAPEX and OPEX Breakdown (Option 1 and Option 2 - Most Likely Case PR)
All in USD, million
Padas
Seismic
Appraisal
Drilling
Facilities
CAPEX
Drilling
CAPEX
[1]
Dev.
CAPEX
Tot. Capital
Investment
W/O [1]
With [1]
Note: Excl.
seismic
Note: Excl.
seismic
Annual
OPEX
Option 1
7.89
5.26
30.60
11.40
42.00
47.26
0.92
(Tie-in)
(30)
(20)
(116)
(43)
(159)
(179)
(3.5)
Option 2
7.89
5.26
11.00
11.40
22.40
27.66
20.81
(LWS +
FPSO)
(30)
(20)
(42)
(43)
(85)
(105)
(79)
( ) Cost in RM
Basis Assumptions
y Development scheme based on 15 MMstb of oil (most likely case with gas
lift) with 3 development wells
y
Incremental economics
Option 1
Option 2
(Tie-in)
(LWS + FPSO)
136
- ve
38
- ve
17
- ve
IRR %
23%
Economic limit : 2020
UDC RM/BOE
10.80
UPC RM/BOE
3.60
UTC RM/BOE
14.40
20
20
159
85
179
105
79 mil. /year
Note:
Option 1 : Tie-in to Sumandak
Option 2 : LWS + FPSO
30%
20%
15%
10%
0%
-20%
0%
Reserves
Capex
20%
Opex
Drill
Appraisal well
Drill
No
Discovery
25%
0
38.0 x (25%)
= 9.5
Dry
75%
-18.2 x (75%)
= -13.6
30%
IRR %
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
MMSTB
Minimum oil reserves required is 10 MMstb
1.
Conventional
i.
Acquire 3D
ii.
Re-validate the
volumetric based
on new
interpretation
iii.
iv.
FDP
v.
Development
PROS
i.
Better define
development
ii.
Reduce
uncertainties
iii.
At each milestone,
we have a gate
either to proceed to
the next step or
otherwise.
Minimise exposure
and wastage of
limited resources.
i.
CONS
DO WE
RECOMMEND
BASED ON RA
STUDY?
Slow due
to
stepwise
approach
Yes to
address
uncertainties
identified by the
RA study
2.
PROS
i.
CONS
Potential i.
early 1st
oil
ii.
Q:
Can we define
what FDP
activities we can
do based on
current data?
Under
exposure
Inefficient
utilisation of
limited
resources in
the event preFDP activities
not in favour to
proceed with
FDP works.
DO WE RECOMMEND
BASED ON RA
STUDY?
Not recommended.
Anticipate a lot of
reworks
3.
Utilise
appraisal for
development
PROS
i.
Potential
early 1st oil
CONS
i.
ii.
iii.
DO WE
RECOMMEND
BASED ON RA
STUDY?
Can be
Well placement is considered after
seismic
not optimum
acquisition and
Inefficient
interpretation.
utilisation of
Under exposure
limited resources
in the event
appraisal findings
not in favour for
development
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the Most Likely Case PR of 15 MMstb and USD 22 per barrel
oil price, it yields +ve NPV. However, Resource Assessment study
identified the following challenges and uncertainties:
Main risks are the uncertainty over the distribution of hydrocarbons
and compartmentalisation.
Uncertainties in fluid and rock properties.
To minimise risks associated with volumetric uncertainties, it is
recommended to adhere to the RA technical recommendations as
previously presented. The strategy to further appraise and develop the
field is heavily dependent on the outcome of the interpretation of the new
3D.
COMPANIES,
ORGANIZATION &
COOPERATION
Reduction on Tax
Flexibility in utilizing foreign contractor
THANK YOU