SPE 115317

Optimised Field Development Planning in a Complex Geological and PSC

Environment
D. Boardman, SPE, S. Habib, SPE, Hess Oil & Gas Sdn. Bhd; M. Rumbos, Carigali Hess Operating Company
Sdn. Bhd; S. Vasantharajan, SPE, Optimal Decisions, Inc.

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Perth, Australia, 20–22 October 2008.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The paper describes an optimisation methodology used to aid development planning for the A-18 block in the Malaysia
Thailand Joint Development Area (MTJDA). Development of this block is complicated by the large areal extent, gas residing
in up to fifteen different major reservoir sequences, large depth range with the deeper sequences being HPHT intervals, and
CO2 contents varying from 1 to 60%. An optimised field development plan has to maximise economic value from a volume
based gas sales agreement which generates a heating value based revenue stream linked to CO2 level, and prioritises
condensate production. The interplay between gas and liquids considerations and a myriad of potential platform and
development drilling options within a PSC environment makes the selection of an optimum development scenario difficult.
The paper describes how a decision framework was used to maximise the economic value of the asset. This custom built
software automatically generates possible development scenarios, and then uses branch-and-bound and outer approximation
solution techniques to analyze and efficiently “prune” the scenario tree to eliminate sub-optimal candidates. The results
illustrate the effectiveness of applying optimisation technology to this complex asset, as development plans can be quickly
and robustly constructed for different GIIP and recovery scenarios and for different objectives such as maximising sales gas
volume or NPV.

Introduction
The A-18 block includes 11 discovered gas fields within an area of nearly 3000 sq km (Figure 1) and contains a total certified
2P GIIP of 12 Tcf. There are 4 fields currently under development: Cakerawala, Bumi, Suriya and Bulan. The asset sits in
the area straddling Malaysian – Thai waters and is jointly owned and regulated by both countries through the Malaysia
Thailand Joint Authority (MTJA). Exploitation has been entrusted to a joint venture between Petronas Carigali Sdn. Bhd. and
Hess Oil & Gas Sdn. Bhd. and takes place in a PSC regulatory environment. There are two PSC’s which cover the A-18 area,
one for development in the Cakerawala field, and the other covering the remaining fields; they have different capital recovery
terms.
The fields are depositionally complex and key reservoirs vary from very high quality thick continuous sequences in the
shallow zones of Cakerawala to poorer quality heterolithic intervals in areas of Bumi. The A-18 Miocene hydrocarbon
system consists of a thick interval (~7000 feet) of interbedded sands and shales which progress from normally pressured
between 3500-6000 feet, to over pressured and hot (8500 psi/390 OF) in the sequence XV sands at 10,000 feet. CO2
percentages in individual sub-sequences vary from below 1% to 60% and condensate yields, although predominantly light,
show variations between 5 and over 40 stb/mmscf.
Development to date has followed the two major Gas Sales Agreements (GSA). The Phase 1 development comprised 3
platforms in the Cakerawala field with a Central Processing Platform (CPP) and an export pipeline via southern Thailand into
Malaysia. First gas was exported in 2005 under a GSA for 390 mmscf/d of sales gas. The Phase 2 development which
underpins the second GSA for an additional 400 mmscf/d sales gas to Thailand, comprises expansion of the CPP and
development of the Bumi, Bulan and Suriya fields via individual platforms (BMA, BLA and SYA). This was completed
during 2007/8. There are a total of 36 Cakerawala production wells, with a similar number distributed between the other
fields.
The GSA allow for export of gas with up to 22% CO2 content, although price is dependant on heating value, and facilities
design work concluded that optimum sales gas export was at 15% CO2 content. An additional key value driver is to maximise
the condensate offtake, which is exported via a nearby Floating Storage and Offloading vessel (FSO) and shuttle tankers.
2 SPE 115317

There are an additional 8-10 platforms and potentially further 90-150 wells required to fully develop the fields, and the
requirement now is to continue to optimise the future development of the area (Figure 2).

Geological Overview
Block A-18 is located in the northern part of the Malay Basin (Figure 3), and the four main fields, Cakerawala, Bulan,
Bumi and Suriya comprise largely Miocene sediments. The block straddles the Malay Basin and structurally the fields form
part of the central inversion zone (CIZ), which is characterised by north-south trending horst and graben features (Figure 4).
A variety of trap styles are present including large four way dip and fault/dip closed structures, in addition to stratigraphic
trapping in some sequences. The Cakerawala Field, which contains approximately half of the initial gas in place, is located at
the high point of the zone and consists of a large anticline with a horst block to the east.
The Paleo-depositional setting of the North Malay Sub-basin during the Miocene has been well studied (Madon et al.
1999, 2006) and ranges from fluvial deltaic to shallow marine environments, dominated by tidal deltaic-coastal plain. The A-
18 block fields are situated in a tidally deposited environment. The gas bearing hydrocarbon system within the block consists
of a thick interval (~7000 feet) of interbedded sands and shales with abundant source rich shales and coals and the sediments
have been grouped into genetic sequences (0 to XV) based on flooding surfaces, sequence boundaries and regional markers.
The conceptual depositional model for the JDA has been developed by integrating all available core, log,
sedimentological, geophysical and biostratigraphic data. Depositional facies and lithofacies associations were identified in
core and environments of deposition interpreted based on these data (Carney et al. 2008). Analogues have been used to
validate and support the depositional models developed. Modern analogues for the area include the Gulf of Papua (Figure 5),
which contains the Fly River Estuary (analogous to Cakerawala) and the northern and eastern gulf (analogous to Bumi).
The strategraphic section in Figure 6 illustrates the general correlation across these fields. In general, the shallow
sequences were deposited in a coastal environment, and comprise the highest net to gross with relatively continuous sands
containing 60% of the initial gas in place. There is some variation across the block. In the Cakerawala area an active estuary
system was developed which passes from fluvial deposits through tidal flats and shoals to subtidal ridges. The main direction
of transport appears to be NW to SE along the basin axis. Some of the sand was carried away from the active delta mouth by
longshore currents, resulting in the formation of tidal flats, beaches and possible barrier bars adjacent to the main estuary.
Many of the reservoirs in the Bumi Field appear to have been deposited in a lower energy environment adjacent to the main
sediment fairway at Cakerawala and are overall of poorer quality than Cakerawala. The upper sequences in Bulan and Suriya
are expected to be more similar to the Cakerawala depositional environment. The intermediate reservoirs are more fluvial in
origin and are also quite laterally extensive in the upper sequences (III to VI). The deep sequences were deposited in a
fluvial-deltaic environment, with lower net to gross and tend to contain more isolated tidal channels and associated bar facies.

Fluid Properties
Formation pressures have been defined for each hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir using wireline formation tester and drill-
stem test data. Typically the onset of overpressure is coincident with Sequence VI at around 6000 feet, and there is a rapid
increase through a pressure ramp to Sequence X, with more uniformly increasing pressures below that (Figure 6).
Temperatures also increase through the pressure ramp, with the deepest sequences having temperatures between 350-400 OF.
The PVT database is regularly updated with new MDT and production samples to track the large variations in CO2
content between the sequences and fields. The volume weighted CO2 variation in the major CIZ fields and reservoir
sequences is shown in Table 1, and illustrates the wide range of hydrocarbon contamination. There are also variations in
condensate yield between fields and sequences. In general, the JDA gas is very lean with CGRs ranging between 5 to 10
stb/mmscf, although CGRs in excess of 40 stb/mmscf have been assessed in some deeper sequences.

The Challenge
The multitude of reservoirs, varying CO2 levels and significant cost differences between deep and shallow sequence
wells, together with plant constraints and the desire to maximise condensate offtake makes defining the optimum integrated
area development plan a non trivial exercise. This is compounded by the fiscal environment generated by the two PSC’s,
which can result in non-intuitive development option ranking.
Previous studies have shown that a fully integrated approach is required to maximise value from a complex asset such as
the A-18 block (Sullivan 1981, Udoh et al. 2003, van den Heever et al. 2001, Vasantharajan et al. 1999, 2006). The
fundamental reservoir management requirements that have to be included are: the development schedule of reservoirs and
wells, the integrated consideration of subsurface, surface and economic performance, the appropriate choice of a performance
metric to distinguish between different development plans and the key development decisions to maximise value. The paper
describes the proprietary high level screening tool that has been developed to assist in the planning of the A-18 block
development. The tool accounts for all these reservoir management requirements and uses mathematical optimisation theory
to optimise the outcome.

Field Development Optimisation

A decision framework has been developed which integrates reservoir data, well inflow and tubing performance, surface
facilities and plant constraints and the dual PSC economic model to optimise the development in terms of platform and
SPE 115317 3

reservoir sequences and well timings. This tool, JDAOpt, has been tailored specifically to the A-18 block development and
incorporates both the fields presently scheduled for development, with their potential platforms, and other fields which could
be developed in the future. A schematic outline of components is shown in Figure 7.
Subsurface
The JDAOpt software incorporates conventional subsurface models. The reservoir sequences are represented as a series
of material balance tanks, with pressures and PVT properties including CO2 content and CGR assigned appropriately. There
are over 50 reservoir tanks used to model the 4 fields currently being developed. Wells can be assigned with a variety of
inflow parameters for each tank based on the classical C&N factors back-pressure approach (up to 3 types, allowing for
reservoir quality variations), and tubing pressure drop functions are assigned according to well length and completion type.
Where a number of platforms develop a single reservoir sequence, GIIP is proportioned according to drainage area
estimates (Figure 8). Where platform timing differs significantly, a decision has to be made whether it is more accurate to
split the tank volume into smaller units, or whether the early platforms will develop the whole GIIP and later ones have
mainly acceleration value. Uptime factors are assigned to wells and facilities.

Surface Network
Traditional surface network models are incorporated into JDAOpt. The network considers current and future potential
platforms. A flexible interface allows the user to specify inter-platform connections and connections from platforms to CPP.
When multiple potential outlet connections are considered for a platform the software can be used to select the best
connection from an economic standpoint. Pipeline lengths and dimensions are input. Pipeline pressure drops are then
calculated using calibrated Panhandle-A type correlations. JDAOPT enforces full system material and pressure balance at
every time step.

Process Plant
The main processing plant is modeled taking into account process pressure drops, CO2 membrane efficiency and
hydrocarbon losses, and sales gas compression (Figure 9). Condensate and CO2 volumes are based on the reservoir
parameters from each tank, with the condensate-gas ratios having been calibrated to process yields. The optimisation
variables considered are condensate rate and feed gas CO2 volume, which is linked to membrane removal efficiency and sales
gas heating value.

Compression
The software has been developed to investigate the application of three different types of compression scenario. These
involve centralised compression at the Cakerawala facility, distributed compression at each of the fields and a hybrid scenario
involving centralised compression with motor driven booster compressors at some of the outlying field hubs. These have
been investigated to determine the optimum compression type and schedule for the overall development, constrained to
estimated earliest technical start dates. Fuel requirements for the process plant, sales gas compressors and field compression
are accounted for by the model.

Platform and Drilling Options

Current platforms and existing and planned (short term) well completions are input as starting constraints to the model.
The potential platform options are also included in the model, based on individual field development plans, together with
appropriate pipeline tie-backs and costs. Slot sizes are input parameters to limit the number of wells assigned to each
platform. A maximum constraint on the number of wells per reservoir sequence is also available. Generic well types, drilling
days and costs have been determined based on expected drilling performance for shallow, intermediate and deep reservoirs.
Parameters are also available to define the maximum number of rig months available per year and cost and time allowances
for moves between platforms have been included to allow rig schedules to be determined by the software.

Economic Model
The optimisation software contains the full economic model for the A-18 block and incorporates the fiscal terms of both
PSC’s, condensate and GSA gas prices and models the variation in gas price with heating value (CO2 content). Historical
costs are inputs and the model calculates point forward capex requirements, NPV and other economic parameters.

Optimisation Framework
JDAOpt solves all of its components (Subsurface, Surface, GSA, and PSC models) simultaneously to ensure that the
optimal development plan determined satisfies all imposed physical and economic constraints. Unified solution enables the
optimisation algorithm to understand and exploit the synergies between the different facets of the decision process:
reservoirs, wells, platforms, pipelines, gas processing, and sales gas demands. For a complex asset such as the A-18 block, a
decision at any facet of the asset affects all of the other components. Maximising full economic value of the asset requires
that the integrated models also be solved simultaneously over the PSC time horizon. JDAOpt has the capability of looking-
ahead and implicitly understands the time value of decisions – how decisions made today affect the future.
4 SPE 115317

The physical and economic models and the custom optimisation algorithm have been implemented in the AIMMS
environment (Bisschop and Roelofs, 2002). This offers an advanced integrated development environment for building and
executing optimisation-based decision support applications. A large set of user interface features make it appropriate for both
developers and end-users of complex optimisation models.

Optimisation Model Formulation

Optimisation applications require development of mathematical models that represent the physical and economic
behaviors and inter-relationships of an asset. Field development optimisation applications comprise of 5 components. They
are:
1. “Decision or Optimisation variables” which are to be determined (eg. platform sequence, well rate)
2. “Physical models” which are equations that represent the performance of the asset’s physical components (eg.
reservoir performance, pipeline pressure drop)
3. “Economic models” which are analytical relationships to compute NPV and other required metrics
4. “Objective function” which is selected by the user and required to be either maximised or minimized (eg. NPV,
Reserves, Capex), and
5. “Constraints” which are limits on the decision variables (eg. maximum sand free well rate), restrictions on
internal variables (eg. drilling rig availability), contractual obligations (eg. GSA terms), or economic
requirements (eg. minimum IRR).
Together these 5 components comprise the Optimisation Framework (Figure 10), and the effort to define and describe
these components is referred to as Optimisation Formulation.
Optimisation algorithms iteratively select different combinations and values of the decision variables and solve the
physical and economic models for each of these decision variable combinations to calculate the objective function and check
the constraints. The decision variables are systematically adjusted so that they are “feasible”, i.e., they satisfy all constraints
and they also optimise the objective function. The refinement of the decision variables, the solution of the model equations,
the evaluations of the objective function and constraints are all done simultaneously to ensure computational efficiency and
robustness of solution.
It should be noted that a mathematical optimisation framework is very different from traditional decision tree analysis in
that the framework automatically generates all combinations of the decision variables, i.e., all possible development scenarios
for consideration. The optimisation framework allows the development team to concentrate on specifying decision options,
and not be burdened with constructing and evaluating development scenarios.
Proper formulation of the optimisation framework so that the equations are well behaved in a mathematical sense is
paramount and can have a significant impact on the efficacy of the algorithms employed to solve them. This is particularly
true of field development applications as several of the decision variables are discrete in nature – decisions that are either
boolean (true/false; yes/no) or integer valued. Examples of boolean type decisions are platform configuration and drilling
schedule. Examples of integer-valued decisions are number of wells drilled from a platform or number of compression
stages.
In addition, the mathematical relationships used to describe the performance of the physical systems are nonlinear in
nature. For example the reservoir material balance equations relating pressure to cumulative production or equations relating
well productivity to flowing bottomhole pressure are coupled, nonlinear expressions. The combination of discrete decision
variables and the nonlinear nature of the models significantly complicates solution of the models. Mathematical models of
this class are referred to as Mixed-Integer Nonlinear Programming Problems (MINLP). MINLPs are acknowledged as one of
the most challenging problems with regards to computational complexity in mathematical optimisation literature (Floudas,
1995).

Optimisation Algorithm
The large number of discrete variables (combinatorial complexity), the long time horizon of the PSC (large model size),
and the non-smooth, nonlinear nature of the physical models (ill-behaved) render the resulting field development planning
problem intractable by conventional methods. Codes that use optimisation strategies such as Branch-and-Bound (B&B) or
Outer Approximation (OA) cannot solve the final MINLP model when used directly. Structured and/or random direct search
methods are inadequate as the combinatorial component of this model is significant and onerous.
So, a tailored, multi-stage algorithm has been devised that exploits the nature of the equations, hierarchically decomposes
the decision space, and judiciously alternates between applying B&B and OA strategies to efficiently “prune” the space of all
possible development scenarios. This custom algorithm efficiently culls sub-optimal candidates and evolves to generating
the optimised development plan for the objective selected by the user.
The custom algorithm that has been devised cannot mathematically guarantee that the final development plan determined
is the global optimum. However, by systematically determining bounds on the objective function selected at each stage and
using it to prune non-optimal scenarios in subsequent stages, it ensures that the final development plan generated is a very
good solution to the original MINLP model.
SPE 115317 5

Model Execution
The integrated model is run to determine the optimised plan which includes the development schedule for the reservoirs,
ranking of platforms, sequencing of their wells and staging of compression to maximise the value of the asset. There are no
capital constraints imposed and the model produces a development schedule ranked on the most economically attractive
options. Different optimisation objective functions can be chosen such as maximisation of NPV, sales gas volume or revenue.
The model runs on annual time steps. The relatively short (~8 hour) run times allow different scenarios to be evaluated
rapidly, for instance varying P90, P50, P10 GIIP outcomes for each field, and an optimised development plan to be
determined for each scenario. This allows an overall optimised development to be quickly determined which can best cater
for upside and downside outcomes. Sensitivities to the fully optimised scenario can be run in much less time (few minutes) –
eg. the impact of capex escalation on a development plan, value of delaying compression by a year.

Results
The JDAOpt model has been used to determine the reference case for the A-18 block, and for screening and valuing many
additional scenarios including the development of other discovered A-18 gas volumes. A selection of scenarios are included
below which illustrate some of the results.

Maximising NPV Vs Sales Gas Volume

The main use of the model has been to determine the reference case development plan for the asset. As drilling results
from appraisal and production wells have altered gas in place volumes in certain sequences and areas of the field, the model
has been able to rapidly update the development plan appropriately. A number of scenarios based on development of the four
main fields were initially screened using different objective functions available. Figure 11 illustrates the difference between
objectives of maximising NPV or maximising sales gas volume, using the same input parameters. The former case includes
157 wells from 14 platforms, while the latter case drills 216 wells from 16 platforms and produces an additional 12% of sales
gas. The maximise NPV case produces sales gas at 15% CO2 content until the end of plateau when it rises to 22%, while the
maximise sales gas scenario produces sales gas at a constant 22% CO2 content. The impact of the lower price from the
higher CO2 content reduces NPV by over 10% however showing that the best development strategy is to maximise value
from the quality of the sales gas.

Booster Compression
The model was used to investigate the impact of different booster compression scenarios upon the development. A
comparison was made between the centralised compression scenario based on a large facility at the CPP and distributed
compression with each field hub having smaller dedicated compression units. The latter case produces an additional 7% of
sales gas from one less platform and six fewer wells; average recovery per well increases by 9% due to lower abandonment
pressures at the offset fields. Overall NPV is only improved by a relatively modest 3% however implying that with present
upward pressures on costs and significant uncertainties remaining on in place gas volumes, careful evaluation will be
required to determine the most attractive compression option. The fact that the field development plans were individually
optimised to maximise the overall NPV from both of these scenarios provides additional confidence in the results.

Commingling
A recent improvement to the software has allowed the impact of commingling to be determined. At present, reservoir
management considerations have precluded commingling of reservoir sequences through the same wellbore, although sub-
sequences are being commingled. There is a possibility however of ultimately allowing sequences with similar pressure
regimes to be commingled. Solving the optimisation function with a large number of commingling options would be highly
inefficient, hence the methodology used is to solve the problem conventionally in a first pass with wells dedicated to
individual reservoir sequences. A second pass is then made incorporating a table where the user defines which sequences are
allowed to commingle, the maximum pressure difference allowable and earliest commingling dates. The model then
determines how many wells could be saved by the commingling scheme, and the impact on NPV. This is illustrated in Figure
12, where commingling allows 29 less wells to be drilled, generating a significant capex saving. Subsequent confirmation of
the development plan in a simulation model is required to confirm the feasibility of the outcome.

Present Limitations and Future Improvements

The JDAOpt model currently runs on annual timesteps to accommodate some inherent limitations of the economic model
calculations. Further, wells are all assumed to start up at the beginning of a year. Also, the framework has some limitations
in that inter-connections of tanks cannot be represented due to the requirements for efficiently solving the optimisation
problem. For these reasons it should not be used as a short term forecasting tool or for determining the exact timing
requirements for platforms (i.e. is installation required before/after the monsoon season). It is designed primarily as a higher
level or strategic screening tool able to quickly evaluate a large number of scenarios and provide optimised development
plans, which can then be validated with simulation models or more detailed network models.
The optimisation routine currently does not take into account capital efficiency in the quest to maximise NPV, and
development plans have to be additionally screened to ensure that individual components meet other economic threshold
6 SPE 115317

criteria (e.g. PVI). Future improvements are expected to include the ability to meet minimum criteria for other economic
parameters as part of the optimisation process.

Conclusion
The JDAOpt decision software has been developed as a fast, robust tool to optimise the overall development plan of the
complex A-18 block. It accounts for the varying CO2 and CGR levels within the reservoir sequences, and the areal extent of
the overall development, and determines the optimised plan for any given scenario in the complex dual PSC fiscal
environment. Its integrated perspective enables determination of development plans that are superior to those that can be
obtained by considering the asset components separately
Incorporating different objective functions in the algorithm has allowed exploration of differences in development
strategy between a traditional approach which tries to maximise the volume of gas sold and an approach which maximises
asset NPV. The results highlight that maximising the quality of the sales gas produces the best overall asset value.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Malaysia Thailand Joint Authority and the managements of Petronas Carigali Sdn. Bhd.
and Hess Oil & Gas Sdn. Bhd. for permission to publish this paper.

References
Bisschop, J. and Roelofs, M., 2002: AIMMS - The User’s Guide, Paragon Decision Technology B.V., Haarlem, The Netherlands,
http://www.aimms.com.
Carney, S., Barr, D., Chai, S.N., Leal, L., Abu Bakar, F., 2008: “Reservoir Characterisation of the Mid Miocine Reservoirs of the North
Malay Basin, Joint Malaysian Thailand Development Area (MTJDA)”, paper SPE 116311 presented at the 2008 SPE Asia Pacific
Conference and Exhibition, Perth, W.Australia, October 20-22.
Floudas, C.A., 1995: Nonlinear and Mixed Integer Optimization: Fundamental and Applications, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Madon, M., Abolins, P., Mohd. Jamaal, Hoesni and Mansor, 1999. Malay Basin: The Petroleum Geology and Resources of Malaysia,
Petronas, Kuala Lumpur, pp. 173-217.
Madon, M., Yang, J.S., Abolins, P., Abu Hassan, Redzuan, M. Yakzan, Azmi and Bahari Zainal, Saiful, 2006. Petroleum System of the
Northern Malay Basin. Geological Society Malaysia Bulletin 49, p. 125-134.
Sullivan, J., 1981: "A Computer Model for Planning the Development of an Offshore Gas Field", paper SPE 10210 presented at the 56th
Annual Fall Technical Conf. and Exhibitions of SPE, October.
Udoh, E., Vasantharajan, S. and Sampath, K.,, 2003:th“Applications of Strategic Optimization Techniques to Development and Management
of Oil and Gas Resources”, presented at the 27 Annual SPE International Technical Conference, Nigeria, August 4-6.
van den Heever, S., Grossmann, I. E., Vasantharajan, S. and Edwards, K. L., 2001: “A Lagrangean decomposition heuristic for the design
and planning of offshore hydrocarbon field infrastructure with complex economic objectives”, I&EC Research, Vol. 40, No. 13, pp.
2857-2875.
Vasantharajan, S., Cullick, A.S., Vecchietti, A. 1999. “Optimal Planning and Scheduling of Investment, Development and Operation of a
Portfolio of Offshore Gas Fields”, presented at INFORMS, Philadelphia, November.
Vasantharajan, S., Al-Husainy, R., Heinemann, R.F. 2006. “Applying Optimization Technology in Reservoir Management”, JPT 58(5): 82-
88, SPE 87836.
SPE 115317 7

Tables Figures

Sequence Bulan Cakerawala Suriya Bumi

0 1.7 17.4 1.8 0.8
I 19.9 30.8 2.3 1.6
II 33.7 29.5 28.6 9.5
III 17.6 39.2 58.4
IV 29.7 41.0 34.0
V 39.9 48.3 36.5
VI 51.2 30.1 42.0 5.6
VIII 47.4 46.1 35.4 8.8
IX 38.9
X 22.4 40.9 45.5
XII 36.5 42.5
XIII 20.0 30.5
XIV 34.1
XV 36.9
Table 1: Average Sequence CO2 Percentage

Figure 1: Block A-18 Development Area

Expo
r
t to T
haila
n

Bumi
East
d

Field
Bumi East

BLA
BLA
BLA

Bulan Field
Bulan
Field CKC
CKC
Export to Bumi Field
Malaysia
Cakerawala
CKA/P/R Bumi
Field
CKP East Field
Cakerawala BMA
Cakerawala CKB
Field
Field FSO 5 km
CKB BMA
Suriya
Field
SuriyaField SYA
Cakerawala SYA
East

= Phase 1 Platforms

= Phase 2 Platforms

5 km
= Future Platforms

Figure 2: Block A-18 Conceptual Development Plan

 8 SPE 115317

Pattani Trough

Block A-18
M
al
a y
B
as
in n
si
Ba
na
atu
.N
W

Figure 3: Block A-18 Malay Basin Location

West Flank Central Inversion zone East Flank

a
mi
lan

riy

0
k

Bu
Su
Bu

Ca

4
)

Depth (km)
(

6
LEGEND

A+B J Shale
8 D J Sand
E K Shale
F K Sand
H L Sand
10 I M / synrift
Basement
A-18 Block Basement 0 100
km
12

Figure 4: SW-NE Cross-section through the North Malay Basin

SPE 115317 9

Conceptual
JDA Depositional
is located in an Environment
area where fluvial Fly River Analogue
dominant northern area meets the
Cakerawala/Bulan
coastal /delta plain tidally influenced Bumi Analogue
Analogue 50 km
reservoirs of the Malay Basin.

0 10 20 km
(after Emery and Myers, 1985)

Figure 5: Block A-18 Depositional Environments

Bulan-4 Cak-1AST Cak-E1 Suriya-2 Suriya-1 Bumi-1ST Bumi-9 Bumi-East1 JDA Seq_III Structure Map
Pressure
Trend
~-3,500 ft
Bumi
Bumi-
Bumi-E
Suriya
Shallow

Bulan
30 km
Cak
Intermediate

44 km

~-6,000 ft
Deep

~-10,000 ft
2,500 psi 7,500 psi

Figure 6: Block A-18 Well Cross-Section and Vertical Pressure Trend

10 SPE 115317

All Constraints PSC Economic Model NPV

Sales Gas &
Blending model: CO2, Condensate
Condensate
Gas Sales Agreement model
Processing Platform
Pressure Balanced System
Compressor Models
Gas Treatment Model
Pipeline Network
Pressure Drop Models

Wellhead Platforms
Facilities

Tubing Model

Well IPR
Reservoir Volumes
and Properties

Figure 7: JDAopt Schematic Features

CKC CKA
CKE
CKD CKB

CK-Seq_I
CK_I_East
10% 29% 38% 24%
100%

Figure 8: JDAopt Assignment of Reservoir GIIP

A 735 psi 710 psi 625 psi 2000 psi

Membrane Gas
B Inlet Dehydration CO2 Sales Gas
Refrigeration Sales
Separation Removal Compression

C
Condensate
Liquid
Condensate
Storage
Treatment (FSO)
Export

Blending Model: Separation unit modeled as component/phase splitters

- Model considers 3 components: HC, CO2 & condensate
Optimisation Variables: Condensate Rate & Feed Gas CO2 (determines HV)

Figure 9: Gas Blending and Processing

SPE 115317
11

Sales Booster
Platform Well Gas Compression Decision
Sequence Rate HV Timing
Variables

Physical Models Economic Models

time
• Subsurface • Cash flows, NPV
• Surface Network • Rate of Return
• Process Facilities

Objective
Constraints Function

• Operational Limits
• Investment Ceilings • NPV
• Capacity Constraints • Ultimate Recovery

Figure 10: Asset Optimisation Components

900
Max NPV
Max Sales Gas
800

700
Sales Gas (mmscf/d)

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Yrs

Optimisation Objective: Maximise NPV Maximise Sales Gas

No. Platforms: 14 16
No. Wells: 157 216
12 SPE 115317

Figure 11: Comparison of Different Optimisation Objectives

Figure 12: Commingling Optimisation Results